Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983/02/09 - Agenda Packetr `lR,�jiW!� fs 7 ,y I I I i 1 Pz -n I �v c n a z, 1 Z w c� L7 3 co 3 W ti N N_ O 2 D G7 m A�� CTTY OF RANCHO CUCAIMPNGA PA►I!1_ �j�N� LNG COi�IN1�SIO N `GEL7D1 L977 WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 9, 1983 7:00 LION`S PARR C P.n.. 3161 BASE LINE, CEA'TL'� - , RANCllo CUCILMONGA. C- ALI- FORNIA A C T I O ti L Pledge of Allegiance IL Roll Can. APPROVED 5 -0 APP 5 -0 . APPROVED 5 -0 _APPROVED 4 -1 -0 Commissioner Barker _� Commissioner Icing Commissioner McNiel it :u i OOM r issioner Rempel X Commissioner Stout X January 12, 1983 - Regular Meeting January 12, 1983 - Rego gdJOurned Meeting lY Announcements ,. � atThe and non -cwtV Consent Calendar items are expected t2 routine roversial- They will be acted on by the Commission at ne time without discussion, If wrjww has concern over a►ry item, it should be removed for discussion. A' TIME EXTENSiOWN FOR LANAMARI{ NTATIM TRACT 11554 _ • 11- The fou0wwrn�r. items are public hearings in which concerned watt to be rec�ized their opinion of the related Project. Please by stet" �' the ChaUman and address the �?+mL"ior. m9 Your name and address. Ai: such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes Per individual for each Project. C. ENVT)Znvaxr .. . -_ -- A su�vision of 22.3 acres in�A��L MAP 7731 - area Subarea 6) into 6 parcels located tJte Industrial Park Haven Avenue, between 6th on the �`� side of 209 - 262 -07, 09. and 7th Streets - APN APPROVED 5-0 D. CONTINUED TO 3 -9 -83 E. APPROVED 5 -0 with amend -F. !rent requiring turning radi,ss & moving ability & :;let-ion of sidewalk requirement on Haven. APPROVED 5 -0 APPROVED 5 -0 APPROVED 5 -0 with amen -it to include language to assure quality of design. rONTINUED 4 -1 -0 To 2 -23 -83 to work out safety concerns and trash bin storage. G. 0 L J. Planning Com nission Agenda February 9, 1983 Page 2 AL ASSESSMENT AND PARrFl. MAP 75Z2;7 - rlaanaa.ln - a residential subdivision of 9.41 acres to be divided into 3 parcels within the R -1 zone located at the northeast eo^ner of East end Victoria Avenues - e.PN 227 - 071 -15. AND PARCEL MAP 7812 - a saa•uv, aa•a.v nrvr.At r+L - A resaacntla.l subdvision of .585 N9 within the R -1 zone into 3 pa, eels located on the south side of Devon Street at Sinlock Avenue - APN 208- 351 -099 10. AL ASSESSMENT AND - - - -- - -- -- -- - - -- wa•awaaat•u .aaain�.n - ane development o a church and related facilities including seven ,7) temporary relocatable building-, Plus a request to operate a Preschool on approximately 10 acres of land in the R- 1- 20,000 zone located on the west side of Haven Avenue, between Hillside Road and Carrari Street, at 5354 Haven Avenue. CE 83-01 - HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH - P_ Lz4U L w lermla ine development of a bU toot high Church sanctuary M 10 acres of land in the R- 1- 20,000 zone located on thre west side of Haven Avenue, between Hillside Road and Carrari Street at 5354 Haven Avenue. r Lull 04-L4 - 11AMMEXME - yne development of a temporary bank facility on 1.84 acres of land in the Industrial Park category (Subarea 6), located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Route - APN 209- 142 -16. •a. - -a u..- ,acu%.i -can amendment to bection 61.uz17 of the G.�ning Ordinance to include an overlay district cimtaining various development inc°- ntives to produc ry of senior eitizer. oriented multi- family housing, as well as site development and general overlay district location criteria. AL USE PERMIT 83-03 - MONTESSORI - The development of a t3,6,5 square foot Preschool and elementary school in an existing budding located in lvendy's Plaza at 9544 Foothill in the C -2 zone - APN 208- 154 -14, 15, 1E. ReROrt Received Planning Coagnission Agenda February 9, 1983 Page 3 K. Status Report on Foothill Frec-way Implemeatation plan VlIL FuMe Comments This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items tt' be discussed here are those wht..h do root already appear on this agenda. M Adjournment The Piar ling Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shah be heard only with the consent of the Commission. The Placating Corr:miselon will adjoum to a joint City Council/Planning Commission dinner meeting to be held February 101 I'M at thz Magic Lamp Restaurant, 8189 Foothill } Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, beginning at 6 pm. �w�s th aft?"IC INT[RM"'oftµ eMlRrr C:TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONQA . to 1977 QTY OF RANCHO C[.'CANIRVGA FILM NI LNG CONLN SSIaN AGENT Mk WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 9, 1983 7:00 p.m. LION'S PARK C04MUNITY CEN"M 9161 BASF: LME, RANCHO CUCA.':CNGA, CALIFORNIA L Pledge of Allegiance Commissioner Barker Commissioner fling Commissicner McNiel III. Approval of Minutes Commissioner Rempel Commissioner Stout January 12, 1983 - Regular Meeting January 12, 1983 - Regular Adjourned Meeting V. Consent Calendar The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controversaai. They will be acted an by the Commission at one time without discunion. If arryone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11564 - tAw""Anw B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11460 - LEWIS VL Public Hearings the following items are public hearings in which concerned individual may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such ophdons shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7731 - WATSON - A subdivision of 22.3 acres in the Industrial Park ir-aubarea 6) into 6 parcels located on tha west side of Haven Avenue, between 6th and 7th Streets - APN 209-262-07,09. a- Planning Commission Agenda February 9, 1983 Page 2 D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAT? 7852 FISHBACK - A residential subdivision of 9.41 acres to be divided into 3 parcels within the R -1 zone located at the northeast corner of East and Victoria Avenues - APN 227 - 471 -15. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7812 - PENBO, INCO LP RATED - A residential subdivision of .585 acres within the R -1 zone into 3 parcels located on the south side of Devon Street at Kinlock Avenue - APN 208 - 851 -09, 10. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -29 - HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH - The development of a church and related facilities including seven (7) temporary reloeatable buildings, plus a request to operate a preschool on approximately 10 acres of land in the R- 1- 20,000 zone located on the west side of Haven Avenue, between Hillside Rcad and Carrari Street, at 5354 haven Avenue. G. VARIANCE 83-01 - HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH A request to perwit the development of a 50 oot high churp, sanctuary on 10 acres of land in the R- 1- 20,000 zone located on the west side of Heven Avenue, between Hillside Road and Carrari Street at 5354 Haven Avenue. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -24 - MchNTYRE - The development o. a temporary bank facility on 1.84 acres of land in the Industrial Park category (Subarea 6), located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Route - APN 209 - 142 -16. L ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AME DMENT 83-02 - SENIOR HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICT - An amendment to Section 61.0217 of the Zoning ORj a ce to include an overlay district containing various development incentives to producers o senior citizen oriented multi - family housing, as well as site development and general overlay district location criteria. J. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83-03 - MONTESSORI - The development of a 8,615 square soot preschool and elementary school in an existing building located in Wendy% Plan, at 9544 Foothill in the C -2 zone - APN 208-154-14l 15, 15. f� V [ Planning Commission Agenda February S, 1983 Page 3 K. Status Report on Foothill Freeway Implementation Plan Vffi. Pabhe Comments This is the time and place for the general pubic f^ address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. M Adjomrnmeat The Plcnniang Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. The Planning Commission will adjiurrn to a joint City CounciVPlanning Commission dinner meet6ag to be held February 10. 1983 at the Magic Lamp Restaurant, 8189 Foothill Boulevard, .Rancho Cucamonga, beginning at 6 p,m. t, CITY OF RANCHO CUCANKMA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MILUTES Regular Meeting January 12, 1983 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jeff King called the regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman King then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Barker, Larry Mc Niel, Herman Hempel, Dennis Stout, Jeff King ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: Shintu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Jack Lam, Community Development Director; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner TERRA VISTA SLIDE PRESENTATION BY THE LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Chairman King advised that the regular meeting of the Planning Ccmmission was scheduled one -half hour earlier than usual in order th2t the Lewis Beielcpment Company could make a slide presentation of their Terra Vista Planned Community. Further, that there wouli be a scheduled public "nearing r_i Terra Vista at the next regular Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Jeff Skorneck, representing Gruen and Associates, consultant to Lewis Development, along with Elaine Carbray and Ann Castle, provided a chronology in the development of the Terra Vist- Plan. Mr. Skorneck explained that the slide presentation was being done so that the Commission could see some of the design element, and although they would be broad concepts, would further be explained and detailed in the community plan document. The slide presentation concluded at 6:50 p.m. and there being no comments f•^Q the audience, Commission, or staff, the meeting was recessed. 6:50 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 7:00 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened APPROVAL OF MI.'AUrr;S Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Mc Niel, carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes of the December 8, 1982 Planning Commission meeting. i f • • 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Motion: ?loved by Eempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to approve the Consent Calendar. +A. The development of two warehouse /distribution buildings of 345,500 square feet ana 258,OOC square feet on 73.55 acres of land in the General Industrial /Rail Served zone (Subarea 10), located at the northwest ccrner of 6th Street and Buffalo - APN 229 - 261-26 and 28. *B. ENVIROM ENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 32 -23 - SCHLOSSER - The development of two manufacturing /warehousing buildings of 21,600 square feet and 10,800 square feet on 19.4 acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial zone (Subarea 9) to be located at 11711 Arrow Route - APN 229 - 111 -17 and 18. *Project falls within the boundaries of the Redevelopment Area. • f # f i PUBLIC HEARINGS G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12238 - C.H.R. - A residential subdivision of 74 lots on 18.5 acres of land in the R -1 zone, located on the north side of Chu-ch Street between Hellman Avenue and Lion Street - APN 208- 011 -06, 208 - 291 -02, 11, 13, 19, 22 and 23. Chairman King advised that this item would be handled first on the agenda. Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Mr. Ronald Martin, P.O. Box 157, E1 Toro, California, the applicant, indicated that he had noW ing to add concerning the conditions of approval but would answer any ques ons. Mr. John Hamiltoi., 7480 Hellman, asked about the flooding and drainage ditch, and whether, if they put up a retaining wall in conjunction wit!- this project, he will be flooded out. Mr. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that when the detailed review of the grading plan is made there will not be any pockets of undrained water that will be allowed to form and further, that they will be watching for any problems. Mrs. Linda Beaulieu, 7510 Hellman, asked about the cul -de -sac at Hellman and under what conditions the street would be allowed to go through. Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 12, 1983 Mr. Rougeau replied that the street would go through only if the houses on the two lots affected were torn down and somebody wanted to subdivide into three more lots, or if another lot were created. Mr. Rougeau indicated that they would have to be sure that that street were not blocked off; however, if the people living in these houses continue to do so and do not try to further subdivide the property then the street will not go through and the property rights of the existing residents would prevail. Mrs. Beaulieu asked what this tract will provide to the school districts. Mr. Lam replied,with the requirements that are made of the developer to provide certification from the school districts stating that there is adequate space in the classrooms, fees which are paid through the building permit procedure, and the timeframes in which the! certificatirn is obtained. Mrs. Beaulieu asked if before this tract is finally approved there will be a presentation such as the one made by the Lewis Development Company. Mr. Lam replied that the final approval of a map is ministerial and must conform to whatever the Planning Commission has approved. Therefore, the final map is placed on the consent calendar for City Council action which, in effect, finds that the map is in conformance with whatever had been presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Lam stated that since this is the case a presentation like the Lewises would not be made. Mrs. Barbara Bond, owner cf property in front of the proposed project, stated that a wooden fence would not serve the purpose at the cul-de -sac but would be an open run for children on the way to school. She stated that after a period of time this would then bp considered public right -of -way and she did not want this to happen. She asked what the developer intends to do at this location. Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner, stated that what is shown on the tract map is a six -font block wall ai.J there is no mention of a wood fence at the cul-de-sac. Mrs. Bond stated that Mr. Martin indicated it would be a wood fence. Mr. Hamilton asked when they widen Hellman will there be four or five lots between Base Line and Palo Alto that are narrower and if they have to put in street improvements. Further, would it have to match the new street, and at whose expense. Mr. Rougeau replied that the approval of this tract, because of the large number of houses along Hellman, will really have no 'Dearing on how soon Hellman is wizened. Mr. Rougeau stated that when home improvements are made the City requires that street improvements be made also, but this will not be done at this location for a long time and that perhaps in the long term this may be a City project but it would be a long way off. Mrs. Betty Burgess, resident at Church and Lion, asked if the design of these homes will be single or two story. Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 12, 1983 Mr. Johnston stated that at this point in time this project is for the subdivision of land only and the applicant is not the dev °toper. Mr. Johnston explained the growth management plan which necessitates the developer coming in and going through a point rating system at which time the tract would be reviewed. Mr. Johnstcn advised that if the residents wish to, the:, could provide staff with their names and addresses and when this design is finalized, they would be notified so that they could examine the design. Chairman Ring stated that given the interest shcwn by the residents, the City would make sure that their names get into the file so that they can be notified when this project comes before Design Review. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel stated that having sat on the Design Review committee and working with the applicant he knows that the applicant has been quite diligent in bringing through a good project. Mr. Rempe'- further stated that the call is a valid point and that an expansion joint could be put in so that it could be knocked out if a street ever goes through the cul-de -sac urea. Mr. Hopson stated that a tentative tract map on this property has already been approved and asked that the Commission place a condition on this tract map that when the first tract map is final this one is revised so that different lot numbers do not appear. Chairman King asked if rather than revising this a condition could be placed on the map which would void whatever map was Dot final. Mr. Gomez, City Planner, stated that the applicant was present and asked if the Commission could address this point to him. Mr. Martin replied that whatever records first would void the other. He indicated that there are three major property owners involved in this and he has 9 -1l2 acres upon which he holds an option that he does not wish to lose but he would consent to that condition. Commissi =er Mc Niel asked if there is anything in the future that would say when something will be done with Hellman. Mr. Rougeau asked if Mr. McNiel meant widening of the street. Mr. V-1-Niel replied yes and stated this would be below Base Line. Mr. Rougeau stated that there is nothing in the 5 -year capital improvement program to do any street widening there; however, there is a project currently under design to clean up the water over the railroad tracks. Mr. Rougeau stated that development along Hellman would take care of some street widening and if there are spots that are not widened, a City project will be needed to clean up the rest of it within the next 15 -20 years. Mr. Mc Niel stated that the plan before the Commission does not address any of it with the exception of the 7 '_ots before Chuech Street. Planting Commission Minutes -4- January 12, 1983 Mr. Rougeau replied that this is correct_ Further, that the street would be narrow in front of the school. Commissioner Stout stated that he agreed with Commissioner Hempel on the condition for the block wall which could be taken down if the ".reet goes thrnugh. He asked where the water will go after improvements are made to the drainage ditch. Mr. Hougeau replied that it will run under the railroad tracks to the storm d^'ain an the north side of the tracks. Further, that there will not be any large puddles on the railroad tracks or north of the railroad. Mr. Rougeau explained the S ^:Ige basin south of Vineyard Pares and that the water on the property itself will be carried to the street. Motion: Moved by Rempel, secone-eC by Stout, carried uranimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82 -05, approving Tentative Tract No. 12238, issuing a negative declaration with an amendment to tt_e eonditiors of approval that the first tract nap to final will void the other tentative map, and that the wall design be conti:iuous and designee with a knock out for a fixture street. a t 0 * f •C. ENVIRORMENTAL ASSESSMENT ANM- PARCEL :'AP 77� industrial subdivi,i n of 68.79 acres into side of 8th Street, appro- Lately 440 feet the V -2 zone - APN 229 - 261 -26, 28. Panl Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, presented out a change to condition 10 regarding utility requirement on parcel number three. Chairm?n King opened the public hearing. )7 - R.C. ASSOCIATES, II - An 3 parcels, located on the south east of Pittsburgh Avenue in the staff report and pointed bonding which would defer this NL^. Jim Westling, applicant, asked that the Commission consider holding the requirement for street lighting and street trees on lot three until it develops. Mr. Westling indicated that other than that request, he had read and understood all other conditions and there was no problem. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hempel stated that he agreed with the applicant because from a practical standpoint there 4.3 a chance that the improvements will be damaged and would have to be replaced. .:r. Hopson stated that there might also be further subdivision of this parcel. Mr. Rougeau stated that it would be appropriate not to put in trees or street lights at this time. Commissioner Stout asked if underground electric would be put in at this time. Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 12, 1983 Mr. Rougeau replied that it would be without any problem. Mr. 'destling stated that due to tae expense of bringing in utilities his firm is examining the possibility of a utility corridor to cut down the expense. He indicated that if it is feasible, it would preclude installation of utilities at this time and if they are able to, this is what they will do. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 83 -01, approving Parcel Map 7797, issuing a negative declaration and amending the conditions to delay bonding, s'reet trees and utilities on parcel three. *Project falls within the boundaries of the Redevelopment Area. • ! i t t D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASS£SS:4ENT AND PARCEL MAP 7215 - GADOMS£I - E division of 5.25 acres into 4 parcels within the A -1 zone (R -1 pending) located on the east side of Beryl Strect, approximately 1000 feet south of 19th Street - APN 202 - 041 -15. R. ENVIRONMENTAT.. ASSESSf =, AND ZONE CP.ANGE 82-04 - w-rM M:'CS - A change of zone from A -1 (L =mited Agriculture) to R -1 (Single Family Residential) for 5.25 acres of land located on the east side of Be,-71 Street, 1,000 feet south of 19th Street - APN 202 - 041 -15. Senior Civil Engineer, Paul Rougeau, reviewed the staff reports and asked that item E, the Zone Change, be acted upon first. Mr. Tim Mim Mack, 214 S. Euclid, Ontario, the engineer, reviewed the conditions and asked that the improvements on Eastwood Avenue and Beryl Avenue be waived at this time because of the hardship it would cause. Commissioner Mc Niel asked :at what point putting in the improvements would be reasonable. Mr. Mim Mack replied that it is up to the City to come in with an assessment district and appoint each lot its fair share of the improvements. fie indicated that they would be willing to enter into a lien agreement for the curbs and gutters but indicated that the dimensions are not correct from the center line. M^. G. Burke, 6875 Beryl, the applicant, indicated that they are only interested in the houses on the property and are not subdividing. He indicated that the assessments to put in the improvements on Eastwood are unreasonable. Mr. Hopson stated that this is a requirement of state law and not a requirement of City law. Mr.Bur ke stated that they are just trying to buy the house. Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 12, 19c "3 Mr. Ron Woodhouse, 6867 Eastwood, asked what improvements are being looked at for the finishing off of Eastwood. Mr. Roug�au replied that for the purpose of the subdivision, the thought is that the requirement would be to widen Eastwood to what it should have been at the time it was built. He indicated that it is less than s half street and at best it mak_s circulation difficult. Mr. Rougeau stated that normally the requirement is that a street be built, at a 26 -foot width with right -of way for safe two -way traffic. The requirement in this case, he stated, would be to provide an extra 8 feet of widening and that street lights are not being contemplated now. Th=_.,re being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Stout asked what policy, if any, has the Commission set for property fronting on Beryl. Chairman Ring replied that the Commission has required compliance with the conditions. Mr. Hopsor. stated that W. Columbero in the industrial a_rea was granted a waiver a long time ago and this has not been done in a residential area. Commissioner Barker asked what the due process is for the individual. Mr. Hopson replied that if the individual finds any condition distasteful, they can appeal to the City Council. Commissioner Barker asked if it would be deferred and asked about the improvement on Eastwood Avenue. He asked if it is logical or a precedent that the cul-de -sac on Eastwood Avenue not be developed until such time as the parcels develop. Mr. Rougeau replied that if the cul -de-sac developed to the full one -half width in the beginnir.g, the City would not recommend that any more widening take place until future subdivision. However, because this street is so sub- standard they are asking that it ba widened out partially at this time. h^. Rougeau indicated that the cost would be nominal. Commissioner Barker asked what nominal is. Mr. Rougeau replied that there is not much that would be nominal for a homeowner and indicated that there is a provision within the City Code wherein the City Council could waive the requirement, replacing it with a lien agreement. Nr. Hopson stated that this is true, only the City Council could waive the requirement but not the Planning Commission, especially when it is one that impacts public safety. Mr. Barker stated that the Planning Commission, assuming it approves the tentative map really has no option but to provide for the public safety. Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 12, 1983 Mr. Rougeau stated that this is true and there is no option on Beryl; however, there is option on Eastwood and it would be up to the Commission to decide. Commissioner Barker asked if this involves a safety factor. Mr. Rougeau replied that it does but that the Commission may still have discretion on Eastwood but because of technical differences between the way the ordinances are written the Commission would use the same consideration that the Council would use. Commissioner Hempel stated that one of the things that enters this is that under County regulations and before the City incorporated, the other developer would have had to move the other street in over 8 feet, putting it on his property. Further, that the; get 8 feet of property they would not have gotten otherwise. Commissioner Rempel stated that he can see reasons the owner of this property should not do it at this time but that the Commission would be setting up two other land - locked parcels unless he does some development of it. Further, that if parcels 3 and 4 are sold to someone else they will need access. Chairman Ting stated that he thought that Fastwooe should be expanded and the improvements made because they are necessary from the standpoint of safety, access and prece0ent. He indicated that it is true that all they want to do is buy a house but the Commission must do everything it can to eliminate an unsafe street. He stated that it is unfortunate but this is tre way it is. Mr. VaIrin stated that he needed to recommend that there be an additional condition requiring final adoption of the zone change by the City Council before the final map is approved. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 83 -03 approving the zone change to R -1. Commissioner Barker stated that he feels frustrated in that if he votes no he is voting against the parcel map and he wished that there were some way to provide safety and since this is not a professional developer and he is not attempting to make money on this, he would like tte parcel map to continue. Commissioner Rempel stated that these things happen and it is something that the Commission must live with. Motion: Moved by Mc Niel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 83-02, adopting Parcel Map 7215 with tae requirement for street improvements and the condition of acceptance of the City Council of the zone change. f * ■ * i 8:03 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 8:13 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 12, 1983 F. ENVIRO&4ENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE FEPMT 82 -26 - MESSENGER - The development of a 180,056 square foot industrial building on 8.6 acres c.f land in the General Industrial Category (Subarea 8) located at the southeast corner of Maple Place and Elm Avenue. Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report and read into the record the standard conditions th:.t would apply to this project, which had inadvertently been left out of the agenda packets, those being: A2, B1, B3, B4, B5, B8, D1, D2, D3, E1, £8, E12, Hi, H2. H3, H5, H7, Ii, I3, K1, K2, K4, N1, 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, C4, M1, M4 1-5, M6, M7, M8, M11. Chairman King opened the public hea -ing. Mr. Jeff Gorden, 2501 Almond, Irvine, representing the applicant, stated he had no comments. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt Rsolution No. 83 -04 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 82 -26. } } } } } H. ENVZP.ON*7rNTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 82 -04 - SALVATI - A change of zone from M -1 (Limited Manufacturing) to ; 3 /PD (Multiple Family /Planned Development) and the development of 248 condominiums on 11.35 acres located at the northeast corner of 8th Street and Grove Avenue - APN 207- 251 -02, 03, 13. Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report, sating that these are two items of concern with this project; traffic and safety. Further, that the Engineering Department, in order to mitigate these concern--. recommends that the developer widen Grove Avenue in front of the project to 8th Street to a 2 -lane road in each direction. Mr. Johnston stated t.a `_ drainage is also a concern and that Paul Rougeau has amended the conditions of approvoi in the staff report. Mr. Johnston states that a lette_ of opposition to this project had been received in the x:il today. Paul Rougeau call:d to the Commission's attention_ the conditions of this project. He reff.rre -1 to item H which had been handed to the Commission cha_niging the cc,iditions, and Engineering Conditions 4, 5, 6, and 7 which refer to drainage of the project. He indicated that condition 5 has been revised to delete it from the Rezilution and clarifies what should be done to the drainage along Grove Avenue. Item 6 was also revised to further detail the work to be done on the railroad right -of -way. Item 9 was revised to further detail the means of handling the drainage on the eastern side of the site a 'ad which will give better control during the plan approval process which will follow. Planning Commission Minutes -9- January 12, 1983 Commissioner Stout asked what the first condition means. Mr. Rougeau replied that it deals with the lay out of the pipes which indicates that drainage on Grove was to be taken straight down south to Ontario. He stated further that the pipes are silted up and must be graded properly to work. Commissioner Stout asked if this will take tome coordination with Ontario. Mr. Rougeau replied that it will require permits from Ontario and it looks like the drainage structures in Ontario are adequate to take this water. Commissioner Stout asked if Ontario would consider this an improvement. Mr. Rougeau replied that he would think so. Commissioner Stout asked with respect to the block wall and wrought iron use on the corn--r wall that separates this from the drive -in dairy if this is a masking type wall or :something you can see through. Mr. Johnston stated that he would refer that question to the applicant. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Mr. Tom Davis, architect for the project, stated that this would be a continuation of the block wall on the north side of the property and will be screened. Commissioner Stout asked if they are intending to use the wrought iron treatment there so that they can see through. Mr. Davis replied that they will not. Mr. Vito deVIto Francesco, P.O. Box 591, Ontario, representing owners to the east, stated that he is in favor of the project, wishes them good luck and hoped that they can start immediately. He indicated that the General Plan allowed a density of 14--24 to the acre in this area and heard something different. He asked for clarification_ Mr. Johnston replied that the zoning in this area does allow 14 -24 to the acre in this area. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel stated that this project will improve the area. Rick Gomez requested that the work curve in the Resolution be changed to read curb. