Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/09/09 - Agenda Packet' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 9, 1998 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call Chairman McNiel B Vice Chairman Macias Commissioner Barker __ Commissioner Tolstoy B II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 31, 1998 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items am expected to be routine and non- controversial, They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. VACATION OF A PORTION OF STRANG LANE - A request to vacate a portion of the easterly terminus of Strang Lane, located east of Carnelian Street and adjacent to 2 parcels -APN: 1061-271-35 and 1061-271-36. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concemed individuals may voice their opinion of the related projecL Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. B. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 98-02 - CITY OF RANCHO .CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the regulations for second dwelling units for consistency with changes in State law. (Continued from August 12, 1998) (TO BE CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 23, 1998) C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-18 - NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - An application to request authority to use an existing 1,213 square foot historic structure. the Guidera Winery House, for an office use within the Low Residential Distdct (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 9801 Main Street - APN: 0209-062-23. Related file: Landmark Designation 98-01. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14162 - FAN - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map including design review for the development of 17 single family lots on 4.7 acres of land in the Low Residential Development Distdct (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of 19th Street at the western City limit - APN: 202-021-37. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. E. VARIANCE 98-01 - HUNT- A request to reduce the interior side yard setback from the required 10 feet to 7 feet for a room addition to an existing single family home in the Very Low Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 8190 Orchard Street, APN: 1061-711-07. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-13 - MARRIO'T'I' SENIOR ASSISTED LIVING SERVICES. INC. - A request to construct a 135 unit, three story senior assisted living facility in the Office Park Distdct of the Terra Vista Community Plan on 11.2 acres of land, located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Church Street -APN: 1077-421-10, 33, and 34. Related File: Pre-Application Review 98-03. VI. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS G. DIRECTOR'S REPORT FOR DIRECTOR'S REVIEW 79-24 - ALBERTSONS - A discussion of continued nuisance problems within the shopping center located at the southeast comer of Archibald Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 1077-011-45 and 47 through 52. (Oral Report) 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. Page 2 VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS H. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS I. UPDATE ON VICTORIA ARBORS (FORMERLY THE LAKES) IX. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an ff:OOp. m. adjournmenttime. Ifitemsgobeyondthattime, theysha~beheardonly with the consent of the Commission. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ADJOURN TO A WORKSHOP IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING IN THE RAINS ROOM REGARDING A PROPOSED REVISION TO THE PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM FOR TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER AND TOWN CENTER SQUARE I, Gaff Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, heraby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on September 3, 1998, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. Page 3 VICINITY MAP I I /' CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CIjCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 9, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer By: Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: VACATION OF A PORTION OF STRANG LANE - A request to vacate a portion of the easterly terminus of Strang Lane, located east of Carnelian Street and adjacent to 2 parcels (APN: 1061-271-35 and 1061-271-36) BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS On May 2, 1990, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 90-I86 designating Strang Lane as a private street and exempting the abutting properties from the requirement to dedicate public street right-of-way. On July 14, 1998, the property owners of 8861 Strang Lane, Danny and Earline Paulson, submitted an application for vacation of an existing irrevocable offer &street dedication fronting their property. With the designation of Strang Lane as a private street under City Ordinance 58-C, offers of street dedication can be vacated and as a result of this, the applicants are now requesting that the vacation occur. The vacation of the last remaining offer of dedication along the street will be processed in the future when requested by the adjacent proper~y o~vners. The subject irrevocable offer of street dedication is located at the easterly terminus of Strang Lane, east of Camelian Street and sits in front of 2 parcels as shown on Exhibit "B". RECONEVFENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the finding that the street vacation conforms with the General Plan. This finding ~vill be forwarded to the City Council for further processing and final approval. Respectfully submitted, Dan~Ja~~ Senior Civil Engineer DJ:WV:dlw Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" - Site Map Attachments I:/STAFFRP~StrangLane.wpd ITEM A t Rancgn a. c~ I ,> o Almond Al~nd o Caballero Drive St. HIdden Senda R~ad ct. Rd. - Ct. i ~ Strano ~ Vlcara Ln. = St. ~ St. = Camellia Dahler Dr. ~ Hillside Road Orchard Rancho Rancho st. B~ch~ St. ~ WII~ =o '~ rood Tho?O Ave. Manzaai ~bred ~ rllliant I.n. Lnlta c -= Dr. Golder reel ,, Golden u . wer Ave. umalo. St- 6 Quarterhorse o _., Banyan antlatin ' ' ^"' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ITEM: ._V-/,5'~ ENGINEERING DIVISION ~ TITLE: EXHIBIT: ' ~// SEP 0 I 1998 "'U~D L-,,;L--,_~,/x,,x ":%"~- Xx---,~.,,~ O_.._,~---,-c-~-,----- C~tyo~Ra~Cu~a pl~ni~ DM~n 4 - ~ _.~%-~, .. . TOB1E & REBECCA-VALADEZ 260 E. ASTER ST. UPIj~ND, CA 91786 CITY OF IL~NCHO CUCAMONGA ~ STAFF REPORT DATE: September 9, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Butler, City Planner BY: Salvador M. Salazar, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-18 - NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - An application to request authority to use an existing 1,213 square foot historic structure, the Guidera Winery House, for an office use within the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 9801 Main Street - APN: 0209-062-23. Related file: Landmark Designation 98-01. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North - Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 5 (General Industrial) East - Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) West - Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) B. General Plan Desi~nations: Project Site - Low Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) North - Low Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - General Industrial East - Low Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) West - Low-Medium Density Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) C. Site Characteristics: The site is relatively fiat and is approximately 8,923 square feet in size. The site is currently improved with a 1,213 square foot single family house (an application for historic landmark status for the house is on the Historic Preservation Commission Agenda tonight) and a 400 square foot, two-car garage. The garage and future parking lot area are proposed to be located on the southerly portion of the property behind the house. The property is surrounded by a single family residence to the east, by a cluster residential subdivision to the west, and by the rail road tracks to the south. The property is separated from these properties by a 5-foot high block wall. ANALYSIS: A. General: Section 17.08.030.E.7 (Uses Within Recognized Historical Structures) of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code permits the use of historical structures as minor offices, subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. Therefore, the applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit in order to use the historic structure as an office to accommodate activities associated with the Northtown ITEM C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 98-18 - NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION September 9, 1998 Page 2 Housing Development Corporation. The office will have a maximum of three staff members (the executive director, his assistant, and the accounts manager) on the premises at all times with very limited public interaction. Furthermore, the architect has informed staff, via a telephone conversation, that the house will be used as an office for approximately 2-3 years. The office use requires the site to provide a total of five parking spaces. The applicant is proposing to comply with this regulation; however, the parking lot surface of three of the five parking spaces will not be a paved surface, it will be a gravel surface. Section 17.12.030.A.5 (Design Standards) of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code allows alternate surface materials to be considered by the City Planner if such matedal does not cause adverse effects and it will remain in usable condition. The City Planner is in support of the applicant's request, ifthe office use is restricted to amaximum ofthree years. However, ifthe office use operates for more than three years, the property owner shall be required (within six months after the third year) to obtain the necessary permits and to replace the gravel surface of the parking lot area with an asphaltic concrete surface, or have plans submitted and approved by the City for an alternate location to accommodate their administrative offices. This condition of approval has been included in the Resolution. B. Environmental Assessment: The project is categorically exempt under Class 3.e of Article 19, Section 15308 of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public headrig in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site., RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 98-18 for the use of the historic structure as an office by adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. City Planner BB:SS/jfs Attachments:Exhibit "A" - Site Location Map Exhibit "B" - Photos Resolution of Approval with Conditions MAIM EXISTINS I=R, OpCr-JED -7,,xlsTl~ Historic Landmark Designadon 98-o~ Non Construedon C U P ~,, ,,, ,.,, ,,,,,. Northtown Housing Development Corp. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA; CALl FORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-18 TO AUTHORIZE THE USE OF AN EXISTING 1,213 SQUARE FOOT HISTORIC STRUCTURE (THE GUIDERA WINERY HOUSE) AS A MINOR OFFICE FOR A NON-PROFIT HOUSING AUTHORITY ORGANIZATION, IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT 9801 MAIN STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 0209-062-23. A. Recitals. 1. Northtown Housing Development Corporation (Nacho Garcia) has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use ,Permit No. 98-18. 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 9th day of September 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said headng 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 the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public hearing on September 9, 1998, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at 9801 Main Street, with a street frontage of 52.47 feet, a lot depth of 170.06 feet, and which is presently improved with a 1.213 square foot histodc structure and a400 square foot garage; and 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 office use is in accord with the General Plan and Development Code. The Development Code permits the use of historic structures for office uses within the residential land use designations. 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 office use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed office use is required to comply with all applicable code provisions including minimum number of parking spaces and landscaping within the parking lot area. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 98-18 - NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEV. CORP. September 9, 1998 Page 2 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 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. Plannin,q Division 1) The chain link fencing and gate shall be removed or replaced with wrought iron fencing and pilasters. 2) In the event the minor office use operates for more than three years, the property owner shall be required (within six months after the third year) to obtain the necessary permits and to replace the gravel surface of the parking lot area with an aspbaltic concrete surface or have plans submitted and approved by the City for an alternate location to accommodate their administrative offices. 3) Upon termination of the minor office use, the property owner shall be responsible for removing the gravel or aspbaltic concrete surface in the parking lot area and replacing it with landscaping as approved by the City Planner. 4) This Conditional Use Permit shall not become effective until Landmark Designation 98-01 has been reviewed and approved by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman A'I'I'EST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of September 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -.DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT;;98-18 SUBJECT: USE OF AN EXISTING 11213SQ FT. STRUCTURE AS AN OFFICE APPLICANT: NORTHTOVVN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LOCATION: 9801 MAIN STREET ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements ~ I. 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, extedor materials and colors, landscaping, sign pregram. and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein. and 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. 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 sc-N27~8 1 project No c~ 98-~ s Completion Date submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct and the Building and Safety Division to show compiiance. 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. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with aft 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. 6. In the event that exterior lighting is proposed for the parking lot area, a detailed on-site lighting plan, includin9 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. 7. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 8. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shaft be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, herruing, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 9. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 10. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners'association, orother means accepteble tothe City. Proofofthis landscepe maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. The project contains a designated Histodcel Landmark. Any modifications to the site including, but not limited to, extedor alterations and/or interior alterations which affect the exterior of the buildings or structures, removal of landmark trees, demolition, relocetlon, reconstruction of buildings or structures, or changes to the site, shall require a modification to the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit subject to Histodc Preservation Commission review and approval. D. Buildin9 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. E. Parkin9 and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards or as approved by the City Planner. 2. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval pdor to issuance of buildin9 permits. sc- 8~7r~ 2 ~ II comp etjon Date 3. 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. 4. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. F. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval pdor to the issuance of building permits. 2. 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. RECEIVED September 1, 1998 SEP 0 8 1998 City of Rancho Cucarnonga Planning Division Planning Division City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Gentlemen: I recently received the notice of this development, on 19t" Street, east of Baywood Street, on the western city limit. My property, which is located in the City of Upland directly abuts this development on the southwestern most border with your City. My property is located at 1661 E. Danbrook Place, Upland. I must advise you that as of this correspondence I have not reviewed the site plan for the development, but I plan to do so prior to the public hearing. I thank you for allowing me to comment on the proposed development. As mentioned, I have yet to review the site plan but plan to do so. For purposes of this correspondence my concern has to do with the large, overgrown eucalyptus trees which line the property along the south border, directly adjacent to my residence and several homes which are located on Eastgate Street, Upland. My neighbor at 1874 Eastgate informed me that several years ago a large branch broke loose from one of the trees in question and fell on the block wall that borders the proposed site's south border. That branch cause no injury, however a large section of the block wall was demolished by the falling branch. I have only resided on Danbrook for approximately six months, but I can tell you that the mere size of these trees is of concern to me. I would estimate that these trees are in the range of 50-60 feet in height. I have some knowledge of real estate evaluation and development and I think that you will admit that these trees are of an inappropriate size for any residential development in their present state. Some of the trees have dead foliage at or near the tops of the trees indicating that they are not in the best of "health". This, coupled with their advanced age, would indicate that these trees could be come a health/safety issue to new or existing properties should one fall during a storm, such as the tragedy which occurred on Euclid, in Upland this past storm season killing a motorist. Page Two Planning Commission Correspondence Further, it is my opinion, (and should you visit the site I am sure that you would agree), that these trees are inappropriate and inconsistent with modern landscape design. Should these trees be left in their current state this would have a negative impact upon the newly constructed residences, as well as those adjacent to the project, in both an environmental sense as well as impacting the market value of the properties in a negative way. To remove such large trees after construction would be costly, if not cost prohibitive. Upon the advice of my attorney I am forwarding this correspondence to you for your review. I have also enclosed several photographs taken of the tree line, which consists of less that twelve trees. As you can see several of the trees currently encroach on the existing properties on Danbrook and Eastgate. Some are dangerously close to the.property lines and improvements. In the interest of safety, I would request that as a condition of any development at this site these trees be removed or replaced with trees and/or vegetation consistent with modern landscaping methods/techniques. I thank you for allowing me to express my concerns regarding the deficiencies of this development. Hopefully, this issue has been addressed by the developer and will be a moot point. Should you have any questions regarding this correspondence or enclosed photographs please feel free to contact me at (909) 466-4375. - ~'~~s~!Danbrook place~~ Upland, Cafifomia 91784 enclosures cc: City of Upland /' CI'FY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 9, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14162 - FAN - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map including design review for the development of 17 single family lots on 4.