No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984/08/22 - Agenda Packet N - I 1 � i CITY OF RA;\CHO CUCAMONGA J= �i iLiV ��v IN G �V- F:`'IYSSION7 AGE\ .�� 1977 WEDNESDAY AUGUST 22, 1984 7:00 p.m. LIONS PARK - "WUNTTY CENTER 9161 asASE LINE RANCHO CUCAMONOA, CALIFORNIA ACTION L Pledge of Allegiance IL. Roll Call Commissioner Barker Commissioner RempelX Commissioner Chitieag_ Commissioner Stout X Commissioner McNielX _ HL Announcements Iv. Approval of Minutes APPROVED AS June 27, 1984 Al4ENDED 5-0 July 11, 1984 V. went Calendar The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without dispassion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for dispassion. APPROVED 5-0 A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84-27 - KAISER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - The development of sir industrial warehouse/manufacturing buildings totaling 55,200 square feet on 3 acres in the Industrial Park (Subarea 12) category, located at the north side of Thomas Street, between Cleveland and Vincent - APN 210-361-5, 6, 10-13. B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11932 - EJL DEVELOPMENT CORPORTATION - A proposed custom lot subdivision of 2.7 acres of land in the Low Residential district into ten (10) lots located on the north side of Finch Avenue, west of Haven Avenue and south of highland Avenue - APN 202-191-15. CONSENT CALENDAR, CONTD. APPROVED 5-0 C. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE 'TRACT 10088- NICOSIA - A residential subdivision of 82 acres into 131 single family lots in the Very Low Residential District generally located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Carrari Street - APN 201-07-14, 37 and 45. VL Public Hearings The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be li nited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. APPROVED 5-0 D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-18 - HAIRE - A request to convert a portion of a residence into a second dwelling unit on one acre of land in the Very Low Residential District, to be located at 5507 Canistel Avenue. APPROVED 5-0 E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE With conditions re- PERMIT 84-09 - ISHII CHURCH OF LAW ER-DAY SAINTS - qui ring streets abutting east The development of a 25,000 square foot building or a church property line to be cul-de- and meeting hall and a 336 square foot storage facility on sated, the submittal of a CUP 7.74 acres of land in the Very Low and Low District appiication for preschool and (Etiwanda Specific Plar.) located at 6829 Etiwanda Avenue, field lighting, and added north of Victoria Avenue - APN 227-06-65 and 23. requirements for windrow removal . F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE F_ DEkiED 4-1 PERMIT 84-13 - SYCAMORE INVESTMENTS - The development of a 43,992 square foot commercial shopping center with retail shops, fast food restaurant, and gasoline service station/convenience market on 5.444 acres of land in the Neighborhood Commercial District located on the northeast corner of Archibald and Base Line - APN 202-181- 27. APPROVED 5-0 G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8648 - LINCOLN PROPERTY CONIPANY - A division of 22.41 acres into 3 parcels within the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial category (Subarea 9), located on the northwest corner of Rochester Avenue and 8th Street - APN 229-111-8, 9. FORWARDED TO CITY COUrtClL H. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12376 - FORECAST - Planning Commission review of the Draft EIR for a custom lot subdivision of 16 lots on 20.9 acres and a conceptual master plan for 94 acres of adjacent land in the Hillside Residential and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Street, generally west of Sapphire Street- APN 200-051-06, 07. FORWARDED TO CITY I. DRAFT ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT FOR CUP 84 36 - COUiICII. ,HFA ASSOCIATES - Review and consideration of a supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for development of a regional shopping center on 100 acres of land in the Victoria Planned Community to be located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of Interstate 15 - APN 227-201-35; 227-211-30. Related File: CUP 84-06. APPROVED 5-0 with J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE condition that lakes PERMIT 84-06 - HFA ASSOCIATES - Conceptual review of a become a strong focal Master Plan for the development of a regional shopping Point in final design for center on 100 acres of land in the Victoria Planned the center. Community to be located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of Interstate 15 - APN 227-201-35; 227-211- 30. APPROVED 5-0 K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84-02 A - 19TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY - An amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium-High Residential (14-24 du/ac) to Medium Residential (4-14 du/ac) for 4.96 acres of land, located at the northwest corner of 19th Street and Beryl Street - APN 201- 221-08. APPROVED 5-0 L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ANIENDIIENT 84-02 A - 19TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY - A Development District amendment from "Mill" 14724 du/ac) to "M" (8-14 du/ac) for 4.96 acres of land, located at the northwest corner of 19th Street and Beryl Street- APN 201-221-08. APPROVED 5-0 M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AiV1ENDMENT 54-02 B - 19TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY - An amendme;it to the General Plan Land LTse Map from. Office to Medium Residential (4-14 du/ac) and from Medium- High Residential (14-24 du/ac) to Medium Residential (4-14 du/ac) on 18.75 total acres of land located on the north side of 19th Street between Archibald Avenue and Amethyst Avenue - APN 202-101-07, 11,21, 22. APPROVED 5-0 N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 84-02 B - 19TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY - A Development District amendment from "OP" Of€icelProfessional) to "M" (8-14 du/ac) and from "MH" (14-24 du/ac) to "M" (8-14 du/ac) on 18.75 total acres of land located on the north side of 19th Street between Archibald Avenue and Ameth35t Avenue - APN 201-101-07, 11, 21, 22. APPROVED 5-0 O. ENVIROV7II IdTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84-02 C - 19TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY - An amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map rom Office and Low-Medium Residential (4-* du/ac) to Low Residential (2-4 du/ac) on 11.23 acres of ;and, located at the northeast corner of 19th Street and Hermosa Avenue - APN 202-191-13, 14, 23. APPROVED 5-0 P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 84-02 C - 19TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY - A Development District Amendment from "OP" Office/Professional) and "L.M" (4-8 du/ac) to "L" (2-4 du/ac) on 11.23 acres of land located at the northeast corner of 19th Street and Hermosa Avenue - A?N 202-191-13, 14, 23. vn. Directors Heports APPROVED 5-0 Q. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT with amendments to REVIEW 84-32 - SARMAKIAN - The development of an building color and industrial complex totaling 123,000 square feet on 8 acres of texture treatments. land in the General Industriai/Rail Served category (Subarea 5), located at the northwest corner of Center Avenue and 6th Street - APN 209-261-26. GRANTED 300% CREDIT R. PARK AND RECREATION FEES FOR TRACT 12414 - A & M COMPANY -Oral report by Rick Gomez, City Planner VUL Public Comments This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. EL Adjcurnment " The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11 pm. adjouniment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commissiom r i'. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 27, 1984 Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance. City Clerk Beverly Authelet administered the oath of office to Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel and Dennis Stout, ROLL CALL PRESENT: COP1MISSIONERS: David Barker, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Harman Rempel and Dennis Stout STAFF PRESENT: Tim Beedle, Senior Planner; Snintu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer; Dan Coleman, Associate Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer s: CONSENT CALENDAR A. :"IME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-18 - JASKA - The development cf a building contractor's office and yard with two buildings totaling :2,795 square feet on 3.5 acres of land in the General Industrial/Rail Served category located at 9)260 Lucas Ranch Road - APN 210-013-02. B. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 7441 - TACKETT - Located on the south side of La Grarae, west of Amethyst Avenue - APN 202-08i-13, 14. C. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 7326 - BOBACKER COMPANY - Located on the southeast corner of Baker and Feron Boulevard. Motion: Mowed by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar. Y PUBLIC HEARINGS D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARr.EL MAP 8u77 - STEPHENSON - A division of .49 acres into 2 parcels in the Low Residential District (2-4 du/ac) located on the north side of Lomita Drive between Hellman and Amethyst Avenues - APN 202-081-35. Shintu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Reapel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Parcel ,Ian 8477, and issue a Negative Declaration. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Q{ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Chairman Stout announced that the following items would be heard concurrently. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL 1-91? 85C6 - R.J. INVESTMENTS - A division of 9.028 acres into one parcel in the Medium Residential District (8-14 du/ac) located on the west side of Baker Avenue, south of Foothill Boulevard - APN 207-581-57 and 207-571-59. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REV=A 84-08 - R.J. INVESTMENTS - The development of a 126 unit apartment complex on 9.03 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 du/ac) located on the west side of Baker, south of Foothill Boulevard - APN 207-581-57, 58, 207-571-79. Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, revie-aed the stiff repot .. Chairman Stoat opened the public hearing. Hardy Strozier, 3151 Airway, Costa Mesa, California, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. Mr. Strozier referred to a presentation book prepared by the applicant, which was presented earlier to the Commission, and stated that the project is proposed at 13.9 dwelling units per acre and is designed under the Optional Development Standards of the Development Code. He further advised that the proposed apartments are market rate and non-subsidized. Mr. Stozier quoted from a 1980 staff report which supported a change of zone for this site. In reference to the current staff report for this project, Mr. Stozier stated that staff quoted the Development Code out of Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 27, 1984 context in regards to consistency with the General Plan. He quoted objectives from page 29 of General Plan which he stated were more instructive to the Commission. He additionally quoted sections from the Development Code which referred to transition and stated that transition refers to areas, not uses as outlined in the staff report, which act as a buffer between two land uses of different intensity. He further stated that this project provides that transition. Mr. Strozier also stated that not one measurable problem is identified with the project and accused staff of "boot straping^ problems into the project with terms which he claimed did a disservice to the Development Code. He again referred to the presentation book prepared by the applicant and stated that each concern expressed in the Development Code was addressed along with how the applicant proposes to mitigate each area. Wilma Brenner, 8631 Ramona Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission in support of the project. Ms. Brenner stated that the Commission should have concern for the future residents who could not afford to purchase a home. The following individuals addressed the Commission in opposition to the project based on incompatibility, traffic, crime, school impacts, density and flooding: Cheri Soya, 8365 Comet, Rancho Cucamonga Mike Motts, 8355 Comet, Rancho Cucamonga Harold Doyle, 8400 Via Pirosa, Rancho Cucamonga Ron McCleery, 8364 Comet, Rancho Cucamonga Leon Schnieders, 8339 Edwin, Rancho Cucamonga E.H. Thomas, 8475 Cherry Blossom Street, Rancho Cucamonga Lenton Goforth, 8423 Autumn Leaf Drive, Rancho Cucamonga Phil Perdue, 8651 Foothill, rancho Cucamonga > Gilliam Gass, 4811 Canoga, Apartment M, Montclair' Jeffrey Long, 8452 Comet, Rancho Cucamonga Mark Rader 8957 Cedarwood, Rancho Cucamonga Ginger Nehls, 8432 Autumn Leaf Drive, Rancho Cucamonga Additionally, a petition containing 52 names was presen':ed to the Commission in opposit?.on to the project. Mr. Strozier again addressed the Commission and stated :nr '.:he record that he felt most comments raised by those in opposition to the project were discriminating and based on a distaste for the type of people who would occupy the project units. He quoted a General Plan goal which stated that the City should seek to provide housing opportunities for all people. Mr. Stonier addressed the issue of access on Comet, and stated that this was a requirement placed on the project by the Fire District and Sheriff's Department. Additionally, he advised that this project would place approximately 40 cars at the intersection of Baker and Foothill at peak hours, and even without this project a traffic signal is warranted at this location. 'ie further stated that he had never seen a study which concluded that apartments generate crime. On the issue of flooding, Mr. Strozier advised that the project would be required to install storm drains and flood control measures which would Planning Commission Minstes -3- June 27, 1984 i alleviate flooding problems for not only this site, but the surrounding area as well. In response to a question raised, he advised that R.J. investments manages their own apartment units. _ Commissioner Cnitiea asked when the appl:cart proposes to convert the apartments to condominiums. Mr. Strozier replied that, based on past practices, conversion would be fire to seven years away. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner McNiel stated that the Genera' Plan is a living document and subject to change. in re:ference to the 1980 Planning Commission decision to rezone this property, he sated that mistaken were made which are being lived with today. He further stated in light of the fact that apartments are needed and that the project design and site plan meet the provisions of the Development Gode and General Plan, he did not feel it met the intent of those documents and would have to deny the project. Commissioner Barker stated that the Commission has been placing increasing emphasis on transition of densities and compatibility of architecture which this project does not provide. He additionally stated that a mix of uses already exists in the surrounding Brea and could not vote for approval of this project. r` Commissioner Rempel stated that he appreciated the concerns expressed by the citizens, however solu-ions could be reached on the access and circulation issues. He additionally stated that he would prefer to see open space where. tpeople could have recreational activities than to see small lot subdivisions with a house that covers 90 percent of the lot. Chairman Stout advised that the Planning Commission recently approved recommendations to be forwarded to the Citv Council which would amend the Development Code. One of the issues dealt with transition of densities and that the lower end should dominate the contiguous edges and that this project with. 13.9 dwelling units does not meet that criteria. Another recommendation stated that when single family dwellings exist on one side, large be'Ly apartment type buildings should noti. be placed next to them and that th, architecture should be compatible with the single family dwellings; criteria which this project also does not meet. Chairman Stout additionally advised that the Planning Commission and City Council set policies which are carried out by the staff and saw nothing in the staff report which was at odds with the direction provided by the Commission. Further, that there was no necessity on the part of the applicant to point out failings by the staff on policy issues since the staff does make policy issues. In reference to the : 1980 Planning Commission• decision to rezone this pz�operty, Chairman Stout pointed out that the City was less than three years old and would like to think that the City has learned something since that time. Further, that because certain findings and decisions were made in 1980, does not mean that ;v Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 27, 1984 Yr those same conditions exist today. In respect to the environmental issues, he stated that the intermittent stream which exists on this parcel is one of the few running water streams remaining in •the City and would not like to see it channeled into a pipe and dumped into the street. He suggested that this might be used in a design element. He additionally suggested that a Environmental Impact Report might be necessary which would focus at the least on traffic. Further, that this project has merit in some other location of the City, however, could not approve it at this site. Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, reminded the Commission that it is to take action on two separate issues; the parcel map, and the site approval. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker to deny Parcel i$ap 8506. Motion failed 2-3. Commissioner Hempel stated that there was no reason to deny the parcel map. Chairman Stout replied that the environmental issues have not been covered adequately to warrant approval. Commissioner Barker st�`sd that he had concerns with the wording in the Resolution which states that the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and that the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. Mr. Hopson advised that the word development does not refer to a site specific development but is language which comes from the City's ordinances which state that certain findings must be made_ Commissioner Hempel stated that approval of the parcel map to record this map as one parcel requires that the storm drains and curbs and gutters must be installed and does no more. Chairman Stout replied that the storm drainage requirement requires the elimination of the stream. Commissioner Hempel replied that the stream Chairman Stout referred to comes from Red Hill Golf Course and that if they didn't water so much, there wouldn't be a stream. Additionally, that people would probably prefer to have that water removed from the site rather than have it stand stagnant. Commissioner Barker stated that if the direction was towards approval of the Parcel Map, he would suggest that the language be modified in the Resolution to read that the "site is physically suitable for development" and the words "the proposed" are eliminated. Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by McNiel, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map C506 with language modifications previously stated, and the issuance of a Negative Declaration. Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 27, 1984 N., AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, CHITT_EA NOES: COMM.ISSIONEYS- BARF2R, STOUT ABSENT: COMMISSIO?HERS: NONE -carried Chairman Stout and Commissioner Barker voted no for previously stated reasons. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to deny Development Review 84-08. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, BAR=- , CHITIEA, MCNIEL, REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT- COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried 9:05 - Planning Commission Recessed 9:20 - Planning Commission Reconvened � ■ f � a G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8583 - CARPENTER - A division of 4.5 acres of land into 2 parcels in the General Industrial category (Subarea 3) located at the northeast corner of Hellman Avenue and 9th Street - APN 209--033-12. Shintu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Mr. Bose stated that an amendment should be made to page 2 of the City Engineer's Report, number 2 under Surety, which could include undergrounding of 12 KV lines along Hellman and 19th. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Steve Lucas, 1275 Elizabeth Circle, Upland, California, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. Mr. Lucas asked the City's intent on the 12 K9 line requirements. Chairman Stout replied that it is a normal City policy on small parcels to require a lien agreement until a larger parcel develops to make it more economically feasible to underground the lines. Y . Lucas asked if other parcels in the area which do not have lien agreements would have to contribute to the undergrounding at the time it is done. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that if a lien agreement existed on a parcel, it would have to contribute. He further stated that the reason for a lien agreement in this particular case is that the benefit cost Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 27. IoAU proportion on undergrounding lines in the industrial area is doubtful and stiff would like to come back to the Commission with L policy review to be forwarded to the city Council which would arrive at a mo^e equitable solution to this concept. A lien agreement is, however, is a s:.andard condition at this time. Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that this property would contribute to the undergrounding, others may not. Further, that this is a currt . requirement of all subdivisions in the City and is consistent with City ordinances. Mr. Lucas stated that he agreed with M:. Rougeau in that this is not an equitable requirement. He additionally referred to page 5 of the City Engineer's Report and the requirements listed in conditions 11 and 12. He ouestioned the need to remove the concrete before paving and stated that this is the only material which holds together during flooding. Additionally, that the City is asking one small property owner to take the water from half the City and to pay for storm drains. He stated that if this is a necessary requirement, the applicant should be given credit towards storm drain and other fees. He also requested that the improvements be keyed to development of each specific site and riot required at one time. Paul Rogeau replied that the replacement of the concrete and the requirement that the improvements be done at one time are safety considerations. He advised that spot widenings increase the turbulence of water and cause additional washouts during flooding. Further, that the concrete removal requirement is based on past experiences with other parts of Hellman which have washed out due to the concrete under the asphalt. Mr. Lucas stated that the major problem is that the property owners simply cannot pay for the improvements if one parcel wants to develop. Frank Giezowski, 1816 Albright Wray, Upland, California, addressed the Commission in agreement with Mr. Lucas. Mario Maury, 719 Dalton, Upland, California, also agreed with Mr. Lucas's statements regarding the lien agreement. He stated that the lien agreement is too open and does not properly protect the property owner. There were no further comments, thereforz tre public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel stated that the items addressed by Mr. Lucas are conditions which the Planning Commission does not have the authority to remove. He suggested that if these are of concern to the applicant, the matter should be directed to the City Council. Commissioner Barker stated that these conditions are the same conditions imposed on any other piece of property in the City and agreed that the matter should be discussed by the Council. Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 27, 1984 Commissicner McNiel agreed and further stated that he understood the applicant's position, however, the Commission would have to adhere to these conditions. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 8583 and the issuance of a Negative Declaration. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, CEITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NUXE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE -carried i * r * i H ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12365 - WESTERN PROPERTIES The development of 270 apartment units on 8 lots comprising 15 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Spruce Avenue and Terra Vista Parkway - APN 1077-091-01 , 02. Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Barker asked if the size of the pool was known and asked for clarification of the adjacent trail. Mr. Coleman replied that he would have to defer the pool size to the applicant. In reference to the trail, he stated that it is an asphalt bicycle path which runs from Terra Vista Parkway through the site to Mountain View. Drive. Additionally, the trail system is described in the Park Implementation Plan for Terra Vista. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Gerry Bryan, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission stating the applicant's concurrence with the conditions of approval. Stan Bell, architect for the applicant, addressed the Commission and advised that the pool size is approximately 800 square feet, plus the spa. Chairman Stout asked for clarification the project. of thick butt shingles to be used on Mr. Bell replied that thick butt shingles are between a redwood shingle and redwood shake in thickness. Commissioner Barker referred to the lattice material used on the carports and suggested that an alternative material might be used which would require less maintenance. Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 27, 1984 Mr. Bell replied that he would be agreeable to work on an alternative material with City staff. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was cl.nsed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Tract 1236, eitu direction to work, with staff or. a material other than lattice For the carport screeni>ig. ■ � a t t 10:00 - Pla.ning Commission Recessed 1C: 15 - Planning Commission Reconvened NEW BUSINESS I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84-•21 - AJA - The development of three 1- and 2-story industrial park/o:'fice suites on 4.09 acres in the Industrial Park cz*-gory (Subarea 6) , located on the west side of Haven Avenue between_ oth and Streets - APN 209-022-12. Tim Beed le, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff repot. Commissioner Barker stated that due to problems associated with this project, care should be taken in the future not tc break apart pi.enes of property such as Llxl,5 ouo without a conceptual overview of what is .;fling to take place. Chairman Stout questioned the landscaping and asked if it was adequate. Rick Goru:z, City Planner, replied that staff would inspect the site and compare the landscaping to the approved plans. Bob Garrison, Mission Equity, nepresenting the applicant, stated that the :n applicant was in agreement with the conditions and had worked with staff to mitigate the concerns of the Commission. Chairman Stout stated that he was pleased that the issues had all addressed and commended the applicant. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Development Review 84-21 and the issuance of a Negative Declaration. ry AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, STOUT, BARKER, CHITIEA, REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried t * • a t Planning Commission Minutes -9- June 27, 1984 q.: DIRECTORS REPORTS J. 19TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY - LAND USE AMENDMENTS Senior Planner Otto K,-outil reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout explained that the Commission would not make a decision on the densities at this meeting, but would select sites for staff to study further and return to the Commission with alternatives and recommendations. The following sites were selected by the Commission: Area 3 - West side of Beryl, south of Ha:rdlton Area 5 - West side of Beryl, t660 feet north of 19th Street Area 9 - North side of 19th Street, between Amethyst and Archibald Area 11 - North side of 19th, east of Ramona Area 12 - North side of 19th Street, east of Hermosa The following sites were determined by ti.e Commission to need detailed and expanded environmental analysis and master plans prior to review of a project submittal: Area 15 - North side of Highland, x560 feet east of Haven Area 16 - North side of Highland, west of Milliken A petition containing approximately 275 names was presented to the Commission protesting the density designations on these two sites. Chairman Stout advised that staff would notify all names on the petition when these items come before the Commission for review. ! 3 i * 8 Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Rempel, unanimously carried, to continue, past the 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. K. DESIGN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Rempel suggested that the Building Industry Association and a few of the local developers be contacted for input. Chairman Stout recommended that criteria be established for consent, calendar items and presented to the Commission for consideration. as * T f Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to continue. 'Dl—ni^S Commission Minutes -10- June 27, 1984 �' r L. ETIWANDA AREA DRAINAGE POLICIES Commissioner McNiel suggested that alternative one be selected which would restr'ct development applications in the Etiwanda Specific Plan area until adopt.Lor. of the drainage master plan. Commissioner Rempel stated that this alternative is actually a moratorium and recommended the selection of alternative two, which would allow applications to be accented sbject to individual review. Chairman Stout stated that a combination of the two alternatives would be the best solution since alternative one would apply to new submittals, and alternative two would apply for those projects already approved. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Barker, carried, to recommend to the City Council the selection of alternative one, which would restrict development applications until adoption of the waster plan of drainage for new submittals, and alternative two for projects already approved, which would allow applications to be accepted subject to individual review. Vote passed 4-1. Commissioner Rempel voted no, stating that only alternative two is necessary. a r * ; f PUBLIC CCM.*C-NTS Commissioner Rempel advised that he would like to have the land uses for Terra Vista, Victotia and Etiwanda corrected on the General Plan and Development Code maps which are located in the meeting room. Rick Gomez, City Planner, replied that staff would take a look at the maps to determine the best method to designate the land uses for these areas. Larry Bliss addressed the Commission urging special thought and consideration Avenue corridor. Av for the Haven e Jeff Sceranka commended the Commission for maintaining high quality development standards. He further stated that the philosophy behind the approval of the shopping centers on Haven and Lemon was based on the traffic generated from the college, the location of the freeway interchange and the surrounding higher density. Additionally, that it was envisioned that a commercial core could then develop in this area. He stated, however, that the centers are not doing well because the density is not there yet and If the density is altered due to the over-emphasis of concerns, the land uses will be Planning Commission Minutes -11- June 27, 1984 minimized. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 11:55 p.m. — Planning Commission Adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes —12— June 27, 1984 MINUTES CITY OF RANCHO CUC-AMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION July 11 , 1984 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lions Park Co=nity Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman: Stout then led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: David Barker, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Herman Rempel, Derinis Stout COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner; Shintu Bose, Associate Engineer; Dan Coleman, Associate Planner; Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner; :Taney Fong, Assistant Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward A. Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; John Meyer, Assistant Planner; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer ANI40UNCEMF-14TS Rick Gomez, City Planner, advised that not listed on the agenda is the election of Planning Commission officers which should be done at this meeting. Chairman Stout asked the Co=aission if they would like to proceed with selection at this time or later in the agenda. Tha consensus of the Commission was to proceed. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to have Chairman Stout continue as chair. Commissioner McNiel nominated Herman Rempel as vice chair. Chairman Stout nominated David Barker. There were no further nominations and by voice vote David Barker was elected vice chair. Chairman Stout then proceeded with Committee selections. Design Review Committee: Chairman Stout, and Larry McNiel Alternate: Herman Rempel Effective 1/1/85 Rempel will replace McNiel and Suzanne Chitiea will become the alternate. Trail Committee: Suzanne Chitiea 'r CONSENT CALENDAR City Planner, Rick Gomez, advised that there was a correction to Item C of the Consent Calendar to be a Negative Declaration only. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to approve the Consent Calendar. A. TI14E EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 10414 - LANDCO - A proposed custom lot subdivisior of 10 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District into 17 lots located south of Carrari Street and west of Haven Avenue - APN 201-101-17. B. TIME EXTENSION FOR PAttCz'.. F1kP 5697 - n'ESTMONT PROPERTIES - The division of 33.7 acres into 12 parcels for industrial use located north of 4th Street at Santa Anita Avenue - APN 229-283-48• C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84-18 - JASKA - The development of two (2) warehouse buildings totaling 34,475 sQ• ft. on 2.34 acres of land in the General Industrial District locatedaat)915a General Industrial/Rail Served District (Subarea 5), Archibald Avenue - APN 209-211-12. PUBLIC HEARINGS D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12597 - LINCOLN - The development of 2O0 condominium units on 11.11 acres of land in the Medium-High Residential (14-24 du/ac) District located on the northwest corner of 19th Street and Archibald Avenue - APN 202-101-21 and 22. Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Walter M. Ingalls, 3737 Main Street, Riverside, California 92601, stated his agreement with the General Plan designation of Medium-High density for this area based on proximity to a freeway corridor, major arterial, office commercial uses, and commerciai. Mr. Rick Dickerson, representing Lincoln Properties, the applicant, made a slide presentation of the current uses along 19th Street. Chairman Stout indicated that the Planning Commission has three options available for consideration and asked Mr. Ingalls if option three were selected, would he provide his consent for continuance pending the results of the 19th Street Corridor Study. Mr. Ingalls replied that his consent would not be available at this time. PLANNING COMIAlISSION MINUTES 2 July 11 , 1984 Mr. Amos Harte, 9606 Hamilton, indicated that residents of this area had just gone through another hearing of this type approximately three months ago. Chairman Stout replied that the previous hearing was a request for office professional im this location. Mr. Gomez stated that was correct; however, Lincoln Properties withdrew their application and the 19th Street Corridor Study was begun. Commissioner Barker stated that the 19th Street Corridor Committee proposals were made to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission made recommendations to the City Council. The study is still in progress and has not yet been soiidifed by the City Council. In the ,uaantims, `his tenta_v=.. tract map came before the Planning Commission and staff provided some options. Further, the Chairman asked the Lincoln properties' representative if they would be willing to accept option three and they declined approval, therefore leaving the Planning Commission with only two options to deal with this evening. Mr. Harte advised that the freeway is still 7 to 10 years away and condominiums are bad enough, but apartments would be worse for the area. Mr. 41 Domena, resident living south of the site, indicated that Lincoln Properties stated these units would be condos. He further indicated he was worried about increased traffic a: i the impact these apartments would have on schools. M.r. Domena asked that the Commission deny this request. Mrs. Mary Dodds, 6709 Mango, voiced concern with heavy traffic and impacted schools. Mr. Jerry- Merter, resident above 19th Street, felt the builder's concern was only with tile roofs. He felt the freeway may never go through and ;%as concerned u-bether these would be apartments or ec. Chairman Stout replied that the City has no legal authority to tell an applicant whether they must be condos or apartments. Mr. Jim Prather, resident living north of the project, felt that a shopping center would be better than multi-family units since it would not affect schools or increase traffic. Further, tile roofs are not concern; Foothiil Freeway should be disregarded from future planning. Mrs. Christine Wilson, 6749 Cambridge, agreed with the staff report and was concerned with the possibility for increased crime. Joe Hanna, 6715 Jadeite, provided eight more letters in opposition to the project, citing concern with the crime rate. He asked that affordable single family homes be considered instead. Mr. Larry Lewis, 6739 Cambridge, advised of neighborhood watch participation but felt that density must be kept down. He cited concern with increased traffic and water rur. off on Ramona. PLANNING COMMISSION MIrTTES 3 July 11, 1984 Bruce Ann Hahn, 9910 LaVine, asked about condo ownership, stating that this project has always been intended to be an apartment unit. Further, that Kr. Ingalls felt that single f3 1, dc:e1lings should not be placed next to a freeway corridor, but her feeling is that 19th Street is becoming an apartment row and apartments are not compatible with the existing neighborhood. James Anderson, 6451 Klusman, asked about the Lucky sign± that used to be there. Commissioner Rempel replied that during the General Plan hearings, because of protests of too much commercial, it was decided that no two commercial developments could go on the same intersection in the City. Further, in actuality, the General Plan does say that there may be two commercial developments on the same intersection but at the time of the hearings, they did not want them at this particular intersection and the Planning Commission and the City Council decided not to allow them here. Mr. Scott Davis, 9729 Manzanita, stated that the issue of a higher crime rate and the report mentioned by other residents is devoid of methodology. His belief, he further stated, is that a project like this is not comparable to high density areas and that the crime rate is not significantly higher than where the mortgage payments are around the same dollar amc- ts. Mr. Davis felt that growth should not be stifled and requested that the Commission consider approval of this project because peoplct need a place to live other than single family dwellings. Mr. Davis indicated that approval of this project would give the City a. chance to rectify a mistake that the City previously made in the quality of other developments that were approved. Chris Lynch, resident southeast of the proposed project, shared the concerns expressed and felt that the Brock project has detrimentally affected those homes in back of that project. She did not feel that a wall is an issue as it would be put up anyway and she did not have any pleasant memories of living in an apartment. Ron Golding, an attorney who practices in this County and represented the owner of this property, Mrs. Bennett, felt that the City should not deviate from their General Plan. Further, methods of proper planning were used when the densities for this area were determined and this is one of the best General Plans in the area. He asked that the system be made to work from the legal standpoint. Chris Lynch stated no objections to apartments being built in this community; his objection is where they are being placed as he felt there are much better places that an apartment complex can go. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Ingalls if he wished to rebut any of the testimony. Mr. Ingalls stated that he and Mr. Golding have appeared before many boards and Planning Commissions and he did not envy the Commission in having to make a decision with conflicting sides. He indicated that his company was the owner-operator of one of the largest apartment/condo developments in the country and would operate Lhis development as rental units because they are needed. He further indicated that the zoning provided by the General Plan for this area is not for the present but for the future, and asked that plans not PLANNING COMMISSION MLYJTES 4 July 11, 1984 be made for this moment. He stated the freeway will be built and that the property be zoned With tint _.. _ind. Mr. Ingalls related that commercial uses would generate more traffic than residential uses and stated they would accept all 75 standard conditions. He indicated his concern about the exterior stucco color but could live with that. Mr. Ingalls objected to condition_ No. 2 in the Engineering section as they would meet the intent although not through the reduction of the tract map, and he asked that the project be approved. He stated that their project does not impact negatively upon the neighborhood, but rather it impacts positively, and asked that they not visit upon them the sins of other projects that were not so good, and if the residents want to have this area as a park they can pay the $1 .3 million_ it would cost. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chitiea did not think the freeway or sound barrier should be an issue, and she felt that condominium or apartment dwellers are as worthy as single family residents and should not be denied. Mrs. Chitiea stated that the General Plan is a flexible document and can be amended or changed and one thing that they are trying to do with the 19th Street Corridor Study is simply to study the area, and felt it a shame that this could not be done since the developer did not provide the option. She asked, rhetorically, if it is because the developer thinks there is going to be a lower density as a result of the study and continued that if the project is worthwhile, and if the density stands, there would not be a problem. Commissioner McNiel stated that if anyone were to look at the property objectively they would see it is bordered to the north by a major arterial and office professional on either side and has all the earmarks of being ideally suited for apartments. He indicated that he is not happy with the architecture and while this was haggled at during Design Review, they came to no absolute agreement. He further stated that the only thing being haggled about now is the outcome of the 19th Street study and in its original state, this area was designed with high density and that it be available to freeway access. Commissioner McNiel stated that he would have to oppose the project as presented tonight but not because of the density issue. Commissioner Hempel stated that he was chairman of the Commission during the first General Plan hearings and this area was considered as a major density area and the logic and necessity of the freeway determined to a major degree w : density would be allowed along this corridor. He indicated that the single family homes along 19th Street were not included at that time because they already had recorded tract maps and the people who heard the General Plan also agreed with staff, the consultant, Planning Commission, and City Council, that this area should be designated M to MH. Further, that this proposal does meet the standards of the General Plan and if the Planning Commission suports the resolution to deny, he would have a problem because it is not in conflict but is in agreement with the presented land use policy. PLANNIT%G COMMISSION MINUTES 5 July 11, 1984 Commissioner Rempel indicated that if as a Planning Commission they wish to say this iz a bad design, that is all right, but the Commission should not bandy around words because they are trying to justify their actions. He felt that the exposed parking area is a problem and there is a need for more oper, space but this plan is not inconsistent with the current land use designation. Commissioner Barker stated agreement with Commissioner Chitiea in that there have been strawmen and red herrings bandied about which are not appropriate to this project. He indicated that what is important is the compatibility of design issue which was addressed and less intensively, but consistently, for the last several years. The Commission has, he stated, addressed the transition of density which was not addressed to his satisfaction by the developer because he did not want single stories. Chairman Stout indicated he has three major concerns, one of which deals with the transition of density. He advised of the 19th Street Corridor Committee's 12 recommendations, stating his preference for a step system or project design which would be compatible with the existing neighborhood. Further, that because the applicant is unwilling to continue this item, he is put into a position of approving a project he feels is inappropriate, or having to deny the project. Chairman Stout stated because of the -design problems he perceives and the fact that single family dwellings are adjacent to this project plus the 1.uge tile roof expanse, there are serious design problems. Further, he felt that traffic could be a problem and should be looked at through the 19th Street Corridor Study in order to examine impact in its totality and to take another look at how traffic develops along the corridor. Because of this, Chairmen Stout stated he would have to deny the project. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, carried, to adopt Resolution No. 84-52 denying Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 12597. Commissioner Rempel cast a negative vote stating the motion as proposed is in conflict with the General Plan and is not accurate, correct, or consistent with the land use policy of the City. 9:00 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 9: 15 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. ■ ■ # a � E_ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12721 - PSOMAS, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES (ROBERTSON HOMES NORTHERN) - A total development and a subdivision of 19.4 acres into 4 lots to allow the development of 270 units in the Medium Residential District, generally located on the east side of Vineyard Avenue and north of arrow Highway - APN 208-241-02 and 14. Assistant Planner, Frank Dreckman, reviewed the staff report. PLANNING COMMISSIOX MINUTES E July 11, 1984 Chairman Stout expressed concern that the comments made by the Design Review Committee had not been addressed by the applicant. Mr. Dreckman replied that the applicant has provided unit and garden wall staggering and modification to the architecture of the structure. Mr. Gomez advised that in the conditions of approval there is a condition which would bring the project back to the Design Review Committee or City staff if further design work is needed before the issuance of permits. Mr. Gary Mazur, 3400 Bradshaw Boulevard, Sacramento, California, representing the applicant concurred with the staff report, but indicated he had several areas of concern. He indicated they did not wish to put up a six-foci :.-all which would surround the project as the north property line has a windrow of Eucalyptus trees that they want to preserve. He asked that they be allowed to work with staff to find an alternative solution. Mr. Mazur also requested that the requirement for an alternative energy system be stricken because their roof line is not compatible with solar access. Mr. Dreckman explained that an active solar system would hve roof panels or might use ar. alternate method. Mr. Gomez explained that the trade off for higher density as per the Development Code Optional Standards is in compliance with the alternative energy resources. Mr. Mazur stated that there must be some alternative that they can investigate. He also asked about the storm drain required on the southeast corner of the project at Arrow Highway. He felt that the drain should be maintained by the public agency. P ' On the transition area to the east, Mr. Mazur stated that the problem has been addressed by creating a landscape buffer zcne between the wall and parking area. Chairman Stout asked what the typical distance is between units. Mr. Mazur replied it varies from 60 to 100 feet. Mr. Dreckman stated that the units are approximately 50 feet from the property line. Mr. Gomez stated that in the i-iterior, the distance is between. 80 and 90 feet. He `.,rther stated as a point of clarification they understand the sensitivity w_ 'ne windrows and they are looking for a separation between the project an,z _.e existing windrows. Chairman Stout asked if there are windrows to the north and south in this parcel. Mr. Mazur replied there are. Commissioner McNiel asked how far removed are the trees from the property line. PLANNING COICffSSION MINUTES 7 July 11, 1984 Mr. Mazur replied that the trees on the northern boundary are on the property line; on the south they are over the property line. Commissioner Barker asked what the alternative is to the block wall as this project backs up to the Bear Gulch School. Mr. Mazur replied that they are thinking about a fence constructed of brick pilasters and a. wood fence or landscaping. Commissioner Barker stated that it is a school site, and if there is only landscaping, security is not being provided to the tenants. Further, if the wrong fencing material is used, it will be decorated in an aesthetically unpleasant manner. Commissioner Barker further stated that access to the school must be provided. Mr. Mazur replied that they will work with the school to provide access. Commissioner Barker indicated his concern with mitigation of the transition between the project and the single family homes on the east. Mr. Mazur replied that they can provide sirgle story units adjacent to the single family homes but do not want to cut down the density of the project. He further stated that they would like to adjust the site plan to pick up the units ti:ey would drop by doing this. , Commissioner Chitiea asked if Mr. Mazur would be willing to add another story or place the units somewhere else on the site. Mr. Mazur indicated that would be very desirable as it would satisfy the problem adjacent to the single story homes and would provide mitigation along ` the property line. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker stated that a lot of changes have been talked about that are not of a similar nature and that will take a lot of work. He indicated that he would like this project to come back to the Commission and asked the applicant to agree to continue this because of the many problems. Commissioner Barker advised that if transition is important on the 74th Street Corridor, it is equally important here. Commissioner McNiel stated that this applicnt was provided with the potential for maximum density because of the optional standards and yet he appears to be reluctant to participate in the trade off. Further, that in dropping units from the end of the buildings, the reduction in density is not that great and would provide transition to the single family homes adjacent to the project. He felt that there were more problems than he could approve at this time. f Commissioner Rempel stated that it bothered him that a half hour aEo the k audience was filled with people who had almost the same reservations with the previous project as there are with this one. He indicated that this resolution says it is compatible with the adjacent property and yet the other resolution indicated inconsistencies and this bothered him. K' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES S July 11, 1984 Commissioner Rempel was pleased with the large open space in this project and the recreation area; however, he stated that much better planning must go into parking spaces so they do not take up as much space and suggested urdergrounding or stacking the parking. Commissioner Barker disagreed with Comaissioner Rempel that there is inconsistency in the resolutions. Further, the previous applicant was asked to provide transition and that is not inconsistent. Commissioner Rempel stated this project is back yard to back yard and the other project was totally separated by a street, freeway, and office commercial structures. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Mazur if he would consider a brief continuance. Mr. Mazur replied that they would have a problem with continuing this item as it involved the prime rate and financing as well as the criteria that other agencies have. He indicated that if these is a negative decision, they will have to abide by it. Further, that the transition area suggested by the Commission is all right and asked if it would satisfy the concerns of the Commission. Commissioner Chitiea indicated that she was not suggesting that this be done. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Mazur if he would rather have the project denied and not have it continued. Mr. Dan Lewis, representing the applicant, advised they are purchasing the land from the owner who lives in Lebanon. He further advised because of the difficulty with communications due to the distances involved, they must know whether the project is approved or not approved. He indicated that they would not wish to purchase the land only to find their project is not approved, and were willing to do whatever is reasonable to make the project work. He stated that the suggestion of one story units and the block wall could be done and have also taken the time to do the setbacks in order to make this a good project. Commissioner Barker stated if the Commission is to be consistent, these concerns must be addressed in a consistent matter. He felt that this should not go to staff because the scale of changes are too much to do. Further, there may be some confusion, but he did not remember Commissioner Chitiea suggesting the use of three-story units. City Attorney Hopson stated that this project could be conditioned for app.-oval with the deletion of seven units to achieve the transition to the east of the project boundary and it would not give the decision-making power to anyone other than• the Commission. Mr. Lewis asked if what the Commission is saying is that this can be approved for the 273 units. Commissioner Barker indicated that Commissioner Rempel was looking for some way of approving this without being abstract. Further, Commissioner Barker stated that he is still uncomfortable and he will listen to what other Commissioners have to say, but just to say that a certain amount of units will be removed from the east border is not concrete enough. t 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9 July 11, 1984 Commissioner Rempel suggested that language be proposed that within 120 feet east of the property line no units can be over one-story. Chairman Stout indicated he could not approve this project unless eight units are reduced to one story, along with the last two units in the east/west direction; and some condition to allow Design Review to lock at the density, the landscaping, the meandering wail treatment, and protection of the windrows. Mr. Lewis asked if in the drainage easement he is asking that it be privately maintained. Chairman Stout answered yes, that the City cannot maintain it. Commissioner Rempel stated that the Planning Commission can make that recommendation; however, the City Council would be the authorizing body. Chairman Stout related that since the City does not have the money to maintain such drains, he will get the same aziswer from the City Council. Chairman Stout asked if Mr. Lewis would accept the conditions of reduction in units to one-story or suffer denial of the project. Mr. Lewis indicated that the conditions would be acceptable. Chairman Stout asked about the meandering block wall and landscaping. Mr. Lewis replied he had no problem with the landscaping. Commissioner Barker asked if access to the Bear Gulch School is provided. Mr. Lewis replied it is. Chairman St.�ut moved approval of Resolution No. 84-63 with the condition to reduce eight units from two story to one story, meandering Hall treatment adjacent to the Eucalyptus windrows and landscaping, not necessarily a block wall. Mr. Gomez asked if there will be an overall reduction in density to 262 units. Chairs.an Stout indicated there would be. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chitiea and carried unanimously. Commissioner Rempel indicated that Engineering Condition No. 2 should have further provisions of acceptance by the school for the access. Mr. Rougeau replied that the pedestrian access will be approved by the school. a � +t +t ■ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10 July 11, 1984 is 7 F. ENVIRONMENTAL n.SSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12590 - LEWIS - A residential development of 215 single family detached dwellings on 215 lots ranging from 3,700 sq. ft. to 10,450 sq. ft. on 39.7 acres of land, generally located on the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line - APN 202-221-11 and 24. Associate Planner, Dan Coleman, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout stated that in the rendering, the roof material appears to be tile but there is a recommendation to have high quality composition roofing. Mr. Hopson replied that some roofs are composition and some are tile. Mr. Coleman stated that this was done to relieve the monotony. Commissioner Barker indicated he liked the monotony of the tile. Chairman. Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Gerry Bryan, representing Lewis Homes, explained about the possibility of a day care center and stated they have read and agreed with the conditions of approval. Chairman Stout asked if they are proposing a mix of roofs. Mr. Bryan replied that the 5,000 sq. ft. lot homes will have composition roofs and the 4 ,000 sq. ft. lot homes will have tile roofs. He indicated that this is a marketing technique. Chairman Stout asked what the difference in cost is between the two roof types. Mr. Bryan replied it is in the area of $500 per home. There was brief discussion regarding the slight variation in elevation trim treatment and the importance of corner elevation treatment. Commissioner Barker asked about the pedestrian accessway and storm drain easement on the Deer Creek Channel and whether that will be landscaped. Mr. Bryan replied that it will be landscaped and it is a medium high wall with a self closing gate and canopy type trees. Chairman Stout asked with respect to the windows on the corner elevation lots if they have used a small pane treatment or something other than aluminum. Mr. Bryan replied that they have; however such treatment would not be compatible with the Mediterranian flavor of these homes. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Bryan if there was any problem wit.t having to go to Design Review. Mr. Bryan replied there would be no problem. PLANNING COMMISSI6xv MINUTES 11 July 11, 1984 x: Chairman Stout closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McN4el, carried unaniLicusly, that the modifications suggested in elevation styles 100, 733, 799 come back to Design Review for approval, and that homes on 4,000 sq. ft. lots be of tile roofs with a mix of tile and composition roofs on 5,000 sq. ft. lot homes. f G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-11 - KIUMPP - A request to one-ate a children•s i gymnastic class (private school) in an existing industrial facility, lease space is approximately 2,000 sq. ft., on 1 .9 acres in the General Industrial/Bail Served District (Subarea 5) located at 9634 Turner Avenue AFN 210-071-43. Associate Planner, Dan Coleman, reviev =d the staff report_ Commissioner McNiel asked if the restriping of the parking lot would include the center section. Mr. Coleman replied yes, that it would Le between the two series of buildings. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Charles Klumpp, applicant, stated agreement wit- the conditions of approval. Mr. Al Tibbetts, owner nf the industrial park, indicated if there are any questions regarding parking he would answer thr,m. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 84-65 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 84-1% H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8597 - LAZIER CORK-ATION - A division of 37.75 acres within the General Industrial/?ail Served c District (Subarea 2) into 2 parcels located on the east si ;e of Vineyard Avenue between 9th Street and Arrow - APN 209-102-01 . Associate Civil Engineer, Shintu Bose, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout asked if Mr. Bose is suggesting that improvements be made now. Mr. Bose replied negatively, that they should be made at the time that parcel 2 develops and can be done in conjunction with each other. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. M--. GeorZe Mim Mack, 214 S. Euclid, Ontario, consulting engineer, offered to answer any questions and stated that this is a large parcel which has been improved for some time, is vacant, and the applicant would like to put it to use. ,h. FU'LOILNG COMMISSION MINL7TES 12 July 11, 1984 Chairman Stout asked if this is the old Otis Elevator facility. Mr. Mim Mack replied it is. Commissioner McNiel asked what this facility will become. Mr. Mim Mack replied he did not know. However, the applicant does motor home asser_bly and this could bring 400 jobs into the community. There being no further questions, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 84-66, approving Parcel MZD 8497 and issuing s Negative Declaration. I. REVISIONS TO TRACT MAP 12490 - AMERICAN NATIONAL - request for phasing change of the previously approved condominium development of one lot on 6 acres on east side of Vineyard Avenue, south of Foothill Boulevard - APN 208-241-11. Associate Civil Engineer, Shintu Bose, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout stated that the way the lines on this map are drawn, it look-- like a surveyor's nightmare and he assumed this is because it may be a condo project. Assistant City Attorney Hopson stated that what a lot of engineering firms do not understand is that when you have a single map condominium project, the State Department of Real Estate requires that before you close escrow on a single unit, in any phase, you must have 50 percent of the condominiums in escrow. He indicated if you have a 200 unit phase, you must have 100 of them in escrow. He indicated further that this is a method to make the portion of the map manageable and the units saleable. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Bart Striker, representing the applicant, appeared to answer any questions. There were none and Chairman Stout. closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Chitiea, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 84-67, approving revisions to Tract Map 12490. NEW BUSINESS J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84-15 - REITER - The development of two 40,000 sq. ft. office/warehouse structures on 18 acres of land in the Indus-crial Park District (Subarea 16) generally located west of Archibald Avenue, south of 6th Street - APN 210-062-31. Senior Planner, T•m Beedle, reviewed the staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION M11%TTES 13 July 11, 1984 fi• Chairman Stout indicated he did not remember the street south his project going all the way through to Archibald. He thought it bent and went down to 4th Street. Mr. Rougeau replied that Chairman Stout is correct; however, the street was a backbone street and it was understood that ether streets could be put. in. Further, the arrows on the Industrial Specific Plan show where other streets could be put in. Mr. Rougeau stated that the sub-area Master Plan determined that the street should go to Hellman at that point. Chairman Stout asked if the street does access to Archibald at that point and there should be provision for two of them. Mr. Rougeau replied that is correct. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Henry Reiter, the applicant, 2039 Virta Park, Newport Beach, California, explained what he envisioned 6th Street would become in future years and why he is proposing this building at this time. Mr. Reiter stated that he does not expect anyone to use the road to Hellman and that access will become a real problem. Further, one of the problems is the interior street width. In meeting with the Engineering Department, Mr_ Reiter stated that interior street width is to be 44 feet and he felt that the Subarea Master Plan is poorly done. He asked that he be al ...ed to put in a 74-foot width due to the ultimate travel envisioned for the area. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Reite, if lie proposes to nut in the entire east/west street. Mr. Reiter r-eplied yes, as well as one-half of the north/south street. Chairman Stout asked how long the spine at Lavine street is. Mr. Rougeau replied it is 44 feet wide. Mr. Reiter stated that if the lots along this area get split out and someone wants to make a left turn, thera is no way they can legally do it. Mr. Sougeau gave the background on the street and proposed traffic indicating it was determined by the original Master Plan done by staff. He further indicated that the spine street would not carry all of the traffic but even with a full 180 cars a two-lane street would be appropriate. Mr. Rougeau stated that he told this applicant that rather than go through the General Plan Amendment process, if all the property owners gave their approval, he could gn ahead with the street he proposes. Mr. Beedle stated that the Master Plan would have to be amended. Chairman Stout asked if they are talking about the east/west street. Mr. Reiter replied no, they are talking about the north/south street. PI.LNNING COMMISSION MINUTES 14 July 11, 1984 r7mr- stated it would only be Mr. Reiter's portion of it. Chairman Stout asked how he proposed to get to his property. Mr. Reitr replied he felt it would be better to develop the back of the ' property first. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Reiter if anyone has objection to putting in the street. M_r. Reiter replied that the whole area is his 18 acre block. M--. Rougeau stated he would be putting in a 26-foot wide street to provide for �-.v;--lane traffic. Further, zhe Engineering Department is rece-m;;ending that the street be parceled. Chairman Stout stated it does not appear to be contiguous with the property lire and what Mr. Reiter proposes makes some sense. Commissioner McNiel stated that a Master Plan was requested for the entire 18 acre parcel and he does not recall seeir3 it. Mr. Reiter stated that hi:, architeQt did a Master Plan but he is unsure of what will go in and it was one of the requirements of Design Review that he had a problem with. Commissioner McNiel stated he was able to appreciate that; however, the south portion of this parcel is small and difficult to deal with. Mir. Reiter replied no, that he has matched the Meyers dri:--.ray and has raised the street between 30 to 50 feet, and split that lot in half, and he is building the project across the street on a narrow piece. Commissioner McNiel stated that the Commission would have liked to have seen it. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Reiter if he has had an opportLnity to review the staff report. Mr. Reiter replied he did not. Chairman Stout asked if the Design Review Committee recommendation for a 10 foot landscaped strip around the perimeter of the building is correct. Mr. Gomez replied that it should be a 5-foot strip around the perimeter of the Darcel and that a 10-foot strip around the building is correct. Commissioner Rempel asked about some type of walkway around the building so that you don't always have to walk in the parking lot to get to the front of the building. He indicated be is not saying the full laagth across but something more than an entry is needed. PLANNING COTAMSSi0N Ml�-nES 15 July 11, 1984 Mr. Reite-• indicated that this will be a single tenant building and if a a- foot sid,walk is put in it will take away from the landscaping. He indicated putting in a sidewalk wccld be a lot cheaper than the landscaping. Commissioner Barker commented on the treatment given to the two buildings and asked if there is compromise usage between building ore. Mr. Reiter replied Commissioner Barker is correct and there will be some type of a rolling gate, fluted concrete and screen walls between the windows. Further, they will be using sandblasted concrete. Commissioner McNiel asked about the concrete and whether it would be fluted. Mr. Reiter replied they are still proposing brick. Commissioners McNiel and Barker replied they are not talking about th.e same project they saw in Design Review. Mr. Reiter replied that he will n^me back. Mr. Beedle clarified that what they , re talking about are 'onditions 1 , 2, and 7, in the Planning Division section of the Resolution, and Item u in the Engineering Section. Commissioner McNiel felt that this should come back as a Consent Calendar item. Mr. Gomez asked what the Commission is focusing on. > Commissioner Barker replied that the Desiga Review Committee had concerns and what has been presented this evening does not accurately reflect what the Design Review Committee said. He added that this must either be a Consent Calendar item or go back to Design Review. Commissioner Rempel stated that the texture treatment of the panels and the brick and the western elevation be clarified. He suggested that Mr. Reiter might use a metal spangle panel. Mr. Reiter stated that would be more costly than glass. Commissioner Barker stated that the applic-3n� indicated that he would provide the panels so that later they could be punched out to become an office building. Further, if the glas-- treatc�=.nt is not put in at this time that simply will not happen. He felt further that if there is a specific design, then it can be tinkered with and he did not want this to be incompatible with the area. Mr. Reiter asked if what the Commission is saying is that they want glass on the building. ae indicated that it could be on the upper portion but not on the lower portion because of security reasons. Commissioner Barker stated that he wanted glass all along the west side and at least on the upper level. PL"WNING COVkJISSION ?SIN'=S 16 July 11, 1984 Yx. Reiter stated that he would put it on the upper story. Mr. Beedle stated that notices were sent out on this project and there may be some people in the audience who may wish to make comments. Chairman Stout opened the meeting to the audience. Mr. Dave Hall, 9620 Deerbrook, voiced some concern about the application of principle in that the Master Plan was supposed to be a fixed document and now it is said to be flexible and subject to review. He indicated that at the time of the hearings on this a.^ea, it appeared that such latitude did not exist for homeo•.mers in this area. He indicated that the Christmas House has bolstered the area and highlighted a character that was not apparent at the time of the hearing. Mr. Hall also voiced concern with buffering of the industrial area w_th the existing residential homes, traffic on 6th Street, and what will be between this and 6th Street. Chairman Stout replied that there might be Master Plan misconception. He indicated it is not a zoning document of any sort. The Master Plan addressed two issues: traffic circulation and drainage and had nothing to do with what would be planned. Ms. Hall replied that his question regarding access has been answered. Chairman Stout closed the hearing as thare were no further comments. Commissioner Rempel stated that the area to the north is critical and any developer will have to take into consideration adequate buffering for that residential property. He further indicated that somewhere along the line, the Commission would have to come to grips with criteria for development. Commissioner Mc Niel stated that a precedent has been set on 6th Street with another project. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, that building design for the eact, west, and south portions of this project come back to resign Review for approval on the Consent Calendar and that Resolution No. 84-68 be approved. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, carried, to continue beyond the 11:00 p.m. meeting deadline. 11:00 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 11: 15 p-m. The Planning Commission reconvened. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 17 July 11, 1984 'Z. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS K. WINDROWS PARK CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN Dick Mayer, Senior Park Coordinator, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout asked if there is some type of fencing on the border of tract 12045. Mr. Mayer replied that there will be as it is a requirement of this development. Chairman Stout asked if it is also required on the northern perimeter. Mr. Mayer replied affirmatively., Commissioner Rempel stated the original plan did have a lake; however, because of concerns of liability by the school district, the lake was deleted. The consensus of the Commission was concurrence with the conceptual development plan for the Windrows Park with Recommendation for Approval by the City Council. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, carried, to continue beyond the 11:00 p.m. deadline. L. HAVEN AVENUE DESIGN GUIDELINES Senior Planner, Otto Sroutil, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout stated his strong feelings about this area indicating hE would like to see Haven Avenue between 4th Street and Foothill an overlay district similar to the treatment given to Etiw-anda Avenue. Further, there should be a very strong policy statement of what the Commission expects Haven to be in the plans of the overall City. This, because he wants people developing along Haven to understand what is expected up front and that he does not see these alternatives being mutually exclusive. Chairman Stout felt that the architecture should have guidelines. Chairman Stout was unsure that tangible floor area ratio is the answer but there must be some way to let developers know that in office/professional, coamercial use is ancillary. He felt that Haven should be different from other areas in the City and they must do everything to encourage quality developments in the City. Commissioner Repel felt that subareas 6 and 7 already do this and are overlays. Y' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 18 July 11, 1984 Chairman Stout stated that if that is what they are they should be called that. Mr. Kroutil accepted the point made by the Commission but cautioned that while it is important ;o make decisions on the types of things the Commission wants for Haven Avenue, until the whole range is examined, the best choice may not be to look for specific technical solutions. He continued that the overlay may be very good bLt they need something to stay away from the procedural and focus on what would work better with a combination of solutions. He indicated from their standpoint they do not want to get locked into something that would preclude them from doing something else. Chairman Stout asked if the Commission did not have the same thing in Etiwanda. Mr. Kroutil replied that in Etiwanda there are actually two overlays and it compounds the ease of understanding. He indicated that the Commission wants to make its position clear and staff may understand that, but, when you are dealing with the public or developers who do business in many different areas, it is more difficult to get the point across. He suggested that the guidelines be kept at what they want to do rather than how to do it. Chairman Stout replied that he would be reasonable. He indicated that he would like to see something as strong as what has been used in the past. Commissioner McNiel stated that Haven Avenue is just as critical as anything in the City and it needs to have established guidelines. He echoed Chairman Stout's remarks. Commissioner Cbitiea indicated it has all been stated. i Commissioner Barker stated there needs to be clear statement and emphasis to developers of what they can do so they don't waste their energy and money in presenting things that are not going to be acceptable to the City. Chairman Stout asked that some examples be included in the study to show graphically what is wanted. Mr. Kroutil asked if in terms of topic areas they need to address land use and architecture strongly and that site planning must be dealt with. Chairman Stout replied there should be some theme to carry through along Haven. Mr. Henry Reiter came forward and explained some of the existing problems that will have to be confronted with the Ashwill parcel and the proposed retail center. He indicated further that what is happening is that there are two- story industrial buildings with overhead doors and he is making proposals of one- and two-story buildings that will be of research and development type. He felt that this should have been an industrial park, but now Haven is proposed for office use and the warehouse type buildings must be buffered and how do you do that in order to hide the overhead doors. Further, the developer across the street is being told that this is an office area. Mr. Reiter felt there would be problems leasing in this area because there are presently no magnets and you mast have other users in order to get PLANNING COMRISSION MINUTES 19 July 11, 1984 11111111111111111121 professional people. He asked that the economics be examined before a decision is finally made. Mr. Bliss stated he does not believe in putting something up and then tearing it down. He indicated that Haven Avenue is a precious resource to the community. He felt that this area is expanding and was happy that the Commission is taking a hard look at it. Jeff Sceranka stated that the opportunity for Rancho Cucamonga is significant and the Commission saw tonight what the people who live in the area are concerned with. He indicated that if this area was a vacuum it would be different in terms of what they would like to do and there should be a transition from these uses to something better. He further stated that along Haven there is opportunity that does not exist elsewhere in the City. Ontario, he said, has followed the philosophy of allowing developers to come in and say, "we would like to build this", and they allow them to do so. He indicated that the problem is that you must then have a huge redevelopment effort and that effort and coordination of uses in getting a project: design so that you have compatibility and consistency of design is tremendously difficult. He stated that the City of Ontario will take a long time in cleaning up Holt Boulevard. Mr. Sceranka observed that Ontario has created a hotel ro.a which is their focal point along with office buildings. Mr. Scerenka stated that on Haven there is M-H adjacent to industrial park aad the underpass and that is different than the other two concerns. Further, there is a core established with the courthouse and civic center and the office complex underway by Barton Development. He indicated that the cores which are established will generate different office uses. Going through those uses, however, leads him to object to what some of the developers such as Ashwill have said that there cannot be any commercial because that is not what anyone has ever said. Mr. Scerenka stated that developers come to the Chamber of Commerce and say they don't understand what was wanted and this must be addressed. He felt that a corridor study would be one of the most significant the City has done. • � i # f Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, carried, to eontinue beyond the 11:00 p.m. deadline. * * i ! ■ M. SIGN AMORTIZATION PROGRAM Senior Planner, Tim Beedle, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout indicated that he did not take option two to mean that the signs that are in minor violation would be deferred and that the major violations would be taken care of first. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 20 July 11, 1984 t i f _ Commissioner Barker stated tha- what they will be doing is taking option one ?:!A prioritizing those signs which would be handled first. Chairma: Stout stated that his personal feeling is that the signs must be taken care of i:L order to be equitable. Further, some people will take care of their signs voluntarily and perhaps the best way to approach this is to handle the worst violations first. WJW Comm^sioner Rempel cited the portion of the ordinance written for historical signs such as the Sycamore Inn, Thomas Vineyard, and the Magic Lamp. Mr. Beedle explained that at the request of the applicant, signs of historical importance would come back to the Commission for special designation. lie indicated that the Commission could direct staff as to whether they would wish to review these requests. Commissioner Barker asked that since the sign ordinance was written with places such as the Sycamore Inn and Thomas Vineyards in mind, what is the logic of their appearing before the Commission to say that they are something special. Chairman Stout related that this determination has already been made. Mr. Beedle stated that the approach that can be used is to have a list made of those signs specifically designated as having historical significance. Further, it would also provide a vehicle for others who would like to have their signs considered for this designation. Commissioner Rempel asked how many additional Planning Commission meetings it will take to hear these requests. Chairman Stout felt that there should be full compliance with the sign ordinance of all nonconforming signs and that the major violations be the first to be taken care of. Additionally, a list should be prepared of those signs that are of 'historical importance. Commissioner Hempel stated that he and Mr. Sceranka, who sat on the Commission at the time: the sign ordinance was approved, would be able to come up with a list of those signs that should have historical designation. He indicated that this list would be given to the Code Enforcement Officer so they would not be bothered. Commissioner Rempel further stated that he does not see a difference between major or minor violations as they must all be asked to conform. He suggested that staff go through the list of nonconforming signs and take care of all of them. Mr. Hopson stated that in deference to the statute, the Commission really should have some action somewhere that says that this sign is nonconforming, but it is o.k. because there should be some administrative action to establish the exemptions. Chairman Stout asked that a list be prepared to be reviewed by the Commission on whether historic designation is given in order to avoid conflicts. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 21 July 11, 1984 E: Mr. Beedle replied that a list will be prepared for the next Planning Commission meeting of those signs that are eligible for historical designation. Following the preparation of that list, Mr. Beedle indicated that the community will be advised that :he program has begun to abate the nonconforming signs. The Commission concurred with option number one, to require full compliance of all nonconforming signs according to the Sigr. Amortization Program with specified time periods for removal to be implemented. Mr. Sceranka stated it is critical that the Planni_ig Commission commit to the 100 percent enforcement of the sign program. Further, that the Chamber of Commerce has been approached by many of its members who want to see conformance with the program and who are anxious to see the golden arches go down. Mr. Sceranka indicated that the Chamber of Commerce is 100 percent behind this program. Commissioner McNiel asked if this report will be forwarded to the City Council. Mr. Beedle explained that it will be taken to the Council as an information item. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adjourn. 12.07 p.m. T'iie Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted: Rick Gomez Deputy Secretary PLA6V=ING CO?LHUYSSION MINITP 22 July 11, 1984 r JACK CrrY OF R--%NCHO CLC VN IONGA �Z PLA. '\TI1NG- CO3\,j IYSSir� �> AGENDA 1977 WEDNESDAY AUGUST 22, 1984 7:00 p.m. LIONS PARK COMMUNITY CEYTER 9161 BASE LINE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAI"ORNIA L Pledge of Allegiance IL Ron Cali Commissioner Barker Commissiuner Rerrpel_ Commissioner Chitiea Commissioner Stout Commissioner McNiu Ill. Announcements IV. Approval of Minutes June 27, 1984 July 11, 1984 t V. Consent Calendar The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time :without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84-27 - KP.ISER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - The development of six industrial warehouse/manufacturing buildings totaling 55,200 square feet on 3 acres in the Industrial Park (Subarea 12) category, located at the north side of Thomas Street, between Cleveland and Vincent - APN 210-361-5, 60 10-13. B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11932 - EJL DEVELOPMENT CORPOI.TATION - A proposed custom lot subdivisiun of 2.7 acres o land in the Low Residential district into ten (10) lots located on the north side of Finch Avenue, west of Haven Avenue and south of Highland Avenue - APN 2`vl-Z91-15. C. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 10088- NICOSIA - A residential subdivision of 82 acres into 133. single family lots in the Very Low Residential District generally located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Carrari Street - APN 201-07-14, 37 and 45. VL Public Hearings The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-18 - HAIRE - A request to convert a portion of a residence into a second dwelling unit on one acre of land in the Very Low Residential District, to be located at 5507 Canistel Avenue. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-09 - ISHII CHURCH OF LATTER-DAY SAINT)-- The development of a 25,000 square foot building for a church and meetia%g hall and a 336 square foot storage facility on 7.74 acres of land in the Very Low and Low District (Etiwanda Specific Plan) located at 6829 Etiwanda Avenue, ` north of Victoria Avenue - APN 227-06-65 and 23. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-13 - SYCAMORE INVESTMENTS - The development of a 43,992 square foot commercial shopping center with retail shops, fast food restaurant, and gasoline service station/convenience market on 5.444 acres of land in the Neighborhood Commercial District located on the northeast corner of Archibald and Base Line - APN 202-181- 27. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8648 _. LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY - A division o 22.41 acres into 3 parcels within the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial. category (Subarea 9), located on the northwest corner of Rochester Avenue and 8th Street - APN 229-111-8, 9. H. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12376 - FORECAST - Planning Commission review of the Draft SIR or a custom lot subdivision of 16 lots on 20.9 acres and a conceptual master plan for 94 acres of adjacent land in the Hillside Residential and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Street, generally west of Sapphire Street - APN 200-051-067 07. ;c; I. DRAFT ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT FOR CUP 84-06 - t HFA ASSOCIATES - Review and consideration of a supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) preparad for development of a regional shopping center on 100 acres of land in the Victoria Planned Community to be located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of Interstate 15 - APN 227-201-35; 227-211-30. Related File: CUP 84-06. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-06 - HFA ASSOCIATES - Conceptual review of a Master Plan for the development of a regional shopping center on 100 acres of land in the Victoria Planned Community to be located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of Interstate 15 - APN 227-201-35; 227-211- 30. K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84-02 A - 19TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY - An amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium-High Residential (14-24 du/ac) to Med:am Residential (4-14 du/ac) for 4.96 acres of land, located at the northwest eorncr of 19th Street and Beryl Street - APN 201- 221-08. L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 84-02 A - 19TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY - A Development District amendment from "MH" 14724 du/ac) to "M" (8-14 du/ac) for 4.96 acres of land, located at the northwest corner of 19th Street and Beryl Street - APN 201-221-08. id. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMEN' 84-02 B - 19TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY - An amendment to the General Plan Land Use Yap from Office to Medium Residential (4-14 du/ac) and frrm Medium- High Residential (11-24 du/ac) to Medium Residential (4-14 du/ac) on 18.75 total acres of land located on the north side of 19th Street between Archibald Avenue and Arnett-Ist Avenue- APN 202-101-07, 11,21, 22. N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 84-02 B - 19TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY - A Development District amendment from "OP" Office/Professional) to TIM" (8-14 du/ac) and frorr. "MH" (14-24 du/rc) to "M" (8-14 du/ac) on 18.75 total acres of land located on the north side of 19th Street between Archibald Avenue and Amethyst Avenue APN 201-101-07, 11, 21, 22. O. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN P_MENDMENT 84-02 C - 19TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY - An amendment to the General Plan Land Use ylap from Cffice and Love-Medium Residential %4-8 du/ac) to Low Residential (2-4 du/ac) on 11.23 acres of lane, located at the northeast corner of 19th Street and Hermosa Avenue - APN 202-191-13, 14, 23. P. ENVIRONMEN'IAI. ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 84-02 C - 19TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY - A Development District Amendment from "OP" OfficefProfQssional) and %M" (4-8 du/ac) to "L" (2--4 du/ac) on 11.23 acres of lan i located at the northeast corner of 19th Street and Hermosa Avenue - APN 202-191-13, 14, 23. VIL Director's Reports �. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84-32 - BARMAKIAN - Tht development of an industrial complex totaling 123,000 :'quara feet on 8 acres of land in the General Industrial/Rail Served category (Subarea S), located at the northwest corner of Center Avenue and 6th Street - APN 20S-261-23. t R. PARK AND RECREATION FEES FOR TRACT 12414 - A be M COi4IPANY -Oral report by F..ick Gomez, City Planner VM Public Comments This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not alrsady appear on this agenda. IS. Adjournment The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 1I p.m. adjournrzent time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. I i VICINITY MAP -----, --------. �_ _ >,aae. ,Cy{•p �r aLs•cY•eCFYYLa1•p I •- to+• v • a • v v E E f • S • • � fL10N$ DIFR CRY MI(C � • • ppp}}} 1i• [ p • 9•• p i • p � • yy poop{— N • 1 . ' I I L i CYU•O.OI•WII�TI G'. �•p WOp1a D•PR { CXTIR;O UITERXAT10•Il IA/ORT CITY OF RAXCM CUCAMO+• " C= OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �ICANIOV STAFF REPORT s n : :jj / h OII X DATE: August 22, 1984 19r. TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission, PROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner ' SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84-27 - KAISER - The development of six 6, industrial warehouse/manufacturing buildings totaling 55,200 sq. ft. on thrae (3) acres in the Industrial Park Area (Subarea 12) located at the northside of Thomas Street between Cleveland and Vir,2nt - APN 210-261-5, 6, 10 thru 13. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Reouested: Issuance of a Negative Declaration for Development Review 84-27. B. Purpose: Development of six (6) industrial warehouse/manufacturing buildings. C. Location: North side of Thomas Street between Cleveland Avenue and Vincent Avenue. D. Parcel Size: Lots 10, 11, 12 & 13 are approximately 20,000 sq. ft.; lot 5 is approximately 28,000 sq. ft.; lot 6 is approximately 24,500 sq. ft. E. Existinq Zoninq: Industrial Specific Plan (1SP, Subarea 12). F. Existinq Land Use: Vacant. r-. Surrounding Land Use and Zon ' : North - Agricultural, ISP Subarea 12). South - Vacant, ISP (Subarea 12) . East - Vacant, 1SP (Subarea 12). West - Vacant, ISP (Subarea 12). H. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Industrial Park. North - Industrial Park. South - Industrial Park. East _ Industrial Park. West Industrial Park. , "ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF .SPORT Environmental Assessment for DR 84-27 August 22, 1984 Page 2 I. Site Characteristics: The subject properties consist of six fi individual lots, four (4) of which are grouped together (lots 10, 11, 12 and 13) in the middle of the block on Thomas Street, and the remaining two grouped together (lots 5 and 6) at the elbow intersection of Thcmas Street and Vincent Avenue. These lots have previously been subdivided and graded. Street, curb and gutter improvements are existing. II. ANALYSIS• A. General: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant and is attached for your review and consideration. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Assessment and found no significant impacts on the environment as a result of this project. B. Impacts: Development of the proposed project will generate additional surface water runoff from the subject properties onto Thomas Street; however, this increase is insignificant and will not adversely impact drainage on Thomas Street. III. RECOMMENDTIONS: Issue a Negative Declaration for DR 84-27 based upon site analysis and the Initial Study which indicates that the proposed project will not caise significant adverse impacts on the environment. Res ec f lyesubmitted, laic° ome ¢it P er R"u:DP:ns Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Landscape Plan initial Study, Part I T � 4i,,. T i CITY OF R.NCHO CUCAMONGA INITI:-L STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMIATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Erviron^,ental Assessment Review Fee: $87. 00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Erviror=ertal Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Studv. 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: 13 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: Nort:iview Business Park Buildings f APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Raiser Develomment Comoanv 2121 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 201, Carlsbad. California 92008 (619) 438-2636 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Dan Reid. 2121 Palomar Airport Road. Suite 201, Carlsbad, California 92008 - (619) 438-2636 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. ) Thomas Street e/o Cleveland. Lots 5, 6, 10. li, l2 fi 13 of Parcel Map 4s07. - LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE ANTI) FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: Building permits from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. r C C PROJECT DFSCP_PTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Six single storv, free standing industrial buildings totaling 55,20G square feet ranging in size from approximately ,OOe square feet to 12,000 square feet. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 3 acres — 55,2(,0 square feet of proposed buildings. DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING 1NzORTM.ATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANI.MALT S, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) : The buildings will be built on six lots of a subdivision of twenty six industrial zoned lot= which were improved in 1980. The land is flat and vacant with no structures built within the subdivision, which is 90 east of Cleveland Avenue across from General Dvnamics, the only building in the irmediate area. There are no Dlants, trees, animals, cultural, historic or scenic sites on the DroDerty which would affect the Dr000sed development. Is the project part of a largsr project, one of a series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? No. 1-22/ WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO X 1. Create a substantial chance in ground contours? X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc. ) ? X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X 5. Remove any existing trees? How many? _ X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: IMPORT=. : If t:ne project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and irfor..iation 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 Deve�nen FL_ VrIp -Eo ' ttee. Date 6119/84 Signatu4 -� Dan Re Title Project Mana er q- I-3 .4 i i f 14 12 - I -Mw b9ma .OA9J .T9J I.,V, IV `\ ,ir TT .Hm .zry� .rym srm KFm .Km .