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution 83-07 approving the zone change from M -1 to R -S /PD. Planning Commission Minutes -10- January 12, 1983 Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt Re3olution 83-06, approving Planned Development 82 -G4 and issuing a Negative Declaration with the amendments as discussed to the conditions. ! i f * 0 I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12237 - WOODLAND PACIFIC - A custom lot residential development of ob lots on 55.95 acres, located on the east side of Hermosa, north of Hillside in the R -1- 20,000 zone APN 201- 091 -03, 16, 17, 23, 30, 36 and 38. Chairman King stepped down from discussion on this item due to a possible conflir_t of interest. Michael Vairin, Senior Planer, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Stout asked if there are any provisions in the conditions that would insure that after the homes are occupied the neighbors don't go in and cut down the trees in this area. Mr. Vairi^_ replied that there will be restrictions in the CC&R's that will prevent that from happening. Vice Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. Mr. Richard Scott, applicant, indicated that there were two areas he had addressed earlier in the day with the Engineering Department. One was the joining of the Alta Loma storm drain if their project is approved. He requested that the Commission allow them to dewater their site should the Alta Lcma Channel project not be completed and provided the Commission with alternatives to the channel. The other item was the request for se' installation should some of the homeowners desire it. Further, that currently is planned to be served by septic tanks and cess pools and he wished to negotiate this with the Cucamonga County Water District and the City and not be prevented from this by a condition of approval. Mr. Rougeau stated that this is entirely up to the Mater District. Further, that Yr. Scott thought the Commission might be concerned with water conservation. Mr. Rougeau replied that the decision to bring sewers up is up to the Cucamonga County Water District and the Chino Basin Municipal Water District. Mr. Scctt stated their intention to join in the Storm Drain District and :srther stated that they have in process a higher density subdivision on this piece of property in the tentative stage. He indicated that it is their position that that tentative had been approved de facto in the past because of lack of action with the City not agreeing to this position; however, upon approval of this tract map with the legal time requirement, it is their intention to withdraw that prior project. He further indicated that documentation to this effect will be provided. Planning Commission Minutes -11- January 12, 1983 Mr. Hopson_ asked why, if the property shown on the blueline map west of Hermosa is not to be a part of this project, it is shown at all. Mr. Scott replied that it is just a standard feature. Mr. Lam reeuested that if this tract is approved tonight that the applicant, after the appeal period is over, submit a letter withdrawing his prior application. P!r. Scott replied that he will he happy to do so and asked that a Craft be provided to him. Mr. Steve Marlowe, 5344 Hermosa, stated that his property is shown on the map as a poultry ranch; however, they are two separate residences. He indicated that when he purchased his property nine years ago it was stated that all of the property above Hermosa was supposed to be one -half acre and asked what happens with the rain. He further asked if the City is going to develop the flood charnel. Mr. Rougeau replied that the City is working on an assessment district to develop the channel; however, all of the facts are not known at this `time. Mr. Marlowe stated that 6 -7 years ago he had several kids killed in his froz:t yard because of poor road conditions and when the two accesses dump into the one street it will increase the problem. Vice chairman Hempel stated that the applicant must have two accesses. Mr. Marlowe asked if the property at:ross the street is going to be a City park. Vice chairman R-mpel replied that he was unable to answer one way or another. There being no further comments, Vice chairman Hempel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stout asked why, if condition 10 requires the Alts Loma channel along side of this property, they are also asking to join the assessment district. Mr. Rougeau replied that the best thing that could happen is that the assessment district be formed and everyone joins in to the Alta Loma basin. He indicated that should that not happen the individual projects will have to build the channel that they are trying to build through the assessment district. He provided the reasons the channel only goes as far as Wilson. Commissioner Stout asked if there should be a time condition. Mr. Rougeau replied that there should not because whoever develops this property should also develop the channel. Commissioner Stout stated that what he sees is the applicant waiting and the assessment district being some time down the line which would inhibit development. Punning Commission Minutes -12- January 12, 1983 Mr. Rougeau replied that he will have to bond for this portion of the channel so he will not have to wait. Commissioner Stcut asked if the amount of fees he puts in would be enough to cover the entire channel. w. Rougeau replied that they would not be. Mr. Rougeau stated that if the assessment district should not come to pass, they would work with Mr. Scott to see if there is some other way he could build his project. He farther stated that this would then have to come back before the Commission with a recommendation for change in the tract. Mr. Rougeau stated that at this moment he feels that the way the conditions are stated is the way it should go because it provides protection for the City in having the channel built one way or the other. Anything else would take serious reconsideration in whether or not it would be possible for this one tract to develop with some other storm drainage provision being made. Commissioner Stout asked what the applicant is really asking for in the way of reduction on the channel. Mr. Rougeau replied that he is not asking for it to be reduced, he is asking that if worst comes to worst he would be able to develop his project with some other means of draining it. Mr. Hopson stated that if this is to final before the Alta DOW channel is constricted, the City would require a bond amount to construct the channel down to Wilson. Mr. Rougeau replied this is correct. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Mc Niel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 83 -08, approving Tentative Tract 1223T with the conditions as stated and issuing a negative declaration. ■■as�r 8:45 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adjourn to the Etiwanda Specific Plan Meeting, scheduled immediately after this meeting. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Secretary planning Commission Minutes -13- January 12, 1983 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Regular Meeting January 12, 1983 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jeff Ring called the adjourned regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 9 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga for the purpose of hearing the Etiwanda Specific Plan. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Barker, Larry McNiel, Herman Rempel, Dennis Stout, Jeff Ring ABSENT: COY14ISSIONF,RS: None STAFF PRESENT: Tim Beedle, Senior Planner; rack Gomez, City Planner; Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Otto Rroutil, Associate Planner; Joan Rru3e, Administrative Secretary; Jack Lam, Community Development Director; Paul Rougeau, Z-inior Civil Engineer; Y.ichael Vairin, Senior Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Stout asked that the voting be changed on the motion recorded on page 14 of the November 18, 1982 minutes to read that he had cast a no vote on the motion. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes of November 4, 1982, November 18, 1982 as corrected, and December 9, 1982. ■ t a e a ETIBANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AND DRAFT ENVIR02OMNTAL IMPACT REPORT Chairman King stated that if the Commission keeps on its schedule there will be one more meeting after tonight to consider the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Further, the land use aspects had been completed; it was hoped that the Regulatory Provisions would be dealt with and the next item to be considered would be the Environmental Impact Report. Chairman Ring indicated that a request was received by the Commission to further discuss land use; however, the Commission has completed its study and for those who wish to 'urther discuss it, the proper time would be when it comes before the City Council. He indicated that he felt the Commission should not back track on those areas already considered. It would be unfair to reopen discussion on land use when people who might be affected were not present to offer comments. Commissioner Rempel asked if an appeal is made to the City Council will it not have to come back to the Commission if it was not reviewed previously. Mr. Beedle otated that if the topic had been previously discussed by the Planning Coma' pion it could go directly to the City Council and if it had not been discussed, it would &Ve to come before the Planning Commission before the City Council could take action. Commissioner Remp; l stated that perhaps this should be taken up at the next to the last meeting so that here will be an opportunity to review those topics. Chairman Ring stated that this is a possibility but his personal preference is that the Commission not do this. Be felt that the land use issues had been thoroughly discussed. Commissioner Barker stated his agreement with Chairman King's comments. He further stated that at the last meeting when some changes occurred, members of the public thought that decisions had already been made and they were then charged. He did not think this fair. Further, that to continue after a certain point is not good or logical. Commissioner Stout stated that he concurs but asked what was meant by the definition "topic" and whether if it was talked about it has been laid to rest or whether a ce -tain location is a topic. Mr. Beedle explained that if that becomes an issue "en it comes before the Council, to review the map if they want to have . urther information they will refer it back down to the Commission but generally if they are just talking about overall land use and have looked at that map and the Commission has also looked at it in their consideration, then they can go ahead aad approve it. Chairman King stated that there is consensus cm this point. Mr. Beedle reviewed the staff report going over the items to be considered such as regulatory provisions, circulation - related standards and finally, those that are special features and architectural guidelines. Mr. Beedle stated that the schedule calls for two additional meetings, one of which is a regular Planning Commission meeting on January 26, at which time there would be an introduction to a General Plan amendment with the adoption of the Specific Plan and following that, on February 17 a special meeting to wrap up any additional comments and recommend certification of the Draft Environmental Impact Re - - -t, the General Plan Amendments, and to recommend adoption of the Speci. an itself. Mr. Beedle stated that even at the final meeting should t_ .ommission feel that there should be changes, they could be added as amendments to the conditions of approval. He further stated that the Commission could give its approval to the concepts as they are being presented or wait until the end of this meeting. Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 12, 1983 Mr. Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner, began his presentation of site - related standards and spoke of the basic and optional standards, stating that they are one of the key elements of the plan. The standards define further the meaning of the land use districts. The basic standards are designated to guarantee certain minimums for the Etiwanda area, and the optional standards encourage projects to go beyond the minimum. W. Kroutil reviewed for the Commission the optional and basic standards as shown in the Draft Specific Plan. Commissioner Barker stated that he would like discussed and considered the requirement of a CUP with the optional standards; however, there were no provisions for this in the specific plan at this time. Chairman King asked if we go through the public hearing process does it make any difference if is just normal public hearing route that the Commission goes through )r does it have to be a CUP. ;r. Kroutil replied that in the case of residential projects over 4 dwellings there must be a public hearing on the tract map. The amount of discretion that the Commission has under the CUP is greater in that certain findings must be made as to how well the project would meet the intent of the Specific Plan. Mr. Kroutil stated that with the conventional standards all of this is spelled out and as long as the development meets all the standards in the Zoning Ordinance or in the basic standards it becomes difficult to ask for other things unless there is a strong public input regarding it. Mr. Kroutil continued, that the answer is yes and no because the Commission has the discretion either way through the public hearing process; with the CUP you have the little extra leverage depending on what you want to accomplish. Chairman King stated that a CUP does not really fit and asked if the Commission would be excercising so much discretion so as not to be appropriate. Mr. Kroutil replied that on higher density areas it world seem that the Commission would want to have this discretion whereas on thc. lower density areas there may be no need for it. Chairman King asked about the process for a CUP versus tae normal hearing process. Mr. Kroutil replied that there are additional fees in tte amount of approximately $300.00 but the notification process is s:.milar- Chairman King stated that as far as the applicant is concerned it really doesn't mater whether he goes through the normal hearing process or a CUP. Commissioner Barker asked why we would mandate an additional fee and is it for the posting. Rick Gomez replied that a CUP handled separately would require the fee to cover the cost of the preparation of the CUP, mailings, posting, ete. Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 12, 1983 Commissioner Barker asked if those fees could be waived under these circumstances. Commissioner Rempel stated that he has several problems under the optional standards. If someone came in with a 5-acre site in the low density he has a 10,000 minimum square footage of his lot. That is in 43,000 square feet per acre and he can theoretically make 20 lots. However, in reality '_f he has two or even three streets coming off the area he can lose an acre of land around his site. Commissioner Rempel felt that metes and bounds should be used because a 5-acre site might not end up 5 acres because of what will be lost to streets. Chairman Ring stated that he faces the same prospect with the normal standards. issiorer Rempel stated that here we are setting up standards to give him m: , and then we take it away and it is not the same thing. Commissioner Stout stated that this concept of basic and optional standards is an excellent concept and that he likes it. He stated further that he has one question with regard to basic standards for the Estate Residential and the Very Low category. He indicated the difference between the basic and optional standards appears to be very little in those categories. He asked if this is a true assessment. Mr. Kroutil replied that it is and it was done oa purpose. Mr. Stout stated that his only concern is that the way the plan is set very much of the property above Highland Avenue is Very Low or Estate Residential so in essence there is no incentive to have that area go into the optional standards. Mr. Kroutil replied that this is quite true and the reason is the relatively low density of the area would not require -the use of the optional standards for incentives because the basic standards come close to achieving community goals. Using ER as an example, standard one acre lots with lack of solid walls and with substantial setbacks are something that the community would be happy with as far as open space. t4„ Kroutil stated that it is ,lust a matter of how much incentive to build under the optional standards you Kant to build into each category, and that the need for such incentive is greater in higher density areas. Commissioner Stout asked what the incentive would be for Very Low, and how it could be made stronger. Mr. Kroutil replied that he would have to make specific calculations. Commissioner Stout stated that what fir. Kroutil is saying is that you nan fool around with some numbers but if you fool around here you can throw the relationship of basic and optional standards out of whack. Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 12, 1983 yr. . Beedle stated that if the commission desired, this can be examined by staff and brought back with some modificatior_s and they can also come up with some options. Chairman King asked if there were any members of the public who wished to comment. Mr. Joe Pilorio stated :.:hat he had his planners go through the basic and optional standards and they thought it is a very good idea. Further, that he tended to agree that the optional standards are a little bit higher than they should be and possibly not attractive enough for a developer to use. Mr. Dilorio felt it may be worthwhile to go through a graphic comparison to see what they look like. He stated that if they work they may be one of the most critically important things about the plan. Mr. Cecil Johnson stated that he is in favor of the emphasis on the optional standards along with the basic and felt that the city will get much better development than it would otherwise. There were no contrary comments towards the use of both basic and optional standards. Commissioner Mc Niel stated that these are a good concept and he is inclined to agree with Commissioner Hempel in that in some instances the option is nullified by virtue of the penalty. He felt that staff could come up with some graphic illustrations that would give the Commission a better feeling. Commissioner Stout stated that he would like to see some examples to see a better pictorial view to show the public and get it clearer in his mind. commissic- -- Parker stated that he is in favor of the concept itself and that he would like to sea the CUP on the higher density projects. Commissioner Hempel stated that he has no problem with the concept but in some areas it will be difficult to interpret at a later date for a developer just what is required when one gets into higher density. He felt that this will cause a problem and needed clarification. Commissioner Hempel stated further that the definition of terms also mist be clarified in open space and common open space and whether a person is buying land just for himself or for community use. Commissioner Barker stated that just for the sake of the public so that they will not think that there is a way of circumventing the density requirements, there is a provision under 5 -02 -B, density ranges, which says that projects may also be filed under optional standards, etc., which only allows the densities up to the maximum in the density range and it may be proper to insert a phrase like "shall not exceed" so that it will be known. He indicated that this way the public would know that they are not trying to destroy but to create the environment that they are attempting to protect. planning commission Minu. -5- January 12, 1983 Chairman 'King stated that if the public thinks that there are things that should or should not be included in the optional standards, they should contact the Planning Division. Mr. john Scherb, representing the Miyohoshi Temple, stated that there was a lot of debate at the last meeting about how to compensate someone for coming up with an architectural theme or entrypoint into the community. He stated further he was unable to express his thought at the last meeting that simply allowing an additional density bonus to someone for taking a piece of their property to create such an entry point would be an appropriate way both to urge the things they are tryinb to develop and make it profitable and worthwhile for the developer was well. Chairman King stated that the Commission would consider the overlav districts for Etiwanda Avenur and Community Service. He further stated that he would not be participating in any discussion on the Community Service Overlay nor the consensus on this overlay. Mr. Kroutil explained to the Commission the purpose of the Etiwanda Avenue overlay district, stating that this is purely a design consideration and not a land use tool, with the intent to protect the character of the Avenue. The Community Service overlay is designed to do that and more in that all the des9.gn and architectural criteria and landscaping criteria also apply to the Community Services District. Additionally, it allows opportunities for very limited kind of professioral commercial and quasi - commercial uses. Mr. Kroutil further stared that when te:e committee looked at this they had a mixed feeling about the whole idea in that they felt that a focal point was a good idea but they were apprehensive about going too far with the kind of eonmrcial uses that you would allow in as an incentive. Mr. Kroutil stated that the key is the balance between an incentive to create an opportunity for something special to happen, and au sssurauce that the uses going along with it will not overwhelm the character of the residential area. Chairman Ping asl:ed for any thoughts on the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay as it is presently set up. Mr. ..Toe DiIoric, stated that the Victoria plan shows a different configuration on Etiwanda Avenue at A?iller than is shown here and he felt that it is a part of the character. He stated further that from Foothill to Miller, as they build the regional shopping center, will be one of the main access points to the regional and he did not think Eti:rax da Avenue would want to be conti =+ued as a straight shot at that point. He further felt that there should he an offset. Mr. DiInrio stated that the second point is the street between Miller and Base Line with the things that are right now, Victoria and the Temple, the LM densities, while they are usable, small offices such as attorney's offices that would fit the scale of the area rather than residential at $ -10 dwelling units per acre, would fit in with what is already there. He felt that the area right along Etiwanda Avenue is not the ideal place for residential. Planning Commission .Minutes -6- Tanuary 12, 1983 fix. DiloriO stated that what had been the core of Etiwanda many years ago may not be in the future and therefore there should be more of a blending of that kind of commercial in the area. Dr. Roland Smith stated that he goes along wit[, the previous speaker. He felt that offices or neighborhood commercial should go there and did not feel that the overlay is particularly meant for that area. Mrs. Pat Gearhart stated that every time there is discussion of Etiwanda Avenue there is always a subtle harangue over commercial property. She stated that you can tell them to stick to the overlay brt it always comes back to the desire to build more commercial on Etiwanda Avenue. She stated that the first thing to be decided is what you are going to do with the overlay. She asked if the desires of the residents who have lived t!7 ,re the longest are going to be kept or not. She stated that this is also the first time that she heard that the park requirements had been changee for specific plans and asked if this will affect the specific plans regarding parks for Etiwanda and if so she would opt of the optional standards in order to get more park requirement. Mr. DiIorio stated that there should not be commercial in the old area. In fact, he stayed, he would like to see old houses moved into this area but that you will not get people moving into the old houses because they will not use them as single family homes. Mr. John Scherb on behalf of the Temple stated that the Etiwanda Avenue overlay only represents a streetscape theme Lt this point and is an admirable pa--t of the plan because it protects Etiwanda Avenue and enhances the concept of old Etiwanda. is felt it goes a long way in setting a theme for the city and setting up the uses that may or may not be good for the city. Chairman Bing stated that the consensus of the Commission is that the Etiwanda overlay is desired. Chairman Ring than stepped down. Vice chairman Rempel asked if there was any dis_ussion relative to the Community Service overlay from the Commission. There being none at this time, Vice chairman. Rempel opened the public hearing. w. John Scherb stated the he has strong feelings on the Community Service overlay because from what he has been hearing at the last few meetings the expansion of that particular district in a southerly direction towards the Temple is precisely the kind of thing that he has always asked the Commission not to allow in tteir subtlety. He sta*.ed that he predicted that there would be creeping commercialism and now it is coming true. He stated that the Commission should look at the Community Service overlay and what the committee did when it first came out in draft form as it had a lot more in.cnsive commercial uses than the plan before the Commission at this time. Planning Commission Minutes _g_ January 12, 1983 Mr. Scherb stated that he is against any southerl; or northerly extension of this overlay district. Farther, that such extension would establish strip commercial. Mr. K ^outil stated that he had received a request which i.2s included in the Commission's packets for an extension of that district. He stated that he wished that the Comr-.ission would look at that before any recommendations are made on this overlay district. Commissioner Stout asked if a decision on specific boundaries must be made tonight. Vice Chairman Rempel stated that the Commission could go one way or the other. Mr. Kroutil stated that if there is any consensus it should be found out. Commissioner Mc Niel stated that he liked the concept because i* is romantic and homey; however, if he was going to open a shop he would go in there. 9e further stated that he is more in favor if a graduated increase in commercial down to the freeway because that is the logical way that things will happen_ Commissioner Stout stated that he liked the concept but that the Etiwanda overlav district will predominate all the way through as one consistent design type. He felt that under these particular staadards there will be a lot of commercialization and what does develop in there will be very desirable. He stated that :chat the Commission is trying to do is limit it down to those uses which are desirable and that he favors the concept and he felt that the district should be limited and not expanded any further. He would not like to see, he said, a strip commercial street. Commissioner Barker stated that he did not feel that any portion of the overlay should be altered at this time. Vice chairman Rempel stared that the Planning Commission has always been quite emphatic that the City not promote strip commercial and has not allowed that type of development in the City. Vice chairman Rempel stated that hiss opinion of the Community Service Overlay is that in order to get development along Etiwanda Avenue that will be what people wan: to beautify it, housing will not. do it. He indicated that he did not want commercial to develop all along it either and that office or that type of use is what should go in there. Vice chaff. -man Rempel stated that he eid not favor an expansion of the Community Service District because it can be done other ways. He did not feel that people would want to build single - family homes here and he stated that the Commission Lmy have to reduce or make concessions as far as lot sizes to get development along Etiwanda of the type of units that people want. To require one-half to one acre lots along here is not the way to do it either because all one has to do is drive along Euclid Avenue to see that this i.s the type of development that is desired and the lots along Lbere are not that large. The consensus of the Commission was to approve the Community Service Overlay. Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 12, 1983 Chairman King returned to the table. Chairman King stated that the Commission would go on to Circulation - Related Standards unless anyone had specific comments about the Equestrian Overlay. Mr. Kroutil stated that the Equestrian Overlay District basically follow° the General Plan designation of rural equesrian area north of Route 30 and provides a place where horses may be kept for personal use. Commissioner Stout stated that since in that district the purpose is to keep horses in a residnetial area, he suggested the Commission should extend the optional devlopment standard versus the basic development standard concept to include this type of overlay district. He further stated that if a person were to develop under the basic development standards that they would be required to provide access to all lots. He asked if the minimum would be 20,000 square feet. Mr. Kroutil stated thzt it would be the minimum which is what it is now. He stated that a developer will have two options if he chooses to develop in the Equestrian Overlay area: one, to provids access throughout the project to comminity trails and feeder trails or, two, if he does not want to provide equestrian lots, provide thi.ugh trails to the community trails and have the option of recording the CC&R's the same way it is being done in other areas in the City. Commissioner Stout stated that he did not like the second option bec=ause horses should 'we permitted and it would allow problems to occur as ara happening in his area where they are in an equestrian district and not allowed to have horses. While people should not be forced to have horses, they should not be precluded from having them. Commissioner Rempel stated that this would be all right just as long as it also aiiows people who do not want horses to live there. He indicated that you would be allowing everyone to have horses but not allowed to put it in their tract. Chairman King stated his agreement with Commissioner Stout to put in some incentives that are optional that would encourage the developer by giving him a few more peres if they have horses. Hut, he stated, he did not buy that anyone could have a horse in the equestrian overlay zone if they want one. Commissioner Re el stated that they would be assuming that everyone who lives up there would have horses and that is not right. Commissic. -r Stout asked that certain conditions must be placed to run with the land at the time of tract development and whether conditions can be placed on those covenants that a condition not be filed. For example, no restrictions on equestrian uses. Planning Commission Minutes -9- January 12, 1983 M.