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of 19th Street at the western city limit - APN: 202-021-37. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract 14162 was initially approved by the Planning Commission on August 26, 1992. Since that time, the State granted automatic extensions for several years during the recession. This extended the expiration of the subject Tentative Tract to August 26, 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 for which a Tentative Map approval expires by up to three years. Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension and compared the subdivision proposal with current development criteria outlined in the Development Code. Based on this review, the Tentative Map meets the standards for the Low 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 have not changed appreciably since the Tentative Tract received approval on August 26, 19~2. Staff recommends adherence to the mitigation measures for noise and tree replacement, which were adopted by Planning Commission on August 26, 1992. CORRESPONDENCE: This iterrJ 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 D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 14162 - FAN September 9, 1998 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Planning Commission grant a one-year time extension for the subdivision map and design review for Tentative Tract Map 14162 by the adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:AW:mlg ~ Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Tentative Tract Exhibit "C" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "E" Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit "F" Building Elevations Exhibit "G" - Floor Rlans Exhibit "H" Written Request from Applicant Exhibit "1" Initial ~tudy Part II Resolution of Approval, for Time Extension for TT 14162 Resolution of Approval for Design Review for 'El' 14162 · ' ::". TITLE: PLANi~'ING-.. DI'V'ISION :I = ® ....· ~ . . o .Z. ' U'-"' / ., .% . E~:"~" SCALE: / //" , 7. , ITEM: 7/' IS'/L,.2 oF ,' · ..:" TrTLE: G,-=~,,--, ~!-,-, N PI.,ANLX/ING,. DMSION EXHIBIT: ",c,' SCALE: "" i2'7 SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ,~,,, ~,~4 · SIDE ELEVATION IbRONT ELEVATIONI SIDE ELEVATION I REAR ELEVATION SlOE ELEVATION J FRONT ELEVATION ITEM: TITLE: ~,.,/.]% .~", -' ....r,-._ ~.~') CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' PLANNING DMSION EXHIB|T:h~-r-IT B SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION .,?,,..,:~. ,,,'%/' SIDE ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION ITEM: %;.' ,/~//,',.2 TITli: .,2..,[..)Z.~. :]TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: c-~t, SCALE:/- / / FIRST FLOOR pLAN, I ,BECOND FLOOR PLAN CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA EXHIBIT:"C-/' SCALE: ,/ PLANNING DMSION FIRST FLOOR PLAN .{ . SECOND FLOOR PLAN ITEM: ITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: PLANNING DMSION EXHIBrr:/~5 '''~" SCALE: / FIRST FLOOR pLIN J SECOND FLOOR PLAN TITLE: FI.~ pt.~, ~,.~ [ Fl~,'1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DMSION EXHIBIT:/',7--?' SCALE: / ............. 2387 Dear Nr Coleman: Blese help me gxcended TTi4162. Check No 2387 $884.00 Was $549, For Extension Fee $335.00 Was 5225 +$110.00 Was tnitiatS~udy Fee. Thank you for Extended my project. Sincerely Fan City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Time Extension for Tentative Tract 14162 2. Related Files: Tree Removal Permit 92-09 3. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14162 - FAN - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map including design review for the development of 17 single fami{y lots on 4.7 acres of land in the Low Residential Development District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of 19th Street at the western city limit - APN 202- 021-37'. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Tanya Fan 3223 E, Garvey North West Covina, CA 91791 5. General Plan Designation: Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) 6. Zoning: Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Existing single family detached dwellings to the north (ndrth of 19th Street), east and south within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Also, within Rancho Cucamonga there is a water storage facility of the Cucamonga County Water District to the west and single family detached dwellings within the City of Upland. 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: Alan Warren, Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None , ~ Inifial Siudy for , ,.' of Ranthe Cucamonga <Insert. Dro;~-t ~N'ame> Pae ENVIRONt~ENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFBCTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projec[, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Signifisant impa~ct." "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or '*Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ii( ) Land Use and Planning (x) Transporta ion/Circulatiqn (x) Public Sen'ices ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources (x) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral ResOurces ( ) Aesthetics (×) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality (×) Noise (x) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation:' (x) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DEC:LARATION 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 anat,yzed 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 Sig:nificant Imoac Unless Mitigation incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IREPORT 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: ~ Alan ~arren Associate Planner August 17, 1998 .. ~nitial Study for ,.-,,,.y cf Rancho Cucamonga <Inset: Projesi Name> Pa~e 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAt. IMPACTS Pursuam to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentia{ly Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant iresact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and *'Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a ~iscussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the proiect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (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) Cu~ulatively 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. Wou/dthepmposalmsultin or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ) ( ) (x) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ) ( ) (x) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) lniiial Study for u.,/of Rancho CucamoP, ga <insert Proiec~ Name> Ps,~e 4 e) Landslides or mLzdfiows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) O Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil condiIions from excavation, grading, or ,fill? ) ( ) ( ) (x) g) Subsidence of the land? ) ( ) ( ) (x) h) Expansive soils? ) ( ) ( ) (x) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: b) 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) Di%charge 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 dir,ection of water movements?: ( ) ( ) (x) O Change in the quantity 6f ground waters,, either through direct additions:or withdrawals, or through interception of ?n aquifer by cuts or excavations, or throughsubstantial loss Of groundwater recharge Capability? ( ) ( ) (x) g) Altered direction or rate,of flow of groundwater? ( ) (x) ( ) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) (x) i) Substantial reduction in the amoun~ of groundwater other,vise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: initial Sr. udy for ,.,,,y of Rancho Cucamonga <lnser~ Proiect Name> Page 5 a) The project will increase runoff because the site is currently vacant and the project will add impeF-vious surfaces such as street improvements, driveways, and tooflops. The approved Tentative Tract Map includes conditions of approval requiring ce~ain storm drain system and ground surface conveyance improvements that will handle the increased flows. The impact is nol considered significant. g) Due to the tract improvements listed above it is expected that some reduction in rainwater percolation to the ground water may result. The development of the is conformance with similarly developed residential land in the City and therefore the impact is not considered significant. 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) TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) (x) ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) (x) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) (x) d) insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? )' ( ) (x) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) (x) O Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transpo~ation (e.g, bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) (x) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: Initial Study for c..; o~ Rancho Cucamonga <lnser~ Project Name> Pa~e -3 a) The project will increase the number of ~raff~c trips in the area since it entails adding 17 new homes. The approved Tentative Tract ~vlap has conditions of approval requiring ce~ain public improvements t~ handle the increased traffTc. The impact is not considered significant. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to.' a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, bu~ nol limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, e~c.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Locally designated natural communities, (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habital, e~c.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Wetland habita~ (e.g., ~arsh. riparian, a:nd vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Wou(dthe · · proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy consen, ation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve.' a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but no~ limited to: oil. pesticides, chemicals. or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) initial S~udy for '- .! of Rancho Cucamonga <[nsen Pro)ect Name> Pa~e 7 b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fiammable brush, grass, or trees? ) ( ) ( ) (x) '10. NOISE. Willtheproposalresu/tin: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) The project witl add new sources of noise such as automobiles because it entails adding 17 new homes. The increase in noise levels however is not excessive and not expected to exceed City established noise level limits. 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? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) , (x) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) (x) d) Maintenance of public facilities. including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) and c) initial Study for ',_,,(y of Rancho Cucamonga <insert, Project Name> Pa~e 8 new nomes. I ne approv~? ~ enc-2~','e Tract ~,4ap nas conditions or approval requlnng the developer to participate in a Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts for the necessan/construction and maintenanc,~ of fire protection and school facilities. The impact is not considered significant. ~2. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. WouldLthe proposal result in a need for new systems or suppries or substantial alterations to the loftowing utilities: a) Power or natural gas?, ( ) (x) ( ) b) Communication systems? (x) ( ) c) Local or regional wa~er treatment or disiribution facilities? ~ ( ) (x) d) Sewer or septic ~aaks? (x) ( ) e) Storm water drainage? (x) ( ) O Solid waste disposal? ( ( ) (x)- g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ( ) (x) Comments: a, b, and d) The project will produce a need for water supplies, waste disposal, gas and electric seaice since it entails ~adding 17 new homes. The approved Tentative TractSMap has conditions of approval requiring the developer to provide separale utility seaices' to each parcel including sanitan/sewer system, water, gas, electric power, telephone and cable ~. The cost of these improvemenls will be borhe by the developer. The impact is not considered significant. e) The project will increase runoff because tRe site is currently vacant and the project will add imperious suNaces such as street improvements, driveways, and tooflops. The approved Tentative Tract Map includes conditions of approval requiring ce~ain storm drain system and ground suNace conveyance improvements that will handle the increased flows. The cost of these improvements will be borne by the developer. The impact is not considered significant. Initial Study for ~,,1 of Rancho Cucamonga <Insert Proiect Name> Page 9 '13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposak a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontologicaI resources? ( ) ) ( ) (x) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) (x) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) (x) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural vaIues? ( ) ( ) (x) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) The project will increase the demand on parks in the area because it involves adding 17 new homes. Developer wiII be responsible for payment of park fees at the time of building permit issuance to offset any impact on parks. The impact is not considered significant. IniTial S~udy for '_.y of Ran.:ho Cucamonga <Inset: Project Name> Page i0 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 oi 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 maior periods of California history or prohistory? ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A shOrt-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Cumulative: Does the,project have impacts that are individually limited. but cumulatively: considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects. the effects of other current projects. and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where. pursuant to the tierlOg, 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 proiect were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlierdocument(s) hursuant 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 Divisi6n offices. 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (x) General Plan EIR (Ce,'ti~ed April 6, 1981) (x) i'.,laster Environmental Assessment for the. 1989 General Plan Update (SCH ~88020115, certified Januan/4. 1989) ~nitLa~ Study for ,y of Poncho Cucamonga <Insert Project, Name> ;sage i i (x) Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract 14152. approved by the Planning Commission'on August 26, 1992 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study, I acknowIedge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would OCCUr. Signature: Date: Print Name and Title: H:\CURREN'RTRACTS\14162EV2.WPD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION REQUEST FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14162, ON 4.7 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 19TH STREET AT THE WESTERN CITY LIMIT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 202-021-37. A. Recitals. 1. Tanya Fan has filed an application for the extension of the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 14162, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On August 26, 1992, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract 14162 by the adoption of Resolution 92-112. Amendments to the Subdivision Map Act, by State Senate Bill 428 extended the expiration date to August 26, 1996. 3. In June of 1996 an application was made and approved to extend Tentative Tract 14162 to August 26, 1997. In June of 1997 an application was made and approved to extend Tentative Tract 14162 to August 26, 1998. 4. On the 9th day of September 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. 5. 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 September 9, 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 conformance with the City's current General Plan, ordinances, plans, codes and policies; and b. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map approval will not cause significant inconsistences with the current General Plan, ordinances, plans, codes and policies; and c. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map approval is not likely to cause health and safety problems; and d. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TE FOR TT 14162 - FAN September 9, 1998 ~ ~ Page 2 - ~ . . i. . 3. Based upon the facts and ~nformatlon contained ~n the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included !for the environmental assessment for thE! application, the Planning Commission finds that ther8 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: i 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 judgement 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-l-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: Project Applicant Expiration Tentative Tract 14162 Tanya F.an August 26, 1999 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions ~et forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby adds the following condition~ of approval: Planninq Division 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. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall c~rtify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TE FOR TT 14162 - FAN September 9, 1998 Page 3 -. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly 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 9th day of September 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 TIME EXTENSION REQUEST FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14162, ON 4.7 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 19TH STREET AT THE WESTERN CITY LIMIT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SU PPORTTH EREOF - APN: 202-021-37. A. Recitals. 