Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983/02/23 - Agenda PacketI 5 I \J " -��4 QTY OF FLANI ITNIG COVLN /lis I� T 'AGENDA 177 WEDNESDAY February � . ary .,3, 1983 7:00 p.m. LION'S FAR-K CM -RMITY CENTER 9161 $ASE LI:`:E, P.ANCEC CUCA MONGA, CALIFORNIA A C T ION L Pledge of A_eg Umee IL Roll can Commissioner Barker X Commissioner Rempei X Commissioner Kung X Commi:sioner Stoat -X— Commissioner McNiel X -- >b Appal of Mutes APPROVED 5 -0 January 26, 1983 APPROVED 5 -0 February 3, 1983 Iv. Auxxnicements V. Consent Calendar The following Consent - Calendar items are expected to be routine aced non - controversial. Mey'wiil be acted on by the Commission at one time without discuss ±on. If anyone has concern over any item, It should be removed for discussion. APPROVED 5 -0 A. VACATION OF PORTION OF 7TH STRRTAT - PATIVnow . B. VACATION OF 8TH STREET- CALDWELL COMPANY C- TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 5144 - D. USE F Planning Comnission Agerdn February 23, 1983 Page 2 VL Public Hearings T7:e following items are public hearings ha which conc; rmed individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall he limited to 5 minutes per individuei fer each project. CONTINUED TO 3 -9 -82 E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GEN, 4AL PLAN AMENDMENT 83-03 - CALMARK - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Plan from Medium -High Residential (14-24 dwelling units /acre) to High Residential (24 -30 dweU,tg units /acre) for the development of 161 affordable senior- citizen apartments on approximately 4.55 acres of land located west of Archibald, and north of Base Line - APN 202- 151 -34. CONTINUED TO 3 -3-82 F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 83-RI -IPA Rr.FS. MAP 7827 -( AT.dH a 17W — P mange of Zone tram H -3 /PD (Multiple Family Residential/Planned Development) to R -3 /SO (Multiple Family Residential /Senior Overlay) and the development of 269 apartment units, of which 161 are intended for senior citizens, on 9.78 acres of land generally located west of Archibald and north of Base Line - Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 5792 - APN 202 - 151 -34. APPROVED 5-0 G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT &ND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 83-01 - An amendment to Chapter 1, Section 1.08.160 and 1.08.170 of the City of Aannhn [Su!om � M.m;^i 7 9 ,Nero r aftiinff hnme occupation permits. APPROVED 5 -0 H. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83-03 - MONTESSORI - The development of a 8,615 squarA foot preschool and elementary school in an existing building located in Wendy's Plaza at 9544 Foothill in the C -2 zone - APN 208 - 154 -14, 15, 16 (continued from Plan='ning,Co- mission meeting of February 9, 1983). G 4 _ DENIED 5 -0 L ENVIRONMENT Planning Commission Agenda February 23, 1983 Page 3 AND AMENDMENT 83 -OIA - KAN0KVh(;hA)[ANT - A request to amend u..c General P'c- -i Land Use Plan from Medium Residential (4-14 dwelling units /acre) to Medium -High Residential (14 -24 dwelling units /acre) on epproximately 15.5 acres of land located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue - APN 227- Ofil -45. (Continued from Planning Commission meeting of January 26, 1983.) REPORT RECEIVED J. FOOTHILL COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE - Oral report by Rick Gomez, City Planner. VIII. Public Comments This is the time and place for the general pvblic to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not a:ready appear on this agenda. 9:45 p.m. I%. Adjournment The Planning 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. Y. ONTIRIQ INTi R41TIOw.,t Am/0O7' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMIOM" F lR y r QTY OF RANCHO CLVWN fO_ i\GA PLANNING coim issiO AG E NSA WEDNESDAY February 23, 1983 7:00 p.m. LION'S PARK COMMTY CENTER 9151 BASE LINE, F.ANCEO CUcA- moNGA, CALL°OMNIA L Pledge of Anegiance M Ron Call Commissioner Barker Commissioner Rempel Commissioner King Commissioner Stout Commissioner MCNiel III. Approval of Mimites January 26, 1983 February 9, 1983 IV. Announcements V. Consent Calendar The following Consent- Calendar items are ez¢ected to be routine and non- controversiaL They'witl be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. if anyone has concern over any item,. it should be removed for discussion. A. VACATION OF PORTION OF 7TR RTRVPr _ r er rrnaw:r. ri "anrIL METALS B. VACATION OF 8TH STREET - CALDWELL COMPANY C. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 5144 - McKINNON -BIFF D. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERioln R7 -i 7 _ ':in Planning Commission Agenda - February 23, 1983 Page 2 VL Public hearings The foIfowing items are public hearings in 'which concerned individuals may voice Vveir opinion of the related project. PIease wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to S minutes per individual for each project- 1 Ii l L N -- -- - --- - �� -�� - � ,vlrin.n - K request to amend the General Plan Land Use Plan rom Medium -High Residential (14-24 dwelling units /acre) to High Residential (24 -30 dwelling units /acre) for the development of 161 affordable senior citizen apartments on approximately 4.55 acres of land located west of Archibald, and north of Base Line - APN 202- 151 -34. - - - - ---- . v..' - ..n1.1r1r12Ln - A change o zone rom R-3 PD (Multiple Family Residential/Planned Development) to R -3/SO (Multiple Family Residential/senior Overlay) and the development of 269 apartment units, of which 161 are intended for senior citizens, on 9.78 acres of land generally located west of Arc.'3ibald and north of Base Line - Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 5792 - APN 202 - 151 -34. ..... any..,,. lar.1V 1 F1L ASSE55h1ENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 83-01 - An amendment to Chapter 1, Section 1.08.160 and 1.08.170 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code regarding home occupation permits. H. CO14DMONAL USE PERMrf 83 -03 - MONTESSORI - The deveIOPmeni7 of a 8,615 square foot preschool and elementary school in an existing building located in Wendy's Plaza at 9544 Foothill in the C -2 zone - APN 208 - 154 -14, 15, 16 (continued from Planning Commission meeting of February 9, 1983). 1. Planning Commission Agenda February 23, 1983 Page 3 AND PLAN iuvmiv umr N l a5-uia - rxariuriV r,�.,nli Z e LN l - a reque5i Lo amend ttre General Plan Land Use Plan from Medium Residential (4-14 dwelling units /acre) to Medium -High Residential (14 -24 dwelling units /acre) on apprordmately 15.5 acres of land located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue - APN 227- 091 -45. (Continued from Planning Commission meeting of Januarf 26, 1983.) J. FOOTHILL COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE - Oral report by Rick Gomez, City Planner. VUL Public Comments s This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not almady appear on this agenda. IS. Adj xrnment The Planning 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. 1 J n„ r t t is f v W _ n OMITRM INTERN &TIOW11 III V*T- CrrY OF RANCMp CL%Cy XWnrA, a^►, r s PLANNING COPMILSION MINUTES Regular Meeting January 26, 1983 Chairman Jeffrey King called the Regular Meeting of the Pluming Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman King then led in the pledge of allegiance. HULL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Barker, Larry M--Niel, Rempel, Dennis Stout, Jeff King None Herman STAFF PRESENT: Tim Beedle, Senior Planner; Dan Coleman, Associate Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, assistant City Attorney; Jack Lam, Community Development Director; Rick Marks, Associate Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 22, 1982. COUNCIL REFERRALS A. REVIEW OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REQUE.T FOR SUBAREA 16 Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report and gave the Commission a brief history of how Subarea 16 was developed during the General Plan and Industrial Specific Plan public hearings, Chairman King announced that although this item was not a public hearing, public input was encouraged. Gerry Koski addressed the Commission PtatinR that he purchased his property with the understanding L.—t the zoning, to the s(,ath would be residential not the industrial category now proposed. Further, that he did not feel that the industrial park category is an appropriate use and asked that the Commission cons-der single family residential or high density zoning. He also stated that the school district is not allowing the residents in their tract to send their children to the new high school, which he felt added to their isolation. Rita Hanks addressed the Commission stating her concern with the Industrial Park designation and how it will be developed. Also, a lot of the home owners in the residential project are abzentee owners and asked the take this into consideration. Commission to Isabel Nielson addressed the Commission stating her concern that the Industrial Park designation would serve to further isolate their residential property from the rest of the city. Paul Byrnes, representing Marlborough Homes and the Lusk Company, addressed the Commission stating that his company was agreeable to either the industrial park or residential zoning, whichever use the appropriate. City felt was the most Dave Walker addressed the Commission stating his preferrence that the Commission select option number two of the staff report. Chairman King stated that the City Council referred this item to the Planning Commission for their discussion as to whether a General Plan Amendment should or should not oe initiated. Mr. Balker stated that there was some discussion under the County jurisdiction Of whether or net this was an appropriate location for a residential project and it was staff fIs opinion that it was not; however, it exists in that location now and it is not appropriate to surround it with industrial type uses and that it would be appropriate to have residential, mixed use residential or-commercial in that area. Chairman King stated that he would now like to stop the public input and have the Commission continue its review. Chairman King opened the commerts by stating that he was a supporter of the fact that the intersection of 4th Street and Archibald and bat h sides of and must be Archibald leading up to 6th Street were the entrances to the Cit developed appropriately. He further stated his opinion that the Industrial Park designation of a . ;ht industrial nature with a high quality design criteria, landscaping, and special setbacks along Archibald and Arrow and 4th would be an appropriate land use. Also, that a high intensity residential use might also be appropriate to mix in with this use with the idea that those individuals who work in the industrial area could live there. Vice- Chairmani Rempel agreed with Chairman With an industrial park use is not going residential use. Further, that as far King and further state that traffic to be as heavy as with a strictly as 6th and 7th Streets being an Planning Commission Minutes _2_ January 26, 1983 isolatea residential area, adding more residential would not improve that situation. In regard to the problems expressed by the residents with the school districts, realignment is done at the discretion of the district. Also, the reason he favored leaving the Industrial Park designation for this location was due to the traffic exiting from the residential area onto an industrial street, which is 6th Street, and this street would be a major thoroughfare going east to the freeway. Furthermore, the City of Ontario is bringing commercial in the area of 4th and Archibald, not high density residential. Commissioner Barker stated he would prefer to see a very controlled industrial setting over a high density residential area of 14 to 24 dwelling units per acre. Commissioner Stout stated that he realized residents were concerned with protecting their property values; however, a well designed industrial project is not going to cause any more adverse impacts than a high density residentiaal project. Therefore, he favored leaving the designation as it already exists. Commissinner Mc Niel stated that he was also in favor of leaving the Industrial Park designation and that a high -quality industrial project would enhance the area. Chairman ding asked .f there were any more psblic comments. Mrs. Banks again addressed the Commission and stated that she did not feel the existing commercial and ind• .istrial projects on Archibald are what she would call high - quality and asked that the Commission reconsider the residential designation. Chairman King stated that some people may concur with that; however, with Design Review Committee constraints, the new projects being proposed would enhance the area. Gerry Koski again addressed the Commission and stated that the uses permitted under the Industrial Park category would also allow hotels and motels and did not desire those uses near his home. Further, that the property owners do not want Industrial Park adjacent to their homes and the land owners have stated that they do not have a preference as to which designation the land carries; therefore, consideration should be given to those who have to live in the area. Notion: Moved by Rempel, se2onded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to recommend that the City Council retain the Industrial Park category and not initiate any General Plan Amendment. Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 26, 1983 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rem el P , McNiel, Barker, Stout, King NOES: COi!,ISSI ONE RS: None ABSENT: CO(�7ISSIONERS: None - carried. ksr,_ 7:30 - Planning Commission Recessed 7:40 - Flanning CAmmi3sion Reconvened f * * ■ t Chairman King n the e6 that Items C and D on this eve ^i^g �< agenda would be acted on Commission's consideration of Item B. C. EN- ✓Taont%4PraTer a�c,.� °= - ti reauest to amend the General Plan v�~� INTERSTATE Medium Residential (4 -14 dwelling _ Land Use Map from re) to aPProxiJ— teiy 8.9 acres of land located ion the northeast corner of Ramona and Foothill Boulevard - APN 1077- 621 -31. (Continued Commission meeting of November 10, 1982.) from Planning Chairman King announced that this item had been withdrawn by the applicant. i it • • f D. °-� - a request to amend the General Plan Wa o wi A Medium Residential (4 -14 dwelling units Land Use Plan from Residential (14 -24 dwells Per acre) to Medium -High land located at the northeast tscper acre) Oncapprosimately 15.5 acres of Avenue - APN 227 - 091 -45. -e Line Road any Rochester Chairman King announced that the applicant had r: quested continuation of this item. Chairman King then opened the public hearing. There were no public comments, therefore tine public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Bar'cer7 unanimously carried, to continue Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 83-01A to the Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 1983. s • a * t Planning Commission Minutes -4_ January 26, 1983 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL t4AP 3383- BANKS - 111:e division of 5 acres of _land into 4 lots vithi-i the R -1 zone located approximately 660 feet west of East Avenue - APN 227 - 131 -29. (Continued from Plann:'zg Commission meeting of November 10, 1982.) Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Alice Flocker, property owner to the crest of the subject parcel map, addressed the Commission in opposition to the project. Mrs. Flocker stated that the project should be in accordance with the Etiwanda Specific Plan and have the same requirements ac everyone else in that area. tors. Flocker also stated her concern with the drainage problems and asked that the Commission consider that the area be developed as a unit, not piecemeal. uiir cr Fritz, Dr vp:r t- owner. i:. v� ouc wunu yon ...ct, a�ca cuucu .uc Commission stating that he was not agreeable to dedicating another 10 to 15 feet of his property for access. Further, the five acres which Mr. Bank:, referred to as a mirror image of his property is owned by Mr. Scarlett who approached the Commission with a request to further split his parcels but had been denied because it had been split once already. Mr. Fritz further stated that he is not against the prujeet, but roped chat it would conform to the master plan for Etiwanda. He also voiced his concern with the drainage problems, was not satisfied with the surface flow across Base Line and suggested a pipe be placed in that location. Chairman King asked Paul Rougeau what happens to the water once it gets to Base Line? Mr. Rougeau replied that presently the plan shows the water flowing across a paved driveway to a 150 foot long earthen ditch into a culvert which takes it across Base Line to the south. Chairman King asked if this improvement would be a requirement of the applicant, assuming the access was granted to Base Line? Mr. Rougeau replied that it would be a condition of approval. Vice - Chairman Rempel stated that there would be a problem with the water velocity coming from a paved ditch across to an earthet. ditch. Mr. Rougeau replied that the driveway would be 40 feet wide coming to Base Line, but there could be problems with furrowing. Vice - Chairman Rempel stated that if any of the drainage area gets paved, the ditch should be surfaced and not left dirt as there would be serious problems. Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 26, 1983 Jim Banks, applicant, addressed the Commission stating that he was willing to go along with the engineers and whatever drainage solutions would work. Further, that he thought the dedi.cation issue had been resolved when the Commission previously reviewed the project and asked if dedication should be required when plans could be abandoned and the roan placed 300 feet to the west. Regarding the Etiwanda Specific Plan requirements for 4-8 dwelling units per acre, Mr. Banks stated that he abstained from vote on that issue and made it clear that if he had voted, it would be at a lower density. Further, that he had researched it and thought tbat he while he could not build more than 4-8 dwelling units per acre, he could be less. Chairman Ring asked Mx. Banks if he had any objections to keeping the road totally private, paving it and putting in the proper drainage improvements until a circulation system is worked out, and then be faced with the Possibility of abandoning it. Mr. Banks replied that he had no problem in keeping it private and paving some Of it, but would prefer to pave 24 feet as opposed to 26 feet so that telephone poles would rot have to be moved. Further, that it makes sense to maice it a passable road for those who live there. Also, if this project is approved he would be solving more problems than creating them since there is the Froblem of the half street and any changes to the project were done so at the suggestion of staff. Mr. Banks also stated that he was willing to do whatever the Commission wanted and was also willing to dedicate another 10 feet for the road to save the Eucalyptus. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Vice- Chairman Rempel stated that 10 feet more of dedication would ;not be practical since the trees will have to go anyway once the road is widened. Further, that it is not feasible to put an off-set at that point and that design provisions should be included in case the adjacent property owner wanted to further subdivide. Chairman Ring stated that he was in favor of staying within the present easement and requiring the applicant to bear all costs for properly improving the present easement for purposes of ingress and egress as well as for purposes of drainage and doing all necessary improvements to eliminate any problems that may be created at Base Line as it relates to drainage. He asked how the Barks property would be assessed for fstuie improvemnts once a circulation system is developed and if there would oe a need for further contribution for public improvements later. Paul Rougeau replied that there would be no need at a being required later date since he was dedication has to fully dedicate the roadway around already been received his entire property and f-om the adjacent property. Planning Commission Minutes _ January 25, 1983 Chairman King stated that he should not be netting off without some type of contribution in terms of private easement to one south of his parcel. Mr. Rougeau replied that as a requirement of development, property owners are responsible for one -half of the street and as it is now, some of the paving would have to be put in by Mr. Banks. Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, referred to the City Engineer's Report and stated that it requires both an offer of dedication and street improvements on Oak Street to be constructed by the applicant on his own property, which is what we would normally require. Further, that we do not normally require more than a driveable surface. Chairman King stated that it seemed that much more is normally required of land- leckeo parcels than what is being required here. Paul Rougeau replied that the applicant is beng required to put in almost the same as wo.ld be required if it were possible to get full dedication. Further, than he is being required to install curb anc gutter entirely around his properly. Vice- Chairm<zn Rempel stated that he agreed with that and asked who would maintain the pavement along Oak and Pecan. Mr. Rougeau replied that dedications would be sufficient for the City to maintain them as public streets because part of it is already dedicated, even though it has not yet been improved. Fortner, it could be accepted after improvement and be maintained provided the access easements were modified to give the City the right to go up to those parcels now because access easements normally only allow for the property owners to get to their property. Vice - Chairman, Rempel stated that with the streets only half completed they would be subject to more damage than a completed street and asked if there was a way the City would not accept the responsibility for maintenance until the streets are totally completed. Mr. Rougeau replied that the City has the right to not accept the streets until they are improved. However, Pecan would be fully improved oil both sides and there is an obligation for improvement on the west side as well, therefore this would only apply to Oak Street. Commissioner Stout atated that the street had been previously referred to as conceptual and asked if there was a reason for not master planning streets. Mr. Rougeau replied that it is difficult to master plan streets and it was best to require streets wnere necessary. Planning Commissior Minutes -7- January 26, 1983 Commissioner Stout asked if this street plan would be available for adjacent Property owners to view when they decided to improve their parcels? Mr. Rougeau replied that it would probably be worked into the Specific Plan and th? ' it already shows some parts of it. Further, that the Plan tries to stay away from planning local streets; however, conceptual circulation could be innluded. Commissioner Stout stated that this is one of the defects of the Plan and that the Commission. might want to include some of these things as they go along. Vice-Chairman Rempel stated that what we are saying now is that Oak Street is there. Commissioner Stout agreed and asked about the formalities. Mr. Hopson replied that as a practical matter as far as setting the street goes, this is true. As a legal matter, if there is an irrevocable offer of dedication which the City does not accept, at a later time that offer of dedication can be abandoned. In theory, if the street hadn't been approved because staff's recommendation was to approve on issuance of a building permit and it is never issued for Lot 1, the street never goes in. Also, if the City choses to abandon because the parcel to the east went in with some type of interior street system, you never have Oak Street. Further, that Mr. Rougeau's statement that the City does not have to accept dedication is correct. Commissioner Stout stated that he agreed with Chairman King in that there is no reed to improve the easement any more than a temporary private road to allow access at this time. Commissioner McNiel asked what kind of burden would be placed on Mr. Fritz with regard to dedication and improvements as a result of this subdivision. Mr. Rougeau replied that Mr. Fritz Is not obligated for any of these improvements until he wishes to divide his omen property. Commissioner McNiel asked how the water would be controlled on the south side of the half street. Mr. Rougeau replied that an asphalt curb would carry water in an east -west direction.. Further, that a plan had been worked out which didn't call for a fully improved ditch; however, if the Commission desired an asphalt or surfaced ditch as opposed to dirt, it may be a better solution. Commissioner Barker asked if this would be at Mr. Ranks' expense? Mr. Rougeau replied that it would. Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 26, 1983 Chairman King asked Mr. Rougeau if he had a ball park figure. Mr. Rou : replied that it should be less than an additional $1,000. Mr. Rougeau »,ed the Commission which recommendation they would be going with. Chairman King replied that he would be in favor cf the 30 foot private road, asphalt street improvements, drainage in the area of Base Line with proper drainage improvements along the 30 foot easement. Mr. Rougeau stated that the first Resolution of approval would be the most appropriate to adopt with a modification to the City Engineer's Report to delete the 40 foot dedication, require 26 rout wid: pavement but to require a paved two =way improvement all along the private easement and determine at the plan stage how wide it should be, and to provide for positive drainage control to and along Base Line. Commissioner Stout stated that the right of public access for the City to maintain Oak Street should be included. Chairman King called for the motion. Motion: Moved by Mc Niel, seconed by Barker, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 3383 with the previously mentioned modifications. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McNiei, Barker, Rempel, Stout, King NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONES: None - carried- Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney stated in regard to the north -south portion of the private street being maintained, there is a statute that the owner could submit to the Superior Court or. how it would be maintained. Further, that Mr. Banks should anticipate this problem and that with deed restriction maintenance will be borne by the owners unless and until dedication is accepted or the private street replaced by a public street. * 0 i • * E. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83-01B - ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN - An amendment to the Land Use and Development Element of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan to modify the circulation, trails, and land use plans in the £tiwanda areas. Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report recommending that this item be continued to the Planning Commission meet4rL7 of February 17, 1983. Planning Commission Minutes -9- January 26, 1983 Chairman King announced that the review of the land use portion of the Specific Plan had been completed by the Planning Commission and advised those wishing to address specific pieces of property to attend the City Council meetings and express their concerns for the Council's consideration. Chairman. King then cpPned the public hearing. Cecil Johnson addressed the Commission recommending trey accept the Specific Plan.. Alex_ Catania addressed the Commission_ stating his desire to have the 20 acres of his property which was split between Very Low and Estate Residential designated under one land use. Bob Flocker addressed the Commission stating that the number of dwelling units proposed for Etiwanda should be consistent with the General Plan and suggested that the drop from 10,000 dwelling units to 7,000 was too low. Larry Arcirage addressed the Commission stating that the Specific Plan was a good compromise and supported its adoption. John Scherb, representing the vTohoji Temple, addressed the Commission stating that he didn't recall discussion regarding the widening of Etiwanda Avenue and asked the Commission to address this issue. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Chairman King called for the motion. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to continue General Plan Amendment 83-01B to the Planning Commission meeting of February 17, 3983. * f * f f F. U,3- 4 - 1.111 Ut- KANCRO CUCAMONGA - A revision of the Circul?tion Element of the General PI an of the City of Rancho Cucamonga concerning the continuity of Banyan Street and Wilson Avenue. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the Staff Report. Chairman King asked if the Metropolitan W ter District was approached with the prospect of Banyan being continued through their easement. Mr. Rougeau replied that they were not and staff was basing the feasibility of continuation on an observation of equipment on the alignment on iaven Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes _10- January 26, 1983 Chairman King asked if there was a way to jog Banyan in the area of Haven in some other fashion so that it wouldn't interfere with either the church or with the KWD. Ns. Rougeau replied that it would have to go north, which would take a portion of the flood control basin creating a poor aligcment and still be very close to the existing Banyan. Further, that there would be a problem 'aith where to put the median opening. Commissioner Stout asked if the continuation of Banyan hadn't already been approved for the other side of Haven? Mr. Rougeau replied that it had; however, the exact location has not been set and the only thing that had been determined is that it should align with existing Banyan. Chairman King opened the public hearing. There were ro public comments and the public hearing was closed. Chairman King stated that he would like to further. In terms of major arterials, Chair; more appropriate location in terms of dealing and is more centrally located than Wilson to Banyan should be studied as to whether it is the Metropolitan Water District's easement. see the Banyan aspect explored oan King stated that Banyan is a with greater amounts of traffic carry east -west traffic. Also, feasible to continue it through Commissioner Stout agreed with Chairman King's comments regarding Banyan, however stated that Wilson as a major arterial is a good idea and couldn't see why a choice had to be made between the two. Further, that he would like to see the Wilson change put into effect, but also see Banyan further studied. Commissioner Barker stated that he did not want to surrinder Banyan as being a major divided access and would like MWD contacted to determine the feasibility of continuation of Banyan through their easement. Commissioner McNiel concurred that a major thoroughfare is necessary. Vice - Chairman Rempel stated that he did not want to preclude Banyan from being a major arterial, but the chances of getting the City to pay for a mile of street at $3 Million to $4 Million up there are slight. Mr. Rougeau stated that this is an important point in that the entire portion of Lanyan from Alta Loma Creek to Haven would be at the City or public expense because there will be no private development to require installation. Further, that if the Commission desirad, he would come up with an exact cost estimate at a future meeting. Planning Commission Minutes -11- January 26, 1983 Vice- Chairman Rempel stated that available funds are going to be used more for the freeway cr some type of thoroughfare in the freeway location rather than the continuation of Banyan. Chhairmar. King called for a motion. Commissioner Stout stated that he would make the motion_ if it would also include study of keeping the corridor open and bending Banyan back down to where existing Banyan joins Haven. Vice - Chairman Rempel stated that this would be very costly and would also eliminate the church's parking area, which would require them to find another parking location. Chairman King stated that cooperation with the MD and having their equipment moved on Haven along with the cost figures should also be included. Vice - Chairman Rempel stateri that the motion should not totally abandon Banyan as going through, but at the same time put money into things obtainable for the City to get. Chairman King asked if the Commission wanted the item to be brought back? Vice -Chap. ^man Rempel replied not until something positive could be obtained. Ted Hopso-_, As ^i3tant rity Attorney, stated that the Commission might wish to set z SP'cifie dace so that the item would not have to be readvertised. Vice - Chairman Rempel suggested that it not be brought back in the near future because staff wouldn't have time to do an adequate study with all of the other projects they are working on. Mr. Hopson replied that General Plan amendments can only be heard three times cityeiniti ted amendmenern was that the middle cycle is generally for year. + and if it is missed it won't be heard again for a Chairman King asked if the motion made by Commissioner Stout still stood? Commissioner Stout replied that it did with the inclusion of those items previously mentioned. This motion was seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried. Ate: COKIM S20.'7ERS: Stout, McNiel, Barker, Rempel, King NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried- Planning Commission Minutes -12- January 26, 1983 Vice w airman Rempel asked if there was a date or. having Banyan brought back. Mr. Hopson replied that it would be continued to the next amendment cycle. Chairman King asked for a motion regarding Wilson Ave:-,;-,e. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried to adopt the proposal regarding Wilson Avenue. A71ES: COMM"iSSIONERS: Rempel, Stout, Barker, McNiel NOES: King ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried - Chairman King voted no for his previously stated reasons. • � • � a G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND P,ANNEn DEVELOPWNT R;1_nK - IZJZU - L & G - A change of zone from R -3 -T (Multiple Family Residential) to R -3 /PD (Multiple Family Residential /Planned Development) and the development of 116 condominiums on 8.98 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Victoria Avenue - APN 202 - 181 -07. Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the Staff report recommending inclusion of the requirement for a tot lot ir_ the Resolution. Vice - Chairman Rempel asked for clarification of drainage on the east side across the other project. Mr. Rougeau replied that_ the other project has an underground storm drain designed in one of its streets and if this project goes in first, some type of semi - improved ditch would have to be put across that property in an easement until that project is developed. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Pat Meyer, 200 E. State Street, Redlands, California, addressed the Commission stating that he represented the applicant in his cor_currence with t:�e staff report, however, wished to clarify one point in that this project is a four -plex development and not a condominium project. He asked for clarification of the condition requiring the applicant to be responsible for a master planned storm drain from 19th Street southerly. Since there was another development to the north, he asked if they wouldn't be required for that portion of their property. Planning Commission Minutes -13- January 26, 1983 Mr. Rougeau replied than. this refers to a storm drain entirely in Archibald Avenue. Further, that if a new project comes in it would be imposed with similar conditions because it would lie in the path of the natural drainage also. Additionally, another project to the east has had the saes conditions placed on it and whichever project goes in first will have to put -,he storm drain in, then be reimbursed by the others. Mr. Meyer a--ked how much would be reimbursed Mr. Rougeau replied that it would be 100 percent reimbursement in this case because it is a master planned storm drain. Vice - Chairman Rempel advised that since this is a four -plex development, it would regsire special CCKR's. Mr. Meyer replied that the project would have a Master Homeowners' Association to take care of the maintenance of open spaces. Ted Hopson, Usis ant City Attorney, advised that there are additional Problems with thew kinds of developments as to what constitutes common_ areas and he would be looking closely at the CUR's. Thre were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by MCNiel, unanimously carried to approve Tentative Tract 12320 with the inclusion of a requirement for a tot lot. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Mc Niel, Parker, Stout, King NOE:,: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None - carried- Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried to approve Planned Development 82 -06. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Stout, Barker, McNiel, Rempel, King NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried- Chairman King announced that due to the length of the next item, the public hearing would be suspended and the Commission would move to Item J under Director's Reports. Panning Commission Minutes -14- January 26, 1983 i G f * i J. REVIF!; OF CONDITICT' -1L USE PERMI'? 78-03 - BOAR'S FmAD Michael Vairin, Senior plannp_, reviewed the staff report and recommended that the Commission. Lace public input on this item. Chairman King announced that the public was invited to comment. Mel Futrell, 6623 Topaz, addressee the Commission stating that the block wall required at the previous meeting had been worthwhile and the noise has been down approximately 90 percent. He attributed this decline in noise partly to the block wall, however stated that it could also be declining as it does in the winter months but increases in the summer. tor. Futrell complimented Mr. Arcirage on his concern and efforts in working out these problems. He further stated that the parking lot corner bvis not been completely closed off and people were still parking back there. He also stated that he hoped this problem would serve as an indication to the Commission what kinds of problems are associated with placing a use such as this in a residential area. Michael Vairin stated he would like to report what had been observed when the establishment has inspected prior to this evening's meeting. He stated that the block ;.all requirement had been accomplished as well as the planters which were required and a chain on the north entrance which has also been put in place. Further, it was assumed that this chain is being put up during evening hours, which is the requirement of the condition. Doug Gorgen, 7333 Hellman, addressed the Commission s the chain has not been put up is because a second tree place and reflectors have been ordered to be placed on yet arrived. Further, that he would not like to have a without some type of reflectors because of liability. not observed cars parking in that area. tatirg that the reason still has to be put in the chain but have not chain across that area Further; that he had Vice - Chairman Rempel advised that phosphorescent paint might be used in lieu of reflectors. Larry Arcinage addressed the Commission stating that he sent copies of letters distributed to his employees regarding the patrolling of the parking lot to eliminate noise and also to keep Boar's Head patrons from parking in the rear parking area. Further, that he would have no control over patrons of other establishments in the center. Commissioner Stcut stated that he was quite skeptical that Mr. Arcinage would be successful and complimented him and the shopping ^- -:ter owner on working out these problems with the members of the community. Planning Commission Minutes -15- January 26, 1983 Commissioner Barker expressed his appreciation for the good faith Mr. Arcinage demonstrated in going about as far as any businessman could to expected to go to solve problems. f # f # f H. PLANNED COMMUNITY 81 -01 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - Review and final consideration of the Terra Vista Planned Community text and final Environmental Impact Report. The project consists of approximately 1300 acres and is bounded by Base Line and Foothill Boulevard on the _north and south, and by Roche .3ter and Haven on the east and west. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report to the Commission stating that staff was seeking final comment from the Commission on the proposed planned community and a recommendation to the City Council dealing with the final certification of the EIP, and the planned community text. Mr. Vairin further stated that an addendum had bee.. prepared to this report which stated that a reduction in the amount )f parkL ^nd and greenways had taken place since the orignal plan. dca to he applicant's use of the Foran Bill. The applicant had c'_-a- ;,r.:-,ride the minimum amount of parkland dedication of public open. space. Further, the Commission originally spoke in terms of a 60-40 percent ratio split between public and private; however, under the provisions of the current plan (since the passage of the Foran Bill) the ratio of overall open space requirement had been reduced to approximately 42 acres of public open space and 13 acres reserved for private, a ratio of 77 percent public and 23 percent private. Mr. Vairin requested the Commission make a specific recommendation in the Resolution to the City Council regardng the parkland dedication issue. In regard to the Foran Bill, Mr. Vairin explained that the Bill states that °a planned development shall be eligible to receive credit"; however, the amount of credit is to be determined by the legislative body at the time specific development proposals are being reviewed. Also, any other conditions the Commission wished changed should be included in the Chairman King asked for the number of acreage which would be provided under the 77 percent to 23 percent ratio split. Mr. Vairin replied that it was 42.6 acres of public open space and 13.2 acres reserved for private in the form of credit for a total of 55.8 acres, the minimum amount according to the Foran Bill. He also explained that this figure was derived from the calculation of the estimated number of people contained in the planned community. Chairman King a -ked how many acres would be provided if the applicant chose to provide the minimum amount under the Foran Bill. Mr. Vairin replies' the minimum would be 55.8. Planning Commission Minutes -16- January 26, 1983 Chairman King asked if staff's interpr etaticn of the plan is that it provides the minimum amount of park space. Mr. Vairin replied that what is shown as public park space is actually below the minimum and if the m.3 .s imm of open space was shown, it would be 55.8 acres. The plan only stow :, 42 acres in public open space witn the reserve being shown as potential private open space credit. Chairman King asked that regardless of whether it is public or private open space, based on staff's calculations regarding number of units and number of people, etc., does the plan provide the minimum amount of park space. Mr. Vairin replied that based on staff's calculations, it provides only the minimum amount of open space, which is required at 55.8 acres, if the 13 acres of private open space is inclr If it is the desire to provide the minimum amount totally in public ope- ace, then the plan is presently short 13 acres. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Kay Matlock, Lewis Romes, addressed the Commission stating that she did not feel it correct to say that the park plan provides the minimum amount of parkland under the Foran Bill. Further, the amount of private open space in the plan was previously estimated to be in excess of 50 acres and that in addition to the amount of public open space provided, calculates to at least 90 acres of overall open space, which is in excess of any requirements. Also, that the Foran Bill provides that when a developer improves dedicated parkland, lie is to receive credit for those improvements against the amount of land otherwise required. Ms. Matlock further stated that the practical effect of that, given to cost of improvements roughly equal to the value of the land is to cut in half the amount of acres s city can require based on the stardara. iurtner, that the applicant's interpretation of the Foran Bill- did not require 56 acres, but 28 acres and that the Bill also provide3 that private open space is eligible for credit. Additionally, the applicant considered the 43 acres of fully improved land plus 50 acres of private open space placed them well ever the minimum amount of dedication required. Chairman King asked how the figures discussed by the Lewises and the figures discussed by staff were so much in disagreement in that the Lewises are claiming 50 acres of private and staff claims 13. Ms. Matlock replied that there is no discrepancy in the amount of land the plan will provicip which is at least 13 acres, but that credit was not being asked for privat. open space over and above the 13 acres. Planning Commission Minutes -17- January 26, 1983 Jack Lam, Community Development Director, agreed that there really isn't a disagreement on the amount of private open space that may ultimately be built in Terra Vista. He pointed out that the Commission should decide if they wished to recommend a new percentage, stay with the original percentage, or recommend no amount of private open space credit under present circumstances. Chairman King asked for clarification of the statement "shall be eligible for credit ", in the Foran Bill. Fir. Lam replied that the statement means that it is up to the legislative body, in this case the City Council, to determine what amount of credit should be given. Chairman Ung asked if there are any W aher density projects approved in the City which were given credit based on amenities. Mr. Lam replied that Deer Creek is the only project which has received some credit. Mr. Vairin stated that most of the higher density projects have oee:: submitted under the planned development combining districts which re4uire a certain percentage be within open space areas and this is why most of them have not applied for credit. Vice - Chairman Rempel stated that he did not recall which project it was, but there was one other project that applied for credit. Commissioner McNiel asked if he was correct in that the applicant is asking credit for 13.2 acres, but in actuality there will be more private acreage than that. Mr. Vairin replied that this is correct. Commissioner McNiel asked if this was substantiated. Mr. Lam replied that this was a difficult question to answer because the actual development project has not been submitted. However, if the question is could you conceivably have another 50 acres of private open space, the answer would be yes. Ms. Matlock replied if the question is could you conceivably have less than 13 acres, the answer to that would be it is impossible. Commissioner McNiel stated that he understood this, however, would like to know the applicant's intent. Planning Commission Minutes -18- January 26, 1983 Ms. Matlock stated the estimate for the amount of open space had been based on a review of projects the applicant has built elsewhere, and how much of that site was devoted to open space, and of that open space, how much should reasonably apply towards credit. Commissioner McNiel stated that it would be nice for them to come in and say they were going beyond what is required and only wanted to know that the applicant's intentions were good. Mr. Ralph Lewis, Lewis Fomes, �ddressed the Commission stating that his instructions to his staff were to give more land than what is required and was shocked to hear staff say that the bare minimum was being propo-zed under the plan. Further, that staff had been shown the calculations and formula and they had agreed to it. Further, he knows with apartments and planned developments there will be private open space. Taking a reasonable percentage of this and in line with the Foran Bill and what the City Council has always said, thay a ^e giving well above what the Foran Bill requires. Also, he had instructed his staff to give more and Fay, Gruen, and the attorney for the Lewise: calculated the figures out and all came up with more than what is required under the Foran Bill. Commissioner Barker stated that the amount is less than the last time the Commission saw the plan and this is one of the reasons they are considering how much is available for public and not just public and private. Mr. Lewis stated that before the new Commissioners were selected, considerable time was spent in front of the Council and the Council asked how builders would be encouraged to put in amenities if they weren't given credit for them and at one time indicated that credit should range from 50 to 100 percent. Mr. Larn stated, as a point of clarification., there is no disagreement In terms of discussion of private open space and this is not the issue being dealt with. Staff only wished to ask how much credit the Commission wishes to recommend in view of the Foran Bill because the prior credit discussion occurred prior to the Bill. Chairman King stated that what he heard from staff bras that the 55.8 acres being provided was the ultimate minimum under the Foran Bill, but what he was hearing from the applicant is that this is not true and 42 is the bare minimum. Michael Vairin explained that Section VI, page 3, of the planned community document contained a table which projected popultion figures based on household size, number of units, etc., on an 8,000 overall figure. This computed to a minimum requirement of 55.8 acres, as previously stated by staff. Further, that was what Ms. Matlock stated according to their interpretation of t'--e Foran Bill if they provide all that acreage plus develop then they are beyond the requirement of the Foran Bill. Planning Commission Minutes -19- January 26, 1983 Vice - Chairman Hempel stated that he would prefer to see the greater ,acreage of development inside the units rather than to put a big park in because it seems that people do not really use the big park.;, but use the areas inside the development. Further, that if it was I!is choice, he would prefer the conditions that existed 15 to 20 years ago when we had one large park and larger lots. Commissioner Barker stated that he had a feeling that when speaking of credit, it does not allow general access or access to the parklands by the general public. Also, Mr. Lewis is not the type of developer who will develop something that is not apt to sell and include enough amenities to attract people. He further stated that he had witnessed what Mr. builds and knows that he is successful when a lot of people are not. Commissioner Stout stated that since the Foram Bill has passed, the ratio between the public to private should be completely reexamined. Further, that we should not go back and say that the precedent set before the Foram Bill is what should be carried on now that the Bill has considerable cut back the parkland that can be required. Chaff -^man Icing asked if there were others in the audience who wished to comment on the subject being discussed by the Commission. Doug Hone, 7333 Heilman, addressed the Commission stating with the number of years spent in the creation of the plan and the fact that the Lewis Company is re.lowned in the industry as being an excellent developer, what should be taking place is a ceremony and not whether the City should be getting two moee acres of park at this late date. Further, that the Comm - ission should be ready to hand these people their license to go out and create a new and beautiful community for Rancho Cucamonga and wish them well. He further stated that he ielt it would be an excellent idea to have a workshop on what the Foram Bill means and what is going to be given for credit. He also stated that if a tour was taken of Lewis developments, it would be noted that they have integrity and do a good job and there is no way you can legislate integrity; however, their pride in their product and their standing depends on the good job that they do. Further, that the Commission should pass this project and wish them well and time would tell without trying to nickel and dime them over thirteen acres. Chailm3r. King replied in response to Mr. Hone's comment regarding trying to nickel and dime them over thirteen acres, gnat it could easily be turned the other way. Commissioner Barker stated that ac:mittedly, this has been going on throu;;h more than one Commissior, for a long per?od of time, but the stag vent seems to be kind of like saying it °s too bad we made such great plans, but now that the bride and groom have changed, we should go through it any way. Further, that Planning Commission Mir_utes -20- January 26, 1983 the greerways have changed and the park changed and these are two very major items as far as he was concerned and also as far as the other people in the community are concerned. He stated that he would also like to see the plan get going, but we are not talking about the same plan that the Commission saw six months ago. Rick Reiter, a resident in the Rochester tract in Etiwanda, addressed the Commission stating that he did not like the proposal of having the junior high school and the elementary school right next to each other because the age mixture is not a good one. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, stated that the locations of the schools are determined by the school districts and unless the district decides that for some reason it does not like th, s particular site, this is the site it has selected. He indicated that the map currently does not show the two schools adjacent to each other, and the original map Mr. Reiter referred to has been abandoned by the applicant. Mr. Reiter asked if the map on the wall was an indication of the way things would be in regard to the parkland. Chairman King replied that it is a gei.eral depiction. Chairman King asked if there were any other issues that anyone would like tc address before going back to the park issue. He also commented that he did not recall an Office Park designation at the souttwest corner of Milliken and Base Line. Mr. Vairin replied that the first plan showed a neighborhood shopping center at that location, but after discussion by the Commission of having two centers at that location, it was removed and replaced with an Office Park designation. Vice - Chairman Rempel replied that he Irelt it fit very well and was not out of line. Mr. Vairin stated that in his rev:_ew of the document, he noted that there was discussion on that corner as being a diife^-�nt.character from the Office Park designation to the south. Commissioner Barker asked if anyone else had concerns with the width of the greenways. Vice - Chairman Rempel stated that he would like to see the width of the walk reduced to be a 12 -foot combination walkway and bicycle path, especially when the greenery is not along the street. Further, that the path could be straight through with landscaping on both sides. Mr. Lewis asked for clarification of this by Vice - Chairman Rempel. Planning Commission Minutes -21- January 25, 1983 Vice - Chairman Rempel replied that instead of the 10 -foot and 5 -foot walk shun, it would be combined into a 12 -foot walk which would be paved and people could walk on it and also ride bicycles because there would not be that much traffic that two bicycles could not pass each other and also have someone walking along. Also, it would meander through there much getter. Commissioner Harker stated that he had a concern with that because he could sae someone roaring down the path on their ten -speed bicycle and running into a bunch of people who are walking. Chairmen King stated that he felt separate is better. Commissioners Stout and McNiel agreed that it is best to keep the paths separate. Chairman King stated that the issue now seems to focus on the parks and sugg -sted that a i- esolution be reached. Commissioner Harker stated that he would like to see a specific number of acres (as much as possible) donated specifically to aublic access parks. Chairman King stated regardless of who was nickel and diming whom over thirteen acres, he felt comfortable with the way the plan presently is in terms of the public and private open space. Vice - Chairman Rempel stated that he agreed with Chairmen King. Commissioners Barker and McNiel also agreed. Commissioner Stout stated that he felt there should be a specific number of acres because he did not feel comfortable with using a percentage now with so few acres. Michael Vairin stated that if the number of acres is a concern, Section VI, page 4, of the plan states that public parks, greenuays, trails, passeos, is not to total less than 42.6 acres and the issue would be the remaining 13 acres because it is not guaranteed to be in the public open space for potential private credit open space since it is not shown elsewhere in the plan. Vice - Chairman Rempel suggested that the private open space include only the amer :ties that would not normally be in planned development passed so far such as swimming pools and tot lots, but include such items as volleyball and tennis courts. Chairman King stated that he recalled the discussion, but thought it was a little on the vague side. Planning Commission Minutes -22- January 26, 1983 Chairman King replied that his question was a little on the vague side and wondered if there was a way to make it more specific. Michael Vairin asked if the guidelines on page 4 were not difinitive enough and if more detail was desired in terms of the actual amenity. Further, that the guidelines do not discuss the actual physical amenities discussed by Vice - Chairman Hempel in terms of a pool versus volleyball courts, but refers to the space donated which would be designed to be used for some type of recreation purposes based on the type of unit and whether it is proposed for young adults, senior citizens, etc. Chairman King stated that as long as we have a flat acreage, a minimum of 42.6 acres as the public, he was not sure that we should be that concerned with what we do in terms of private open space. Mr. Vairin replied that it is needed in terms of the implementation of each individual project. Further, that the question is of the 55.8 acre is the 42.6 acres which is currently shown on the map a comfortable ratio, or does the Commission wish to make an alternative recommendation the the City Council. Chairman King stated that 42.6 is not a comfortable figure at all, but given the Foran Bill ana the ratio of public and private open space did not feel that the figure is disproportionate. Further, that he is not comfortable with any of the figures, but given what we are looking at here and the scope, felt comfortable with the 77 percent to 23 percent public to private breakdown. Commissioner Stout stated that the 55.8 figure was based on the premise that it would be built at mid -point at the maximum as opposed to the mid- point, would the -n.mount of land allowable under the Foran Bill be greater. Mr. Vairin replied that this would not necessarily be true since a lid was placed on the maximum number of dwelling units that could be built at 8,000 with a potential beyond that for some affordable units. Further, that if a number of units was over 8,000 because of affordable bonuses, additional land dedication or fees would be required. Chairman King stated that although the plan states no less than 42.6 acres, it needs to also state, or 77 percent, whichever is greater. Further, that the 42.6 is based on a numerical number of units and people and if they have more units and more people, should provide more park spree. Ms. LeWis stated that he would agree to this because it is likely that there will be some residential units larger than 8,000 because staff is requesting it and he agreed to put in 15 percent or more affordable units. Further, that if the affordable units are built, there wuld be a density bonus generating more people, and the park requirement would increase. Planning Commission MimJtes -23- January 26, 1983 Commissioner Stout agreed that he would like to see the 42.6 or 77 percent, whichever is greater, language added. Commissioner Barker asked how this would be monitored. Michael Vai.r ?a replied that one of ':he statements in the plan and also a condition of approval required the development of a detailed park implementation system. He explained that some of the exhibits displayed a density distribution plan which illustrated how many units would be built in each of the pod areas and with this staff would be able to estimate the amount of park acreage generated with each of these developments. Staff would then be able to determine where to plan for this park, where it should begin, where the trails should begin, etc. This would be closely monitored as well as any increases in the number of units above that projected in case of extra generation of park fees or land dedication. Furiher, that this implementation plan would be a very detailed document and staff would monitor it on an ongoing basis, update is as needed, and make whatever modification as land develops. Chairman King stated that the only modification seemed to be the addition of the 77 percent, or whichever is greater, language. He asked if there were other comments regarding this matter or any other. There were none and Chairman King called for a *lotin. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report and Planned Development 81-01. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Stout, Barker, McNiel, King NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried - i f i • f T-. HOUSING ELEMENT REVIEW PROCESS RESOLUTION Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, reviewed the report to the Commission. It was the consensus of the Commission that this Resolution be forwarded to the City Council for their review and consideration. f a ■ f a Planning Commission u� -tutes -24- January 26, 1983 v K. AFFORDABLE SENIOR CITIZEN ROUSING Rick Marks, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report and advised that this item would be returning to the Commission for their consideration at their meeting February 9, 1983. f * • * ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 10:35 - Planning Commission adjourned Respectfully submitted, Jack lam, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -25- January 26, 1983 CITY OF RAiiCHO C=M ON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting February 9, 1983 CALL TO ORDER Chairman King called the regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Lie Road, Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman King then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Barker, Larry MoNiel, Herman Rempel, Dennis Stout, Jeff King ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward A. Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer; Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to approve the January 12, 1983 minutes of the regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to approve the minutes of the January 12, 1983 adjourned regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission. ANNOUNCEMENTS Rick: Gomez, City Planner, stated that the ne:.t meeting and public hearing on the Etiwanda Specific Plan is scheduled for February 17, 1983 at the Lions Park Community Center. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt the Consent Calendar. A. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11564 - LANDMARK B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11$60 - UWIS PUBLIC HEARINGS Rick Gomez, City Planner, advised that the applicant has requested that Item E, Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 7812, Penbo, Incorporated, be continued to March 9, 1983. Ibtion: Moved by Stout, seconded by McNie.l, carried unanimously, to continue this item to March 9, 1983. f % t a a C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7731 - WATSON - A subdivision of 22.3 acres in the Industrial Park area (Subarea 6) into 6 parcels located on the west side of Haven Avenue, between 6th and 7th Streets - APN 209- 262 -07, 09. Mr. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Stout asked if the Street is really 7th Street. Mr. Rougeau replied that 7th St being charged. Commissioner Barker stated that asked if the property parallels vicinity map in the exhibit which shows 20th °eet is correct and the old numbering system is Subarea 6 indicates a railroad service and that line. Mr. Rougeau replied that it does and is the boundary of that easement. Commissioner Barker asked if that lot pattern will direct the traffic in the area. Yr. Rougeau replied that if Commissioner Barker is referring to the street access, the parcel map should be looked at. Further, that if this is developed as a large parcel it would limit traffic. Commissioner Barker stated that in the event there is future work, it would not negate the access going over to the former. Mr. Rougeau replied that the street could still be procured to serve the Purpose of access and would not go against anything in the industrial Specific Plan. Chairman Ring opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 9, 1983 tom. Sim Watson, representing the Investment Building Group, the applicant, stated that there are three conditions that he wished to question. He indicated that conditions 4 and 5 on the Engineering Conditions of Approval would produce a hardship for him. Further, that this property should not generate a lot of traffic and requested that there be two driveway cuts allowed onto haven in the event that there are separate owners. Mr. tam responded with an explanation of the intent of the Industrial Specific Plan indicating that the purpose of limiting driveways onto Haven was to reduce traffic. Chairman King stated that the Industrial Specific Plan considers Haven a crucial roadway for north /south traffic and its intent is to limit excessive traffic and not clutter the view with driveway ruts. Mr. tam stated that the City wants to limit conflicts and turning points. Mr. Watson stated that there will be a median so traffic will only flow with traffic and did not think that two driveways within a quarter mile is excessive. Mr. Watson stated that he was not clear on the reciprocal arrangement. Mr. Rougeau replied that the condition was put in in anticipation of this being an industrial park which would serve multiple parking lots. He indicated that this would have to be a decision of the Planning Commission whether to follow up with reciprocal access. Mr. Vatson stated that it is clearly not the intention of the developer to have this. Chairman King stated that if there were common shared driveways between lots 4 and 5, it wouldn't be necessary. Mr. Rougeau stated that it would be important to keep one driveway for traffic going out and one for traffic coming in. Mr. Watson questioned the requirement for sidewalks on 7th and Haven Streets. Mr. Rougeau replied that 7th Street is planned as a local and that sidewalks are usually checked off as a requirement on a major street like Haven. Further, because Haven is so close to 7th Street, the Engineering Division recommended sidewalks on 7th.. Mr. Watson asked that this requirement be waived so that pedestrian traffic woula be discouraged. Mr. Rougeau replied that Haven does have a sidewalk requirement. Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 9, 1983 Mr. Watson asked if the requirement is on both sides of the street. M.r. Rougeau replied that it is. Mr. Watson asked if sidewalks are required on both sides of 7th Street. Mr. Rougeau replied that it is at the discretion of the Planning Commission. Mr. Watson asked if the requirement for street trees is only on 6th Street. Mr. Rougeau replied that the requirement for street trees is for both 6th Street and 7th Street and is a requirement of the industrial area as detailed in the _Industrial Specific Plan. Further, that these requirements must be put in at the time of development. Chairman King asked Jf the equipment could be deferred from the Parcel Map. Mr. Rougeau replied that they could be put in at a later time. Mr. Lam explained that the only reason for the requirement being stipulated here is so that the buyer knows it exists. Further, that this is the best method of advance information. Mr. Watson stated that if at all possible he would like to have the requirement for street trees and sidewalks on 7th Street deleted. Commissioner Barker stated that this would limit the Number of permitted uses in the industrial park and asked if what Mr. Watson is saying is that with the elimination of the sidewalk requirement he is not interested in a higher number of uses on 7th Street. Mr. Watson stated that he did not see it as limiting permitted uses on 7th Street because he does rot see on- street parking in this area. Mr. Rougeau stated that he does not anticipate parking restrictions unless necessary. Further, that the streets in the industrial area are wide enough so they will not be unnecessarily restricted. Mr. Watson stated that his last question relates to landscaping in the median, its cost, and maintenance_ Mr. Lam replied that landscape medians are presently maintained by the City, unless there is an assessment district to maintain it, and there is not at the present. Mr. Watson asked that the landscape median c)nstruction be waived. Commissioner Stout asked if Mr. Watson is asking for more than one driveway on Haven and, with respect to the median he wants waived, is he planning on putting more than one cut in it. Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 9, 1983 Mr. Watson replied that he would assume that no cu ,".-a would be allowed in the median.. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Stout stated that with respect to the request that landscaping on 7th Street be waived, should that occur, it would present a facade effect. Commissioner Stout felt that landscaping should be required for a portion of 7th Street. Mr. Watson stated for clarification that he was not opposed to a landscaped, bermed area, he was opposed to putting in large trees. Commissioner Rempel stated that there is no requirement for specimen trees; however, there would have to be trees. Chairman King asked the Commission if there is any objection to having the applicant put in the median. Ccmmissior_er Rempel stated that th= applicant could enter into a lien agreement. Mr. Watson asked what a reasonable time is for the lien agreement. Mx. P.ageau stated that when there are time problems with lien agreements, the City also takes cash deposits. Mr. Watson asked for the dumber to be qua- itified. Mr. Rougeau replied that this would have to be worked out on a square footage basis. Further, that they must see what is happening on the other side of the street. Mr. Watson asked if the medians are always put in by the neighboring property owners. I,r. Rougeau replied that they ate always put in by the person building_ Mr. Watson asked how this works for neighboring property owners. Mr. Lam explained how reimbursement agreements work when the medians and improvements are paid for by the developer. it-. Rougeau also stated that over three - fourths of Haven is developed in this area so this might be an optimum time to put these pieces in. Mr. Lam stated that the only time the improvements are not put in is when it is choppy. Further, the City waits for large pieces to be put in at one time. Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 9, 1983 Commissioner Hempel stated that on the issue of sidewalks, the people who will work ir. the area must be given a place to walk whether it is on 6th or on 7th Street. Further, they must have some way to get to the bus stops either by walking along 6th or 7th Street and it appeared that since Mr. Watson will develop first, the burden falls on him. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, to adopt Resolution No. 83 -16 approving Parcel Map 7731, and issuing a Negative Declaration with the conditions of approval as specified by staff. Commissioner Hempel stated that he wished to amend the motion to give the applicant an opportunity for a second driveway onto Haver_. He explained the difficulty that would occur if two separate owners would have to use the same driveway and how it crrald present a problem with large trucks. He stated further that he would like to have the reciprocal access easement left in but to allow a second driveway. Commissioner Barker stated that he would not accept an amendment to his motion. The original motion carried. Commissioner Hempel voted no and stated that tie thought a second access should be allowed. Mr. Hopson stated that the motion was for approval without any change to the conditions as set forth by staff. r o a s t D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7852 - FISHBACK - A residential subdivisio.^, of 9.41 acres to be divided into 3 parcels within the R -1 zone located at the northeast corner of Fast and Victoria Avenues - APN 227 - 071 -15. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Stout asked, with respect to the parcel map is the "T" shaped area shown a possible future street. Mr. Rougeau replied that if what Commissioner Stout means is shown in the center of the map, those are existing trees, and are windbreaks made up of eucalyptus trees. Commissioner Barker stated that at the last meeting on 'ne Etiwanda Specific Plan Commissioner Hempel suggested consideration of a trail plan going from the east to west and dropping south at Victoria. ^eked where that would be in relation to this project. Pl anning C:mmission Minutes -6- February 9, 1983 Mr. Rougeau replied that this is shown on Exhibit B and is being considered along the north side of the tract. commissioner Rempel stated that he was talking about the east side of the high school property. Chairman King asked if all members of the Commission received a ;:opy of the amended conditions and whether the applicant also received a copy. Mr. Rougeau replied that they did, Chairman King opened the public hearing. Mr. Darwin Nark, Box 15, Oicamonga, stated that he *as available to answer any questions. There being no comments, the public hearing wa:. closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 83 -17, approving Parcel Map 7852 and issuing a Negative Declaration. f i f i • F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CORDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -29 - HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH - The development of a church and related facilities including seven (7) temporary relocatable 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 HF..ven Avenue, between Hillside ;oad and Carrari Street, at 5354 Haven Avenue. G VARIANCE 83 -01 - HILLSIDE COt- 24UNITY CHURCH - A request to permit the development of a 50 foot high church sanctuary on 10 acres of land in the R -1- 20,000 zone located on the west side of Haves. Avenue, between Hillside Road and Carrari Street at 5354 Haven Avenue. Mr. Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner, reviewed both staff reports. He stated that there has beer. a change to Engineering condition M3, requiring sidewalks along Haven, and a change to condition 3 of the Planning conditions further clarifying the circulation aisle requiring a turning radius and moving ability. Mr. Johnston explained that the requirement for equestrian improvement will eliminate the need for sidewalks. Commissioner Stout asked if there will be sidewalks on the other side of Haven or if pedestrians are expected to walk on the horse trails. Mr. Rougeau replied that on this part of Haven where there are narrower parkways and lesser pedestrian traffic near the Deer Creek subdivision, the requirement for sidewalks is contemplated as unneeded. He indicated that this area would be surfaced with a material that will allow pedestrians to use it. Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 9, 1983 Commissioner Stout asked if this will be like Sapphire above Bayan. Mr. Rougeau replied that it will be better. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Mr. Ken Johnson, 20707 Covina Hills Road, Covina, the architect, explained how the buildings and landscaping will develop and how with parking only on Sundays, it was not felt that pavement should soak up the entire atmosphere. Mr. Johnson stated that they have tried to distinguish between vehicular and pedestrian traffic on the site plan and that the parking area is totally without any pedestrian walkways. He indicated that a pedestrian mall has been Provided as a sate place for people to meet after services. Chairman. King asked if there is any objection to providing feeder trails for people to connect to. Mr. Johnson replied that he had met with Councilman Dahl and has no objections to this. Mr. George Lightner, 1365 W. Foothill, Suite 6, Upland, president of the church board, expressed his appreciation to Mr. Johnston, M ^. Gomez and Mr. Lam for their assistance on this project. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Chairman King stated he felt this to be a superior job. Commissioner Rempel stated that toey who sat on the Design Review Committee felt this to be well adapted to the area. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 83 -78 approving the Conditional Use Permit No. 82 -29 and issuing a Negative Declaration with the changes to the conditions as suggested by staff. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 83 -19 granting Variance 83 -01 for the Hillside Cummunity Church. 1. f f i i i - -��..