^. Hopson replied that you must go back and trace where the City gets its power to do this which, is through the Subdivision. Map Act, Further, that traffic and utilities deal with public safety and are a police power. He stated that he has never seen anything that would allow the City or any other municipality to bar restrictions on animals, for example, because it is almost like a double negative; nor can they require that they have animals. They could only bar these things as an exercise of the City's police power, barring occupants in a single family residential zone to a single family zone and he was not sure you cculd substantiate it if you posed a condition onto a tract that the person who was directing the land use of that tract could not preclude animals. That would be an exercise of police powers that would be surportable by the Constitution that a municipality has. He stated that this could be researched. His reaction at the moment is that it is beyond the scope of things that a City can do. Mr. Kroutil stated that what their concern is has already been addressed and under the basic standards there is no question; however, under the optional standards you would be required to provide substantial amounts of open space that is common, i.e., greenways and trails and it would seem in an area that allows horses it is more than likely you would have a community trail near your property and you would have much open space to ride horses. Mr. Kroutil stated perhaps the incentive is already in there but perhaps more should be provided to satisfy the concerns that Commissioner Stout has without actually saying that horses must not be prohibited by CLZR's. Commissioner Stout stated that he would like to see that general area explored with more alternatives and also to see the incentives increased. Mr. Cecil Johnson commented that he would like to see under PUD the same limitation per square foot requirement for horses be allowed in the total development with the option of providing all of the equestrian development in a specific area where horses would be concentrated in stalls, etc. He felt that there should be a limitation of horses being permitted in the specific lot area of the house. He stated that this would be the best of both worlds. Euurther, that this is what he would cant to have developed on his property. The Planning Commission stated that this is what they have done. Chairman King stated that the Trails would be reviewed. Mr. Kroutil reviewed the staff report concerning trails. Miairman King stated that in terms of an extension of trails to Victoria Parkway, he believed that the trails should be extended along Victoria Parkway if one believed that the trail is amenable to horses. He further stated that ir_ his own mind when they went through the Victoria plan he had a hard time initiating a thought that horses are amenable to the Victcria Parkway. He stated that the Commission mist provide a proper link or the trails become worthless but he does not see it as a serious thought along Victoria Parkway. He stated that he is in favor of the proper system. Planning Commission Minutes -10- January 12, 1983 Commissioner Hempel stated that in terms of the trail running along the railroad track where there will be trainN" is questionable; however, he asked if there is really room for trails alon;; Victoria. He cited the school and wondered if there is room and whether another area should be looked for wnere the trail �--ould come through. Commissioner Stout stated that he liked the concept of connecting Fontana with Victoria but wondered if that trail is consistent with the Etiwanda overlay and that maybe the Commission should move it over to Fast Avenue. Mr. Kroutii stated that this would not work because it can't be moved to Fast Avenue due to traffic volumes and because of constraints of existing houses. He stated that they can make it work along Etiwanda Avenue with the exception of several homes where they have no legal way to acquire access and he stated that only time might make it work here. Commissioner Rempel suggested that the trail come down 19th Street and between Highland and Victoria rather than on Etiwanda. He '"elt it could come along the north side of the high school and come down the wash. Commissioner Barker asked if this has been considered and brought before the Trails Committee. Pam Henry replied that the idea was that a route was needed to connect with Fontana and to link with Day Creek and therefore Victoria was the most logical route. Commissioner Hempel stated the problem along Victoria Avenue pointing out that you can get to Fontana along the wash. (sir. Kroutil stated that the real issue was to get to Victoria Park Lane trail. Chairman King stated that the other way to connect is with the Day Creek area. Mr. Kroutil explained the problems with some of the trails along streets and the forcing of public streets. Commissioner Hempel stated that he sees some serious problems with street dedication on Victoria and it may be the wrong thing tc do. Chairmen: King asked if the commission would agree teat there has been some fairly reasonable critism aroused on this route and perhaps agree in concept on what it is that the Commission, wishes to accomplish and to spend more time over the next two weeks to see what the proper route is. Commissioner Barker asked why what he had explained would dictate a street going through in that the objective is to put a throughway from one point to the other. Planning Commission Minutes -11- January 12, 1983 Mr. Kroutil explained that in the equestrian district you may put your community trail along a public street, in back of a project, or running right through the middle of a project, providing it is designed right. in the nor - eauestrian areas the choices are more limited and it would make more sense in that setting to put an equestrian trail along a public right- of-way and if it would dictate a specific street alignment, it will be difficult to implement because it must be on a project -by -project basis. Mr. Hopson explained the problems with a developer who does not wish to have an equestrian project and the leverage that might or might not be there in the equestrian overlay area. Commissioner Rempel stated that he sees a problem with a trail_ at either Victoria or the railroad. Chairmn King stated that generally the consensus would be to do it but look further at the specific alignment. Chairman Ping asked for permission to defer the windrow and architectural and design guidelines to the next meeting. Commissioner Stout asked about architectural and design guidelines for the commercial area,he noticed that the barn type architecture is to be encouraged but it says it is only for neighborhood commercial and asked if there is some reason it shouldn't be for all the different types of commercial in the area. Mr. Kroutil stated that this was not the intent and that it was to cover all commercial and professional uses. Chairman King stated that the public hearing would now be open for the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Etiwanda Specific Plan and asked for comments. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed. ADJOURHIC-NT Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Mc Niel, carried unanimously, to adjourn. 10:40 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -12- January 12, 1983 P El DATE TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT February 9, 1983 Members of the Planning Commission Rick Gomez, City Planner Frank J. Dreckman, Assistant Planner TENSION - TE TRACT 11564 - BACKGROUND: The applicant is requestinq a time extension for Tentative Tract 11564, located approximately at the southeast corner of Mignonette and Beryl Streets. The proposed project consists of 92 condominium units on 12 acres of land zoned R -2. Initially, this tract was approved on November ?6, 1980, with an expiration date of November 26, 1981; however, a time erten °ion granted by the Planning Commission on October 28, 1981 (Resolution 81 -125) subsequently pushed the expiration date to May 26, 1983. Due to existing economic conditions, the applicant is currently requesting an additional time extension to November 26, 1984. As you may be aware, tentative tract maps are valid for a maximum of four (4) years, with appropriate extensions per Subdivision Ordinance regulations. Currently, the applicant has exhausted two and one -half years of this time limit; therefore, the Planning Commmission could grant a final eighteen (18) month time extension. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that a final eighteen (18) month extension Fe granted per the findings on the attached Resolution to run from the present expiration date of May 26, 1983 to November 26, 1934. Planner JO/jr ttachments: Exhibit "A" - Tract Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Applicant Correspondence Resolution ITEM A MLARTIN H. B1ANK. JR- ATTORNEY AT LAW IOBSC WI SNIRC OOULCVARO, 11p FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA POOz4 :2131475-050. - 12131>JY -2W7 January 6, 1983 Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P. 0. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attn: Mr. Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner Re: Tract No. 11564 - Almar Corporation Ltd. Our File - Almar #4c Gentlemen: The undersigned represents and is an officer of Almar Corporation Ltd., the owner of the real property described on the Tentative Tract Map no. 11564. Pursuant to the suggestion of Mr. Curt Johnston in his letter of September 14, 1982, I am renewing the request of is Almar Corporation Ltd. for an extension of time to satisfy the conditions in the Tentative Tract Map for the above- - referred to parcel. It is my understanding that Almar Corporation Ltd. has until May 23, 1983 to satisfy the conditions set forth in the Tentative Tract Map and obtain a Final Map. It is also my understanding that within a short period of time after the Tentative Tract Map was approved, the applicable California laws were changed to provide that a Tentative Tract Map would continue to be effective for a period of two (2) years, with the right on the part of the City to extend that two -year period for an additional eighteen (18) months. .-- As I am sure you are aware, the market conditions in the Rancho Cucamonga area for a project of the type set forth on the Tentative Tract Map continue to be very poor. I also understand that there remains even at this time a larJe unsold inventory of condominium units. we believe that it is not likely that this situation will change before the May 23, 1983 date set forth above. 11 /0 C 0 n U Planning Commission January 6, 1983 Page Two For the reasons set forth herein, I am hereby requesting on behalf of my client an extension of time to satisfy the conditions contained in Resolution No. 80 -65 until May 26, 1984, which is three -and- one -half (3 -1/2) years after the granting of approval for the Tentative Tract Map. It is my client's belief that the adverse real estate development conditions of which I am sure you are aware will have changed by that date. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. A check in the sum of $62.00, made payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, is enclosed of cover your fee for the granting of the extension. MHB : hm Enclosure Very tr ly yours, Martin H. Blank, Jr. 0 CITY Or RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION NORTH ffrm- 11C1F, _VO Iad FLQL&: iS TITLE: _Lon A:Vc' --M-P M 1111IT= SC%L[: 0 E 0 :L22VXS- 11900 'i i CITY Or- RANCHO CUCAN10N'OA PLri`TNI�G DW SION a Il" ITEM: --It 115�4- TITLE- 517 `(Z.64 EXHIBIT: '13� SG LE: X7:5. NDRTH 0 RESOLUTION NO.* A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION, APROVING THE EXTENSION OF TENTATIVE TRACT 11564 WHEREAS, an application has been filed for a time extension for the above- descfil,ed project, pursuant to Section 1.401.11.2 of Ordinance 28 -B, the Subdivision Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held duly advertised public hearings for the above - described project:; and WHEP.EAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the above - described tentative tract map. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: A. That prevailing economic conditions have caused a distressed market climate for multi - family projects. B. That economic, marketing, and inventory ccnditions make it unreasonable to build at this time. C. That strict enforcement of the conditions of approval regarding expirations would not be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code. D. That the granting of said time extensions will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby grants a time extension- one: Tract 11564 Expiration Date May 26, 1984 APPROVED AND ADOPTE:1 THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman 0 ATTCST Secretary of the Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 I, JACK LAM, Secretary of thet Planning he foregoing Resolution was odu Ranah� Cucamonga, t hereby certify regularly introduced, gassed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regularhmeeettingg of the held on the 9th day of February, 1983, by • AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 2 E Ll E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 9, 1983 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Frank J. Dreckman, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION - TENTATIVE TRACT - LEWIS BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a time extension for Tentative Tr--ac-t--M-60 (Sunscape 1) located on a 10 acre site, east of Carnelian Avenue, on the north side of 19th Street. 'ihe project is described as a conversion of 172 existing apartments into condominiums. The tract was initially approved by the Planning Commission on February 25, 1981 (Resolution 81 -14) and will expire on February 25, 1983, unless a tim^_ extension is granted. Due to existing adverse economic conditions, the applicant is currently requesting a twelve (12) month time extension (see attached letter). As you may be aware, tentative tract maps are valid for a maximum of I four (4) years, with appropriate extensions per Subdivision Ordinance regulations. Presently, the applicant has exhausted two years of this time limit; therefore, the Planning Commission could grant an additional two (2) years in extensions. RECOMMENDATION: it is recommended that a twelve (12) month time extension ffe 4r anted per the findings on the attached Resolution to run from the present expiration date of February 25, 1983 to February 25, 1984. Res ectf lly bmitted, Ri k G mez C y Planner R /FJO /jr Exhibit "A" - Tract Map Exhibit "B" - Applicant Correspondence Resolution ITEM B TEN IA71VE MACi ISO. 11460 .M 74 CIT• w t.r .o CYCttOfi _ FJt C>owru�r CO.MCt31M g1t'OL.J FuL.vnY yr c� e s 1 i .!t•t 1 .AT _ Ylr 3• — — '1S0" � �✓ 1fM � .• t 1 \z.in i n CI'T'Y OF rMl: +,w+� E' -;ZA -e to&l RAINCHO CUCANNIONGA 11TIE: - PLAINNLNG DI-%rb9ON EXHIBrr. . _ SCALE= a ewes Ho�nFs 11;6 N0 h MruMam Avenue / P.O. Box 670 i Utkono. CA 4!796 / 714 485-Mi January 27, 1983 .j Fir. Michael Vairin Senior Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Ref: Letter to Lewis from Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner (Feb. 9, 1982) Subject: Application Tor Time Extension for Tentative Tract No. 11460 Dear Mr. Vairin: According to the referenced letter from Tor. Johnston, the approval granted via Panning Ca=ission Resolution 81 -14 for the Suna.:ape 1 subdivision, Tentative Tract No. 11460, will expire February 25, 1983. Because of the state of the recent econmy we have not elected to begin. sales in that tract; consequently, we have not received from the Department of Real Estate a Final Puhl is Report and have not recorded the final map. Presently, we are very optimistic about sales potential for 1983, and would expect to take the steps ne•:essary to obtain the Final Report in the near future. For this reason we Iefinitely want to preserve the map approval so the Final Map can be processed and sales can be started as soon as market conditions permit. We hereby request a waiver of the 60-day filing period for this application and further request a twelve -month extension in the approval of the above - mentioned map as authorized -;v --he Subdivision Map Act (Goverment Code Section 66452.6(e)) and as impl -nented by Section 16.16.170.0 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, such period to expire February 25, 1954. Very truly yours, Y erry Val sh sociate Counsel JPW:drh Enclosure cc: Mr. Cur` Johnston, Planner ® Mr. Gerry Bryan RESOLUTION N0. * A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION, APPROVING THE EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11460 WHEREAS, an application has been filed for a time extension for the above- described project, Pursuant to Section 1.401.11.2 of Ordinance 28 -8, the Subdivision Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held duly advertised public hearings for the above - described project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the above - descri;jed tentative tract map. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: A. That prevailing economic conditions have caused a distressed market climate for multi- family projects. 3. That current economic, marketing, and inventory conditions make it unreasonable to begin sales of units within the tract. C. That strict enforcement of the conditions of approval regarding expirations would not be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code. D. That the granting of said time extensions will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby grents a time extension for: Tract 11460 Ex iration February 25, 1984 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY , i.nairman FJ is ATTEST: 40 ecretary of the arming omm1s�,ion Resolution No. Page 2 El I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the for,--going Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meFcing of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of February, 1983, L;y titc following vote -to -Nit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ASSENT: COMM4ISSIONERS: 11 E 11 0 2 CITY 01~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 9, 1983 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer eY• Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: ENVIKUNMLRIMi acres in the Industrial YarK area subdivision of into 6 parcels located on the west side of Haven Avenue and 7th Street (APN 209 - 262 - 07,09) BACK_ G� D The Investment Building Group is the divide industrial 6 SpecificPlan)- This site is vacant Topeka and Santa Fe To the north is an vacant land. - A a 6) i 6th submitting the above described parcel map to within the Industrial Park Area (SubArea 6 of and consists of abandoned grape Railroad runs adjacent along the existing industrial building; to industrial ial r and Indust al Park for properties vines. The Atchison, westerly property line* the south and east is the surrounding area is General fronting Haven Avenue. ANALYLSIS The the property Specific the ourposeso of restricting ing north-south access from rHaventAvenue dto front properties. The design of the asap provide! g acc; for two large -,-:,posed (Parcel Specific fronting will not 6th be neededrwith respectively. proposed plan because�tneolot by the will serve do direct traffic in the way intended for the nE� scree Howev r, street wio bearequered ni Parcel 1 & the further,subdivoidedstating The design of Lhe map conforms to the Industrial Specific Plan with lot sizes a minimum of 2 acres fronting onto Haven Avenue. No development on any lot has been proposed at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Also attached for your re and Staffdhast�c�nplet dtPartf II h of the aInitial as completed by the applicant. the environmental checklist, and has conducted afield investigation- Study, ew of the Initial Study and field investigation, Staff Upon completion and revi ITEM C Planning Commission Staff Report ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7731 FEBRUARY 9, 1983 PAGE 2 found ro adverse impacts on the environment as a result of the proposed subdivision. CORRESPONDENCE Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. Posting at the site has also been completed. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of the project. If, after such consideration of the Commission can support the recommended conditions of approval as written in the City Engineer's Report, then adopt on of the attached resolution would be appropriate. It is also recommended that a Negative Declaration be issued. Respectfully submi jaa : Map City Engineer's Report Initial Study Resolution E. 11 0 v G{ In IE jI �G �Iil i a ' l Ell I a I :u� ;ii -it a: €as w 3acG? a I d 1 t t H a ry� n Y CO P W m - 4 W Ea N „w uo° O• °pC Vw Fu W N ¢ a I � _ n $OBI : °n_a v G{ In IE jI �G �Iil i a ' l Ell I a I :u� ;ii -it a: €as w 3acG? a I d 1 t t H a ro Y 0 a,ry3 4 W a O Fu W N ¢ a I � a w� O 6 =O W U Q x r �J R a N W �L OC � W Q y zo N U W O V u x� C 00 v xw a GN x Oa O JF e w 4 oo 0 ci u 2° o W r � V 2 < x a? `' LL 0 a v G{ In IE jI �G �Iil i a ' l Ell I a I :u� ;ii -it a: €as w 3acG? a I d 1 t t H a a,ry3 4 v G{ In IE jI �G �Iil i a ' l Ell I a I :u� ;ii -it a: €as w 3acG? a I d 1 t t H 1977 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMO �A title; ENGINEERING DIVISION VICINITY ,MAP page E FIG. N-6 ISU E- l�1���U —J 0 CIRCULATION ®� 100' R.O.W. 88' or less R.O.W. I RAIL SERVICE ++ Existing Proposed TRAILS /ROUTES !! 0000 Pedestrian 0000 Bicycle ICCj Regional multi-Use -- Spocial Streetscape/ Landscaping Power L Ins/ Utility Easement �•��- Creeks & Channels Bridge 4 Access Points A5, iPark 0 Fire Station Note: Parcel lives and lot configurations are shown as approximations only. 11 12 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SKEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this app?ication, t }_ En:•= ronmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no signi- ficant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project w3.11 have a significant environmental impact and an En % .rironmental Impact Report will be prapared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further informa- tion concerning the proposed project. 0 h .,. ECT TITLE: Tentative Parcel Map No. '1731 APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Mr. Jim Watson of Investment & LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: water and Sewer permits from Cucamonga County Water District I -1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 67 ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 22.3 acre,;- No existing Midi gc- No 121=sed building- nr this time DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMIATIOF ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES), ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): The property is relatively flat with a gentle 2% slope in a southeriv . 0 Witilete •• IIT .M.. t � wrs• ,•,•... 11.1 ..- .- - •. ., a ,r •'• Y• ar»'r �+� • n� • - Ii - Y r • n . • • • a.� a vacant land interspersed with 'nrhvctrial:t=e devel=w -nt including distribution fa ili c An Atchison I4F ka ane Santa Fe Railroad nms adjacent along the westerlv property line There is no known historical or cultural aspects of the subject property Is the tiroject part of a larger project, one of a series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? NO I -2 E J WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO _ X Create a substantial change in ground contours? _ X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise cr vibration? _ X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for mui:icipal serv` -ces (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? X_ 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X S. Remove any existing trees? How many? x_ 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Dote 11 -1 -82 Signature Title 1-3 David A. Gillette Vice- President BOYER FDVGINEERING CWANY, INC. for INVE_-1"7 ' BUILDING GROUP RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability o£ the school district to accommodate the Cucamcnaa proposed residential development. Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: Specific Location of Protect: PHASE I PHA? pSE pg, SE 4 1. Number of single TOTAL family units: 2. Number of :multiple family units: 3. Date proposed to begin construction: 4. Earliest date of occupancy: Model and # of Tentative 5. Bedrooms Price I'ange -4 ® RESOLUTION N0. * A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVIN(, PARCEL MAP NUMBER 7731 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 7731), LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HAVEN AVENUE BETWEEN 6TH AND 7TH STREET WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 7731, submitted by Investment Building Group and consisting of 6 parcels, lcca +ed on the west side of Haven Avenue between 6th and 7th Street, being a division of a portion of Lot "D" north Cuc-.monga Townsite as per map recorded in hook 13, page 15 of maps records of San Bernardino County, California; and WHEREAS, on January 17, 1983, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above - described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on February 9, 1983, the Planning Connissior, held a duly advertised public hearing for the abcve - described map. FOLLOWS: NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 0 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. 2. That the improvement of tite proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SFrIG;; C That this project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on February 9, 1983. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 7731 is approved subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval perta;ning thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY CF FEBRUARY, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: ring, Chairman Resolution No. Page 2 ATTEST• _ �S-�cretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK 'AM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamongz, 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 meting of the Pianning Commission held on the 9th day of February, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COIAMISSIONM:O: NOES: COMMISSIONS :RS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: E is 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LOCATION: West side of Haven Ave. TENTATIVE MAP NO. Parcel Map 7731 between 6th and 7th Streets DATE FILED: 10/22/82 (Re 1/17/83) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of Lo`. "D" NUMBER OF LOTS: 6 North Cucamonga Towrsite as per map re- GROSS ACREAGE: 33.3 no 41411 s+ � a' PARCEL NO. 209- 262 -7,9 ENGINEER /SURVEYOR Investment Building Group Charles R. De Berard Boyer Engineerina Co. 515 S. Flower 44 Rollirgwood Drive 2950 Airway, B -2 _ Los Angeles, CA 90071 Rolling hills, CA 90274 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 _ Improvement and dedication requirements in accordance with Title 16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga include, but may not be limited to, the following: Dedications and Vehicular Access i. Dedications shall be made of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. X 2. Dedication shall be mad(! of the following rights -of -way on the following streets: 14 additionai feet on 6th Street additional feet on 7th Street at the intersectior. additional feet on with Haven Ave X 3. Corner property line radius will be required per City Standards. 24` radius as shown, or tentative map X 4. Ail rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated as follows: on Haven Avenue except for opening for cannon drive approa on Parcel an X 5. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all par-els ano joint maintenance of all common roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by and recorded con--urrent with the map. 6. All existing easements lying within future right -of -way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the map per City Engineer's requirements. 7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. Surety X 1. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney, guaranteeing completion if the public improvements prior to recording for all parcels, _X 2. A lien agreement muses ,e executed pror to recording of the map for the following: landsca,,,:d medial: island on Haven Avenue. 3. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed, guaranteeing completion of all on -site drainage facilites necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of building permit for all Parcels. Street Improvements 1. Construct full street improvements including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees anC street lights on all interior streets. x 2. A m;nimum of 26 -foot wide pavement within a 40 -foot wide dedicated right -of -way shall be constructed for all half - section streets. x 3. Construct the following missing improvements: prior to recordation of the map. Curb &I A.C. Side- Street Name Gutter Pmt. Walk Drive Ap r.i j tre_t ;7treet Trees' L;ni, +c A.C. Median Overla Island* Other X X — I 7th St. X M X X X j X Haven Ave. ( X X ; X X X X X s xIncludes landscaping and irrigation or meter _ X 4. Prior to any work being performed in the public right -of -way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits required. P X 5. Street improvement plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of an encroachment permit. X 6. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary. X 7. Existing lines of 12KV or less fronting the property shall be undergrounded. Y_ 8. Install appropriate street name signs, traffic control signs, striping and markings with locations and types approved by the City Engineer. X_ 9. Street liqht locations, as require. are to be approved by the Southern California Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Lights shall be or decorative poles with underground service. 10.Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to id approved by the Planning Division v-rior to the issuance of building permit. 11.Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards. 12. Drainage and Flood Control x 1. Private drainage easements for cress -lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. (Building and Safety Division) 2. Adequate proyisions shall be wade for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering tiie property from adjacent areas. 3. The following storm drain shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer _ 4. Prior tc recordation of the map, a hydrologic and drainage study for the project shall be submitted to the City Engineering far review. 5. A drainage detention basin per City Standards shall be constructed to detain increased runoff Gradinq L Grading of the subject property shall be it accn; dance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading Practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application or grading plan check. 4. The final grading plan shall be the Grading Ccmmittee and shall of the final subdivision map whichever comes first. subject to review and approval by be completed prior to recordation or issuance of building permit 5. Final grading plans for each parcel are to he submitted to the Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of building permit. 5. On -site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatering or protecting the subdivided properties, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to, or contributes to, drainage flows entering, leaving or within a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested. 7. All slope banks in excess of five (5) feet in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope shall be seeded with native grasses upon completion of grading or some other alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building Official. Irrigation shall be provided to germinate the seed and maintain growth to a point six (5) months after germination. General Requirements and Approvals 1. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: CalTrans for San Bernardino County Flood Control District Cucamonga Ctinty dater District for sewer and water San E rnaraino County Dust Abatement (required prior to issuance of a grading permit) Other 2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C.&R.$) approved by the City Attorney is requireJ prior to recordation of the map. 3. Provide all utility services to each lat including sewerage, water, electric po•..er, gas and telephone. 4. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga ® County Hater District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. 5. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from CalTrans /San Bernardino County Flood Control District. 5. approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requ;rements that may be received from them. 7. The filina of the tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time building permits are requested. When building permits are requested, the Cucamonga County Water District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will not be issued unless said certification, is received in writing. 