1. Tanya Fan has filed an application for Design Review for Tentative Tract Map No. 14162, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On August 26, 1992, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract 14162 by the adoption of Resolution 92-113 and the accompanying Design Review by the adoption of Resolution 92-113. Amendments to the Subdivision Map Act, by State Senate Bill 428 extended the expiration date to August 26, 1996. 3. In June of 1996 an application was made and approved to extend Tentative Tract 14162 and Design Review to August 26, 1997. In June of 1997 an application was made and approved to extend Tentative Tract 14162 and Design Review to August 26, 1998. 4. On the 9th day of September 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. 5. 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 September 9, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The previously approved Design Review is in substantial conformance with the City's current General Plan, ordinances, plans, codes and policies; and b. The extension of the Design Review approval will not cause significant inconsistences with the current General Plan, ordinances, plans, codes and policies; and c. The extension of the Design Review approval is not likely to cause health and safety problems; and d. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR FOR TT 14162 - FAN September 9, 1998 Page 2 -, 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions: set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension for: I Project Applicant Expiration Design Review for Tanya F, an August 26, 1999 Tentative Tract 14162 I 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby adds the following condition of approval: Planning Division ~ 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 attomey'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 ir~ the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY dF SEPTEMBER 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY QF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Bullet. Secretary of the Planning Commissi6n 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 9th day of Sep!ember 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 9, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: VARIANCE 98-01 - HUNT - A request to reduce the interior side yard setback from the required 10 feet to 7 feet for a room addition to an existing single family home in the Very Low Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 8190 Orchard Street - APN: 1061-711-07. ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a Variance to allow a reduction in the required interior side yard setback from 10 feet down to 7 feet to accommodate a room addition on the rear corner of an existing single family home. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Under the Development Code. the minimum side yard setback in the Very Low Residential District is 10 feet. The applicant's home now respects code required setbacks with a setback from the interior side property line ranging from 15 feet at the back of the house to 19 feet at the front. ANALYSIS: The applicant's written justification is based upon similar non-conforming setbacks in the neighborhood. Staff inspection confirms that many homes in the neighborhood were constructed with side yard setbacks of less than 10 feet. In some cases, a 5-foot setback is provided on both sides of the home. These homes were built prior to incorporation of the City, when the County permitted lesser setbacks. In 1996, the Planning Commission approved a Variance for an 8.5-foot interior side yard setback where 15 feet is required for a home addition at 8175 Orchard Street, almost directly across Orchard Street from the subject property. Part of the justification for approval of the Variance was the number of homes in the area built with closer setbacks. The applicant points out that the lot is of an odd shape and that the home is plotted at an angle relative to the property lines, The lot is 95 feet wide whereas the Development Code requires a minimum lot width of 100 feet for corner lots. The home is in fact plotted at an angle relative to the side property line so that the side yard setback tapers down from the front of the home to the rear. The reduced lot width, angular home plotting, and existing floor plan layout dictate the location of the proposed addition and force the side yard setback down to 7 to 8 feet. The addition is to the rear corner of the home furthest from Orchard Street and Vinmar Avenue. / ITEM E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VAR 98-01 - HUNT September 9, 1998 Page 2 FACTS FOR FINDING: In order for the Planning Calmmission to approve a Variance, facts to suppod all of the following findings must be made: A. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcemen! of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. Compliance with the required setback would limi~ the property owner's ability to reasonably improve their home. The 10-foot setback would ~hi~ the proposed addition to a less usable location on the rear of the home. B. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. The subject property is of substandard lot width aqd the home is plotted at an angle to the side property line. This forces a logically planned home addition to respect a reduced, tapered side yard setback. C. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. It would be unreasonable to require the subject property owner to abide by the required side yard setback inconsistent with the existing development of the surrounding neighborhood. D. That the granting of the Variance will not constitu, tea grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. Many of the homes in the surrounding area have been built with reduced side yard setbacks and the Planning Commission has approved a similarside yard setback reduction fora nearby home on the same street. The requested Variaffce is the minimum necessary to allow the property owner reasonable use and improvement of the property. E. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the pubtic health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The requested setback reduction is comparable to. many other homes in the area, which have reduced setbacks. The proposed addition is on the rear corner of the home furthest from both public street frontages and the site is surrounded by a 6-foot high block wall. The house to the west has an interior side setback far exceeding City standards. A substantial rear yard setback would be maintained by the proposed robm addition. 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 VAR 98-01 - HUNT September 9, 1998 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Variance 98-01 through adoption of the attached Resolution. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:BLC:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's Letter Exhibit "B" Location Map Exhibit "C" - Variance Map Resolution of Approval Sharon Hunt, 8190 O:chard Street, Alta Loma, CA 91701. July 8th 1998. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Community Development Department, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. To: Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department Re: Request for Variance Property: 8190 Orchard Street APN: 1061-711 -O7-0000 This letter is to request a variance for a proposed addition of approximately 1,000 square to the existing property. The addition is required to meet the growing needs of our family. As you will see from the attached site plan, the lot is irregularly shaped, and the house is positioned at an angle in the corner of the lot. Therefore extending the house encroaches on the required setback. We would like to have a variance granted so that we can enjoy our property to the furl extent, like many of the people on our street that have homes which have been built 7 feet or less, from the property line. This is not uncommon in the immediate neighborhood. Other residents have, obviously, encountered identical problems, and the City has favored them by honoring a variance. For instance the property located opposite ours at 8175 Orchard Street (APN 1061-711-18-0000) has an identical floor plan. The previous owner was granted a variance for a similar addition in 1997. It would appear that there have been numerous variances granted on our street alone: 1. 8165 Orchard - House is approximately 5 ~. from the property line on the West side. 2. 8095 Orchard -House is approximately 7 ~. from the property line on the West side, and 8 to 9 ft. on the East side. 3. 8195 Orchard - House is approximately 6 ft. from the property line on the West side. 4+ 8175 Orchard - House ~s approximately 6 ~. from the property line on the West side. 5. 8055 Orchard - House ~s approximately 6 ~. from the property line on the West side. 6. 8060 Orchard - House ~s approximptely 6 ft. from the property line on the West side. 7. 8035 Orchard - House ~s approximately 5 ~. from the property line on the West side. 8. 8080 Orchard - House ~s approximately 5.5 ~. from the property line on the East side. 9. 8095 Orchard - House es approximately 7 ft. from the property line on the West side. Therefore we feel that approval of a 7 foot variance would not be inconsistent with the existing homes in the immediate neighborhood, Sincerely, Sharon Hunt SCALE: 1/32"= 1'-0" ~) Sharon Hunt 8190 Orchard Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91701 987-3000 ~~~N:1061-711-07-0-000 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 98-01 TO ALLOW A REDUCTION OF THE REQUIRED INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 10 FEET TO 7 FEET LOCATED AT 8190 ORCHARD STREET IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1061-711-07 A. Recitals. 1. Sharon Hunt has filed an application for the issuance of Variance No. 98-01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 9th day of September 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 September 9, 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 8190 Orchard Street with a street frontage of 130 feet on Orchard Street and 180 feet on Vinmar Avenue and a lot width of 95 feet and is presently improved with a single family home; and b. All of the surrounding properties are developed with single family homes; and c. The Development Code requires single family residences within the Very Low Residential designation to maintain a minimum interior side yard setback of 10 feet; and d. The applicant is proposing to reduce the required interior side yard setback to 7 feet to allow construction of a 1,000 square foot room addition; and e. The application applies to property developed, prior to the City incorporation under the County of San Bernardino development standards, which allowed a number of homes in the area to have interior side yard setbacks less than 10 feet, and in some cases as little as 5 feet; and f. Several properties in the area contain accessory structures that do not meet the side yard setback requirements. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 98-01 - SHARON HUNT September 9, 1998 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findir~gs of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes J~s follows: a. That strict or literal interpretation and~ enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the object ves of the Development Code; and b. Thatthereareexceptionalorextraordinarycircumstancesorconditionsapplicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district; and c. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district; and d. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district; and e. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, 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 9th day of September 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ,E C~; CITY OF IOXNCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 9, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-13 - MARRIOTT SENIOR ASSISTED LIVING SERVICES, INC. - A request to construct a 135 unit, three-story senior assisted living facility in the Office Park District of the Terra Vista Community Plan on 11.2 acres of land, located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Church Street - APN: 1077--421-10, 33, and 34. Related File: Pre-Application Review 98-03 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Proiect Density: 25 units per acre (based upon 5.4 acre parcel, see below) 8. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North Residential development; Low-Medium and Medium Residential (4 to 8 dwelling finits per acre and 8 to14 dwelling units per acre, respectively), Terra Vista Community Plan South - Vacant land and the Terra Vista Shopping Center; Community Commercial, Terra Vista Community Plan East Office park development (including a church); Office Park, Terra Vista Community Plan West A flood control channel immediately to the west, the Deer Creek Shopping Center, and a flood control basin across Haven Avenue; General Commercial District C.General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Office Noah - Medium Residential (8 to 14 dwelling units per acre) South- Commercial East Office West Commercial D. Site Characteristics: The site is currently vacant and slopes gently from north to south at approximately 2 percent. There are several Eucalyptus trees along the western edge of the site which are intended to be preserved. / ITE~ F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 98-13 - MARRIOTT September 9, 1998 Page 2 E. Parkinq Calculations: Number of Number of Type Number Parkir~c Spaces Spaces of Use of Beds Ratib Required Provided Assisted Living 167 1/4 beds 42 80 ANALYSIS: A. Backqround: The project was reviewed at a Pre-Application Review workshop on April 22, 1998. The Commission offered favorable comments regarding'the architecture and site planning but was concerned about the master plan for the remainder of the block to the south and east. A copy of the minutes is attached (Exhibit "J"). B. General: This type of use is permitted in the Terra Vista Community Plan pursuant to approval of a Conditional Use Permit perthe "Community Facilities" provisions. Community Facilities are community suppod uses that are allowed throughout the Terra Vista Planned Community. The project will have 135 units with 167 beds. The units are divided into three levels of care service, assisted living, special care, and skilled nursing. None of the units will have kitchen facilities. Centralized dining/kitchen and laundry facilities are proposed. The facility will operate 24 hours a day with a maximum staff shift from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. During the maximum shift, up to 50 of the 95 employees are anticipated to be on site. The building is proposed to be three stories (44 feet) high. Slopes are proposed along the north and south portions of the site to accommodate the gradual decline of the site from north to south. C. Master Plan: The project applies t0 a 5.4 acre portion of the larger 11.2 acre site. The overall site is actually a group of three parcels. The applicant has filed a Lot Line Adjustment application to reconfigure the property lines. As requested by the Planning Commission, the applicant has provided a master plan which staff believes demonstrates the viability and logical development of the remaining 11.2 acre site with an office park and gas station. The master plan is conceptual only and not part of the requested Conditional Use Permit approval. D, Letter of Opposition: Staff has received a package of materials describing various alleged problems associated with other Marriott operations. There is information on a recently denied assisted living project by the City of Monterey, California (denied because of lack of water supply and amount of "affordable" units). There is also information regarding problems with Marriott hotel projects in San Francisco and Sacramento. The applicant has provided a written response (Exhibits "G" and "H"). E. Desiqn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Macias, McNiel, Fong) reviewed the project on August 18, 1998, and recommend approval. See attached Action Agenda (Exhibit "K"). F. Technical/Gradinq Review Committees: The Committees have reviewed the project and recommend approval with conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 98-13 - MARRIO'iF September 9, 1998 Page 3 G. Environmental Assessment: The applicant completed Part I of the initial Study and staff has completed Part II. Staff has found that there may be a significant noise impact caused by traffic on Haven Avenue. The General Plan estimates future noise levels in excess of City standards which requires a detailed study of noise reduction mitigation measures to be included in the construction design, such as sound barriers or special window glazing. Therefore, a condition of approval is recommended to require an acoustical report prior to the issuance of building permits. If the Planning Commission concurs with these findings, then issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be appropriate. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 98-13 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:BLC/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Grading Plan Exhibit "D" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "E" - Floor Plan Exhibit "F" - Elevations Exhibit "G" - Package of Objection Information Exhibit "H" - Applicant's Response Exhibit "1" - Initial Study Exhibit "J" - Planning Commission Minutes dated April 22, 1998 Exhibit "K" - Design Review Committee Action Comments dated August 18, 1998 Resolution of Approval with Conditions SPECIFIC PLAN . PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN __ CHURCH ST~E_~ .... ';" '~ ..... ' .... - BRIGHTON GARDENS OF RANCHO CUCAMONG~ ~ ....... :-L:i':::'-~{iii.:~:';; .::?::,;,MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, · - ~\~ z ,'; sEP o 1 ~ Ci~F O! ,o,a,,C~ k,,. / / i '7 ",~ Planning Oh/ision cHURC, STREET "" GEADING PLAN -- { .......:::~_~i:'i_:~&':.~::.LL~'~''~.-.-::-::,..,~\, . '! ' ' ~> BRiGHTON GARDIgNS OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MtBYjOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. 