� v•+nLHi li1:;TRZCT - An amendment t0 V'�-v� - "EY -LUM Ordinance to include an overlay district contaaining6va� ousode development Incentives to producers of senior citizen oriented multi - family housing, as well as site development and general overlay district location criteria. Planning commission bUnutes -8- February 9, 1983 Rick Marks, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report_. Chairman King stated that in terms of this amendment, it is well thought out and has been discussed on previous occasions. Further, the Commission has toured various senior housing projects and it was his opinion that this kind of prograz must be brought into the City and should be encouraged. Additionally, some types of incentives rm:st be created in order to serve that need. Commissioner Stout stated with respect to the ordinance, it would be important to include such language that would ensure that with this type of housing it is still quality housing. He felt that an effort to curtail cost should not preclude quality. Mr. Marks replied thct staff will go over the guidelines in design and control and this could be added within the amendment to :he guidelines. Commissioner Stout felt that it is important tha: this be contained within the ordinance so that it is understooe that this is what this cc==nity is looking for. Commissioner Barker stated that he agrees. Commi -ssi" er Rempel stated that this overlay district should permit some type o° storage acilities because when people move from larger homes into housing o' this type there is less storage space availability. Commissioner Barker asked if such a requirement is appropriate here or would. be better contained within the guidelines. Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt it important that it be contained within the ordinance because mini storage comes under zoning as a specialty item and would not be contained in the guidelines because it is in contradiction to the zoning ordinance. Cha irman King stated that he sees what the Commission is doing with this as a policy statement and various conditions should be approached on a project -by- project basis. N^. Hopson stated tnat what is being suggested is that if storage uses are more intensive than normal for senior housing but incidental to it, then he does not see this as being inconsistent with the City's present zoning designation. Commissioner Rempel asked that the condition for storage be added to item 5 of section. 5 of this Ordinance. Commissioner Barker stated that it would establish intent and not specificity. Planning Commission Mimites -9- February 9, 1983 Commissioner Stout stated that the language sho,ald not state that it be limited to that. He indicated that they will be close to foot traffic as well. Commissioner Harker stated that most placzs that were visited had storage amenities that were not necessarily on site. Commissioner Rempel stated that there should be something adjacent or there could be a problem. Mr. Gomez stated that under the new development code this could be looked at in the .:.ommercial area and decide whether this would be compatible with it and allow it within the commercial and allow them to exist in the same area. Commissioner Mc Niel asked if there were anything within the ordinance that would prohibit resale of the units for profit. Mr. Marks replied that such a prohibition is included in the developer agreement requirement, Section 7 of the ordinance. �Ir. Gomez added that the time period for the housing to remain available was also included in the ordinance. Commissioner barker asked if the developer agreement is binding and if so, whether there is a time limit on it. Mr. Gomez replied that it is and is called out in the Government Code which states that cities have the power to enforce the agreements. Commissioner Stout asked what the remedy is if they violate the agreement. M^. Hopson stated it is the same as if anyone else violates a contract or a zoning restriction. The remedy is a policing type action and would be pursued either civilly or criminally, if it is a violation of zoning. Further, that state law now allows you to grant away Fhat used to be a property right such as ingress or egress. Mr. Hopson stated that he did not think enforceability would be a great problem. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by bari:er, cLrried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 53 -21, recommending approval of ':he Environmental Assessment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 83 -02 - Senior Vausing Overlay District to the City Council for their adoption with the changes to language ensuring quality not be sacrificed for cost. f # f ! f 8:10 p m. The Planning Commission recessed 8:15 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened Planning Commission Minutes -10- February 9, 1983 J. COYDITICYAL USE PEM -41-1 F3 -03 MOyTESSORI - 1"he development of a 8,015 square foot preschool au+ elementary school in an existing building located in Wendy's Plaza of 9544 Foothill in the C -2 zone - APN 208 -154- 14, 15, 16 Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. He stated for the record that 2 letters had becn received regarding this project, one from the Rennaisance School, regarding the number of preschools in the city and another letter from the property owner to the west, Mr. Sanford Blue, whu expressed concern regarding such a development within a commercial area and whecher it would preclude his future commercial development. Cnarman Sing opened the public hearing. Mir. Russ James, West Development Company, the applicant, stated he was available to answer any questions. Chairman King asked about the playground area and whether it would be left in black top. Mr. James replied that a portion would remain in 'blacktop for basketball but the balance would be filled in and landscaped for the preschool and elementary school uses. He indicated that the plan would be submitted to the building department and *could have to comply with the State regulations governing schools. He indicated further t:lat dirt would be brought in and the area will be enclosed with a wooden fence. Chairman King asked what the State requirements are with his only concern that he has a difficult time seeing that the entire playground area is asphalt; however, he is not sure what type of erfercement needs to occur in order to see that the requirements are met relative to playground needs. Chairman King stated that it is his understanding that some type of floorin; or rubber mats can be used to assure that a child will not be hurt. t^r. Jxnes stated that there are several alternatives, one being the use of a mat and the other to b ing in dirt and plant grass. Chairmn icing stated that if t..e Commission approves this there should be some idea of what will be done with the playground area. Ile indicated that he did not see anything that says what must be done with the playground area. Mr. Gomez stated that if the Commission is concerned there can b? some language added that ;would meet their intent. Chairman King stated that if the Commission grants this request he did not know what options exist and whether this should come before the C.Om.,fssion or staff for final review. Mr. Gomez stated that there will be some control through the application process before occupancy takes place. Planning Commission Minutes -11- February 9, 1983 Commissioner Barker stated that he would be concerned if ?00 percent matting Reused. Further, that 1. would like to see total design with the Design Review Committee approval. Chairman King stated that he thinks it would be appropriate to add ,i condition that 'the playground must go before the Design Review Committee for review. Commissioner Stout asked why the applicant is selecting a wooden fence. Mr. James replied that it is to match the exterior of the building and it would blend in and match better than other material. Commissioner :tout replied that he is somewhat concerned about the use of a wood fence because in a semi - commercial area such as this, the tendency is for a wood fence not to stand up. Mr. James stated that they have always taken very good cars of any center they manage. Commissioner Stout asked if Mr. James would object to a condition in the CUP to require the Ettractive maintenance and that this be kept in good repair. Mr. James replied that they have worked with Phillips Ranch where a preschool and elementary school had been put in and it was felt that it has been an asset to the center. Mr. Dean Logan, 3205 Rosebud, franchisee of the Wendy's restaurant, advised that he was not opposed to the preschool but had some concerns. He asked about the parking impact stating that he knows there will be a lot of traffic and that the parking for the school has not been designated. He asked if it would be to the east. Commissioner M-Niel stated that he has two concerns with respect to the dumpster which "ill be adjacent to the playground area and the gates which will. open into this area and whether it will be moved. Mr. James stated that he wants to work with the wendyIs and the City to find a suitable place for it. He indicated that it could be moved into a parking stall to tr" east of half way in the other direction to be closer to the Wendy`s restaurant. He indicated his past experience with dumpsters is that they are handy even if they are 50 -500 feet away from the building. Commissioner Me Niel asked how many stores would be consumed by the school. Mr. Jame-, replied they will occupy four. Commissioner M`Niel asked if there will be adequate restroom facilities. The applicant replied th2t there will be. Planning Commission Minutes -12- February 9, 1983 Hr. lam stated chat on applications such as This, ii, is uvrmally Liic yvliuy that the applicant make arrangements to discuss the solutions to existing problems with other occupants in the center. Further, that it does not appear that this has been done and there are some details that remain to be :corked out. Mr. Lam stated that from the staff's standpoint it was thought that this had all been worked out and Mr. Lam suggested that approval not be granted sntil this has all been talked out. Mr. Lam stated that staff will make every effort to work with the applicant and Mr. Logan and he felt that this could be worked out to everyone's satisfaction. Mr. Hopson stated that by the same token if the Commission approves the resolution a condition should be added that the conditional use permit will not be valid until staff has approved the substitute location of the d=pster. There being no -further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hempel stated that the problems with this because it could the animal hospital at the Stater g Archibald. He indicated that there safety of the youngsters who may be generated by Wendy's. Commission is getting into some serious be an attractive nuisance situation like -cs. shopping center on 19th and must be some method of guaranteeing the at the preschool from the traffic being Ccmmissioner Harker asked what the property to the east is. Chairman Ki:.1- replied that it is Wilmington Savings, with a service station to the west. Commissioner Barker asked if there is some way to police this as some parents may leave their children off at Foothill and asked further if there can be some protected access. Commissioner Barker stated that Commissioner Re=el's concern is well founded, especially, if parents drop their children off at Foothill because the city could have some liability. He asked if there is some way to clear the design for foot traffic. ',%airman King stated that both concerr-s raised are valid and both must be considered. He asked that the applicant do a little more work on this and bring t.;is back. Commissioner Stout stated that he concurred with Chairman King and suggested that a limit to access be placed on the school and p ?aygrourd area. Commissioner Barker asked if the project complies with the correct amount of square footage for a school. The applicant replied that it meets the state's standards. °lai:niag Commission minutes -13- February 9, 1983 Commissioner Stout stated conditions to en�::ra rh�t that perhaps these should be placed in the meets all required State laws, 11% Gomez stated that this could regulations governing preschools. be amended to comply with all state Chairman King stated that he does not see a problem with this project if there is more thought given to it and that consideration should be given in terms of parking for ldendyls and safe egress and ingress. He recommended that this be continued to the next regular Planning Commission meeting. Mr. James replied that they are willing to do whatever staff feels necessary to protect the children and that the outer area will be entirely enclosed. Further, that the children will not be out without a teacher present at any time. Mr. James stated that he would like this continued to the next regular Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Barker stated work with staff. it was his strong feeling that the applicant also COmmis ',ne; Stout stated that he would like staff to contact the City of Ontario fog their conditional use permit frr the school approval it had given and also to inquire if they have had any problems since granting it. Mr. Hopson stated that the preschool and elementary school in Ontario is somewhat different in that it almost totally occupies a shopping center. Commissioner Rempel stated that he did not think the school will benefit from Wendy °s but that Nendyls will benefit from the scY,00l. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Me Niel, carried, to continue this item to February 23, 1983 in order to work out traffic and trash bin storage. Commissioner Rempel voted no on this item stating he thought this should be denied tonight. H. t fat � — vpmenz; of a tempo_ary bank facility on y7.84 acres of landlinYthe- Zhe Industrial Park category iSubarea 6) located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Route - APNT 209_1 42_16. Assistant Planner, Curt Johnston, revewed the staff report. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -14- February 9, 1983 2Ar: �tovo Rn mRnnc af�i_nant ctat orl ho nnnnn,noA with etafF�a recommendations and indicated tiat the permanent site plan needs some additional work. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 83 -20, approving Conditional Use Permit 82 -24 issuing a Negative Declaration for this project. Commissioner Rempel stated for .larification that be has no conflict with this project as he no longer works ?or Berry Construction Co. DIRECTOR "S REPORTS K. STATUS REPORT ON FOOTHILL FREEWAY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Lloyd Hibbs, City Engineer, reviewed the staff report and advised the Commission of their required participation in the Implementation Plan for the balance of the calendar year. Commissioner Rempel stated that the calendar plans for 10 months which would put the conclusion of the Implementation Plan at the end of the year. He indicated that it would appear there is no cushion in the time element with this schedule and asked if it would be possible to compress some of the schedule. Mr. Hibbs replied that they will try to have the plan ready to go to the FTC in December but it is very tough to try to get seven agencies to work together. He stated that this is a big job and felt this to be a realistic schedule. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by King, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adjourn to February 10, 1983 at the Magic Lamp Restaurant, for a joint City Council Planning Commission dinner meeting commencing at 6 p.:. } } } } } 8:55 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes —15— February 9, 1983 L] L CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 23, 1983 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Kral!, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: vacation of a Portion of 7th Street California Finished Metals, Inc., has requested the City va =ate that portion of 7th Street no longer required by the Industrial Specific Plan. At the present time, 7th Street between Center and Haven Avenues is 60 feet wide with an additional 14 foot offer of dedication on the south side adjacent to California Finished Metals, Inc,. This makes the present half width of 7th Street at the site 44 feet. Since the Industrial Specific Plan (sub area S) reduces this right of way to a half width of 27 feet, 17 feet remains to be vacated. The existing curb and gutter has been constructed quite some time ago. With the reduction in street width these existing improvements must be removed. California Finish Metals will remove the existing improvements and replace them in the new location or bond for such work before the vacation is recorded. RECOMMENDATION: If after reviewing the request for street vacation the Plannning Commission finds it conforms to the Industrial Specific Plan, then this request will be submitted to the City Council for public hearing to begin the process of vacation. Respectfully submi ;rte Attachments ITEM A SUBAREA 5 (Continued) 100' Right-Of -Way - Archibald I 1< 19' ili 1 Ili! tif 10114 J100' tt. ROW 1 88' Right -Of -Way - 6th 74' Right -Of -Way - Turner raw -54' 'Ristrt'Df' =ay %tb 8th Center and all other local streets Minimur Parcel Size One (1) acre IV-25 EL R 0 m c c o m E r ep mo U n.rs mo .6 nm o- m� �[tp �� c W h + s o s EL R 0 m c c o m E r ep mo U n.rs mo .6 nm o- m� �[tp �� Alk E E CALIFORNIA FINISHED METALS. WC. 9 133 CENTER AVE. CUCAMONfaA, CA 9173') (714) 987 -4687 RF WCEIVED January 25, 1983 JAN 227 1983 City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730 Attention: Paul Rougeau CtiY OF RRiiwrO CuCAMOKGA ZRGtNEERMG "'S1O11 Enclosed are copies of documents requested by your office in order to proceed in our request for vacation of a portion of 7th Street. As a result of our telephone conversation, these documents are supplied 4.nstead of the information requested in November by Barbara Krall. Very truly yours, CALIFORNIA FINISHED METALS, INC. %�.t� U-' G-L_ Hemenover, General Manager G? H /ce Enclosures: 1. Fell Reconveyance 2. Individual Grant Deed - (2) 3. Parcel map 4. Check Am E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STS+ F REPORT DATE: February 23, 1983 TO: Members of the D ? „ „ ;;,, -,g Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering 'technician SUBJECT: Vacation of Eighth Street The Industrial Specific Pidn allows for the vacation of portions of Eighth Street between Haven and Rochester Avenues if required for rail service. Upon completion of the construction of Sixth Street within Assessment District 82 -1, Eighth Street can be abandoned without adversely affecting circulation in this area. The Caldwell Ccmpany has requested the City begin procedures to vacate Eighth Street so that it may begin plans for a railroad alignment north of a site located between Haven and Cleveland Avenues. With this request, Staff feels that the length of Eighth Street bet�.zen Haven and the east property line of Parcel Map 5760 as shown on the attached map may be vacated at this time. Staff is working with the Utility Companies at this time for the reservation of easeme�its within the right of way tt be vacated. RECDMMENDATION: If after reviewing this request for the vacation of Eighth Street, the Planning Commission finds it conforms to the intent of the Industrial Specific Plan, then Staff should be directed to forward it to the City Council for public hearing. Respectfully submi ted, LBH:0c Attachments ITEM 2 N� • • • • • • • • =1 a n a m 0 _.!I! TURNER --AVENUE �-- EN I I •�II I I I � —` o ( T I I I 33 'II % D Q, n SC STaT�T —Y -_ _rs all -� � `.• ,• O —t y0.` _,fY . o Sixth Street - Seventh Street. The need for efficient access from Sixth Street to the pro- posed interchange at Route 15 /Seventh Street, points to a strong continuity between. Sixth and Seventh. The use of intersections would require dual right turn as well as left turn lanes which would involve long, complex traf- fic signal cycles. An alternative to using two intersections is a curved, continuous con- nection as a means of going from Sixth to Seventh. There will be a need for snlit*_inq the traffic wishing to go south on Route 15 between the 4th Street interchange and the 7th Street interchange. This is .jest accomplished by eliminating as much delay and inconvenience as possible from the trip along Sixth and north to Seventh. • 8th Street. Portions of 8th Street can be a- bandoned between Haven Avenue and Rochester Avenue if requird for rail service. o Milliken Avenue. The at- grade portion of the proposed Milliken Avenue extension (4th Street to Foothill Boulevard) will be aligned to be ® compatible with a future railroad grade sepa- �" rati.)n, mainline and spur railroad service needs and possible utility corridors. Haven and Milliken Railroad grade separations are proposed at Haven Separation Studies and Milliken Avenues and the ATSSF railway. The - precise alignments for Haven and Milliken Avenues at the separation locations are shown on plans pre- pared by DKS Associates and are included in Appen- dix C. These plans define the additional right -of- way needed to the adjacent parcels. Peak Period Peak period intersection volumes ware utilized to Intersection Volumes determine the number of lanes needed for ai, inter- _ section to operate at Level of Service "l; ". The results are shown in Table 11 -3. A further expla- nat.on of the Volume /Capacity Ratio V/C is given in Appendix A. s I1 -18 V'-;o G° 9- ,ce _3 � P E1 December 29, 1982 Mr. Paul A. Rougeau Senior Civil Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: 8th Street vacation Dear Paul: Pursuant to our discussion in your office yesterday, we would appreciate vour initiating in the J&-ivary 19 Council Meeting t'ie necessary paperwork to vacate that portion of 8th Street lying directly north of Parcel Map 6194. As the road bed has been totally destroyed at this point as a result of the Assess- ment District work, we are anxious to get thzz matter cleaned up so that we may begin our railroad alignments along our northerly property. Your prompt attertion to there is anything further to call. Sincerely yours, '-2 , ..O RP.VE�ti%PSSQCIATr'S Charles B. Caldwell CBC:wk this request is appreciated. If You need from me, do not hesitate cc: Frederick L. Stephens, Jr. 1451 QUAIL STREET, SUITE 21Z NEINPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660! (714i 551 -6851 0 E 11 2 11 CITY 5F RAACHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 23, 1983 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krail, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Request for Extension of Time for Parcel Map 5144 The attached letter from McKinnon -Biff Properties, Inc., requests an extension of time to record Parcel Map 5144 due to current economic conditions. Parcel Map 5144 is the division of 18.2 acres of land into ?5 parcels for industrial use located or the south side of Eigit� --trees and the east s;de of Hellman Avenue_ Approval was given on August 1, 1979 for a period of 18 months. This map has been extended twice for a total period of 3 1/2 years. A 6 -month extension may be given at this time. After this time, a new tentative must be submitted for Planning Commission approval. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that a 5 -month extension be granted Parcel Map 5144. The new date of expiration wil: be August 1, 1 °83. Respectfully LBH:BK:bc Attachments itted, ITEM C 7 E LL ,tip 5144 N THE U7"Y OF PAACHO CLJCAMON64 ' _• '� to YFIUN Oi /qf N.nt: rlt i S7 7uAR llw yF ] AVi (ILAe lL2 (Y SEC II6l; J' l!'wfJ:ni✓ ; , riu H.ir.]nxrlT •g;/I[T�{, _ h :[ -A•a mL f: D::N •tv /rrE 6O.IIJ G'.'42 /Inlf Of [OT •7 1 wL.T !VW PTA �N/NO is � S.LwS (tN A KvNGCO GSA Ji4544[AH115 4),cF FIAT FcLL'dL[OG A/IL[W n' a P¢aE 4 JF MN I - ERE4AeFf/ Fp /, ✓NCOWAY /AIYLSTHcNTS /LC RRE ISRCO yr' :5 $. A.' I eYro. yrTE R O /LE C iNCE / '"W0,471, u 4jrOS 1430 'L r.ILALE «R,/ VALE f ra r., 100• RRONC' �JIa/ •f) -P3ll -"T, JY }Irr� G -v .. ^ MfpL. � wrr T xlrER rut. sE YFJlO wIIN ' i1rON LJC.lwanvi Y.y L'1Ke ] rtrLTrw� [ANJ urr rL QRAYTr NArLe t /- r,fics' I ♦ +!�Sr [avo ,••c K /Aau:reul Am•`xaw`� rr ^�� r�r Gr31WAt10N ;N:a K -MF ]ME 6ENLRNL P.PN Y• ]r'r� rA0{tirLNt MIN.MIII. I.VIyC •-- � •- �i! W uUNly Iy. _ �j a I o u.le 77 scorze elgraw r• I L uL1AL i � _ hW�_ r y A1w:•e s - ,i� v - O iOALj �� .r Cii. i -. _T .a k _ _:7F V -s •_ .. T` .. I pL4„ SECT(:/M .1'!♦ — u` iiL .-1 -1 � _ _ '��� 105 �—• �M .,.`. -" nRreT ,� 5 �.flti.I Cu � -wt I; ' i„F +"` � ` 1 + I�`� -_ tt ii � YiLf �L 4_ r�,r- rLC'KT �+tW G13 � -�I �' G.aA:r' 4 HC :� \ � \ -• �x�i�( �_. � .,;. •„ter- ����.. - s- — . �:. n , c... j,. ,r— — '..r 1, ,G.\ IT � I �yv� �7t I ogT4c \ "9 rLQ 1 ,. I I I I1. ' ,S - �I I ,.l V• At. �S 1Apy wr L fs..n.s �n�..,s� >�-: I �c 77t, �, 1 In MN ^i`!i'1'/ � •� _ — � — _ _ __ _. _ _l_�' `^'L � ^r\ \ \` the / J j nf•,:...,,• ARNe � I i��l j I � r ti.)T r r R•� _ ` _.5.r f . 5' �—,s• � � F . ` I 11( +�.rl ji I� a'--�. —ref ___ I •r i W - � I _i I i i �� `vrwi ;. •ocul "`�'+I = i ¢ I A� r ug1eE ts •D S(1LEMM4E RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING CONVIISSION, APPROVING THE EXTENSIONS FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 5144 WHEREAS, an application has been filed for a time extensis„ for the above - described project, pursuant to Section 1.501.8.2(b) of Ordinance 28 -B, the Subdivision Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has geld a duly advertised public hearing for the above - described project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the above - described tentative Parcel Map. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the follo:aing findings: A. That prevailing economic conditions have caused a lack of financing and high interest rates for construction. B. That these economic conditions make it unreasonable to build at this time. C. T!­3t strict enforcement of the conditions of approval regarding expirations would not be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. E. 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 Conn:ssion hereby grants a time extension for the above- described project as follows: Parcel MELD 5144 Expiration Date August 1, 1983 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DA- OF FEBRUARY, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONrA BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of tle Nanning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 I, 'ACK 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 Hie Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of February, 1933, by the following vote- to -v:it: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: E u McKi nnon- Bi bb Properties, Inc. January 26, 1983 Mr. Paul A. P-ougeau Senior Civil Engineer City of : Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. 