8. Local and Master Planned Trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing and weed control, in accordance with City trail standards, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to recordation for _and /or prior to building permit issuance for 9. Prior to recording, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District 82 -1 among the newly created parcels. IO.At the time of final map submittal, the follawing shall be submitted: Traverse calculazions (sheets), copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and /or showing original land division., tie notes and bench marks referenced. I1.Dedication of right -of -way per the Industrial Specific Plan shall be required if Parcels 1 and 2 are further subdivided. 12.Three foot wide street vacation required for Street contiguous to the parcel subject map except near the intersection at Hav;n Avenue. The subdivider shall make an application for vacation. CITY OF R,:IICHO CUCAMDIMA LLOYD B. HUBBS, CITY ENGIIIEER by: r 1 JM _'. E E E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 9, 1983 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B Hubbs, City Engineer LT: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7852 - FISHBACK - A residential subdivision of 9.41 acres to be divided in 3 parcels within the R -1 zone located at the northeast corner of East and Victoria Avenues (APN 227 - 071 -15) PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION The above described parcel map has been submitted by Beverly Fishback to divide 9.41 acres into 3 parcels within the R -1 zone located at the northeast corner of East and Victoria Avenues. Parcel No. 1 contains 8.13 acres enabling future subdivision. Parcel No. 3 contains .53 acre. Parcel No. 2 which = ontains .70 acre is being developed at this time. The are4 to the north, west and south is primarily vacant with a few single family residences, to the east is the proposed Etiwanda High School site. The General Plan designation for this site and the surrounding area is low (2 -4 dwellings per acre). Since the Etiwanda Specific Plan has not yet been approved, a 100 foot offer to dedicate is required at the east property line of this site for the proposed by -pass. This offer will not be accepted if the proposed by -pass is removed at the time of the adoption of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. This area can then be developed when Parcel 1 is subdivided in the future. For future subdivision of Parcel 1, access could be gained by either using a half- street from East Avenue at the north property line or a full street from Victoria along the east property line. The Victoria access route would be preferable from the traffic standpoint and this will be taken into consideration before a lot is permitted at that location. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Also attached for your review and consideration is Part I of the Initial Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study, the environmental checklist, and has conducted a field investigation. Upon completion and review of the Initial Study and field investigation, Staff found no adverse impacts on the environment as a result of the proposed subdivision. ITEM 0 Planning Commission Staff ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT February 5, 1383 Page 2 CORRESPONDENCE Report AND PARCEL MAP 7852 Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property miners and placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. Posting at the site has also been completed. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of the project. If, after such consideration of the Commission c,in support the recommended conditions of approval as written in the City Engineer's Report, then adoption of the attached resolution would be appropriate. It is also recommended that a Negative Declaration be issued. Respectfully s bmi Attachments: Map City Engineer's Report initial Study Resolution E A A PARCEL MAP NO. 7852 MM A O .i OE ✓W -3. B X 'G. ETMy A C� 1�u0; l5 W BOOK 2 V YNS, qK z.. MEC0 0 )w OER.ARD CO I. _r �r I.N vli. S ) / lz i'W^�Yl> 4W MY �I�IAryr� w/ wwvw �w�M�. tir✓ s� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMO�IGA title; ENGINEERING DIVISION VICINITY MAP page El E C CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Studv. The Development - Review Committee will meet and tike action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will ma'--- cne of three determinations: 1) The project will have no signi- ficant environmental impact and a Negative Dec'_aration w'.il be filed, 2) The project will have a significant envii- )nmental impact and an Env = ronmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report sho',ld be supplied by the applicant giving further informa- tion concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: may/✓« APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: r! 5?2 - NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: !).r{IkIL' /ti/ /y!/�QK . ES ✓C /�LG'LA/1'JGN64 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO., !�?6z t/iGia /1 /v, �T: �cc�R�'OC -1- 27- 07 / — /S' LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: it L', is v��C�d:� �cG /i- .,•' I -1 C PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPT 0 PROJECT: SO4CA%� ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND.SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 0.10 J "M DESCr.TBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES), AL.IIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PPOPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY E= STINTG STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTkCH NECESSARY SHEETS): Sam I% VA, I Is the project part of a larger project, c+-ie of a series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? PC 11 I -2 c �- ® WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO ✓ 1. Create a substantial charge in ground contours? .� Z. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services ;police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? 4. Create changes in the existing -oning or general plan designations? _ ✓ S. Remove any existing trees? How many? 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, f1>,„mnables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: IMPORTANT: if the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hercby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Development Review Com-nittee. Date /` /f' ( 3 IJ Signature Title 1-3 C C. RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamo nga Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the school district to accommodate the proposed resiaential development. Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: Specific Location of Project: /3.34r:72-- ,rjG, —ew,a E� ,wo t/OA /(/• ,4s�- s CiicTo2 � o PHASE T_ PRASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTP" 1. Number of single family units: / 2. Number of multiple family units: 3- Date proposed to begin construction: 4. Earliest date of occupancy: Model s and # of Tentative 5- Bedrooms Price Rangy I -4 11 I 15 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 7852 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 7852), LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF VICTORIA AND EAST AVENUES WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 7852, submitted by Beverly Fishback and consisting of 3 parcels, located at the northeast corner of Victoria and Ea.:t Avenues, being a division of Lot 13, Block "G° Etiwanda Colony lands as recorded in Book 2 of Maps, page 24 records of San Bernardino County, California; and WHEREAS, on January 12, 1983, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above - described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on February 9, 1983, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above - described map. FOLLOWS: NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. 2. That thy_ improvement of the proposed subdivisiot. is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on February 9, 1983. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 7852 is approved subject to the recommended Conditioas of Approval pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 0 BY: Jeffrey icing, Chairman Resolution No. Page 2 A'rTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, 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 reg l ar meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of February, 1983, by the following vote -to —wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: L• J `J 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCA14ONGA RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LOCATION: Northeast corner of TENTATIVE MAP NO. Parcel Map 7852 Victoria and East Avenues DATE FILED: 1i1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Being a division Of Lot NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 13, Block "G ", Etiwanda Colony Lands as GROSS ACREAGE.- 9.41 recorded in Book 2 of Maps, Page 24, ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 227-071 -15 DEVELOPER OWNER ENGINEER /SURVEYOR Darwin Mark Beverly Fishback Derbish, Guerra & Assoc. P_ 0. Box 15 13383 Victoria Ave. 124 East "F" Street, Ste. 12 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 Ontario, CA 91764 Improvement and dedicatian requirements in accordance with Title 16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga include, but may not be limited ® to, the following: Dedications and Vehicular Access 1. Dedications sha71 be made of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. X 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights -of -way on the following streets: 11 additional feet on Fact Avenue and additional feet on offer to dedicate the east 100 feet of Parcel No. I for future by- pass „ 3. Corner property line radius will be required per City Standards. 15, proov line radius at East P` Avenues. 4. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated as follows: 5. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all common roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by C.C.&R.s and shall be recorded concurrent with the map. E. All existing easements lying within future right -of -way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the map per City Engineer's requirements. 7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. Surety X 1. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of thr public. improvements prior to building permit issuari:e for Parcels 1 and 3. 2. A lien agreement must be executed pror to recording of the map for the .following: full street improvement for entire frontage of parcel 2. X 3. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed, guaranteeing completion of all on -site drainage facilites necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Divison prior to issuance of building permit for all parcels. Street Improvements 1. Construct Mull street improvements including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive zpproaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior streets. 2. A minimum of 26 -foot wide pavement within a 40 -foot wide dedicated right -of -way shall be constructed for all half -- sector. streets. X 3. Construct the following missing improvements: prior to issuance of building permit. Street Name Curb Gutter A. C. Pvmt. Side- Drive Walk Appr. Street Trees Street Lights A.C. Overlay Median Other East Ave. X X X X X X Victoria X X X X X X *Includes landscaping and irrigation or meter X 4. Prior to any work being performed in the public right -of -way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits required. 11 LJ 11 X 5. Street improvement plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civil ® Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of an encroachment permit. X 6. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary. 7. Existing lines of 12KV or less fronting the property shall be undergrounded. X— S. Install appropriate street name signs, traffic control signs, striping and markings with locations and types approved by the City Engineer. x 9. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern California Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Lights shall be on decorative poles with underyrvand service. IO.Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and approved bj the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permit. 11.Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Undar sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards. 12. Drainage and Flood Control X 1. Private drainage easements for cross -lot drainage shaii be required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. 2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 3. The following storm drain shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Enoineer 4. Prior to recordation of the map, a hydrologic and drainage study for the project shall be submitted to the City Engineering for review. 5. A drainage detention basin per City Standards shall be constructed to detain increased runoff X 6. On -site improvements, necessary for dewatering or protecting the subdivided properties, are to be installed to the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to, or contributes to, drainage flows entering, leaving or within a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested. Gradin x 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 conceptual grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application or grading plan check. 4. The fine) grading plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Gracing Committee and shall be completed prior to recordation of the final subdivision map or issuance of building permit whichever comes first. X 5. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division, for approval prior to issuance of building permit. General Requirements and Approvals 1. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: CalTrans for San Bernardino County Flood Control District X Cucamonga County Water District for sewer and water San Bernardino County Dust Abatement (required prior to issuance of a grading permit) Other 2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C. &R.$) approved by the City Attorney is required prior to recordation of the map. _ x 3. Provide all utility services to each lot including sewerage, water, electric power, gas and telephone. Y_ 4. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. 5. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from CaiTrans /San Bernardino County Flood Control District. 6. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. 7. The filing of the tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time building permits are requested. When building permits are 0 requested, the Cucamonga County Water District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will not be issued unless said certification is received in writing. 8. Local and Master Planned Trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing and weed control, in accordance with City trail standards, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to recordation for and/or prior to building permit � issuance for 9. Prior to recording, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District 82 -1 among the newly created parcels. X 10.At the time of final map submittal, the following shall be submitted: Traverse calculations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and /or showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B. HUBBS, CITY ENGINEER by: E n LJ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 9, 1983 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Nubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krail, Engineering Technician R %d SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7812 - PENBO INC,. - A residential subdivision of 8 acres within the R- zone located at the northeast corner of East and Victoria Avenues (APN 227- 071 -15) PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION Penbo, Inc, has submitted the above described tentative parcel map to subdivide .585 acres into 3 parcels within the R -1 zone. There are no existing structures on the site. To the north and west are existing single family dwellings and to the east is vacant land_ Tentative Tract 12040, a condominium tract, has been approved for development to the south of this site. The General Plan designation is low- medium (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) to the north, east and west with the designation of medium (4 -14 dwelling units per acre) to the south. ANALYSIS Tentative Parcel Map 7812 consists of Lot 21 and 22 of previously recorded Tract Map No. 9337 and an unused portion of Kinlock Avenue. Kinlock Avenue is unpaved and is being used for drainage at this time. Tentative Tract No. 12040, located south of the subject parcel map, has been conditioned to install a storm drain through this unpaved portion of Kinlock to connect with Deer Creek Channel. This storm drain will be constructed in the easement as shown on the subject parcel map. With the construction of the storm drain, this porxizr of Kinlock Avenue will not be needed and can be vacated. Since this site cannot be built on until the proposed storm drain is in place, a condition stating that building permits will not be issued until the construction is completed has been imposed. Kinlock Street will be vacated concurrent with final map approval. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Also attached for your review and consideration is Part I of the Initial Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study, the environmental checklist, and has conducted a field investigation. ITEM E Planning Commission Staff Report ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7812 February 9, 1983 Page 2 Upon completion and review of the Initial Study and field investigation, Staff found no adverse impacts on the environment as a result of the proposed subdivision. CORRESPONDENCE Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. Posting at the site has also been completed. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of the project. If, after such consideration of the Commission can support the recommended conditions of approval as written in the City Engineer's Report, then adoption of the attached resolution would be appropriate. It is also recommended that a Negative Declaration be issued. Respectfully submitted, �i LBH Attachments: Map City Engineer's Report Initi -I Study Resolution L '1 J um�a - Th nm mean w - E IINiHIII Im 111111 mr Inlu nmuwilt If lull �ulInlmu um1w 6ll11110 IIII IIIINi 1117 -mon^ DIVISION 7Y MAP cq • z a~ Z� ti r� W 9 its C � J i }I`x d d Q � • __Q � ;rrpa, gt W -_ -� iii I IT � .iq'T7MG1 II e I� 1� s I I v . . 1 C I I E 11 I a I I v . . 1 C I I E 11 I 1 i 1 I E 1 1 fDCa �•a- -••_ 7 Az� 7X „-�• '+���3 �r Lim .I � 7 : 1 � S Z wit! t:. -a. � .'• i _ � 0 JI J Kac� .G I- • z. J �,/�Y :.:tea. �e..._ ��..- -. .ti 1 •. � _ ... 1 fA Ma: 1,y,I1rfY � /l t F _ ' z�P=. �y`g ���a• i•ae ili�s. Wit 1 1 fDCa �•a- -••_ 7 Az� 7X „-�• '+���3 �r Lim .I � 7 : 1 � S Z wit! t:. -a. � .'• i _ � 0 JI J Kac� .G I- • z. J �,/�Y :.:tea. �e..._ ��..- -. .ti 1 •. � _ ... 1 fA Ma: 1,y,I1rfY � /l t c� LLI O _ z�P=. �y`g ���a• i•ae ili�s. Wit 1 1 fDCa �•a- -••_ 7 Az� 7X „-�• '+���3 �r Lim .I � 7 : 1 � S Z wit! t:. -a. � .'• i _ � 0 JI J Kac� .G I- • z. J �,/�Y :.:tea. �e..._ ��..- -. .ti 1 •. � _ ... 1 fA Ma: 1,y,I1rfY � /l 6 _may =8z > -. w e ... •:_S 1 t z�P=. �y`g ���a• i•ae ili�s. Wit 6 _may =8z > -. w e ... •:_S 1 iZ i•ae 6 _may =8z > -. w e ... •:_S 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCA1MONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this fors must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application_ is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1.) The project will have no signi- ficant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be tiled, 2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will.be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further informa- tion concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: Tentative Parcel Map No. 7812 APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: (213) 380 -3171 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE COOTACTED CGNCERNING THIS PROJECT: Linville- Canriarcnn R Arznr4ata• ATTN: Gary Sandeson LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) Knuth cidP of D von Street at Kinlock Avenue (208-851 09 & 10) LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: it�_af Rancho Cucamonga - Planning Commission and City Council _Cucamonga County Water District Chaffee Unified High SLF1UQ1 uIsTrict & ucamon a enen are )c oo_ i- s r_ I C C 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 11 ION OF PROJECT: ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING t%dD PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROTECT SITE INCLUDING INFORN.ATION ON TOPOG:2APHY, PLANTS (TREES), ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series of cumulative action --, which although individually small, may as a whole h "ae significant environmental impact? NO 1-2 � c WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO — X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? — X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? — X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? — X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? — X 5. Remove any existing trees? How many? — X — b. _ Create the need for use or dis p..sal o f potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammabies or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction_ of residen:.ial units, complete the form on the next gage. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial_ evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional m inforation may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date /' 1yr- d: Signature - {g r e.J �1 c� i Title , dC'CE w 1-3 RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION Whe following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamon a Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the school g district to accommodate the proposed residential development. Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: Specific I,Ocaticn of Project: PHASE I PHASE 2 PH-zSE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL 1. Number of single family units: 2. Number of multiple family units: 3. Date proposed to begin construction: Earliest crate of occupancy: Model and # of Tentative S. Bedrooms Price I -4 0 RESOLUTION NO. x A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 7812 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 7812), LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF DEVON STREET AT KINLOCK AVENUE WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 7812, submitted by Penbo, Inc. and consisting of 3 parcels, located on the south side of Devon Street at Kinlock Avenue, being a division of lots 21 and 22, and that portion of Kinlock Avenue, Tract 9337 as recorded in Book 134, pages 65 and 66, Records of San Bernardino County, California; and WHEREAS, on December 21, 1982, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above - described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on February 9, 1983, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above- described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: ® . 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on February 9, 1983. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 7812 is approved subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 0 BY Jeffrey King, Chairman Resolution No. Page 2 ATTEST: ecretary of the P anning CO,lmission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Um nission 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 February, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: I. J E E B u Cm OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LOCATION: Southside of Devon CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE MAP NO. Parcel Map 7812 at Kinlock Avenue DATE FILED: December 21, 1982 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A division of Lots NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 21 & 22 and that portion of Kinlock Ave, GROSS ACREAGE: .585 Tract 9337 as recorded in Book 134, Pages ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 208-851-09 & 10 Records ot San bernaraino c5unty DEVELOPER OWNER ENGINEER /SURMOR Penbo, Inc. same Linville- Sanderson & Assoc. 10 Hancock 9587 Arrow Rte., Ste. H Irvine, CA 92714 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Improvement and dedication requiresents in accordance with Title 16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga include, but may not be limited ® to, the following: Dedications and Vehicular Access 1. Dedications shall be made of ali interior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights -of -way on the following streets: additional feet on additional feet on additional feet on 3. Corner property line radius will be required per City Standards. 4. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated as follows: 5. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all common roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by C.C.&R.s and shall be recorded concurrent with the map. 6. All existing easements lying within future right -of -way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the map per City Engineer's requirements. Is 7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. Y 8. A separate application must be filed for vacation of Kinlock Avenue. Surety X 1. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public improvements prior to recording for all parcels. 2. A lien agreement must be executed pror to recording of the map for the following: _ X 3. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed, guaranteeing completion of all on -site drainage facilites necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfactior, of the Building and Safety Divison prior Lo recording for all parcels. Street Improvements 1. Construct full street improvements including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior streets. 2. A minimum of 26 -foot wide pavement within a 40 -foot wide dedic-` -e right -of -way shall be constructed for all half- section streets. X 3. Construct the following missing improvements: prior to recordation of the map. Street kame Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt. Side- Walk Drive Appr. Street Treas Stqeet Lights A.C. Median Overla Island* Other X X X X x *Includes landscaping and irrigation or meter X 4. Prior to any work being performed in the public right -of -way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits required. I* X 5. Street improvement plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of an encroachment permit. X 6. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary. X 7. Existing lines of i2KV or less fronting the property shall be undergrounded. X 8. Install appropriate street name signs, traffic control signs, striping and markings with locations and types approved by the City Engineer. X 9. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern California Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Lights shall be on decorative poles with underground service. 10.Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning 'Division prior to the issuance of building permit. I1.Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards. Drainaqe and Flood Control X 1. Private drainage easements for cross -lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated cr ncticed on the final map. X 2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 3. The following storm drain shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer 4. Prior to recordation of the map, a hydrologic and drainage study for the project shall be submitted to the City Engineering for review. 5. A drainage detention basin per City Standards shall be constructed to detain increased runoff Gradinu 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 conceptual grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application or grading plan check. x_ 4. The rough grading plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Grading Committee and shall be completed prior to recordation of the final subdivision map. x s. Finai grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of building permit. General Requirements and Aoprovals X 1. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: CalTrans for San Bernardino County Flood Control District X Cucamonga County Hater District for sewer and water San Bernardino County Dust Abatement !required prior to issuance of a grading permit) Other 2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C.&R.$) approved by the City Attorney is required prior to recordation of the map. x_ 3. Provide all utility services to each lot including sewerage, water, electric power, gas and telephone. x_ 4. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County Water District ctvn_a.-rle I letter ^.f BL�epta. ^. ^�° iS required. The water district requires the 6° waterline on Parcel 2 be cut and capped to their satisfaction. 5. This subdivision, shall be subject to conditions of approval from CalTrans /San Bernardino County Flood Control District. X 6. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. X 7. The filing of the tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time building permits are requested. When building permits are requested, the Cucamonga County Water District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will not be issued unless said certification is received in writing. 8. Loc-,A and Master Planned Trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing and weed control, in accordance with City trail standards, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to recordation for and /or prior to building permits ssuance oar 9. Prior to recordiiiq, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District 82 -1 among the newly created parcels. 