>Z - �,i1LJ •5 4'v .l G( U W Y U _ ,M M L �J�'ri.r[ •m '� m - •m •0 •o m ' •o - - Se 8 19 m Z7 ;•� .' � rSm rcsw izsm ;. r[mo• .z>m ins �'o � Jwfu"ei! it 1 Will l 0 zc zs z< , x� e 1 z s �•'1 -{ V� I Sul •11,03 w z...•. TSemo r zyem :.[e \ j• yer�s ro.. ..e[z'\ i•_ - Y+.{.r.IrC KGal1 J.l w..y`-. r[�M J P°'• J4.cw+a .racyG• • 3 �C[N of Fi}1CNo piyca —ry IlF GN i•1M.r§ �, 11 e9�tL•P� S[.51.1L.• FOVFT14 ST1'EET ! ✓ V NORTH CITY OF RANCHO CUEANIONGA TITLE:_ Loc�T, o,-4 mA p ' PL&NINING DIVOON EXHIBIT- " All SCALE: N10r To SCALP. /•J JET i 1 I TO JTf ; 1 MO JI S � S.`5� MO id+ L 1 I /l JJ S A 1lVOR\+HVl CFFf OF rr>;%I: 8A-Z-7 RANCHO CUCANIIO\GA TITLE: SI;I=_ I?L4�4 ' PLANNING DIVISIONT Exiimm SCALE. t.�To c--x� PLANT NlATERIAL LEGEND $Yr.t901 OOcara NL Un%t< CO_u10:1 HAVE f } SPECIMEN ACCFf1i TRL. 0FLO'4EARl0 C—NOPY TnEE 't,« �� 1 �t�•'--7"�5 m P i = m Tn[E far.55 PnAKn:c LOT TREEE�& - CACAORO0u0 stlnus /-� FOnEcnoun0 sttnu0..•.. .. _--'-- h. . ----_.. .-_'--�. _ _ C �«„ s ACCENT SAAI.9 LANDSCAPE PLAN c5a VINE cROUTAOCOI'EA dft i ... e-j _..-tee• . . . . i . n:asc.+�°D' r .. ' 7 - i m . NORTH CITY Or FEE: RANCHO CLCAMONGA TR--E- PLANNING DIv%,WO\ EXHIBIT- . c-" SCALE- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA C�CAeio,� STAFF REPORT r =_� N FI Z August 22, 1984 �' Dr.TE: Au 9 19777 jTO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Linda D. Daniels, Associate Pianne. SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11932 - EJL DEVELOPMENT CORPORTATION - A proposed custom lot subdivision of 2. / acres of land in the Low Residential district into ten (10) lots located on the north side of Finch Avenue, west of Haven Avenue and south of Aighiand Avenue - APN 202- 191-11-5. I. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a one-year time extension for Tentative Tract 11932, as described above. The project was originally approved by the Planning Commissiop. on October 28, 1981 and currently expires on October 28, 1984. The developer is requesting the maximum time extension that may be granted for this map. II. ANALYSIS: Since the approval of this project the Development Code has been adopted. Therefore, in order to consider a time extension, the project was reviewed for conformarc- with the Development Code requirements. Based upon this review there was one area that was found to be inconsistent with the present Development Code. That area dealt with the minimum lot width at the required front yard setback line. The development averages a 62.2 foot lot width at the required 25-foot setback as compared to the required 65-foot width. The let widths themselves vary between 50 feet on the cul-de-sac to 81 feet or the northerly lot on Bandola. This is also somewhat inconsistent with the allowed 5-foot variation in lot width. This inconsistency is net considered by staff to be significant and if corrections were made they would not significantly alter the appearance of function of the project. ITEM B Time Extension - Tentative Tract 11932/EJL August 22, 1984 Page 2 III, RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends a final extension of one year. In granting the final extension, the Planning Commission is finding under Development Code Section 17.02.020 C-7 that subdivisior and development of this property pursuant to the tentative tract map which was approved pursuant to the provisions of an earlier ordinance of the City, and which is in conflict with the Development Code, may be continued and completed in accordance with the provisions of the approval, provided `: is completed within the time limit in effect at the time of its approval. Respectfully mitted, Y � Ri k Cez C;l y / :L D:jr Attachments: Letter from Applicant Requesting Extension Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map & Approved Tentative Tract Map October 28, 1981 Planning Commission Staff Report July 27, 1983 Planning Commission Original Resolution of Approval Time Extension Resolution of Approval L. O - .1 EJ L OE!/ELOPMENY CORPORATION July 10 , 1984 Dar. Coleman Community Development Department Planning Division. City of Rancho Cucamonga P .O. Box 807 :rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Tentative Tract No. 11932 Dear Mr. Coleman: Pursuant to our telephone coversation this afternoon, I hereby request a twelve (12) month extension of the above referenced Tentative Tract Mao. We feel that in twelve months the economy will be more favorable and we will be able to obtain financing which we need to proceed with this project . Also enclosed , please find cur check in the amount of $62 .00 as payment of the necessary processing fees. I appreciate your assistance on this matter. Sincerely , EJ L Pb1ENT CORpORAT.TON grey Levit� President EJL/hl 333 South Beverly Ortve + Su:te 20S Beverly H is. Calif or ,-i 90212 : Taiephone (2131 552-1444 P - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA oi-CANro STAFF REPORT ���, �y , S OCTOBER 28, 1961 7. �' I> 1977 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development 0V- n iene r • i_ "lam nrcuc rgiip, ASSiS pant manner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11932 - EJL i A custom lot subdivision of 2.7 acres of land into 10 lots in the R-1 zone located on the north side of Finch Avenue west of Haven Avenue - APN 202-191-15 ABSTRACT: The applicant, EJL, is requesting approval of a custom lot subdivision of 10 lots in the R-1 zone. The approval of the Tentative Tract Map will also necessitate issuance of a Negative Declaration for the environmental assessment. This project has been reviewed in accor- dance with the Growth Management Ordinance. It has received a point lip rating in excess of the required threshold, and is therefore eligible for consideration and approval by the Planrirg Commission. Staff has prepared a detailed report, related Resolution, and Conditions of Ap- proval for your consideration. BACftkROUND: The site is presently uc,aveloped and contains native scrub vegetation and 6 Eucalyptus trees which are to be preserved where possible. The proposed Foothill Freeway Corridor forms the northern boundary of the project. Highland Avenue is located just north of that. The land to the south has been previously subdivided and developed into single family houses. The balance of the surrounding area is currently vacant. ANALYSIS: The project is being developed in accordance with the State Sub- division Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. The General Plan reflects this area as a low density residential area (2-4.du/ac). The proposed subdivision is designed for a density of approximately 'area dwelling units per acre. The lots will be sold as custom lots. Access to the subdivision is off of Finch Avenue, north of 19th Street, pia Mesada Street and Bandola Street. The right-of-way width for Finch Avenue and Bandola Street shall be 60' . All street improvements shall be inst.311ed to City Standards and shall include but not be limited to street lights, sidewalks, curb and gutter, AC pavement and overlay, and landscaped parkway. The preliminary grading and drainage plans have been reviewed by the Grading Committee and have been given conceptual approval . 7 i TT 11932 -2- October 28, 1981 Please find attached Part I of the initial �tudy, completed by the applicant, which discusses various environmental factors relative 1_0 the project. Staff has conducted a field investigation and has con,- plated Fart ii of the initial Study wiiiCii is Included in the �,rvject file. No adverse impacts on the environment due to this development are anticipated. If the Commission concurs with this deter,ninstion, reco:mmendatior of the Neqative Declaration would be appropriate. CORREFOONDENCE: Thiel item has been advertised as a public hearing item in a local newspaper of general circulation and notices have been mailed to surrounding property owners within 300' . To date no corres- pondence either for or against this project has been received. RECOMMENDA-ION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to consider all matters relative to tnis project. If the Conenission concurs with the findings of Staff, adoption o'4' the attached Resolution with r,)nditions of Approval would be appropriate. Respectfully �tl ­itted, ; r .................. .. JACK LA1.1, ATCF, Director of Corrrunity Development JL:AT:cd Attachments: Exhibit A - Tentative Map Exhibit 8 - Naturcl features Map Exhibit C - Conceptual Grading Plan Resolution Conditions of Approval Initial Stud; - Part I i CITY OF RANCHO CtiCAN1.%NGA STAFF REPORT IjZ DATE: July 27, 1983 TO: Members cf tht Planning Commis ion FROM: Rick Gomez, City Plann=r BY: Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT i1932 - EJ- BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a time extension for Tentative Tract 11932, lccated on the north side of Finch Avenue, :rest of Haven Avenue (Exhibit "A"). The project consists of ten ( .0) single family lots on 2.7 ages of land in the R-1 zone. The current expiration date is October 23, 1983. ANALYSIS: Tentative tracts in the City of Rancho Cucamonga are valid for a maximuT of four (4) years, with appropriate extensions per t`� Subdivision Map Act. This tract was originally approved for twenty-four months on October 28, 1981, and is now eligible for the first of two possible twelve-month extensions. > RECGMMENDATION: It is recommended that a twelve (12) month extension be 1 granLEd for Tract 11932. The new expiration date would be October 28, 1984. Re, I -. f lly,,.,submitted, Rick Gcimez City Planner RG:CJ:jr Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Tract Map Resolution of Approval with Conditions Time Extension Resolution of Approval !i 1 S 1 C �16u�aw,o cwvc. ulin 1 o .g f -a:!-'Zco — 1 19� ST I i V1C 1tV ITY � 70Nc 4P Nc S ALL MGML61L7 ( GYEfIUE .-. T� � I 1 - •--� 6 Sw y : NORTH CITY OF EE� r E�-,- F 1 t93r, RANCHO CUCA.' O GA TIME: PL I N NG Dl% SION EXH]Bir= SCAL.E- - l RESOLUTION NO. 81-130 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CO-NDITTOPALLY APPROlit.G TECITAT PIE TRACT MAP NO. 11932 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 11932, hereinafter "Map" submitted by E.J.L. , applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, Stata of California, described as APN 202-191-15, located on the north Bide of Fin-h Avenue bet:':ee:, 4'^dpla Street a^d Ha': I-., n ntp iv lots , regularly came before they Planning :ommission for public hearing and action on October 28, 1981; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in The Engineering and °fanning Divisions reports; and WHEREAS, the Pla,„o •ng Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Divisions reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public bearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamcnca does , solve as follows: SEC',IOI 1 . 7he Plarnino Commission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract No. 711;32 and the Map thereof: (a) The t?ntative tract is consistent with all ap:)licablP is,teri:n and proposed general and specific plans; (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with al; applicable interim and proposed general and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of devel- opment proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife cr their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious publi—. health )robiems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acqu- d by the public at large, nova of record, for acces,- through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. Resoluti:n 'No. 81-_30 Pace 2 t {„1 That this �ivjeCt. :•iiii riot create adverse iJ'-?CLS on the` s environment and a `Negative Declaration is i- .wed. SECT1071 2: Tentative Tract Mao No. 11932, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the folio:•ring conditions and the attached Standard Conditions : - EN:;I?JEERIING DI�:ISION 1. The existing bridgE over the storm channel along Haven Avenue as shown on the tentative map shali b-� removed and repiaced with a concrete lined channel to the satisfaction of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. 2. The existing right-of-may at the north,.aest corner of tha cul-de-sac at Bandoie Street shall be vacated t3 the adjacent property owner. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1981. PLANNING M!MISSIOh OF THE C' Y OF RANCHO CUCMONGA BY: f J7frgy Kira, Chz all ' � -- rTEST.. �. J --� ry of the Plannir.G Co ^�ission 1, .JACK LAMI, 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 28th day of October, 1981, by the fo7,owing vote- to-wit: AYES: COMMiSSIONEP.S: Remoel , Dahl , Sceranka, Kinq NOES: CO'IM- 7SSIONERS: '.None ABSENT: CO:";ISSI0NERS: :olstoy � •On V V r _ ` L w • �'_ C �f VO rr C 7 _ C '7 _ _ Y r •• f ti _ L CJ � L CL `— C.0 � =G rC_•_ `O k. J 9 w L c v C':1 � -_ V � M•On Y cJd C G �—_ VL � � O �=V C ~G�� � i✓ _O _ ` O _ L r O V V <i E L v '. V o C V� —_`• N T C\ C O 0 •n 4 7 O U u— a t .• � -- ••u — �= i " ^ L `— <•„ Loc oc � i �= � Lo `off •'• �_ o'�oo' � '`� ' u=_.= �� = uo � o' o' `_ uyL ec - O _V Y w _ Cn y •s �` C O C J �� y _q —N - O C V ' ? G •Li• G= r9 O.F Vr � —L jY f>4 � 00` L V 9 � • r6A — V V � _ V •� L ^l Y C G r `u _ .L.. G 7 C L V 9 0 •. C C d S O L V C._L C u — V� r L C' " e_ _ u O 'e ^C — Y J J 9 P V 7 V l R ^ r ` C r L •n V V L �` V I e « N6 G9 NC „ Cw W 7C �i 4• = •'• O v fi � iCL^ O• a J •fS <� AML Qp 72` « c o _ > Vp �_ t a _s. e — J a N (/1 V L_ C .nC �L 9T TeC r�� `7T L.V.• L __r = O « O V O r EL 9 > rV ^ «� wY CM•J L �O .n— Vi CA t 1 ? E '^9_ o` G�' u�` •`r' a o c f' c E s s •^ u a _.J .•• _ c G _ _ o_ = F a. _ o r"'' -� V •. G Y - u _r G•� c> .�.. a •'c o .—•. E� � L.i a fG.. _ •"^ a eco 1' o co ox G c=� � o ��< < oY e•e '` u� •I _ .—r• 7 '' � -� C�- a•.• 'i� V— � V Yr OG � � — LTV -.4.. _ 7I ` Y r � .u.•,• - c- e... o y` Lou c c� = cam �- �c v .. G� N L24 \ter L .n rr•J r .n4— - � N � _ P d d O = c c •� u UO L _C r{v n •' C � 9 _ O'J ` U y! W = C_ ( C• C= O V _ �� °' � .,, .".. .n l` � y .'.a` e n � ww �' o to �' a _ � �:. r•:'c �p_• ` � .r. _ r G ` L `v J G 'i ..• E O" _O•Vr• '� p %�wrtJp y ~O V p v r O Ou9 ��� •^ T ` O` w w d _ V � _ t �✓ 1 V � { O� VC.O. v . LO �{y�� L C-J r r-•O C C r `I S = � V C L � � � � a p Y c✓ L { � CMS V- _I T r -G= L � ✓Or a._ � °: oo4r u u.^ c..� - i � �. c c n r « Yr - I✓ oM r r _e t�- W ... rV OM C '� G.V.. q Y � =p t1 C O: E •+ cV rtC .v. 1O` p ~ �� ]o or Or - - F _ n C C w v I ✓ ✓_ c � C e p L V✓ V ��..V _ C _ y }_r r L '^ � { � L� C d 6 � C•Ct C �I V O O � O �� O v a ; ✓ C 9 N 4 - �`C�v p O ^ v GL NBC cyT _ n' �, iE V-J � ' -V 'v0 roOVP •r.• { Lq� 07=� ^ Cam'' CGG '< =I OL G •r0• GO ` -J V r Err✓ � V `�p,I p � r >m .n0 GSCV i�wpG _ N Y c _ C V _ 7 _P - 'G r V O _ r V✓ r' v � V d V r __ _ V _ -• y E_r C c_C C_ .n - v.- y. {�� a w V O V V� V •Vi. .0 Q C O O C..• L GC u=_ =` J •n^ CGP yr O' n ^_--.•�v ^ r O (' �.J v C d r) T P a r y G O✓ E E V L r •w V •_•�V p P �� a O r r O G �4< O r � y � v 4 p L_ O r C•�V _ a a - •n VV � �j V- O ^ V7� Cj _O\ ✓ � r_-_J �nCOOC4V V {Y O ✓ V ✓n r a _✓ O C n i V _ O✓_ V 9 4 _r _ _ 9 p L c r - _ u d. r G u L� LG Py a _ D- v=_- ... r ✓^ n� v =_ c i = � - r:� a oe - o `o ^� a Lc- L _•' ..r -r ^ ram o_ i 2 w. G G LL T_ •r0• n� I.] ?� � �_ _ �C� `� O - '. L C� r" \p� 0 rOr C4 r v y L L O u v � - i O-.. V �_ i r � P n S 4 _ -_ � .• _ V 4 Z:L y r Y U V O v v 4 �"r i E ✓.. 0 .r C J• - {r < ` V r• p V a. - ~ L > rr� =pco = " _ -v cL+ '_-_• �_r.: 'O � = 'o .I__ o.n _�t cv tt _ ` C w V •r•V a.- _ C rr.r✓ _ N O Cl�. vvLL L7✓✓P r rV •V V G 7 O. r •n 7� ^x V r v E� v f"C n. VG _ � rp _ LLL L7ri r✓ _= `�•� Y - �y CrC q � OLC - ^ 4 ^. ate ��wr p - c - ` ^ aGi G•` � rc. i ; ! l i i i =� � •� x � V � � U J 4 4 �L G C C'L p C � = L C L O C- �V _ J C L - � � 1 1 • - 4 � _ Cnr _ C r ✓ _ L 4 ._ y C- -_ ^ J L y 11't _ c` </Cu V f.CC w C.C.i �.� � .^ +• G - < < �I ' " G.-II � C ! ` l L tl ^ '- q - S r.0..w -'L.Y U 7 L ✓ -'•� �I Il � L L q9 cY j c ocL c c. � A _• ou `♦c, w cc. .L_.; " .-n = i, c o v ' c cl'= CJO� i. N� I �!✓ O O r=. P c .. LL VL ➢ ryP � � N_l ✓ Q LCI -r'-7•J� � L - w� �✓ " r -,� �G � _ _ ccr i�Jcr- Vic" ".= >r � c � P> tzJ' I � - � � _- Tv ♦s -o v c p o L 4c - oL a•.- , I L i •�h J 'i_ J r- � _` r C O -<.✓ .- T e O � '. L u _I L - rN� LC O.4 Vr C - m L .eO GA ��L Lam✓ _ _ -f ti _ iJ n'✓ 4 f� L^[ L L OO aLO ✓ ry _O7✓ ♦ wwtT " GCy O✓ C _ - r1_ ✓V4 a V > LV 23 . _. b � w. ' _ r.a O w V w � L V - ��V •4.r u� =. .✓. V_ 4' ✓ _ __ y VVN� a✓ .L..y V w � G�� - Ow � O�w� vV JLO OC JW OO OO w ♦ +J d "r C O. _ Cw 1 •n V q CO ;.y'.. 0 C ` O ✓✓r � �� wl ^L•-� Y,r � ✓__✓ ^a o w a_� A ."...o"�. c�ya' i o_tio .:iLw j+0. = �� LM t3 "C.l�.� L ^- L..� L-. .Or ♦A �•.r6 ✓ e•_ V J� 'O L✓ �Od � V c L � 40 w_ 1(a y •-J 9 _ cc.� a r-' D ! ai.c� a u✓ o- bP. 1 r <. a•L .f�! c _ -u -'� cv _ � t - V, oA A�4 qo m♦J. i � >= d ��'u _ ❑ LI - c -� _ 'S I - s L�� CVq ♦.. J✓ � O E T_ Lr J.a O.P.^- 4.. ^I -- 'r�. � > c c-c a'r � �+ -♦'';,, -� `vo ^oow c.,AE � L-_ cad oI - =N L� r � �- C LE � a= - - =_' - - -v C A � r G O O w - a liOr � GN GA EOM Q - wN J CI AT =Z.21 G - .0. a.`r o mac= =;:4 -`_ _ c _' b cc 7 - c ca�i Lv` ✓ v.• VO O ..i C ^ C O- VCR ✓ w - OC^^ •� GYV �N-4J � GA � 7 y✓✓ w ^ O � -J d - -O G _ = t'J _ - _ _y-. ✓ � L a C - C 3 J Y 7 b�.'Y V S J E " r C C L= ✓r - O rCC O >✓ L", W _ _ V 2'"✓ON C• M4 O _ C A 9 u O A =-E•7 A O 4 9� C _ w d P � 4 G = C� d � � � � - O` `i``� ♦ _ C7q ` L1u y'A_ > 6 �'4 L�� A=SIcL. Y r` �LP � l GM G` ' O 4 _V L RCP --'.--.. u r O O u V C V-'• O C� J l V B O N A i V L O V O .S C LJ p ^ O -OJ ,"- � )'r' •^� L.O. ,- ! � � CC P > O_ r y CC ±O •c CS wSq _ �- ✓ D C V G O -i L C -I �� � V T ] _ Ci. 0 Si V. � G ALL- -OI LLV E�- CS'i C.rO✓ a ` ✓O wP^ Oj- -` G•S- � L-]^n4 a -) -`7 C-✓ 'C '.."9 -� A _ 4.- L 7 V = V �j - C i. e -' ° o o-r_` � _. •"g� c � ]c ' =�' ter'.'L sJ. '."� ? N �o .! ` �.u. -D e=_ ..===ro-� � c'� c`o_ yl -o♦'o �_'.« c. c " ^ � `= oo � - s c.� - VL C' 04' i -HOC p � - � � C -.i •• F - uG V4Lei = ^ qyL �-�9\ -i. � l c.✓� SC � G� Zr " C ! _ O .JL _ �' _ = � -r✓ 07r Or wOryw •• O C ! M. - C ! G 4 r_Y. V.L_ S C✓ _ A b .-•-i L V n, C _ C _ _.�_ r J -• �t r- _ ✓ O - G04 CI _JGOV L- T.0 wpm V CCU - C- J L. V V �•• L _ 4 ` 1 4 <-' _ L t_w - c r ✓ C r V O O •� - p 9 I - V L � 1 I C O `� _ L _ - C M - - c u _ •� �_ r 1 I C_ l li� -. y � .w w O� _V r r y I �. G � _�' -• _ _ � _u - C ? y - ` C S _ \ �.'. cam• �_• V �,I ��V � r _ _L u '^ "' V a M � C.� C 4_ y' t• � r r d '^ `< >.9 OL Vt V � u•-'� a'. J� OC d 70 _- O - V .4i =_ _o� v g -O C9 Vudu •rl � V O � VC � � OL �y 19 � I Li - 4 J •^- -! MV i.a c_.co =; •a-o � I p_d ��� c-` � 1�:= • �� _ r� • _ __ �� uu �v 0 r c U C c � 4- w - S t >r V � r - i� , • I �C_ C.'. P � p P C� '�L_^ u O C V• ��_ � - � r c_-r C •n 6 C - � V= rV u ^ � d _ ILjvl�l +'� C+Od =� Lv rd� •'• � C�V 4JG C` VG .e LOi oL ✓ ��.7wJ -�L VV9 v -_ _ C - a= --' .". r y .-- w -_ u ._•_•J`L •i = `,_ • c �-' 0 9 " "� -. " " I_- I �� f w• L r � v u _ - i >.� o o d•r c - o d j o co c Ji ` s` ? :"� 1 1 s.- wa4•Y ' _ `� _- _ L- a 4� i CO =� _ ] `•u_ - O• - i I � Vry n� � =< C � � rtvpi .` = u ` C �4 �O CF•e � y - >1G 1 f � � G =- 9- o ua � �=� e. Y• -� C4po _ �i p = o _� $�. c_i o o •-_" M I�u i��// If Nc �:,� � o_c o �c'± < c yr ; e_-_ c ^�c' i.= ..v m - L o < '=_ 1�) � C= a oe 7Gr t' < _ _ o � c. o-�`• C >•S 4 � _ a = G V l9 -. G' S �1'''- I T����� �� - _ C r r p C ♦ � C•c V w ` p _< ` o _ — � �.� s'- I �= ��1�.VI I"'i -•_ ter-' � G_ �_ t _ - u f d 1 _ w C �� 1 TI mil y �. L' ♦ -gip - C _ c _v -= G' u .I rau cY �_ -C: I +xI I IMF r- c ��' •- - ::.,Lu - r' ` _ _� C ` l E` GE .UN irk LC 4 - y{.C _ u __ f• t V u Ci V �`LI� 1��!I • .7c �' � '� O_i� �.-.Y e -a C=CC•s •e ct o. �� f- rV pr Gi > 4_ y_ •v o EfS 2-10 l i_ Y � � E v O 11I •+ j _` C •nG� V C4� /{1� O v4 C V ��M l O.y.. Gr v7 � Or .n V C.< o —y y' a' �c- c n O,••�r E y ` r C= C•r•. G y �cG.• 9— L 7 16 G V.'n0 Gv— r GG �V(•� ..•` � GO Vr_ � i—S y � _r _ V O 1 ® RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCA14ONGA PLANNING COMMISSION, APPROVIK THE TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11932 LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FINCH AVENUE, 'tESt OF HAVEN AVENUE - APN 202-191-15. WHEREAS, a request has been filed for a time extension for the above-described projeci., pursuant to Section 1.401.11.2 of Ordinance 28-8, of the SuLdivision Ordinance;and AHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the ahave-described Tentative Tract 'lap. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the foilowirg T�ndinys: A. That prevailing economic conditions have caused a distressed market climate for residential projects. S. That current economic, marketing, and invento•-y conditions make it unreasonable to record the Tract at this time; C. That strict enforcement of the conditior of approval ® regarding expirations would not he consistent with �•� the intent of the Development Code, Y D• That the granting of said time extension will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby grants a time extension for: Tract Applicant Expiraticn 11932 EJL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION October 28, 1985 APPROVED AND ADOPTED T .iS 22nd DAY OF AUGUST, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY O: RANCHO CUCAMONGA - BY: Dennis L, Stout, Chairman ATTEST —RTck Gomez, Deputy Secretary /5 . I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho - Cuca mongaa do he-eb, certify 'that the foregoing 'n cSvlliisi 0A was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of August, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: i y CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Gvcnrvrp STAFF REPORT ��° � A, Ali IO Z DATE: August 22, 1984 1977 TO: Chairran and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate ?lanner SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 10088 - NICOSIA - A residential subdivision of 52 acres into 131 single-family lots in the Very Low Residential District generally located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Carrari Street - APN 201-07-14, 37 and 45. I. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a twelve (12) month time extension for Tentative Tract 10088, as described above. The project was originally approved by the Planning Commission on October 13, 1932, and axpires an October 13, 1984. The maximum time limit that may be granted by the Planning Commission for this map is twenty-four (24) months. II. ANALYSIS: Since the approval of this project, the new Development Codas adopted. Therefore, in order to consider a Time Extension, this project was reviewed for conformance with the Development Code requirements. Based upon this review, the following inconsistencies with the basic development standards for the Very Low Residential District were notEd: 1. Average Lot Size - the Development Code requires a minimum net average lot size of 22,500 sq. ft. The approved Tentat:,.e Map indicates a net average lot size of 21,47 _ sq. ft. 2. Minimum Lo, Width - A minimum 9O ft. lot width is requiree, at the front (30 ft.) setback line, and required to vary ± 10 feet. Sever lots out of the total 131 lots do not meet this requirement, primarily on cul-de-sacs and knuckles. 3. Minimum Lot Depth - P. 150 ft. lot depth is required as measured from the mid-point of the lot. Four lots out of the 131 lots do not meet this requirement. 4. Minimum Frontage - A 50 ft. minimum frontage is required at the front property line. Six lots out of 131 lots do not meet this requirement, primarily on cul-de-sacs and knuckles. ITEM C PLANNING COPudISSION STAFF REPORT Time Extension for TT 10088 - Nicosia August 22, 1984 Page 2 5. Solar 4ccess - The Development Code requires that solar access easements be granted for all lots within residential Subdivisions. The Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract 10088 do not require these solar access easements_ These items -were not considered to be significant by Staff and wOLid not significantly alter the appearance of the project. This project was one of the first subdivisions to be designed with special design mitigation techniques to provic=! streetscape variety, as shown in Exhibits "G" and "H". III. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant a two ve month extension for this project through adoption of the attached Resolution. Res yctful ll su5mittea, i p � 'k JuDime i r ity,Planner �G:OC:ns ( Attachments: Letter from Applicant, October 13, 1982 Planning Commission Staff Report Exhibit "A" - Location 14ap Exhibit "6" - Approved Tentative Tract Map Exhibit "C" - Grading Exhibit "0" - Grading Exhibit "E" - Grading Exhibit "F" - Grading Exhibit "G" - 'rail & Oesigr. Details Exhibit "H" - Conceptual Landscaping Planning Commission of Approval with Conditions Time Extension Resolution of Approval u i)EPT. jut; iG 1384 Ay! June 8 , 1984 City of Rancho Cucumonga Planning Commission Community Development Department Planning Division Attn: Rick Gomez P Re: Tenative Tract 10088 Gentlemen: Joseph Nicosia , Lyman Sutter and Lee Webb acting as Developers of the above referenced Tenative Tract, and on behalf of Property Owners Gerald Dunitz and Henley Leventhal, hereby request a one y® ( 1 ) year extension of the Subject Tenative Map. A combination of prevailing market and economics conditions along with the unresolved issue of the Alta Loma Drainage and Assessment District I-as precluded the completion of work necessary for issuance of the Final Map. As a result, we recognize that there no longer remains sufficient time to complete this work and accomplish the necessary interfacing with the Planning Department before October 13 , 1984. We do, therefore, respectfully request that a one year extension of Tenative Tract Ma 10088 p be granted by the Planning Commission. Sincerely Y.Durs; Joseph G. Nicosia r r --- CITY OF RANCHO CUCA.MONGA Gtcaarp MEMORANDUM (J �Z 1977 DATE: October 11 , 1982 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FRO;': iiichael Vairin, Senior Planners SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT ON TENTATIVE TPACT 10088 On October 6, 1982, City Planning and Engineering staff, and the developer met with approximately 15 property owners who live ad- jacent to the project site. Most of the owners were from the area north of the project site. The developer, as well as his designer, was present to answer questions. Comments and Questions Received: Following is a summary of the comments and questions that were raised fo.- discussion. 1. Drainage: Many were concerned how the project will accommodate the drainage of the area. The drainage improvements were ex- plained. Some concerns were raised regarding the design of the debris basin, maintenance and safety. 2. Archibald Avenue: Some concerns were expressed on the final design of the Archibald Community Trail and fence design. The residents felt that the developer should install a well designed fence or wall to separate the rear yards from Archi- bald. Concern was expressed about the potential for unsightly views into rear yards or the installation of fences of various materials f walls are not provided as part. of the initial development 3. North cul-de-sac (Ramona Avenue): Property owners along the cul-de-sac off of Almond were concerned because the street proposed was being placed mainly on their property rather than on the project site. It was discovered that the applicant' s engineer had some old documents which had indicated an offer of dedication. The offer of dedication does not exist. Also, the placement of the cul-de-sac as proposed would have significantly disrupted existing private improvements to one of the homes. Attached is a sketch of the revised cul-de-sac. The revised design places 40 feet on the project site and offset cul-de-sac. Also, the revised design will not disrupt current private improve- ments. Addendum/TT 10088 October ii , 10-82 Page 2 4. Street improvements: Many homeowners along Almond wanted to know the extent of street improvements. It was explained that the south side of Almond would be fully improved and that the homeowners would have the opportunity to participate for im- provements on the north side. 5. Trails: Many homeowners were concerned about the large amount of trails proposed. The homeowners felt it was unnecessary since tracts to the west were not allowed to have horses as a result of deed restrictions. Staff explained that these trails were not just for equestrian uses, but also hiking, biking, jog- ging, and to provide an alternate access route to schools and parks. In addition, these trails provide an important drainage function. Without the trails, the drainage concept proposed would not work and much more grading of the project would have to occur. Additional Conditions: Based on the discussions with the homeowners, staff recommends that the following conditions be considered, if approval is granted by the Planning Commission. 1. The final design of the debris basin shall include appropriate =fety precautions such as fencing, gates and signs. In addition, landscaping, consisting mainly of trees, shall be planted around t':e perimeter of the basin. 2. The desian of the cul-de-sac along lots 127-131 shall be redesigned. The project shall provide a minimum of 40 feet of right-of-way and an offset cul-de-sac on the project side. The design of the cul-de- sac shall not change the condition or access to existing properties and homes in the area unless an agreement is reached between land- owners. 3. Final landscape and trail plans shall provide for screening and buffering of the lots along Archibald through the combination of such things as dense landscaping, berming and walls. Any fencing or walls along Archibald shall be with like materials whether it is installed by the developer or future owner. 4. The oak tree near or on lot 131 shall be preserved. 5. Final design of the access and any access barriers to the fire road along lots 76, 77 and 131 shall be coordinated through the City Engineer's office and between area homeowners, Fire District, and affected utility companies. Final designs shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval . y` MV.,r C ' s III cc C 1 r � D r N A T i CITE' OF RA�:CHO Ci;C.y:AaN43P. octCAM()tic STAFF REPORT <?� DATE: October 13, 1982 chi io TO: Members of the Planning Commission i= z FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner 1977 BY: Michael Vzirin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMED[TAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 10088 - NICOSIA A residential subdivision of 82 acres into 131 single family lots in the P.-1-20,000 zone, generally located at the north- east corner of Archibald and Carrari Street - APN 201-071-14, 37 and 45. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The proposal is a residential subdivision to be built either as a custom lot development or a tract development. The project site is located at the north end of Archibald Avenue, on the t, east side between Carrari and Almond. The site totals 82 gross acres and is proposed to contain 131 lots, which when developed will provide 1 .6 dwelling units per gross acre. The project site is presently vacant of existing structures. The grade slopes to the south at approximately a 12 percent grade with two drainage courses transversing the site. The site is covered with chapparal , brush, and weeds. The site is presently zoned P.-1-20,000 which permits one dwelling unit on a lot not less than 20,000 square feet in area. Surrounding zoning consists of predominantly R-1-20,000 with some one acre zoning. Surrounding land uses are single family residential development on half acre or greater size lots. The General Plan for the project site, as well as for the surrounding area, is residential at a density of less than two dwelling units per gross acre. ANALYSIS: The applicant has been working with the Planning and Engineer- ing staffs to maintain as much of the existing character and topography as possible. Drainage, access, and street design have been the critical points in the design of this subdivision. A complete hydrology study has been prepared for this tract and has indicated the need fcr drainage im- provements in order to adequately drain the project site as well as pro- tect the site from flood damage. The east boundary of the tract borders the Alta Loma Channel and a significant portion of the project site is proposed to utilize that channel for its major drainage course. The de- veloper has agreed to participate in the Alta Loma Channel Assessment District and will be submitting a letter of credit. The areas of the tract which drain into the channel cannot be built until the drainage improvements are installed. Also, the hydrology study revealed the need 1 for flood protection of this site from water coming from the north. This has been accommodated through the provision of an on-site debris basin and underground drainage facilities. The final design and size of the debris basin will be dependent upon final hydrological data. One street is proposed as a stub street to the south in which the developer will be required to obtain a drainage easement from the south property owner prior to recordation of the Final map. n ,r �_ L � r October 13, 1982 E. A. and Tentative Tract 10088 - Nicosia Page Two The major access point to the subdivision will be from Archibdld Avenue. A secondary means of access will be provided from Hermosa Avenue. Almond Street, which comes from Hermosa Avenue, is currently unimproved. The subdivider will be required to provide improvements from the project boundary to Hermosa Avenua which would consist of a minimum of 40 feet of right-of-way and a 26-Foot paved access route. Internal access and a street design has been developed in accordance with Engineering standards. in audition to VLi4IiCUlar access, enuestrian access was a major consider- ation in the design of the project.