91730 Re: Parcel Map 5144 Dear Mr. Rougeau; RECEIVED , .' j 28 476.3 C!Ty OF nANCHO CUCA 40NGA ErG!1iEENNG DWS;ON Thank you for your letter of January 21, 1983, informing us of the status of the above referenced parcel map. As a result of the sick economy, we are unable to commence construction and therefore, are requesting a one year extension of time. Your approval of our request would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours, R ger! cginnon RM /L cc; Dale S. Price and Assoc. enclosure: $62.00 fee for tentative dap #5144 and 5144 -1 2737 Easf Coast HighwCy ■ Corona del Mar. California 92625 ■ p14) 675-2311 I] 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCr MON A STAFF REPOR DATE: February 23, 1983 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION REQUEST FOR C01 SHIBATA - An interim of conju— nct•p with -he Greenrock on the southwest corner of Haven ITIONAL USE PERMIT 81 -17 - ce trailer for use in Gardens, generally located and Lemon Avenues. BACKGROUND: On November 25, 1981, the Planning Commission, approved Resolution 81 -137 to allow the interim use of a trailer for office facilities prior to construction of permanent facilities. This approval was granted to allow Vie trailer to remain on the site for a period of nine (9) months from the date of its installation. That date has expired ano the applicant has requested an extension of time to maintain the trailer for an additional two (2) years. Attached is a copy of the letter from the applicant explaining the reasons for this request. The Commission has approved the detailed site plan for the development of this site and now it is simply s matter of final construction. Staff has received no complaints abort the business operation and all other conditions of the Conditional Use Permit have been met. For further information, this applicant re result of City enforcement at his previous Street. As can be seen from the applicant's evolved through this relocation as well applicant's architect. In combination vii business, and the current economic slow_dowr to Finance the final construction of the time. located to this site as a business location on 19th letter, some hardships have is some problems with the :h the relocation, loss of i the applicant is not able permanent building at this ITEM D 0 Z Conditicnal last Permit 81 -17 Planning Commission Acienda February 23, 1983 Page 2 RECOMMEP'v�TION: It is recommended that the Planning Commisiion extend the use of the interim trailer for two (2) years from the date of this action which would require final construction and occupancy of th,: permanent building by February 23, 1985. Resp ct idly s mitted, s i 0 Rick ome. ,.Sty Oianner RG : MV: jr ;Attachments: Planning Coirimission Resolution 81 -137 Site Plan Letter From Applicant E 11 u GREEN ROCK GARDENS, INC. 10407 Lemon P_ O. Box 518 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91701 City o£ Rancho Cucamonga Reneno Cucamcnga, California 91 ?30 ?etrvaily ?, 19 "3 Attention: Rancho cucamonga ?fanning Connission Subject: Extension of _ConditicMal Use ?ermit prev_ously Granted _',ovenber i, 1991, for "_'er-.)orary Unit Located at 10�U7 Le^�on 'ver_ue, Rancho Cucamonga, Char_ °eq Plaza Gentlemen: Since honorable corcnissicn Granted ny conditional use Dermit, my -,;siness has suffered a thi*ty -three Dercent decline £rcm ;that was experienced at our ::or.Ter location. -T'bia is Dri- narily 'due to the normal relocation factor, and the economy. Uur permanent site i-aDroveTer_ts were installed with all utilit;es prior to occupancy. :since that ti-te we rave made numerous i7Drovenerta to .re sales display lot area. r-ve been unavailable at interest rszes b: v loans are that wool:: allow -;e to star '� 4..in__s and take-Vat still not available at ratrs that would allow ne to rur. our proposed facility at a profit. During the last sixty dsys, the U. S. District Court notified t hat my architects, ^ h , :Mr. Allen Sngno, went bankrupt. The value of my Mans which rsys =510,000.00 invested in tnem is questionable. r,.y relationship with our residential ^eizhbors is good and we bard- experienced no complaints. 1 -could appreciate receiving a two year extension for the conditiona'_ use permit so that 1 can have surf =ciert time to reeoune rY. losses and do 3 satisfactory job on —.7 new facility. =hqn'.{ -.ou for your previous Cor°_i.deration. 1 look forward a to wcrkin� wi,,h you and your excellent staff. °oLe ^t ;, SInitata ?residert, Greer_ Rock Gardens Phone 989 -3907 . e VZVld A3 -HVH3 k- ;I i Z 0 } o Z 2�t R> C 0 0 zoo e u y_ o ICL TS w tJ1 x J r tY� J LU !tl:R5�11vP� Ir IL Q A O rc 2�wLU A C 0 0 zoo ICL TS w 6ua x C)YS■ a ej 2�wLU Q e t p C 0 0 ® 0 0 RESOLUTION NO. 81 -137 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81 -17 FOR AN INTERIM OFFICE TRAILER GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HAVEN AND LEMON AVENUES IN THE C -1 ZONE. WHEREAS, on the 5th day of November, 1981, a complete application was filed by Green Rock -Gardens. Inc. for review of the above- wescribed project; and WHEREAS, ors the 25th day of November, 1981, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above - described project. NOW, THEREFORE. the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resoived as follows: SECTION 1: What 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 weifare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 2: That Conditional Use Permit No. 81 -17 is a.-Prnved s7b ct to the following conditions: I. That the trailer be removed within 9 months from the date of its installation or at the completion of the permanent building, whichever is sconer. 2. Th2t improvements such as installation of parking area, street improvements, wills and landscape buffers be com- pleted in accordance with approved plans prior to com- mencement of burin -ss. 3. All plant storage, materials and equipment, shall be kept within the plant storage . ea. 11 Resolution No. 81 -137 Page 2 0 4. No signs shall be placed on the property without written approval of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division. 5. This approval shall not waive compliance with other applicable City Codes and Ordinances. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1981 PLANNING 04MISSION OF THE CITE OF RANCHO CUCA14ONGA Fx ng, ATTEST���7 _ Ser.ete y of Lne P Ian n1ng o:un�ssion I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of `rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was dU7 and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commissi3, of reular Commission fheld con the a25thad day tof November, 1981, by the following vote- to -w:t: AYES: COMMIISSIONERS: Rempel, Tolstoy, Dahi, Sceranka, King NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None E E. 2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 23, 1983 11: Members of'the Planning Commission FROM: hick Gomez, City Planne,, BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Pl,nner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83 -03 - CAL.MARK - A request to amend the General Pian Land UsE Plan from Medium -High Residential (14 -24 dwelling units per acre) to High Residential (24 -30 dwelling units per acre) for Zhe development of 161 affordable senior citizen aPLrtments on approximately 4.55 acres of land, located west of Archibald, ano north of Base Line - APN 202-151-34 RELATED FILE - PD 83 -01 - CALMARK PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Calmark Development Corporation is requesting a Genera: Plan Amendment to High Residential for the development or 'Jeritage Park ", a senior citizen affordable project of 161 apartment unit, on 4.55 acres of land. Heritage Park will be part of a larger Planne.i Development on 9.78 acres of land that will include 108 general occupancy auartments as shown on the Detailed Site Plan, Exhibit "C ". Tae proposed project density for Heritage Park is 35.4 du /acre. Therefore, Calmark will be re:;4; ed as a Condition of Approval for Planned Development 83 -01 to enter into a Developer Agreement for a 25% density bonus (above 30 du /ac) pursuant to State law regarding incentives for affordable housing. The project si.= is presently vacant undeveloped land. fhere is previously approved 152 unit condominium project, Tentative Tact 11615, for this site. The property is located on the north side of the Alpha Beta sPopping center at Base Line and Archibald. The surrounding zoning and land ;1se are shown on the attached Site Utilization Map, Exhibit ".A The property is currently zoned R -3 /PD and designated Medium -High Res16antir.l (14 -?4 du /arce) on the General Plan (Exhibit "B"). ITEM E GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83 -03 Planning Commission Agenda February 23, 1983 Page 2 ANALYSIS: The public objective of ag providing affordable housing must be ;iei�hed ainst the co of increased density. The City's General Plan and State law recognize that affordable housing is a desirable public objective. The availability and affordability -)f housing is a primary goal of the City's General Plan. Further-, the General Pian recognizes that a "major constraint to afforJable housing is not only higher construction costs but also the density and types of housing units being built in the city ". The General Plan contains numerous policies encouraging housing epportunities which are within the financial capabilities of low and moderate income persons and which meet the needs of the elderly, handicapped and minority groups. Heritage Park has been designed to specifically meet the needs of senior citizens with low and moderate income. The project site fulfills the location requirements of the senior housing overlay district: compatibility with surrounding commercial /office land uses, fairly level topography (5% grade), close proximity to services and public transit, and the general area is free from serious health, safety or noise problems. There are approximately a dozen single family homes to the west in an older neighborhood zoned F -•3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Part one of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant and is attached for your review. Staff has completed part two of the Initial Study and found that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If the Commission concurs with such findings, issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. FACTS FOR FINDING: The project site is appropriate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed development. Also, the change in land use designation from Medium -High to High is consistent with General Plan policies and State law. CORRESPONDENCE: A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Daily Report newspaper and 27 public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. In addition, public hearing notices have been posted on the property. The applicant and staff have net with the local senior- citizens "VIP° group to obtain their input in the project design. The VIP group supports the Heritage Park development. 11 0 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83 -03 Planning Commission Agenda February 23, 1983 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and material relative to this amendment. A Resolution of appZ�tfpllyjsubmitted Val is provided for review and consideration. Res ty Ilanner Attachments: Letter from Calmark Development Corporation Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B' - General Plan Landuse Exhibit "C" - Site Plan Initial Study Part I Resolution of Approval 11 El c. r rJ, u 1 L lV AN') 5 1983 AM g��t�ni�t„�1►2t3tas�i6 January 24, 1983 City of Rancho Cucamonga P. 0. Box 807 P.ancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Calmark Senior Housing Project GPA Attn: Dan Coleman Dear Dan: Calmark Develoament Corporation hereby requests a GPA on its proposed project at Lomita Court. .Jur request is for a GPA change to high Density 24 -30 units per acre with a bonus density that allows the project to proceed at 35.4 du /ac. This request is justified based on the nature of the product targeted for elderly residents at an affordable rental range. We believe this project provides a program that meets the City's affordable housing strategy found on pages 14, 15, 78, 83 and 89 of the General Plan. Very truly yours, Hardy Strozier Principal IMS:rc URBAN ASSTS= ? C. 3151 Airt ay Avenue, Bldba. A -2, Coseta .1 f c. California 92626, (714) 556 389Q . Q LEGEND O = SINGLE FAMLY J.accA vAwrt PLAY 9RD1=1 mua ax+ss 1 R-3 R -3 u rota , sxm LA vxvE ST- GROUND n -R- >-- j-1- i, i 1 i ! ! ' t L- -� M_J ! J � R -3 � � ! \naaa¢Aava u.E.7EN:Aar Saxe , ruava /ra¢ ! R -1 -S —� VAw !— --1 S- P.R.R. LA GRANDE DR �..0 -ea r woCACr.Rm. I 3l s� R `ham VACW R -3 /PD\ C -2 C -1 :ar_r: DRIVE -- R -3 /PD J I C- �� �l L o- ii.roi � C -1 R -3 /PD � _ -R .uTFA R_3 R -3 /P � D O A -rte Q • 1� .LY.. fACJRT �5 J i C -i _ VA- R-3•ACANr i ^ .AGtMi O 0 1 !000 / i! RDa".7S C7URr 00lO e_i C -1 J A -P/ t9 - -- t- 0 SASEe jNc ROAD / i �- IO 10 1 y�` YAJLYT I O 0 -- i CITY OF rF-ENI: L� RANCHO CLr CATMONGA TrrLE: srt6 Lr"UM! W WP PLANNING DIVi9aNT EYHIBM A SCALE: ••o EL= L0 °' MEDIUM 4 -8 DUls /AC MEDIUM 4 -14 DU's /AC MEDIUMmHIGH 14 -24 ®U's /AC C-4= NEIGHBORHOOD COMM. COMMERCIAL OFFIC-T •• , M u Nom CITY OF ITE`I: RANCHO CUCA IG\GA TITLE: PLANNING DIXTSUN, EXIiIBIT'- SCALE: A SUNRISE GENEnAL OCCUPANCY APARTMENTS .MIC[SJ 3 11OD ]. S.Y[f[`.T WIWI= TIGC �i 3s6 wm a anlaszauma s.s] [ors .16.3 1.3IM: 1)2 .299$rtD a 13] 90S\L - 2.3 /W 6'NSQD MO f.W:'JCO� //1 for .WC Sf aL Cw.KIL:J 1/W d/ �� � \Y�•,'• llo wv - l.z /ar ]]t :OL.L - ].3/DC tQ'Alllm MfJ V.00iSx9 \ L 6 g.r :✓ s' i.tK.a c.t+9+t me. r9o. um rATU TANKS 00 agml pc CITY OF R r LIJIMERVARD LOMITA COURT L b 1 r ✓r/ D D fr_ • D D� l �✓ A A ii , A A �tw 2 • , t A t _ A A 1 K di w 3 • I_ ✓ 3i A A 1 _N9 L � ✓ e ^ A A � M6 ! A tl e DY ry D � f • . 1 A � °. w L � � � AI• • •!D mcd— �. 6 A ' +' A A ♦ tiQ L fe .A _ A A ♦ afs A ♦ ♦ A b III . 3 e. 3 iu uo s1 . )3sa 1. [ 3 1. z u o) 91 - SS -SL x L. 3 a ..f.,9(.•3 M..S.I.2 HERITAGE PARK lu 9nxr. ELDERLY APARTMENTS Ot'w33!'. ..tC[L 1. Slf 62911} WSilllti3 Tf.iGL ICl MS23 •/L M..9]5�.1[LY 6.33 .C11C3 - .].] V.:.C.0 VAbN Twf. CUCAN O GA PLANNING DIVISION ITEM: TITLE- EXIiIBIT30SCALE- amRon V V FORTH CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87. 00 Fos all projects requiring environmental review, this form gust be completed ann submitted to the Development Review CO=ittee 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 Otudy. The Development Review Co.^anittee will meet and take action no later than ten days before Project the public meeting at which time the ect is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 3) The project will have no siani- ficant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact deport Will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving farther informa- tion concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE; Heritage Park- Rancho APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: P_O_ R.... �1 oo _ — Sunrise- Rancho Cucamonga Calmark Development Corp. NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Larry Persons, Monica, California 90406, . P.O, Box 2128, Santa Assist, Irc., 3151 Airway o - ��hardv - Strozier, Urban X14/556 -9890 Y Avenue, Bldg• A -2, Costa tiesa, CA 92 26 -- LOCATION OF PROJECT {STREET ADDRESS AND Vacant and Rancho Cucamonga, San 3ern- n-�ASSESSOR p ARCEL NO.) LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING I -1 REGIONAL, STATE AND SUCH PERMITS: r-, `-I U ® PROJECT DESCRIPTION LJ I. %. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND-SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 9.78 acres — 426 010.3 SF No existing buildings DESCRIBE THE ENVIRON?.mTTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INF-U? aTION 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 project site is presently vacant undeveloped land supported by a thick cove of annual ¢racs and we d5 The surface gently toward the southeast corner The surr he ® consist of._ south arkin lots fast food est urants savings E 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? I -2 "r 21 17 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 (volice, fire, water, sewage, etc..)? x 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X 5. Remove any existing trees? How many? 29 X 6.z--Create the need for use or disposal of —' potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: 29 existin trees which cannot be ii:corporated into the design of the project removed. These trees will ue replaced by a landscape plan which will ii* a mix of the following trees: Platanus Acerifolia, Jacaranda Acutifolia Brachychiton Populneus, Cupaniopsis Anacardioides, Alnus Rhombifolia, Fr. .o Ivnrni Citriodora_ Tristania Conferta, Liduidambar Styiacifclia, and Lagerstroemia Indica. IMPORTANT: xf the pro7ect involves the cozistruction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby ce,tify 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 De�elopmenReview Coranittee. Date 12/15182 signature %w' La Title Project x -3 t 0 4 RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION 0 The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho C-acamcnga Planning 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.: Calmark Development Corp., Parcel Map #579: Parcel f2 of Parcei Map #5792 in the City of Rancho r Specific Location of Project: Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California PHASE I PHASE 2 "ASE -3— Eft"" TOTAL 1. Number of single family units: 0 0 0 0 0 2. Number of multiple family units: 3. Date proposed to begin construction: Earliest date of occupancy: Model # and # of Tentative 5. Bedrooms Price Range 161 60 48 A -1 390 0 16 14 B -2 460 0 28 20 C -2 530 0 16 14 *A -1 320 120 0 0 *B -2 410 41 0 0 * Senior Citizen Project. I -4 269 30 48 30 120 41 V RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ADOPTED LAND USE PLAN OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, that Rancho Cr- amonga has held a duly advertised public hearing to consider all comments on the proposed General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the General Plan encourages affordable housing projects; and WHEREAS, construct onofaffordable psen orGcitizen apartment unit will result in the WH'cREAS, the proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and Planning Commission policies; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment will not be materially injurious or detrimental to surrounding property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve the following Amendment to the Land Use Plan of the General Plan. SECTION 1: General Plan Amendment 83 -03: An amendment of the General P;an Land Use Plan in the area west of Archibald, and north of Base Line, further described as Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 7827, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A ". This area shall be changed from Medium -High Residential to High Residential. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that this General Plan Amendment will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and recommends to City Council the issuance of a Negative Declaration on February 23, 1983. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman ATTEST - Secretary of the Planning Commission E Resolution No. Page 2 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 233rd day of February, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSION'_RS: 9 E E 0 S � ir t s n e Al I- f ^� ,1 0 Y• �•• i +s ' L' Ei F. L i= (I S � ir y � \\ cu =� 03 Z _ W e Cl- a � in3 to a = Z - - 1--- ■Yi = t k" Al I- f ^� ,1 0 Y• y � \\ cu =� 03 Z _ W e Cl- a � in3 to a = Z - - 1--- ■Yi = t k" 's =1 _IST —clef �i ig 1 s w - 6 �ay I Nkel A "it 1 I - R- II ..,,i: e 0 n i Y ( � EJ E E CITY OF RAISICHO CMAXONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 23, 1983 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner 1477 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 83 -01 - A - CAL MARK - A charge of zone from -3 /PD Multiple Family Residential /Planned Development) to R -3 /SO (Multiple Family Residential /Senior Overlay) and the development of 269 apartment units of which 161 are intended for senior citizens, on 9.78 acres generally located west of Archibald, north of Base Line - Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 5792 - APN 202 - 151 -34. Related File: GPA 83 -03 - Calma.rk ; Parcel Map 7827 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION; The applicant is requesting approval of a planned development in the R -3 /PD zone (R -3 /SO pending) located north of the Alpha Beta Shopping Center at Base Lire and Archibald (Exhibit "A "). In addition, Parcel Map 7827 has been submitted which will appear on the March 9, 1933 Planning Commission agenda. The property is presently vacant and slopes to the south at approximately a 5 percent grade. A previous 152 unit condominium project, Tentative Tract 11615 (Lewis Properties), was approved for this site on February 10, 1982. The surrounding zoning and land uses are indicated on the attached Site Utilization Map (Exhibit "B "). The senior housing is proposed at 35.4 dwelling units per acre and the remaining apartments are planned at 18.2 dwelling units per acre. The existing General Plan land use designation is Medium High Residential (14 -24 dwelling units per acre). A General Plan amendment to High Residential (24 -30 dwelling units per acre) is pending. The Senior Overlay and General Plan amendment are for'the 4.55 acre Heritage Park portion of the site only. ANALYSIS: The project has been reviewed by the Design Review, Growth Management, and Grading Committees. As indicated on the attached Parcel Map (Exhibit "C"), access to this property will be provided by construction of the Lomita Court cul -de -sac. The project itself has been designed with a private street system and driveways, as shown on the Detaiied Site Plan, E -hibit "D ". Archibald Avenue will be widened to facilitate a left -turn pocket to resolve traffic circulation concerns. Drainage will be carried to the southeast corner of the project site and collected into an underground pipe structure that will drain onto Archibald Avenue. The water will then be carried south by curb and gutter to an existing storm drain inlet structure at tit-, intersection of Base Line and Archibald, as shown on Exhibit "K ". ITEM F Planned Development 83- 01 /Calmark Planning Commission Agenda February 23, ?983 Page 2 Within Heritage Park a total of 129 parking spaces (0.8 /unit) have been provided, which is below the normal requirement unit. This reduction of 2.2 spaces per in parking is an incentive under the Overlay District provisions. Based upon survey information and field investigation, 0.8 spaces per unit is more than adequate to meet the parking needs of a senior citizen project. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE: The Committee has worked with the applicant to resolve concerns relative to the Site Plan configuration, recreational space, and elevations. The Site Plan has been redesigned to redistribute units in both projects to provide a more open feeling and larger recreation areas. The Design Review Committee felt that the elevations for the non- senior apartments (Sunrise) needed a stronger roof element, therefore, these elevations have been redesigned to Provide a more continuous shed roof system as shown on the attached elevations, Exhibit "H ". The Committee also felt tVat the exterior treatment of the end units within the senier. apartment omplex (Heritage Park) seeded more relief to break up t;ie flat wali plane. Therefore, stucco window plant -ons have been added to provide a shadow lire (Exhibit 'I "). It does not appear that this meets the intent of the Design Review Committee, therefore, staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring more detail and relief from the flat wall be provided at the window openings as shown on elevation B -B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Part I of the Initial Study as completed b y the applicant is attached for your review. Staff has completed Part II of the initial Study and found that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant affect because of mitigation measures designed into the project. Therefore, staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaratior. FACTS FG.? = INDING: The Parcel Map has been prepared in accordance with City sta Bards and policies and the project site is suitable for the proposed subdivision. The project design is consistent with the General Pian and Zoning Ordinance requirements. CORRESPONDENCE: A Notice of Public Hearing was placed in The Dam deport nekspaper and approximately 27 public hearing notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. In addition, Pub hearing notices were posted on the property. Prior to the public hearing, the applicant met with the senior citizens "VIP" group to discuss the project and received their input. The "VIP" group supports this project. To date, no further correspondence has been received either for or against this project. u 9 Planned Development 83 -02 /Calmark Planning Commission Agenda February 23, 1983 Page 3 PECOMMEVDATIO,'L• It is recommended that the Flanning C ^!Tnission conduct a public hearing to consider public input and elements or this project. If after such consideration the Commission concurs with the findings and cond cionb of approval, the adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. I" lly_eWbmitted, Rick l �maz cIty P, r l.: ^ner Rs: v1.:jr At'.achments: Letter from Calmark Development_ Corporation Supplemental information packet Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "C" - Parcel Map Exhibit "D" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "F" - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit "G" - Natural Features Map Exhibit "H" - Sunrise Elevations Exhibit "I" - Heritage Park Elevations Exhibit "J" - Heritage Park Recreation Building Exhibit "K" - Off -site Drainage Initial Study, Part I Resolution of Approval with Conditions Cylrnark Dove) mrnnt Collor( Caiffiwk a CzV ,erv1Ca February 11, 1983 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 9320 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 ATTN: Rick Marks Planner C4 INCA GCVE'L0= ;:4EKT DEPT. A53 F'd Re: Heritage Park- Rancho Cucamonga Response to Senior's Concerns Dear Rick: In response to the concerns expressed by the senior citizens who were kind enough to give their input to the design of housing for seniors, I would like to take this opportunity to detail bow Calmark addresses each of their concerns in its Heritage Park apartment program. o Lighting - The lighting at Heritage Park is handled through a combination of walk lights mounted on poles for maximum dispersion and to minimize any potential for injury due to tripping. Mercury vapor lights are mounted on the interior ends of buildings to provide large amounts of light to the interior spaces. Porch lights are provided along the balconies and outside the front doors to illuminate the entrances cf each aparment. Finally, street lights are placed in the parking areas to light the perimeter of the project as well. no -3.e * nn 'king arana- The combination of all of these methods is utilized to achieve -the goal of no dark or unlit spaces for someone to trip or hide in. o Interface With Surrounding Projects - The design of the project focusES the attention as well as the activity of the seniors to the center of the development. In addition, great detail is given to the buffering through berms and landscaping to minimize any impact from surrounding neighborhood. Entrance: are limited to restrict nuisance traffic through the development. In general, Heritage Park projects are designed and developed to promote the feeling of a ::ommunity within the project while li=iting the intrusion or impact of the surrounding neighborhood. 