10.At the time of final map submittal, the following shall be submitted: Traverse calculations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and /or showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. X_ 11.Tentative Tract 12040 located south of the property must be recorded prior to final approval of this map and the vacation of Kinlock Avenue. _ _X — 12.The proposed storm drain from Kinlock Avenue to Deer Creek Channel shall be constructed prior to issuance of any building permits. This condition will be waived provided the construction is completed along with Tract 12040. X_ 13.Devon Street shall be reconstructed for full width from Kinlock Avenue to east project boundary to eliminate the existing cross gutters and to do related revisions to drainage to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This work shall be coordinated with that of the Tract 12040. CITY OF RAf W CWAVNGA LLOYD B. Hums, CITY ENGIHEER by: 11 9 DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF R-,kNCHO CU CAMONGA STAFF REPORT February 9, 1993 Members of the Planning Conanission Rick Gomez, City Planner Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner - HILLJ1UL 1.UMUR1, I - , tic uc,c IWF:",ci and related facilities including seven relocatable buildings, plus a request preschool on approximately 10 acres of R- 1- 20,000 zone located on the west side of between Hillside Road and Carrari Street Avenue. Related File: VP. 83 -01 PERMIT (7) temporary to cperate a land in the Haven Avenue, - 5354 Haven PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Hillside Community Church, is requesting review and approval of a Conditional Usti Permit to develop their church facility on 10 acres of land located or, the west side of Haven, north of Hillside Road (Exhibit "A "). In conjunction with the development plans is Variance 83 -01 which is also on this agenda for your review and consideration. The project site is currently vacant, and vegetation is limited to indigenous shrubs and weeds. The property slopes to the south at approximately 8 percent and has a fall of 50 feet north to south (Exhibit "B "). As shown on the Master Site Plan and the Gmrt,n , aci a I uy B i t t ii l t' afii8%e ly 375 parking spaces, and an overlapping phases are proposed to co ^- ^te the Exhibit "E" and includes tempo► preschool with a capacity o: _-U studei elevations (Exhibits "C" & "D "), nciude four permanent buildings, soccer and baseball field. Four facility. Phase I is shown on ary buildings (Exhibit "F "). A its is also proposed with Phase I. Zoning on the subject property and all surrounding land is R- 1- 20,000. The General Plan designates the area as Very Low Density Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre). Land surrounding the site is vacant except for single family homes to the south. An approved Tentative Tract Map borders the subject property to the west as shown on Exhibit "G ". ITEM F Conditional t1se Permit 82 -29 /Hillside Community Church Plannng Commission Agenda February 9, 1983 Page 2 E ANALYSIS: A significant amount of grading will occur on the site to accommodate the playf ields, as seen on Exhibit "H". At the north end of the field, a 2:1 (50 percent) slope up to 20 feet in height will be graded. The southwest corner of the field will be raised 11 feet above the natural, grade with a 6 -foot high retaining wall and a 5-foot high 2:1 slope. The permanent sanctuary will seat 1500 persons; however, with the first phase 400 seats will be provided in the administration building. The parking requirement fod the permanent sanctuary is 375 spaces. About one -third or 1;5 spaces will be located in the playground area. Initia11", the 3rass field will be used for overflow parking, but as the Cr- - - r. grows and the 1500 seat sanctuary is constructed, the parkin will be needed on a regular basis,. Therefore, it must be designed with a compacted subsurface adequate to accommodate parking in adverse weather conditions. A condition of approval is provided for your consideration. Haven Avenue is designated as a Special Boulevard on the General Plan. As such, the average landscaping depth (streetscape) required along the street frontage is 45 feet. The first row of parking within encroaches into this required streetscape. To maintain the 45-afoot average, the amount of landscaping provided in front of the main sanctuary must be increased. Reducino the width of the circulation aisle on the east side of the sanctuary from the 26 feet proposed to 20 feet is recommended to satisfy the streetscape requirement. The project site is located within the equestrian /rural area the �ity designated in the General Plan. Along the Haven Avenue frontage, a 20 foot community trail will be provided. Also, the Equestrian Committee is recommending that a local feeder trail be provided somewhere through the site in order to provide connection to the Haven Avenue Community Trail. The church is concerned that a trail may disrupt their facilities or cause additional costs. Staff has discussed several ways in which the trail can be provided without causing problems to the church. A condition has been included in the Resoluti,an for the Commission's consideration, which would require the church to provide the trail and the final design and location to be worked out with the City Planner and Trails Committee. Regarding the use of the site as a preschool, all applicable City ordinances, including parking, have been met. In addition, the size of the playground area meets the State requirement of 75 square feet for each child. Conditions of approval typical of preschool applications are provided for your consideration. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE• The Design Review Committee reviewed the project and recornnended approval of the proposed architecture and site plan. Conditional Use Permit 82 -29 /Hillside Community Church Plannng Commission Agenda February 9, 1983 Page 3 E ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Part I of app scant, is provi ed for your completed Part II of the Environ impacts on the environment as Commission concurs with such Declaration would be in order. the Initial Study, as completed by the rev'ew and consideration. Staff has mental Assessment and found no adverse a result of this project. If the findings, issuance of a Negative FACTS F _FINDING: The project design a;,d building placement are compat with the surrounding existing and future residential area. The pr.�;;_._z site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the development, and the proposed uses are in accordance with the objectives of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed building design and site plan, in conjunction with approval of Variance 83 -01 and together with the recommended conditions, are consistent with the current development standards of the City. in addition, the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public or properties in the immediate vicinity. RECOMMENDATION: It is all input and elements Commission can suppor t of approval, adoption Res4CJ:f u l ly ,,%t*mi tted R C E jr achments: Exhibit Exhibir Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Part I, Resolut recommended 'bat the Planning Commission consider of this project. If after such consideration the the facts for findings and recommended conditions the attached Resolution would be appropriate. "A" - Zoning & General Plan "B" - Natural Features Map "Cu - Master Site Plan "D" - Elevations (4 Sheets) "E" - Phase I (2 Sheets) "F" - Temporary Buildings "G" - Tentative Tract 10414 "H" - Conceptual Grading Plan "I" - Aerial Photo Initial Study ion of Approval with Conditions i NORTH CITE' OF ITEM= G. (s. P. BZ -29 R��. \CHO Ci:���IO \G.� �t, = n � TITLE= Z . ,, Pi. UN1NI_ \G DIVISION ENI ilBi I'- �_ SCAL - � -- LJ E. E. r�a�ura fe- �a�ur�s n�� CITY Or RANCHO CU&kN' /IO \'GA PLANNING DIVNON ITE,I: e.0,10. b2 -� TITLE- s 9 tc� of i�� NORTH 4 f � I i � -� l�'.t Ta is ' r �' � ! ,: ♦ c—� -._ _ ! _t . f. l _ ' • S 9 1 _aa f _•.or •-. e.r rt. t' \ .i:�1],! s -[St l �auCar NORTH H CITY OF RAT \70 -D CL;C NIG\GA. CTE,',I: a -V -P- 6'Z -2;s PL.A\'NM aA'NaN £XHMT- "C�" SCALE: — L'I V. '•fit ^ry CITY OF R.INCHO CL;CAL IO\GA PL-kiN I.`G DIVISION 1TE1i: G.W.P. &Z--" TITLE: sr:rnNis-rrraT,cM 3UT2!�E EYI IBIT: 0V = SCALE: NORTH r• CITY OF R.INCHO CL;CAL IO\GA PL-kiN I.`G DIVISION 1TE1i: G.W.P. &Z--" TITLE: sr:rnNis-rrraT,cM 3UT2!�E EYI IBIT: 0V = SCALE: NORTH 1c 11 11I If l !' 1J lJ r_ . ,.I jf Ji ♦y`�-�,� 1 •f�f ' :f p• it �• i �l�T��...r,.....- ._..,.�........�* -»- a- w• a� +rte %WtM MA[tRM►�111�,. ,��' 'Itl F�?l�.�Yyt,jilCt 'li f�i{\s6•f7�C�'/HI•NRI��f✓•lws� 1�ai+L1"�"' _•— ��b���� r WARM Ml t_.f'.. fl f 11 1. .. .ti { 1. tip ��� •M�� i ����Tn�� T ;�� �(I(INIt��I LLW '_' a r7�ri .a..�.. �r,.,�..�. '�, �- 'yi`t •���`~ :r, .'.:1 SAW ✓F�'A.�K.� ��/.re-,'''/''''y►►►i,� •�'Str'`7,�'^. /���,/ rrsy!sys��.r...�yl•y ���y �,"„s'- i{�fl4 t�'� ��r��Gi]I:�llR1T: �� _ �_ i' �'ph�•�,�'�L'a� � ��,'I;� o � a � a '���F.L \1 _n1• X71 � f • ' �.. t` .a z +s N _ L rlLC- sceESL � — ' P L na O IL 7 r � aLO ( p R f eh d a I f I t t 7 t f 1 i t C C p S S t t t !9 / f ItT• - s C a c z c ° OEM O og�- Q ° (sit Iftf rtpf fit l[tliL�j V v NORTH C rY OF ITEM: s P sz -z7 RANCHO CUCAAMON-GA 'rrrLE- BAKY9 4-115- 5M F%-&N PLA:�iN I \G DItrMN, EXlilBIT- *e• SCALE: s J r^ v.�Pr_ 3:7117! la I= a. g 11 i I 1' E. CITY OF RA!\CHO CLCANIONG.� PL.ANNI-NG DINrUaN rarmANE+tT ADMIM. V.X:,e, . I- I Fre —� ll u -I a a 11 �t.�Ns7to1.� ITEM: _6- U.P.8z -?=� TITLE: TPA— ems EYliIIiCC= " E r SCALE: -1*. 2 of Z NORTH I � ! V / I- I Fre —� ll u -I a a 11 �t.�Ns7to1.� ITEM: _6- U.P.8z -?=� TITLE: TPA— ems EYliIIiCC= " E r SCALE: -1*. 2 of Z NORTH L. ` '1 _-_ - -. . -. - __.��i� _� •..,\ ='. ._..� � i wr lu _ `` u rroK� .wreoro Sac or GY4Ywt_r��� CIA ti *y � NOR 1 H CI'T'Y OF ITE:XI= W.V. P. am _w? RANCHO CUCAlvIONGA TrrLE: -r� i o ct i d PLANNING DRrISKYN EXHIBIT. 146r4 SCALE= s-- i Tom^ -1 ..9v r =I. IT }» fl vim.[ Iva r` �2 �-' % T•f ff •osa for rf •u+.0 o +° l•_r{ ;�: i � pren • " -na .elm. m -�.o �. �• ..� -.,r ", .i'. ._.�• Y' -•.r '. � •'— x,;::1;.1= - � • . —.t Ir.tu .pi � �r FORTH CITY OF rrEm: ® RAI CHO CUCANMONNGA TITLE: ,d,r,E� ar&lZl . 0,61 PLANNING DIVISSION EXI-IIMT."&J ` SOLE: — ��. x'"4 i• yF�Y 4'•M'�'1 i. ^) �'• 1�,',aJ .a'�'yt f'L •1�"�� �"('y,a� e�7 ' T '�F�: <rh-'p r. '�.. l r'Y < j` '.. ' .. f !]' \fi.. �at'•i`C1 j. 4 i v ,.�f-i .l�y�i�s.. •.. �-. <!" ✓ ", {i i � "� t.�-' ar ) S� _�i, � .y ��.+ . � �`�t r" � S t %F` "�.7SY.. �•sf,� +„ f V��� Svc � -!. Ji l'.}• R`t y TM. �/.�r�f''�:�] � '1 •hy i� Lt.�'• aY w.: 1;,,. <':. "r �'�5`. �w ' K'raWq -P��"' ,T' -: ,7') rJ.i�',4'iY'' � " ?>,A•- ar"fL.}ts.JGt!..` �,�'�"` . ^ r+ � a.' 't`:t _� >.'a.Y -��� ���' ��a"'�1" ^t,�y'�i•1/� t�Swl"hG,.= '"-,F. vr- ! y 4C �. .a � :(. ♦{ '•� +CY ,c J'�i.'i.�� Y} t- �'�,JJ� i.. ti.rG.j * 3�^^u."..G+".L ��rJ��� -.A .� .�, a!- R>�i.. ,ry ...� j�`7rw -r `i � �, �'lY »r dr � !�� *,,. +Din '�y'r.,�l �rK '1 7"✓ 0Y ''Y '.i s 'l a'.Sl'�+u it ,�.r �ii�{,y �} f fx�.� .e•� � 'ea��tiA♦ � -' .t..,'FL'� �.� b r,y 7�±( ��'[»r'y. {,�?ir i Jn �- tl ►.`ts ,<:.' < + 4��•�'- ,.�+�"Y`'r�^t'y.lJ+'�r+7 :. 's 'j'1'�irati.<�'1r../ ?�� "�•.� ?Y 'ro SgnJ )s.a. r�< rvf;:.2�'ti'A .J CJ�`w�, y. '.ii 1 t .':t,✓ �'i ft•Yi% t �" +aG• ,L .. f! 1 j.�c t+l'ra! "�r Syr" '1r•� 1 >� +h r: y'2P` 3�`y[ -.� v, �,a' a f -<k,. �., A y `� J !" vw• > Y k..• 4x `YR' .',•' J .. r 1S � 1 .,�g�'^..a. :J: ,y•Cl f _ �� -"1'# ��v°'� }12 �?_S': ,o•s�,,,,.;r�'4 - �:, t � Jrr s � �.�y'� L� �r'� .y.`..r � �`•�. fir.' .. r Tv+ 4iy`� �< (� '�� •y T N� � .. ..- .1v< ti J 1�"4 .-al - fGk w a V �' �+ '� '4•Y! w» ; r fit`' f rr •� +�.�'��`Y•'� -'� °e ."''. �1�:�. mow'{ "< L+I, r.y-J �y��V:�t ',�a'pwsf ia,�h5.i s�2%a•; `.+��i�r'..r:.f�jy. rF r� � y'KJ )[`tom' ,L �,< y T`F 3 7c -• u ti y i ylw,. !r. J 1 ii 1" �i- "`♦° 1 s't•,, faro Y,y \'4 •i Yr� l ♦ +.t1 Yk N:1 r+' 1- Y.•�t�yr'�Stir t.`y.tiyL�Na �'R''• i-, r"i '�^'4� +!''.•. L Sit...i��7 afrru> a•v li '+J•S t� air f r � �f[:., -F� •Z "f S -"r -'���( Yr'�r .� I µ�'�r• r./'•Yt . �� Iz„j� I '(��.r 1 -.. �.N X1^''11. +. Y Yi 'I iV .�'M'>'+�• °i{ f •i: ✓ J, � a f a rP { 7'•r + Y • t 4. ♦ 't .y, }X' y'r 1 C. p i < < +. ., q.. a ,.x�' Jf:.l T `.. a :. N`" a}x, _ , ;• Vf i 7' r .L+:. f r • . S '� :l• "tJ'•Y -FMS. y.l C' y, L J t--d Y J1 YT.•, "f'i t r ri ! ., r - y��+Y��:,.,,}`4\ f' ' j„� � Y• �d � a � .y 2 i a � ,<y � < ( ♦ w L `�'�,F,. r -R?"4 �� � s iti ��� w�i 'f S Y lir.w+µ� •» j-�..• f Cy .M1`1'; a�n S_< r.;. .re*¢.,Y•+,x 'C� i�•n -J'. i 1 ,,: 4}.. 'ie "i '`}`-J•{1': Y.n `CrAS't't�Y,MO -p. •'}r V wY��••.."iti� Q'a.+r .>• . r. A ; -1' ,, ,r.••. «,y, ri . 'a' 4y {.qy -,.r •-.., ri`r ar. Jti,� _i ` Y f 1 '-,/ r...criSf"�1..•1- k» S F• r aF.1'�•.,_ }r rek'J. til1r.�. r ir<'i �R r, f� 7 r. ,a, l..�, j.� •r u� "..r41Yar�4 t' : "�`•-�(' 4"R � <tt� £Y t � a r v ,,. '' <�' • ry'r �s ti r f t - � , ". �... t- r. "Y , ,•: rti . t� �Yri Ya� 4a "�J� �L' r+Y�+.y vi ° 4:n �,'•. s' ♦� ?jr �� }a•:. .� L "^. �. +i.: ,.., S"<4.atn -�.` " l 7' Yom, b, ���r ♦���� � .. +*t r ♦ r 1 � K Ja• w < .'.YYp ` .Y ' ° a". ,;,may w f .,1�� .EJ /,sx�S ,rte "a,.l;• ,Lia t l Y ,�, i". e'. r n `). '�`..l !p r � pr�,yv �• 1 .� Y"'+ +;r. � arc ..` S� ti�tJ�G �1 ,CLEF,• a � ,Pyj �' J:. Y 1 �7 1 -� r r u.� �.• --_r � � ". .�1."�i �• L�r �ro rr ty• �� {,� ,day :r x; Tis y n S u! :. , r •y� 0 yT y f ,�� 3-•�Lt { u x. riJ r y'f�S Ty, '4 <f f r "r! �v .{- r • u• '�' „. X� • ". 7, ���'��''� `� 'C � �'� WF�< fr �'. i.' 'r •. F :iu '+t � - .-< ,� i fli, 4' _ ;. �c ,y t• ''' -' _ 'µ"t`^ +srl � ^ -. i . .ya r ,,,rr�y�.7 12 h.•!t_r,�+- \"�y -,. �Y"'�""•il♦ 'ii _�^Mri'L.. '� ;+... .qA.• a. ` ` "] 3.'."'+l"Vhr":..u.i<•T,�" -,4 �{` �. zz ry� - r.. _" r 7 �. .� * •, j'Y� � +���.. ;. -�C I � ,x `.� ,� fir.✓..- ,F tan,.::{�S � �. {JN'L." k. n v�}4 �i .. ♦ r. ^ Y h... r+. �twY?• yy(!. .�5 G4'�'�� -m :: ��•: ,�.,'. ',�r+. .Siff w �, ''.�`s ��' *.��A ) '.Nr �Q�,f' ✓:.f` q�`�.•fi!>;J �'9 y, i.'Mf �. Y 1`� ,l }f .�^Jy✓ ` H .: -. '. _ ' ' „_���� JShr �' 734 ats' �y>f •�U�CdC :� Ti•�•'�w.Yj +'j. "., _ ft�±�+” nn7 t 'Y 1 vi .C..r�a.•+i!1'L'T,t f{ iyi'., r`a''u 1:;,,.4'. n '• 'v,2? ..i 4- iNf��yy���„LJ��•.�•x �,kb i,�,. �M�r. n �"� ✓SY•��y.Ys'�EY •� �jY ..: • � n� !pt S..r4 `: y,(�.•. `� J ro'u �)r \•AV"r .irJ. _ J • 1 a `�: Sa f1.. e1.<` .e T�?..r' •b'ly, •J 42 7W ,.S� i ,f -,• �, rp 3 : ' C4'}�Y c !K. Y �7�:r`�n+� s: L�.(.W3�� v �} . � �" ^vt ,.moo Y t-. " /" y.y ✓ 9. y i'- ^<...:5 J -i -�j + �•�a't 4�q s sF•, i€ !f --�. -f :iY�i�e -"+4 'Nary 1`� b.V'v•1 ✓r• ,%� j- c.('r� Ji \.�G.x n :� . �^s`.� -�•'Zl ♦'�is�' -':f ,k, x•s"�! �'w �.a ;3 d � � +S' a -4,5. •,�C •� .r �•>•rT •4.., stt y �1 +�.,T .t� y ., . �1,�� "�`'1'Y,�� �,iN",y�.r '- A�Wy�.� ,t ''',r` r�.; �'r _--,� ,,, ;,���,�,N �• ,� '.. (1 �1y+� � n ,. a�3.r '� i ♦ �i i •� y � ' J- r r y��. '!C r�17 ,?ar!� "�Tyy�Yat y4..� .. � ?f. � ' ' ; 1 y .''�T�.# �,��— ♦ i'•f•�<. �E,�� .�,f ,+ d }l W�rfy.• a�•,]r.�M�j, �.A�Rt+�'M� Sj��,,, �� ',� � s. i 1 � I a•,`f. •�-S ! , � `tea �Jf.' "J ..! L �� 1V � <Y " ... !: � �'f6r'.r►- w7r: � t t. �' �3C4F..a•.�. ._� '.ti -.. ♦: .�CR�,�. ". f. ''L'^t -. Z. •... + w a•�. .tom �„ +v. s F r r is r ;r._I. rF ,F r� U C c- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I — PROJECT INFOPMATION SHEET — To be completed by appli -- ant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review committee thro -911 the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. the Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which tine the project is to be heard. The Co ,.,ittee will make one of three determinations: 11 The project will have no significant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The pr(ject will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the pronosed project. PROJECT TITLE: _ Hillside Community Church APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: (774) 480 -2791 _Hillside Community Church or P.U. Box 1028 V 9330 Baseline Road, Suite 208 Alta Loma, 91701 Rancho Lucamonga, NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPH011TE OF PERSON TO'3E CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Ken Johnson (213) 331 -6838 20707 Covina Hills P,oad, Covina, CA 91724 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AIM ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) 5354 Haven, Alta Loma, CA _ 00 age of LIST OT__iER PERMIT.° NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES i` "7 THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: City building Der. tment _ I - -1 C WILL THIS PROJECT: YES W XX 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? XX 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? XX 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)'. XX 4. Create changes it the existing zoning or general plan designations? XX 5= Remove any existing trees? =How many? 1-1 XX 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: NSA IMPORTA71r: If the project involves the construction of residential rnits, complete the form on the next page, NSA CERTIFICATION- I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached ekIiibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information Dresented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date Signature, Title Y - -3 E PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Church campus including, one center, one office building, with seven tem erar reio- catable buildings. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF AtiY: 9.4 Acres "Wet" Project square footage DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONNIEMrAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORI•1 -4TION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS 'TREES), ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCEDTIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): Empty rocky -field scoping to the South West. There are no existing-s-truCtureS. inere gre no i �- aspects. The surrounding oroperty is vacant except for one single family residence at the South East corner of the property. Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? Nn 1-2. J l RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION �O O OHIAPPROV NGCONDITIONALUSE PER I T N 8L -29 FOR HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HAVEN AVENUE, SETWEFN HILLSIDE ROAD AND CARRARI STREET IN THE R -1- 20,000 ZO'iE WHEREAS, on .:he 10th day of December, 1982, a complete application, was fled by Hillside Community Church for review of the above- described project; and WHEREAS, on the 9-1h day of February, 1983, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above - described project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Pl ,--ning Commis-=on resolved as SECTION 1: That the following findings can be rat: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General ?Ian, and the purposes of the zone in which the use is prcposed; and 2. That 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; and 3- That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on February 9, 1983, SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 82 -29 is approved subject to the `ollowing conditions and attached standard conditions: PLANNING DIVISION I. The final "location and height of all retaining walls shall be subject to review and approval by the City Planner prior to iF;uance of any grading permit. Retaining walls hi,ner than 4' -ray require special design features and shrub planting in front of the wall to reduce the visual impact. C� Resolution ho. Page 2 2. A trail connection, shall be provided from the wesi property line to the community trail on Haven Avenue. The final design and location shall be determined by the City Planner. Said details shall be accomplished prior to issuance of grading or building permits. 3. The circulation aisle on the east side of the sanctuary shall be reduced in width to 201. 4. The temporary relocatable buildings are approved and shall be removed within two years from issuance of building permits, or shall be removed from the site upon occupancy of Phase II, whichever occurs first, unless extended by the Planning Commission. 5. Building permits shall be issued for Phase I within eighteen months from Planning Commission approval, or the CUP shall become null and void. b. All laws and regulations of the State Department of Social Services relating to licensing of children's day care facilities shall be complied with prior to opening of the school. 7. Expansion of the preschool beyond 120 students will require the approval of a modified conditional use permit. 8. If the operation of this school causes adverse effects upon adjacent properties; the Conditiondl, Use Permit shall be brought bef,)re the P'anning --ommission for their consideration and possible termination of such use. 9. Operation of the preschool shall not commence until such time as zll Uniform Building ode and Title 19 of the State Fi -e Marshall's Regulations have been complied with. Plans shall be submitted to the Foothill Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. 10. The grass parking area sha77 be provided with a compacted subsurface adequate to accommodate automobile parking in adverse weather conditions. Vie final design and details shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Planner and Building Official prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for any portion of Phase ii. ,solution No. Page 3 ENGINEERING DIVISION 11. The future half- street along the north property line shall be constructed at time of development of project to the west or until construction of either the Sanctuary or Nursery and Christian Education, whichever occurs first. A Lien Agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of building permit to guarantee construction of the street. 12. The entry lane on each drive approach shall be reduced to 15° in width. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1933. PLANNING C%1MISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Jeffrey Kiog, Chairman ATTEST• ecretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, 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 February, :933, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: E A.- c- aP -! -a quo u•�r. - a oc nPa c.T.c ca a ac -Ta 9 gccC C N c S] N 9 Y q P N O y •r U C i � q O 6 V q Z V y C V n > q > O y G N2a >CO _N„ _DCC na d 66 �a L qV6 .L L O C L Y n J N M y C d L •O. Y d y O u L N q L O D C 9� -. .• LnNA > N P = ~SC.L g qq i H �N NqY ^ d p i n F N y� 0 Y D d C 2 - q V V t• D N �^ V dLq L -q r4V � Ot 96 r qW AOV O L 4••"1 ` L C ^1 g F V y a L L. C Y Y C Y i y O d ^ n N V r E N O V •n Y A J ^ NOr O C >� O Y q i U O q ° � � V V L L G NCQ ^ C`N� a Y LV NJ ga•••Gi qn L'St9 nO9 V q E 9 ^ a a^ v[ S C a r n a C O C+ d C Y P N _i q O N q d V ^ _V p f N N •O ^ S O N Y L U > a C C W O C O � O^ r N q d 9YL C�- 6•• r• O ^ N 9 _J A_ N d .^Aq =• a • •V^ L D V_ L i ^ >Yq 9•^ UVr =V ! U_ N N P Y d d'. V •-. 6 a V L L O IL q L E y C P C L Y q•..p N N= J N 9N a g A i� C a C ^ yN L V O O r Y d a a r Y O > w D p w a C•_ d N ` • C n y N � J N �� 1 •� G N N aC _� q O Gvpi Y �� ^6 N� NLLZ_ C� GY• °-O- O VLL �^ ASV o M.L.c � '^ N! ^t Q� ^ „ ^`• >E n N ny 9rYr N� n`L u 4>,! O MC •Z LY 9rOYNt Y ^ AC LL • AO J9 N O'CY C d D ON p jU V ` °L > c 9 u d o T •O.� AA 0V P C V9e y�> ` 9C Gc`LO V L'r^ O _C OE JC' L VN O L �9. O =EEO O•n 0 LiS r Y >u C__ L O d [ .z 6gLL6 <NLy\v,'.•r0 6D p rL H6N r NO NCV 6V 96d9 A \6IVC \I TOa o Ta ni a . =Va .0 VL YlO. 4= V VO �� 9n^ .L CGS_ NpY W dLL N9 qq• r y9Y �rLV V�r Y N F OVY VqO YJ• G Oq 9Y SC^ CY�m O•.r q � <- 6 x J y Y u E uO "•i N Y C C 1^ ^L •n ^0 O CCC d ^�C C> CD` �LV >A L q �r U CLIV G ?c qN iE Y� Mpg r cl-o .L•y . o °e � q m V � Y =_ _a e`J p D gaVM S L p Y Qq •a.• V c I u.' �9 c� °c °oYi qs c , w..l i zl O� Pco yqV ewg ice. ^VOq �iCN N _P °C N�.CN.. ui Oww ^_ G d M�a ^ VC ^p• .DL CON DDS LJ q C ^ C >L•w qw. N 9.-�O o _ �_2 n 9 °Y•` no CMS cc c - NOgp � 6 Y s x7; N n H 2 N � • 6 6I C E T C C ° >� N< a C C O 9 q � 4 q i L P� LTC >• cY yC N ¢ ❑ >_ L A6 GO C9 C OE Y _NO p > v V O C N V 0CLj iCNV C6 4C d C�,I c M� N�6 NygU >py =^ qa 5 �vu a Ca°so 4 u` >su -_:.'• n >- � I N 06JV V l0 r6l° ^ C iG V� tN�O� <OVta •, � rN VI V \y'm 6 u O 6^ E N 6 J� Lu HI � O it J O 6 �dVN�VOU =Y� qO�C OC n uLma`. n Yrp Eo O v J L q ^ y q ^ O • O A i O Y^ O y b A T CC ` q C m G q m L A w E ^� n C y V O PV =� >• A q O G O m O ^ ODD O V 6 ^ffL Y•�y d LDO N 6y POD A aL _ _cv qsc n ^i.Lm.�= iq L C1m mu'r >�q qCO C •Y6 9M ^' E y D y Q .n y N 0 •� x L O m ^ q V °_ =xa ��2o s.a.E Nmuo u� Gc y� taig69 SN�'¢2� r�M� J� 69 N 1 1 a vo i.m a a C P °v d g a b y U •- 9 � G� Y y•� C N q i g V C q a A uNVO C o D G N •J O N Cd N �LYp O O Ny 6 w N C G y L •.GO'� d p O d 6 y q � a, y •- a 6 C� L 7L- v= u p c D C x D N F q P q Ory G E TOE ^by N ^ b v d�OL Nb NF PN ' T� N M �OVr y o u �`c Cy is L p q CC 6 C Gy oa pu r va�na� cE OGV C N y N y d, C C v T p x a L p a d N a � 3 O 6 c NZO O v y ¢.Lw m LG� b•.+ = L q OG O GyJ OJ n .aL u J L � LL -L N •"• Lp A A 0 a p D P� L^ q CAa y D NMZ „ q y�ayC x �GpCt^ O V L O N T g d` m N •, M p V N q V� r N V -.5 Z Jq 0^ d� bq L qqP y •O-, >` d L vpi L^ V Y G r y d d O P w 9 QyV SC' r N DLO. 7d L�iVLN y ^Li u O y a C P • C 6 d g a b y G� Y y•� C N q i g V C q a A y C 9 G N •J O N Cd �LYp O O Ny 6 a O d y q � a, y •- a 6 C� L 7L- p Q N 1 P •V D N F P L.LwbN TOE ^by ma r b d�OL Nb T ' '•N qd o u �`c i as is L q CC 6 v oa pu r va�na� cE o.pe c'N" N y O N^ T p a L p a d N a � 3 O 6 c NZO O L L N y ¢.Lw u b•.+ T Nc L � G •"• Lp A A 0 a p D P� L^ q CAa y D NMZ „ q y�ayC aY.. �GpCt^ g d` m N •O r 0 6 y V N q x N V -.5 Z qqP y •O-, >` d L vpi L^ V Y G r y d d O P w 9 QyV bNy` DLO. 7d L�iVLN y ^Li y ^COL O •O � E y a m 6 0 \NVj' rf f 11f � N W m y L N O 9 O O 2 P y w m d O a g 2 zoo L y d i y y D y � yjq^ i �qy c�e�_°^ i�e NVEOC Eu L P6 J � 6b mCZy =^ CCO ev��'f r mu` r E o. oo.�E�La o ^.N.t No ^a yC N C D DN C�yV 6�e t ^�lq bq 9Lar T Q CN-' VLt7 LCY� E•.�x�Vy MC N^ e° maH mayoL q�•L 2 CSC E}C9y` ^N WCSN_V^ _ o 0y m rL. u•EN ^ ^dV LNA ., 'apT T N^ AVIq OP Oy O O 0o 'Y �- t9=2ygym fEOjoa L y d d N w O C O G S Py' L L O L C d CA t d O^ m io.u. E. y q y= a >` � C J P O g N O C •✓ .OS m Y a O N d� a >.pd V b pqV� GC- V Cdy CDr9 wLy ^^ i c c_ ucNU o »F oo' -W.a a" o WC� C. '�^ mC ^ ^We �J ^SCOo ^ G q � c GE G Lpo cp o_� f Vf V O P 0 N , , a � Aa Luc � ArD q CI 1N60 A I d V L ✓O CMG Ia ✓� '^ C N t' d r q Y 1 9 V 9 '^ L y = V v C 1 C Cr— E U✓ `G EO V VD 9 a¢_OG O q a� „✓ r a A `� � a A u � C d = � u < Z P N C 00�✓ 4 n O Nq L N r s H OC a y IF C N y V L ✓ O O J O 0' � A ^O N D A a° V ✓ D 6� N^ C E y L L O — V✓ _ d �N F6 L ✓� 9 r Ir ` O °^ ✓ O q �✓ P r l � O O O y r C J N° •� � A ✓ NN A �✓V ✓� ALI N J ^ t t C .. ✓ G I 6 O C N J ^ O A u A N N 6 d y r u L A O N E:; P E q O C r O N O�v C 9I N u � q Y N✓ d V G N J r• q r D P L G 4 C aN2CS GrN E� r r C 06 N`4 9�.yL N4 L L��JL C O A O A P.^ p AG"l CQC C >g C ✓ ti w^ 9vr r C !� dUTT VV PNO L Or 06 J N C O OrA EPP �C A � qq C— CEO VAU 4� O.LVP ✓ sm UO o O PL_ PE =9 ^ E N O O A C9 • d VI y p yy Z [p d 0. fTO d m J O 6 g Qq ^� EO E ^r > O �n r66✓ O. S r 9 O 4 G 6 6 3 y t V 8 2 6 a✓ V c b O 6 •,•� 1 's t0 J u s y tT d y� LO O 'O v Oq P6G OVN C ^ LL Uq• LO � JOC �L M 9 Cp p N6 PN O.CA ��✓.V.. �0 G ?EC fb.7 C ^D� � t9 6V N9 � C^ pC N L dC e a =AU L yy �C�Y V q �O. uyiN y C d C j� C'O.I A A O y A�6 PU J�6 U d PD NA >L D —LL •✓ N C ° C ✓^ O Y ^ J Y • D N L L M •� M ^ C D^ y W N r 0�9 L4 ✓ >� O P ✓9 d.✓ A J Z C C A— q D..y. 9 OdL dSAa EO ^9 O VbDNN N v2 PLO MLG_ � C � ^ Pa Od 9 ✓QV��^ 'L.. � r 9 p9r cur 9 J i ✓y N d p C OA i rq Jt�L �L T✓— ° i nP Oti m PN O� K-2 G a P 6 r Y i^ .5 c yr c e0 L� of �o < L A y e N C P ` V g Y V O q C u?�� E M L A ✓ ^ 9 �° �l T� OLI(t ✓ ` fCjj �� �9v D 0i .Jr % ✓6 UYM GYA Eu ✓OJV S P ^_1t 0 OE ^VA AO 90 qi V� Nb LC .6 CyY NWP AC- 6i C ✓fiC ✓ U p} � �[ N O Q L� J 9 N S N 9 = 4 ` L O d M V 'J i GN L LOG ib Vdp� NN NNy qF 0 > � yCy q LO b O V 6 C P t d O 9 d L ` a q^ � •" d A q r ✓N r q P A r 9 C r V Avg` y)DP r NN =Gr= CND ✓N °V 9D Nr d dP✓ y� AO T9 ^ CaOr dAO 9� CYO d TDS NL O Oq N DA ANN O• Jr_ Ar r =V °Nr � N br0 E C29^ C cyC ^CNaIC u � ear CO �✓L � ^ E � VtS Or�u� _✓ LNU � gr. LPL O.N uyi ✓J ✓ c M c M E b •� J c V r o � d 0 ^„ d G N9 YGiw 6r J i yl— q 6Nr 6D 6N ZNdd 69'^00• 6V D✓ D V� Z O N V pV L p T lC Paa PLO °T LO✓ �N der' °CCPON � 1] O A C^ •• C O C A V u O✓ A P+ y O✓ C •J O C •+ i p 6 V Hq +Y.A YAwd. W � LC L�•+4.� .� aN A6N^ J° C C P LO. Vpr a du EO PN dm9� y �� A �^ � i°nVp ^ Pq yE� ^ 9r. ;9C yY'y LqO dO�r ad dP ✓ ^p C A PVm dbA r f�pfC ^P9 •L.rpO � aid •o a+°•o °ca eyc v.A. .ce —� a.o.q �i�'�a� LY C W. Y• ° j r C J N L y Y E L � 6. P 4 C L a ' 6 C ) d '•' T^ 0°° V • V QyV 6 ° O Pa L. d J a..O. � apY C d O^ �✓ d a J O.JY � d. Am a Cq ^tr✓LA r� O A L V g q N ^O _ Tuy V O L A W P a O 6 O y r 6 A y 9 N J q N 6 C L N ^ •-• P F O t Pf per �y PCA eC `Y�CNa SAO �NL 01 pN Ay y0 � 2 qN 9V� ^VU� LL Zu�P Gy —�y � S Y ��•"� C HA Tn L V CL �QY qO a'O V �i LL M O ^� 6�G q ^N L^ (O'r O w•_00 i V d a 0 as r C Y a i L A F p O t L y d Y •'V K i 9 Y 9 N N G E T p V a YO. > N Y E V 09i > � OrL L d ^S° A �d •O C -CMY O O^ i pOil WO.~•• d00 VOPpE.yq d NL0 d! �� ° d NTJ Nyw •+ O � ^ Crye P ` q N T d N� V q GN p^-1 Ta •O q'ip` L BONN Ll d C OY A P rYL QN U_ NA{'. it ^ V aW _ 6u C Y M •• O � d S V u Y d`^ Y N n D D P A Y L V � � V O t C P> � V 9 ° w O i •°a N A 4 C W F. L a L M q OF ^ ° AA P 6 ^ N =' A J O VLC O rOVC • = O° a V L'PP a O � L pOy ^ ^ CO q6.� P d O �Y Puri O AAw J N9 Tda T 6V ^ :;:G 4 N U �^ P✓ O 9 y �QE 2 q 6 d C� N O� T 9 =^ .� N + P S C L L� W OF der S Z� i qq P• you ✓ JO pQ NV9N 6 AO aJV C qd 06 ^E ^L JJA {V mL]L GO YO PA O ^_ „Y, i qL a ° t d s � o >• 0 0 � o � s W J r_ O pa/ Or• 7 Off^ d° CC9 5 ^° <C 4. a y d P C d L P P a P d rV�JJ dY �eN s� cq ems• r =�E ✓o..� 4LOL '�Ly mZAL �VT d •y V� .T++ La �•L11 °m G T C V C A W ✓� V = ° d E� d • S P ^ E O V d G d q^ O L D O O ^o a� p— V V y d L T Y� C> ^ p N ✓° W^ C C y ^ O° C A a CV O� LO �7 � Oq✓ yV O�. duu ONO ` d..• V! EW V p 1° y a pq✓ N M C O N L N r ^ N T ^aN V N a y C N qp Ap O C� C6 l � P` T dp y0 qC ypD qCA W L T N Y n 9 J r N m °V t ^P Oy � gZ E i A 9 ^ CpV ^ C •- wZga A��N VCV�Y EOq W � mw• p OJ hE Op _ ^N � a.T. —A vid+'•NV� d a q Np cNw idd °w o� YE dg �°Qeq ao.A.o qvp P ^i ^d Led id yF ci >° Ec So ci pi Pqm °e da > aa� Np p Pw FVru =a n= = P O C+ eco T a ar dcaU J oY+ n � "'C .L.�u € °u -✓ moo✓ c aiG° N J W d CV `• C A A a u A= y GS Oy9S s ^ y P t i N� ^ '' a o P d a^ p OEy r L✓ A Zi .^ d= SL O ^ 0 C J]g pd ✓ <� ^VLU q` O9 y� a n A � V 6L N N a L NU= V •.. ° y e 2 d W r g O 6 V L C M P p ° w d T M� LOCO yE9c ��C`� u'deV6 O �✓ PE O� �°�O uNi V O W L y O C E O • A X_ C O O C N W r v W N m i.^Om✓ V Ci �r� L V A O L N+ d ✓1 q° ✓� I N OY O' t C^ � Q O d TY O 6 d A � O�+ - C� + ° A + 4 •V• V+ O � O ^� L C J a� L C q` ✓ L J % O % A O C^ •O0 L C L^ Ci SlpT S LWNp = VW .•Jpp u. Nf 6^ O N y pVG WNO 4•,VV '� \A, ! O N \' \q' •i N ^I C � � �I o �� �I 'f W� 11 �C tlxw ..4 O'I P L El E. w —e^ cw.d a a Lidaa a a N D N O d O C O N O A C L •T. O N u 9 I 1 N L u t a V W ••9_ Y 6 O O N C y i T`J ` rC6i O \\ 9 i ¢ � I� U L L r P L N J u r N = y�y 9 N \/T 'L \) I I O 6 1 1 °E YCN Od N S P PA i N V � W i o .- c° a / 1 iri. v C N S V d N S Y — 6 P p � y G Y. Yp- CO D Na —e^ cw.d a a Lidaa a a N D N O d O C d N O A C L •T. A u 9 1 N L u t a ••9_ Y O O N C y i T`J aL .�•+ rC6i O JN � 9 i � I� I= I L L r P L S- O u r N = y�y 9 N D 9 W O °E YCN Od P PA i N - i c° C d 1 iri. v C N S V d N rc�jju — 6 P p � y G Yp- CO D LYf1 LL.L.r^ aT..G r V N� Oy P -N � p S a 6 d G J V L °rte O16LV �� L CN 9yG CC FV � vj6 P.ri. 2 C E °. Y_ T p L O a S° O .PJ •O.r d q d �I� — f'd CWO C` Ja GyNy =j¢Y1f aq6' AO p ^ L > ^ a p V 9 9 N a u O � L S n Mc N ZL F A N �aT L�.L+ � a q p DdC i LO^ °d qO L pGEI OC °yL C� ra TMi WMgyO a_WEG 6L ••n-L yAj V�i AO C� V, P r -- — r E� °y OZC Vy fq �L CdyM C r 9 N 999 W r W r> a C r T T 7 r W A Y• a �` C 1 a _ O L 6 E Ct\ —9 VJ E Nqq V I CCa• —Yp US p L y. O VsOUO <U L^ i •Ni V 26 � ^D ° 9 r� •N• ° +ai a Z If � �D ^ uVOT oa - O u V y —E NJ,L„ Aq c t a. L.�S ` G. =y G — N.GaL.L. �q� eu „E .L. N Y d d Y W a N D N O d O C d N O A C L •T. A u 9 1 N ✓ O- a ••9_ Y O y i >Q°V' O O 6 T O � I� I= I L L r P L S- O u r N = y�y 9 N D 9 W O i c° i— a E iri. v rc�jju r V P p S a 6 d G J V L O N L dwa �E LO. ji Lu�� IEECOV° �I� 4 f'd CWO C` Ja GyNy =j¢Y1f aq6' AO � L S Mc N ZL F �aT L�.L+ � a q � •ac d ^ V, P r -- — r E� °y OZC Vy fq �L CdyM C r 9 N 999 O ^ Ct\ —9 VJ E Nqq V I CCa• —Yp EFzf V C L e � ^D ° _ is r� •N• ° +ai a Z If � �D uVOT oa I u V y —E NJ,L„ Aq c t a. L.�S ` G. =y 1 I � — N.GaL.L. �q� eu „E .L. N Y L A a a N U P N N L N • r9 CyN Cy� JAW >..+ S l C L C J J C -4.5 4' •- L P N m C •.. ✓� L` rote y p` C Sy `e V C aLd — O O r ` S^ S 6 u i d too, A L O O C^ A = It- p I V V < A Q r 6 M V L W i 2'. 3E �I J 0 V i 6 S, Z O I] ,O I c P Y da T- a u po, L .n d C c � .....- L V � v — O `� y a d r O � U ` x y 9 � y — n 6- d e ca G � � T 9 C J S� xN •� C 9 C r—i EZ� — Vy 6 = C y K � e N « H v y C E �L- 9 O V dC r •L vu iy o 9N oc y°i� oNo cp ^+oc W, 0. � qPz q U. i ` Ez cog^ o c. o• _ o '� rnd a i v � q —d dPT t += QOVL CI 6VL qry U nj �y yq ^d t� C 9 C y d c L co n> ovca C —N 6— p tL V < O. LJUa K 6 N p N ' O O qCN °L CVgd y =T G r � o d�Nd ¢' ��• — a 2 gqo Y Sy V LG rpa r._ �• q jd � -qV •r VVG_° ga09 � r 9 � q O a� ` G � LqO .°•y yV L y°•— y V VTdy C v CG OP 9y'Vq y rp tf '^T x_ v �� IYVN q0 C' 2.. 