422-4133 j J j ..c'~x~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~ CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA J ~.. I " .... ~1,~" ~ ~ MARRIO'IF ....... ' ...... SENIOR SERVICE~ BRIGHTON: S - '~----T P,/_..A CONSIDERING A MARRIOTT SENIOR LIVING HOME FOR RANCHO CUCAMONGA? E c READ THESE DOCUMENTS FIRST Attached are several documents that illustrate problems public agencies, elec. ted projects throughout the United States. We urge you to review these documents before considering Marriott for a project in your city. They include: · A summary of problems with Marriott experienced in various cities, entitled "Key Facts About Marriott's Track Record." · Background information on the Monterey Planning Commission's rejection of a proposal for a senior living facility submitted by a venture involving Marriott Senior Living Services. · A Facility Profile of Marriott's Villa Valencia Health Care Center in Laguna Hills, California, from the nonprofit organization California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform. · Two of six citations received by Marriott's Villa Valencia from the California Department of Health Services between June 1994 and August 1995. · Excerpts of the transcript from a City Council hearing in Sacramento where Marriott, while bidding on a new hotel in Fall 1997, added frustrating last-minute conditions to its team's proposal. · A description of how Marriott fell short on hiring commitments made to the San Francisco Redevelopmerit Agency and San Francisco community organizations before and during the opening of the SF Marriott Hotel in 1989. · A letter from California State Assemblyman Kevin Shelley, who served as Chairman of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency's Citizen's Advisory Committee, a group that oversaw Marriott's compliance with hiring commitments at the San Francisco Marriott. · Two letters from community groups (one to Marriott, one to the SF Redevelopment Agency) expressing their disappointment with Marriott's local hiring process in San Francisco. · A letter from the SF Redevelopment Agency to a community group summarizing the steps the Agency took to pressure Marriott to comply with its affirmative action hiring obligations. For more information, contact: Faith Raider. HERE Research, 209 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102, Phone: 415-864-6586; Fax 415-864-4158 KEY FACTS ABOUT MARRIO FT'S TRACK RECORD If you have received a proposal from Marriott Senior Living Services for a senior living home in your city, you should beware. Marriott may not be a wise choice. Here are some facts you should know about the experiences public ,agencies, elected officials, community groups, and workers have had with Marriott in vari'ous cities: Some communities have chosen not to approve Marriott projects. For example, the Monterey Planning Commission and Monterey City Council rejected in 1998 a proposal by a Marriott venture to build a senior living facility in a; residential neighborhood in Monterey, California. Several planning commissioners cited the Marriott venture's "credibility gap" before voting against the project. · Marriott has received citations by the California Department of Health Services at its lalla Valencia Health Care Center in Laguna Hills. Six citations issued between June 1994 and August 1995 described in a Facility Profile generated by the nonprofit California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform included "Facility failed to follow careplan for resident, leading to Stage III bedsores and serious we!ght loss" (7/10/95) and "Staff did not immediately notify physician or take precautions for a resident who had tried to commit suicide" (7/27/94). · Marriott has not always complied with hiring promises made to public agencies, community groups, and labor organizations. For example, the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency had to take legal action to force Marriott's compliance with its commitments to hire locally and implement an affirmative action plan at the San Francisco Marriott. Even after this legal action, by the end of the initial hiring period, Marriott had hired fewer San Francisco residents and women than the plan goals. · Marriott companies have been very demanding in their negotiations with cities. For example, on a convention hotel bid in Sacramento, in the final days of a five month bidding and negotiating process, Marriott sudden y a) insisted that, if it were awarded the right to negotiate exclusively it should be allowed to back out of the deal during an extra review period before final negotiations for any reason and without cost orpenalty, and b) refused to commit in writing to hold blocks of hotel rooms for large conventions, even though the city planned to subsidize the hotel largely for that purpose. · Marriott often fails to provide 'family friendly" benefits or working conditions to its hotel employees. In San Francisco, for example, Marriott treats workers much worse than most of its competitors: many Marriott employees are classified as part-time and therefore do not receive medical benefits (even if they work the same amount as employees classified as full- time); employees do not have fixed, regular days off; and employees may be scheduled to work up to 10 days in a row without receiving overtime pay. Conditions for Marriott employees in most other cities are at least as bad. Moreover, Marriott's much publicized assistance programs for its employees - such as its toll free social service hotline - mask the most serious social problem that confronts many of~these workers: their low wages and inadequate benefits. For more information,' contact: Faith Raider, HERE Research 209 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102, Phone: 415-864-6586; Fax: 415-864-4158 Montere>' Planning Commissioners Cite "Credibility Gap" in rejecting Marriott Senior Living Project In early ]998, both the Monterey Planning Commission and the Monterey City Council rejected a proposal by a venture involving Marriott to build a 151-bed senior living facility in Monterey, California. Several planning commissioners cited the Marriott venture's "credibility gap" before voting to recommend that the City Council reject the project. Among the planning commissioners' frustrations were the venture's incomplete and inconsistent information and its numerous, and at times last-minute, changes to the application. "In looking at what we have before us, and in reviewing all the past materials, I must say, when it comes down to it, I'm a much greater fan of reality over theory, and there seems to me throughout this entire application a huge amount of theory versus reality," said Molly Erickson, president of the Monterey Planning Commission, at a January 13, 1998, public hearing. "It's been inconsistent, it's been sometimes vastly disparate in its land-use implications, and I'm not comfortable with relying on one over the other. I'm not comfortable that we even have complete information although what we have sometimes appears to be exhaustive." "Commissioner Larson referred fight up front to the credibility gap, and I'm still struggling with it. The information we have for the parking, the traffic -- what the statistics tell us on one side, for example, the experts, or of what actually happens when you go out and count the parking spaces." The venture proposed changes to a previously approved project after Marriott joined the developer/operator team in the fall of 1997. In the subsequent months, the venture revised the application several times, once immediately before commissioners were to review the project at a scheduled public_hearing. Because the City of Monterey has a limited water allocation, the availability of water for the project was a major concern for the Commission and the Council. A_tier first reducing by 10% the estimated water needs of the project by incorporating extraordinary water-saving measures, the Marriott venture subsequently made a proposal to reduce water usage by another 21% b~' sending residents' laundry off-site (without commiling to send it out of Monterey's water district) and reducing the number of resident beds by 9%. The proposal to send the laundry elsewhere was called "a creative way to fit their project in and be totally irresponsible on water usage" by one commissioner. Another said, "the proposal to me exhibits both a lack of common sense and total inability to enforce by the city." Another key issue was that the previously approved project had included 60% affordable rooms for low-income seniors, which commissioners said was the primary reason it had been approved. With Marriott as the operator, the venture proposed eliminating the affordable rooms altogether. In January, the Monterey Planning Commission made a negative recommendation and in February the City CounciI voted to reject proposed changes to the project, including elimination of the 60% affordability requirement, effectively killing the project. County California Advocates for N ~n Home Reform Urs g Last CANHR Survey Orange Consumer Information Servi~;e--Facility Profile 3/24/93 FA CIL ITY INFORMATION [ Facility Name Li~ensee Vilia Valencia Heath Care Center M~rriott Senior Living Services, Inc, 24552 Paseo De Valencia One Marriott Drive Laguna Hifis CA 92653 B~thesda MD 20058 (714) 458-8880 Formerly Date changed Fo, rmerly Date charfged Marriot Villa Valencia 11/10/93 Marriott Retirement Community Inc. 11/10/93 Villa Valencia Health Care Center Type SNF LiCensee type Profit Corp Capacity 59 Medicare Distinct Part yes Medicare Beds 27 Medi-Cal no Residents on Medi-Cal (93) Subacute no Subacute Beds Medicare yes Residents on Medi-Cal (94) n/a AFFILIATION ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS COMMENTS Freestanding facility. Ethnic foods are available and in house religious services are held. Marriott also operal es independent living and assisted living units on the same property under the same name. SPECIAL SERVICES OFFERED* Alzheimer's Unit no Wanderer Alert yes Locked Ward no Respite Care yes AIDS/ARC Iqo - Rehab Services yes PT, OT, ST availabe. Specialize in or~hopedic cases. Family Council n/a Multiple Sclerosis yes Life Care no TYPES OF PATIENTS ACCEPTED* '- Non-Ambulatory yes AIDS/ARC no Psychiatric (secondary) yes Alzheimer's yes I.v. Patients yes Psychiatric (primary) yes Wanderers yes Oxygen Dependent yes Developmentally Disabled yes Non Elderly yes Tracheostomy n/a Multiple Sclerosis yes Ventilator no 'Based on self-reported survey data © 1997 CANHR · 1610 Bush Street · San Francisco, CA 94109 · 415-4~4-5171 Last Update 8/8/97 California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform Consumer Information Servicc Facility Profile Villa Valencia Heath Care Center 24552 Paseo De Valencia Laguna Hills atSCRIPTION OF CITATIONS e Class* Fine Category -- CANHR Category Citation Outcome** 7/10/95 B $1,000 -- Patient Care -- Serious$500 Collected Facility failed to follow careplan for resident, leading to Stage III bedsores and serious weight loss 8/31/94 B $500 -- Dietary -- DietaryS0 Collected Freezer as high as 37° and refrigerator as high as 70°, posing risk of food spoilage 7/27/94 B $1,000 -- Patient Care -- Patient CareS0 Collected Staff did not immediately notify physician or take precautions for a resident who had tried to commit suicide 7/27/94 B $1,000 -- Patient Care -- Patient CareS1200 Collected Developmentally disabled resident isolated during meals and not provided social contact or activities -- staff not properly trained B $1,000 -- Patient Rights -- NotificationS0 Collected Facility failed to notify physician of resident's severe symptoms of dehydration -- resident transferred to hospital (federal citation) 7/27/94 B $1,000 -- Patient Rights -- NotificationS0 Collected Facility failed to notify physician of resident's severe symptoms of dehydration -- resident transferred to hospital (state citation) CITATION SUMMARY Year AA A B WMF/O Fines Assessed Collected 1990 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 1991 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 1992 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 1993 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 1994 0 0 5 0 $4,500 $1,200 1995 0 0 1 0 $1,000 $500 1996 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 1997 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 © 1997 CANHR 1 Consumer Information Servi~c Facility Profile Fo,a, oo6 · Class AA: The most serious violation, AA citations are issued when a patient death has occurred due to nursing home regulatinn violations, and carry fines of $5,000 to $25,000. Class A: Class A citations are issued when violations present imminent danger to patients or the substantial probability of death or,' serious harm, and carry fines from $1,000 to $10,000. Class B: Class B citations carry fines from $100 to $1000 and are issued foil violations which have a direct or immediate relationshi to health, safety, or security, but do not qualify as A or AA citations. WMF/O: Willful matedal falsification (WMF) and Willful material omission (WMO) citations are issued when patient records are falsified, incomplete or withheld, resulting in fines of up to $10,000. "Citations can be appealed. The type of contestation and the outcome can be any of the following types: CRC, (Citation Review Conference) Arbitration, Coud, (Municipal, Justice or Superior) or Negotiation. The fine and class can either be Upheld, Reduced, Increased or Dismissed. In lieu of contesting the citation, a civil penalty of a minimum or fifty percent of the fine, whichever is gn;ater can be paid. Class B citation fines will be waived if corrected within a specified time period, though the citation remains. Violations repeated within twelve months may be issued trebled fines (indicated as (x3))--triple the normal amount. Citation outcome information © 1997 CANHR 2 California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform Consumer Information Servico Facility Profile Villa Valencia Heath Care Center STAFF r-Year David Culbreth 1995? Director of Nursing-Year Marcel Parker 1992 Medical Director-Year Richard Ferreris 1991 Pharmacy-Year ConvaCare of Cerritos 1993 Admissions Coordinator STAFF TURNOVER RATES Year All Staff State Average Direct Nursing Staff* Nurse Assts,** 1990 127.14% 91.20% N/A N/A 1991 81.36% 88.92% 111.11% 135.71% 1992 85.71% 79.55% 107.69% 124.27% 1993 55.68% 73.51% N/A N/A 1994 66.67% 67.38% N/A N/A · Direct Nursing staff includes all employees providing direct nursing care (RN's LVN's, nurse assistants, specialists, etc.) '* This figure represents turnover in nurse assistants (CNA's) only. CNA's provide the majority of daily care. High turnover may indicate inconsistent care for residents. CERTIFIED NURSE ASSISTANT TRAINING INFORMATION CNA Training** 7/5/94 Facility DISQUALIFIED from CNA training f Decer~ified, facility cannot run in-house CNA training programs for two years from the indicated date. Facilities are decer~ified ~r Level A Deficiencies found during a survey w th F-Tag numbers F150, F220, F240, and F308. DEFICIENCIES ('information current through 2~22/1997) Category 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997' Resident Rights 0 5 0 7 4 3 4 Admission, Transfer Discharge 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Abuse Restraints 0 I 0 5 3 1 1 Quality of Life 0 1 I 7 5 3 1 Resident Assessment 0 2 0 6 6 8 2 Quality of Care 0 3 0 14 5 5 10 Nursing Services 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 Dietary Services 0 I 2 0 6 1 0 Physician Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rehabilitative Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dental Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pharmacy Services 0 0 0 I 1 0 2 Infection Control 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Physical Environment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Administration 0 1 1 5 2 0 2 Activities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 18 4 48 34 21 22 ~tate Average) (62) (29) (37) (23) (23) (16) (18) VISIT INFORMATION* (Date of last Cerlification Visit by the Department of Health Services) = 8/29/96 © 1997 CANHR 2 California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform Consumer Information Servi.cc Facility Profile Villa Valencia Heath Care Center 24552 Paseo DeI Valencia Laguna Hills COMPLAINT INFORMA T/ON Date CateoggEy Priorit_,vL Outcome 7/8/96 Patient Care 2 ' Substantiated 5/13/96 Billing 3 Substantiated 3/29/96 Patient Care 2 Substantiated 1/30/96 Trust 3 Partially Subst. 11/23/94 Patient Care 2 Unsubstantiated 6/10/94 Patient Rights 2 P/s 4/14/94 Patient Rights 2 Unsubstantiated 4/11/94 Patient Care 2 Substantiated 3/22/94 Patient Care 2 Substantiated 8/23/93 Patient Care 2 Substantiated 8/6/93 Patient Care 2 Substantiated COMPLAINT SUMMARY ('Information current through 2/22/1997) Year Substantiated Unsubstantiated Other Total State AveraRe 1990 0 0 0 0 4.4 1991 0 0 0 0 4.1 1992 0 0 0 0 4.0 1993 2 0 0 2 4.8 1994 2 2 I 5 5.5 1995 0 0 0 0 6.3 1998 3 0 I 4 5.3 1997 0 0 0 0 Total 7 2 2 11 2 9 * Priority One complaints allege an imminent threat to the life and safety of residents in the facility, including abuse, lack of licensed nurse on duty, epidemic outbreak, lack of heat food electricity or water et. al. Complaints in this category must be investigate within 24 hours. Priority Two complaints allege a direct or immediate irelationship between the complaint and the health, safety, security of a resident. Priority two complaints must be:investigated within 10 days. Priority Three complaints are other complaints deemed appropriate for investigation, but are not priority one or two. Priority three complaints must also be investigated within 10 days. Information current through 2/22/97. © 1997 CANHR .Stt~te-of California-Department of Health Services SECTION 1424 NOTICE Page: 1 of 2 pages CITATION NUMBER: 06-084~-00B07-S Date: 07/27/94 Time: ARE HEREBY FOUND IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE Type of Visit: CERTIFICATION FORNIA STATUTES AND REGULATIONS OR APPLICABLE COMPLAINT FEDERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS. Complaint Number(s): 06-03709 Licensee Name: ~tARRIOTT SENIOR LIVING SERVICES, INC. Address: ivb~RRIOi'T DRIVE WASHINGTON DC 20058 License Number: 30-0000296 Type of ownership: PROFIT CORPORATION Facility Name: VILLA VALENCIA HEALTH CARE CENTER Address: 24552 PASEO DE VALENCIA LAGUNA HILLS CA 92653 Telephone: (714) 581-6111 Type: SKILLED NURSING FACILITY Capacity: 59 ACLAIMS ID: 06-00876 i)EADLINE FOR VIOLATED $1,ooo.oo CLASS B CITATION -- PATIENT CARE Title 22, CCR l(a)(3)(B) 72311. Nursing Service -General (a) Nursing service shall include, 'but not be limited to, the following: (3) Notifying the attending physician promptly of: (B) Any sudden and/or marked adverse change in signs, symptoms or behavior exhibited by a patient. Resident "A" was admitted to the facility on 3/30/94 with admitting diagnoses of Cengestive Heart Failure, Edema, Depression. Name of Evaluator: Without admitting guilt, I hereby acknowle'dge Claire L.~?~m.~~ receipt of this SECTION i~ICE. Signature: Evaluator Signature: · ~/ ~ Title: IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, FAILURE TO CORRECT VIOLATIONS IS GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF YOUR LICENSE. MR-ACLZ21-RO01 (4/94) F~l 'State of California-Department of H~alth Services ~ SECTION 1424 NOTICE Page: 2 of 2 pages , !