2121 CbverfieLl Blvd-. Suite 202. P-O. Box 2128, Santa Monica, Caiifomia 90406 (213) 453 -1773 L] r L' J 11 11 Pick Marks ceburary 11, 1983 Page Two o handrails - The handrails that are presently designed for the project are of a textured wood. We could provide a curved rail to serve as a grab bar to satisfy the concern over having a smaller rail to hold on to. o Recreation Room - The Recreation Room presently being used in the Heritage Park Program is a single story structure which comprises approximately 2000 square feet exlusive of the manager's unit and office. This building will contain, in addition to the manager's apartment and office, a large open space for meetings, parties, or just gathering to talk. It will be equiped with accordian style doors to provide for the division of the space on a temporary basis. The building also includes restrooms, laundry, kitchen and storage facilities. o Affordability - This is without a doubt the biggest concern of all of the parties involved. The basic plan for the Heritage Park Program is designed to provide tae necessary comforts of living without adding the additional expenses of luxuries because we have found that this segment of the population just can't afford them. It becomes choice between living spaces or food. We can all think of items to add that would make the project just a little better in some respects, but we also have to understand that these people are on a fixea limited income, so the overriding concern should be, how can we lower the rents just a little bit more? The City and Calmark working together are making an attempt to do just this by reducing unnecessary costs, waiving fees and exploring avenues of further assistance such as bond fiancing and land write downs to provide the development with the lowest possible basis on which to base the rent structure. We doftnate3y believe that through these efforts and input from interested groups of acuior citizens, we can deliver new housing for the senior citizens of Rancho Cucamonga. Sincerely, U—TM DEVELOPMEvT CCRFORATIOY i rrl Persons Project Manager LP:th SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PACKET Calmark Development Corporation of Santa Monica is currently requesting the Planning Commission and City Council approval of a 269 unit apartment community located within the 9500 block of Lomita Court in the city of Rancho Cucamonga. This project is composed of two programs operating inde- pendently of each other; Sunrise, a 108 unit general occupancy apartment complex, and Heritage Park, a 161 unit senior citizen apartment community. We-feel that this site is unique in that it most completely satisfies the needs of both senior citizens who desire decent affordable housingr and families and =ndi- viduals who seek comfort and luxury at a price they can afford. Calmark is very concerned with the overall well being of its tenants and is, therefore, extremely particular in select- ing a city and a location within, that city for the placement of its Sunrise and Heritage Park programs. We have found, through analysis of the 1980 census data, that Rancho Cucamonga is an attractive community with a pop- ulation of 55250 people. Ten percent of the. population (5499 people) are aged 55 and over, and 548 (29,979 people) are be- tween the ages of 18 and 54. Rancho Cucamonga is large enough to provide adequate service to its citizens, yet small enough to promote a warm, friendly environment; an environment which is extremely attractive to senior citizens seeking comfort, security, and community acceptance, and to young individuals just starting out, and young families who are looking for a place to raise their children. In addition to the favorable environmental aspects, 13 %, or 7332 people in the city are renters; and the community vacancy rate is 48, thus, as home prices continue to remain out of reach of many young families we would not only expect to see the number of renters increase; but also an increased demand for luxury apartments. This is the market for which the Sunrise apartments are designed. As the demand for luxury apartments increases at a rate faster than the supply (new construction), which it will in the short run, many of the existing apartments will be taken by this younger, higher income earning population who, in ab- solute dollars, are able to spend more mones for housing than a retired person, for instance, who is limited to a pension or other form of fixed income. It is for these pensioners that the Heritage Park progran: is designed. 13 � c The Heritage Park Program '_- the private market solution to providing decent, low-cost housing specifically for persons aged 55 and over. In periods where yeling individuals cannot afford to buy homes, but can afford to spend more money on rental housing, without such a program for senior citizens, many of them will be forced to settle in unsatisfactcry of in- adequate housing. The proposed project, therefore, provides housing for both groups. The Sunrise apartments are designed for families and individuals who seek comfort and luxury, and the Heritage Park apartments provide decent affordable housing for senior citizens. Together both communities meet the demand for housing in the city of Rancho Cucamonga. THE SUNRISE APARTMENTS The population in California and especially southern California has been increasing continually during the past decade. Coupled with increasing construction costs and mortgage rates, home ownership in the eighties has become almost impossible for the new or relocating family. Spiraling mortgage rates and the drastic reduction of new home starts has created a dramatic shortage of available apartments. It is this segment, the new and relocating family, who cannot afford homeownership, that the Sunrise Apartment Program is geared to meet. In response to this demand in housing, Calmark Development has developed it's °Sunrise Apartment Program". The key points of the program are as follows: o Location - Chosen with market exposure, long term appreciation, and convenience in mind. o Condominium Conversion - The Sunrise Apartment Projects are processed and built as airspace condo- miniums to more easily facilitate the conversion and sale of the units as condominiums at a future date. o Market segmentation - Plan, design, develop, market, and manage apartments exclusively for specific market segments. o Superior Design - By eliminating hall areas, and maximizing efficiency in other areas, Calmark has produced plans which economically meet the basic requirements of luxury living. o Neighborhood emphasis - Calmark Sunrise Apartments are a quality garden apartment within an urban setting. ® The use of two story construction and lush landscape treatments creates a park -like residential neighbor- hood. o Open space C 15 sacrificing open Sunrise project to 25 units to the space. Landscaped is over 50 percent. C acre without open space at a • Proper scale - Large enough for economies of scale; small enough for personal management and sense of community. 100 - 250 units. • On -site amenities - Social and recreation center, pools, jacuzzi, laundry facilities, 508 + open space. In Rancho Cucamonga, the Sunrise Apartment Community is situates, on 5.95 acres of land in the 9500 block of Lomita Court. The project consists of and th e 9 buildings, two bedroom unit 108 units; 30 one bedroom units yet ths. There are 18.2 units to the acre, 108 carports, and 130 open parking spaces (a total of 2.2 parking spaces per unit) are designed within a Pleasantly landscaped garden -type setting providing for maximum open space. HERITAGE PART{ RECTAL HOUSING PROGRAM FOR SENIOR CITIZENS . Calmark's solution to the housing needs of the aged is a program called the Heritage Park Rental Housing Program for senior citizens. The program is a senior citizen garden apartment community designed for the comfort and affordability Of these more sensitive residents. The pr,)ject offers decoratively landscaped grounds reminiscent of the East and Midwest. There's a comfortable clubhouse which is the center of each Heritage Park and serves as the community's information center. It contains a lounge, a brightly decorated activity area, laundry facilities, the resident managers office, and mail boxes right in the lobby. It is a decidedly different affair than the recreation room of a typical 170's -style singles complex or a dreary government hc:using facility, circumstances Calmark found foreboding to most seniors. The apartments are noticeably different, too. They are designed for senior citizens. Cupboards and wall switches are several inches lower than average; wall plugs are several inches higher. Stairways have extra deep steps with landings halfway between floors. Most units accomodate wheelchairs (first floor units, wherever Possible, have gradual sloped ramps, instead of stairs, all the way to street or parking areas). 11 0 .c C All- electric kitchen appliances are selected in large part on the basis of how easy they are to clean. Fully automatic heating and air conditioning units are provided in combination with quality insulation to greatly reduce the cost of physical comfort to these more sensitive residents. Double - locking doors and smoke detector alarms provide an extra measure of security most seniors have come to rely on. Decorator- designed interiors are carefully planned using lighter, brighter - yet, entirely contemporary - color schemes to provide an additional, subtly positive, environmental influence. Realizing that apartment life is far more than brick, mortar, and wallpaper to a retired person spending most of his or her time on the grounds, Calmark encourages residents to personalize their apartments with approved paint colors, wallpap z, extra shelves, hanging plants, and the like, to further increase their sense of 'home'. There is a unique lifestyle at every Heritage Park that combines a respect for privacy and independence with an understanding of peoples' needs for companionship and shared activity. Calmark's management philosophy provides for facilities and coordinated activities without forcing them on anyone. Privacy is a matter of choice, and when it's company you want.... it's right there outside your door. The clubhouse and outdoor patios are the hub of social activity at any Heritage Park. There's always hot coffee and someone to chat with when residents pick up mail or do their laundry. The comfordably furnished lounge is an easy place to spend an afternoon reading or playing cards and games. There is a craft area for all sorts of activities, and the lobby doubles as a dance floor for parties. The clubhouse kitchen facilities are a big plus when residents hold a party for large groups. The outdoor patio areas and gas barbeques are a scene of numberous summer afternoon and evening parties. Residents at the Heritage Parks elect their own activity committees :end hold potluck dinners, Bingo, swap meets, arts and crafts :lasses, and often organize group excursions. Some have formed 'Sunshine Clubs' to cheer up ailing residents with flowers and cards. Still others have bought pianos, pool tables, stereo equipment and additional games for activity nights through the proceeds of fund raising events. Calmark sponsors a monthly newsletter at each Heritage Park which is written by residents and on -site managers. These include greetings to new neighbors along with announcements of activities and meetings. Holiday festivities such as parties and barbeques are held throughout the year, some sponsored by Calmark, and others by residents. c c Community involvement is important too. Managers coordinate with private and local government agencies to help residents take advantage of low cost services for seniors. In many of the cities, existing Heritage Park residents have free transportation available for shopping and medical appointments,. 7iery low -cost tot lunch programs, "meal on wheels' for shut -ins- *•^ "tie library facilities and many more services desigr:d to aid seniors. With so much involvement and specialization of facilities, it would seem inevitable that Calmark has an overhead problem at its Ceritage Parks. surprisingly, they don't. Heritage Park rents are generally lower'than existing, nearby housing; and substantially mower than typical new construction in the area. Lower rents are attributed to land use which incorporates 40 units to the acre and parking per unit than ordinary general occu Developments are designed with a mixture of percent one bedroom and twenty -five percent apartments. and project design provides less pancy projects. The seventy -five two bedroom In a recent study of the program, it was found that this usage results in an average of 1.2 people per unit. This figure is substantially lower than a typical general occupancy apartment project built at 15 units per acre resulting in 3.24 persons per unit (Census Data 1980, mean persons per unit for Rancho Cucamonga). This fact, accompanied with smaller unit size, 515 sq. ft. average as compared to 800 -850 sq. ft. for typical general occupancy, results in the reduction of any impacr from the project's density. In the same study, Calmark learned that only 518 of all its tenants (from seven existing projects) were car owners. Thus, tLe parking needs for seniors are not as demanding as for a typical general occupancy project. Calmark takes this into consideration in the project design which provides parking at .6 to .8 spaces per unit. It is believed, based on past experience , that this range is more than sufficient for satisfying the parking needs of the elderly. In a study prepared by L.D. Icing Inc. for Calmark, it was found that this type of project will only increase traffic flow by 3 trips per unit per day. This figure is substantially lower than typical apartment projects and can be ju:;tified by the fact that Calmark tries to locate its projects adjacent to shopping, recreation and health care facilities so as to minimize the need for a car. Currently, ourC -oject of 4.55 acres is d 41 gned for 161 units, 116 one bedra as and 45 two bedrooms (7�js one bedroom, and 27.58 two bedroom). This works out to 35.4 units per acre, slightly lower than our average of 40 du /acre. Parking will be provided at 8 spaces per unit or 129 spaces. A project of this size will generate an insignificant increase in traffic flow of only 483 trips per day on both Archibald and Baseline. The project design, consisting of 9 buildings, including recreation building and managers unit, is similar to our existing project in Duarte, which provides a - ,.atral corridor within the project allowing appoximately 508 ope,a area. This area not only lends itself to the garden type atmosphere, but also provides a warm "homey" environment in which the elderly will be comfortable. The ideal location for a Heritage Park is across the street from a shopping center, bordered by two churches, three or four doors down from a park, and main bus lines crossing at the corner. In the City of Rancho Cucamonga we feel we have found a such site. It's located in the 9500 block of Lomita Court, northwest of the intersection of Baseline and Archibald. At this site, both projects, not just the Heritage Park, are located to provide maximum exposure to community services and personal needs required by both type of tenent. ®For both communities, the project is located adjacent to two major shopping centers, :- ncluding grocery and banking facilities, near City Hall, 4.nd Alta Loma elementary school. It is within one mile of the Post Office, the fire station, Lion's Park and Lion's Community Center, Alta -Loma High School, Cucamonga Junior High School, Central Elementary School, and Dona Merced. Elementary School; within two miles of the sherriff's station, LaM.ancha Golf Course, and Red Hill Country Club, Chaffee Community College, Cucamonga Elementary School, and Rancho Cucamonga Middle School; and within four miles of the Ontario International Airport, Vineyard Park, Cucamonga - Guasti Regional Park. and The San Antonio Community Hospital. Interstate 15 is located 4.5 miles east and the San Bernardino freeway is located 3.75 miles south of the project. (See Exh,bit "A ") Overall, the site we have chosen for our Sunrise and Heritage ` programs most completely satisfies the needs of all ages :he population demanding housing. It's hard to believe that such an ideal location could be obtained which would allow for decent housing of senior citizens at an affordable pricer as well as, provide comfort and luxury to those families who desire the setting of, but are unable to afford, homeownership. Very effectively planned and controlled construction, along with & unique project design, and local government cooperation can result in two remarkably successful garden apartment communities known as "SUNRISE' and "HERITAGE PARR ", located in the 9500 block of Lomita Court, which will most clearly meet. the demand for rental housing in the city of Rancho Cucamonga. °EXHIBIT A' �r - R E' C VICINITY MAP W O J _0 A - SUNRISE E HERITAGE PARR LOCtTION i, B - NORTHWEST CORNER OF BASELINE & 1. Alta Loma Sewing Center 2. Farmer's Insurance 3. Dick Nelson's Insurance 4. Pool Supplies 5. Video Plus 6. Action Travel 7. Tony's Cleaners 8. Hole in the Wall Deli 9. Sunshine Fashion. Showroom 10. Beauty Supply 11. Thrifty 12. Alpha Beta 13. Sizzler C - SOUTHWEST CORNEP OF BASELINE & 1. Pup 'n Taco 2. Barro's Pizza 3. Village Donuts 4. Rainbow Gems 5- Jupris Hair Design 6. D 5 M Cleaners SYTH ST LOMITA CT BASE L ;NE AVE ARCHIBALD 14- Mi Casita - Mexican Restaurant 15. Alta Loma Liquor 16. Nicasistros Italian Cuisine 17. Dami.nco Hair Dimensions 18- Speed Queen Laundry 19. 011ie's Health Foods 20. Dentist's Office 21. Optometrists Office 22- Upland Savings 23. Security Pacific Bank P_RCHIBALD Walker & Lee Real Estate ;- Galaxy Arcade Cl. Video Station 10. Schwinn 13. Baskin Robbins Restaurant D. SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BASELINE AND 1. Foothill Independent Bank 2. Albertson's 3. Clothestime 4. Coffee Co. 5. Harvi's Cleaners 6. Angels 7. Command Performance E. BUS STOP ARCHIBALD o. Law Shoppe 9. Athlete's Foot 10. !Nancy's Hallmark 11. Lorenzo's Deli 12. Antiquity Furniture 13. GTE Phone Mart E. 2 13 E 11 OTHER INFORMATION Area Churches Distance From Project Church of Jesus Christ .8 miles of Latt, - Day Saints Alta Loma (immunity Church .4 miles First Baptist Church .3 miles United Methodist Church .6 miles Area Schools Alta Loma High School .9 miles Cucamonga Jr. High School .8 miles Central Elementary .8 miles Dona Merced Elementary School 1.0 miles Cucamonga Elementary 1.6 miles Alta Loma Elementary School (North) Adjacent Rancho Cucamonga Middle School 1.9 miles Chaffee Community College 2.6 miles Parks & Recreation Centers Lions Park & Community Center .6 miles Cucamonga - Guasti Regional Park 2.9 miles Vineyard Park . 1.0 miles LaMancha Golf Course 2.1 miles Redhill Country Club 2.1 miles City Offices & Miscellaneous Post Office .9 & .Z miles City Hall .4 miles Sherriff °s Station 1.9 miles Fire Station .9 miles San Antonio Community Hospital 3.8 miles 15 Freeway 4.4 miles 10 Freeway 3.6 miles Ontario International Airport 4.0 miles ■iirir. � 9tttmuwl WIN1N11lnINIWINII ■ ■ - ■u: � __ ■,t,n,t� w ■a . If/lIIIINnII� ��?�•■ au"u Aw eum nI1 yam`•' - p • `►t ..�.ratm[ NORM j, CITY ■ .ntu■ NIU �� .. .• ..: N, ■� ■Nut � ► �� ���0 ...► G..IIIi tea■ ■ �►� t� 3'� -- •� C...�. .� . 'ii► = a • PLAINNINC DlXrLSDN LXHIBIT: A p ice• 171 -J, i 'All i •17 17 1 1. .A- 11 `.. L 1 ,Lt ';4 ! P. -J +` LEGEND : p = SINGLE FAMILY <wsct t vAw+r ovA.sT meva o' .f GROUND r R -3 R_3 / tTMA= I HVr. ALI GROUND rAM s I LA VINE ST. r— �r--� I-� H- R -TL —� R3p�j Ir LA GRANGE OR 1 l�l""_46ff LL I %T R-3 L. ; raver I ree � 1✓ I - �� p I G2 i IqL .Yl[F I 4�.C� I' 51 p A I -I- I I I L J OL I I yJ R -3 A -P 1 / f I r %T R-3 L. ; raver H —R —J r_ i 1✓ I - �� I I 1lVACItIPw� i IqL .Yl[F VACANT 4�.C� L CR:TA — CC URT' R -3 /PD A vAAAIMC \ rACAm L. .Ara oI c R -3 Q p CAWT , rArAN: R- 3rAC.aT I ROBERT. CqURT w�0 r p , ppi, t I c R -3 C -2T � wrANr R -3 /PD ,.zAAT VACANT -� A -P I I rAAGING r_ i 1✓ I - �� I I Z -1 rACANT ream R -1 -S R -1 -S i S.;.R_R. w 1 ` R-3/PD� ..urlr R -3!PD ROAD ; J l O p rauT i I —G1�.E 1 n_rr._NS S' rAaA1Nc CITE' OF RAINCHO CUCAINIO \`GA PLANNING DIX SIO:` L NURTH ITEM: ?p sst05 I t� It AA95 TITLE-- 6t�:i i u%-A -7- ° EXHIFiM _ SCALY• .— .:" A -P / .Aum C -1 _ li rAUrt 1� 0 .Yl[F LOII _1_ Z C -1 A vAAAIMC \ I I A.�a � ROAD ; J l O p rauT i I —G1�.E 1 n_rr._NS S' rAaA1Nc CITE' OF RAINCHO CUCAINIO \`GA PLANNING DIX SIO:` L NURTH ITEM: ?p sst05 I t� It AA95 TITLE-- 6t�:i i u%-A -7- ° EXHIFiM _ SCALY• .— .:" L.. / Yly \ M i.+ ' � E iY 1 }�FIr:C I "si zJ� NORTH CITY OF FM\I: CFD 92 RANCHO CUrclkN'IO\GA TITLE: 7 � PLANNING DI`'L ION' F-XI IIMT. SCALE: � SUNRISE GENERAL OCCUPANCY APARTMENTS 140313 1 .PC ). 1. T ^t! C_': L. -.t: {J �P:C.. E�TI Y lOT CrSTS 01, aT.]i'.MT[3T J.1J KRS 11.3 W /LLR. 1IRIQ3 IVp P.WI]CD / i.r' SOt T.L 1.1 /.J tLY:PCi AM TT11-1=M :4.T, 10. CwPSC.�' - 1 /'JV' / M ^`,Ta•• Y` \`,\`\ Sli :T.11L - 1.:/DG � Y • L b rows. ..0 ... ,n ... �'� •• ^ J. , \� e D w •• e\ � _ � r / — LO, _ µ r, Ti WATER TANX3 D IT wJ p♦ • a I I l/ � � O D h— � `� ^ • rs I 1� ,/ • I . i1 r lA e I " w ! 4 • r•• • ° : ♦ nti Ii I. �I• ^ ALA 1•�. A. ^ � 4 re ' D • • ^ I D � c ~ u r " �-� ;;iii�;�i;� � ����',!) r r,rri iii; ;�; � • �_ , u p.�.+.rr.wv.o..w.�• n .r.awc...,.cc .rs•r Mme_ 3:{ . 3 n. 1 0. •wvca'T ...r1 —.nv COURT 0 I � I� HERITAGE PARK ELDERLY APARTMENTS t•.aca :. Tno-svnT w :•v:acs i'T.:c.i CITY Cr ITEM: %opro 1 RANCHO CUCANIONGA T,Ti.E_ 5 PLANVI \G DIVISION EKHIBM 12 _ sakLE1 �li4r PLA �(D.� �. yam' hGLR� Qf`JL�fM a 4aw0] 010110 CQIf Jw YIAf Y,ni. �1p CITY OF RANCHO CUCC ALND G:� PLANNING DINrlSn\T C V FOR'T'H p so TITLE= iL.eNDGCAPE BOO i EXHIBIT. SGki.E= m"w& 11 / 1rC 1 i 1Ja 1 i \ / I r 1 L 07 •^,5. �� s ro IL 11p•,�.rgnM v 1c JIM-. a Otl <tx . rmac tu[[: r <:tu:r_m r• �, Y \• n rw:ao. r;,,, �/ y.•jgiA -. _ }.,..• CCU? ✓ \i i- r .2:�1:- r�rr::1s�1+!� �..•r� : 1 1fS71JI l� ..�i �� .' ....' �'��~•�. _� 5' U� •.a<..�. •mow. �:r ' �TiT� _ vP�C +a. ^J4n2 �'� �.•.reL r<a<I.0 T!T]T< T eKncr•w -.r umm -6C• I < eeavM •e-e- CITY OF rrF -%I- _ I� RANCHO CUCANIO\GA TITLE: - PLANNING DIN iS10N EXHIBIT. SCALH= G FORTH to, � IY mvjjhO 57U , F / / _ � / �� �it/� /r —� [� �.'�= UIIITA ��� rvw� cm. � CUL9T ✓ \i P.A.D. 55/11 -25 j 11 xe iL �r SI CITY OF RAI-CHO CLC�NIO- GA PLANNING DIE'ISION ITEM: o t EXHIBIT= SCALE= �� V � NORTH i.• � •M q... :��' �f e' i K•. F . c.Cl , gip' .��'�Y`• " ��.'•"`1T`�l , •F�`I a a � I Y ~ yya ty Aw Cl 1 a: E 11 i 3r� 773100 ]iLt7tll ii Old 3 V.LIUR7 �- I.VLXiIiSV.SL"i1LFiirIV 1E1 ]IWd 3�Jd11tl3H tlrva Salmm JUKH314 i c ° o m � m S? e g � 2 Y g Z j r rrE»- �� TIC: Z O a � O v p 8� u S �t 11 I1 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.0+0 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 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 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: Heritage Park- Rancho Cucamonga, Sunrise- Rancho Cucamonga APPLICANT'S KAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Cafmark Development Corp. P.O. Box 2128, Santa Monica. California 90406 NAPX, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Larry Persons, P.O. Box 2128, Santa Monica, Cali :crula 90406, ( y Hardy M. Strozier, Urban Assist, Inc., 3151 Airway Avenue, Bldg. A -2, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714/556 -9890 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PAROM NO.2 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: NOVE Y -1 I1 I Il 1. .II,. 1 11 1 .. ' II 1111 EIL TECT DESCRIPTION ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND. SQUARE PROPOSED BUXLDINGS, IF ANY: FOOTAGE OF EXZSTZ26G AND 9.7g acres - FOOTAGE I No existin bu3ldin s DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROTECT SITE ID7CLUDING INFTR ATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES), ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORILAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) The project site is presently vacant undeveloped land supported by thl�k Cover of anrnu: _ Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have siSnificant environmental impact? a -2 11 ♦ y 0 n U WILL TF-IS PROJECT: YES NO x 1. Create a substantial charge in ground contours? x 2. Create a substantial charge in existing noise or vibration? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand' for municipal services (police, £ire, water, sewage, etc.)? x 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X 5. Remove any existing trees? Eow many? 29 X 6.x--Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flamma5les or explosives? Explanation of any YES an.wers above: 29 existing Eucalvpi trees which cannot be incorporated into the design of the project will be removed. These trees will be replaced by a landscape plan which will incli a mix of the following trees: Platanus Acerifolia, Jacaranda Acutifolia, �••,�.. •.�..... iVrulltCUJ, vuro...vr�.to A111111UIVIU=J, [S LLU. 411UWU1I011a, Eucalyptus Citriodora, Tristania Conferta, Liquidambar Styiaeifolia, and Lagerstroemia Indica. IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential "units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnishes above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to +tee best of my ability, end that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional infn+rmati,,n may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the DeyelopmenpnReview Committee. Date 12/15/82 Signature Title Pro 1 -3 t RESIDEIJTIFT� 2014STRUCTION 0 0 0 The following information should be provided to the City Planning Division in order to aid in assessing district to accommodate the y O€ Rancho Cucamonga Proposed residentialhdevelo me of the school pmert . Nase of Developer and Tentative Tract NO- : Calmark Develcpment Corp.. Specific Location of Pro'eCt: Carcei 02 of arce Ma Parcel Map ;15792 Map in t e City Of Rarc o 7 camonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California Z -4 PHASE T PHASE 2 izFilLSg � 1• Number of single _ TOTAL family units: 0 0 2- Number of multiple family unite: 161 60 48 269 3- Date proposed to begin construction: 4. Earliest date of occupancy: Model # and # of Tentative 5. Bedrooms Price Ra A -! 3��� 0 16 14 30 B -2 460 28 `'_._ 20 48 �_? 530 �- -- 0 16 34 -- 30 *A -1 3_ 2 '-- �_ _--- -�- —�-�._ 120 0 0 120 *B -2 410 ---- ---� -- 41 0 0 41 * Senior Citizen Project. Z -4 9 RESOLUTICN 41410. * A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 83 -01 FOR 9.78 ACRES, AND REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE ZONING FROM R -3 /PD TO R -3 /SO FOR 4.55 ACRE PORTION OF THE SITE, PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP 7827, LOCATED WEST OF ARCHIBALD AND NORTH OF BASE LINE WHEREAS, on the 25th day of January, 1983, an application was filed and accepted on the above- described project; and WHEREAS, on the 23rd day of February, 1983, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the California Government Code. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following in— f d g 1. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed zone in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area. 2. That the proposed Zone Change would not have significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. 3. That the proposed Zone Change is in conformance with the General Plan. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and recommends to City Council the issuance cP a Negative Declaration on February 23, 1983. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That pursuant t-� Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government Code, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 23rd day of February, 1983, Planned Develep-ment No. 83 -01. ^c. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt Planned Development No. 83 -01 and the zone change request. 3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council. Resolution No. Page 2 SECTION 3: Planned Development No. 83 -01 is hereby approved subject to all of the fcilowing conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: PLAW NG COMMISSION 1. Approval of Planned subject to appr,;v,? 83 -02, General Plan Map 7827. Development 83 -01 is granted of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Amendment 83 -03, and Parcel 2. All conditions of approval applicable to Parcel Map 7027 shall apply to this Planned Development. 3. Approval of Planned Deveic^^ient 83 -01 is aranted subject to approval of a .velopment Agreement granting a density bonus to allow the Heritage Park project density to proceed at 35.4 du /ac. 4. All upper -story window treatments on the end unit elevations within Heritage Park shall be designed consistent with the design indicated oa the end of elevation B -B to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 5. Benches shall be provided throughout Heritage Park along the sidewalks. 5. Pedestrian access to the shopping must be provided along the south property line; details of which shall be approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of Building Permits. 7. Dense landscaping shall be provided aiong the perimeter, '.ncluding colw-;mar evergreens and deciduous trees, to screen and buffer the project from surrounding land uses. 8. A detailed lighting plan shall be submitted indicating adequate lighting along Heritage Park walkways. 9. Heritage Park landscaping shall consider minimizing impact from surrounding neighborhood. 10. Handrails that can be used as "grab -bars" shall be pruvided on all stairways within, Heritage Park. 11 E n U Resolution No. Page 3 E ENGINEERING DIVISION 11. All pertinent conditions of °arcel Map 5792 shall apply to this project. 12. The east side of Archibald Avenue shall be widened as required by the City Engineer to provide for a left -turn pocket to Lomita Cou °t. 13. Construction of either an AC Swale or curb and gutter and connecting paring on west side of Archibald Avenue shall be required to protect the shoulder from drainage erosion from Lomita Court to the existing curb and gutter. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD 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 reguiariy introduced, passad, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd d,y of February, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMI:SIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIU =RS: Ll _V�r NV^ dC OF _ �y N COC 07JC — g u y — — 1O q u L— " -••G - ` 1 - a V d n ^ O ti IS - - P „ r T✓ r u - D H V O 9 E A C q J n C' a u° C 9^ q d O O D W p V. 9 p V✓ A✓ G✓ l F: N Y 6` O ✓ J 21 O 9 A y A V C ��- L � D' O 7 O L V ✓ V� a y 0 �` '� = v V' j a✓ C�� y ✓_o q'^0 =>a7 O -O G^. qG� OC r ~����0° L V J O ✓✓ L 9 n q O L Q y y E7; AS G q rnrNa ✓ Cu 9y u�f _q A6 J d n0✓ NCB AuC CCUL V C d_ qNJ Cbc _pP dO�IN °O NO CN -° VEq C�6 .+C' S� qN 90N A`q >� Oq _'C =✓ a q i C . D` y V✓ 9 � N '� •+ _ = x d 1' N� C W `J ^ G g N 0 r P^ m N d^ q �. q SE G q° 9 L P C q� e`L q a —L i dgce `Q'^ L G"�o ^ °w cL^n ev ex b un� °• ✓"qc b c O q J� 4 0 o V r - u V ' L �. ✓ o > _ � m_ ✓ a E V �Gp N •"' 4° m V° l G C ✓ C G N - M p h °° . Y ✓ � j a V i� V N p pTO.' Ada OTN �' O.'w >L A9�> PyL °Ll iVf pCJ lyt• T GV °y a0 %T ~_ SD °N NE60p r vO -E °•.'C V C' ONN cb9 ^C qJ 9D'.p ✓ f[f[FFjj-- G 9 9 N L O� •+ L y= L ,O -�° _ _ F qP9 yVq D' 90u_T �6dO yyy GA6Lp GN6D Qq�r LL GL H6N NG rL NO C 1 O ^q9 �� LVO '�d �O n6 ✓L_ Ndy °YY dC0 L✓ 09eV• �OEGy up b✓Lp„ L1�L �6� �� d. �LO.N m L r0, £ O . O O " E ✓ �.0. Z A i c H O V c > � � � =.^`. °d"� nor my m ✓° °•`m ipn °✓ d E d o �� a C C G✓ � V -7E! O O 9 > i �i(`T t` d me °c _DU�� Va _a� Go✓ xm� F tj! I O Q Y ti tw O A C S q� ✓e.J '� -� aG �_° q °� aNOq 2 M w I J n rj m'n` O✓ _ Cl✓ N y° M 1 m V FV £J •"OP O E V� V01 o I >cm Lr cr '°nay � _ �' p0. fie` U O 6L6 O O O: V✓ 6NrOV 60 0 O G2 ^E N 14 O� .-t N 19 V W J {1{ cJQTL • \i Q 61 O O TY-1 -d pC0 aP y ELp o a y o T> c rn s OCjV.»u ^r An q N�f GO ^V LG 0 = On .Vi N Lc r �. cc LC pagcwoo � U OL ✓ p n ' N R= YLrL °aDq CA ^a q - E V°, rcrgNUO PU Cj ors. `t 1 q ^ Y O y T O V m C d d q y A 6 Y .e° D y w °Ny�n y E OL�EVC� O ^mot Aw.O�o � G C p N y� j V u L P u q C O yp OTD- u q^ i «° �P^ wN Q9 Boa 'Ou rEO. d. A p nY^ r a.r V C�92.CarE Nd =9 � QNv LE�Sw66 'a -VAnp j.Oi.�gi� ��11 GpN a o_ E a d N O A C O a A � a n L G � V u N p c w P 9 L E � E E c b E � Q A CD arrn D r C L �r O L u p fwd/ O N F c > L _ a L n 6 � r O J d q P U O q G to p Z C p � V >oo GN e 0 a t � T c i 6 p O ^ O L G c C n T�^ n n G.O.r L � _ f"Lp ^ A p J «and `Lp A r ° u r n q p tom• L C o j nN O ob L = d r n � L d � n L m y O O p cc.i. c off,•. A u A N a en L d - o _n^ V dq� > L V q A r y� O O i d V J Y V G N PO ° L = E � C 6 ` P a C y L' P6� � u Jr ^ L D ^ C A E - q�La n c n r p � O r C p C Pq^ Cj D Y, ^ ^ V o u o a A V N V C ^E^ a r L t » p Nr� yy^ —D q q > d =L o p qr n ¢» FL c O W =0u O N L O O n y L Gy q C r N � C V AO Ed = r O q L G N N Y r O N ^ ^vr Cam^ V C C° O G •O � E >o n y N- 6G L t L^ n p y L 7 L V N Q p °u q.Vr a > Su V L U� -cnrn «D rti.LpL P N N C U C M V a O p Z i PPd p _«y W u.OnopY 1 I N f ® . 11 ru = N Lc r �. cc LC pagcwoo ' N Li• °aDq ^ `t 1 _a o E� D.L.p Y .e° D y w °Ny�n y E OL�EVC� O ^mot Aw.O�o � OTD- u E a d N O p�2� O, a D COC_• TU N » 9LN r 2 C .ar O A9Na wbA _ �O Ei A'OJY A� cc` €C _o a L cc +"E o c q- w F i cN_ aaN «Aaouo" S yY� V ANEM EO�� a V 0 N L g u A q 0 a C N n C p O y L N L O C a^ E r N py � p= A 9Vn rC aE Aop= CN��b�t =�a0`Y �q6w L q cn ° O qG- L6� oGt La c �L eL -p %_ S � °^ c�oa • q�r M r o _ T N ccaoy cn °yam a'•uca ^rpE� Lpa d NL.L.y= Lam`_ DYr°i b VAAN d° �d JN L= A061r �. =1r p A C9YCd Sp ."J' dCL -E "� GM�EC_p LY^ �_L dOEu=i6 UC q jrN 9N. a Q� L�C SE.+n � L40Lnn L ^SNA Lr^ v I N f ® . 11 I 1 C7 C I C •] u. J V x.'07 C't1 N', I -'C ° ° G N o o c z ^ P r N D• Pds _ ° _ u� P �, O C G^ a✓ 9 O Vi p ` y N y O L r < - C v W V ✓ Y J 2f .O.�d'° to D c ELN ✓ is O o c u I Vi^ c o o c� u r N �Nj i•' y A p 'O w Y A ,.i D E L d p L� O E °�• J D t • _ ✓ �. 6✓- 4.1C r ✓ W -`OT NV Y O_ -� � ✓J '�O LO C N_ P �Lp - •T• L L R - G ✓ I W N p ..P-- N O N N A` = 0 n ✓ 4 W N J P A N 2✓ W ELy O° GN q l J W O L y A9� V dy O L TL q `y Ta y 20 ^L Op V L Y R T C W •- > > OL ^pL y y✓ ^61� O R D jJ W LO C r V VrIL J C C P- L E N S N- N N 2 0 Q Fp ��- • O A O A CACy C AR LEIOr °LW6 Y 6m LfG `CC OC OI U� LCLW R3 ...o� ^.e �C9 p WE C I y NI o c✓ 09E° W o. -CTOp L 1 1 � °N JR �Wy C6y 6 I d � N �1 -Cl °I f I♦ J S IZ P L ^ d• i t IJ O A C •J d L > = L M 9 L j O_ C a L H T L � -^ ✓ AVE J � ^�D= EN CO 9 � -D .i.. NV p� � ♦� L6C W ARV Mp! �J�yO C ]�° V^♦ d SOL cv L i NLO mil[ ° L'yww0 ELLS` cW ^ .�dT P� V r � ^° y A L N W ^ 9 C d L � G y 0 0 y � L♦ 0��� /yJ �^ N� V � t°v AWN O.• A d w PPC V y ^a ^ A ✓^ R �G P �L �qW SSG J V NS_ .V � yd C ✓ Lp�^ p C> M t -w �' N a �o Dr W wM L•"' q O 9 •D _ s y . D V 1 v a � O i� ✓ O d ^� A -� C R O W A T - C O� C TS C 9 A A 6 V S D EEp NC _ .A ✓ Td� C wQ� - C✓V Oy ^ U ✓..O J L C Q N F9t PR O CC C W C Tr" Oe >O >C L J� �• n AL ^ oc�� o.L+ ^° N pV p•r u nc Wr c q °� �� o� p aru L^ PgOL SO W OEM ` e d C qD 0' y♦..i0 0 L ^N -.d. R "`P W y We ooc c ✓y'= Et ce _pat9 ...L W L � �`�^ � O�fN y ^CS �CO ✓ ✓° y ~R ✓OJm =q� ` � pi �� E VY_M YY N� PV i W L WWC OC•r0 O i O___AA -✓ °py N9C 6� C�6C OTC CNE N PO O it^ gtf -z Nd a ✓ JNA ✓N EA•�O N�A 1[ y9CW J 9 Y AG> upi q.9 P „ N Q N V v =' G C rn p W 69 N L„ -172 6 V p V V E L W E�L� yG^ L CO�POr P✓ � d A �d � q � -Op - °_ c Ar - cDa yt _ W AJ ODN NL° •° W � ✓^ �✓ pq^ rnu.G. _ey c° CR yd 9C w ^Q VyW P✓ TN O NG Cq♦n M CW Or,r `. J` CND• O-r dl•. L� qp L w ° ae °M•�ir ° Vr T ^V rp•R pC fj E �Yp yd Ep UL T is ✓ ^ z NV ✓yN �w0 pp � OPp��C CCU C ^L AOR LV A�A� � YNV RAC E q _ d 6^ A SMy 6^ JLE- N ^NRM GN SD 6N 2NWW 6A�06`x6�'V r`tCy[ NN X ^I \ \��j1N� QI r Iz 1 C7 C 0 O T O'c a L n _ � c aq _ c 9 L V " o C T' A L T r a i V O pnj 6 uo q q ` •., Jj O y_ a °p N •' O N N d C q T D a` O w� n" m N d °•Ej d N Ltl ^ c i+rnN r - O � 0 r U n_ -E� d � T o L r c b G- V P ` � y E CNOi •+ q � pA A �^ V A 9 c V C °�9 Y. TY CND . L t d^ V J d � T o L r c b G- V P ` � y E CNOi •+ q � pA A �^ V A 9 V C °�9 Y. TY CND . L t d^ V J cc�a �Lc L V P d �VOCq L l rG` °�� ti d O �• C E � Coq L F Y. .5o7; .L m a a A d g L V •°,. r a q C W a i P C n c�a N 6y G ` qy�9 OJ O C O aou a d ^ 49 A O ^ N V A d N C L C =nL G 9 L P n Pae. A L 9 L•+C y Jam^ J ` qa C u 6VvO O a C y O a c O U > d A p 6 9 D C a ^p ^ A v C C P> J Ta d mn4 q V 9 d °s PD P c q d + L J tl o O O N V r A V d d O 9 C p V � _ L L.. o d C d � ry c O N G� a99 d d " 9 q � O .r 9 L N G A A 1���+ •N `ter - J G- V P ` � y E CNOi •+ q � pA A �^ V A 9 V C °�9 Y. TY CND . L t d^ V J cc�a �Lc L V P d �VOCq L l rG` °�� ti d O �• C E � NCO 3..E o .5o7; .L m a a A d g L V •°,. r a q C V •' L�. c�a •+ 6�°r l c O N c L o9yii j9y O p Pp N L C O 9 � b a d J Np99 O sA oG °'- D OJ 7 - pa c- i ut•�'N C� ` L O V q q V� TO ° y C L C h C d tl a i ^� v pA A �^ V A 9 V C °�9 Cdr q d• CND . L t d^ V � rP VN^ 6'�y C�� � •Lj' ° q y � C c v E °�� ti d O �• C E � NCO 3..E o .5o7; .L m a a c o 0 oJ'e 9 a c � T+ t V O O 6 M L d �c d > •VJ N V ^ P V 9 V m 9 E c A v c i � q ul t L 6 .+ e a u L � O d c O q = O N n E q W a T � ry E�°.. rI a. u a a u cI = C 6 q N A N � ` 9 n L � U q 0 N q dy = oc qIO W� '• V_ 1 c 9 \VMLI W al 7 O v W J A L 9 1 4 ' t •` 9 m E m � ` J d q y � A u� L si yu o nM ^ C 7 V N y9 + d ^ 6 d u r E _ c E � ^ d q C M N - ^ u v q P r v i C _ fly n 6 V + E J J O N a qJT V d N d uP PL- b 9 t9 w -_Q i' O�J ,R M1C `.Ic W� P c r J O 3 N 9 9 C O A d D 6 r p a E n y 6 r o- �s O.' � � L 9 v d C W �E O� V O 9 N V C O ° �P� L c 00 C art D =c � L E Zac a�^ 9 V L q C ue °ca q J N O C a° a ea • m q 6 N P N P C -79 q q yLJ 4j6P 6 q n V �Pd M V _ Pr. 9 V r ^ ^ O _ L � q O O N � b 4.2 Y C i .» Gs � H tll Y E Ll d tl V V O✓NIL ^� v pA A �^ V A 9 V E � L F= n m'aa V =^ � E a � n 25 N V C .� aVL d VV r4 a 0✓CS V ^iiV Vl n?.J A./Y Yw .°� N. i��LLA h 9 N6F �YdVO C� Cn `NVN cp O dy qC d otl - _.N G o b C q u o u �°, � c c°- E �✓° P r d E a D V C C O L P 9 � �• a =� q �a q .E NE6�= �-•`C^ _9NC0 C°YJC90L _ o- N °.qr qTa IZI 6 L _ ...C2 3 L L. N 7 -1 r• ~ N O� Vf O c � T+ t V O O 6 M L d �c d > •VJ N V ^ P V 9 V m 9 E c A v c i � q ul t L 6 .+ e a u L � O d c O q = O N n E q W a T � ry E�°.. rI a. u a a u cI = C 6 q N A N � ` 9 n L � U q 0 N q dy = oc qIO W� '• V_ 1 c 9 \VMLI W al 7 O v W J A L 9 1 4 ' t •` 9 m E m � ` J d q y � A u� L si yu o nM ^ C 7 V N y9 + d ^ 6 d u r E _ c E � ^ d q C M N - ^ u v q P r v i C _ fly n 6 V + E J J O N a qJT V d N d uP PL- b 9 t9 w -_Q i' O�J ,R M1C `.Ic W� P c r J O 3 N 9 9 C O A d D 6 r p a E n y 6 r o- �s O.' � � L 9 v d C W �E O� V O 9 N V C O ° �P� L c 00 C art D =c � L E Zac a�^ 9 V L q C ue °ca q J N O C a° a ea • m q 6 N P N P C -79 q q yLJ 4j6P 6 q n V �Pd M V _ Pr. 9 V r ^ ^ O _ L � q O O N � b 4.2 Y C i .» Gs � H tll Y E Ll r c C IU I OI I > q N Ov ✓ J V ay L •+ C q J O �� F d V V C 6 1•I A`L u V y Z P C O °� „ ' N p N ✓= C Z �c � .��. � G e AI L � °' i _ ✓L✓ C = ✓ � QV pt Y G 6 P 1 r I 9¢� j c N C L V I+ 'L' p i N S jam. ✓ N N Or c N C y G 6 I C' V tlW C wt L q> L �I � C N9 V d✓ S r V O I I O'•' r J q^ 1 J J W V 6' P C N C O a V V = P9 d z V C -P N 9 • r b P r � y O O O i O ` O V E A L ° N '� cV Ad Lv ic.+ c A u✓ V r� °° N N A d c 0 O P L i V r 0 d E a A V L.. L c N O P C V 0 c� cz� �� QI �1 Z� A i N V n a v V a L s 6 c` =a A_ q H q 4V 3 G O 'y > q N Ov ✓ J V ay L •+ C q J O �� F d V V 6 1•I A`L y Z P r� °� „ v N p N ✓= C Z �c � .��. � G e AI L � °' i _ ✓L✓ C = ✓ � QV pt Y P y O F r p. "' 9¢� j c N C L V v 'L' p i •^ jam. ✓ N N Or c N C y C' V V C wt L q> L L � C N9 V d✓ O � 6 O'•' E J q^ ✓ 4r J J W 6' P C N C O V V = P9 d C V C -P N 9 • r b P r � y O O O i O ` O V E A L ° tidy '� cV Ad Lv ic.+ c A u✓ ._ .. r� °° N N A cdo° s ✓ C P9 A r 'J W 6` V C r G n y P rrr C99� YyGV r C L� 9_q0 rPI VT 4 O -QL O U • k L r� L C C a+ ` �i °✓ qWL u rn �L.� zz yam° CC. ✓X o � Au O _•�aod ✓a t' ROA C V C � C✓ 4 r ✓✓✓ L�T�"' .._ E N B �' � o O d � V O V A Opq CO A `� r CFNL ✓ �Y LJ L �tC c � c y r T V n✓ i o F y 0 ^ E° E✓ L y � y 9� ✓V VC° OdfFA✓ EO 'L dLW J[9 �r L°AO "� — s N =✓ I `nom d. %� > V NY r y'�Ni W O q9 C O o �• Ld _ O cw C Win°' °a 'a^O� q u'J C C N 6 V Q 4 C yn ✓ - ✓ O g O• V✓ q u' r W V V V a g P ✓ d P W d C ✓ O O. C W d do ✓9 u LW C� =P O d O` J F 2 �t6� T V �rdjCW V J T q A S L✓ 9 9 A Yf b m P w cz� �� QI �1 Z� A i N V n a v V a L s 6 c` =a A_ q H q 4V 3 G O 'y V N Ov ✓ J V A J G✓ F d V V 6 1•I A`L y Z P �P l N v N E C L _ QP W C = ✓ � QV v J tp P uVi r C V C C L V C N ✓ N N Or c N C y O � 6 O'•' E 6C ^O �C P E V V = P9 d C V C n N 9 • r b P _ y O O O i O ` O V a V V " a ✓ z N V V� V ✓ ✓`Vm c A ✓ V T _ y r ✓_ N C R r O N A �1 s �✓ cc� o. oo L J� rrr C99� o- V a zz LL q A Q C T ° � ✓✓✓ j '= L N C9A CO A `� o I y =d ^JO N9 9 L � "� — s N =✓ I `nom d. %� > V NY r y'�Ni W O q9 C O _ o :�. L � n� yn N - ✓ O g O• 9. � t � N P O� U ✓ O O. � r u C 1_ 9 cz� �� QI �1 Z� A i N V n a v V a L s 6 c` =a A_ q H q 4V 3 G O 'y F N a N N O uvq L V F ✓ ov W E N C C q i V 9 a zi L N C N V C L V 9 L[) V ✓ J V 9 J F d 9 M 6 r O.✓ O Z Cy N N 9 N E C _ Ov�� v✓ ✓ � QV v J tp P uVi r C V C C L V C N 9 y 2 A C N O l E O � 6 O'•' E 6C ^O �C P E C V = a•.eoa cD n N 9 • r b P _ y r¢�L R an P z Y r ✓ ✓`Vm � V CI J .j ✓G,.. Oi �y �1 � PN m �✓ dl E= � CE C99� o- V a F N a N N O uvq L V F ✓ ov W E N C C q i V 9 a zi L N C N V C L V 9 L[) 11 � r rV q q .•0..�- _ a O O .. NP ^ ^� H �• Ems` �? l e 1 G OV —` E y •" N V.J. � O C r O _JO Ll L d 6 O L.J L C` Obi �W qOV E — u o -c q V Lbv L N < E G V L � - C�� EO E =C ZO N✓ V j C P d O ' P L- r• Z q q S x r V C l L E N L °1^ ac w q I ai cin r a q a c V u o CVCO I r b CS S a i o f d v n c q Pd Q v v t L C Z q V N • E L �' T P L q q ` L d V O d LV9L qNr � °j VC r °�L - O - � N r VgCy OWN 6�v0• 1r6 6p pJVL C '^ q N q c �' � L v r a a Nr �. 11 O .. N �? l e 1 r• N y N ° I _JO V O 6 EO -O duN qt P L- r• Z q q S x r V C l L E N L 1 y ^ r O CVCO I r CS S qa =9 Q L C Z q V N T P L q q ^ G V d Nv�J C •..• q > - O - � N r VgCy '^ q N q c �' � v r L� a Nr �. ✓ a ccu o .T. v .tir L �a .L. L i d L q 6 Z2 C Nq o OI 2 r ` pr O C G u O' � N .O• V .. 6 x �_ N G• a L N O ILL^ NG C y r..d. 9 LN VN iqd� qV rV I 0 .10 V W ` p O N ° T q p nl9 P ^ C p q L qL O�rC V'q x PW V r 0 �di• N b•+q OW q•-b. OI qA •Vi• I Lp ^O C�� gyOL ,�T p= O yC O �a V b ry V N• •Or V 9 L 7 0 =� �� Vq •V+ I did O O iri VV-�b „U = O 11 El 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 23, 1983 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner 1977, SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE AMET-'4ENT 83 -01 - An amendment to Chapter 1, Section. 1.08.160 and 1.08.170 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code regarding Home Occupation Permits. SUMMARY: In an attempt to streamline and simplify `he Home Occupation Permit HOP) procedure, staff has prepared the attachtd amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which is designed to (1) redefine criteria for conformance with other sections of the Zoning Code; and, (2) eliminate the posting and notification requirements. ANALYSIS: Currently, the procedure for Home Occupation Permits requires the Community Development Director to review Home Occupation Permit applications within ten (10) days, and to render a decision regarding the proposed opperation. in addition, staff is required to post a Notice of Request for a Home Occupation Permit on the subject property and send a copy of the applicants request to all adjacent property owners. However, it has been staff's experience that current posting and notification procedures are more costly to the City in terms of manpower and expenditure than the benefits gained by notification. The following situations illustrate this point. 1. Currently, staff reviews between 30 and 50 applicatiors for home occupations per month. The review procedure usually involves three staff members who collectively spend approximately 40 hours per month reviewing proposals and notifying adjacent property owners of a proposed home occupation. This procedure has proved to be very consumptive of staff time, in relation to responses gained through notification. Plus, there is no fee charged for an HOP. 2. Of greater importance is the number of responses gained from adjacent property owners regarding proposed home occupations. Of the notices sent to adjacent property owners per month, on the average only three (3) responses are generated. This equates, at best, to a 6 percent response to all notices processed each month. ITEM G Zoning Ordinance Amendment 83 -01 Planning Commission Agenda February 23, 1983 Page 2 3. The notification procedure was originally designed to receive public input on potential problem areas. However, this has not been the case. The responses received are generally questions about the use and what measures are available in the event a problem or nuisance arises. As always, Home Occupation Permit violations will be enforced on a complaint basis. This requires staff to investigate complaints and, if found in violation, to revoke the permit or attach additional conditions designed to mitigate the problem or nuisance. In addition, prior to the issuance of a permit, home occupations of a controversial nature will be investigated in greater detail. Therefore, all current notification requirements will be eliminated. The City Planner er his designated representative will make a finai determination as to whether or not an applicant's home occupation conforms to the conditions set forth in this ordinance. Also, minor changes have been made to various conditions of approval which allow for greater Home Occupation. Permit flexibility. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has completed an Initial Study on this amendment to determine whether or not this amendment could cause signficant adverse environmental impacts and have found that such amendment would not cause significant environmental impacts. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing item in The Daily Report newspaper. To date, no correspondence has been received either for or against this proposal. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to consider all aspects of this change. If the Commission concurs with the proposed amendment, adoption of the attached Resolution recommending approval of the amendment to the City Council would be appropriate. ily 3ybmitted, ty Planner :FD:jr Attachments: Proposed City Council Ordinance Planning Commission Resolution El E OORDIIAIVC[ MA NU + AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 1.08.:60 and 1.08.170 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING HOME OCCUPATION PERMITS The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Section 1.08.160 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Section 6 4 b (3) of the San Bernardino County Code is added to read as follows: Section 61.024A(b)(3) Hone Occupations pursuant to Section 61.0219(a)(9). SECTION 2: Section 1.0 01.160 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Section 61.024D b (3) of the San Bernardino County Code is added to read as follows: Section 61.024D(b)(3) Home Occupations pursuant to Section 61.0219(a)(9). SECTION 3: Section 1.08.170 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Section 6 .02 9 a (9) of the San Bernardino ,ounty Code is amended to read as follows: Section 61.0219(a)(9) - HOME OCCUPATION 'r_RMITS A. Home Occupations, as defined in Section 61.022, may be permitted on any property used for residential purposes upon approval of the City Planner based on the following conditions: 1. The use of the dwelling for such I•ome occupation shall be clearly incidental and subordinate to its use for residential purposes by its inhabitants. 2. No persons, other than members of the family who reside on the premises, shall be engaged in such activity. 3. There shall be no change in the outward appearance of the building or premises, or other visible evidence of the activity. 4. There shall be no sales of products on the premises, except produce (fruit or vegetables) grown on the subject. property. Ordinance No. Page 2 '- 5. The use shall not allow customers or clientele to visit dwellingF However, incidental uses such as music lessons, may be permitted if the intensity of such instruction is provided by the City Planner. 6. No equipment or pro;;esses shall be used on the subject property which creates noise, smoke, glare, fumes, odor, vibration, electrical, radio or television interference disruptive to surrounding properties. 7. No hume occupation shall be conducted in an accessory building. Normal use of the gar.:q+e may be permitted if such use does not obstruct required parking. 3. Not more than 15% of the total square footage of the dwelling or one room of the dwelling, whichever is less, shall be used for the home occupation. 9. The use shall not involve storage of materials or supplies in an accessory building or outside any structures. 10. Use of the United States Postal Service in conjunction with the home occupation shall be done by means of a post office box. il. No signs shall be displayed in conjunction with the home occupation and there shall be no advertising lasing the home address. 12. A home occupation permit is not valid until a current City business license is obtained. 13. The use shall not involve the use of commercial vehicles for delivery of materials to or from the premises, other than a vehicle not to exceed a capacity of 1 1/2 tnn, owned by the operator of such home occupation. 14. If an applicant is not the owner of the property where a home occupation is to be conducted, then a signed statement from the owner approving such use of the dwelling must be submitted with the applicatijn. Ordinance Wo. Page 3 B. C. L J Procedure for Approval: Upon acceptance of a home occupation application, the City Planner or his designated representative shall review the request for compliance with the above conditions. Following a 5 day review period, the City Planner shall render a decision. The decision shril clearly state, in writing, any conditions of approval or reasons for denial based upon the above findings. The decision of the City Planner shall be final unless appealed to the Planning Commission within fourteen (14) days from his decision. Upcn receiving approval from the City planner or his designate for a home occupation, the applicant shall immediately make application for a City Business License. City Business Licenses expire on a yearly basis. If the business license is not renewed within thirty (30) days after expiration, then the home occupation permit shall become null and void. Appeal Procedure: The decision of the City Planner may be appealed within fourteen (14) calendar days to the Planning Commission by the 'oplicant or any other aggrieved person as prescribed in Section 61.0222 of the San Bernardino County Code. SECTION 4: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, hereby finds that this amendment will not cause significant adverse impacts on the environment and issues a Negative Declaration for this Amendment. SECTION 5: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Cleric 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, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this * day of *, 19 *. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 0 J A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIO''" OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCA"'ONGA, RECD;M.M.ENDING APP.OV =._ OF ZONING ORDINANCE ..MENDMENT NO. 83 -01, ADDING SECTIONS 61.024P(b)(3) AND 61.024D(b)(3), AND AMENDING SECTION 61.0219(x)(9) OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA INTERIM ZON_AG ORDINANCE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing to consider Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 83 -01; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission feels that such amendment will not jeopardize the health, safety and welfare of the public; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found it necessary to simplify the Home Occupation permit procedure in order to expedite permit approval; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found it necessary to re- define various conditions of approval related to Home Occupation permits. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and has recon.nended issuance of a Negative Declaration on February 23, 1983. NOW, THLREFORE, BE IT RE SOLVED: 1. Teat p•Arsuant to Section 64854 to 63847 of the California Government Code, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga 'hereby recommends approval on the 23rd day of February, 1982, of Zoning Ordinance Annendment No. 82 -03. 2. That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council apprcve and adopt Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 82 -03 as shown on the attache:; -jr'inance. 3. Tt;at a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall he forwarded to the City Council. APPRrVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1983. PLANNING COMhAISSIO% OF THE CITv OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 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, p-ssed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a reg,ilar meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of February, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMIISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 11 0 E CI'T'Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 23, 1983 T0: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83 -03 - MONTESSORI - The deve I opment of a 8,615 square foot ore school and elementary school in an existing building located in Wendy's Plaza at 9544 Foothill in the C -2 zone - APN 208- 154 -14, 15, 16. BACKGROUND: This item was continued from the February 9, 1983 agenda to allow the applicant an opportunity to respond to the Commission's concerns regarding the compatibility of the proposed use with existing uses. The attached letter from the applicant describes the operation, of the school, in particular the staggered arrival and departure times for the children. Staff has incorporated the changes requested by the Planning Counission into the Resolution of Approval. Also attached 'is the original staff report. ANALYSIS: The Planning Commissior. had two major concerns which the applicai,c has addressed as described below. 1. Safe Separation of pedestrian and vehicular circulation. The applicant proposes to expand the drop -off zone in front of. the preschool anti pro,lide a teacher at the gat. to sign children in end out. Further, a Fen-in walkway will be provided along the east side of the parking lot to sepa -ate children from automobiles. (Detailed piars will be available at the hearing). Directional signs will be provided to ensure proper circa'ttion through the parking lot to the drop -off zone. L. Compatibility between Wendy's and Montessori Academy. The applicant has met with Wendy's and agreed to stripe their twenty -five parking spaces " Wendy's Parking ". The existing trash enclosure against the east property line will be used by Wendy's in place of the existins trash enclosure, located in the proposed playground. ITEM H Conditional Use Permit 83 -03 /Montessori Planning Commission Agenda February 23, 1983 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: it is recommended that the Planning Commission review the new information provided by the applicant and conduct the public hearing. If the Commission feels that their concerns have been adequately addressed, a Resolution of Approval with- ith modified conditions has been provided for your review and consideration. dully submitted, Ruck C�mez City Planner R5:DC:jr Attachments: Letter from Applicant February 9, 1983 Staff Resolution of Approval Report with Conditions E. E Ll E. Rick Gomez Planning Department Rancho Cucamonga, Dear Mr. Gomez: . waaffy M Pursuant to our meeting with you, Dan Coleman and Russ James on Febtuary 16, 1983 the purpose of this letter i.s to give you and members cf the Planning Commission further input as to the proce- dures and operations of the Montessori Academy. First of all, I would like to say that Russ James and I appre- ciate the direction and additional thoughts offered to us as ways to resolve the concerns of the Planning commission. We realize that this additional meeting has brought about some very coastruc- tive ideas and hope that the solutions we come forth with next Wed- nesday will be satisfactory. Our excellent educational program will be brought to your conmvnity with very reliable and well thought out procedures. These procedures have worked in Claremont and with the help of the Planing C— anission can be adapted to work in a new school in Rancho Cucamonga. Specifically, we agree that a directional sign needs to be lo- cated at the entrance of the ?arking lot, with stenciled arrows up to the school drop off zone. A sidewalk to the right of the parking let- could provide access to the school for those few students who will be walking to school and those parents who need to park to enter the school for any business reason. Because the Montessori Academy provides an alternative elemen- tary educational program, it is important to centrally locate the school to accommodate the entire surrounding community. usually these students come from distances that preclude walking_ It has been our experience that the actual number of children who will walk to school is minimal, that is, less than 5%. It is also a requirement of the school that preschool age chil- dren be signed is and out by their parents. We provide staff members to oversee and control this exchange of students entering and leav- ing the school and parking area to insure the safety of our program.. The School ovens at 7:00 a.m. for working parents who need extended care for their children.= Class begins at 8:30 for the 4 - 6 year olds and 9:00 for the 2 - 3 year olds. The elementary program begins at b:30 a.m. Classes are dismissed at 2:00, 2:30, and 3:15. We offer extended day care until 6:00. Therefore, the peak traffic Yours are well spread out to alleviate any conjestion at any one Farticula- time of day. 5M WEST d/SELINE ROAD. P.O. BCX 553. Ci.AAEMONT, CA 91771. TELEPHONE 1`714) 621 -1603 CHINO HILLS ACAD-,my: P.O. SM 1346. CHINO. CA 91710 • TELEPHONE (716) 628 -5287 - 2 - It is our policy to inform parents of our procedures upon enroll- is meat as well as provide them with written policy and to require con£or- mity to these basic safety standards. Mr. James has informed me that the concerns of Wendys has been resolved to both their satisfaction and this will be supported at the meeting next Wednesday. Mr. Gomez, we certainly appreciate yoar input as well as Mr. Cole- man's input and hope to gain approval from the Planning Commission. Any other questions you or the Planning Commission might have we feel confident in answering at the next Planning Commission meeting on Wed- nesday or feel free to call and talk to us about them. Sincerely, Sand r 'Sihmidt Director Kris Thewes Administrator El r LJ 11 frtason cadexy Rick Gomez Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga Dear Mr. Gomez: Please accept our apologies and krcw that we are as concerned over the Article printed in the Daily Report on Tuesday, November 15th as you are. The article did not represent correct information on the plans of the Montessori Academy of Claremont to begin operating a preschool in the Rancho Cucamonga area. Our intent was to inform the public not to open our doors without due process. We are grateful for the support and suggestions Of- fered to us by the council in preparing a proper location ® for our program and know that the final plans have to be approved by the council. We are trying to remedy the unfortunate distortion of information a-pearing in yesterdays paper and again, let us assure you that the article did not represent the Montessori Academy's proposed plans accurately. E Thank you_ Sandra Schmidt ` Kris Thewes Director Administrator .1603 500 N'ES'. SASpiUNE ROAD. P.O. BOX 553. Cl aaEMONT. CA 91711 • TELEPHONE ( 714) 621 CHINO HILTS ACADEMY: P.O. BOX 1346. C) AWO. CA 917,10 • TELEPHONE 4714) 62 8-5267 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT 197-1 DAT:: February 9, 1983 TO: Members of the Plarning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planrar SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83 -03 - MONTESSORI - The development of a 8,615 square foot preschool and elementary school in an existing building located in Wendy's Plaza at 9544 Foothill in the C -2 zone - APN 208 - 154 -14, 15, 16. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Montessori Academy, is seeking approval of a Conditional 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. The project site is located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard and is surrounded on the east by Wilmington Savinr,, and Loan, on the west by a Snell Service Station and vacant 'and, 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 as outdoor playground area. The property is presently zoned C -2 and designated Commercial under the General Plan. ANALYSIS: The concept of preschools in retail centers may be new to Rancho Cucamonga, but they have been successfully operated in other cities such 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 are-4 has best located away from retail users and will not interfere with the circulation pattern. Further, the six -foot wood fence will screen the playground ai,d provide security for the children from automobiles. Conditions of approval require adequate sound attenuation of interior noise. The adjacent unit is presently vacant. CUP83 -03 /Montessori Planning Commission Agenda February 9, 1983 Page 2 The fallowing is a summary of the parking requirements, based upon information supplied by the applicant: Preschool ors @ 1/1 7 75 Children @ 1/5 15 Elementary __ T Teach s @ 1/1 2 50 Children @ none required 0 TOTAL 24 As 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 avaiiabie. 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 {.i.+ information provided by the applicant and the s:.--e, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance provisions. The size of the buildings, playground, and parking lot M. 11 adequat<ly 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 Report newspaper a to property owners correspondence has The property owner be an attractive leasing situation. public hearing notice was ao ertised in The 'Daily ,id approximately 18 public hearing notices were sent within 300 feet of the project site. To date, no been rece'ved either for or against this project . feels that the preschool and ele�as-ntary school will tenant for '_heir center and solve their difficult REMIME- NDATION: 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. lly submitted, ty 'Planner Ittachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Resolution of Approval Map with Conditions rh �q �Yi ti. '•. •IKI�I �I •IT�I t��� � ~��.r • � � 1_1yy••. �.wlr�� % __ _ _ N• r OpQ WttJ V#6r I CITY OF ® RAi\CHO CUCANAIO \'GA PLANNI \G DIVISION NUR -, ITEM •%WIPPOP TiT : E`CImm-21:2•- SCALE= wm" - ® RESCLUTION NO. * A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83 -D3 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 Mcntt,sori Academy for review of the above - described project; and WHEREAS, on the 23rd day of February, 1983, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Co�rnission held a public hearing to consider the above- described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met: 1. That the proposed use is `,i 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 Conditional Use Permit No. 83 -03 is approved subject to the following conditions and attached standard conditions: 1. This approval shall become null and void if a Certificate of Occupancy is not issued within 18 months from the date of approval, unless an extension has been granted by the Planning Commission. This CUP shall be monitored and brought back to the Planning Commission within six (6) months from occupancy to review compliance d th 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. '.:. Resolutiun No. Page 2 2- Al', State laws and regulations regarding the licensing and operation of preschools and schools shall be complied with. Approval of this request shall ^ot waive compliance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time a Certificate of Occupancv is granted. 4. This approval shall run with the applicant and shall become void upon a change of ownership or if the business operation ceases. 5. Expali, ion of the p.:school beyond 75 children or expansion of the elementary school beyond 50 children will require approval of a modified Conditional Use Permit. 6. ThE 6' hiuh wood fence enclosing the playground area shali be compatible with the architecture of the existing building. Details of the fence design Shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval prior to installation. 7. Adequate sound attenuatic^ shall be provided so that moise levels do not disturb ten,irts in adjacent units. 8. Any signs purposed for this development shall be designed iii conformance with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application for permit and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. 9. The site shall be developed in accordance with the approved site plans on file in the Planning Division and the conditions contained herein. 10. Prior to any use of the building or business activity being commenced thereon, the existing building shall be mare to comply with current Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshall Regulations. The applicant shall contact the City's Building & Safety Division a,-,d the Foothill Fire District to discuss these requirements. E. Resolution No. Page 3 ll. The final design of the playground area shall include provision for a grass, dirt, or rubber gnat play area, and shall he reviewed by tha Design Review Committee prior to installation. Plans should be submitted to the Planning Division. 12. A bicycle rack shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 13. The location and design of parking lot directional signs shall be reviewed by the Planning Division prior to installation. APPROVED AND ADOPTcO THIS 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1983. PANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RAN CUCAMONGA BY. Jeffrey King, Chairma>> ATTEST Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK ;JAM, Secretary of -the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing R ?solution was duly and regi!larly 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 23ra day of February, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMI: >SIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 11 11 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA c^Mo STAFF REPORT Llw DATE: Februaey 23, 1983 0ll t TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83 -01A - KANOKVEC_ YANT - H request to amend the General Plan Land Use Plan from Medium Residential (4 -14 dwelling units /acre) to Medium -Nigh Residential (14 -24 dwelling units /acre) on approximately 15.5 acres of land located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue - APN 227 - 091 -45. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION A. Requested Action: To change the General Plan Land Use Map for the subject site from Medium density (4 -14 du /ac) to Medium -High density (14 -24 du /ac). B. Purpose: No specific purpose was reported by the applicant. C. Location: Northeast corner of Base Line and Rochester (Exhibit "A "). D. Size: 15.6 acres E. Existino Zoning: M -1 (Limited Manufacturing) F. Existinq Land Use: Vacant, undeveloped G. Existinq Surrounding North - lumber yard, zoned M -1 Land Use & Zonina South - single f am ly homes, zoned R -1 East - vacant, zoned M -1 West = vacant, zoned Planned Community (Victoria) ITEM I General Plan Amendment 33- 01A /Kanokv2chayant Planning Connission Agenda February 23, 1933 Page 2 H. General Plan Project Site - Medium Residential Desicnations (4 -14 du /ac) North - Medium Residential (4 -14 du /ac) South - Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac) East - Medium Residential (4 -14 du /ac) West - Low Medium Residential (4 -8 du /ac) i. Site Characteristics: Generally a flat site sloping gently Tn a southerly direction; no structures; some low weeds and grasses; curb and gutter existing along Rochester. II. ANALYSIS: A. General: The analysis of an amendment to the land use plan generally focuses upon surrounding land use compatibility, General Plan land use goals and policies and pctent:al environmental impacts. As shown in Exhibit "A ", the subject property is 15.6 acres. However, this site is really part of a larger area which is bounded on the north by Southern Pacific Railroad and on the east by Day Creek Wash. Any consideration of an amendment to the subject site should also include a review of this entire planninc area which encompasses approximateiy 32 acres. [his planning area is surrounded mainly by the planned communities of Victoria and Terra Vista. Exhibit "B" displays the land use designations of each planned community. Victoria designates a Low - Medium density (4 -8 du /ac) to the north and west. Terra Vista designates a Medium density (4 -14 du /ac) on the southwest corner of Rochester and Base Line. B. General Plan Land Use Goals & Policies: The General Plan describes tie Medium density category as providing a wide range of living accormnoe;-Ations ranging from conventional single family units to mobile homes and townhouses. Building at the lower end of the range is appropriate adjacent to low and very low residential areas. Development at the higher end of the range is more suitable along transit routes and major or secondary thoroughfares. The General Plan further states that the ! Medium density category is used to serve as a transition between low density areas to areas of higher density and areas of greater intensity which generate more traffic and noise. E 11 �.J General Plan Amendment 83- 03A /Karokvechayant Planning Commission Agenda February 23, 1983 Page 3 During the development of the General Plan, this planning area was subject to much discussion. Originally, the area was designated as Low - Medium (4 -8 du /ac). After further analysis by the Commission and Council, it was decided that the Medium range (4 -14 du /ac) would be more suitable for this area, as it would provide a transition from the lower densities ir, the planned communities west of this area and the existing Rochester tract to the east toward the higher densities and increased intensity between Day Creek Boulevard and Victeria Parkway. The General Flan chacterizes the Medium -High range for areas of major community facilities and employment opportunities. This planning area should provide a transition from lower intensity uses to higher intensity uses while at the same time allow for development at the higher end of the range as a result of its location on a major thoroughfare. C. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff completed the environmental checklist and found no significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of the amendment. As always, increased densities as a result of development will incrementally add to such things as increased traffic and increased water runcff. However, these increases are not viewed as significant adverse impacts as these increases are within the capability of the projected street and flood control facilities. The increased density, if built at the highest density, would cause approximately 1,000 additional vehicle trips per day beyond the current General Plan level. Base Line will have an ultimate capacity of 43,000 trips per day and Rochester 22,000 trips per day. At the current land use levels, Base Line is currently projected to carry about 30,000 trips per day. Therefore, a 1,000 trip per day increase is not impacting the capability of the street system to handle the increased density. Therefore, if the Commission chooses to recommend approval of this amendment, it is recommended that issuance of a Negative Declaration be recommended to the City Council. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Following are the findings required to be made for approval of this amendment. A_ The amendment does not conflict with the residential land use 40 pclicies of the General Plan. General Plan Amendment 83- 0IA /Kanokvechayart Planning Commission Agenda February 23, 1983 Page 4 B. The amendment promotes the goals of the Land Use Element. C. The amendment would not cause significant adverse impacts on the environment. The amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to adjacent properties. This amendment would not be materially detrimental to adjacent properties or cause significant adverse environmental impacts as listed in "C" and "D" above. The Commission should examine and decide whether the amendment to a Medium -High density would Promote the land use goals and purposes of the General Plan. IV. CORRESPONEDNCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The Daily Report newspaper and notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. V. RECO.WENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and receive all public input on this matter. If the Commission finds that the requested amendment is consistent with General Plan goals and policies, a recommendation of approval to the City Council would be appropriate. If these findings cannot be met to the Commission's satisfaction, a recommendation of denial to the City Council would be appropriate. ly ,�ybmitted, I Ri k Enz ��ry� City ner RG :MV :jr i Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Map Exhibit "B" - Planned Exhibit "C" - General Part I, Initial Study Resolution of Approval Resolution of Denial Communty Designations Plan Designations 11 E J E / P T �at�ox P.C. I OVIC.Tc- i �TII A VI&TAN P.C. r w ��A 1' -3Q0' S s 8 i r 1 az 3 'A } 809 800 °I as I� s t Gox iL cc lcc > ca ly c �r V W ■ r.ml �5 LI C k \ § kkk B CUMa= § w2p�$m2 Cl) l§ =� E D 5§SS §§2§ cn Z �� / /] §§~ m\z $ S CC § §Rg 2# 4 §E u� e� « § tE§ ƒ §\ � k §§ o Don# co ��_ R W= � � - °G �k §S zo« �2«CC� �HE°� /M2=ou �[Lj�s� 0 -=8§ ommoe- a�>2 -1 k E§Eo� Eoo -�E =cLuw <� 2a LUuu2 =o Goo == =oe@ \ § \ \\ § 0j\\| U) \ o r « u | JR °r§ e =m- |A LUfn z ' | §o87R#- !!i �z00 Q - \ ,42�_ �� 4 g§Ea3od �1 ;! �- J,. L ! -!.j a C s ,c v J� ® RcSnL- -N NO_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL QV GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83 -OIA TO AMEND THE NORT CORNER OF BASE LINE AND ROCHESTER, APPROXIMATELY 32 ACRES, FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (4 -14 DU /AC) TO MEDIUM -HIGH DENSITY (14 -24 DU;AC) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider said amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered both the nro and con issues of said amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commissicn recommends denial of General Plan Amendment 83 -GIA based on the following findings: A. The amendment does not conform with the residential land use policies of the General Plan. B. The amendment does not promote the goals of the Land is Use Element. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD 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 23rd day of February, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: is ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 0 RESOLUTION NO. * A RESOLUTION OF T. c" PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83 -014 TO AMEND THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BASE LINE AND ROCHESTER, APPROXIMATELY 32 ACRES, FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (4 -14 DU/AC) TO MEDIUM -HIGH DENSITY (14 -24 DU /AC) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a publc hearing to consider said amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered both thr _ro and con issues of said amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommends approval of General Plan Amendment 83 -OIA and issuance of a Negative Declaration based on the following findings: A. The amendment does not conflict with the residential land usz policies of the General Plan. B. The amendment promotes the goals of the Land Use Element. C. The amendment would not cause significant adverse impacts on the environment. D. The amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to adjacent properties. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD D1Y OF FEBRUARY, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: _ Jeffrey King, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 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 23rd day of February, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: L E 0