1 •'• r 9 l r L N » V� L q V C V V O— V 6n °C> LAG �W OLD C� ° GyL �9r-G_ •`n I ��« IN LL q rC — 66r CrJ2 Lq �� Ly_ d =I I1 S, Z O I] ,O I c P Y L ° a u po, L .n d C � Y y V � v — O `� y a d r O � U ` x y — n 6- d e ca G � � r « q L N ` J S� xN •� C 9 C r—i — Vy 6 = C y K � e E El n LJ DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT February 9, 1983 Members of the Planning Commission Rick Gomez, City Planner Curt JohnFton, Assistant Planner ITY permit the development oT a aU TOOT n on 10 acres of land in the R -1- 20,000 west side of Haven Avenue, between Carrari Street - 5354 Haven Avenue. Related File: CUP 52 -29 • 41 RCH - A request to g --church sanctuary zone locate) on the Hillside Road and PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Hillside Community Church, is requesting review and approval of a variance to allow the construction of a sanctuary which is 50 feet in height at its highest point. It is located on the west side of Haven, north of Hillside Road (Exhibit "A"). This variance is in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit 82 -29, also on this agenda for your review. Conditional Use Permit 82 -29 and this request should be reviewed concurrently. The project site is currently vacant and the vegetation, is limited to indigenous brush and weeds. The property slopes at approximately 8 percent and has a fall -of 50 feet north to south. As shown on Exhibits "B" and "C", the proposed sanctuary is one of four buildings proposed. The sanctuary has a seating capacity of 1500 persons and has a maximum roof height of 50 feet. The steeple at the north end of the building is 59 feet high, but is exempt from the height requirements. ANALYSIS: In the R -1 District, the Zoning Ordinance sets a height limitation of 35 feet. The proposed sanctuary exceeds this limitation by 15 feet at the northeast end of the building. From this high point of 50 feet, the roof slopes down to a minimum of 34 feet. The building design proposed attempts to work with the natural slope of the land and minimize grading by providing seating on a second level balcony. Although this increases the building height, the alternative of a single level would greatly increase the size of the building pad. The 8 percent natural slope makes this undesirable because of the additional grading required. Therefore, the taller building was chosen as the least offensive design solution. ITEM G Variance 83 -01 /Hillside Community Church Planning Commission Agenda February 9, 1983 Page Z Several factors combine to lessen the height impact. Considering the natural grade, the land falls 14 feet along the length of the east elevation. To provide a level building pad, the grading plan proposes to cut into the slope at the north end of the sanctuary. Cross sections illustrating the grading are shown on Exhibits "E" and "F ". Note that the highest portion of the sanctuary occurs where the building pad is considerably lower than the street. This reduces the visible height of the structure to approximately 35 feet from the intersection. In addition, a generous building setback of 85 feet is provided from Haven Avenue. Together, the grading and building setback reduce the perceived height and bulk of the proposed sanctuary. State law, as well as the City Zoning Ordinance, gives the Planning Commission the authority to approve a variance for certain development standards only when special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, or topography would create undue hardships. Also, variances may only be granted when the strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. FACTS FOR FINDING: The topography of the site necessitates a smaller building pad to minimize the amount of cut and fill. The lower pad elevation in relation to the street elevation, plus the building setback greater than the standard, combine to reduce the visual impact of the sanctuary as proposed. The sanctuary proposed represents the least objectionable design solution and compliance with the 35 foot height limitation would create unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has bee^ advertised as a public hearing in The Daily Report newspaper and all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site :3ave been notified. In addition, public hearing notices have been posted on the subject property. To date, one letter has been received against this variance; however, no reasons for the objection were stated. El El 11 11 Variance 83 -01 /Hillside Community Church Planning Commission Agenda February 9, 1983 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of this project. If after such consideration the Commission can support the facts for finding, the adoption of the attached Resolution would be appropriate. Attachments: Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Resolut °A" - UBo _ "C° - OD" _ °E° OF" _ ion of Location Map Master Site Plan Sanctuary Elevations Conceptual Grading Plan Haven Avenue Cross Sections Diagonal Cross Section Approval :`rLd ;.: .. == lsc 1 14e Chaffey College ' V ,ORTH CITY OF ITEM= dA s3 -01 R -,�-iCIHO CUCA�,IO�G.A TrrLE: Z -Al..� 4 �Mmm L �,? PU\NNI\G rNMON E \I RIM ° A SG-%LE-- r- f b 172.1 OT V, �I L. / --.. S, �♦ � � Cpp- x111'1 _ 1r Ie _ may. r -•l [,u.it ••N[ [.[ [[..l "Si �e ]l ]![' X]11 �'�"'� N40MJ CITY OlF I'T'EM: %/A g-3 - o I R1 'U\'CHO CUCAMONGA Tnu: smi;r.tLgn esrm ?L,*#4 fe PLA_NI NIING MrSION ES:HIBiT =S— SCALE. n is i ry �• i r� j + `- �[ar'a{'C. �T/y.!,� �'����jh� ++a+ "'•"'° 'ti 1 F° �r . L''�'Lf Y SS ti -ter ►rs -� i I k i� a 'r •rte ~[ VA w�' � Eft :mot t ,v�•'t'- i"• �-s i��'b� • Lr'- �. RANCJJO i SCAU 0 10 'i. 0'1.0 1 1 1 f to r- Iv i t IV'u CITY OF n>-\I: VA E;S-ol RANCHO CL't'.ANIONGA TI-, :.E: ��, EFM PT .1.Nr TINE DIN ISIO'3 EXI-IImT: 'L SG-kLE: E r a G� CITY Or. RANCHO CLC N lON-GA PUNNING 1TL\1, % A ea -4n' TITLE= j pAMoA Awg SrcM&*6a a �l ..TAPezY crUf Mr. -• —.- - li t I m I I � ^ � e �l C E f 7 R A S �•o � / ^\ d `� :NORTH CITY OF 5 ";�ru'�'c =T , RANCHO CUCa,N1 ®aGA 'TM`E SGILE. M f � • i o j t� 11 0 RESOLUTION NO. * A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RAN NO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 83 -01 TO EXCEED THE HEIG� LIMITATION BY FIFTEEN FEET FOR THE HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH SANCTUARY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HAVEN, BETWEEN HILLSIDE ROAD AND CARRARI STREET. IN T�!E R- 1- 20,000 ZONE WHEREAS, on the 11th day of January, 1983, an application was filed and accepted on the above - described project; and WHEREAS, on the 9th day of February, 1983, the r'lanning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the California Government Cade. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: 1. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to property in the neighborhood or the use thereof. 2. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect in a material way the General Plan or its objectives. 3. That there is exceptional and extraordinary circumstances relative to grading and building setbacks that do not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1983. PLANLING CONfMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA Lf: Jeffrey King, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission 1, JACK LAM, 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 February, 1983, by the following vote -to =wit: Ll E. DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT February 9, 1983 Members of the Planning Commission Rick Gomez, City Planner Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner AND a 197 facility on 1.84 acres of land in the Industrial Park category (Subarea 6), located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Route - APH 209 - 141 -16. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The applicants, McIntyre Partners, are requesting review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit to develop a temporary bank facility on 1.84 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Route (Exhibit "A"). The )roject site is currently vacant and vegetation is limited to indigenous weeds. The property slopes to the south at approximately 2 percent. The site is designated in the Industrial Area Specific Plan and General Plan as Industrial Park (Subarea 6). Surrounding land or. the south side of Arrow is also zoned Industrial Park. The northeast corner of Haven and Arrow is designated General Commercial, while the northwest corner is shown as Office on the General Plan. Surrounding land uses include K-Mart to the north, and the La Mancha Golf Course to the west. ANALYSIS: The proposal includes a 1440 square foot (24' X 60') relocatable bank with eleven parking spaces (Exhibits "B ", "C ", and "D "). Full street improvements will be provided along Haven Avenue. Improvements on Arrow will be required with construction of the permanent bai,k. A preliminary plan showing the general layout of the future site is shown on Exhibit "E". The location of the relocatable bank was chosen so that construction of the permanent facility will not disrupt the bank operation. The applicant expects the permanent bank to be built within two years. Unlike a similar project at Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue, construction of this bank is not tied to the development of a shopping center which could extend the development schedule. Conditional Use Permits generally expire eighteen months after approval. However, the Zoning Ordinance allows the Planning Com..`ssion to specify longer periads. Considering the current economic situation, a two. year approval period `or this project is suggested. ITEM H Conditional Use Permit 82 -24 Planning Commission Agenda February 9, 1983 Page 2 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE: The Design Review Committee worked with the applicant to resolve concerns relative to the site plan configuration and circulation. After the appropriate revisions, the Committee recommended approval of this project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Part I of the Initial Study, as completed by the applicant, is attached for your review. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study and found that the project will "lot have a significant effect on the environment. Ir the Commission concurs with such findings, issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. FRCTS FOR FINDING: The proposed development plans, together with the recommended conditions of approval, have been prepared in accordance with City standards and policies. The use is in accordance with the objectives of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the General Plan. In addition, the project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the public or properties in the immediate vicinities. CORRESPONDENCE: A Notice of Public Hearing was placed in The Daily eport newspaper and seven (7) public hearing notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the project s *te. In addition, public hearing notices have been posted on the subject property. To date, no correspondence has been received either for or against this project. RECOWENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider al input and elements of this project. If after such consideration the Commission can support the facts for finding and recommended conditions of approval, adoption of the attached Resolution would be appropriate. submitted, Planner RG /W /,;r Attachments: Exhibit "A" - General Flan and Industrial Area Specific Plan Exhibit "$" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Elevations Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Landscape and Grading Plans Exhibit "E" - Preliminary Plan Part I, Initial Study Resolution of Approvl with Conditions 1] u E RESIDENT4` <L 0 YEPY LOW c2WslAC LOW 2- 40UY/Ac C LOW- MEDIUM 4.80LrWAc E 3 MEDIUM 4 -14 oawc MEDIUM -HIGH u-2e omAc I® FIGH 24.369lfs/AC ® WASTER PLAN REQUIRED COMMERCIAL /OFFICE COMMERCIAL r] COMMUNMY COMMERCIAL 7-*—1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMM. REGIONAL COMMERCIAL OFFICE CITE' OF RANCHO CUCANNIONEGA PLLNNING ENVISION rFF -Nl: 4. v P Sz— ZZlq Exii, 1T -A- SCALE- . I I I I W 7 z t z I H y z? —ARROW ROUTE nand .y rb[ILtTY ,� c°vK II I I I l] ti L �i Kw f L' tea i 0 +� V FORTH CITY OF rrE.NI: �.�.� s� -z•� RA\-CHO CUCANIOt'GA ?rrLE Pi '�1NlidG DIV�t0�1 EYHIBM ice- SCALE- E / i r vrw+• y f L' tea i 0 +� V FORTH CITY OF rrE.NI: �.�.� s� -z•� RA\-CHO CUCANIOt'GA ?rrLE Pi '�1NlidG DIV�t0�1 EYHIBM ice- SCALE- E 11 i i — - Q I I i L�T:uSS remiam!hr - \I yr uTY !sec OonK \ ' is. TM Twiouas da • vwr.n ua,wa.. swr a >an. auos ni. - . • w...s � era . e.qi �+ a'.awc. ao � iMCY A M svM .n.ae. A Q�'. •�AC� rm n..o' A �.n.ue A - enaC -lae. l M rsr nr nv uana q�..e a mrse w - a�t _ CITY OF rrF -NI- e-.o-�P. Rr'_ NNT710 CUCAMONGA rtrt.E= 4,>c�, L.Aj., ® °LANNINC, EXHIBr- G SCALE- - �. s. rs.co Deane orec, -.mss. d u.e aw...aey .wcr . a✓y.orsy.�, v A e �aeD it C.�MLR.M aYlY o�ee.u¢rr nr�rs 1 Oa�bY �. MaP . � rns..� • :kG %4^ GIAN Q5r.N2T�ON �• a �.¢vrAS� aMc NORTH CITY OF rrF -NI- e-.o-�P. Rr'_ NNT710 CUCAMONGA rtrt.E= 4,>c�, L.Aj., ® °LANNINC, EXHIBr- G SCALE- - elcrucHr j NUILTW► ROOD 6X8 POST — NAMOICAP RAMP EAST ELEVATION aKYLICNT METAL :UTTER T t -1t HORIZONTAL R.B. 2.1 TPIM TAL GUTTER '0.3. tare TRIM _NORTH ELEVATION(SOUTH ELEVATION SIMILAR)® BUILT -UP ROOF- `et POST WEST ELEVATIG: CITY OF rrEN1: RANCHO CUcAiN,10 \'Cif TI r1 E: �o� r5 PL'`'%uN-Nt u DivislaN EYIi1Bf1: L G� NORM 11 11 ARROW RO 'TE -H II AeO1f ��iT p �iT c CITY OF ITEM.. e-- • RANCHO CUCATMUNGLk Tnu: uxjLc� <m� PL,kNINIIING Dl\rblONqT FxHii3rr- scAl-F-- C� NORTH CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department: where the project application is made. upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study The Development Review Committee will meet and tak action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will Lave no r_igni- ficant envir .=ental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant environmental .impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, cr 3) An additio^--.i information report should be supplied by the applicant :giving further informa- tion concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: 171P 4C'4_ /y?c Z.- Jpn iiy�y:S APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE;:c NAME:, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON O BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: LOCATION OF S AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: I -1 E C� C E. C � PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PRCJECT: R?M:�,� <. flfu <i TD �E ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSE�D BUILDINGS, IF ANY: �qr ncS /Y1s✓� 1.20 /A25- I. J 1 s I - - (' DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLL:DING INFO&MATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPEPTIES, AND THE DESCRIP'T'ION OF ANY EXISTING STRU^TURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NEiESSARY SHEETS) Is the project Of c" mulative may as a whole ��asw part of a larger project, one of a series actions, which although individually small, have significant environmental impact? 1-2 WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO _ X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours" x 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or genera! play. designations? _ X 5. Remove any existing trees? How many? 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Exnlanat_Lon of any YES answers above:_ , 14 IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation ca_n be made by the Development Review Committee. Date /.Z - /G' ,5 Signature , _ AiM Title J 1-3 1 C RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION . . *he following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planaling Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the school district to accommodate the proposed residential development. Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: Specific Location of Project: PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 1. Nu. er of single family units: 2. Number of multiple family units: 3. Date proposed to begin construction: 4. Earliest date of occupancy: Model n and # of Tentative 5. Bedrooms Price Range ® I -4 PHASE 4 TOTAL '. l i " � sr � �' �. _ .. �. f . 1 r �i., �.. r. ,:- .. �, �,., _ •..': .. - ';.: � 4. �� 't'. ... . �: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82 -24 FOR EMPIRE NATIONAL BANK LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND ARROW ROUTE IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK CATEGORY (SUBAREA E) WHEREAS, on the 3rd day of November, 1982, a complete application was filed by McIntyre Partners for review of the above - described project; and WHEREAS, on the 9th day of February, 1983, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above - described project. fol lows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resoled as SECTIGN 1: That the following findings can be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, and the purposes of the zone in which the use is proposed; and 2. That 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; and 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on February 9, 1983. SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 82 -24 is approved subject to the following conditions and attached standard conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1. The temporary bank facility is approved for a two - year period from the issuance of building permits unless extended by the Planning Commission. However, if building permits are not issued within eighteen months from Planning Commission approval this approval shall become null and void., unless extended by the 'Planning Commission. 11 Resolution No. Page 2 2. Development plans for the permanent bank shall be submitted to the Planning Division for Development Review within one year from issuance of building permits for the temporary facility. ENGINEERING DIVISION 3. The drive approach along Haven Avenue shall to a minimum of 35 -feet and shall be shared with the property to the south. 4. Median Island installation shali be delayed until construction of permanent building. A Lien Agreement for the future construction shall be required. 3. Street improvements along Arrow Route shall b= delayed until construction of permanent building. X Lien Agreement for future construction shall be required. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, 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 February, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: E A 9G i C\�9 P- O w � Y ^ Y .r Q' a 9 ^ d C 4 F p •+ C C A �- T° q C` C V A B C L G Q J O ` • O = 9 GV' C C LA A_ >�= IO✓ D r AC Y A \di � w N O �` W° y° d °- N��✓ d y C a V q✓ c D G q ✓ A= ° w q 0 .� C q V O.O. Z d 9 j _ � ✓ a q _ F 9� L E N- .CO C>s y >\J CL V V T y tNVY ^V O A j ✓- O \'. j D wq D O _ W N d0 D 6 M� ^•> dA` VIJd VC OL 9d L QLDT iCFi ° L Q� Uy L„ JV q q0 N= G N N V✓ � A C �' ✓✓ V L L t`q Y qL LV `A ^ YZS9 N'q A U ° d C > d 4 D y O✓ 9 ✓a ? A Y a u C S p c Y P U o N C O N y d •• A r � L q� N Y � A v G. A L N A A V 9 O C �V C �_� L N�NY - O'U LA bJ_N 91L V C•L,V C\p O. C ,^ \Ln C Y L d ' d ✓ U L� r J _ U A d t C 6` L• O C OAN J�Gti O~ CO'LO `� A ✓O Y> _ ^� DV\' yE y ✓GN Ad d0 LSO • OC Z Ntq = yi q C N ✓�, ^' Jd° NL_LL_ =q'✓ G. M L� yJy ` QZJ N =� NU £y j9�YgN T m'• O �' ✓ N E A A d c G 6L .4L+ F a c N S Y C V C aI W V A L~ 9 o�Y vyyv a. `GmQ Yqo v"v c .°.« 6Wq VL ..fib p F.b- w e dy °' c tc� q °mni ^Ac ` u 9 w ✓ O �>� Y ✓4. O• � � Y A. N 4 j V \n O ^� L C N b l � D q ^ J A N d L W q VE O. Va 6n�6L 0. QN6G ``G, \tim 6L HO'N G rL NC \A Aq 6V JY96V P JJjj ��II I Jo aqo �o Doo °'r aQ soYL «°'Y C %C CY ` NC eqN 6V� �TL I` byL ✓V 7Pq d ICY 9 O✓ C A O C p O C N C- Y2 V d� 6OY OYq O r d z O O. O C O 4 y Q.Nr L C O✓ E V C S yE j 9V � =4 Pl:6E Y - V Y✓ C =d �6� y0 dC -L�q =JV 70 �d6 pJ y I 6' n C C O\'• V p n J L' V udi 9 O> q i N � -• � . W V E T P p G �. � O q C c 3 S C O y G Z W� O O ��) q SA. O� V _ Q . %1 > c_ „^se , I c o N Y .^ t � Nib _dC �+ qO JD^ N CL _ ^ O ` 6 } 9 Add ^ �M D •O.r 9. ^° ^ ^L S V � N O q L Oy �"•^ V J 9> ^ G„V C M N V C ° �I iD2 y.0 CY i CO ANO Y CC lTC qCZ 9Q O�� w ✓CJ Y� -•-JJ M� N E`✓ 6 VV 1 L V YY O• F.� A✓ HOC °\` • C d ON V6 O c c wc� Si n ° vE t oc °moo �= ec b v Sc,Neq 3, wo A Y 9 V •+CE t y° C J L � G 6 J 4 V . L O H 6 � � O � O C V✓ < +� O V 6 O A a1 Q NN ✓ y rf R Q o_� N dc°P .c n � W Tdv On °Lw✓� 9°,9 A. �rq �i.diVN�� TTTT r d a N �C -rte . L q .L. °� 4 rO.Ob Ur 9-L+J +ate �L P na 6' ✓6Yi.l GP.r L O.Le.�.i ° NdO� rtnr0 t7! - � V LO CL aS A~O Oaay`y.. 6 «n T .°� ^L NTy 9 C« E l°OPdc Yq^ «OF CC Q j�_! «q Ay £q ��•.. V b «°a9 6A6 nO'yL m _ •SV 6 >� 9 N O v P°'� E V A O� � d E�� N C� A'= O =... q d n = .ma O y r q L TOU6m`d �r J>6C Jr O �Ai d �� l LN'^y 6 C`� «Q9 nA NL�y 9O= q qq P OrCN °� N _Y ^bC d L� N �L C�� y `n r Jy aO PO dE✓ qwi .E CNV _y y m qN "�" i V ES �a L� n �>.. E9 Lq cN `e y TL Jd�y qV N E� Y °Cq 6 G JSC CL Cr aq ALy q � a 66CN L ^crVa N On F q dua A` V � C V ray O CQ 6byL �r C tl0 rqN q' a 9 4 y_.L Vr^ °mq -:5- L °� o q bNy Yy Eqy V mLP N 9M aLVO LWLV NQ O`dw..b rya N C n q C Ndq A`yNa bNMq L NgwE ^q� A L. CAL bU0_ o J ^�£ LL Nq U dim • n« O N« N�N4i �Lb Z q O LOd N P A Ngp1CN V_a 9� JQr�L q OL�� ^N C OY OY '_ N �O' LO y O rN Q�rm qd > J Ed: LO ALL G A_ T °liy�N y0 a C L N ma LOd Mr �ryi ^M! lLL°'JgM y ^ '^N Od �arq C' NE y00 w .5 .5 VYU NmrL V �C� �Y6 6 y A °L -91uE rEyL1m 9_ J r m i V _y. r�vL �. 6b.yn �a ^y 6 6v c y�VgP92NL A2� � O Cam- N n � N C N o W °- °c c w c a o= �N °�.6. rvr r c e a .- =y v� �.N•. L CC(�jlr TGaVi N ^Ly L L wa Lr i i E«« CUCT O'N 9v L C _ 'r 4Vj y C WALU� r E Vy Cn�E�V VLS��OO^+16 Y V L V. r'^Na °c Y 'G qua u e v Lc• myvs Eoc« ^.` F c nrgLCC r �rdt u¢wC O a O. ^ Zd L am• np mayl >adLiOL CONr V °C °^ y q q Nm y VC2N.. q QF C9y « ^N FVr CCC wu N d V ry CO b«S�y. CCL. La 'C J Y ° .-= =9 io yy V CL UO. pCE1 L y' CNT„ EOM ^dU6 S .r m�p_CN AqE C «qy N G.a « dG162 iNP OYgOgOO q ° w Z O v �^ E O Nr r qU r V� � V r O•L V C q . �` q � y O NO Cb O� OC CnOA O` °y S6ti 1e =_�L GC CA« ^V q O�VO. rC_ aE ASOI N��«J 000 YN-Jr Ca qwC p «qr 9= Ny ^T e ra JN_ d qyV Vb Za `.Oq L° b CyyCd .G1 C� CGLA T ^SY C' ON TO.aAV O AyV 6yV M^ 6gyy NN ^~ rr Al N FA N �I i V. l 4 q o✓n E p i C G T C d •• i 9 L ✓ Cp d •Z J 4 q L V V PNO 6 0 V O �I a � qd .✓P N A-y d�qL PL ^ �t Cy —� N^ •t• ^N•[ G• i a O C L p p p n • A >� 4 '• N O I ^ V 4 c O n �O � v` D, o i L y y u V � E _ t p N a =" n I v T « N om^ i 4 c _- OLy N09a `.D yyS ✓N ✓Ldp fECj .'i.S .�,� p' 01 �✓ C ` v A d O � C i I N L � Y t r L N N O C L L•� T C d y c � �^ � �� l] L �CTO � y p p —� O•V� N C ° y O a C L Y NO O. Q .r > 40.• � a ^ y 7 p QqC a C ac � L °N CP 00 ✓•✓n ✓d J¢ Y � CQ a 6 I I °q �LN �JN 00 VPq J C V y 6 � � T ` O 'Z L O O Oj �VG d O J✓ d A✓ OEfOa yC °� °� a A r � ✓ !J �. E✓ O o � r C V q d c i n � �N oIOL 60aa✓.• 7E pup a pL" Z d L q. a L d i— C L q d J V Y N >1 N u S COON �° N ✓ V Cp O� — W 9 L p•L•Y • � V O C t • P° ✓i°•�q •^ NL ✓ r yA✓ ^-✓ ze �pV d ^ ° ^S S LU✓ d OL 6dC L PY ° �Q•� IN q` u 61 L eL.� �M•^ a °•._ `°a a ° ° °v _ _ oo au q r Lr°, O nG C• •" T L Y N C P d d q C q C G C S E C A t q L a M d`✓ Nar pP ✓A OP` CY W � A Au ✓` CJLNQ AA ^CC! d d ^q rp VC VV sC — Nr IY NIVq OON jY ? � 06 y1WLL ^6 ✓y' GE VTa9� COi�� �O F 6 d`. yN� M�yL �f� q✓ Vim^ NO• d Oi•r0 L � OC = =Aq C -E Q _n 6p✓ �C^ 6M Cryy OC O �J O y E T q V r A✓ �E ^V y a Gpp `� A P P C � q q C^ E O V q Q O.y ✓g PACU ••°.<< YpO y � > � PL PbiW d ^a' O NJdt' dY NCy —� LCD GI •J a GG � yy0 `CY �Ej � +C° d0 —TCd L L L q P N _ < 06 {yQf Od�Y r9 f60✓ D. OV O y. •C c WW P °pC N d tiAC A� 660 N d O V G NV - Eyyd ✓cam t I P d � L O V Q L =�Y�oo P✓NO c� cac °v^ >.r° Q° ` ✓YO. V 06A NNy• �= � O q'Cyyp PAN ^Y u — „LP �OIM CqC dW q o✓n E p i C G T C d •• i 9 L ✓ Cp d •Z J 4 q L V V PNO 6 0 V O �I E M t 0 •rd •�Ly C V d�qL PL ^ �t Cy —� N^ •t• ^N•[ G• i a O C L p p p n • A >� 4 V N O ti P N O � W a �O N N qLE ` G may EN rp O•. Yp _ ^_ � « yyy _- OLy N09a `.D yyS ✓N ✓Ldp rn .'i.S .�,� N L � Y t r L N N O C L L•� T C d y c � �^ �� �p a.. ..• c ac � ✓=� ^'°` Ja •aw r Lw u � d••L• Q p A n� W L° L P S L^ O L I p • ^ q T ` �VG V L d A✓ OEfOa yC °� 01-�AA a' •� r L ^O a p V V r •Li+ C � A I N p d N d C L V p ^ =` a i— C L q d J V Y N COON N L'OS Cp O� q�0 W �y L p•L•Y • L • P° ✓i°•�q y pJp f ze �pV WC ^ ° ^S S LU✓ SS OL 6dC Eta PY ° V IN q` u 61 L eL.� �M•^ a °•._ `°a a ° ° °v _ _ oo au q r Lr°, O nG C• •" T L Y N C P d d q C q C G C S E C A t q L a M d`✓ �YN rOjV �Ce� �L1D J ^q rp VC VV sC — G6. IY yC ^6 O O•V NO• Oi•r0 L � OC = =Aq C -E ^✓ _n 6p✓ �C^ 6M Cryy OC O �J LPA� q f>•O >VA �E ^V Epy� Gpp V ^(�a to app ��� —�C J G_ O NAC —C r� N �d Z�L JNq dY dp ✓ W � A d N`^ O° C d d_ q T ✓ V_ q P N q N a P °pC N d S A F N IT'S O V G NV V Eyyd ✓cam t I P d � vy O V Q L =�Y�oo P✓NO c� cac °v^ >.r° Q° ` ✓YO. V 06A NNy• �= � O q'Cyyp PAN ^Y pC V qV „LP �OIM CqC dW OS NrS MEN aPC L.C^- S °T•p `` L O •4 N Yt ^9w✓. •r CI OQ CO—j pNU G d ='C V0 O ^� ^ Q` p]•• = P•TC�9 ^dd a ATP A y -OYV y =yq ?•Ln n.E =° O pr CO CA6 ^V `q ✓ N a E LPN ^NO �A�G� ✓ LNV AD ` A.`/C �l 6M ^ d _� C• N O N N r �� p p L C O W •O 6• C� Z_ q 7 O u N V Nd" d s d. c c= t adi .A.d W E4 a E =tiv u iaLi p W ^ c a dp =: 4w .^ aiiir'a oq• < -, —oo- ¢u ar Na A :, a <a vI QI -I /1 II •I � � -1 � I E M t 0 T N u✓` N O O� CLV •• ��A q E's P �' L (y q~ � P ✓ °.- L6 rair L rJir uTC LL�N C - -a` �V4 ° E m LJ m J° ry c c o. N a 2 L- y✓ p P .^ N` ✓ E n- �V� •� ci uCr Y9u a J T �WGyrP NO L_i °L`pU �� V 4rP C Pam (n�aP Y ^T!C �. °'V« N« u t 9 oL a=o _• 'ovo d«° T'om � >c ire ✓a a p � a J.�° D L -uLA C 6 O P q N O � a.= E A u .5:5 u N L p ° h a T� ✓ V V .- A Cc.iV d`O LOV d9dV Nl4 � rNir y A` D ° •r T N O p p° N r p° .-• A N I O q Pr V r L.. P S A L O L R A C A C c o d Z r°r Ap�O ✓Yu r Oi 6« y00' u°rgW COWUd VCT ` CC q 4rt d O V ^ P N T aNC b J v c ^ y r a c 6c o y J t M1'Ja,« °� 6 ✓c✓ N ° a Or ` cdWr ar .�C «E �_ °GG °C 90rOJl • G D CN ° L �r �V O P> •d'?9 q W� V9 9pgC au O T GC iO VCO' 09 T ^WT rceD�a r ^9N N^",dO u �^ L•ar 0�9 J d`GR� CdC> NONTAO � N �N(p. Vrr l� N 'Ll u AT �° P- « °OY Or« ^ V JO q 6LC C N ay 06 ^E^ JJA .LmDD 0 WOO VO " W 6V PA T O �f J ^J NVVN CggC C L a L G« GPG 6a.r'r0 6 q D V C a > � G Op G ^I W a W a S G u_ z W, J 'J P -9 O.� �dS L dL d Or 9 d L O. Pr d Pd u�o � re re u - A ✓ r JM N �.^«+ °� rv. °q « J O C V ^ u N N d« .CJ A ✓ � P q C � ° A L L �o•' .°� Jo � N m i °� r 'TO c- v O1 C �1 -% r% L d J � v m J a _ P° � `r N i V T .rr y`� E « � prr r_' E c °y ° W •may •� E .c +� d E ^Cy^ _ oo mC .O ° N6d o� c v�.xi yso p° dr .45 w v'oc l! V O.le 9 N q d C A r N N � ° .•L• u N Cr 6F 9 ^VO C•"• �`_ Apr° LrilaN Py IL NyC aY• vd� D0 V °� 'V C✓ry J rd >.° ^JpY 9 d L 2m -x c ' •r N cv�« Eo °a m� v Ng yo A c N y q - 6^ u ^^ r P 9 vi -^ ✓ G7p rn «E N n rc a Eq L °a � q o N P N P � T yG�o � adlJdd PJ �d ° 9r .E aE °�9 °C° VOU rOVa ° a d `C =P CTC.� ec` t yr aca c• -AGD9 J O - o Dj � c o�^ � �N o cc> P ca,'O GL <O ^_ dC ✓c V dq •°.�j typal N r'C 9 �� i °LL EO C^ Pr.0 •` -d �Or Ma ^�S N ^^ _°.c 'QTO cd �CLO N° ulC� M-a Cy Nd N �O 9N O� CrL «may _p °> V C° ° .r •°.r 9 T d A Y L P P` Z P� ° A V 0 °- d H VOi P E V V P �✓ u J- N i O 6 S N L+ N G d C C q •" _d a I d C r- N V J) 6 t•J 7 p I 1L- V W L J Oy .r N O. g p N N 6 V D W C W V V a N� � �I ✓I NI ^� f � I � O NI 1 W c>I II • mI r "J Y i LA E 11 Ll y1 I `? I y✓ C y Y Q q 9 V_ LY+ a i G D � A L ✓ 6� O O W W P c 4 o O N nNO d �O\O y WW pi qM i . T'Vyc ^A d ClY CSC Ou 0 _C n WY cS = T'd O �9W n =iOp r G�LJJ TN N3 ✓ YV � Um. n _� x °� a acO c a•c GVVr c>oE i Pb `Y �qp y aD = TN`O Nq ° 9 n a 6D 9Y C G N� V9•�Y O� Jr N � d P a L a b V •� V _ = T✓ C� DC aC✓ �� W ��Y 19= I Y VV' q �9✓ LY aD ^__� f•rn �Ai PVO.� Y9 =9 InPNO W J N U S n i• ° + 6 N V N 9 W � N 0 N O� O 6 V 6� S m C � L° �• O C N N >• � O a O •• ✓C� I N NiV d0 C J^ W . ^ Y V CC 9dN • V Cq ^� Ly. aEq NLD nE ° r� ?L' vn WE 9 9 D W W E d S = u u q v > tN =° ni e `c ur„ � v0° C '• n t GC's .V 9C P ^N6 =O �� E A A I W ^L A f IA ^ p O '° u a 2 o C 9� � v j •=r o O 'T^ i vy J L PO Y O Q F aN 9 n � N= N Y a d Y V Y Y V c o V a =o ✓ 9E� cN c LY -am x y2 =t == E` E NPN ^m N yy O ^L L C O 9L. O O 1Gp" C C V ASZ 6L O^ V^ 69 6V nV 6UJ 0.9 <OL WS i LA E 11 Ll { \ N 7 A y u r Y V T A p A L F y� L H P YVi i n u tl O C O =c ter` o o coca d c u O y u N at au E OP OV c�� c AL'p �� ° V nu M n4 LAO LA ~T V� y d C O V p C n d Y u G PV Vp V ^d J J V^ lT A ry.dA N A LO �L6 66 D-JVL _ _T60 _i Lcc nc pa`o o`ow`a v w ad de cP aL a � n y� I{ Y H P YVi i n u tl c> o d c c AL'p �� ° V pu AL`L= V� qdp C O u dq0 uu LwOn PV Vp ^d '�� r lT A ry.dA N A LO Od � _ _T60 Lcc nc pa`o o`ow`a v w ad de cP aL S �` N•a•d.L. v N i �"- �A-Ly+ Ai y �A A � i �N i° LJ LJ KA CI'T'Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 9, 1983 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, `:ity Planner BY: Rick Marks, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZON Section 61.0217 of the Zoning Ordinance to include an overlay district containing various development incentives to producers of senior citizen oriented multi - family housing, as well as site development and general overlay district location criteria. ABSTRACT: Included in this Staff Report is an Ordinance (and supporting ResoluLion) creating a Senior Housing Overlay District, as outlined ir. staff's January 26, 1983 report to the Planning Commission, required Environmental Assessment, and general information regarding staff actions to create and implement policies and guidelines designed to promote and guide the development of affordable senior citizen oriented housing. BACKGROUND: Over the past several months, Commissioners and staff have been studying the possibilities for encouraging the development of senior citizen housing for individuals and couples of low or moderate income. Staff has prepared several reports discussing this issue and its related problems and opportunities and, along with several members of the Commission, attended a tour of senior housing projects developed by neighboring cities. The Senior Housing Overlay District is the result of research and discussion with developers and is designed to set in place a series of policies and development incentives designed to produce housing units that can serve low and moderate income senior citizens while giving the City adequate design control and assurances that The units produced remain available over the long term to this population group. ITEM I Zoning Ordinance Amendment 83 -32 Planning Commission Agenda February 4, 1983 Page 2 ANALYSIS: There are four (4) key points to be understood about the Overlay District. These four points, plus administrative guidelines which will be brought to the Commission at a later date, are the most critical aspects of the City`s affordable senior citizen housing strategy. 1. Target Population - Defines by aye and income the segment of the population that the City intends that the housing units serve; it is important to keep in mind that the entire affordable housing strategy and its development incentives were developed in order to meet the needs of this group - not the needs of more affluent people or the needs of project developers. 2. Applicability /Locatien - Because low and moderate income senior citizens have special housing needs, not every site that can be developed for housing is capable of adequately serving them. Proximity to services, noise levels, and topography are important considerations. 3. Development Incentives - The development incentives included in the Senior Housing Overlay District reflect the concerns and needs of developers of senior projects as expressed to staff and verified by staff research. They are critical to keeping the monthly rental costs per unit within a range that low and moderate income senior citizens can afford. The greater the number and type of incentives offered the lower the monthly cost; the more a city requires of a developer, the fewer the incentives, the higher the monthly cost. 4. Development Agreement - in order to protect the City's position regarding units developed, and in light of the incentives the City may have given a project developer, a legally binding agreement protecting the availability and affordability of the units to the target population is necessary, particularly if the units are suld at some future date. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental quality Act, staff has conducted an environmental assessment on the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the Senior Housing Overlay District and has determined that the project will not cause a significant environmental impact. Staff therefore recommends that a Negative Declaration be issued. 11 11 C Ll 11 Zoning Ordinance Amendment 83 -02 Planning Commission Agenda February 9, 1983 Page 3 NEXT STEPS: Within the next few weeks staff will be developing a set of adm— n swive guidelines and procedures establishing the detailed workings of the Overlay District and will send them to the Planning Commission for review. Incljded among these guidelines and procedures will be a Development Agreement which meets the requirements of the California Government Code (Sections 65864 through 55869.5), a step -by -step review of the protect submittal process, and general guidelines. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the following actions: A. That the Planning Commission find that Zoning Ordinance Amendment 83 -02 creating a Senior Housing Overlay District will not have any adverse environmental impacts and that a Negative Declaration be issued. B. That the Planning CaCnission recommend approval and adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 83 -02 by the City Council. C. That staff be directed to continue developing administrative guidelines for implementation of the Senior Housing Overlay District and forward them to the Conanission as soon as possible. D. That the Planning Commission adapt the attached Resolutio'• and forward a certified copy of it to the City Council. Attachments: Fart I, Initial Study 'roposed City Council Ordinance Resolution of Approval CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be Cnmzl:ted by applicant Ei :vironmental Assessment Review °ee: $87.00 For all projects requiring environmental reviev., this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part 11 of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the prej (.--ct is to be heard. The Committee will make one of thrc;e determinations: 1) The project will have no signi- ficant environmental impact and a Negati•=_, Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will i,a'vz .i significant environmental impact and an Environmental T_.upact Report Will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report sho-_ld be supplied by the applicant giving further informa- tion concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: AFPLICA -NT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: City oT Rancha frramnnna P 0 Sox 807 - Rar.rhn O NAVE, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED COIXERNING THIS PROJECT: Rick Marks Associate Planner_ .. LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL. NO.) Not ADplicable Ll LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL- STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES ANQD THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: None I -1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: A zoning ordinance amendment creating an ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA A17D SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: Not Avoli abi - DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE II;CLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPhY, PLPUNTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): Not Applicable is the project part of a larger project, one of a series of cumulative actions, which although indiiidually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? Not Applicab ?e 11 1-2 WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X 5. Remove any existing trees? How many? X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flarunables or explosives? Explanation_ of any YES answers above: Project h, s the potential to IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the DevAlc,pmqo�t Review Commnittee. Date February 1, 1983 Signature Title I- 3 E RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION %khe fclicwing inforsr.at.icn should be provided, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the school dis•, =ri_t to accommodate the proposed. residential development. Aare of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: Nnt nnT g};cahie Specific Location of Project: PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL 1. n-tmber of sing2.e family units: 2. N,.utaer of multiple fan,__ly units. 3. Date proposed to begin construction: ��. Esrlievt date of occupan-.y: Model 3 and # of Tentative 5. Bedroonx. Price Range 1p I -4 0 ORDINANCE NO. * AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COL:dCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO cuCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMiENUING SECTION 61.0217 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITERIV ZONING ORDINANCE CREATING A SENIOR HOUSING OVEFLAY DISTRICT The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Section 61.0217 of the Rancho Cucamonga Interim Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended as follows: SECTION 2: Definitions: The Senior Housing Overlay District is a floating district that requires certain conditions before it can be attached to a specific parcel of land and as such is not given a specific location until a developer applies for it. As a combination Planned Development and Overlay District, it is intended to include development review, zoning, and subdivision, all of which shall be conducted simultarecusly with required public hearings. SECTION 3: Purposes: It is the overall purpose of the Senior Housing Over' DT_istrict to carry out the following policies of the City's General Plan with respect toward Senior Citizens. a. The City shall encourage housing opportunities which are within the financial capabilities of low- and moderate- income persons and families (p. 14). b. The City shall promote programs which meet the special housing needs of the elderly, handicapped, and minority groups (pp. 15 & 88). C. The City should encourage a balanced supply of rental and ownership housing affordable to low- and moderate- income households (p. 78). d. The City shall implement programs which assist low - and moderate- income families, the elderly, handicapped persons, large families, and minorities in renting and buying existing housing (p. 83). e. The City shall investigate the feasibility for special criteria to provide redrsced parking requirements for rew housing projects. If found feasible, the policy would provide for reduced on- site costs for developers of elderly housing resulting in lower unit cost (p. 89). ® The Senior Housing Overlay District is intended to facilitate the construction of affordable rental housing units that will serve the current and long term City need for affordable senior citizen oriented dwelling units. OiJinance No. Page 2 11 The District is further intended, by offering various development incentives, to make the development: of senior citizen oriented affordable units attractive to potential developers while at the same time providing assurances to the City that units developed by use of the incentives offered as part of the Overlay District, remain available and affordable to the target group intended - senior citizens of low and moderate incomes. SECTION 4: Target Population: The primary resident population group that is inters ed to be served by the units constructed through use of incentives offered as part of the Senior Housing Overlay District are senior citizens who may meet the -following criteria: 1. a. Marr��ed couples - head of household age 55 years or oidpr. b. Individuals - age 55 years or older. 2. Individuals or married couples - combined annual income that meets the Federal Departarent of Housing and Urban Development's Section 3 Rental Assistance Program income qualifications. SECTION 5: Applicability: The Senior Housing Overlay District requires the presence of certain conditions before it can be applied for or attached to a specific parcel of land. In order to adequately and satisfactorily serve " , target population that this District has been created to serve, any prop:,_ _ project site must demonstrate the following conditions and features: 1. Appropriate base district zoning. 2. land uses in the immediate and surrounding area, current_ and projected, rust be compatible with the living environment required by senior citizens and must be free of health, safety, or noise problems (i.e. area generally quiet). 3. Area infrastructure must be in place or constructed as part of the project and capable of serving the proposed project including: - streets - sidewalks - traffic /pedestrian signals 4. Proposed site topography must be fairly level and easily transversed by persons of limited mobility. t Ordinance No. Page 3 5. Proposed site must demonstrate close proximity to commercial establishments, service providers, and other amenities including: - food shopping - drug stores - banks - medical and dental facilities - public transit (main or frequently served routes) - open space /recreational facilities SECTION 6: Development Incentives: In order to reduce development costs associated with the construction of housing oriented toward senior citizens of low and moderate income, the city is prepared to offer a developer some or all of the following incentives, depending upon the quality, size, nature, and scope of the project proposed. a. Reduction In Required On -Site Parking: The current cityty st�for on -site parking q multiple family projects is 2.2 parking spaces per dwelling unit with one space per dwelling unit being a covered carport or garage. The City will grant a reduction in required on -site parking down to a minimum ratio of .5 nor.- covered parking spaces per unit. b. Dwelling Unit Density Bonus: In order to maximize -ne_tyield per acre, the City will consider increasing the ailowable project density by either granting a 25% density bonus to the project site's exisiting density cat ory (per California Government Code Section 65915), or by granting a request for a change in density range (per the City's General Plan), or both depending upon the quality, size, nature, and scope of the project. c. Fast Track Processing: Projects submitted under the Senior Housing Overlay District will receive priority attention and will not be subject to the normal multiple family project processing schedule; such projects will be deemed a staff, advisory committee, Planning Commission, and City Council priority in order to quickly review and approve them. Ordinance No. Page 4 d. Fee Waivers /Reductions: Projects submitted under the Senior Housing Overlay District may receive, depending upon their size, nature, and scope, a reduction or waiver of some of all Ci imposed development submittal and processing ea. SuEh reductions of waivers may affect the following fee schedule: - Planned Development /Project Submittal Fees - Park Fees - School Fees (when applicable) Fee reductions or waivers are subject to negotiation between the City and the project developer and will be granted based upon that amount of reduction or waiver necessary to place per unit monthly rental costs in the range affcrdable to the target population. SECTION 7: City /Developer Agreement Regarding Long Term Affordabi iti y of Units: Development incentives granted by the City to a developer using the Senior Housing Overlay District are predicted upon the long term availability and affordability of the units for the target Population previously defined. In order to insure that the units remain available and affordable to this group, the developer will be required to enter into a Development Agreement with the City per California Government Code Section 658£4 through 65869.5. SECTION 8: The City shall establish a process and such administrative g lines as it shall deem necessary in order to implement the provisions of the Senior Housing Overlay District. SECTION 9: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in The Daily Report, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, Calilfornia, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this * day of *, 19 *. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Jon D. Mikels, Mayor 0 Ordinance No. Page 5 ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk u I* 40 RESOLUTIOY NO. * A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FUiNCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 83 -02 AMENDING SECTION 61.0217 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE CREATING A SENIOR HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICT WHEREAS, 1980 Census information reveals that 7% of the population of Rancho Cucamonga is age 60 years or older; and WHEREAS, there exists in Rancho Cucamonga an unmet and growing need for affordable housing for senior citizens; and WHEREAS, cutbacks in the federal budget will no longer enable the federal government to meaningfully come to the assistance of cities by constructing or subsidizing housing units for senior citizens of low and moderate incomes; and WHEREAS, the creation of a Senior Housing Overlay District containing development incentives will encourage the production of affordable senior citizen housing units; and ® WHEREAS, the creation of a Senior Housing Overlay District will enable the City and the private sector development community to meet loc-1 needs and maintain local control over housing units produced. SECTION 1: The Rancho CucanKinga Planning Commission has found that this project Zoning Ordinance Amendment 83 -02) will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and has recommended issuance of a Negative Declaration of February 9, 1983. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve and adopt Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 83 -02 as written. 2. That the Certified Copy of this Resolution and related materiai hereby adopted by the Planning -)mmission shall be forwarded to the City Council. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman 11 Resolution No. Page 2 ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby cer -lify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission. of the City of Ranehc Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Pla -wing Commission held on the 9�41 day of February, 1983, by the following vote -to-wit: 4�ES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 11 E E E Pi DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ,STAFF REPORT February 9, 1983 Members of the Planning Commission Rick Gomez, City Planner Dan Coleman, Associate Planner PERMIT 83 -03 - development of a 8,615 square elementary school in an existing Wendy's Plaza at 9544 Foothill in 208 - 154 -14, 15, 16. MONTESSORI - The foot preschool and building located in the C -'L zone - APN PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Montessori Academy, is seeking approval of a onditional Use Permit for a preschool and elementary school for 75 and 50 children, respectively, to be located in an existing building at 9544 Foothill Boulevard (Exhibit °A "). This building is located in the Wendy's Plaza. The Montessori Academy will occupy all but two of the retail shop units, one of which is presently occupied by A dentist. fhe project site is located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard and is surrounded on the east by Wilmington Savings and Loan, on the west by a Shell ServirP Station ari vacant land, and on the north by two preschools and a single family residence. Full street improvements, landscaping, fencing, and a parking lot were completed under the previous approval for Wendy's Plaza. The applicant proposes to install a six -foot high wood fence to enclose a portion of the parking lot for an outdoor playground area. The property is presently zoned C -2 and designate) Commercial under the General Plan. kNALYSIS: The concept of preschools in retail centers may be new to Rancho Cuc:umonga, but they have been successfully operated in other cities su!•n as Ontario. The key to resolving compatibility concerns with retail uses is appropriate design criteria for noise attenuation, screening, playground location, and vehicular circulation. The playground area has been located away from retail users and will not interfere with the circulation pattern. Further, the six -foot wood fence will screen the playground and provide security for the children from automobiles. Conditions of approval require adequate sound attenuation of interior poise. The adjacent unit is presently vacant. ITEM CUP83 -03 /Montessori Planning Commission Agenda FEt ziai•y 9, 1983 Page 2 The following is a summary of the parking requirements, based upon information supplied by the applicant: Preschool Tars @ 1/1 7 75 Children @ 1;5 15 Elementary eachers @ 1/1 2 50 Children @ none required 0 TOTAL 24 Its shown on the detailed Site Plan, Exhibit "B ", the applicant proposes to use 14 of the existing parking spaces for a playground area which would leave a net total of 67 parking spaces available. The Wendy's restaurant and retail shops require 40 parking spaces. Therefore, the remaining 27 parking spaces are adequate to meet the parking requirements for the Montessori Academy, as shown above. FACTS FOR FINDING: Based upon review of the information provided by the applicant and the site, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance provisions. The size of the buildings, playground, and parking lot will adequately service the proposed uses and existing uses. The proposed uses would be compatible with surrounding uses on the property with the adoption of the attached conditions. CORRESPONDENCE: A public hearing notice was advertised in The Daily Report newspaper and approximately 18 public hearing notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. To date, no correspondence has been received either for or against this project. The property owner feels that the preschool and elementary school will be an attractive tenant for their center and solve their difficult leasing situation. RECOKMENDATION: It. is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and material relative to this project. A Resolution of Approval with Conditions is provided for your review and consideration. Res¢ectfully submitted, ty'Pl anner jr Exhibit "A" - Location Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Resolution of Approval Map with Conditions E lJ s' n u■uua /' ■ �1.�.r� h..�i �� �Ntn■rr ��� If ' /�um� ►�f�a winlunamlmnim 111111/1/ awh7 nn�iiu +� a ±ux��♦In� ■� � I� I= �I�Iii �._ .a%.`� ��.5 . ten_ Mane �1 �� ■ ■� �� �� •...L` ,�� .1� /p111 /IIIUIIIIIIU to ►• IIIIUIIN< �■ �� �ntt�gtt + ' i \114ORTH CITY OF • CUCANLIONLTGA L - r - .. �' 'i.r a r r i r i � r '.r.'.. FIE; '/L 4�H •f�J O_ CITY OF RANCHO CUCkNIO�GN PLANNING LIVISDN ITEM- " E E 1 �}�V} N R1 n x.. 0 RESOLUTION NO. * A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83 -03 FOR A PRESCHOOL AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LOCATED AT 9544, 9546, 9548, 9550 FOOTHILL IN THE C -2 ZONE WHEREAS, on the 21st day of January, 1983, a complete application was filed by Montessori Academy for review of the above- described project; and WHEREAS, on the 9th day of February, 1983, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Yield a public hearing to consider the above - described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucar,unga Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met: 1. That the proposed use is it accord with the General Plan, and the purposes of the zone in which the use is proposed; and ® 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public healta, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 3. That the proposes vse will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 2: That Conditional Use Permit No. 83 -03 is approved subject to the following conditions and attached standard conditions: 1. This approval shall beco -e null and void if a Certificate of Occupancy is not issued within 13 months from the date of approval, unless an extension has been granted by the Planning Commission. This CUP shall be mon;tored and brought back to the Planning Commission within six (6) months from occupancy to review compliance with all Conditions of Approval and applicable City Ordinances. Failure to comply with Conditions of Approval or applicable City Ordinances shall cause the suspension of the Conditional Use Permit and possible revocation of the Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. El Resolution No. Page 2 11 2. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Zoning Or.;inance and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is granted. 3. This approval shall run with the applicant and shall become void upon a change of ownership or if the business operation ceases. 4. Expansion of the preschool beyond 75 children or expansion of the elementary school beyond 50 children will require approval of a modified Conditional Use Permit. 5. The 6` high wood fence enclosing the playground area shall be compatible with the architecture of the existing building. Detai'- of the fence design shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval prior to installation. 6. Adequate sound attenuation shall be provided so that moise levels do not disturb tenants in adjacent units. 7. Any signs purposed for this development shall be designed in conformance with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application for permit and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. 8. The site shall be developed in accordance with the approved site plans on file in the Planning Division and the conditions contained herein. 9. Prior to any use of the building or business activity being commenced thereon, the existing building shall be made to comply with current Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshall Regulations. The applicant shall contact the City's Building & Safety Division and the Foothill Fire District to discuss these requirements. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH. DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY Jeffrey King, Chairman Resolution No. Page 3 0 ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, 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 February, 1933, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CJ I 0 Ll E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT GATE: February 9, 1983 TO: Planning Co-. ission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBVECT: Foothill Freeway Implementation Plan Attached for the Commission's review is the consultant's contract for the Route 30 Implementation Plan. This contract was just recently approved and the con- sultant will begin work in the next week or two. The proposed plan has two distinct goals: 1. To determine what type of facility should be constructed in the right -of -way. 2. How to finance the construction of that facility. The first issue is the primary area of concern to the Commission and the area that you will be asked to make rZcommerdations on. Issues identified to date are such things as: • Scale of facility- i.e. expressway, freeway, parkway or expanded arterial 6 Design features - elevated or depressed, location and design of interchanges s Project Phasing - potentials for an expressway design to be expanded to full freeway in the fut re • Potential designs to accommodate transit. Also attached for your review is a tentative meeting schedule for review of key steps in the study. You are not asked to comment on the schedule at this time pending Further consultation with the consultants. It is only meant to give you an indication of the general flow of the project and your potential involvement. I will be available at the meeting to further explain the program and answer any of your questions. Resnectfulav submitted, ITEM K (DRAFT) RANCHO CUCAMONGA ROUTE 30 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SCHEDULE ACTIVITY DATE PHASE I Staff Report Status and Schedule Report 2 -9 -83 Planning Commission 2 -83 Staff Report Status and Schedule - Chamber of Advisor Commission and ammerce Staff Report on Status and Schedule City 2 -16 -83 yaunciI Joint City Ccuncil- Planning Commission 3 -, -83 Ytorkshop - Review Working Papers on and Facility Design Options, Financing Community Consensus Framework * (Consultant Presentation Discuss 10, meeting) Schedule at Joint Feb. Cowl review Benefit Burden ® 5 -4 -83 AnaCity ;ysls Task 4 Pre ation))B Public Httearing * (Consultant sent 5 -27 -83 dlaininqv�ommoissione ri?jeleorshorthlist design options 5 -83 Staff Review Interim Report with Commission and Chamber of Advisor Commerce - Solicit Comments 6 -15 -83 CCouv' cii Review Interim Report Presentation - Publir. Cultant earng) Select short list of design and financial alternatives PHASE 2 8 -10 -83 Plannina Commission Review of Facility Presentation) * Options Consultant 8 -17 -83 City Council Review - Facility and r�nancial * Options (Consultant Presentation) 8 -83 Staff Reports to Advisory Commission and Chamber of Commerce 9 -83 Staff collects and Prepared data to answer questions - obtains Advisory Committee recommendation on Design 10 -19 -83 City Cci.ncil Review Planning Commission Recommen ation on Facility Design and Working Paper No. 7 on Benefit Burden * Distribution Program - (Consultant Presentation). 10 -83 Staff Reviews Status with Advisory Commission and Chamber of Commerce 11 -83 Staff sponsored Open Forum Workshop on Drat Final Report - Reports circulated and comments received for consultants and Council review. 12 -83 Council approves Final Report * Consultant Presentation *Designates Meetings designated by Consultant per Contract 2 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of 3983, by and between PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF QUAD£ & DOUGLAS, INC., in association with Al Hollinden. Arthur Bauer and Associates, and Robert J. Harmon and Associates, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT" and the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMLSSION/SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS, hereinafter referred to as "COMMISSION." WHEREAS, Commission desires to engage Consultant to render certain technical and professional services hereinafter described in connection with the Route 30 L•nplementation Program; and WHEREAS, Consultant possesses abilities and judgment for furnishing the study referred to herein and has engaged in previous such studies and is especinAy equipped, qualified, and experienced to perform the Route 30 Implementation Program; and WHEREAS, Commission is desirous of obtaining such services for said project; WHEREAS, Commission is acting in behalf of the Route 30 Group; and WHEREAS, Consultant is desirous of providing such services; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recital and covenants and agreements of each of the parties herein set forth, the parties hereto de agree ® as follows: 1. EMPLOYMENT OF CONSULTANT. Commission hereby agrees to engage Consultant and Consultant here:-;v agrees to perform the services on the terms hereinafter set forth. LJ 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES EY CONSULTANT. A. Consultant shall perform all services as set forth in Attachment No. 1 to this P$reement. B. Services other than identified in Attachment No. 1 may be requested by the Commission as Additional Services to be performed on a time -and- materials basis- Such services shall be performed at the billing rates identified in Attachment 2 hereof. 3. DATA AND SERVICES TO BE FURNISHED BY THE COMMLSSION. Ali information, data, reports, records, and maps as are existing and necessary for the carrying out of the work shall be furnished to the Consultant without charge by Commission. -1- 4. PERSONNEL. A. Consultant represents that it has, or shali secure at its own expense, all personnel required in performing services under this Agreement. Such personnel shall not be employees of Commission. B. Consultant shall assign Mr. Michael I. Schneider as Project Manager for the duration of the study. No change shall be allowed without written approval of the Commission. C. Consultant shall specifti in respective subcontracts that Mr. Al HoM'nden, Mr. Arthur Bauer, and Mr. Robert J. Harmon shat' serve as study principal staff, representing their respective firms, for purposes of completing the study effort. D. Consultant shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement, or change any principal staff, whether by assignment or novation, without prior v6Titten consent of Comission. 5. TIME OF PERFORMANCE. The services of the Consultant are to commence within fifteen (15) days after the execution of this Agreement and shalll a completed no later than ten (10 j months from date of this Agreement, except that this date may be extended with the written permission of the Commission. The time for performance of the tasks identified on Attachment No. 1 are generally to be as shown on the Work Program Schedule set forth as Attachment No. 3. Any significant deviation from the Work Program Schedule shall be explained in writing by the Consultant. The Work Program Schedule may be amended in writing to benefit the program if mutually agreed to by the Commission and Consultant. 6. COMPENSATION A. Consultant small be compensated for all services rendered under the Scope of Services, Attachment No. 1, by a Fixed Fee of One Hundred Sixty Five Thousand, Seven Hundred Seventy Five Dollars ($165,775.00). B. For any additional services requested by Commission, Consultant shall be compensated at the hourly rates provided in Attachment 2 up to a maximum agreed to at the time such services are authorized by Commission. 7. METHOD OF PAYMENT. A. Consultant shall be entitled to progress payments toward the fixed ibe in accordance with schedule set forth in Attachment No. 4. B. Consultant shall submit for each progress payment .iue :under 6A an invoice to the Commission. Such i.-.voice shall: 1) Reference this contra. 2) Describe the services performed; 31 Show the total amount of the payment due; -2- 11 4) Include a certification by a Principal member of the Consultant's firm that the work has been performed in accordance with the provisions of this Contract; vpor. submiSSiG,-i of any =Mh iA. :tee, C =mmi c ;qn shall promptly aDDrove the invoice, in which event payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice by Commission, provided Consultant is making appropriate progress toward completion of tasks in accordance with this Agreement. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. If the Commission does not approve an invoice, Commission shat' notify Conmaltant in writing of the reasons for nonapproval within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the invoice, and the schedule of performance set forth in Attachment 3 shall be suspended until the parties agree that past performance by Consultant is mpliance, r until this Contract is terminated pursuant in, or has been brought into co to Section 12. C. Any billings for services authorized pursuant to 2B sh ,,ll be invoiced separately to the Commission. Such invoice stall contain all informb ±ion required under paragraph 7B and in addition shall list the hours expended and houriy rate charged for such time. Such invoices shall be approved by Commission if the :work performed is in accordance with that requested and if Commissior is satisfied that the statement of hours worked and costs is accurate. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any dispute between the parties concerning payment of such an invoice shall be treated separate and apart from the performance of the remainder of this Contract 8. RECORDS. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to costs incurred under this Agreement All such records shall be maintained on a generally accepted accounting basis and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. The Consultant shall provide free access to such books and records to the representatives of Commission at all proper times and the right to examine and audit the same, and to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and to allow inspection of u1 work data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date oY final payment under this Agreement eAll accounting records shall readily provide a breakdown of costs charged to this Agr records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept separate from other documents and records and shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment 9. PRODUCTS. Products and numbers of copies of each shall be provided as identified iproducts. Attachment No. 3. Consultant shall furnish camera -ready artwork for all 10. MEETINGS. Consultant shall attend the meetings identified in Attachment 5. Consultant agrees to attend such additional formal/scheduled meetings as the Commission may request, but such additional meetings are not included as part of the Scope of Services or within the Fixed Fee under paragraph 6 and Consultant shall be entitled to additional reasonable compensation for such services in accordance with the procedures set forth in Paragraph 2B. -3- 11. NON - DISCRIMINATION Consultant certifies that it will not discriminate against aay employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, age, marital status, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap or medical condition except as provided ;_n Labor Code Section 1420. 12. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT. A_ Commission may, at its sole discretion, by written notice to the Consultant, terminate the whole or any part of Mils Agreement, if it determines that: 1) The Cansuitant fails to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement; 2) If the Consultant fails to make substantial progress in conformance with the program schedule in Attachment No. 3, so to endanger perforn,rmice of this Agreement in accordance with its terms; B. Cop—cultant shall not be in default if the failure to perfor in this Agreement arises out of causes beyond his control and without the "ault or negligence of the Consultant. Such causes may include, but are not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, acts of government in either its sovereign or contractural capacity, fires, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes, and unusually severe weather; but in every case, the failure to perform must be beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant. C. If this Agreement is terminated as provided in paragraph 12A above, the Consultant shall be required to provide to Commission all finished or unfinished documents, data. studies, services, drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports, etc. prepared by the Consultant. Upon delivery of the aforementioned items, the Consultant shall be paid the value of the work performed, less payments of compensation previously ;Wade. 13. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. The Contract products identified in Attachment 3 shall belong to and become the property of the Commission. Notwithstanding such ownership, Consultant shall b: entitled to retain copies for its files rnd may distribute and reprodime such information as it deems appropriate. 14. PUBLICATION. REPRODUCTION AND USE OF MATERIAL. No reports, maps or other documents produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be the subject of an application for copyright by or on behalf of the Consultant. Commission shall have authority to publish, disclose, distribute and otherwise use, in whole or in part, any reports, data, or other materials prepared under this agreement. 15. HOLD HARMLESS. A. Consultant shall indemnify and save harmless Commissioy:, its officers and employees, from and against any and all damages to property or injuries to or death of any person or persons, including property and employees or agents of Commission, -4- and shall defend, indemnify and save harmless Commission, its officers and employees, for any and all claims, demands, suits, actions or proceedings of any kind or nature, including, but not by way of litigation, workers' compensation claims, resulting from or arising out of the sole negligent acts, errors, or omissions of Consultant or its employees. B. Consultant shall indemnify and save harmless Commission, its officers and employees, from and against any and all damages to property or injuries to or death of any perso.l or persons, including property and employees or agents of Commission, and shall defend, indemnify .and save harmless Commission, its officers and employees, from and against any and all claims, demands, suits, actions or proceedings therefor, resulting from or arising out of the intentional tortious acts or malicious acts of Consultant, its employees or subcontractors. C. Nothwithstanding the obligations of the Consultant to indemnify Commission under subparagraph A or B of this paragraph 16, Consultant shall have no obligation to defend or indemnify Commission in any action brought by any person. against the Commission it any of its employees, or against any governmental agencies participating in this project directly or indirectly. 16. INSURANCE. A. Liability Insurance Consultant shall ottain, at its sole cost and file with the Commission a policy or policies of general liability ins^.irance, or certificate of such insurance, naming Commission, its officers, agents and employees as insured or additional insured, which provides coverage not less than that provided against liability for any and all claims and suits for damages or injuries to persons or property resulting from or arising out of operations of Consultant, which insurance shall provide coverage for both bodily injury and property damage in not less than the following minimum amounts: Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) ^ombined single limit, or its equivalent. Said policy shall also contain a provision that no termination, cancellation or charge of coverage of insured or additional insured shall be effective until thirty (30) days notice thereof has been given in writing to Commission. Consultant shall give Commission prompt and timely notice of any claim made or suit instituted. Consultant shall procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds and amounts of insurance, which, in its own judgment, may be necessary for its proper protection in the prosLcution of the work. B. Wor}r —.z Compensation Insurance 1`_ Consultant now or at any time during the course of this Agreement, qualifies as an employer under Labor Code Section 3300, unless the hired employee(s) come(s) within those p arsons excluded under the Labor Code, Consultant shall furnish Commission w.th an insurance certificate from its workers' compensation insurance carrier certifying that it carries such insurance, and that the policy shall not be cancelled nor ti-e cove-age reduced except upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to Commission. -5- 17. NOTICES. Any notices required to be given in writing under this Agreement may be given by enclosing the same in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, and depositing the same in the United States Postal Service addressed as follows: Mr. Michael L Schneider Vice President Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade do Douglas, Lic. 2323 N. Broadway, Suite 200 Santa Ana, California 92706 Mr. Wesley C. McDaniel Executive Director San Bernardino County Transportation Commission 334 West Third Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 18. REPRESENTATIVE OF COMMISSION. Commission's representative in the performance, implementation and administration of this Contract shall be the Executive Director, or any one member of the Commission staff he shall designate to act on his behalf. All direction and official communication to Censultnnt shall bi from such singic source. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on the date and year first above written. APPROVED AS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TO FORM: TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION I.0 m By: By PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF QUADE & DOUGLAS, INC. Im ATTACHMENT 1 1pSCOPE OF SERVICES Task 1: Identify Facility Concept Design Options and Costs Purpose: Create a set of specific route development /phasing option in map form expanding on the results of past study but focussing on specific facility configuration, timir.g, and access options at the local community level. Determine approximate facility development costs for each option as targets for financing strategies to be developed in Tasx 2. Pr➢ncipaD Staff Members: M. Schneider, R. Goedhart Activities: Startup activities shall include: e A review of the past documentation on the project, culminating in a very brief synopsis of principal findings as they relate to (a) the acknowledged transportation role a developed Route 30 would play in the circulation system o� the west Valley area, and (b) the past analyses, deliberations, and information sources that may be tapped to avoid duplication of effort in this study; Detailed consultations with Caltrans and City and County representatives to update and quickly document file status of the right -of -way along the entire corridor; ® e Assembly of a comprehensive, annotated list of all :aerial photography and mapping available along the corridor; and e Detailed consultations with Caltrans on the past thinking on the type of freeway (elevated, depressed, at-grade, etc.) Route 30 had been contemplated to be along its length. An initial series of interviews will be held with local agency representatives at the City Engineer /City Planner /City ' ianager level, with early participation at the decision -maker level highly encouraged. These interviews will' be designed to: • Identify and document the thinking of each agency regarding what it hopes to achieve or attain within its own jursidiction from Route 30; • Identify the formal status of Route 20 in existing city circulation or transportation elements er other official pulicy documents, in--Ii'ding any planning details reflecting expectations or desires about interchange locations, functional characteristics, connectivity to development areas, etc.; e Identify for incorporation into the initial alternatives set any local ideas, regard- less of source, concerning expressed preferences or concerns regarding how and when Route 30 would be developed through their communities; o Identify and verify any future facilities intended to intersect Route 30 that ® might influence route design options; I -1 • Identify major generators or specific community areas whose accessibility to Route 30 or whose impacts from Route 30 are expected to be of special importance to the local community; and • Document the anticipated timing and magi,itude of major anticipated new land developments in each jurisdiction. Further consultations will be held wits, city representatives to quickly identify from a traffi.• management /traffic planning viewpoint the current status and future plans for existing arterial streets (particularly Baseline and Highland) that are currently on Route 30. This w ll include present and ultimate right -of -way, cross - section, and lane configurations, identification of controlling intersections and capacity constraints, predominant signal phases and critical movements, etc. Facility design options wiL' then be developed with consideration given to the following clements;: • Number and location cf interchanges, the configuration of interchanges (diamond, cloverleaf, trumpet, etc.). • Whether the facility will be depressed with overcrossings it -ade, eleva' a with undercrassings at- grade, or at -grade with overcrossings ele,ated, etc. • Whether access can be gained only at significant cross- streets (and, if so, how many and which ones), or whether access is available from any intersecting street. • Which streets will overe-oss the facility and which will be closed. • Y7hether reversible lanes have any applicability within the corridor for any segment under consideration. • Transition between segments of liffering cross -section or furictional type of facility. • Design standards, and vehicle mix intended to use specific lanes. • Whether frontage roads should be developed, how would they be integrated. • What apr;ications Transit, Light Rail and High Occupancy Lanes may have in the con ;'.;or. Each option should be defined by a sketch map of the corridor showing actual concept centerline for each new roadway proposed, with diagrammatic illustration of and ramp connections. Along each new segment the type of facility, type of access, and number of lanes will' be shown. An initial concept cross - section will be identified for each type of section !or initial costing purposes. A supplemental sheet focussing on each local jurisdiction could be appended as appropriate. Costs associated with each option would be developed by applying appropriate unit cnsts to the various lengths of facility proposed by type. This would be supplemented by lump sum or other allawances for any special cost sensitive items, such as overcrossing or inter- change structures, drainage considerations, special earthworK, etc. 11 1 -2 Product: Working, Paper No. 1, Route 30 Design Options. containing the following: — Brief summary of the background information identified above Map sets and narrative on each option, including ultimate configuration, possible phasing approaches, and cost estimates. Task 2- Identify Local Financing Saate9y Options Purpose: Assemble all' previcusly developed financial concepts for the Route 30 Corridor, and augment this listing with others which may be conceived by the study team. Principal Staff Members M. Schneider, R. Harmon, A. Bauer Activities: The principal activity in this task will be to generate a listing Fnid documentation of potential mechanisms to finance the construction of the Route 30 facility. initially, alternatives considered in the Route 30 Study conducted for the California Transportation Commission will be arrayed. Many traditional and several innovative approaches were documented, and these will form the core listing. The consultant team will augment the core list with techniques various members of the study team have developed and/or utilized in previous work throughout the United States for local revenue generation. All potential techniques shall be considered as a means of beginning the consensus building process with a full slate of options. As the process proceeds, concepts will drop out of further consideration as "fatal flaws" are noted by participants in the consensus building process. The basic list of individual sources for generating local ® revenue will include the following: • Motor fuel tax • Road toils • Transit fares (where transit may be integrated in *.Y e highway concept • Parking fees • Vehicle registration fees • Vehicle property tax • Sales tax • Commercial development fees • Industrial development fees • Residential development fees • Benefit assessments • Personal income tax • Wage tax w Payroll tax • Business license fees • Severance tax • Excise taxes • Vehicle code fines 11 Product: Working Paper No. 2, Local Financing Ootions, will be the prinzipal product of-this task. I -3 Task 3: Establish Community Consensus Framework Purpose: Develop and document the consensus building process which will be implemented early in the project. Principal Staff Members: M. Schneider, A. Hollinden Activities: The principal activity of this task will be to determine and define the most appropriate mechanisms for developing consensus among jurisdictions having different objectives regarding the implementation of Route 30. Given the controversial and multi Jurisdictional nature of Route 30, the first step in defining the appropriate consensus building process will be to develop basic understanding and agreement on the process to be used U.e., achieve consensus on the process of consensus building). The second step will be to document the approach in a working paper which will guide the process. The consensus building process will operate in the following way: Al Hollinden will meet with the Route 30 Corridor Committee. He will discuss funding (up to date stag and federal projections) and discuss a menu of potential local financing methods. T he major goal of the meeting will be to gather information from the Committee regarding concerns relative to both the freeway itself as well as financing the freeway. Discussion will also deal with the impacts if no facility is built. — The political representatives of the corridor jurisdictions will be asked to host a meeting (study session) in their city involv?.ng Mr. Hollinden where the format would be similar to above. It is recommended that council members, planning commissions, and key city staff be present. Representatives of the chambers of commerce and other organizations could also be invited. Mr. Hollinden will also meet with the two County Supervisors that represent this area and their staffs. — There will be a contizucus interaction and exchange of information between the technical study team, Mr. Hollinden, and other study staff throughout the course of the study. The political representatives on the Route 30 Corridor Study Committee will be used as the primary conduits for the continuing information program. Clear, concise reports will be prepared which outline not only progress but problems encountered as well. Getters or memos will be prepared for these representatives to transmit the reports and, thus, keep the opinion- leader segment of the community informed. Objectives which will be achieved through this consensus development process are: • To gather information and mitigate the elected officials concerns; s To provide clear. concise information that will allow elected officials to make rational decisions; and • To nrovide information that will allow elected officials rot only to defend heir actions and support, but to become advocates of the D,- ,)cess. Solid sup.iort and backing by the elected officials and other opinion leaders will provide the leadership to insure the success of this study. ProdLCt: Working Paper No. Z, `ommuniiv Consensus Framework i-4 Task 4: Corduct Benefit/Burden Anaivsis ® Purpose: Identify who benefits from the implementation of Route 30, and who bears the final incidence of alternative sources of financing. This identification will provide the primary basis for evaluating and recommending :7nancing strategies keyed to alternative design options for the corridor. Frincipal Staff Members: M. Schneider, R_ Harmon, R_ Schaevitz, A. Bauer Activities: The Consultant will prepare an analysis for each financing source being rorsidered so that the participants in the consensus building process will have a basis for determining the equity implications of eP.:h- In addition, the relationship of each revenue source to transportation benefits end to incidence of fiscal burden will be described, and a range of rates and total revenues over a pre - determined planning period will be estimated. This task will begin with funding and financing optic-is documented in Task 2. These mechanisms will be classified in greater detail regarding the relationship between final incidence of the transportation burden and enjoyment of benefits. The analysis will explore alternative methods of allocating benef s ammong groups ranging from local beneficiaries of new access (primarily laneowners) to regional residents and businesses. Such allocations will not only help determ`ne apt i- upriate burden levels, but appropriate financing mechanisms, as well. in this way, the issue of cost and benefit allocation will be approached from both directions. The analysis in Task 4 will both provide numerical results and an evaluation of the policy implications of these results. UTile it is expected that a final allocation of burden will necessarily be accomplished through the political process, the material prepared as part of this task will assist in clarifying the choices and trade-offs involved in selecting among alternative financing scenarios. Product: Working Paper No. 4, Benefit/Burden Analysis. will describe the financial characteristics of potential local revenue sources. Task 5: Select Candidate Design and Financial Alternatives Purpose: Develop a recommendation specifying several candidate highway /freeway r'2signs and companion financing plans which can be detailed in specific terms, enab &rg community leaders to evaluate explicit actions necessary for implementing each of the candidate schemes. Principal Staff Members: M. Schneider, R. Goedhart, A. Hollinden, R. Harmon, A. Bauer Activities The primary activity in this task will involve the consensus building process. Based on the array of design options developed in Task 1, the listing of financing options developed in Task 2, and the benefit/burden analysis conducted in Task 49 the consultant team will work with the corridor jurisdictions in selecting those moat promising design /financial plan candidates for implementation planning in Phase II. The most effective means of making this decision / recommendaticr. is through a rdocess of evaluation which can be discussed with individual jurisdictions in a simple and s'.raight- forward manner. Such an evaluation should present results --as discussed above —in a way which indicates the benefits and costs which are likely to accrue to the constituenc^ of varicus elected officials and /or community descision- makers. Design concepts will be evaluated by means of several broad criteria: 1 -5 • Performance (capacity, level -of - service, accessibility, etc.) • Impact (social, economic, environmental) • Implementation potential • Cost Financial sources, though somewhat more difficult to evaluate, will be compared according to the following criteria: • Revenue potential and diversity • Flexibility /timing of implementation • Flexibility /applicability of funding sources • Voter attitudes • PoiiticaVlegal feasibility • Ease of administration • Benefit/burden equity • Economic developme-at /growths • Economic impact /externalities • Fiscal impact Product: An Interim Report for the project will be produced at the conclusion of Task 5, summarizing progress to date and containing recommendations on a "short list." of options to be designed in detail in Phase IL Task 6: Prepare Alternative Facility Designs Purpose: Detail the facility design alternatives Emerging from Task 5 and perform appropriately detailed cost estimates as input to Task 7. Principal Staff Members: M. Schneider, R. Goedhart Activities: This task will comprise the steps necessary to convert the "lead candidate" facility designs emerging from Task 5 `.nto preliminary plan details suitable for dem*snstrating traffic circulation aspects at key locations, for refiring cost estimates as input to Task 7, and for assessing local facility impacts as part of the information base for local evaluation in Task S. It is envisioned that perhaps three "lead candidates" may emerge from Task 5, possibly representing "low", "medium ", and "high" (relative) levels of funding required. It is not possible to predict the number of options or the degree of difference aetween the options from Task 5, but the objective would be to advant:c each alternative to the point where plan layout details could be illustrated on terial x,otograph prints or other suitable mapping base. The degree of concurrence the project - ould be able to achieve through Task 5 may allow the design details to be displayed and detailed at a finer scale than if there are several highly divergent alternatives. Each alignment /facility option will be laid out in plan view according to design standards appropriate for the class of facility proposed. Where a concept option calls for considera- tion of a set of design standards that may differ from conventional practice, such as a freeway -type facility proposed with less than full freeway design standards, consultations pr::,r to design layout will be held with Caltrans and other technical agency represen- tatives as appropriate. The purpose of these d2scussions will be to (1) explore L37 desig , deviations contemplated and t1he cost and safety factors surrounding each; (2) identify those which are least detrimental if sacrificed; and (3) explore regulatory or warning devices or other mitigating factors to alleviate the effect of reducing the design standard. Product: A working paper and associated plan layouts giving facility design details in plan view for costing, local agency evaluation, and further financial planning- 1-6 C I: u Task 7: Prepare Alternative Financial Plans Purpose: Detail the financial plan alternatives emerging from Task 5 and develop programs and policies with sufficient detail to prepare implementation guidelines in Tasks 9 and 10. Principal Staff Members: M. Schneider, R. Harmon, R. Schaevitz, A. Bauer Activities: This task encompasses the preparation of financing "packages" keyed to the lead candidate facility designs detailed in Task 6. With the principal purpose of the project geared toward implementation, the content of the financial plans will consist of action -oriented steps whic7 must be taken to secure a variety of funding schemes for facility development. It is anticipated that each financial program will consist of several revenue sources used in concert to produce sufficient funds for corridor development. Clearly, the design options of lower cost, requiring a smaller revenue sSseam, may consist of a shorter list of sources. Alternatively, it may be appropriate for the region to consider a permanent transportation revenue source, producing annual yields that could be used for other facilities (highways and transit) once the portion r egr;red for Route 30 has been provided. This could be true both incrementally, as facilities are developed in a staged fashion, or in series, once Rcute 10 has been completed. '. -t is important to consider this option if only because the creation of a general revenue source (e.g., sales tax) will require a region -wide vote, and the success of such a ballot measure could be more likely if facilities benefiting a larger segment of the population were shown as part of the development plan in addition to Route 30. ® The revenge sources ultimately selected to comprise the financial plans will be those which were favorably received (or "least objectionable') to decision - makers during the evaluation conducted in Task 5. These various options for financing, together with the design plans for the facility developed in Task 6, will be explored in depth in the community consensus building process carried through in this phase of the project. L-1 Product: Technical Memorandum No. 6, Financial Plan Alternatives. Task 8: Determine Comm =^uty /Agency views on Desien/FinamCO -9 Padceger Purpose: Provide a continuing process wherein key decision - makers, elected officials, and community opir_ion- leaders can work with the Route 30 Group and the project team to develop recommendaticns on the alternatives developed in Tasks 6 and 7 which have the greatest likelihood of implementation and community consensus. Principal Staff Members: M. Schneider, A. Hollinden Activities: Although this task is shown as a discrete work element, it will actually be operating in an integrated fashion with the design and analytical work being performed in Tasks 6 and 7. The consensus building program is key to achieving eventual action on Route 30. The specific activities to be carried out are descried in the description of the proposad consensus building program in :ask 3 of this Scope of Services. Product: No specific product is due to be produced in this task, since it accompanies Tasks 6 and 7. I -7 Task 9: Develoa Benefit/Burden Distribution Program Puzoose: Establish the framework for an equitable, practical, and implementable time - phased program of revenue generation for the Route 30 configuration most acceptable to the corridor jurisdictions. Principe: GBff Members: M. Schneider, R. Harmon, R. Schaevitz, A. Bauer All-tivitie_ The principal activity in this task will be the development of the basic program strue .ure for funding Route 30 which then will be documented as an action plan in Task 10. Wits the region having clearly expressed the need for and desirability of Route 30— whatever the decision on ultimate configuration —the primary challenge will be developing a menu of revenue generation techniques which fairly equate benefit to financial burden. It is fair to say that no form of consensus can be achieved if most of the affected jurisdictions feel that the benefit/burden ratio is unfair. Thus, the study team will focus through the consensus building process on recommending such a fair and equitable approach, balancing this with the need to also assure a sufficient and continuing revenue stream. Product Technical Memorandum No. 7, Benefit/Burden Distribution Program We expect this particular deliverable to be scrutinized in greater detail, and by more parties, than many of the other products of the study. Major developers, for example, will wish to be apprised of our thinking on this subject, and such input will be critical to the formulation and subsequent acceptance of the Route 30 Action Plan to be produced in Task 10. Task 10: Prepare Route 30 Action Plan P Prepare final documents for the Route 30 Implementation Program. Prine aal Staff Members: M. Schneider, R. Goedhart, R. Harmon, A. Hollinden, A. Bauer Activities: The principal activity of this task is tc develop the draft final report and, after appropriate review, the final report documents. The format will be a guidebook of specific actions to bring about the recommendations resulting from the consensus among the corridor jurisdictions. Products: Draft and Final Reports 11 ATTACHMENT 2 BILLING RATES* APPLYING TO ADDITIONAL SERVICES Senior Principal $ 80.00 Principal 70.00 Senior Engineer/Planner 60.00 Associate Engineer/Planner 45.00 Engineer/Planner 35.00 Graphics/Drafting 27.00 Technical /Administrative Lupport 25.00 Clerical Support 23.50 BILLING R.1TES FOR SUBCONSULTANT LABOR Al Is Hollinden $ 50.00 Arthur Bauer 62.50 Robert Harmon 65.00 s 1) These Billing Bates shall apply :mtil January- 1, 1984, when they may be adjusted by the Consultant to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles Region. 2) Materials or services, other than Consultant labor, shall be billed at cost plus five (5) percent. 0 AT'T'ACHMENT 3 PROJECT SCHEDULE AND SCHEDULE OF DELIVERABLES The attac,.,_: tables show, respectively, the approximate schedule of task Performance and the numbers of copies of each project deliverable to be submitted under the Scope of Services. U a 5 kk \§ � / 2. § \ S � 2 k 2 E- k 0 * ■ 0 2 / § _ | k . $ � Go § R z _ U ■ | � «oE■ [kED- 2 �A7i ) »E_� 3 f� 6i / §(t ■ k� § kk /k 0 ■ ) # § J _ § 7 / 6 E /2 k $ \ /ƒ / k C3 / \/§ }� °� Z $ js e a! §a �2 k ±� k/ 3� uJ 2= k k .51C k E0 - A ■ k� § 0 ■ ) k 2 ) ■ �4 FEW § k ) \ $] A � OE \E _ A. £■ ■� 2 G 8;: G a § § k k k k ) I. SCHEDULE OF DELIVERABLES DELUERABLE I TITLE I NUMBER OF COPIES Working Paper No. 1 Route 30 Design Concept Options Working Paper No. 2rinancing Stratefy Options Working Paper No. 3 Community Cousensus Framework Working Paper No. 4 Benefit/Burden Assessment Report Interim Report Working Paper No.,; Facility Design Alternatives Working Paper No. 6 Financing Program Alternatives Working Paper No. 7 Benefit /Burden Distribution Program Report Draft Final Report Report Final Report U One Camera -Ready Original One Camera -Ready Original One Camera -Ready Original One Camera -Ready Original One Camera -Ready Original One Camera -Beady Original One Camera -Ready Original One Camera -Ready Original One Camera -Ready Original 1_50 Printed Copies 0 ATTACHMENT 4 PAYMENT SCHEDULE Payment to Consultant by Commission shall be made within thirty days of submission of each deliverable listed below: DELIVERABLES Working Paper No. 1 Working Paper No. 2 Working Paper No. 3 Working Paper No. 4 Report Working Paper No. 5 Working Paper No. 6 Working Paper No. 7 Report Report Route 30 Design Concept Options Financing Strategy Options Community Consensus Framework Benefit/Burden Assessment Interim Report Facility Design Alternatives Financing Program Alternatives Benefit/Burden Distribution Program Draft Final Report Final Report PAYMENT AMOUNT $12,000 9,000 8,500 10,500 16,500 33,000 233,000 21,00G 28,000 4,275 ATTACHMENT 5 MEETINGS 0 The attached table shows the maximum number of formal /scheduled meetings and presentations included within the Scope of Services. Informal meeting with various agencies, jurisdictions or other interested parties will be held as necessary, to be determined by Consultant based on technical requirements. Each scheduled meting /presentation will be attended by at least one senior member of the consulting team (Schneider, HoIIinden, Bauer, Harmon, Goedha *t). Meetings with individual jurisdictions may be combined with several jurisdictions should all parties view this as beneficial. 0 ROUTE 30 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM ® MEETING SCHEDULE AGENCYiORGANIZATION I ORMAL /SCHEDULED MEETIISGS Route 30 Technical Group 2 t 3 Route 30 Policy Group I 1 2 Technical Representatives of Each Participating City and County 1 (with each jurisdiction) (with 2 each jurisdiction) Policy Representations of Each Participating City and County Civic /Special Interest Groups I 1 (with each jurisdiction) p U to 3 2 (wit,' each jurisdiction) Up to S FORMAL PRESENTATIONS Council /Governing Board of 1 Participating Jurisdictions (to each indivi- 1 dual jurisdiction) (to combined group) 1 (to each individual jurisdiction) Route 30 Policy Group 1 2 Other` a, DirEu ied 2 I 3