~ CITATION NUMBER: 06-0849-00607-S Date: 07/27/94 Time:/~ SECTIONS CLASS AND NATURE OF VIOLATIONS ~ VIOLATED A review of the clinical record, revealed that the facility had identified behavior problems e.g., worried, fearful and feelings of being abandoned. It was also documented that sleepliness due to worry was occurring and that the resident was agitated. According to licensed nurses' notes, on 4/6/94 at approximately 2200 hours, the resident overturned a waste basket, removed the plastic liner and attempted to pull the plastic liner over his head, in attempt to commit suicide. The nurses' notes also documented that the resident asked to be "wheeled out into traffic" and stated "I want to-die." The attending physician was not notified and licensed nurses' notes did not document that suicidal precautions were taken to include monitoring on a one to one basis. Documentation did reveal that the attending physician was notified of the attempted suicide on 4/7/94 at 8:30 hours, ten hours after the resident's attempted suicide. On notification, the attending physician ordered that Resident "A" be immediately transferred to an acute care facility. The facility failed to ensure: I. That licensed nurses immediately notify the attending physician of a significant change in the resident's mental status. 2. Suicidal precautions were not taken to protect the resident from harm or possible death. A violation of the cited regulation presented a direct and immediate relationship to the resident's health and safety. NOTE: tN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, FAILURE TO CORRECT VIOLATIONS SROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF YOUR LICENSE. MR-ACL221-RO0t (4/94) - State of California-Departmer,~ of Health Services : SECTION 1424 NOTICE Page: 1 of 6 pages CITATION NUMBER: 06-1065-0058g-S Date: 07/10/95 Time: 0~35 ARE HEREBY FOUND IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE Type of Visit: LICENSING ~FORNIA STATUTES AND REGULATIONS OR APPLICABLE CERTIFICATION FEDERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS. Complaint Number(s): Licensee Name: MARRIOTT SENIOR LIVING SERVICES, INC. Address: MARRIOTT DRIVE WASHINGTON DC 20058 License Number: 30-0000296 Type of ownership: PROFIT CORPOP~ATION Facility Name: VILLA VALENCIA HEALTH CARE CENTER Address: 24552 PASEO DE VALENCIA LAGUNA HILLS CA 92653 Telephone: (714) 581-6111 Type: SKILLED NURSING FACILITY Capacity: 59 ACLAIMS ID: 06-00876 DEADLINE FOR SECTIONS CLASS AND NATURE OF VIOLATIONS PENALTY ASSESSMENT COMPLIANCE VIOLATED $1,000.00 I~:oz ~.~. CLASS B CITATION -- PATIENT CARE Title 22, CCR (a)(1)(C) f)(1) 7231I. Nursing Service -General (4) 72315(f)(7) (a) Nursing service shall include, 72315(h) but not be limited to, the following: (1) Planning of patient care, which shall include at least the following: (C) Reviewing, evaluating and updating of the patient care plan as necessary by the nursing staff and other professional personnel involved in the care of the patient at least quarterly, and more often if there is a change in the patient's condition. lame of Evaluator: Without admitting guilt, I hereby acknowledge Theresa De Pue, HFEN receipt of thi~iCE. Signature: Name: ~/~6' (.Z-C}~E/"/~/ valuator Signature: ~j~z,-Z~z3.~. ~h=~ Title: /~tb~,w,~/'/z~4~T-~z>_ . IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, FAILURE TO CORRECT VIOLATIONS IS FOR SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF YOUR LICENSE. R-ACL221-RO01 (4/94) h~ State of California-Department of Health Services SECTION 1424 NOTICE Page: 2 of 6 pages CITATION NUMBER: 06-1065-00~89-S ~ Date: 07/10795 Time: SECTIONS CLASS AND NATURE OF VIOLATIONS ~ VIOLATED 72315. Nursing Service -Patient ~are. (f) Each patient shall be give[n care to prevent formation and progress~ion of decubiti, contractures and deformities. Such care shall include: (I) Changing position of bedfast and chairfast patients with preventive skin care in accordance with the needs of the patient. (4) Using pressure-reducing devices where indicated. (7) Carrying out of physician's orders for treatment of decubitus ulcers. The facility shall notify the physician, when a decubitus ulcer first occurs, as well as when treatment is not effective, and shall document such notification as required in Section 72311(b). (h) Each patient shall be provided with good nutrition and with necessary fluids for hydration. Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to: 1) review, evaluate and update the plan of care; 2) p~revent the formation and progression of pressure sores including a failure to change a resident's position, provide preventive skin care and implement pressure reducing devices; 3) notify the physician when a pressure sore first developed as well as when treatment was not effective; and 4) provide a resident with good nutrition. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on 5/20/95. Her diagnoses included a fracture of the right hip, status post ORIF (open reduction internal fixation) and dementia. The comprehensive assessment dated 6/3/95, indicated the resident required extensive assistance with transfers, ambulation and toileting, was frequently incontinent of ]TE: IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, FAILURE TO CORRECT VIOLATIONS IS ~,OUNDS FOR SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF YOUR LICENSE, State of California-Department of Health Services SECTION 1424 NOTICE Page: 3 of 6 pages CITATION NUMBER: 06-1065-00689-S Date: 07/10/95 Time: CLASS AND NATURE OF VIOLATIONS VIOLATED bladder and had the presence of a Stage I pressure sore. The admitting nurses notes dated 5/20/95, documented, "...Strong pedal pulses. TED hose to knee on both legs .... Sacrum, red, Stage I, skin intact..." In addition, the nurses admission notes indicated the Stage t pressure sore to the sacrum measured five inches in diameter. A physician's order for Duoderm to the sacrum was noted on the admitting physician's orders, dated 5/20/95. A physician's order dated 5/22/95,' documented-that the Duoderm was to be discontinued and an order for Zinc Oxide every shift for 2I days was noted. An order for an alternating air pressure mattress was also noted. There were inconsistencies in the documentation of 'the pressure sore to the sacrum. The nurses notes dated 5/25/95 documented, "Superficial skin break, Stage II coccyx area. New treatment order, Duoderm every 3 days, PRN (as necessary)." However, the documentation on the Skin Care Documentation Record dated 5/25/95, stated, "Sacrum, Stage II, white center, necrotic, circular 2 by 2 cm., without drainage, no odor." The Stage I pressure sore to the sacrum had become necrotic in a period of five days. The Skin Care Documentation Record dated 5/25/95, documented that the pressure sore was necrotic and the pressure sore was assessed as Stage II. Pressure sores cannot be adequately staged when covered with necrotic tissue. The facility's P&P (policy and procedure) for Decubitus Care Guidelines did not include guidelines for assessment of pressure sores when necrotic tissue is present. The Skin Care Documentation Record documented the progression of the pressure sore to the sacrum as follows: 5/20/95 - "Sacrum, Stage I, reddened." 5/25/95 "Sacrum, Stage 'II, white center, necrotic, circular 2 by 2 cm., without drainage, no odor." 5/31/95 "Sacrum, Stage II, white center, 2 by 2 cm., no odor, no drainage." · 6/6/95 - "Sacrum, Stage III, yellow center, necrotic, 2 by 1 cm., no odor, no drainage." 6/7/95 - "Sacrum, Stage III, yellow necrotic tissue, 2 by 1 cm., unable to determine depth." IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, FAILURE TO CORRECT VIOLATIONS IS FOR SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF YOUR LICENSE. -AcLZ2 -Ro0 /4/94) State of California-Department of Health Services SECTION 1424 NOTICE Page: 4 of 6 pages CITATION NUMBER: 05-I065-00689-S ~ Date: 07/10/95 Time: SECTIONS CLASS AND NATURE OF VIOLATIONS : VIOLATED Although documentation indicatedlnecrosis was present to the sacral pressure sore on 5/25/95, Tthere was no change in the treatment order until 6/7/95. On 6/7/95, a new physician's order was obtained for treatment of the Stage III pressure sore to the sacrum. The order stated, "Clean with Normal Saline, apply Santyl ointment, Carrington moisture barrier to surrounding tissue. Cover with dry sterile dressing every day for 3 weeks." An order for a Flexicair bed was also obtained on 6/7/95. On 6/9/95, physician's orders were obtained for an Acu C Air bed (air flow therapy). The plan of care for the sacral pressure sore dated 5/22/95, included measures to reposition the resident every two hours, provide an alternating air pressure mattress, encourage good oral intake of food and fluids, provide on going assessment and documentation of the pressure sore and treatment orders. There was no acceleration of the plan of care other than noting changes in treatment and additional pressure relieving beds that had been obtained. Although approaches on the plan of care indicated the resident was to be repositioned every two hours, on 6/16/95, Resident #1 was observed lying on her back in bed at 133o, 1520 and 1725 hours. 0n6/19/95, the resident was observed positioned on her back in bed at 0740, 0942 and 1105 hours. On 6/19/95 at 1000 hours, the treatment nurse was observed providing treatment to the pressure sore on the sacrum. The treatment nurse described the wound as a Stage III to the coccyx that measured 2 cm., circular, greenish in color. The surrounding area was bright red with excoriation. In addition~ the nurses notes dated 5/25/95, documented, "Area i by 1 cm. to right heel necrotic, skin intact. Granulex spray, heel booties ordered." The Nurses Admission Record body sheet and nursing note did not identify a pressure sore to the right heel. ~his pressure sore was not assessed until necrosis was present. Following the identification of the right heel pressure sore on 5/25/95, there was no further documentation relative to the condition of the right heel until 6/7/95. OTE: IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, FAILURE TO CORRECT VIOLATIONS ,iS ~OUNDS FOR SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF YOUR LICENSE. -AcL221-R0ol (4/94) .State of California-Department of Health Services SECTION 1424 NOTICE Page: 5 of 6 pages CITATION NUMBER: 06-1065-00689-S Date: 07/10/95 Time: os35 CLASS AND NATURE OF VIOLATIONS VIOLATED The Skin Care Documentation Record documented the progression of the pressure sore to the right heel as follows: 6/7/95 - "Right heel blister, Stage II, dry callus blister, fluid filled, 2 by 1.5 cm., unable to determined depth." 6/14/95 - "Right heel blister, Stage II, soft fluid filled, skin intact, unable to determined depth." The plan of care for the right heel pressure sore dated 5/25/95, .indicated that the stage was undetermined and the skin was intact. Approaches on the plan of care included turning the resident every two hours, provide an alternating air pressure mattress, heel booties while in bed and encourage 80-100% of meals. Measures to further decrease pressure and improve circulation to the right heel were not identified or implemented. On 6/19/95 at 1000 hours, the treatment nurse was .observed providing treatment to the right outer heel pressure sore. The pressure sore to the right heel was. described as black/purple intact to the outer right aspect of the right heel. It measured 4 cm. by 2 cm. circular. The treatment nurse stated that the pressure sore appeared necrotic and therefore would not be a Stage II pressure sore, because it would involve underlying tissue. On 6/16/95, the resident was observed lying on her back in bed from 1330 to 1725 hours. At 1330 hours, the heel bootie was noted to be applied to the left foot. The right foot was lying directly on the bed, On 6/19/95, the resident was lying on her back in bed from 0740 to 1105 hours. At 0942 hours she was lying in bed, wearing shoes. At 1105 hours she was lying on her back in bed with her bare feet directly on the bed, no heel booties were noted on her feet. In addition, the resident had a severe weight loss from 5/20/95 to 6/5/95. On admission, the resident weighed 106 pounds. On 6/5/95, her documented weight was 97.5 pounds. She had an 8.5 pound weight loss (8% of her total body weight) in 15 days. The plan of care for nutrition dated 5/22/95, included approaches to monitor the diet order, adhere to and encourage preferences within the diet order, monitor laboratory values, monitor weight monthly, provide fluids and send Ensure as ordered. There had been no IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, FAILURE TO CORRECT VIOLATIONS IS FOR SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF YOUR LICENSE, !R-ACL22]-ROO1 (4/94) F~? State of California-Department of Health Services SECTION 1424 NOTICE i Page: 6 of 6 pages CITATION NUMBER: 06-1065-00689-S SECTIONS CLASS AND NATURE OF VIOLATIONS! VIOLATED acceleration in the plan of care following the decline in the resident's skin condition ~nd her severe weight loss. Documentation in the nurses notes revealed that the resident refused meals on occasion. However, there was no documented evidence that dietary staff had addressed causative factors for her refusals, that her identified. preferences for smaller portions had been consistently implemented, that food likes and dislikes had been identified or that calorie dense foods had been provided to the resident. Documentation failed to indicate that aggressive measures were implemented to ensure the resident received adequate nutrition to prevent further weight loss and promote wound healing. In summary, Resident #1 developed two pressure sores with necrosis and had a severe weight loss of 8.5 pounds within 16 days of admission to the facility. The failure of the facility to ~omply with these regulations either jointly or separately presented a direct or immediate threat to the health, safety and security of the resident. NOTE: IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, FAILURE TO CORRECT VIOLATIONS GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF YOUR LICENSE. MR-ACL221-ROOl (4/94) MARRIOTT'S LAST MINUTE SURPRISES IN SACRAMENTO Betty Masao'ka, Assistant City Manager, City of Sacramento at a Sacramento City Council Hearing on Wednesday, December 10, 1997, describing last minute changes to the Marriott team's bid for a new convention hotel project in Sacramento - changes which surprised and angered City Council members: "Now I did want to give you a couple of updates since the report that you received in your packets last week. There were several updates that we received last Thursday and Friday from the Asia Pacific/Marriott team that I wanted to share with you. There were two significant amendments that were in the proposaI that they sent back to us. The most significant change that they have put in there is that they have introduced the concept of a feasibility confirmation period. They are saying that they require... 30 days to verify the feasibility of their proposal. This has significant implications in terms of the strength of the ERNs [proposed Exclusive Right to Negotiate agreements] that are in front of you today. In essence, just two of the impacts that this results in are: One, the default provision, or the commitment to what is in the ERN, in essence would be held in abeyance for 30 days. It would also ex'~end the negotiation period for the final project for 30 days, and I'll get into an explanation on that as I go through the project descriptions. The other element that we have gotten clarification on from the Host Marriott group is the room blockage issue, which we had quite a bit of discussion on during our last meeting. We had originally, in the document that was given to you in the staff report, indicated that both groups had agreed to enter into a room blockage agreement with the convention center. t Where we are at right now with the Host Marriott group is that they have sent us a letter that said that they agreed that they need to work with the convention center in order to maximize the success of both the hotel and the convention center. But the bonom line was that they could not see a way that a room blockage agreement could be crafted that would satisfy the parties. So we have taken that to mean that they have declinedto enter into a room blockage agreement. And I bring that up because that is one of the issues that we had spent quite a bit of time on. So these again are updates that we received on Thursday and Friday of last week. I apologize for the lateness of sharing that with you, but ~ve did the best we could." I To hold a certain number of room rdghts at the hotel for use the convention center. EXCERPTS FROM QUESTION AND ANSWERS [AT SACRA~IENTO CITY COUNCIL HEAREN~G ON MARRIOTT AND SHERATON CONVENTION HOTEL PROPOSALS MARRIOTT'S IMST MiNUTE INSISTENCE OiNr A ,3 0-DA Y FEASIBILITY PERIOD Mayor Joe Serna discussing Marriott proposal for a 30-day feasibility period with Assistant City Manager Betty Masaoka: Mayor Serna: [Re: Marriott's position on the feasibil{ty period] Looks like, using an analogy I heard... "Here's my check, but you can't cash it until the 30 days are over." Is that fight? Betty Masaoka: I think so. Mayor Serna: OK. Now a more basic question: Do we in fact then have a Marriott proposal? That is, the working group worked very hard along with the staff on this. My impression the whole time was that Marriott was in the deal. Period. Betty Masaoka: We do not have a proposal that they're willing to commit to fight now. Mayor Serna: Do we only have one yiable proposal before the council right now? Betty Masaoka: We only have one proposal that a developer/operator is willing to commit to. Mayor Serna: For the council, that's a very important point, and it's very astonishing to me, because I thought we were dealing directly with Marriorc's commitments to carry this out .... Councilman Rob Kerth discussing klarriott's commitment to the project and request for the 30 day feasibility period with Jim Erlacher, Vice-President, Development, Marriott International Councilman Kerth: When we went into this proposal process that we have....it was our intention to tonight pick a party that was guaranteeing to us a deal that was their minimum deal. They were going to do that deal at least. So there's some consternation on my part. I feel like I've been wor'king on this thing for months, and it's not my favorite thing to work org I have to telI you....But then to see in the ERN, the Exclusive Right to Negotiate, that there is a back door that is frankly as big as the back wall, i~ shocking to me. What happened there? Marriott: Well if you are referring to the 30 day feasibility period? Councilman Kerth: Item 12L9, which says that for whatever reason you can back out of this deal. ~larriott: Well, the intent there is that we have some more homework to do to be perfectly secure the numbers on this deal make sense. Councilman Kerth: I'm sorry sir, your name was.. Marriott: My name is Jim Erlacher and I am Vice-President of Development for Marriott. Councilman Kerth: Let me ask you this. I wouldn't expect you to enter into something that you weren't confident in. That would be very foolish. But why didn't you do this 30 days ago so that tonight you would be ready to go. Marriott: Well, it takes more than 30 days to evaluate a project of this magnitude. Councilman Kerth: But you are saying you are going do it. Marriott: Yeah, we're saying we're going to do it. And we're putting up 60 some odd million dollars of our own money, hard cash equity. Councilman Kerth: Well, no you're not. Marriott: Well that's what we're saying we're going to do. 2 Councilman Kerth: If you decide that you are going to go fot~vard v, ith the project. Marriott: Correct. Councilman Kerth: You're not even willing to put up the earnest money without a string on it. Marriott: Well, I think that what that comes down to is that we don't necessarily see the sense in spending money on a project until we 'know that it is going to pencil economically. Councilman Kerth: And I acknowledge that, and -- and obviously you've made a lot more money than I have .... Here's the problem I'm having: Tonight or last week...the fh of December, to tell us at that you want to amend that into the ERN at frankly the last minute. If you had told us that in October, you wouldn't even be in the final two [teams]. We would have thrown out your proposal as unresponsive. And now we're having this put in here. November 5 was the day to start that 30 day process so that on December 5 you are ready to go. MARRIOTT'S REFUSAL TO COs~klllT IN WRITING TO HOLD BLOCKS OF HOTEL ROOMS FOR LARGE CONVENTIONS Councilman Robhie Water question to Assistant Cio' Manager Betty Masaoka re: Mardott's position on room blockage for conventions: Councilman Waters: Did Marriott agree to any room blockage? Betty Masaoka: With respect to room blockage itself, they have submitted a letter to the city, and I will read a portion of it. They go through two and a half pages basically saying they agree they need to work with the convention center so that both the convention center and the hotel can be successful. But then it says: "We could not find a way to craft an agreement that meets all stakeholders by binding Marriott to offering a certain number of rooms over a certain number of dates a certain number of years in advance." So they are saying they cannot find a way to craft that kind of agreement, and that is exactly what we were looking for. Councilman Rob Kerth discussing J}larriott's position on room blockage f.or con ventions with a Marriott sales staff executive: Councilman Kerth: ...At some point in the downtown, it is hard to tel1 exactly when it ' happened, there was committed an original sin where the government decided that it needed to subsidize an activity downtown. Well, I think this is pretty good biblical foundation here that one sin seems to lead to another. And so at some point or another we decided we needed to build a convention center. Now that may have been probably one of the biggest transgressions on our part, and now of course it's losing money pretty badly. So now, to cover up that last sin, we're talking about committing another one to subsidize a hotel. Now I'm real tired of this scenario and would like at some point to stop this string of indiscretions and actually get out of the subsidy business in downtown....So the last thing I want to have happen is for, a few years from now, to have in theory well-meaning downtown advocates come to me and say "Bob, we need to subsidize another hotel because the Marriott is so full of their own business it's not helping out our convention center so now we have to build another one of these things." You think this one is unappealing, just wait until they come back another time and ask. So what I want to see here -- and I think the council is very concerned and agreed on this point -- that when the convention 3 center tries to book a convention, they don't go to our flagship hotel and have them say "Oh no, sorry, we're filled up with our own in-house meetings and you can't have any rooms." How can you guarantee that to us beyond very well intentioned arm-waving and promises and all that. I want to see it in writing. Marriott Sales Executive: Very easy. There's a veryieasy way to get at it. As Sam Bums said earlier, the typical, convention is usually going to book at least two years in advance. The size you're gonna want, it wilI usually be two and a half to five years in advance. In house meetings, for this type of hotel, either of these hotels with 25,000!square feet of meeting space, will hold a 150 to 250 room group. And they don't typically book!more than three to nine months in advance. So I'm not going to fill up with small groups in my hotel three years in advance. Councilman Kerth: Are you going to put that in writing for us? Marriott: Well that inventory is going to be there. Councilman Kerth: Put it in writing for us. Marriott: That I'm going to commit that the convention center controls 300 of my rooms? Councilman Kerth: You pick the number, you tell us what the convention center is willing to have guaranteed access to, and put it in writing. Marriott: I'I1 tell you that for six months of the year, from about November to April, you're going to need about 450 of those rooms for convention business....And weekends, you'll probably need 350 to 450 rooms. What I'm saying if I give control of my rooms for the convention bureau to sell as they wish -- Councilman Kerth: Hold on, you're misunderstanding here. You tell us what the blockage is that you are going to guarantee to the Convention center. You craft it how you like, but there has to be something. I can't be a party to this long string of sins all intended to correct the first one that was somehow committed down here and not get at least a modicum of insurance that we're not going to see this again. Marriott: Let me explain to you. I can put something in writing, very easy. But ifI can't live up to it, which I would challenge to look at how it's crafted (sic). Can I tell you that it is my intent is to give ihe X hundred rooms. Absolutely. But when it comes down to crafting it on a legally binding document that you are going to hold me accountable to, and that I'm going to hold the convention bureau accountable to, I would like to challenge the other group to see how they craft that, and don't handcuff themselves to the point that they can't manage their business in a profitable manner. If they can't do that, they're not going to be here I0 years from now. You have to be profitable. Marriott and Broken Promises Marriott's checkered history in San Francisco provides a key example of how Marriott has fallen short on commitments made to public agencies and community groups. When the downtown San Francisco Marriott hotel opened in 1989, Manlon Corp.' broke earlier promises it had made to the San Francisco Redevelopmerit Agency by attempting to renege on its agree- ment to hire San Francisco residents and workers referred by community groups, including the Hotel Employees and Restaurmu Employees Union, Loca/2. Marriott had made various commitments in a 1984 agreement with the Re, development Agency, includ- ing that it would submit a demi/ed afimative action plan to the Agency before hiring and thai its hires would be at least 50% San Frandsco residems and would reflect the gender and ethnic composition of the dry. At significant cost to the city, the Re, development Agency found it necessary to hire an outside legal counsel to force Marriott's compliance with its commitments to hire locally and implement an affu'madve action/hiring plan. Problems arose, for example, when Marriott began hiring before it had submitted an affu-mative action plan to the Redevelopmerit Agency. The Re, development Agency then undertook legal action, in the form of an injunction request that briefly halted Marrion's hiring. Man-ion also anempted to violate the spirit of its agTee- merits when it took the position that transfers from Man-ion hotels in other cities who moved to San Francisco should be counted as SF residents for the sake of meeting plan goals. At the end of its initial hiring, Marriott had fallen short on a number of its plan goals. Only 41% of employees hired were SF residents instead of 50%, for example, and only 38% of its workforce were women (the plan goal was 46%). In addition, 90% of all managers were out-of-town transfers and on/y 28% of the managers were women. During the hiring process, several community groups complained to the Redevelopmerit Agency that they were dissatisfied with Marriott's performance. Marriott also failed to remain neutral during a union organizing drive in 1989, breaking representations it had to the Redevelopmerit Agency during the selection process when it wanted to gain the edge over other compa- nies competing for the much-sought-after hotel develop- ment rights. 1 Referred to here, along with its suce, ssor company. N~riou !nL~rr,.sd~d Ir, c., as "N~-r:~ov_' KEv T SHELLEY Dear Community Leader: I would like to share with you some pertinent information about Marriott Corporation. a company that you may be considering Ibr a deveiopment project in your jurisdiction. In 1989, I served, at the request of former San Francisco Mayor Art Agnos, as head of a Citizens Advisory Committee, a group that undertook to ensure that Marriott complied with hiring commitments it made to the San Francisco Redeve]opment Agency. The 1500-room Marriott hotel built at the San Francisco Convention Center in 1989 was a redeve]opment project, one of whose chief benefits was to be jobs for local residents, particularly those from low-income, ethnic cornmanities. Marriott had made a number of hiring coramitments in a 1984 agreement with the Redeve]opment Agency, including one in which they agreed to submit an affirmative action/h/ring plan to the city before doing the actual hiring. Additionally, Marriott agreed that its hires would be at least 50% San Francisco residents and reflective of the ethnic and gender composition of the city· Unfortunately, the com.mitment to shbmit a hit/rig plan was not complied with, and the Redevelopment _Agency found it necessary to hire outside legal counsel to represent the Committee, as well as to undertake legal proceedings to force compliance· The Agency obtained a temporary restraining order from federal court to halt further hiring until Marriott submitted, and the Redevelopment Agency approved, a hiring plato In addition, Marriott refused to provide requested hiring information to the Committee until they were once again threatened with legal action. Fix~ally, Ma_rriott failed to meet some of its loca! hirina goals in its initial hiring and upset the community by transferring a large number ofempioyees to the San Francisco hotel from out- of-town properties. I provide this background information for your consideration in any future negotiations you may have with the Marriott Corporation. · rel · ' ' ey Assemblymember, 12'h District ~/~,,~.'/./. .,~ ...;HINESE FOR AJ:FII~IVE ACTION 17 Dece~er 12, 1989 Mr. Alain Piallat General Manager San Francisco Marriott 785 Market Street, Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94103 '- Dear Mr. Piallat: I have spoken with Ms. Jan Martindell, expressing my concerns and disappointment with Marriott's good faith commitment to work closely with Chinese for Affirmative Action (CAA) and other San Francisco community based organizations in the initial stages of hiring 1,200 employees to staff the October 17 opening. CAA, as you are well aware, has invested a tremendous amount of staff time and resources in assisting Marriott Hotel with the · dissemination of information, outreach, recruitment, screening and referral of over 450 qualified applicants for vacancies posted by Marriott Hotel. The abysmal result of new hires from our applicant pool was atrocious. Of the 1,000 applicants we screened, 450 met the minimum qualifications, but only 3.5% or 15 candidates were hired. CAA_has the lowest hiring percentage rate in comparison with all the other San Francisco co~unity based organizations, Local #2, and the hiring of San Francisco residents which averaged between 5% - 12%. CAA's staff and I were not informed, nor communicated with, by any of the Marriott Hotel employment staff of any particular · wrong-doing on our part which could have resulted in the poor percentage of hires. In fact, when C/LA staff requested assistance from Marriott's employment staff as to the status and progress of our referrals, we were inforlned that the computer system was down and that therefore the information requested was unavailable. We understand that Marriott Hotel anticipates hiring 480 new employees by the month of January. Marriott Hotel once again requests our assistance with the outreach and recruitment efforts to the Asian American community. In order for us to achieve a more positive result this time around, I request that your staff assist us by identifying the reasons as to why many of our initial referrals were not hired. page 2 Marriott Hotel I also request that your staff b~ief my staff as to how Marrio~ Hotel determines or assesses if an individual possesses t~e specific qualities that you may b~ looking for. If you have any questions, p s~ feel free to call me at (42~5 lea 982-0801. I look forward to your earliest response. Sincerely, ~seM'~aa~ Employment Coordinator cc: other community based organizations Helen L. Sause, Project DireCtor, S.F. Redevelopment Jan H. Martindell, Dir. of Human Resources, Marriott Hotel Ronald J. Wilensky, V.P. Employee Relations, Marriott Hotel ~52 Hissic-'- Sizes: San =-=nciscs, Ca ~4193 We are submittins ~e~ ~ 7~rt=~ ~o exsress cur disappcinzmenz, and frusEre[ion az The P!arrioz2 Hoze! =~- comp!ezely disrecardinc che "afflr.m_zive aczlcn" and the"firsZ referrsi" ccnsiderazion for the Scuzh cf C-{arke~ residence. did "o~Er~ach" , _..~_;<e . pr~screen" , "evaluate" , q _ and "referred" over 200 appAicants ~s Phase2 of zhe Harriczz These app!ican~s were considered by our s~aff: a. Had previous hotel experience b. Residence of South ~arket c. Well qualify for positions they seek AS of ~h= .... ~ ' ~- recieved on jan. 19 a !!sZ cf hit__ Ero~ rh~ ~arr!oE~, ]cs5 t~=n 3% cf o~r ~F=~=]c were civen eT~s!ov~e~, 40% were no~ even ~v=m lnZerviews and 38% s~i!! have nee recieved any neZice regarding [heir i would Like zo address ~he cuesEion cf ccmmitmenz and srsmises =~- - -~= u=~-~ ~- HoZe! made ~= ' ' and community agencies working in ~he South cf Marke~. SAhr FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENTAGEh CY 939 ELL!5 STREET~ - SAN FRANCISCO 9~109-7714 AD[D~ESS MAIL TO POST OFFICE ~OX &.:i6. SAN F~AN~ISCO, CALIFORNIA ~4101 q]~,~6 t,11~ ~1-88~ REFER TO: Z~2~02890-008~ Zeb~s~- ~, ~990 Mr. Sal Syquia South of Market Employment Referral Agency 953 Mission Street San Francisco, California 9&t03 Re: Marriott Hotel Hiring Dear Sal; I am in receipt of your letter expressing your disappointment and frustration ~ith the Marriott's rate Of hiring of the South of Market Referral Agency (S.O.M.E.R.) referral 'aPplicants. Your reaction is understandable. The Redevelopmenc Agency believes strongly char the Marriott, as an initial matter, should provide S.O.M.E.R. with a full exolanation as co ~'hy so few' of its referrals ~ere offered jobs during the second phase of hiring. As you are probably aware, the Agency has urged each of the community-based organizations, which is dissatisfied with the Marriotz's performance, to cake the Marriott up. on its agreement of last Spring to provide this type of explanation. If you believe it would be useful, the Redevelopment Agency will send the Marriott a letter joining in your request Because of the frustration at the Marriott'S low hiring rare, I would also' like to s~mmarize briefly the steps the Redeve!opmenz Agency has taken to pressure the Marriott' zo com~ly with iz affirmative action obligations including i5~ duty to give "fiTst consideration" in employment to South of Market restcents. In June,, 1989, the Agency obtained an injunction stopping all further hiring by the Marriott until it submitted a satisfactory affirmative action plan; in June and july, the Agency negotiated, with the help of the Advisory Committee, the terms of that plan; and in September, the Agency obtained a federal court injunction which required the Marriott po proceed rich its initial mass hiring in a manner designed to provide South of Market residents and CBO referrals first consideration in emolo)~ent Since then, the Agency and the Advisory Committee have been monitoring the Marriotc's performance. ~ Mr. Sai Syquia !i2-02890-008yB Pae g2 Certain!y, a number of significant issues remain To be resolved, including the low hire rate for referrals from your organization and other CBOs such as Chinese for Affirmative Action. However, much of the information obtained to date shows that the efforts of the Agency and the Committee halve paid off. For example, as of January 31, 1990, over 67% of the Marriott' s ~ork force was composed of minority- group employees. In a~dition, during the first phase of hiring in August and September, 12% of n~e South of Market residents who applied for jobs ~ere offered employment a~ compared to 7.2% of applicants generally. These percentages indicate · rj{at during the first phase the right to first consideration helped persons obtain jobs. In the last round of hiring in December and January, S~uth of Market employraent at approximately the same raze (16% of the applicants from each group were hired). Thus, during this phase, the ri~ght to first consideration appears to have had less impact. However, when all hiring is considered (August through januaz~y). South of Market residents had a hire rate in excess of 12% while other applicants were hired at approximately an 8.8% rate. Therefore, overall, the right to first consideration for South of Market residents has been an advantage, but its continued effectiveness needs to be closely evaluated and ~pnizored. We are in the process of reviewing the information your office provided today. If you have any questions or suggestions, please contact me. Thank you. Sincerely, Helen L. Sause Project Director Yerba Buena Center SENIOR LIVING SERVICES August 31, 1998 Mr. Brent LeCount, AISP Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Response To Claims Made By HERE Labor Union Dear Mr. LeCount: I have had the opportunity to review materials submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga from the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees (HERE) Local 2 and would like to provide you with the facts behind the misleading references provided to you. The packet was sent to you by Local 2 in San Francisco, a labor union that has differences with one hotel, the San Francisco Marriott, in Marriott's diversified lodging group. Apparently, the union has given up trying to resolve these differences at the bargaining table. Instead, it is attempting to disrupt other Marriott businesses, including Marriott Senior Living Services. , The union's difficulty with the San Francisco Marriott stems not from employee wages or benefits (Marriott's are generally at or above industry standards), but rather, from work rules at the hotel. The union refuses to budge from its demand for outmoded and inflexible restrictions on how the hotel operates. Marriott believes such restrictions would hun its ability to provide the superior customer service for which it has long been recognized, and upon which its continued economic health depends. The parties held their last negotiating session last March; the union has made no further request for bargaining since then. To judge the merits of HERE's presentation completely, it is helpful to put it in the context of Marriott's reputation as an employer. Marriott's ~ack. record and national recognition speak for itself: · Fortune magazine ranked Marriott fifth in its listing of the top 50 companies that hire, promote and retain Asians, Blacks and Hispanics (1998) · Hispanic magazine listed Marriott as one the 100 companies providing most opportunities for Hispanics (1998) · Fortune named Marriott one of the 100 best companies to work for in America (1997) · Working Mother magazine recognized Marriott as one of the "100 Best Companies for Working Mothers" for the seventh year in a row in 1997 · Business Week rated Marriott as one of the top 20 family-friendly companies (1997). More relevant to the City of Rancho Cucamonga is Marriott Senior Living Services' reputation, integrity and track record in providing quality senior living alternatives. More/ ~"2~D ; Marriott Senior Living Services Response to HERE Labor Union Page 2 of 2 HERE' s statements and references about Marriott's senior living activities are misleading and simply misinformed. Regarding the proposed Monterey project: The "credibility gap" quote lifted by HERE was used out of context. It referred to the landowner's (not Marriott's) previous dealings with the city, not to Marriott's proposed project itself. Over eight years the Monterey Planning Commission had granted approvals to the landowner for various uses for this particular parcel, none of which happened. The latest proposal, prior to Marriott's involvement, was for an affordable senior housing project. When the landowner was unable to realize this type of project, he approached Marriott to develop a competitive, quality senior living concept for the site. Because of the discrepancies between Marriott's proposal and the landowner's previous proposed ventures, the city declined the project. Marriott was caught up in the landowner's past political fights. As part of its expansion into California, Marriott Senior Living Services has worked with dozens of cities in Southern and Northern California in recent years to seek approval of its projects. In each community, Marriott has worked diligently and honestly with city planners, elected officials, local groups and nearby residents to respond to the needs and concerns of everyone involved. This has led to approvals -- most of them unanimous -- in every Southern California community we've entered, including Camarillo, Carlsbad, San Diego's Carmel Valley, Northridge, Rancho Mirage, San Juan Capistrano and Yorba Linda, all of which have discerning development standards. Regarding Villa Valencia: Nursing homes are subject to rigorous surveys and inspections from several government agencies. When any of our nursing facilities go through an inspection and ?eceives a citation of any kind, even when deficiencies may be alleged, Marriott takes them very seriously. At Villa Valencia and all our communities, we take immediate steps to remedy any issues brought to our attention. Marriott Senior Living Services currently owns or operates 96 senior living communities across the country and is one of the most respected providers of senior living services. We want the City of Rancho Cucamonga to have the utmost confidence in the community we are proposing for your city. We would be happy to have Ann Wood, our Southern California regional manager and general manager of Villa Valencia, speak to you further on our accommodations, services and capabilities provided by Marriott Senior Living Services. We also encourage you to contact city staffs in the communities where Marriott has sought or gained project approvals. A reference list is attached for your convenience. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at (714) 445-3796. Mike Thomas Director of Development Marriott Senior Living Services /2Z.L} j City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM iNITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Conditional Use Permit 98-13 2. Related Files: Pre-Application Review 98-03 3. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-13 MARRIOTF SENIOR LIVING SERVICES, INCA request to construct a 135 unit, three- story senior assisted living facility in the Office Park District of the Terra Vista Community Plan on 11.2 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Church Street- APN: 1077-421-10, 33, and 34. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Marriott Senior Living Services 10400 Fernwood Road Bethesda, MD 20817 5. General Plan Designation: Office 6. Zoning: Office Park, Tetra Vista Community Plan (Use allowed per Community Facilities provisions of the 'TVCP) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Residentiar development to the north, office park (including a church) to the east, vacant land and a shopping center to the south, a flood control channel immediately to the west with a shopping center and a flood control basin further to the west across Haven Avenue 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 Conditional Use Permit 98-13 Marriott Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics ( ) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality (t,/) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: 0 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 EtR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: ~our~, AII~/CP~ Associate Planner August 19, 1998 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 98-13 Marriott 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," "Potebtially 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? ( ) ( ) ) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ) (,/) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in~the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) Comments: The proposed use is permitted pursuant to the "Community Facilities" provisions of the Tetra Vista Community Plan. The Community Plan requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit for this type of Community Facility. The proposed project is in conformance with applicable development standards, 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? ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 98-13 Marriott 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? ( ) ( ) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) 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') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 98-13 Marriott Page 5 r Potentially h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) Potentially Signrficanl Impact Less PotentiallyUn~sss Than 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposak a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) - ( ) (v") b) Expose sensitive receptors to pcllutants? ( ) ( ) (v') c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) (t/) Potef~tially Sign~ficanl Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than d ct 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)? ) ) ( ) (~/) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) (V') d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) (~/) 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') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 98-13 Marriott Page 6 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)? ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) (v') b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) 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') Irnpacl Less PotentlaBy Unless Than 9. HA~RDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticicles, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 98-13 Marriott Page 7 Polentja31y 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 fiammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( (v') ( ) ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: a) The General Plan indicates noise levels greater than 70Ldn; therefore, a noise study is required to address noise levels and identify adequate mitigation. A Condition of Approval will require submittal of such a report for review and approval of the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. 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? ( ) ( ) ) (V) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ) (V) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ) (v') e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 98-13 Marriott Page 8 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the preposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) (~) c) Local or mgiona) water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) (~) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) (~) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ~ Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) (~) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) (~) 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') , .......d ...... , 14. CULTU~L RESOURCES. Would the proposah a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) (~) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) (y) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) (~) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) (y) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) (~) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 98-13 Marriott Page 9 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal.' 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 ptant 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 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? ("Curnulatively 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? ) ( ) (~/) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Conditional Use Permit 98-13 Marriott Page 10 EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program El R, 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') Terra Vista Planned Community EIR (SCH #81082808, certified February 16, 1983) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I cedify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that 1 have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would OCCUr. Signature: Date: Print Name and Title: City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 an~l 2f092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Conditional Use Permit 98-13 Public Review Period Closes: September 9, 1998 Project Name: Project Applicant: Marriott Senior Assisted Living Services, Inc. Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Church Street - APN: 1077-421-10 and 33. Project Description: A request to construct a 135 unit, three story senior assisted living facility in the Office Park District of the Terra Vista Community Plan on 11.2 acres of land. 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 befbre 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. September 9, 1998 Date of Determination Adopted By Lentz clarified that brick veneer is proposed for three sides with the rear of the buildings being reiterated that brick should be used extensively if not throu the buildings overall design needs to be as good as it can get. Commissioner Tolsto' t a one story building rather than taking on an artificial two learnrice. He felt that while multi sto~ )ment within the Haven Avenue Overlay may b~en considered desirable 21 ago, things are now different and perhaps the time is explore a more gard~ style. He emphasized the need for significant landscaping, Jan what is beinc Qosed. He also emphasized the value of water features and public art. Commissioner Barker expressed concern for th setting nature of the proposal. He agreed the proposed architecture is of aver but he feared the one story proposal will erode away at the original intent for ' y. He pointed out that many other developers have had to confon saw no reason why this project should be an excepti not feel trees I be used to hide a building but instead should be used to He did not think a f development on the parcel is workable. Mr. Buffer sumran ' the Commissioners' comments. He said that in li~ this meeting and the previous in January, it appears that two of the five Commissione , opposed to single stor )ment and three are at least open to considering single story I as it is design including provision of significant landscaping. NEW BUSINESS B. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 98-03 - MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL - Consideration of a three-story-senior assisted living facility with 164 beds, located on 5.4 acres of land at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Church Street - APN: 1077-421-10 and 33. Brad Buller, City Planner introduced the project. Mike Thomas, Marriott International, gave a brief introduction regarding Marriott projects on a national basis. He indicated that there are 15,000 residents of Marriott senior projects nationally, with such local projects being built in the cities of Rancho Mirage and San Juan Capistrano. Elline Garcia, Associate Planner, outlined several critical issues related to the project. These included the necessity of master-planning the remainder of the site, with special attention paid to the integration of this project with the existing neighborhood and future office-type uses. She indicated that staff is generally supportive of the architecture as presented. Chairman Barker expressed concern regarding the remainder parcel shown on the site plan; however, was complimentary towards the project as a whole. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that this type of project would be good for the City; however, he expressed concern over what would be done with the rest of the property. He asked if there would be enough area left for an office park? PC Adjourned Minutes -2- April 22, 1998 .~X/1'//'D~/ Y" '/j ' ' nde Commissioner McNiel complimented the architecture a xpressed the opinion that the project would provide a needed service to the City and is a ggod idea. Chairman Barker felt that the location of the project is ideal, but asked the architect to be mindful not to copy the project directly across the street. ~ Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the project displays quality and reminded him of a hotel. Mr. Buller summarized the Commissioners' comments. He indicated the Planning Commission generally agreed that the project contains the necessary elements to be successful. He said the Commission expressed the opinion that the project presented a good site planning effort, coupled with excellent architecture. He stated master planning the site is the major issue along with how the proposed project will be integrated with any future proposals. He said the master planning effort should be punctuated with the establishment of an architectural vocabulary as well as the incorporation of circulation issues. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT. The Planning Commission adjourned] the meeting at 10:00 pm. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller, Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes -3- April 22, 1998 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:50 p.m. Brent Le Count August 18, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-13 - MARRIO'F'F SENIOR LIVING SERVICES. INC. A request to construct a 135 unit, three-story senior assisted living facility in the Office Park District of the Terra Vista Community Plan on 11.2 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Church Street - APN: 1077-421 -10 and 33. Related File: Pre- Application Review 98-03. Backqround: The project was reviewed at a Pre-Application Review workshop on April 22, 1998. The Commission was in favor of the architecture and site planning design but was concerned about master planning of the remainder of this block to the south and east. This type of use is permitted in the Tetra Vista Community Plan pursuant to approval of a Conditional Use Permit per the "Community Facilities" provisions. Desiqn Parameters: The project would involve development of approximately 5.4 acres of the larger 11.2 acre site. The remaining 5.8 acres is master planned for an office park and gas station. The site is surrounded by residential development to the north, an office park development to the east, vacant land and the Terra Vista Shopping Center to the south, and a flood control channel immediately to the west with a flood control basin and the northern portion of the Deer Creek shopping center further to the west across Haven Avenue. The building is proposed to be forty-four feet high at the highest point. The site slopes at approximately two percent from north to south. Six to seven foot high, 4:1 slopes (one-foot of rise per four feet of run) and some 2:1 slopes are proposed along the north and south sides of the building to accommodate the grade. 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: Staff is of the opinion that there are no major design issues associated with the project. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting. the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. Proposed slopes have an engineered appearance. Provide softer, more natural-looking slopes by varying slope grade and rounding off top and toe. The easterly slope is confined by the fire lane and can be designed with informal clusters of trees and shrubs to disguise the appearance. 2. Incorporate meandering berms and shrub hedges along Church Street to screen parking area. 3 Utility yard and trash area near center of project should be enclosed with decorative masonry walls architecturally integrated with the overall building design, FEd" DRC COMMENTS I CUP 98-13 - MARRIOTT SENIOR LIVING SERVICES, IblC. August 18, 1998 ~ Page 2 I Recommendation: : Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the above comments. Desiqn Review Committee Comments: Members Present: Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Nancy~Fong Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee reviewed the project and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the project subject to the following: 1. Provide softer, more natural looking slopes by varying the slope grade and rounding off the top and toe of slope. 2. Provide shrub hedges along Church Street to screen the parking area. 3. Utility yard and trash area near the center of the project shall be enclosed with decorative masonry walls architecturally integrated with the overall building design. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CON DITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-13 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 135-UNIT, THREE- STORY SENIOR ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY IN THE OFFICE PARK DISTRICT OF THE TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND CHURCH STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-421-10, 33, AND 34. A. Recitals. 1. Marriott Senior Living Services, Inc. has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 98-13, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 9th day of September 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 the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on September 9, 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 southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Church Street, with a street frontage of 70 feet on Haven Avenue and 420 feet on Church Street, a lot depth of 556 feet, and which is presently vacant; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with single and multiple family homes, the property to the south consists of vacant land and a shopping center, the proper~y to the east is developed with an office park, and the property to the west is developed with a flood control channel, a flood control basin, and a shopping center; and c. The proposed SeniorAssisted Living project is allowed in the Office Park land use district subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the Community Facilities provisions of the Tetra Vista Community Plan; and d. The project will comply with all applicable provisions of the Development Code, Terra Vista Community Plan, and the General Plan; and e. The type of use proposed will provide a needed service to residents of the community; and ):d,7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 98-13 - MARRIOTT September 9, 1998 Page 2 f. The project is designed to be compatible with surrounding development and provide a high degree of aesthetic appeal; and g. The proposed use is in accordance With the goal of the General Plan and the Terra Vista Community Plan to provide a full range ofihousing opportunities. 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. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. The Mitigated 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 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, the 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 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 forth 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 even/condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, .attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 98-13- MARRIOTT September 9, 1998 Page 3 Planninq Division 1 ) Provide softer, more natural looking slopes along the south and west portions of the site by varying the slope grade and rounding off the top and toe of slopes. 2) Incorporate densely planted shrub hedges along the north of the site to screen parking areas. 3) The utility yard and trash area near the center of the project shall be enclosed with decorative masonrywalls architecturally integrated with the overall building design. 4) Relocate ribbon gutters to follow curb and gutter, as proposed along the south and east portions of the driveway, to eliminate ribbon gutters from turning circle areas and from centerline of drive aisles. 5) The Master Plan submitted with the conceptual plans is for analysis purposes only. The approval granted herein does not apply to the Master Plan. 6) All existing trees on site shall be preserved in place. 7) Locate all roof drains/down spouts inside the building to the degree possible. Any exterior drain fixtures shall be designed and located to complement the building architecture. Enqineerin~ Division 1) The drive approach on Church Street shall conform to City Engineering Standard Drawing 101, Type "C," with a minimum width of 35 feet. The drive approach shall align with Broadmoor Place. 2) A Lot Line Adjustment shall be processed between Assessor's Parcel Numbers 1077-421-10 and 33 prior to the issuance of building permits. 3) Public right-of-way improvements adjacent to and fronting the project site shall be protected in place, repaired, and replaced including, but not limited to curb and gutter, street pavement, street lights, medians, and all existing signing and striping to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Environmental Mitiqation Measures 1 ) A final acoustical report addressing traffic noise shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss methods to reduce the level of interior noise to below 45 CNEL and the building materials and construction techniques provided. The acoustical engineer shall submit written verification of the adequacy of the mitigation measures included in the construction building plans. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 98-13 - MARRIOTT September 9, 1998 Page 4 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall ceqtify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: , Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buffer, Secretary I, Brad Buffer, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of September 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-13 SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION OF SENIOR ASSISTED LIVING PROJECT APPLICANT: MARRIOTT SENIOR LIVING SERVICESI INC. LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE & CHURCH STREET 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 RequiremeRts Completion Date 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees. because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents. officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the District's property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. 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. / SC ~ 8t27198 Project No. CUP 98-13 Completion Date C. Site Development L 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance With the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and c01ors, landscap ng, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Terra Vista Community Ran. 2. Prior to any use c~f the project site or business activity bein~ commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection DistriCt and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 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 light ng p an, nc ud nga photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of bud ng permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 8. 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 wails, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 9.All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination, ,i 10. 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, P anner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. D. Building Design 1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or ~ projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. sc - 8r27~9~ 2 L Project NO, CUP 98-13 Completion Date E.Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. When a side of any parking space abuts a building, wall, support column, or other obstruction, the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet wide. 2. 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). 3. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across cimulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/recreational uses. 4. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. For residential development, private gated entrances shall provide adequate turn-around space in front of the gate and a separate visitor lane with call box to avoid cars stacking into the public right-of-way. 5. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more __ __/ parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall, whichever is greater, of the total number of stalls for use by the handicapped. F, Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan. including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2, Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation. transplanting, and trimming methods. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6 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, 7, All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover, In addition, slope banks ProiectNo CUP98-13 Completion Date in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slo, pe shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Tr~aes and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope Iblanting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 8. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving conditioni and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. 9. 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. 10. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along the Church Street frontage. 11. 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. 12. All walls shail be provided with decorative treatment: If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 13. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species, 14. 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. G, 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 shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. H. Environmental 1. Mitigation measures are required for the project. 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. In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final certificate of occupancy), the applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior to Project No, CUP98-13 Completion Date issuance of buitding permits, Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented, Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U .S Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location __/__ __ of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting, The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: J. Site Development 1, Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be __/___ marked with the project file number (i.e., CUP 98-01 ). 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 residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to __/__ __ existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. 3.Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and __/ prior to issuance of building permits. 4. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic Tank Permits. and prior to issuance of building permits. K. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering __/__ __ use, area, and fire-resistiveness. 2. Roofing material shall be installed as for wind-resistant roof covering at wind velocity not less __/__ __ than 90 mph. 3. Plans for food preparation areas shall be approved by County of San Bernardino Environmental __/__ __ Health Services prior to issuance of building permits. 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. Project No. CUP98-13 Completi 3n Date 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer icensed by the State of California to / perform such work. 3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved ~rior to issuance of building permits. / APPLICANTSHALLCONTACTTHE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FORCOMPLIANCEWITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Mo Street Improvements 1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: / Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike Other Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Church Street ,/ / / e Haven Avenue v' f Notes: (a) Median island includes I'~ndscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. (e) Restripe the west bound left turn pocket on Church Street at Broadmore Place for access to this project. (f) Access to Haven shall be for emergency purposes only. 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 sh.all 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) PullboxesshallbeNo. 6at!ntersectionsandNo. 5 along streets, amaximumof200 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. Project No, CUP98-13 Completion Date e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on aH 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. 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. N. 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. Utilities 1. 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 EnvironmentaiHealth Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: P. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. 2. Fire flow requirement shall be 3,000 gallons per minute. a.A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. SC - 8127198 7 Project NO, CUP 98-13 Completi 3n Date 3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site ~e hydrants sha be installed, flushed, / and operable prior to delivery of any c0mbustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shail be witnessed by fire department personnel. 4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to wa!er plan approval Required hydrants, / if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire Districtistandards require a 6-inch riser with a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 5. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for'all hydrants and installed prior to final / inspection. 6. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required per Rancho Cucamonga Fire / Protection District Ordinance 15 and the 1994 UBC. Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing. spray painting, ~ammable liquids storage. high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if the sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. 7. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of / sprinkler system. 8. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District / Ordinance 15 and California Code Regulations Title 24. 9. All roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards per Rancho / Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. 10. Fire department access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apparatus. 11. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14 feet, 6 inches from ~he ground up, so as not to impede fire apparatus, 12. 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. 13. Gated/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 14.$ 677.00 Fire District fee(s), and a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District prior to Building and Safety permit issuance. ** A Fire District fee in the amount of $132.00 shall be paid at the time of Water Plan submittal. **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, 15, Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction n accordance with 1994 UBC U FC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15, Q. Special Permits 1. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use. Project No, CUP98-13 Completion Date APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH 4E FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Security Lighting 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. /__ These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with__/__ direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. S. Security Hardware 1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. __/ 2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors+ Ifwindows are within / 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 3. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal gates, __/__ or alarmed. T. Security Fencing 1. When utilizing security gates, a Knox box sub-master system security device shall be used since __/__ fire and law enforcement can access these devices. U. Windows 1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted / from frame or track in any manner. V. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shah be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime __/__ visibility. 2. Developer shall paint roof top numbers on one or more roofs of this development. They shall be __/__ a minimum of three feet in length and two feet in width and of contrasting color to background. The stencils for this purpose are on loan at the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: September 9, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS BACKGROUND: This item was continued from the August 12, 1998, meeting. The resignation of Bill Bethel leaves a vacancy on the Design Review Committee. Once Committee membership has been determined, the Committee may also wish to reconsider the meeting time and day. Currently meetings are held at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday evenings of the week prior to Planning Commission meetings. The current membership is as follows: COMMITTEE ALTERNATES (in order) Rich Macias Peter Tolstoy Larry McNiel A history of Design Review Committee membership since January 1993 is attached as Exhibit "A." RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should determine appropriate membership for the Design Review Committee. Respectful submitted, City Planner BB:GS/gs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Design Review Committee Membership History ITEM H DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP - January 1993 to P, resent ' ~ ALTERNATES COMMIT'tEE (in order) January 1993 - October 1993: John Melcher Peter Tolstoy Wendy Vadette Suzanne Chitlea i Larry McNiel October 1993 - December 1993: Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy John Melcher Suzanne Chitlea ' Wendy Vallette December 1993 - June 1994: Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy John Melcher Heinz Lumpp Dave Barker June 1994 - December 1994: Heinz Lur~pp Peter Tolstoy John Melcher Larry McNiel = Dave Barker December 1994 - Auqust 1995: Heinz Lurnpp Peter Tolstoy Larry McN. iel Dave Barker John Melcher Auqust 1995 to January 1996: Heinz Lumpp Dave Barker John Melcher Peter Tolstoy ,. Larry McNiel January 1996 to Au~ust 1996: Heinz Lumpp Peter Tolstoy Larry McNiel Dave Barker p John Melcher Au~ust 1996 to January 1997: Rich Macias Bill Bethel Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy Dave Barker January 1997 to present: Bill Bethel Peter Tolstoy Rich Maci~as Dave Barker Larry McNiel Exhibit A H ~ --- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 9, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: UPDATE ON VICTORIA ARBORS (FORMERLY THE LAKES) PU RI~OSE: The purpose of this report is to update the Commission on the status of Victoria Arbors. The City's environmental consultant, LSA, has been working on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) since April of 1998. Because of unforseen problems with the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), the completion of the draft EIR was delayed and should be distributed to public agencies for the 45-day review period in September. Staff anticipates scheduling the EIR for Commission review until late November or early December. Staff and the applicant's team have been meeting regularly to review the progress of the EIR and to evaluate technical issues such as drainage, circulation, etc., that affect the design of the master Tentative Map for Victoria Arbors. To date, the applicant has not formally submitted the master Tentative Map application because of issues regarding the locations of the school, park, and open space. Staff intends to have a series of workshops with the Commission once the master Tentative Map is submitted. The workshops, which may be held in September and October, will focus on subjects such as the locations for the school and park, size of open space, subdivision design, infrastructure phasing, land use alternatives, etc. Staff also plans to hold a neighborhood meeting before forwarding the master Tentative Map for Commission review. The applicant intends to process separate applications for the design review of homes after the master Tentative Map is approved. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:NF:gs ITEM I