- The Trail Committee has reviewed this project in detail and has provided the input for the design of the present system which proposes a community trail through the southern portion of the project and a community trail along Archibald Avenue. In addition, interior local equestrian feeder trails on individual praperties have been provided in accordance with the City Equestrian Trail Standards. At the recommendation of the Trail Committee, a Condition has been recommended which would add one additional local trail across the northern portion of Lot 49 and between the boundaries of Lot 49-50, in order to provide adequate access to the Archibald Avenue community trail for lots in the north portion of the subdivision. Final trail plans indicating landscap- ing details, fencing details, step-ovens, and trail entry statements, will be required prior to recordation of the map and will be installed as part of the street improvements. The interior street pattern and lot pattern -was developed after numerous meetings with the Design Review Committee and the applicant in order to develop the sense of a custom lot subdivision with variable lot shapes and sizas as well as meandering streets. The Design Review Committee is recom- mending -ipproval of this street design and lot pattern. The applicant has providad details relative to the creation of a community appearance which is shown on the attached exhibits for landscaping and streetscape appear- ance. These guidelines have been incorporated into the Conditions of Ap- proval for ;raper implementation. ENVIRONMEr=TAL REVTEW. The Initial Study has been prepared for this pro- ject and Conditic of Approval have been placed on the project to cover potential impacts that could have been created through improper grading and drainage improvements. Additionally, Conditions of Approval require a final geological report prepared by a qualified engineer to determine building setback lines to any potential active fault traces, if any. A portion of this site at the northern end is located within the earthquake fault zone and would require a minimum 50-foot setback to a wood frame structure for human occupancy. This study would have to be completed and submitted to the City for review and approval prior to final approval and recordation of the final. map. Based upon the Conditions of Approval and Initial Study conducted, it is recommended that a Negative Declaration be issued for this project. t October 13, 1982 E. A. and Tentative Tract 10088 - Nicosia Pace Three z FACTS FOR FINDING: The project site as designed is consistent with the adopted General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and City Subdivision Ordinance. The project has successfully completed the Growth Management rating pro- cess and appropriate Conditions of Approval for the project have been provided in order to protect the public safety and environment. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices have been mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. In addition, a public hearing notice has been printed in the Daily Report newspaper. Staff has received several verbal communications from surrounding residents regarding the details of the project. Most appear to be concerned with the general design of the pro- ject and the functions regarding drainage, access, and street improvements. Staff has also posted notices of public hearing around the project site. We have been notified that some of the property owners in the area will be meeting with the developer on October 6, 1982. This meeting is intended to answer detailed questions and hopefully resolve any concerns. Staff will prepare an addendum to this report to inform the Commission on the outcome of this meeting and any additional changes or recommendations. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of the project. if, after such consideration, the Commission can support the facts for finding and recommended Conditions of Approval , then adoption of the attached F.esoiution would be appropriate . Respectful lry,.submi tted, i,. RICK�GOMEZ City Planner 1 FG:M11:jk r (Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit ' B" - Tract MaD Exhibit "C" - Conceptual Grading Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Grading Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Grading Exhibit "F" - Conceptual Grading Exhibit "G" - Trail and Design Details Exhibit "H" - Conceptual Landscaping Part I - Initial Study Resolution with Conditions r LA COLMA CP..I vaTFF FP: FARM ; 1 .a-RAP 1 n^ Lw u-'! WHIPLAWAY� ..T. 1 7( �) j > ! J U; zj w, <` ---j 1 HiLLSME AVENUE LA t 2 AVENUE CHil.;F;EY COL:=-Gc r• Q! =i Ol -' �Q AMBER Lt.. >* Q i {1 1 � T E�.iayan ST AEET FORTH CITY OF RA Cl C�,'C�L �IO\'G.-k TrrLE:V1Ctt► lrf && f PLANNING DR'ISD,\T E.XHIMT -A.__ SOLE a i p i VDNOYjvono . ni a adw No7stiaens ray Ic—q • 'lIA - W � FyI 1 \ l� ' J .��r/WF-q / lf_� %I m !�• . Q^ + , C1 z�.e < I � ii�., / F_� a m •� " u.1 ci W ors : Ti , •i =, " Ll`- i r,`r :J 'Tl��-• ��\\�`\? J �U�'r�,u s� a i. . 3 o/e''�•, .. � �� s.. i vM ja 7 K It t1 it j� !i �\ �•C`- \_, ' \ - -_"C�—vim 1"Y-:.=`— .. +�„�'�_Y ' �� � al I I' a 'I r 1 i :� I 'u i I r ► #i Rq it I I' Y I Z 'l I I , P� \ EY y��=,sue ,f'; N —•�4 f - J� t\ �` ' �1 �\N \� `H. _y -F f ef. Al r;z �•i Ai . �\ / i / ;tt IQ NA, f• � 1 z P a�lt I � 1 - �wava�-rontu�.-"Now \ �$yA \?• It wa � I 1; Q�I\ Ll Iry yW IIt R�,� i i 2 Ird ortavas 1191Ud3,^,Mo3 all it s---- ... i TIT n r a _ 'ems \A \I ♦1 •� ♦ ,` � 1 .l' / / Imo\ - 1• ' � � ! r- l K ?� ! x' �� �'Zt I'I fin.'; �J+' 11 _w✓ ti, Ry �' pp��� � k q � /147 ivrq � � ��� � •� �1 �J\rV� El bt _ 'C•. tL e. �a • . a,., eT 1 Lo4 S qai T.Zb SZ `T I . � „ � /`� ! ��— •�y t 1 I T4 g 1_ >n r 4 `per ZZ JL / r 7 A 1 a i A E�at. N AC \rDI��t 4�!• i ~ ` °Z WE Zv `_,^_ 1` _ ..- ` i '• I v.-- ', �1 I� 1 I :F Tln; So- r � M �1 ry `\t 1`N r ,\ ll s N •� o.{,L It lip is / \T\S`7j/��..6 -.6 ;� i � 'h� � � kl� � 1;i. v �i. _ ,! .�11 ,' `•; �L �ii ego 57Bt7130 CNro G%Iouo3S Y i Mu ' � 5 • .� �_i � 6' c.�a C° �a r4F ee gp mz x �1 CC W s a a; � a A c C j J I s �e .a sCcgib tC GG — b ~ Q tu: yVj Vb D 40 [I IxGONOO 3dVZ)SC'L?4n co o Y a o W r ----- 1 � _ _ 22 W = 1- j Vo _ o < s O m \ ! N dial � �_. � i ¢{ III • � - — � -a • I _ a1� ^ • a I • . lo I ' Ice I 3tM3A7 e� Ql781h�13Sf - '�1 • i I- � i r RESOLUTION NO. 82-93 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, f.ONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 10038 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 10088, hereinafter "Map" submitted by Nicosia, Webb and Sutter, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as 82 acres of land located generally on he northeast corner of Archibald and Carrari Street and being d- vided into 131 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on October 13, 1982; and WHEREAS, the Citv Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's reports; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Enaineering and Planning Division's reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract No. 10088 and the Map thereof: 7 (a? The tentative tract is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed general and specific plans; (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed general and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is rot likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design o` the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at larce, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. Resolution No. Page 2 (g} That this project. wili not create adverse impacts on the environment and a negative Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 10088, a copy of which is attached 'hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1. This approval shall become null and void, if the Tentative Tract Map is not an"+ nvo i a.;.1 reCO^ii�d within twenty-four (24) months of this approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. 2. Front yard setback lines shall be recorded on cul- de-sac and knuckle lots in accordance with Zoning Ordinance width requirements. 3. Reveiw and approval of dwelling units by the City shall use the "streetscape" guidelines developed by the applicant in order to create interest and variety to the community appearance. 4. The Community Trail _..j -.. ,:hibaid shall not be ® greater than twenty {2t;} feet in width as measured from the ultimate curb location. 5. The landscape accents shown on the conceptual landscape plan shall be installed and bonded for with the street improvements. 6. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer to determine if there are any active fault traces within the vicinity of the project site. If traces are found, then all dwellings for human habitation shall be setback fifty (50) feet from the fault trace. This report shall be conducted, and reviewed and approved by the City prior to approval of the final map. 7. A local interior feeder trail shall be provided along the north boundary at lot 49 and between lot 49 and 50. ENGINEERING DIVISION 8. The developer shall be required to install concrete drainage structures along Alta Loma Channel from its northerly debris basin to the proposed channel at Resolution No. C Page 3 Wilson Avenue and along the watercourse from the terminus of the proposed storm drain within the tract boundary to Alta Lora Channel. The cost of these stormdrainage systems shall be credited against the stormdrainage fee for the project and a reimbursement agreement per City Ordinance 75 will be executed to cover the contributions which exceed the fee amount. 9. The above condition shall be waived when and if an Assessment District is formed to complete the installation of an improved channel. 10. All offsite drainage easements as shown on the Tentative Map shall be recorded concurrent with or prior to recordation of the map. 11. The debris basin, diversion levee/channel and flood protection walls as shown on the Tentative flap shall be redesigned to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 12. If the ultimate design of the proposed north/south storm drain from the debris basin requires an open channel, the width of easement shall be modified to accommodate 4t. 13. All onsite stormdrainage systems shall be designed per City's standard specification with an added requirement that velocity-depth product of runoff on the street shall not exceed 6. 14. A minimum of 26-feet wide pavement within 40-foot dedicated right-of-way shall be constructed on Almond Avenue from the tract boundary to Hermosa Avenue. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS 15. The final design of the debris basin shall include appropriate safety precautions such as fencing, gates and signs. In addition, landscaping, consisting mainly of trees, shall be planted around the perimeter of the basin. 16. The design of the cul-de-= ic along lots 127-131 shall be redesigned. The r Oject shall provide a minimum of 40 feet of right-of-way and an offset cul-de-sac on the project side. The design of the C -�o Resolution No. r Page 4 L cul-de-sac snail not change the condition or access to existing properties and homes in the area unless an agreement is reached between landowners. 17. Final landscape and trail plans shall provide for screening and buffering of the lots along Archibald through the combination of such things as dense landscaping, berming and walls. Any fencing or walls along Archibald shall be with like materials whether it is installed by the developer or future i owner. 18. The oak tree near or or. lot 131 shall be preserved. 19. Final design of the access and any access barriers to the fire road alcng lots 76, 77 and 131 shall be coordinated through the City Engineer's office and between area homeowners, Fire District, and affected utility companies. Final designs shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1982. PLANNING COMMISSION 0. THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Jef r Ki-g C a n ATTE T. Secretary of the . anni 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, passe:+, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the I3th day of October, 1982, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: 5rOUT, BARKER, FcNIEL, REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KING r _ 2e 90 L Q M L q ^CO ;.y y LC ' _ O r_ a 2 \G OV' G O� Ow Fa mC C+ Q d L � L —J 9��N � O ^ q C ✓_� _C O 6 V Y.V O � � J G 4 _ — P ^— i ... TS_ M m s u L mac• i CL 4` � c $...� J` Z cx c c c _ _ Z. 42 u — - .. Pe+_` is — :. `Q� ` _ _ Go u% :rG •L.e = C" 4 L rx N N ^ yEr r VL q GO ` o c q^ ? o r yr a. Lc Lam. —E L' Mq +� tz .p.. ,L' .p.� i s ` G � '� c pa Ica v ��a q � Z M IO 2 d 7 V r� w V > O L ig GS c C yV P CL4 Y'J. Mz Zf E E G Q C C J 7 4 C O .� .`Y � y ` >O = V. � O L == 9 01 q O G �L O r r —�• 4 r n G w 4 C G y YIt, ; L r• � Yr G9J GLy ^ y �j .nl r�Q OLD y.�. T_ < r4= �L _Cu C C G.EO i V `O r ` -j L V 1Cp M {J r� GI.C.r CVO L�' O S f•q�1 _ rO L� O O T I L9 '.J4 I- V �• ` tom%.y.`i' COi � -� "' LT '•o-'� �� c_ t c.�. ea z� -o a. Jo" u G_ ec.r. Pry cG nL.- ='c v °' z � u ¢ I � rL `, > o- ,=_ I < _- c Li•_•� ac.. c� u 6 r N r L <O C L V C c V to �'? � _o Asa _•'^= .Gc. _ _ _ � �v= �L� � � � � � ^�c._ r=�� =_ c - J _ < c� pc - of o z J ?^ p u_ L h� o_ Lt -•o� o� -O .n n i ip I -� L U G __ f� r s 3 r• t .� =? -•_ p r _ __ -J.o ."cc n rl o .. c . 00 ol I`� V `. .Gi L b � C_< r O �' �_ > V r O 4 r C C C A •-i r }., �C�-�. V C V C +� � cl W _ N D Lc• G+� •:..a q � oGr �- - �• c. .- �-_ __ :' 04 c vDo F r L q 7 L r 0 i..r - _7 �<q- •= V A � i q G � � � O w �..I- C G y -G Uti r _S _ Gr Cyr 2-2 tL-r V C .ru r _ V r M i C V P � C• O u N t i< R ' r a c. C w C G r G O L U o. V6 4L 9LCr Cr yV Ly >.2 q -C r 7 r GL < � 64 - 4ri r q V =v VLGOSVL-e �_ -JC 4 O w Cq _err= C.-+ �_ ✓G� 4 D .w 'N VC- q-J v^ L r �C J L 7 V_C e--_T > ? - < D _ _• < 0-�r Ca � SNV?i PP.`.L. rwL c_p - _ .5� =C< L V O O 4 < < q Z [4i r 2- ^ •f L-.. O i<N ' C G L O . O N O L O O G �V r• < _ Dp O._OL Vq G _ - ` v " q OCS ql L= G JOC TC '� I` - o e+ C< u 4 orro `�vw o i 6 ur n •� M V w n _ � OI ] N V O .•C � J O ^.. p_ C _ O � P r_ _ r C— -. C d'� .ny OG � vL C. � C -•Q •• O u O 4 C -• L L � C -• C.0.. -' � Vi � q J C I I V V V 7L C C c C V _ � y � > _'`�•^. � U r � t _ ^l_ ... O__ _ c � I I ' I I _ C ^ god • _ _ t-: D C � � � G P .•-'r � V 'f +`,• .-� ` _._ `'uV• L � O .- O � �^ < �I ^y. � I � 4 I I U ^ 3 y•. Ln GOO i O I a'C4 d I � •-�L L l L O d C _ ���V C L V C C r^.� r �. 1 O H O 0-�-- QG � U � ^ C V Vn0 U OrV •__ _ V 9 � t�I � � _� `_ I � UGC o 2-" = oo« p « _` oc_• o � fT _ L .-•'. n a r O G V_ V L G g O v (] _ \I •a < y « OVgq VV V.0 C _ • �O« =j1 aPV V LtT -• ` nV q ti C I i I ` C «L C�t �• •n O O S r r n•- V C O - •y a O 4 _ � L q V C' - G I y. y N ^O q _ O « r C > V O _ _� C 9_= __ � .I •C < MI 11 L O i U U M .v� -s V M� CO j n N 0... L V _ G r p� G q� _ r 4 _ E y V I � < O w :J « « •. ✓:U_ V GN �ti ..0i q CM O.J.nV CI n _T I f � G -� 4 I q � 0 I N I 1 4 _ ^_ t n _ _ '^ _ j O ^l_O -- C V _-• L- a V O r O -J' � < V _ O L G] V _ __ [ _ __ U � C r _ 4V• �rV Cr`Q P �� V_ _ E �. � GC C Vty� G wQw VY _O V dv•y d C< O SV 4 O > - ^_ V v V q •r q C r d P 4 E 7 V _ L a C « 3 L Z5 c .. d c � =ru L - c-._ n.=_ _ o-I =tea GL. q •.`-. c '_ :L _ E � L < C c c C ^ •'-•`�.] •n _ < CI c �L J O q_G 7 T_ p >r • E= '•d a ` O G_ < _ C O G « C j G •C• L C 4 - q O « U G C = .0 < < .^C.. � y L r�• f 'I C 7 V C....r O j -a O � 4 G V V� _ 3 4\ Y O. '-• _ 4 G L q �a _ 4 c7 V �__ ' .-r "•] _ ..J OI —V_ L S .'n t'_ `� c V 2 u ~ L L L Q L G—\ <•< C L « G _ - C <. L_ V E t" L« y, l v V L =-J n•T •ten ^ L P_- I C 'O q _ � •. _4 U�� - •_ ' I.G.. ' Lw. «` :• rO4a0 rCr 4 � U Er_ L ' J r �..-. • l w•.O.� U V y O— tr G M V C ! 1-. ^ - e- ..� �= '' L <Cru L-UJ U.Ui LL.. !n ` � — GC �• C ~ � C rV \+I t 1 CI N /` / t L T a r �n w p O C \/ N n 7 q ✓ •n •p'. W w C C w 4 L O ,� -J d r d O j�V` T L C. V V C. ` u ✓ L �� r U J- V O T O � L" f vc `-O- �y'l.' .• Cp r✓ V.� Cn -L ..V J , I i.0 au 9C _ O c - .. O L O p .n W d J I O V T• �' a T + I ✓ J ` ✓ O _VJ V C u v V 7 -' ✓ ` y. V CcrO V� r •`I �O O✓ ` U` - CO I � .Ong CV �� NC V Vw i �= vq �✓ c� cvq .`�= 4o i ... �•- o : d I `'' t. c .,y _ .c^ L" Cn oV _ f atr - •Gld �- Ou ` `` O U c v ��. �_r O d d J r � �C l L T ✓� p✓ r.G G M I I I L= N✓ O n 4 C p r V O V ^f "�✓ V L L � M� '� (:. 0 0 n c u _ '1 l � � I ✓ .w V"' G L' V � r C n a✓ L O � J � L f ` •'f 9 p V r d ✓� I O n 9 • _L i P V_ C L •n C G "v J.- .]V G C L _I � C V j L C V Q {✓- '�y r � `�` I C V �'• L C q i� p V J ✓I ✓_ p L - _ _ a = I 1 no _ No � .. o L•` !- LL � � I I L `n _ :_ �— c _ _ _ ✓ I I o n ✓� ✓ r✓ f' 4 4I � � �_ ✓ � I G O N �! I _ u 4 DI I I ✓1 Y J ' C r c OI I I r = V _ o au vdn 72 �Zi i. I LU zv i v� _ w " oo L^ `✓ P: L > w_ ✓ u vN _ 'V I � C .n q�-• C rVn O GVC O 2.2 = I I Oin+ LFcr, t C✓ ^ P ==TC w C_C _�`r p J _ ` V J u J � r O C C` 4 �C J w w � a`.•i 4n O P V P O _ u_ u P L L » O� ICCf I ` .j n- L _ 4O _ n d i __L �LVd =� � c •Lny p�N C� v �� I C�nT V4� C � `LV ' ``� Cp 4� ✓ �V ` 'L^ q V �� 1 i�N V L C O d _ � d w� � N y'. 4 O O C C = L r.`J.O.r 2 V O �—�- C _4�• r y y ' C J � ` p y �'O,' �`/� • 2 � O I I _ j^ ^ F ✓y d ✓ q V C' L u V 6 u N C G� t IJ r O �'� � C r ✓p y V d 2 4 ) P r_ �• w 'S L I � � i T �_ n c C t L-O V✓ L U - �C '�� O N O U L Y l� C V -L V c w e c O i J a i ` - ��( E l :. r Q ; d✓` o-� i L C ` O O✓'O"O w C _4 1 I I I I C•I O O C �C r .n J '^ "f V C a g L T p_ q •n CTC „ u✓ `V7 ✓L _ I- 1 = O �.-� nC O Y4.. r.O.r �� Jam _ U _V�_e d o c r .._ o y _ L r- ['Cl V r_ = C^- ..r� �n� .nl ✓ P .0.. ��`� I I I I a C O.u.N 2 r T•- � V r`.r � N V V _ ='ad M='_' o ✓� ` c z z C c. I� ✓_ '•' G i O.� V I C .• O q V 4 r✓ � •n.Tr y - _ ti 1 ✓ _` OO 6V 6� � I \• 4I N /f ✓ � I ' w j I hi yI : ,I ,I 0 P✓ r v _ 4 C LV- �'�..' JZGr 1 � 1 daft RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION, APPROVING THE TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 10088 WHEREAS, a request has been filed for a time extension for the above-described project, pursuant to Section 1.501.83(b) of Ordinance 28-B, the Subdivision Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the above-described Tentative Tract f0038. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, has made the following findings: A. That prevailing economic conditions have caused a distressed market climate for residential projects. B. That current economic, marketing, and inventory conditions make it unreasonable to record the Tentative Tract 10088 at this time; C. That strict enforcement of the conditions of approval regarding expirations would not be consistent with the intent of the Development Code. D. That the granting of said time extension will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby grants a time extension fort Tract Applicant Expiration 10088 Nicosia 10/13/85 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L . Stout, Chairman ATTEST: ® Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary Resolution No- Page 2 r Geputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of 1, Rick Gomez, do hereby cetitify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and Rancho Cucamonga, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the regwlxrly introduced, passed, , meet* of the PlanningCommission held City of Rancho Cucamonga, a19$4�eby'the following vote-to-wit- on the 22nd day of August, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: i w CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA C,,CAMOV STAFF REPORT Cam° k C) } L'C-1 I> ter. DATE: August 22, 1984 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner IBY: Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-18 - HAIRE - A request to convert a portion of a residence into a second dwelling l unit on one acre of land in the Very Low Residential District, to be located at 5507 Canistel Avenue. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of a second dwelling unit. S. Purpose: Second dwelling unit C. Location: 5507 Canistel Avenue fD. Parcel Size: One (1) acre I E. Existina Zoninq: Very Low Residential District, less than 2 dwelling units per acre. F, Existinq Land Use: Construction of a new single family I detached dwelling unit. i G. Sur•^ounding Land Use and Zoning: Nortr - Vacant, Very Low Residential District South - single Family Detached Dwelling Unit, Very Low Residential District East - Vacant, lery Low Residential District West - Vacant, Very Low Residential District H. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Very Low Residential (Less than 2 du/ac) North - Very Low Residential (Less than 2 du/ac) South - Very Low Residential (Less than 2 du/ac) East - Very Low Residential (Less than 2 du/ac) West - Very Low Residential (Less than 2 du/ac) I. Site Characteristics: The subject property is a rectangular s ape of ocated at the end of a stub street (Canistel). This stub street will eventually continue into a recently approved residential tract (May 1984). ITEM D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Conditional Use Permit 84-18/Haire August 22, 1984 Page 2 J. Applicable Requlations: Second dwelling units are permitted subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit and the following criteria. A. The unit may be constructed as an accessory building or attached to the primary residence on a parcel in a single family residential district. B. The unit is not for sale, b t for rental purposes only or use by a member of the immediate family. C. The lot contains an existing single family detached residence, and does not contain a guest house. D. The unit does not exceed 640 square feet. E. The unit shall have a separate entrance from the main entrance. F. The unit shall provide parking and ac:ess per Chapter 17.12, except temporary removable units shall provide one off-street parking space. G. The unit construction shall conform to the site development criteria applicable to accessory buildings or additions to main residence in the base district in which the unit is located. H. The use of temporary/removable structures for a second dwelling unit shall be limited to the sole occupancy of one or two adult persons who are 60 years of age or over and related to the occupants of primary residence by blood, marriage, or adoption. Further, said structure shall be restricted to the area at the rear of the primary residence and adequately screened from public view from the street. I. The unit may require Design Review, pursuant to Section 17.06.010-E, as determined by the City Manner. J. The applicant shall submit to the Building and Safety Division written certification from the affected water and sewer district that adequate water and sewer facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed unit. For units using septic facilities allowable by the Santa Ana Regional Quality Control Board and the City, written certification of acceptablility including all supporting information shall be submitted. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Conditional Use Permit 84-18/Haire August 22, 1584 Page 3 1 II. ANALYSIS: A. General : The applicant is requesting that a poeticn of his "currently under construction" single family detached dwelling unit be used as a second dwelling unit. The unit would consist of one interior room within the single family residence. The second dwelling would be approximately 470 square feet (170 square feet less than the maximum allowed) and would be used by the applicant's mother. The unit is designed to have a s- arate entrance and an additional two (2) enclosed parking spaces would be provided. This proposed second dwelling unit meets the criteria subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. B. Environmental Assessment: The proposed project has been determined to be a categorical exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class 1) in which it is not an addition and will not have a significant affect on the environment and which shall, therefore, be exempt from the provisions of CEQA. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The proposed project is consistent with the Development Code and General Plan_ The proposed use, together with the recommended conditions of approval, will not be detrimental to the public health or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. 2 IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This iten has been advertised as a public hearing in The Daily Report newspaper, the property posted, and notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. To date, no correspondence has been received either for or against this project. V. RECOMINENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permi? 84-18 through adoption of the attached Resolution with Conditions. Resvectfu y submitted, c ambz it P , nner RG:DP:jr Attachments: Letter from Applicant Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan , Exhibit "C" - Elevaticns Resolution of Approval with Conditions S-3 July 5, 1984 Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga 9340 Baseline Road, Suite B Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Subject: Conditional Use Permit for a second dwelling unit to be located at 5507 Canistel. Dear Commissioners: My wife and I are purchasing a house in the Deer Creek Community. The house is currently under construct-.on. The Deer Creek Company is ccnstructing the house with modifications we requested in order to better suit our needs. This house is a multi-level house built in the tradition of Deer Creek. It will contain approximately 4800 square feet in living area and will have additional porches, patios and decks. Also, we are constructing an attached four (4) car garage. We are constructing this house with the intent of having our mother live with us. We have designed approximately 468 square feat of the basement as a small one (1) room unit with kitchen facilities. we have reviewed the ten (10) cri- teria listed in Section 17.08.030E-7 of the Code and our design complies with those requirements. we respectfully request your approval of this Conditional Use Permit so we may complete ur house as planned. Si c ly, / /tom--✓ £f ey T. Haire 10y INDEX MAP SHEET 5 OF 5 BOOK 201 -Rancho Cucomongo City ,37 - - - -., .� ` - - 135, J z it— I i 19 Asses:or•s inde Book 201 Son Bernardino 1'om CITY OF LTE`t 1- C- U P RANCHO C:CAN'IONGA TrrLE: Lo CA T i ot-A PL AI NNING DIi'LSiON EXHli'iIT= it • tt SCALE=t�loT TO�en' Y 250.64! O H _ i ht' O R �R p O c 0 N - b J - _ _ l 250.64' t'RDFbS�� SCGO;`� ^ f_lN1T NORTH CITY OF rreN1- C'_t 1P RANCHO CL;CANIONGA -nTLE: " � PLANNING DYVEON EXH3F`M �� SCALE---LT To �L-e s Q �b - �iQ EM sm V :NORTH ® CITY OF rrEM: RANCHO CUCA.NL IO\"GA 'rJ-fu: F-VOnohi PLrN7\11\G DIVLSON LYEi?Brr: n n SOXL£=lrze s_ zn E_ u�. 1.. •,a i y „•f ti t ,- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-18 FOR A SECOND DWELLING UNIT LOCATED AT 5507 CANISTEL AVENUE IN T16E VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 13th day of July, 1984, a complete application was filed by Jeffrey T. Haire for review of the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of August, 1984, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 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 ce.n be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 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. 3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the en•jircnment and is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 84-18 is approved subject to the following conditions: PLANNING DIVISION: I. The unit is not for sale, but for rental purposes only, or use by a member of the imrediate family. Resolution No. Conditional Use Permit 84-18 Page 2 2. The applicant shall submit to the Building and Safety Division written certification from the affected water and serer district that adequate water and sewer facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed unit prior to occupancy of the second dwelling unit. For units using septic facilities allowable by the Santa Ana Regional Quality Control Board and the City, written certification of acceptability inc:uding all supportive information shall be submitted prior to occupancy of the second dwelling unit. APPROVED AND .ADOPTED THIS 22nd DAY OF AUGUST, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY• Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST• Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, da hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of August, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA wCAMOj STAFF REPORT z UL_ > DATE: August 22, 1984 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Linda ^u. Daniels, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-09 - ISHII CHURCH OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS - The development of a square foot building for a church and meeting hall and a 336 square foot storage facility on 7.74 acres of land in the Very Low and Low District (Etiwanda Specific Plan) located at 6829 Etiwanda Avenue, north of Victoria Avenue - APN 227-06-65 and 23. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of a precise site plan and architectural design, and issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Purpose: Construction of a 25,000 sq. ft. church building and meeting hall. C. Location: The east side of Etiwanda Avenue and north of Victoria Avenue (6829 Etiwanda Avenue). D. Parcel Size: 7.74 acres. E. Existing Zonina: Very Low and Low Residential District Etiwanda Specific Plan) . F. Existing Land Use: Vacant. G. Surrounding Land Use and Zonin North - gingle Family Homes, fiery Low Residential. South - Single Family Homes, Very Low Residential, and Junior High School. East - Single Family Homes, Very Low and Low Residential. West - Single Family Homes, Very Low and Low Residential . 4. General Plan Designations: 'Project Site - Very Low and Law Residential . North - Very Low Residential. South - Very Low Residential and Junior High School. East - Very Low and Low Residential . West - Very Low and Low 4esidential . ITEM E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Environmental Assessment and CUP 84-09 August 22, 1984 Page 2 I. Site Characteristics: The property is currently vacant and slopes to the south. There are some existing Eucalyptus windrows at the north end of the site and also in the center of the site. Ground cover is limited to weeds and grasses. II. ANALYSIS: A. General: The major issues were to design the church and site plan to meet the intent of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and to be compatible with the adjacent residences. Through the review process many changes have occurred to both the site design and to the architecture design. The overall development is for a 25,000 sq. ft. church and meeting hall with 357 fixed seats. Also proposed is an outdoor storage and restroom facility and two baseball fields. A total of 219 parking stalls are being provided. Some of the Eucalyptus windrow groupings are being removed in order to facilitate the development of the church and recreational tields. These windrow plantings will be replaced in accordance with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. In order to meet Fire Department access requirements, a secondary emergency access has been provided from the site to Victoria Avenue. This access point will be gated and only used approximately ten times per year. To insure this, a lacked gate is being proposed at the exit. The project also proposes an outdoor storage/restroom bulding along the north property line. The design of this building has not been submitted with this application. To insure architectural compatibility it is recommended that elevaticts of this structure be submitted to the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of permits for this accessory structure. B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee has reviewed the project and has requested several changes in such areas as (1) having the building style and design be more compatible with the existing single family homes, (2) having the roof mass be broken up through the use of dormer windows and recesses, (3) using traditional building materials as set forth in the Etiwanda Specific Plan, (4) providing a turf block area to replace the parking pavement in the area leading to Victoria Avenue, and (5) the design and height of the identification tower. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Environmental Assessment and CUP 84-09 August 22, i984 Page 3 The applicant, in addressing the above noted concerns, has i-evised the site plan and elevations. The building style has been designed to carry out more of a rustic theme which is compatible with design policies of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The roof has been broken up through the incorporation of dormer windows on t,oth the first floor as well as what could be considered the at'-ic area. The building materials themselves have been modified to include wood siding and fieldstone (river rock). River rock will also be used for low garden walls and in the landscaped area. The last two concerns have not been entirely addressed in the site plan by the applicant. The applicant has indicated, however, that they will meet these concerns of the Committee. Resolution with conditions pertaining to the turf block, in the Panhandle area leading to Victoria Avenue and the further review of the tower have been included for your consideration. The applicant has also - provided a revised color board, with roof sample, which they feel is consistent with the requested design changes. Of particular concern to the Design Review ® Committee was the roof material sample. The applicant has ® submitted a roof material sample and both this and the material board will be available at the Planning Commission meeting for review. C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee reviewed the project and determined that with the recommended special and standard Conditions of Approval the project is consistent with applicable standards and ordinances. The Committee did comment that there is no existing sewer line in the area where the church is being proposed. D. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Stud:' has been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed the Environmental Checklist and has found no significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of this project. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The proposed use is compatible with the Very Low and Low Residential district requirements. The project design, together with the recommended Conditions of Approval, is consistent with the objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, Development Code and General Pian. In addition, the project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Environmental Assessment and CUP 84-09 August 22, 1984 Page 4 IV. CORRES?ONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The Dail Report newspaper and notices were sent to all property owners within 100 feet of the subject site. In addition, public hear`,ng posters were posted on the subject property and surrounding property. To date no correspondence, or verbal contact, has been received either for or against this project. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commissicn issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the attached Resolution and r of Approval pertaining to the project. Romitted, R citRG: Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map, Etiwanda Specific Plan Exhibit "B" - Detailed Site Plan I Exhibit "C" - Landscape Site Plan Exhibit "D" - Grading Plan Exhibit "E" - Building Elevations Initial Study, Part I Resolution with Conditions of Approval � y } P .Wean Want r Y . Y L R, a Lt « Ll tip.. I � � `• ]�t y I ® _ Zj— i II I 1- NORTH CITY OF RANCHO CUCA1/jO.N �/k ITEM-. ,v 84-09 1TLE:_S17� FLAN PLANNING QIVLSION G\IHI3IT: a v SCA i -- �_ 'LE I__ Jill _ NJRTH C!TY OF ITEM: CUP j'4"Q'9 R '�C�iO �,L�\'i0\G TITLE: Las r+g ri PLANNING DIVL�ION E\IiMIT: u4-SCALE- h 4 4 <o BRIM +fir . _ I. i t CONCEPTUAL GRADNG PLAN 1 t Y ` •� ;fit ;�-;;�=.�=>r• 'j.,�•�� _---=_------- - :� .—,�•, �.����:�i Fes. —�� .� . !- :s: _ r=—_'i� '.•�_ j_..C—�� 4 V NORTH CITY OF I? EMI: GUR N-M RANCHO CUC kNIONGA PLANNING DIVISION EXf'.IBrr- vDp SCkLE- •.� -A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant EnvirOrLmental Assessment Review Fee: $87. 00 For all protects reauiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review• CO--mittee through the department where the project application is made. Unon receipt of this application, the Enviroruaental 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 heara. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The Project will have no signi- f1cant 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 infor:aation report should be supplied by the applicant giving further informa- tion concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: mon_qa 7 r ,r Cuca 4 4 ardc 11 'and rat'fcfn'-. c 23ks i APPLICANTS NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Ronald S. Ishii 777 Brea Canyon i2oad. �/alnut. C A 9.7136, (714) 594-7779 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CCNCEPUNING THIS PROJECT: Same as Applicant LOCATION OF PROJECT (STR—=T ADDRESS AND ASS.`SSOR_-PA_RCEL 140.) 6929 Etiwanda Avenue. Etiwanda S Nlaop Book 227. Page 6. Lq7. 05 S 23 San Bernardino Count . LIST OTHER PERMI^_S NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSJING SUC:-? PERMITS: H�oa-tmPnr F're Oepartment I-1 r, PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Proposed one Gtory. rhtirrh snri cma11 grorage and restroom facility with future recreational park to the mir- ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: PrnRosed 25.000 grl_ ft chnrrh PF 135 sn Fr storage and Restroom to be sited on s_as arres with fnrtrre =rea-;nnnq f .n;H•� g 3.89 acres. DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORNIP.TION 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) : A vacant lot of 7.74 ac-es. fairer fear alnpinp a nrly •n +tiP c,.,;L, T s i61 mature windrows of E rcalyptrrc rPPs Pinrg thp mnrth p-npur* anw d- or, zhri,..9a the re r r pf h gi P iwyn Jn nvPnr P is rn the -rPw with irg etnn. rrrhs and mature nalm rrpes Victnria t1..en: p 7+ rn th- cnurb or-eswrl via a small riff• .ride Int_ i ns rptirnc A renrre and 1 arrera c;trPer rfPar: P-nrl nr the Pagr P—nnpc r•* Una- SinniP family hamec prPgPnrly sur—und tho girP nn all ciAee anri ar-rncs Ftiwand^ Av nu F iwand^ In PrmPrli^te Rrhnnl ig lnnarPrl nnrnsc V;rtnria rn the south of the site_ 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? No. I-2 ` • i WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO x 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? x 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? X_ 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc. ) ? X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X S. Remove any existing trees? How many? 200 X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flar:mables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: --All existing glue gum Eucalyptus trees will be replaced by a cfeanmr variptg nF Rl rp'r Sc ly s� recommended by the specific pier,. IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the formm on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date /¢ Signature Title Architect 1-3 ® RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSi..N APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-09 FOR A CHURCH FACILITY AND MEETING HALL LOCATED NORTH OF VICTORIA AVENUE ON THE EAST SIDE OF ETIWASDA AVENUE IN THE VERY LOW AND LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS, on the 17th day of May, 1984, a complete application was filed by Ronald Ishii and Associates for review of the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of August, 1984, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 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 in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. w 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, wil', not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the p-oposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the Development Code. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse 4mpacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on August 22, 1984. SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 84-09 is approved subject to the following conditions: PLANNING 1. Prior to issuance of permits for the accessory storage/restroom facility elevation plans shall be submitted to staff for review to insure con-istency of architecture with the main church facility. 2. The proposed location of the tower is approved, however, the design and height of the tower must be approved by the Design Review Committee prior to its construction. C -OJ Resolution No. CUP 84-09 - Church of Latter Day Saints Page 2 3. The row of parking spaces on the east side of the sixty foot wide parcel leading to Victoria Avenue shall be replaced with turf block material. 4. The access leading from the main development to Victoria Avenue shall be used for emergency access and also as a secondary access for the church not to be used more than ten times per year. A locking gate, with a "Knox box" for Fire Department purposes, is required at this secondary access point. 5. The existing windrow in the vacant site to the east shz11 not be removed until such time as improvements occur on the site. 6. New windrow plantings shall be done in accordance with the requirements of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. 7. Provide a minimum five foot bench at the top of slope at the northerly property line to be used as a planting area to help reestablish the windrow plan•:ing. r ENGINEERING i S. The existing curb on Etiwanda Avenue shall be removed and replaced with a special designed curb in accordance with the Etiwanda Specific Plan standards. The curb shall be of river rock or some other type as determined by the City Engineer and City Planner. 9. Victoria Aven .r: shall be widened with A.C. pavement and berm along its northerly edge to facilitate drainage of the site from the tract boundary to east of Pecan Avenue as shown on the grading plan. The cost of reconstructing those portions of the street east of Pecan Avenue will be reimbursed by the City. 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a lot line merger shall be recorded to eliminate the line through the project site. Resolution No. CUP 84-09 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of August, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: /s ' L= 4 QCVG GOn 1] G� � YCw. = P _ OVr . O L O l "• `�y - L^_V O ^ l > G G O D C j r c C G G O GSa OyO Vim - n_ a� r�nG =O �l > u ?a Lv vc L u— — ✓' _ nCo .. Vr `L L oc _�+•'.• o _ q U _o�✓ o i c c= = e o N �_ c^.N. c � `" N +fi r �= L✓ o> L`O � •� C'G' r O C 6^ G O q C' ✓6 L y 7 r O d E 7 6 p p` 6 r c_L.r _ nq u'�, n -' - � o_q ✓ ✓ L � � ur y < T O v m - _.G - c 6 P c ✓� J _T V L. L � c V d i t T cr ac ` VEC� b ` LUL Vc .ro. � � ✓ n� o `�✓ O V O V a� .^ > n - L L� V c U V c V A N C--. d A C e �G Ci rO,. n-' T�._" � OuU.^ jt^ '� n0 � __ c_ uTO n_✓ S V ^ Y CV -9 _r Onu qOO ` Tr4 Oq ' L wiV4 rr C� -• v' 3 „v_T V G GJ V� v v O ti n O L _q I S G L O' L^_. O d� ara�.N..N.3^= G Vr V G V..r a .•V.` C�. 00 > q n t°• C V ^- ri✓,.o C _Ll✓ }rr nN ad O G1E -Gf V (iN^C _ V `C�L.. O� 6 C O.L.r`rw GSNJ „ � V +.Vi � V� EEd r0 nc9e ✓ ->�9.Cr =00uq V -LV � Y fI aN CLV = OV✓✓� O 9 N� Y i✓ L G n q GO Ll V .- G... _�L '> C�� G..� d g G V 'N C O �= ✓ Now Vu �^ �o N ._ Ga ,•, uo _ _eN et 6gV> l G < Or Gp� V CLO U'.Ln r gGLr Q ^-J Z, q L P G N u ✓ G N ee�� w r e ^- .-i NUr U .0. Ni - 9qU jOnC ON_ �G ^� afJ .-.ur � VG �O q _C r✓ U q Vr' C E - ✓v+r VQ � SON L66 ON o' T n"' O V= ' r^ 1����r0 lO�� q LL d✓� n9� PGF Tr� Jrr GG� ^ Li L d n0 N N f J •V q )� N L L`O p 7 0 rr L r C T✓Y y V'- 6 O rr p Q i q _+ � N 0 7 0 6 r r • O • Grr � G - nn✓ F SOP ^ Orr! rbYL \ G qr O N G 4< rUi N C O'Ln O 0 O aUi 0 > u c 4 E Q^ N L c.� 3VOL > GLcc" E �O brN+a .Jio a ayV > ^ qP O NG 7 U +� N�4Z.. oy__ a-� ✓� q^ ., r N>r N d ✓`-P L 6r q6V > N SC Or rL-. O�yr CY.-... ^ NULL OrrC ro � O� 5nC'_ O 0 b c .o+�aec% L o0 = � r0i L ^✓ tn6 0 N ! O ^ O g N 9 G N E y r � ��� � N✓O y d > Ll^Nr 5 O 1 j �t Oar q`r.N i ^ V G > N J N V V e > n V o I � zc pZ d V d O d O_✓ rr� �^ -✓ ` o � � V ✓ O r � q U L A N ay V V✓� J J� O � yDyq �O rNpGL^=0V ��} J O Q V 6 V M r r O�=- r• q O V 4 � � � V G V ` �✓ nV^ y P �K ZI `MCI ✓ 0 � V.�.. ¢ i L6 + PO T. T. p� V�=II1 ~ � 6qL G q �M C� ynga TqN O r V P ✓ L ^� g C V p G G a T � � Y V ,� �� p O n"1 ✓ C o• Y L V V O O� � q G � V�q✓ V V V C J L P L d O l L r G d L _ V t 6rr C 6 �L O�� F �V V•' _ .. __ Ns✓r VC94 Pb ra. i _ _L C > P O�• n O r C L-a �'W a b a O N T �O� L a O a V C O Oq O.- �u• � C •• V �4-��- 0 CV 9 ` P = q L9 V o�� O r n` V O V i` .V` a✓ n q (l 4� C e p .uG� N�u rr V dr� ✓O _ wN ✓ POq ' L y76 O P99T O�� O e�O �� 4yC COpp q� N •Or. VP O O'` d 4� 4CYnLlI TCCMY� 4r ON' y-� +-�aa Z u G S n 0 0 6 .•• l q L G I_ _ ! n > n C q 4 V- Oy r O 4 of� aTa•. m GO =may -L•_ C- V "' T V r n✓ E •n c _ J= y a c O C p�•C q O n O -r O q l � G Y V r O Y P C b OI n = L O✓9 ^ Q _ _ - C O • I v�V9 Vn' LCCn9 7r��_C9� T � � b '� Vr-J ?=r GCra �EV4n ��OL T_ di_ YV✓ +✓i .cp 'EL aiw uF.']y.. nTp C •� 9 C O` .puE LVP� nG G t jrw0 •nr W q Cr aJw '�b VV NyiC _TC6 yy0 y✓ _fp SOT y� �. � �✓_-..✓ -J. dV •n _4 _Y .ey1 n d C�` V' A� LH^ E 'DV. .up p� C06 C9 0✓ q fj yLl 9w ACT LJ.�✓✓TVF• 9N N 'Cilq P� �pN • Yi � �N ✓ JT Q � ^ V .ui. u4c.00 _dt0 NST yL Vim_ c= C� 4� .crLn EVE ur Ni r a�O C 9 S` .�O n C b T✓ O✓ a .v y V 4 =E =0 0 P.ur O Q L r`.J G�CJ �wu� LT�m u'ao P ,.'+.n. �'o coo✓ ._ `�<..� o+�aLl u V•n9 NOq VIL" d_G 4P^=� } VV C•O+ Lu .ii.L �9q0 OgCr y�OC •=n-9 r. V O O 4'� O {w>_...• b C^ J 7•L...C l C c�� w d y) '�Y d 9 q p r p 04ugC V�9-�dli`r CCpC >. C VgrC C« dlsc G G g7 �Cl Y 4✓ 67 � 4PF� - �` a OC v9i �� iC 0- 04r� 0�9�4I✓N >•49 >py VL- .Lar ri uq d 4 EGL O rC . tC� uFa yyF pn n ft VV V 6�rnM - p Wr^ O b C �• N f'y Yf �O f N + 1 O.L' ✓ f•C 4 T? r 9 S t T T r O ✓4 C b M 4 T L' 4 J 4 T C `__ a O c Vy Uq �9-_ LO - 6U2 9q C wrV E- C`r� G6w= >M q E 1:5 S9 rJ 6N V .L... •-i. `✓ ^_E l T__ fEOC. r 4C M w 6 r C € V LV L 9 I C I a < VC^'• pVr .O yFl 4 � r d� T. OyE �= v - �= ✓'>O. Y�rc __ �-- L �.J LJ, 4q Ed Cr V O yPY r � ^� Nip 9r� •nL C� 69 M �� G C q C C E T N OV aCq q_ V aQ �_ _ CT �N QO9G VC�Ny •V..=CiOI Prr� p L ✓ O J a O O C r ~��.y..a O a V O C T w e C n p g O H L V 9 •Li.Y r_ _ L r, O r w V r• C V 4 L u y • .-.. 0 4'• 9 C V V ✓ p O T L -- j Z0 =q' C q _a O�V 6 �WC CN u >a p O V N}' c^ u Q q . •^�L q ¢ 4 O O e s q �' O `^E > YO C9 9 WC� C TypPu > L C CQ > OOr GO .OiG _ L O q �4 0 >•V• C O C 9^ C b C G�. 9 N C L�r y N� P L 4 n u O O > „ 9 i V J G•_ • _ I 7 4 o a 4 G 6C V - F g 7 C ..r_ • O O V �GrN �y E C i9 _ CiL V'�' c✓p '• ucFi pC _ - c - o � o 'c`ic✓nZ o' cc -_ �� c '^rya cLL r � r pJ O O ✓ O w C T- �C l U✓ C V 0 9 i ` V O L '.O� 9 y�W � YC 97S..a EYC � _Jr6 Vi-r_y.r 9-` cOC 'rOr pr T 9 uC Y 'n • CO q =C G ^ u ` pP¢' T P- NV G - _ qu - V E n V C r o a 9 �`• C T > O q u p c w w G C I. P 9 L a y ` J 9 ._i.✓ O V._ = p 2 V C✓CC r�Jr_ l� LVO ^� q0-•. T� pd% VO. VLu .Cn VOO.� Eo CbnL O �L nCi 6-•nD N9A LV ✓rO pV !r P-� �rY •J'.Cq r�q< 96 6 (r6p Iz m P r r ^ r/7 O V G � C L P V P •i a 9� _ xj _ PGC VC uG TVOD G dp 4To N•J YO � n�4 i J C ���_ C U V p P r w b a q ai y b a •l J V �P l mVV �•. r L Cq4 M V } • pCs YN 3L L t N r 7 q + b q L u C 7 G �n O V q •J G ` O. `1 f __v •n V L L C r .n P•• O _ O LG p •Or y V f VI v•O.. l CO 9 NO �OT N q9 E O C d N—V pt G� �� .r0 . 0� �9 Lr S C � C •j C� q 4C_ > V p•-qU —23 r O•� L C — —�C LJ — f q P dq V •a— O V r V V l >� > +s — N q a >.rCL _ 6 Vf Pp _L arN C9 9NdN lPP 7 > Q —�— — C7 Vd q q L V •�•;� < 4 p C C S •n O C 7 V �C•O w y q S O•... O C g V u 9r y L q O y.� L q 9L C d N 4 =rc i9r .` ye� 'J _ ..cyg4 Ye J •"..L. E C t N L c � uLr9 r00 On4 � 00 PVo C LL dN J• v L u _ _ — Or O. r0= p T _ L •La i _r L V N •_f N '• S r M L V ?a Pa •� 4 S q •� E N N O C L 6Tj >' S q V L C Y L V O p C L O tz .2 d 92 a•Y y y V n L = W 0 1 r t 6y V YVPNNN LL „ 9 NY =4Pr ` Cq G� •Ju P V N✓ rL >C Cp.L...� P ��c apL Pw MS VL yi to u•Cr O � 'LC q�r „y' U CL pw N i.wa Ld g 9P�gT .l C ..9..r� L 9 N•. C q j Cl q 9 � `• -J —C V O �r 2 C `p0 •a p �SG � � N.•' Yd � N T 9 6 [G1:To=00 nL. ]� N c •• �w c c �• 'n w •O c �39^ E c o ^ L •nNNCr � S� qC bO TPpyr ��+1.4.. P •� y Y q90 q�rCU ��`ur NO _ _ —r .N.q r LNC i0 r r wq �qr PY ✓vVV NL VS O C O ` L. ZNNYI u P rr OVr .ter 7 — C `Vbr V 9 C 4 cc IT 6N S� G4 <S� pG 6V �rOn aN �Np U.i+ N N y � Or ,JtLa— ti4Cw' N L ! Y � d Q Y Py OCl L� 6 C NIY � w pM6 9N OdC � —Ll QLYp qY O •n 2 L 6 V O i L L Y w L V w J� N p �+•.��/ C C P Y L q ..� y 6 N Y � L N Y O V . C V O_ $- Niay N� 1.2 d Pp p- C'J Kd r O V >q T� - LO rL 6p J.Ln ���q= Lr9 • Lr qV t u �• a� 7M 4j, � NNr O OiC L C qC V S J V S in C N r qV �r g�pq Cs 'e-!V V C C L q > 6 L S P N r N q t •Y P y`r >r r w �..' N w•. q T L 9 V` Sys s6 , ^ .4 L� r CC VC V p wVr = C VrJ-pO Pq y1[ O.N C.� CII �� V C �9 NN� L b- �upO� L � NL YqO N n ✓O N O` S 0 C L V _ '9: arc c __rf G� c _ ccPrn cN ` -' .•�.. d`o c u r C '" �.o_ �� q `,N,� yr cr 9.r.'N• '^ o c.2 q�ri <' �•' � i nL � +I _ 4od rJ: wm •"� .o. 4R NNq P. a �_ °� G'^ wo P T' O v .O. J V r d p y. O•�„� y`C O ie Y L� .. c y o c� Nr 4ecY _ r-• oP i = c� �F` ^'N 9 3 V q �` pC.. iry 6N JV V`v N ..� C•' V `^c ..• •. V.. � .L OLp N • L I �_ w < O ^_r r� V o r 4 9 w� —�a_ O u l N l l C V P u y•• 4 ` O• G� V O L F L C i M L _ ••. Y 69 w F•pN 6V 69 - ON a C 6 6 vYUJi04I N— NqN t M V q J 3N0 HNZ ` �^ - c c- - osdrG a' w eb c 2 w Gwd O on•r6 �� � d � oio OG 'n = E o W� r ✓ O t_] GVC •a VJ[Y K Y n• V .n r= - f GV- l O WI cn •n'�• _.L.Np�I c � � o a.� va g Q 4 ayi9� c c o_ v�. sue,• c •°wwN c or,. L.L. � c qnj a O ` n� y � moo' •ao " r�� a r— nb = c — y q< qo ,• C p- ✓r N_ l r O y w r m y N Q 0 q N_ L .• '9 0 �y_iI� J E p a-' L � a i V � y'a Lw, P N p q > 6I ` � Vq �L OTC 9 ` G a .• ` C Op •L•••VJ pC rC C_c L 9 d �r ✓ � d@ &Z Z$ 2<Oi�-• CqV=d 9 dV > >9 E� _� 'aV V6l r10 - ¢ _ cL �...ua.+s .a Ga_ to mar '� =' .'-� �•'• o` r�q �raa o� �G q L�rJG �y ? Gr = J r _ al T'= ✓<'"n �.• O 'a r q qL..• V ...y-JV O' U O p4 TLY N f- p= JL jOCu rC O t q V g o r 5 G G'-p.GJ' V N C N w O 9 >• V V L V ✓ E N•..�^__ J 4 M .- O a •a e 4 G W �C L O u O p •`a=<OiN •^ F V W�' r9 M= V a pV - S: C O j �� V y- t✓ V L C: N � q „y 6 O H� _ •^� Tr `NL C w Tc ✓ lI yP PCN w.a. `�J —,Y„ zI � bCuc `C I+1 _n ic '4 = uoa ob : e�r'�_ aI,N 'I OI rVW 6JGf.]1`N 6_•pa w.0 N N� pYA WwIO ulyU �6 V�J`p2 6r Y G ,., ' cz 4 �sO N �, m = t jO ✓ .L.. S O .Y O, Y .N T 9 _ G N ZZ cyETp c -LLv T `c C Z' q C w rYi 6 d H - b F J V q V O c V t W i O L a C' N V 9 w�. N 3 r^ G V V c p O_ ` � ✓W � =S r O � O V G C 4 LV L � d OrJ G P `4✓•W.r V 6 O V � ` � l 0� L l N p t L d M V q r V d L •T 9 V _N 7 N Y t r .w N q V q d C C c p - c= C' � G sri QUJ <-.'� y V` QVrJ L i aouCC NO✓ P w � O LO VOq r p VVVa � .i ` C O N C 'a r �� O p �'•� r = �, d G w C O a S�•Wi. p 90 r L T •V _ Vr m0_r t`p'� .^LY ` 4>YO a. G✓ ...- V y= O r �� •n Gd Sr .. .rc I •n Ju L G " �. pOM %� 90 ...V 4n '� V •a _ = CI d r✓j p'o 6L-6 ya V M V q= N C C "" ✓ _ CND C6 F w= �c �_ TO.L.• .0.. 4� �� O� 2 � y uv PNO ` - a= > G ^_ V0 Obi PQ� <. YO_ a0 p�� G VC Cp �yq 'J a•v •n� L �O p 6 N m m L -... .J � � � W O V C Y d k V O. >.O 4 l I I � •,n J V O N� O t p m O V V v W W F 2 p Y✓ V r 9 R p r 6 I S r N p L p V r q P Ql F 2 r D N N c O q O D r T i 9✓ .Ni ' r L ' ' N T 4 •lam V x_ •b.. Enuc �i d G 4 s ¢ c S r '• O I F ��. �OJ TC � 6 9 CgNC. �✓ u O �" l '� E - � - �• O d O O O O IO U V I CQyn d 6 G `•Li r0. �J 7 >'rr L� W n O O vu tv v c 4V � G Gn ..mr'•' ev ' ✓ " L q N c a p o n 4 > J � I « E O u 0> a S y N c j•± ?O i - n L t � � e � cp —J_ r1n oo —� `� ✓ru r b 4N � C N t V NN •nVLJ>m ". O V� �•� VC O G9= � � � q rfT ` C « G `r lam✓ =V • Oti cr oV r dOV d •J. � r0 �� v fOSOr Ep V� 6ra ¢.• nln 6V.+ 6 .Le 60L 9L O OCq N wI��SIf L' 1 i 119 1 1 n .�, P�v " ✓vim o2ea� loo veePo« L L T i 9 L C C O O L✓l N p q C a � N� O ✓r 9 L f. C V r bl q C ��4 J 9_ L = d t E N V O b C VP e w P[V.rJV Sv e� '•VnVP pprm LqO UP•` 44 � C e G ,� BOG Nbr'^ t�O4L NLq LrSODI L•�.r '= e � .bi `•o 6 v`gm'3 �d �� dcc i'c4 �ra =a Pc e c 4—c _ v Dc� � Q.o c __ �✓ o d9root' 79 f•6 v ` �vr C• •Vi,4vOt V9D �2 C� C� _ 4 V �Oj V Fl '0� 9� Q� VOa GdOd v r ~ V NPO` 00 q6 LgNr b� Vrr ltL «`�•= P U 4 ` 9V U9 •n �N q vl0'r C�v >yL CM nd r 4 C4r VO r�° N9 O LO�� U LL `_=4✓ ` 9 Fq L N p N C � 4 'r y y •'r V�r N« G V e • .� wq Our � e O r 9 ✓ r C L C O V_ M Q n O c y C 6 O 9 C q w•4 �V 6 l � �Cj O 1'^ O C 9 « f•n V N C O 6 V d Cn � 4 Gq FOrO L � rG C VAC � � '•r G'r O d C � O✓ �MV C ��e^ V `j� V C fi g Vd PC G Dl L � nOr C ✓ nNL « ; P V « G N a4M n J C •�i• O q � V J r N P N O V « � V ni � d r V O V= P � •^� ~ P O 4 4 N 7 H V y N� < G O O P F.•� � [�m D V G O V V O P 9 Q T S� } D V C V y g � O of G N V e — L c o-- •• dr ` oA P — co l Do vo LDQ Lcvc 4 0 0 � dqw _N to 4✓ V �. 9 C I F� S.' Y� L C •1 b6� W Ny r0 qp 1 N�j Or - NO-J YJ cV 'J 7 9 _ 7_ q T d _ C _ _ J n.- 1 ` O U U " '� E O DAO pL EPi r (' Er y n P✓ ar i ou .Ld. �. c Y Yv« o ocv pc cr �r cdc a cc = t+ _ oz,- w'J' cu r Z q OAT UP Jd Pqd^VV N_ y .J - OO� PEA t• rC rW c— c d T� �vW cN o c` 6�� 6V GC Wr N� �V 3 n VO O �p '��J' GGN CM Ji O O ^ d �t C« L 000 OL Q _ LF PV V T L r y f y � O N I L I N U t. N C r y � V ��. O O• r i �'Q' l {2{ C y I N Z L� F A D O �' ! b �• q u_d y O cE � T J c I O �-.T. VOC ` ^ .y+ �t - N p'•' LE `i �a � d _ ...o` F. c rk ^ ` '64 Z7 v n o C p tA I , L 4 L e I .O• q=_ c J < cz O z e o a< Yv Y V c' y? n N O Y n� o= off Lq= 0 4 a `•" 1 Yr l v1 ^� I 1 1 P^ r Nil �,`+ 4L c m —_ �� i c_ °'� a .o• c 9YY O V L Y -j L7 y<«V 9 r q Y > a 4 y V L O y « O L •O.. V O` La L 13 'J 4 n' L n 9� •an P J Y C «� C r C G V (_OT_ ` G_ «4 o_ Y _�'9 _�• z� .N. a«i as az as` c a o l� C =W OM•i r w g � _•_.r r J w rS N 9 r e t 9 4 Y V 4 7 +� • O�. O� Y T �_ d G— C r.T• O' i 0< .+ter C i Y — V _ TlOi4 b VV It 1 L y O v G^ 7 J O J j�N d O — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �`e GLc a tir��cr STAFF REPORT �. a;r� Cjy `CY DATE: August 22, 1984 1971, TO: Chdirnan and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman., Associate Planner ! SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-13 - SYCAMORE INVESTMENTS - development of a A3,992 so. ft. commercial shopping center with retail shops, east food restaurant, and gasoline service station/convenience market, on 5.44 acres of land in the Neighborhood Commercial District located on the northeast corner of Archibald and Base Line - APN 202-1_81-27. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of site plan, elevatic•,s, and issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Purpose: Development of a shopping center. i C. Location: Northeast corne- of Archibald and Base Line (Exhibit NA" D. Parcel Size: 5.4e acres. E. Existing Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial District. F. Existinq Land Use: Vacant. G. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North - Condominiums; Medium-High Residential. South - Neighborhood Shopping Center; Neighborhood Commerciai. East - Mobile Home Park; Low-Medium Residential. West - Neighborhood Shopping Center ant Vacant; Neighborhood Commercial and Office Professional. H. General Plan Designations: roject Site - Neighborhood Comn:�rrial. North - Medium-High Residenti?i. South - Neighborhood Commercial. �ztst - Loa-Medium Residential. 'lest - Neighbcrhood Commercial and Office Professional. , ITEM PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPOR? Environmental Assessment and CUP 84-13 August 22, 1984 Page 2 I . Site Characteristics: The project site is vacant and slopes to the south at approximately a 3 tc 4% Grade. The site has been rough graded and curbs and gutter are under construction at this time. II. ANALYSIS• A. General : The applicant is proposing a hybrid between a neighborhood shopping censer and a convenience commercial cluster in that the project site is larger than 3 acres, does not contain a major supermarket, and has greater than. 30,000 square feet of lea�3ble area. Therefore, it is difficult to categorize this center or define the primary function, Based upon the variety of uses and site plan layout, the proposed project would appear to function as "strip" convenience commercia . The Opp icanl-�has indicated the following breakdown of tenant commitments: Building "A" - Retail/Office Building "B" - Del Taco Fast Food Building "C" - Stop N' Go w/Gasoline Building "D" - Retail (Cone-ptual Only) ou'lding "E" - Retail (Conceptual Onlyl S. Issues: The issues associated with this project for the Plannirg Commission's consideration are: i. Do-: the project meet the goals and objectives of the General Plan and Development Code for a commercial center? 2. Is the proposed architectural design consistent with the objectives .3f the General Plan and Deve opment Code? TFe first issue relates to site planning and the placement of the bui din s. The General Plan describes convenience commercial as "freestanding (buildings) or organized into a small cluster . , within convenient waiking distance or bike ride from the intended uses of the businesses." Therefore a pedestrian/bicycle orientation versus automobile orientation (associated with strip commercial) is encouraged. The Development Code shopping center criteria require that "vehicle and pede.._-iaa acce -s_is coordinated and logicall linked to provide a �ompre, ve clrruiati n systen." Further, the Development Code is +,;ore specific in terms of site planning and requirLi that the center be "olanrp.d as a group of orq_anized uses and structures ." The proposed site plan, Exhibit "A", indicates a combination of strip commercial (Building "A"; a:;: freestanding buildings (Buildings 1160, "C", "D", and "E") . The building locations appear disjointed and discourage pedestrian PLAINING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Environmental Assessment and CUP 84-13 August 22, 1984 Page 3 orientation due to its automobile orientation and disorganized interior circulation. Attached for your consideration are excerpts from the General Plan Community 'esign Element regarding pedestrian- oriented design elements that should be encouraged within commercial facilities. Building placement should be designed to create 3lazas and landscaped open spaces into rated with edestrian wa s and enches. rurther, bicycle storage fac> >ties show d Fe provided and relate to the future community bicycle trails along Archibald and Base Line. The second issue concerns the lack of a strong architectural eesign for the proposed project. The proposed elevations reflect minimal design quality -- buildings appear as boxes with false canopies tacked on, as shown in Exhibits "G", "H" and "I". Further, the architectural style is reminiscent oc typical Southern California shopping center design -- large stucco masses, mission' tile roof mansards and minimal wood trim. C_ Design Review Committee: The Committee recognized the difficulty of site p arming on this "L"-shaped parcel; however, expressed concern that the site plan does not meet the intent of the General Flan and Development Code to provide an organized pedestrian-oriented center. The Committee described the site plan as "fragmented" and that the five buildings appear as separate "islands". Further, the Committee felt that P,jiiding C should be reversed to screen gas pumps from the i,itersection. The Committee recommended revising the entire site plan concept to provide pedestrian orientation through c ustering buildings to create open plazas with seating areas, connecting edestrian walks and im rovin the in circa an on attern to promote edestrian access. :me revised seta p an, Exhibir "A", added texturized pedestrian crosswalks and reversed the Stop N' Go Building C. The revisions are minimal &nd do not address the issue of providing an overall pedestrian-oriented site plan. In term: of architecture, the Committee expres-sed concern that the proposed design does not meet the intent of the Gener,i Plan and Deve'wmert Code. The Committee described the architecture as routine" and that buildings appear as "boxes with tile roof tacked on". Further, the proposed cr chitecture has not been consistently used throughout. The Committee recommended redes-oqninq the entire architectural concept to provide a stronger architectural design and enhanced through extensive andscaping treatment. Again, the revised elevations are minimal and ao not address the Committee's concerns. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Environmental Assessment and CUP 84-13 August 22, 1984 Page 4 The Committee concurred with the Traffic Division's recommendation that the site plan should be revised to comply with the City's access control policies for major arterials through reducing the number of driveways and relocating certain driveways to eliminate traffic conflicts. D. Gradinq Committee: The Grading Committee was concerned with the cross-slope gradients on driveway aisles and the slope!= created as a result of providing a flat pad for Building "A". The Committee recommended that cross-slopes on driveway aisles be 4% or less, except in the case of specific corridors which do not have adjacent parking. To facilitate this, the Committee recommended that Building "A" be stepped down as much as two feet along its length. An example of this grading technique is shown in Exhibit "L". It appears that there could be a slope between the drive thru and the parking area south of Building B, with a drive corridor to the west of Buildings A & B with no adjacent parking. Therefore,. the Grading Committee did not aoorove the conceptual grading *:Ian based upon the need for these revisions. A revised grading plan, Exhibit "F", has been submitted teat addresses some of these concerns, but has not been approved by the Committee. E. Techr,i,:al Review Committee: The Cucamonga County Water District indicated that the maximum available fire flow is 2,335 gallons rer minute. However, the Foothill Fire District will require S,300 GPM fire flow. The deficiency between the available and the required fire flow may be mitigated through sprinklering of buildings, subject to negotiation with the Foothill Fire District. The Sheriff's Department was concerned that the number and location of driveway entrances would create additional traffi : hazards en Archibald and Base Line. F. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant =nd is attached for your review. Staff complet-d the Environmental Checklist, visited the site, and reviewed ':he traffic study. Based upon this review, staff teas determined that the project could have the following significant adverse environmental impact: Impact: The site plan proposes driveway �entraoces that conflict with City adopted access control policies which could result in an increase in traffic hazards. Mitigation: The site plan. ' hould be revised to eliminate and/or relocate driveways to conform to access control policies, as shown in Figure 2 of the attached staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Environmental Assessment and CUP 84-13 August 22, 1984 Pace 5 III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: In considering a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must make the findings listed in the attached Resolution. However, it is the recommendation of the Design Review Committee and staff that the proposed project does not meet these findings. Therefore, the findings listed in the attached Resolution of Denial were supported by the following facts: 1. The proposed site plan is inconsistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan regarding pedestrian/bicycle orientation, and Development Code Section 17.10.030 F5(e) requiring vehicular and pedestrian coordination. 2. The proposed site plan is inconsistent with Development code Section 17.10.030 FS(b) that requires shopping centers ;:o be "{Manned as a group of organized uses and structures". 3. The proposed site plan is inconsistent with the landscaping policies of the General Plan and Development Code Section 17.10.040 C2 and 3 requiring a certain number and location of trees within parking lots and against buildings. 4. The proposed site plan is inconsistent with Development Code Section 17.12.040 C4 requiring provision of locking bicycle facilities. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a pubiic hearing in The Daily Report newspaper, the property posted, and notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the protect site. To date, no correspondence has been received either for or against this project. V. RECOMENDATION: The Design Review Committee, Technical Reviea Committee and Staff recommend that the project be denied based upon the conflict with the intent and purpose of the General Plan and Development Code. Further, it is recommended that the Planning Commission give the applicant specific direction to revise the site plan, architecture, and grading concepts for review by the appropriate Committees -,nd be sent back to the Planning Commission for its approval. Res/pectf ly submitted, i om z Cii`y Planner ® ' RG:DC:ns � -s it PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Envircnmentai Assessment and CUP 84-13 Augusc 22, 1984 Page 6 Attac' ments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Sits Utilization Map Exhibit "C" - Radius Maps Exhibit "D" - Site Plan Exhibit "E" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "F" - Grading Plan Exhibit "G" - Building "A" Elevations Exhibit "H" - Building "B" Elevations Exhibit "I" - Building "C" Elevations Exhibit "J" - TT 11797 Elevations Exhibit "K" - Pedestrian Orientation Exhibit "L" - Grading/Landscape Examples Exhibit "M" - General Plan Access Policies Exhibit "N" - General Plan Design Policies Exhibit "O" - Development Code Design Criteria Addendum Staff Report on Access/Traffic Initial Study, Part I Resolution of Denial �r n I r� --i 1 1118 �/n!t/ v l .US ME „ UK d� n ��► malt MEN MEN ■` — ■ N aCWANE !/ N � M-M- 10� -- -- WE - nn in" r a q■■ ��■/ �111 / \ i ''..�' . .: � .• .. ... ." . y a `. _•' .' .. • ;� It �•� _�- v =n � ss i I ZZ L i NORTH CITY OF RANCHO C UCAVI0\'GA TITLE: c: PLANNING DIVISI0N EXIJIRrr= SCALE-- 12577 •� R� ^y' i �-r ;; -�i �?�;ij- � T✓ t, 3 4 A.1�� � M1 I�•' 4: �J zzsz Jj IN F; •� . k _ _E:•.: J1 .. . Lz i�• _ j �O Yg'rsaiie YcLdios N 8 ti 4 �.v's 1''2144 rd, J s ti 20 2 G-0 cLv 's NORM CITE' OF RANCHO CL'CANIO GA nnE: rm, O S _ PLANNING DIxISIQ\ EXHIBIT: C. SCALE- a l �i.-� 1 1 �• wy� w I b I I I I x j -- JCIM 7 pI'I, F.'i'�C'il 8_-•q�ll '�'_ _ —r^�..r.�% 1 ! 1 � In STDp (�' EO 4ir�s��sFrlcc- G NOUH CITY OF ITE:\I: �4-e RA \CHO CUC� NIONGA TM. PLANNING DID'I$K}\ EXHi1;IT-���_ ;GXLE: TREES M. 1 roc_ SHRUBS . L. _ � l.- ) .i ,, i C"'—'• mom,...✓ve+. ..c ae +,..... .1 _ _ .r.�. W `ten._'"•r.�:-+.�... GROUND COVER 74, +H I , I s IMswWJy —� ', I, I � Li IerlI lip. :{�iiliillf, ,llii : ll F J LIZ ____ I -it7-L:—.•.-.J ��. _..fir+ _ � _ , n�� '�. _.. — wV V NORTH 1 l CITY OF ITFA1: _ ' � !f � RANCHO CUCA'_NiO\OA TrrLE: �1�i� =Ape AAA PL.ANNI,NG DIVISION EXHIt31T SCALE t �VL, " 1.•j LL•Y r•ll L± ' I ..�. I,rs J T1T �I1y. i • Li J I, � � �s .l1 •r �t" � Z. i . ,u�{>'i I two •�_, II ' I � Z I I I ��I _; uar• ;I' iiltlr <I I Ir ICI~ U�:-���✓ - � .�. "�d�'� ``� I I'"" i /� � .�'� —FORTH CITE' OF RANCHO CUC'A`lO\G.� , ,,� PLANNING DI�'ISipv L.X141rre•—�scALE ' I FI 1 : 3{=i s � 7 ° j j lad a!b Li I• :�-��3 r � {Ff'�y jnl i _ df j I NORTH j n • i I CAA %�� . ITE\i- - i � EXHiB(f: _SCALE- a -1 ML YYM VVW\nIf ��ly'il `K Wv.. .I I 1I V W Vv� I !• �N w` �,J LR Lw�y.,L 11+W.t VVVYM r^.1. •,rvvV.... �I�, ` \\�� � �/ 191.I•µ.•�/. t'^�,iw���ll Ii'���f I� \ay.yy. i ,�- - ,rr..-.� f ✓^ T f C'tl ,c lL."S�`�III __ f. _� 5'. _� � ��- •u,..a..ro¢; L�ww.. -�r�•'r• Y_ � I!I �I I i�I I I p� LCGiNC •+�iii.v.L .i.u..a n.d '�..wY •�,n� w+mnrY.n.. c�lI I''i'{ww C� -.+�`un':\.L^..w��.L�rty tiVWVV V _ rvvw_./ 'N L.. '�,IWVVVYWa � � r.unet .'.IW.Y✓wwt fVVVW^ . .... .. ^•rn.fvvV1 ..u+L•ri�...i...•.r uftL�� • ' ro e....a Lti..aL _ 1 1LN..•�N IM/.M.� �.� •M�.jY.J .Ti r ` �4./YL`L.MlY�.b.�.•� � wN ..I YwJ/ N r v.l L�- \ IYWY�F1� -.WwWv I n(✓C�.Q'H U .tWY MI M\ �4 Ue {1?Q3 oil,0QD0: al�0eva�VIQD�7a FORTH CITY OF ITzrNI_ _ � ►� ��- 1� RA\CHO CUCA1IO. GA TITLE: PLANNING: DIVLS N EMIRIT: SCALE: •� 'STOP n Go -L 7-_+Y—. •-�i..j,.�:y-•a—v— :fir—titer-v—c-- T'-��� �' C-a-•�a�--e-v-v STOP n GO w crri�+tn EL6vs71✓1..1 y STop fl Ca0 o+�cno cucun��4c ,ch _ r A AF V -e'- NORTH ® CITE' OF ITL*%t: I ANO-1O CUCANIC#N TITLE: PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBrr: -.. _�, - -.. yam•.,_ 1 , �� J Ity Ml It P. vt En r./ '.t y.y-�'�'��I���.u'='c r - �. jt 11✓ 'lam � ±it "may -ram `r Fail i i NURTH kc n; CITY OF rrEal: RANCHO CUCAi\'IO-GA TITLE: — PLANNING DIVISION EYI3II31T:�_ SCALE, J-4 .ram_-, � _���; ,3 + ,. ._ >m ,•t s .�. .' �:. 1:;. ..Yy lA•1_�_ t yam. 1l` ! , ! r �•.. 1 Az­ MOM ! lI -'tit .:�� i���'�1� a-_ r'rv� •'1 s �.� \ 1��..I= ; , � - �� ►�- � � 1. � � ��� Y �.! �'MjYI � f C •�� � �'• � . �a. [�'i:[�fir, ..}-~.'�� '�s.'�t�I�.� �1' �. y' � -. e I ♦ t� ■. it d'Jt �11 2 Tw_ �� J yyI �I�• Y 1 �`yy. fir' •! h �.`, r t' � As li • �" r � �; � ' �, A �. C 1 � 1 a �� \ r J'; ';J21 �1 • ' I ' .•.,i , f. '�' ♦ .14 NET' _ � � .� :. � T ram:..-- _ up, <nr�iq'w4Y ti � r r �t+•p ,I,y .� '•. 1 i�,'C'. Y'..:'tr i.�s '...�� ���..��._ G _ Vie,. �i• � � �'. �'� �• �s . - � . : '� _ , . .,h� G ` Y�.q s 3 . .� 4 � fl E=11 _ / ��?i V ^r' � '�'�u 1 uv,FnJ:J ► , t. :: i- r 1 � } .^ � .. r �_ . _ - ., ..v� - =-S- T'+ „„ty, •�_ ry, _ �r.,, _ , .y'. � _^_ U yam z"�. � • � � / 1 ' � � • _ : ' ' � tl. � t �f f !! �'. �17 f. i'I �' - ' . .� ... ',. ,. .. ... �. GENERAL PLAN EXCERPTS - ACCESS CONTROL POLICIES Access o In order to insure the effectiveness and capacity of arteria!s it will be necessary to establish and enforce rigid access control policies. These controls are currentiv in 5(o effect under the provisions of Planning P Commission Resolution No. 78-29. - Non access to all arterials shall be dedi- cated to the City wherever suitable alternative access may be developed from local or coiiector streets. - Where access must be granted to an arterial, said access shall be limited to one point for 300 feet of frontage or one point per parcel with less than 300 feet of frontage. It is the intent of the pol- icy to establish a minimum 300 foot spac- ing between driveways. - Combined access to arterials between adjacent properties shall be encouraged wherever possib!e to reduce the number �7 of encroachments. - Access points shall wherever possible be located a minimum of 100 feet from the back of curb returns at intersections on 4 lane or wider highways. - where otherwise compatible with this policy, access shall be located opposite existing or planned points on the oppo- site side of the street. In addition to the: controls outlined in Planning Commission Resolution No. 78-29, restriction to median island breaks and left turn access shall be limited to approximately quarter mile spacings on the following major divided arterials: Haven Avenue, Foothill Boule- vard, Milliken Avenue, and Fourth Street. EXCERPTS FROM GE.iiEP:.L FLAN ;HAT ;ELATE TO COtSt!ERCIAL CENTER DESIGN o Neighborhood Commercial Centers shout Oe deswned as human-scale. pedestrian �• ��� oriented commercial areas. The following guidelines shou'd be tong;cored during the planning and design of centers. - Building designs should avoid expanses of blank walls. - Small, locally Owned businesses should '. be encouraged. - The streetscaoe should be designed to eric"roac pedestrian use, including such elements as small pedestrian activity areas with sun and shade, drinking fountains, benches, public telephones, trash rec•ptac!es and nc•.�;spaper stands. 4 - Criteria for selecting street furniture should include durability, ease of main- tenance, consistency of materials and colors, ease of use for the physically disabled, and aesthetics. - Paving materials should be used to reinforce the special character of the center_ Use of a different material than concrete, e.g., brick pavers or differ- ent. - Incorporated in. public spaces should be the use of natural or predominantly local landscape materials such as rock, native vegetation, vine or citrus trees. Treat- ments of concrete: e.g. aggregate, co!ar, texture or scoring, can extend into the street in the form of crosswalks and into the entrances of shops to create an overall unity. Street lighting should be varied in a similar manner at the center, and design should enhance historic communities identity. Centers should be more brightly illuminated than surrounding areas. This can be achieved by reouc- in9 the spacing between standards, adding an ade'tional fixture on each conventional standard at a lower level, or adding wall-mounted fixtures to il:uminate the facades and entries to shops. Er.ch district and neighborhood center p 162 should be developed to express the City's values concern'ng eneroy, the importance of the irdi��i0 ual, and the City's history by relying on energy- efficient, humanscale design with an historic character. i. Wr EXCERPTS FROM DEVELDPMEN7 CODE SHOPPING CENTER DESIGN CRITERIA Section 17.10.030 S. ShoDDing Centers. To ensure that the goals and policies of the Gcneral Plan are implemented, a Conditional Use Permit shall be required for shopping centers. In such a review, the following criteria shall be considered: (a) The transition from more sensitive land uses and buffering methods to miti.-ate commercial activities such as loading, lighting, and trash collection; (b) The center has been planned as a group of organized uses and structures; (c) The center is designed with one theme, with buildings and landscaping consistent in design (similar architectural style, similar exterior building materials, and a coordinated landscaping theme); �. (d) The center makes provisions for consistent maintenance, reciprocal access and reciprocal parking; (e) Vehicle and pedestrian access is coordinated and logically linked to provide a comprehensive circulation system; and (f) The development or approval of any portion of a center shall require the development of a conceptual development plan which shell consider such things as, but not limited to, circulation, uniform architectural design, drainage/grading, buffers, phased improvements and landscaping. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGk �vC-Ahro STAFF REPORT xti ' C Z DATE: August 22, 1984 1977 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul A. Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: C.U.P. 34-14 - SYCAMORE INVESTMENTS - NORTHEAST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD A7:D [3A E LINE ROAD The shopping center being proposed under the C_U.P. referenced above presents unique circulation problems worthy of special attention by the Commission. When originally submitted, the plan showed a total of nine driveways - five on Archibald and four on Base Line. A traffic study was conducted by the applicant's consultant which recommended the elimination of two driveways and strongly indicated that two more could be removed with no effect on internal circulation. The developer has proposed a center using five driveways in accordance with this. The traffic report has also examined the effect of the traffic generated by . this project upon the intersection and found that it and other pending projects in the area would not overload the intersection at this time. What the report does not fully address is the impact upon Archibald Avenue operation of the number and location of the driveways there. The City Traffic Engineering Staff recommends strongly that there should be no more than two driveways on Archibald Avenue in compliance with the Access Policy with one of them being at the far north end of the project to relieve a site design problem there. The southerly driveway should be as far north as possible to avoid intersection interference and to avoid left turn conflicts in the center turn lane. This location would also directly serve an interior traffic aisle. There is concern by the developer that a single southerly driveway would cause internal circulation blockage, however, in comparison with the need to prevent poor operation on the busy public street, such blockage is the lesser of the two evils. The anticipated driveway volumes are such that. City Staff feels that the blockage would be minimal, even during peak hours. Also, further mitigation is possible by using a wider driveway. The operation of Archiblad Avenue here will be critcai to the City's circulation. The Commission is urged to consider this in its deliberation on the shopping center's access. Increasing pressures for multiple access to serve fragmented "centers" are being experienced. These recent proposals are attempting to 'jse public streets for circulation which should be internal to a project and mist be resisted to safeguard the adopted Access Policy and to strengthen 9t on critical streets. —QI-D PLANNING COMMISION STAFF REPORT C.U.P. 84-13 - Sycamore Investments August 22, 1984 Page 2 An interesting example of the amount of access necessary to serve shoppers is found in the Regional Center, which proposes a total of only five driveway entrances. Please refer to the attached plans for a comparison of developer and staff proposals for the center in questions. Respectfully submitted, PAR:jaa Attachments a� = `' I�� ODRIVcL•7AY i I =' •�� ��_, .�r � cJ j IT, I� VC NlaCala ..uC..iT.cT �aaawT .+ao Tlraa n1+aaT TITae---`-_ 1.0.0Y011aar0 SITE PLAt' a f:<<o are ori9iaaJ ol6iP4 drilll WOV JUSTIN F. FARMER 3 TRANSPGRTATION ENGINEERS —v� v �a DRZVc:dAY 'ES _ /\ LJ ILiNni 1V.Y - _ t Ell G U I } �=_ ` , ` � . IIIii1=J � II .I'II+iII : : illiu _ 9LYStY 1'�'�9� �� ♦w� ♦�' �� •.Cw•TCCT w _ .100 TITL! tlw6CT TITL! n>.�ea.—E___�- 4LWt»T L WOYOlatWO v-a VD �_ -^ ,_ _�•..�_ .__+ I�MCMITECT FIG SITE PLAN 2 JUSTIN F. FARMER 3 TRANSPORTATION F\CI\EERS �-4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environ-*rental Assessment Review Fee: $87. 00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepares ttee will Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Commi meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the Project is to be heard. The three determinations : li Committee wall make one of The project will have no signi- ficant environmental impact and a Negative D=claration 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. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT TITLE: NEC BASELINE ROAD & ARCHIBALD AVENUE APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: SYCAMORE INVESTMENTS 4770 CAMPUS DRIVE, SUITE 220 NELvPORT BEACH IALIFORNIA 92660 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: MR. JACK TARR 4770 CAMPUS DRIVE SUITE 220 , NEWPOPP BEACH CALIFORNIA 92660 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. ) NEC BASELINE ROAD & ARCHIBALD AVENUE 0202-121-27 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS : BUILDING PERMITS - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA t, GRADING PERMIT - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH PROPOSED RETAIL, RESTAURANT, & SERVICE STATION USES AND RELATED PARKING & LANDSCAPING. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND. SQUARE FOOTAG% OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: ± 5- 44 ACRES PROJECT AREA. APPROX. 43 , 992 SQ. FT. OF PROPOSED BLDG. AREA. DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONYIENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTIIRES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) : THE SITE IS PRESENTLY VACANT WITH THE EXISTING TERRAIN SLOPING DOWN FROM SOUTH TO NORTH. NORTH OF THE SITE A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT IS UND-R CONSTRUCTION. EAST OF THE SITE EXISTS A MOBILE HOME. PARK. ACROSS BASELINE ROAD TO THE SOUTH AND ACROSS ARCHIBALD AVENUE TO THE WEST ARE EXISTING SHOPPING ' CENTERS. Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series of cu_nulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? NO. i WILL THIS PROJECT : YES NO X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration.? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc. ) ? X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X 5. Remove any existing trees? How manv? X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, fla=ables or explosives? Explanation of anv YES answers above : IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. N.A. CERTIF/CAT_ION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Development Review Conmittee. SYC;L%! 2S T'LJEST1AENTS Date _���' % Signature JACK TARR Title GENERAL PARTNER • �i RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 84-13 FOR A SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AND BASE LINE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CGMMERCIAL OIS', "CT WHEREAS, on the 9th day of July, 1984, a complete application was filed ty Sycamore Investments for review of the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of August, 1984 the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 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 cannot be net: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 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. 3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. SECTION 2: That Conditional Use Permit No. 84-13 is denied based upon the following facts: ii 1. The proposed site plan is inconsistent with the policies and t. intent of the General Plan regarding pedestrian/bicycle orientation, and Development Code Section 17.10.030 F5(e) requiring vehicular and pedestrian coordination. r<r 2. The proposed site plan is inconsistent with Development Cade t, Section 17.10.030 F5(b) that requires shopping centers to be "planned as a group of organized uses and structures". 3. The proposed architecture is inconsistent with the intent and purpose of Development Code Section 17.10.060 C2(a) requiring a recognizable desian theme that is harmonious to surrounding developments. r. Resolution No. Page 4. The proposed site plan is inconsistent with the landscaping policies of the General Plan and Development Code Section 17.10.040 C2 and 3 requiring a certain number and location of trees within parking lots and against buildings. 5. The proposed site plan is inconsistent with Development Code Section 17.12.040 C4 requiring provision of locking bicycle facilities. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of August, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ;} .. `� _? � O CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA G�Cwn-roti STAFF REPORT DATE: August 22, 1984 UI 7 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall , Engineering Technician SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8648 - LI14COLN PROPERTY OMPANY - A division of _ 1 acres into 3 parcels with the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial Area (Subarea 9), located on the northwest corner of Rochester Avenue and 8th Street - APN 229-111-8,9 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of Parcel Map. ® B. Purpose: To divide 22.41 acres of land into 3 parcels for the dev�Pment of three warehouse buildings approved by the Planning Commission on April 25, 1984 as D. R_ 84-02. C. Location: West side of Rochester Avenue, north of 8th Stre=_t. D_ Parcel Size: Parcel 1 - 8.04 acres Parcel 2 - 7.14 acres Parcel 3 - 7.23 acres TOTAL nacres E. Existing Zoning: Minimum Impact, Heavy Industrial (Subarea 9) . F. Existing Land Use: Vacant. . G. Surrounding Land Use: ' North - Vacant parcel , zoned Heavy industrial (Subarea 9) South - A.T.&S.F. Railroad Corridor East - Vacant parcel , zoned Heavy Industrial (Subarea 9) West - Vacant parcel, zoned Heavy Industrial (Subarea 9) H. Surroanding General Plan and Development Code Designations: North - Minimum Impact, Heavy Industrial South - Minimum Impact, Heavy Industrial East - Minimum Impact, Heavy Industrial West - Minimum Impact, Heavy Industrial _.f ITEM G PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 8648 August 22, 1984 Page 2 I. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant, sloping approximately 1.50. in a north/south direction. There are no existing structures located on the site and improvements do not exist. II. ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting the division of 22.41 acres into 3 parceis for the development of three warehcuse buildings. The development was approved by Planning Commission on April 25, 1984 as D. R. 84-02. Rochester Avenue will be constructed at the time of building permit issuance. The proposed cul-de-sac street located on the west parcel map boundary will provide future access to Parcel 3 from the proposed extension of Jersey Blvd. as shown on Subarea 9 Map of Industrial Area Specific Plan. At this time an easement for ingress and egress to Parcel 3 from Rochester Avenue is being provided on the Map. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Also attached for your review and consideration is Part I of the Initial Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study, the environmental checklist, and has conducted a field investigation. Upon completion and review of the Initial Study and field investigation, Staff found no adverse impacts on the environment as a result of the proposed subdivision. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. Posting at the site has also been completed. V. = _ !ENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider a17 inp_ut___a_nT elements of the project. If, after such consideration, the Commission can support the recommended conditions of approval as written in the City Engineer's Report, then adoption of the attached resolution would be appropriate. It is also recommended that a Negative Declaration be issued. Respec fully submit t 9d, LBH:BK:jaa% Attachments: Map - Tentative & Vicinity Resolution City Engineer's Report Initial Study e � ; 0 off. ^ ` . .� i� ; uc ; � c 4♦iY :L.`� , �WW ; ^(^ yiyu �! s•= ^.� SCj` i YIrLy^. u$��a alir•- yam _ $ I � � � I'I f!I a=aS�L:�z �Z��r; _ yyyyyy O I'ryryl 41 oz b ate., i• i�..� _ — j - r.A�)RV�� b .L fY CY.J•OL A Ol..w n._m. E I . '• •.�1 1• , ` < '. -� ... •~ t• I , /� v Q '• uIII ,•� -'• e \ III J'1`rIT j Jam 00!Y1 1- III ,a h. .. I 3 I i r 'T• 8��!�' w,Y..a CLL v III ♦ I r I I�Io I �I^�i e';s u`�l dO III � x I Illi ' 1 �91 z �1.. �• '.III I = � l y �� :,., ' - c� III NCI Ili; .<Eszi G �r3 �. - . iljza i ar 'u! a� •I vI I I!�� _ 1 a¢ � iII: ` •' S: I` Iel I - - fLTcc W Cw< ILL" !1 e C. 1 !s l I i• G meu.a..x»oa .. a.vae..l ,•\�. � �,•. `.. I I i — 1. GL 611.]�YJ[3.IMGt JMYYI'Ya.n 1h _-II•^ .'i al� , S OJ Sf �Z4 1C s LL ^C - a w w e w w thT{ pin ON } m �ffffjjj( '�! -F L c+ +V LL+ } e '• u N r O 'k CP, F} + m � e , + 3 • w++--tom++ +++++� } am � 000-!•1-%�nnnn _ c ng c � c V Vm O O Y F m .. •Ci� + b� F „o O}7 O O g� C D LJ S hh E o m 1 r • � } 00� a o c E 3 m } c i c o c9 b c ' ••1 � V V � O. b O � O o c a >a o m o w a n t I } C !-- � s aw • n'w ci es anon iro 0 1 DO ML m O q om 4V �:lu Q Z m Q r 4 •;i.5...tL.t,''rJ¢¢ �, f .7C �1 1 w,, i 4i ..� � - I, �,c°, - F'�. •+" ' ` �:-;:a� A��},.�.ijlf,�.�.,E'�- Jf•�{N1tfi '� �• �' ���{p�,t_S ! , ^<.,� � g. ^.���'' - '.� .._:-'Nit: 'C!'�.:�7,eF � �}� V� 1� ��. 4 f!: r� `�• "�.F• _•nc O' •�{i_:O'v '� { f t 1 . . 4 7 SN` i v' .! i. • �l Tye , k �. m ,, �� � 7� _'�; f' I+�1 ' Y ' Qa 1-, L1 3 1�! tni c: t� 1 �a• �' y . � .,-5 �. •v- �3� iti M'� 9 [Qu � �. � cat' �.r., x 7• �' 1. 117 :; is� ., y��� •1 ;tl of �� ,..�.: �� ��,. L � .���� �. ® . ' ±�? l ,� !�� �� �. ! � 9 � ! Wit-° m Ef� y�• en. . ..'-�7i.rt• tf'.5{• �, 1.1',6: i . `3 , e Qc :�r;1-• ! '' '1 .tr i`�• ii i : }i S �� m^ rh,l' ; .' 9Eia� Q±.• , { '� Q- 1 �a y�ry �7 7 111 oU kk r ,.j------Liiiiii .�, , r {L]1LC�!• �. 7�t'` _ �, �V•• { r` 2ti:•I`�: `�i �".j . '�1F-' { ?�;�= �. �' 1E . � V � i`.�;;�r -�?_ ,LOSS ' '•','S���\�'.�il "S 'v t t;'h. � t � a C7; •,'�, r j�. h�j•�� � _ a4 a.;JI,• .:;f ��� .lta'�r :� °sS �;a1�j e"7 �* �r t:�,� ���� •,� r �'ft,. Qq4r1,.,-,,r Y �ti.�`i I oZ -��SII(�){g1 s j/ �� c c�t .�'-( •. � .:��,�'"`- � �� vly� m,v�- 1Yt11}}i , n�v l`j a�7 �3 •.I�1 �1 SST��� �7! •11�' ' rl�- t 'o.`i: '�� F" ,.�1�� ,�> iyf, 7C1R .�� 'L! -�..� $lal 1 , ,G • E (, ��a� � _\i� �. `G .1-`- �� .� ' ,SI:Z p Ti�,-1 4 a: nr'1 �• � � S �- ty � ��:• � , :r \a AEG .► �� CITY OF RA1'CHO CUC_�SONGA 1NITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: jg;. OQ For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee throuh the department where the Project application is -nace. 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: LINCOLN DISTRIBUTIO% CENTER L - RT�IQC_'O CUCAAIONGA APPLICA\T'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: (714) 851-5122 Lincoln Proper v na a ti� ems . t. a Irvine CA927Z5 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CCNCERNING T=:TS PROJECT: alr,T SAL'.SEE ABOVE LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) N:+1C Rochester Ave. and Eighth Street B.T. C. - 3.P. 229-111-8 & 9 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE A?iD FEDERAL AGENCIES RIND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS UQN1 I-1 /+ -(f PROJECT DESCRIPTIO" DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Three dock,-1-iigh , rail serves, Corc-r�' e t-It Up 7.'a:-n n[1 ,q /,7i v�•�i •,� • n .,i l a ' Buildlnq sizes are 166 , 900 sa. ft lca 7-0 cn F� 13 77-- 0 sq. ft. Total area of pro-iect is 463 , 110_ s ` _ f� ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS , IF Pti'Y : Net acreage of project will be 22. 09 acres. There are no eeisti zq h ,� i' aJ s nn �, ut� T.ne area of the oronosed buildings is 463 , 210 sq - f+ T_ad_, •-4 ,-al building sizes are 16-0 ,900 sq. ft- , 158 , 750 sq. ft. , and 127 , 560 SF. DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORM- TION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS , USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES , AND THE DESCRIPTION OF AN-Y EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) : • Rj:ge3'EFI 4d it t7Y� ZZ'R� 1_ 5% slope from north to south. The -n Pr1­ i c n•-o<o� i }- coverea with brush and scrub and has nine small rroog in �Iln nortneast corner. The nine trees consist pf fn,.r z ,, aim trees witi diameters between I" and 4" d" r trees , two 21, diameter Palm trees and one 3" dinmPt�,- Tnnina.r tree. ere are no apparent sians of animals on tha C; tP - =nA o tne best or our knowledqe there is no cultural, his or; (-=1 r scenic signiricance to the site. There are no existin= structures on the site. A coov of an ALTP_ survey is in 1 ,r; pe —fI�CZCCv'rgP'i. _s the project part of a larger project, ors: of a series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant enviro=,ental impact? NO- 1-2 r WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? _ X Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc. ) ? _X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? x 5. Remove any existing trees? Pow many? 9 _ X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explana--ion of anv YES answers above:(1) The elevation of the e ra^aes from 11321 on the northwest corner to 1119 ' or-, the south_ The site wi11 be graded so that the buildings ..ill be level with r floor elevations at 1128 ' , 1129 ' , and 1128 ' respectively. Fin- ` ished floors will be avnroximately 4 ' above ground level. 5 - Trees in northeast corner or site wi e removed to accommodate proposed clan. IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next pace. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certifv that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and inforration 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 info=ation may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date z",?'Lq47 Signature Title j�ZvJ6Cj�rFr�✓,c[E,e , j- 3 V � J RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 8648 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 8648) , LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ROCHESTER AVENUE, NORTH OF 8TH STREET WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 8648 submitted by Lincoln Property Company and consisting of 3 parcels, located on the northwest corner of Rochester Avenue, north of 8th Street, being a division of Lots 30 and 31, according to Map of Rochester as Map recorded in Book 9, Page 20 of Maps, Records of San Bernardino, California; and WHEREAS, on June 21, 1984, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above-described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on August 22, 1984, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above-described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on August 22, 1984. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 8648 is approved subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: ® Dennis L. Stout, Chairman 9� r " / ATTEST Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy 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 o; the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of August, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: tee®®ram®��Q CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REC0M71 OED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LOCATION: Blest side of Rochester Avenue, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO: 8648 north of 8th Street DATE FILED: June 21, 1984 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 30 & 31 acc)rding NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 to Map of Rochester as per Map recorded GROSS ACREAGE: 22.41 in Book 9, Page 20 of Maps, Records of ASSESSOR PARCEL NO: 229-111-8,9 San Bernardino County *�-,r*A-h*,t********ic*1r,k-kt*inr*tt�*****intt*Yc**,tint**ant**�Nt�th�c:P,t**tr**t*�,r*�H•:tx*yrr.#�rx-k DEVELOPER OWNER ENGINEER/SURVEYOR Lincoln Property Co. SAME Boyer Engineering Co. 19752 MacArthur Blvd. 2950 Airwa Avenue Suite Suite B Irvine, CA 924715 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Improvement and dedication requirements in accordance with Title 16 of the ttanicipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga include, but may not be limited ® to, the following: Dedications and Vehicular Access 1. Dedications sha"l be made of all interior street rights-of-way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. X 2. Dedication shall be made of the followina �inhts-of-way on the following streets: 20 additional feet on Rochester Avenue rer to 2 zcate 27' wide cul-dF-s?= at west property ine as shown on Tentative Map. 3. Corner property line radius will be required per City Standards. X 4. All rights of vahicular ingress and egress -shall be dedicated as follows: Rochester Ave. excepting two 35-foot opening. 5. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all common roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by C.C.&R.s and shall be recorded concurrent with the map. ,r -1- NAVA X 6. All existing easements lying within future right-of-way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the map per City Engineer's requirements. X 7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. Surety X 1. Surety shall be pasted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public improvements prior to building permit issuance for each individual parcel. X 2. A lien agreement must be executed prior to recording of the map for the following: construction of easterly half of the proposed cul-de-sac at the west property boundary of Parcel 3. 3. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed, guaranteeing completion of all on-site drainage facilites necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Divison prior to recordir._ -or and/or prior to issuance of building permit for Street Ii rovements Pursuant to the City of Ranch Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 16, Section 16.36.120, the subdivider may enter into an agreement and post security with the City guaranteeing the required construction prior to recordation of the map and/or building permit issuance. 1. Construct full street improvements including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior streetc. 2. A minimum of 26-foot wide pavement within. a 40-foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall to constructed for all half- section streets. X 3. Construct the following missing improvements: Prior to building permit issuance for each individual parcel. Curb A.C. Side- Drive Street Street A.L. Median Street Name Gutter Pvmt. Talk Appr. Trees Li hts Overlay Island* Other Rochester X X X X X X X *Includes landscaping and irrigation on meter -2- X _ 4. Prior to any work being performed in the public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits required. X 5. Street improvement plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of an encroachment permit. X 6. Developer sha" coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation ct any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary. X 7. Existing lines of 12KV or less fronting the property shall be undergrounded. X 8. Install appropriate street name signs, traffic control signs, striping and markings with locations and types approved by the City Engineer. X 9. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern California Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Lichts shall be on decorative poles with underground service.. X 10. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permit. X 11. Concentratea drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. L'ndersidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards. Drainage and Flocd G,-ntrol 1. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. 2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. X 3. Toe followina storm drain shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: within 15 foot easement to drain cul-de-sac. To be built at the time of corEtruction of the cul-de-sac. 4. Prior to recordation of the map, a hydrologic and drainage study for the project shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review. 5. A drainage detention basin per City Standards shall be constructed to detain increased runoff -3- X 6. A storm drain system shall be construced to the satisfaction of the City Engineer through the p.•oject site to intercept runoff from the northerly properties. The system shall be connected to the existing storm drain on 8th Street and a permit from AT&SF Railroad shall be obtained prior to issuance of building permit. ermit. X 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual grading plan. X 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work prior to issuance of building permit. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application or grading plan check. 4. The final grading plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Grading Committee and shall be completed prior to recordation of the final subdivision map or issuance of building permit w:iichever comes first. X 5. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of buildina Genpra„ Requirements and Approvals X 1. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: CalTrans for San Bernardino County Flood Control istrict X Cucamonga County Water District for sewer and water �- San Bernardino County Dust Abatement (required prior to issuance of a grading permit) X Other AUSF Railroad Company 2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C.&R.$) approved by the City Attorney is required prior to recordation of the map. X 3. Provide all utility services to each lot.including sewerage, water, electric power, gas and telephone prior to street constructon. X 4. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. -4- t 6 -iy 5. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from CalTrans/San Bernardino County Flood Control District. X 6_ Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. X 7. The filing of the tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time building permits are requested. When building permits are requested, the Cucamonga County Water District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will not be issued unless said certification is received in writing. 8. '.ocal and Master Planned Trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing and weed control, in accordance with City trail standards, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to recordation fir and/or prior to building permit issuance for X 9. Prior to recording, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District 82-1 among the newly created parcels. X 10. At the time of final map submittal, the following shall be ® submitted: Title Report, traverse calculations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and/or showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. i X 11. Undergro-,oding of existing overhead utilities shall be covered by a Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement at the time of development and waived if such work is found unnecessary by City Council. X 12.. Private ingres and egress easement from Rochester Avenue to Parcel 3 shall be provided and shall be noted on the map. X 13. Buildings shown on Parcel Map require a recorded document setting aside cannon usage of yards between structures in order to obtain Building Code compliance X 14. Provide or reserve an easement for railroad purposes to be made for the benefit of the northerly properties for the purpose of future lead or drill track services. X 15. All applicable conditions of D. R. 84-02 shall apply to this Parcel Map. ® CITY OF RANCHO CUCA14ONGA LLOYD B_ HUBBS, CITY ENGINEER by: -5- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CVCALJ0j' STAFF REPORT • �' J I T, C�� O I rl Z DATE: August 22, 1984 191 9 T0: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Curt Johnston, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12376 - FORECAST - Planning Commission review of the Draft EIR for a custom lot subc:vision of 16 lots on 20.9 acres and a conceptual master plan for 94 acres of adjacent land in the Hillside Residential and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Street, generally west of Sapphire Street - APN 200-051-06, 07. I. ABSTRACT: The purpose of the public hearing for this item is to facilitate Commission review and public input regarding the draft ® EIR for Tentative Tract 123706. No Commission action is required at this time. Rather, comments received will be incorporated into the final EIR. Consideration of the Tentative Tract Map and certification of the final EIR by the Commission will occur following clearance of the project by the Technical Review and Design Review Committees. II. SUMMARY OF EIR: The following is a summary of the major environmental concerns and mitigation measures discussed in the draft Environmental Impact Report. A. Land Forms/Topography: Impacts: Significant Alterations to the site's land form would result from grading of the proposed roads, driveways and building pads. Impacts would be most significant along roadways or driveways which cut across 15% grades, and especially along the steep slope between the two mesas. Almost une-third of the lots will cause significant grading for driveway and building pad construction. Mi'.igation Measures: Consider alternative street patterns and Tot configurations. Alternatives are discussed in Section III of this report. In addition, lorate driveways where the least amount of grading is nece5sai,y. ITEM H PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EIR - Tract 12376/Forecast August 22, 1954 Page 2 B. Geology/soils: Impacts: The proposed development places residential uses in an area of low to moderate risks for earthquake hazards. Slope instability may exist in some areas due to steep topography and Presence of bedrock formations susceptible to landsliding. Mitiqation Measures: Require a site-specific fault investigation, establish setbacks from fault traces, avoid construction on erodable slopes, and set a 150-foot setback from Cucamonga Wash. C. Hydrolcgv• Imoacts: The proposed temporary berm north of Tract 12376 would cause concentrated runoff south of the site. Runoff from the streets within the proposed tract map and conceptual master plan area would be considered unsafe as it reaches Tract 10210 during a 10-year storm -frequency. Runoff from Incline Drive (with n the master plan area) would causer considerable off-site erosion after it is discharged at the southerly project boundary. Mitigation Measures: The temporary berm north of Tract 12376 will be redesigned to direct flows directly into Cucamonga Canyon. Storm drains within Tract 10210 will be designed to handle additional flows. Provisions for intercepting and conducting flows to the Almond intercept charnel should be required. D. Biological Resources: Impacts: Implementation, of the project would remove much of the natural habitat from the site. No rare or endangered species are located on the site. Mitigation Measures: Preserve existing native Oaks. Revegetate all graded and cut and fill slopes. Buffer natural areas from residential development. E. Cultural Resources: Impacts: There is the possibility that archeological resources could be impacted with development of the site. Mitigation Measures: A qualified archeologist should survey the project area prior to development and take appropriate measures if archeological sites are found. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EIR - Tract 12376/Forecast August 22, 1984 Page 3 F. Land Use and Planning: impacts: The proposed development would substantially alter the character of the site. Although the number of lots proposed is under the maximum density of two units per net buildable acre, the current project design is inconsistent with General Plan policies. The intent of the General Plan is to provide for limited development which is sensitive to the natural environment and to preserve the natural character of a hillside. In addition, the General Plan states that development in the foothills should relate to the slope in order to preserve the integrity of the hillside, minimize disruption of natural ground form, and should be concentrated to preserve open spaces and scenic value. Further, the General Plan states that in areas with moderate constraints including, but not limited to, fire, soil erosion, slopes, and seismic hazards, development should be restricted and the area predominantly maintained as open space or as low intensity development. ® Mitigation Measures: Review design alternatives and other measures which mitigate the landferm changes, drainage and view impacts, vegetation removal, and public safety hazards, and consider appropriate revisions to the project. G. Traffic/Circulation: Impacts: The Master Plan proposes a northerly street connection between the two mesas through a 60-foot high, 40% slope. The purpose of this road is to provide secondary access to the east, which is critical considering the significant public safety hazards in the area. A southerly access road will be less efficient; however, the Hillside Residential District prohibits grading in 40% slope areas to limit land form alterations. In addition to this concern, some traffic conflicts could result from recreation traffic traveling through and parking within the proposed tract. Mitiqation Measures: Consider secondary access alternatives. Provide designated recreational parking areas. H. Public Services and Utilities: Impacts: Significant impacts on fire protection services could result due to the distance of the site from existing fire stations and due to the proximity of wildland to the site. 17�3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EIR - Tract 12376/Forecast August 22, 1984 Page 4 Mitigation Measures: Implement Foothill Fire Protection District standards. Demestic water distribution facilities for conception needs and fire flow must be coordinated with the Cucamonga County Water District. I. Public Safety. Impacts: Development of this site would expose residents to fire, earthquake, and erosion hazards. The hazards are compounded because the site is in a high fire hazard area outside of the Fire District's standard seven (7) minute response time. Mitication Measures: Mitigation measures may include automatic sprinkler systems, fire proof construction materials, construction of an additional fire station, development of a fuel modification program, irrigation of natural species, replacement of fire resistant species, permanently maintained greenbelts, and prescribed burning. III. ALTERNATIVES: Three alternatives were discussed in the Draft EIR. W� none of the alternatives is an optimum solution at this time, each one does have particular aspects which may improve the ri current Tract design. Alternative One: The first alternative proposes an alternate circulation system with a road southerly connection between t adjacent to the Cucamonga Wash aid a adjacent to the wash provide he lower and upper mesas. The road corridor s an opportunity for a public scenic , but detailed geology studies would be required to assure stability of the slope before the road can be placed at this location. The southerly connection between the two mesas eliminates a significant road cut across a 40% slope, but is less effective in terms of providing secondary access to the upper mesa and land further to the east. Also, the serpentine road pattern will most likely exceed the City's standard for street grades at the cut backs. Alternative Two: This alternative provides a lot layout which considers the environmental constraints imposed by the slopes, fault zone, major drainage course. The lots shown are generally larger where site constraints are most severe. This concept for lot patterns can be employed with whatever street pattern is finally approved. In addition, to further reduce landfors alterations, driveways should be predetermined where the ieast amount of grading is necessary for access to individual lots. �y PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EIR - Tract 1237E/Forecast August 22, 1984 Page 5 Alternative Three: The third alternative proposes half-acre lots grouped on the upper mesa in the less steep areas of the site with common open space surrounding each group. This alternative reduces the disturbance of natural habitats, increases the open space opportunities, reduces grading/landform impacts, and has the least visual impacts in terms of southerly views to the site. In addition, this alternative has the greatest potential to assure for protection of open space while providing for limited development. The benefits of each of these alternatives should be considered and incorporated into a single Tract Map and Master Plan design which provides a proper balance between aesthetic, environmental, and public safety concerns. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a p1thlic hearing in The Daily Report newspaper, the property posted, and notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the projcet site. In addition, copies of the EIR have been available for review at the branch library and Planning Division office. To date, no written corresp. idence has been received. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the draft Environmental Impact Report and consider any public comments regarding the document. After such consideration, the Commission may wish to comment on the content of the EIR including design alternatives. Comments received from the Planning Commission and public will be incorporated into the final EIR, which will be brought before the Commission concurrently with consideration for approval of the Tentative Tract Map and Master Plan. Resp ctfu11 s "bmitted, V R ,ck G z ity Planner G:CJ:jr Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "8" - General Plan Exhibit "C" - Natural Features Exhibit "D" - Tentative Tract Map Exhibit "E" - Grading Plan Exhibit "F" - Alternative One Exhibit "G" - Alternative Two t. Exhibit "H" - Alternative Yhree COUNTY•Off 3+%N MMMIVARO/NO ! — ee.eeeeesaaeweew�7E3i{�SE�j- d N. A_ P. \ j xnLc: ,-aAce ac a' ......................ae we Neaaaeu •� /�� y/^O` 12 3 \ 6 If j TT_ AAA-ro 2 e c i Z 0 a v X A L14 is IL as . a CQUNTY O=� EICCN: E:0 flew Zb NO V Iml INDEX Imt �'eJ I CITY OF ITE.\i: IM/Z RANCHO vUATMOI\TGA TITLE: /vtlC9�iHM° PLANNING DI%'LSION EXHIBIT: •• ALE: f !eleemelem�sm®melDomm�J�mmml meeim mOm IIIMIe rs \I `�;t l' I _ V f\:\ "��t♦/\ \ f :t./t-off ./'.�/`•:;�r\ 1`-t � t -1/ �1\: / - �-. t _ t rl� l�i`l`1-/:r.•1`li♦f//\f`1�11� I_ .�f L- ��� � = r-`_ /��1�4. ♦' -i ' ♦'ir �� rt �i♦ 1 Wit' 1 ��i_� / r� \_\'f♦ 1 / � - .1\-/- /�'i l� i��`\ / t '1 - CCCCCV i'/_♦. ,1 t` r` fir ♦ / ♦ r\. / �i r.\r-�1_ JCCCCG .CV \ �� •♦ /` /\��.�♦f. �/ �i li •�•-ire •. t ..00 - .♦1� �\-/\� ; f ,�t �,-. ..�•`� �il,i �` �/III _I•' OCCC., t_ C \ __ ..� . . _ _ mot'/,�� /� � 1 _p_ ♦ . � ��i:l- I`i♦� D. - :J..i. - ... ........ ® —- ® _ .. _ � E. _ e . a = 1 NORTH CITY OF ITEM: .������ RANCHO CLCAT10\'GA TIT, E: PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT. "73'r SCALE- - rc i 't i < : �5r• y ��Y:: Y Aw few Six ■ W izi . J J ■ t ( IS Tll - S \ \ 1 � � \ ---, ----- -.--� •-fir �S •g s � 1 L o d p f ' or a.r ' E233 o c •�"' '. TEE ,.`; c •ram ` / /, ;i .,•1 � , 4 �ili Il.,1. 1� � , I. I ' t /1 '1 tip e. 1 cz t it i � / 1' ��i' �I 9. 1 � �I� I q .• � l 2` ' � j -� I�• :( I7 III. 'E1 --'i' I d LJ7 ��'' 1.<.S � '>�T j 0�-� w1 -1 -. 1 - t`� 1, . :1•' 1�1� � I�il�� fj .�f� `� V- ; • i-2�. �aL —r<r.x+ae� '� i�`l"Jr < � �Z �-�- - , _ � -_ '- /� '�} / 1- �L D• � 1 i\"'sty rr .� �.� IT ,� ) t • 2 ri Zt 1 I - �~ _ - fir;, �/e / !( ,i ,� r,`y(. if ;> ,�l j-% li'•/� w ., �I f�/ �[•\ ram} I ; i 9iE L � ����) �I�F ., � 21}� ,i�� j':I 1: I f1 •��-\ ;1, K yx 96 55-- M Z.O. i f \ I L r . 3 �� �i'."� ,) •-X'� \ \'l�l��� '"'mil a�� `\�� c k _ � /• �� V,` -� C• ', -a•"� `� L � a '\f 1 ��l /\ , v. � Sri f — � • .q L V.� • FOURCE: NADOLE L ASSOCIATES. INC Co1XjC`y a UA! GRADING PLAN! T.T. -12376 and Conceptual Master (Plan CITY Or RANCHO CUCAMONGA NORTH CITY' OAF ITEM= -e.LLZ. FcV. TT M-37& RANCHO CUCkNIO':GA TITLE- e'�PAIMP AM PLANNING DIVISION ExliISIT- .��j� SCALE- •� /Z Ceti �\� � � -\\`: '�_�- • `' ._ - _ ola 1-4 ® �—_•�05�-\`�.� /�/�� \ �M-� \��� ��j��i\tea�: ' • 70 GKaoE Cc ter:e'PFrA/N1.VG .f:O1L �~ -�. \`� �_�=•. �`,✓CAL G.COlivp ELf✓. �- �-_� • � � F.L = FLO/ii. Ua/E FLEIC . . H.R= f%iGN POivT FLow LGt/F.ELEv,_ ' ' �• . . . 1�� V NUZTH CITY OI' ITEM: _E.t.�e. Few TT 1937&+ RA\CI:O CUCAXIONG.-�k TITLE- PLANNING DIVES N EXI-IIrIT: ME=�" SCALE- 2 - k'1'�,<..;;.,� \`��,� '�•.- `�-z\�=ate IZ � '?�.... sr— 57 A24- V,�l !i II I)I,, iv �q+=�;_'-i-� - ...i ter. _ •-� �/ �r` �-'-� 'P. 1 i '1 1 f 6��^• � \� 'b Al c%°A -Fiq 75.571W rlA/;-s A-T PRMA a IVE CIRCULATiON SYSTEM T.T. 323706 and Conceptual Master Plan CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA NORTH CITY OF IZI�\CHO CL.OAk\'IO�'GA TITLE: [ w 6 PL4.ti\I.NG DI`TISIO\T ]ILMiIBIT=_ _ sCALE: ..._. -'.'•J-ill �. � ���� J -y - A V 1 N IN ;A�� , - 1\,fir` ;'.-.,-•� _ �1 t ;, _ f.�tl <-/ ALTERNATIVE STANDARD LO' LAYOUT T-T. 12376 and Conceptual Master Plan CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA v V NORTH CITY OF rm d: F-1 X. FbX 7*rrzZ7G A TITLE RANCHO CL;C CONG PL kI NNING DIX'IS'IQ`I E\HII3IT * -- �,., �—scab: V . Ar `- ' t t- oft OPEN SPACE ALTERNATIVE T.T. 12376 and Conceptual Master Plan CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A `NOI2\vTI--I CITY ©r it E\I 4 Jt. ACIP, 77/ 374 RA\CIip CL;CANIONGA TITLE- 3 PLANNING ®ItrISION E.XIIIrIT ! `ccALE: --- _ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CgCAArol STAFF REPORT ° =f� �s� C 4 O CI � yi DATE: August 22, 1984 �L 19%. '' TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR CUP 84-05 - HFA ASSOCIATES - Review and consideration of a supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for development of a regional shopping center on 100 acres of land in the Victoria Planned Community to be located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of Interstate 15 - APN 227-201- 35; 227-211-30. Related File: Conditional Use Permit 84-05 1. SUMMARY: The attached draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared to assess environmental impacts associated with the development of the regional shopping center within the Victoria Planned Community. This supplemental EIR identifies a number of potential environmental problems and proposes a range of mitigation measures to counter these problems, including alternatives for drainage and flood protection. Detailed traffic and drainage studies were also prepared in conjunction with the EIR. This report is limited to review of the EIR, while the accompanying staff report analyzes the master plan. II. ANALYSIS: In general, the supplemental draft EIR addressess all areas of concerns identified by the Planning Commission: traffic, drainage, and aesthetics. Section 5.0 contains comments from the general public and interested agencies in response to the Notice of Preparation on the EIR. The purpose of the Commission's review and the public hearing is to: (a) determine whether the EIR adequately covers all areas of reasonable concern; (b) determine whether the mitigation measures determined by the EIR effectively mitigate potential adverse impacts; (c) recommend changes modifications, and additional reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures to be incorporated into the final EIR; and, (d) identifv those significant adverse impacts which cannot be avoided if the project is built. A summary of the significant environmental impacts and mitigation measures is provided in Section 1.8. ITEM 1 rLAWNiKb GUMMISSION STAFF REPORT EIR - CUP 84-06/HFA Associates August 22, 1984 Page 2 Based upon the EIR analysis and mitigation measures, the grading and drainage plan has been revised to reduce certain significant environmentai impacts associated with this project by: 1. Eliminating the sump conditions on Miller Avenue, between Day Creek 3oulevard and Victoria Loop. 2. Providing a high point, instead of a sump, on Victoria Loop which would drain both to Day Creek Boulevard and the Caitrans Channel along Interstate 15. 3. Designing the "possible retention basin" located in the southerly portion of the project site to retard 82 cubic feet per second for a 100-year storm. The most significant environmental impacts are flood protection caused by the unimproved Day Creek Channel, and traffic impacts associated with the development of the regional shopping center and surrounding regionally-related uses. Sections 1.8.1 - Drainage, and 1.8.2 - Traffic, describe the significant impacts which cannot be avoided if the project is built and the proposed mitigation measures which would reduce each impact to an insignificant level. In terms of aesthetic impacts, the plans and text submitted by the applicant are general in nature and will require considerable refinement before the City can approve precise plans for Phase I of the regional shopping center. Aesthetic issues associated with the developr,,=nt of the regional shopping center are analyzed in the accompanying staff report regarding the master plan. IV. FACTS FOR FINDING: The draft EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and adequately addresses all areas of reasonable concern. Further, the mitigation measures proposed by the draft EIR effectively mitigate significant adverse impacts. V. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The Daily Repot newspaper, and notices were sent to property owners within 0 :feet of the project site. In addition,, copies of the EIR have been distributed to interested agencies and have been available for review at the Branch Library and Planning Division offices. The public review period for the draft EIR ends August 31, 1984. The input of interested agencies and the general public, together with comments from the City Council and Planning Co=issian, will be responded to in the final EIR. �- ZZ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EIR - CUP 84-05/NFA Associates August 22, 1984 Page 3 IML VI. RECOMMENDATION: It is recon..-.nded that the Lammission find the draft EIR adequate and forward it to the Redevetl=Nment Agency and City Council for their review and input prior to preparation of the final EIR. The minutes of this public hearing and any changes or additions approved by the Commission will become part of an addendum to the printing of the final EIR. Pc ectsubmitted, R ck m t Planner G:DC:jr ttachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map :a Exhibit "8" - Detailed Site Plan X; 5 Y � 1y`, 1 � T ' l v � o ' r' _BIER AVENUE C, T It Pe 00 e J IT ;,6 .tl �LEI ---------- ------------------------- O FOOTHILL eoLvrvAm NORTH CITY OF ITEM: RANCHO CUCAMONGA T=: PLANNING Dlv%rNC)N SCALE- CITY OF RANCHO CIUCAMONGA �vcl.,yo� STAFF REPORT coo cs z DATE: August 22, 1984 197 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner !1 b.': Dan Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-06 - HFA ASSOCIATES - Conceptual review of a master plan for the deveiopm.!nt of a regional shopping center on 100 acres of land in -he Victoria Planned Community to be located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of Interstate 15 - APN 227-201-35; 227-221-30. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Request�.-d: Approval of master site plan and Conditional Use Permit. B. Purpose: D�-veiopment of a regional shopping center. 3 I C. Location: North side of Foothill Boulevard, west of Interstate II 15. D. Parcel Size: 100 acres E. Existing Zoning_ Victoria Planned Community (Regional Center Commercial F. Existing Land Use: Vineyard u. rounding Land Use and Zonin : North - Vacant; Regional Related Commercial, High Residential (24-30 du/ac) South - Vacant; Regional Related Office/Commercial East - Devore Freeway and Vacant; Regional Related Off ice/Cmmnerci al f West - Edison Corridor and Vacant; Regional Related ' Office/Ccmmercial I. Site Characteristics: Slopes north to south at approximately a f % grade creating a total relief of 50 feet across the site. `I The majority of the project site is a vineyard with no structures or significant vegetation. For a more detailed description, see Sections 1.2 through 1.6 of the EIR. ITEM J a we rc1-1111[ 04-Ub/Mi A Associates August 22, 1984 Page 2 II. ANALYSIS: A. General : The proposed site plan, Exhibit "A", indicates a two-level mall with six major departmeent stores arranged in a linear fashion. Phase I will include a minimum of 350,000 square feet with at least two major• retail department store-, and an enclosed mall . The center is oriented toward ti._ primary entrance from Day Creek F.oulevard, as well as the freeway, for maximum visibility. The lake is proposed to be located at the nortf,east corner of �:he site to create a natural "Park like" setting for ancillary buildings such as restaurants and outdoor activities along the le.ke edge. A community trail system wraps around the lake edge and continues around and int3 the mall as a local trail. A more detailed analysis of the site plan, landscaping concept, and architecture is contained in the attached June 1984 staff report. The Victoria Community Plan concept for the regional center, as shown in Exhibit "I", was pre )ared prior to the applicant's involvement with the project aid envisioned a regional center designed around the lake edge. The lake system was intended to "come right, into the heart of the U-shaped center, creating an active exciting place for people with a mix of civic, community, and commercial acti✓ities along the lake edge." Thus, the lake became the major form-giving element for the t regional center. The proposed building and lake orientation (Exhibit "A"), is significantly different from the Victoria Community Plan. concept. The intent of the Victoria Community Plan for the Victoria Lakes Village was to create a high quality water related urban community with an acti.,e people-oriented water edge. The lakes proposed for the village were intended to provide visual and land use connections between the residential, office and commercial facilities. Because of the change in grade, it was intended that a series of terraced lakes, each large enough to create a dramatic visual impact, would be provided throughout tree Victoria Lakes Community as shown in Exhibit "I". The Victoria Lakes concept also envisioned a smaller lake in the southwest corner of the regional shopping center site. The proposed site plan, Exhibit "A", does not address this second lake. B. Design Review Committee: The Planning Commission held a special "Design Review" workshop to review the master plan for the three major design concepts: (1) site planning, (2) landscaping, and (3) architecture. Based on this review, the Commission, expressed concern that the lake should beco e a stronger form-giving element that reflects the Victoria Lakes Village theme. The Commission recommended that the lake should PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Conditional Use Permit 84-06/HFA Associates Auqust 22, 1984 Page 3 penetrate inside the "ring" road to relate more directly to the mall and provide greater visibility of the lake as a wat3r element and the lake edge activities. The Commission also recoanended that a mixture of active and passive recreation activities and commercial and cor::munity activities should occur along the lake edge to encourage peoale to go to and from the mall to the lake. Buildings and activities shoulo be plannEd to promote visibility of the lake and the trails around the lake and throu3h the center and .ould be '--signed as an d. ,. active fetus of attention. Ir terms of arch itecture, the Cc-.Tmiss'er recommended that a unified architectural theme br dclielop:-i for the mall with common de;igr, elements and i-aterials. The use of natural materials and earthture colors is recimtaended to reflect the rural/rustic character of Rancho Cuc --month. It was further suggested that design features reflecting the City's winery heritage, such as covered trellises and vines, would be appropriate. The landscaping theme was approved in concept subject to providing planter islands within the larger expanses of parking. Landscaping should be designed to provide an attractive unifying theme that complements the architectural design. The revised site plan and conceptual landscape plan, Exhibits "A" and "D", respectively, indicate that a expanded park area was provided on the inside of the ring roa- opposite the lake edge in response to the Coarission's desire for the lake to penetrate into the enter parking areas. Further, landscape plarters have bean added into the larger parking lot areas. Architectural design theme will be addressed in the submittal in 1985 of precise development plans for the first phase of constructi;n. C. Environmental Review: A supplemental Environmental Impact report has been prepared for this project and is the subject of a separate report on tonight's agenda. JIT. FACTS FOR FINDM-: The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, Victoria Communitv Plan and Development Code. The proposed use, together :with the recommended conditions of approval, will not be detrimental to the public health or materially injurious to properties in the vicinty. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The gaily Report newspaper and notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the projec` site. To dale, no correspondence has been received eithe for or against this project. Tc PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Conditional Use Permit 84-06/HFA Associates Augusc 22, 1984 Page 4 V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recormends that the Planning Commission adopt the-attached Resolution recommending approval o` a Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit subject to the attached conditions. Respe/tfu7 snmicted, Ri k e�me Ci/, y Manner DC:jr Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit "B" - Sections and Details Exhibit "C" - r'evations and Detail3 Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Landscap,- Nian Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit "F" - Conceptual Drainage Plan Exhibit "G" - Street Sections Exhibit "H" - Victoria Land Use ?Ian Exhibit "I" - Victoria Lakes Concept Plan June 1984 Staff Report Minutes - June 27, 1984 Planning Commis ion ;Workshop Proposed City Council Resolution. Resolution Recommending Approval s � s 1 .. :.��' �� v. ••�„ /�/ ,! ��r/\� i //T����—ice -------------- t I =� LE� {• � J J Fo FOOTM BOMEVAM MEA AMA0S75 RANCHO CUCt.CUCAMYDtiGll MA,IoR Square Feet MALL SHOPS 325.00o A 2 levels i60.000 B 2 levels 1,53. CCro ITT jCRCICES S C 2 levels 0.= ANCSCIUAUIY 6UILDi A05 69,C00 15^ 0 3 levels 15C.000 000 E 2 levels 165.000 TOTAL 1,23,.Doo F 3 levels ISO..= _ __ • - - � NORTH v Site 93 Aeresi ►arkfnq - STS9-Cars - TOTAL MAJORS an.000 �r CITY OI, ITEM: t :!, r 74 �s.�s�1 4cxip RANCHO CLCA-v10!'GA S 1-a c ��-hi PLANNING DIVEION EXHIBIT__,A___sc-AL . - ------ - - --- --- ---- - - I SECTION A-A rl �I _ram �� II �i E1ili�+ � ,•i c. '-�,... SECTION 8 8i`.C�KKN C .,. ..� SECTION D T REOI SHOPPING CENTER RANCHOa A OE A O£YLDWAEnT OF EANEST W. NAI ��.� , ,.e `D• o SECTIONS S DETAILS s Y TPICAL AME SPAC.wQ- ar TYPICAL END AS.E SPACING-W TYPICAL LGKr STANOAM NWrrH COACT CARS) INOR 1 H���•T C? FY OF FrF-%I- _ -C� RA\CHO CL'G 1 I0\GA TIVLE= PLt�tiTNi.\G D:i : \ Er•HJP�T: ' - 'r 07-SC kLE----�-- /ter 14 iI < - W - yOyi O •„ Sq W � o < 0 � i ` •r fier~ Y - 4 = 'r W iJ- ff 4/ at . • -►'-'1 - �� � t i_Ji"TlslS ice_ "1 I �Pl�'PR'r` y�+_+,�_ +vFlg• rQ�[�^--t�•�ye{�- —QOC�(�a`NC^IeCW a.-.a-- .'�� 'Qfl A�C`CS / �/ Y / i/,pj rs• - �`�� 4 rw.� 8.�� Y gel e-4 Ar a '—rAart40 a -D � II? — rl __ •— �•�.�•� O G Monqu i9REVAC -- NORTH CITE' OF ITEM: RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE= g-w"DSGAia!! PENNING DIV SION E.\HIM T: _ SCI, LE--_ �- I W Y,��.�//\�,.�"�..\ mil' , .�aG � \' r \��5�•1 / �\ \a/ �. �r W� �I \\q���✓ \�Q�_ • \ram\"� /` \ � �"r• /�/ �� IN NN � I � i v,GroAu ioov : --•- FQ / woe/ o O FE=--L BOlLEVAAC NORM CITY OF tTe,►: �' e' -- D R AN-0-1O C,'CALNIO. GA, TrrLE: PL..cVNNE\G DINg9o.N E�t�triT: �SCALE- f I AVVIF N -_ q Y�/ } III 4 1/ ,• IA \ J I 1 //11 T ICTORIA LOOP ------ _ ' � o NOR T H CITY OF iT�,\I= — Coco RANCHO C.'CAl"I01GA E1I iII31T= _ ScALE:-- G ie) S A vN I LN a. C i I I, � 1 •=.� nw•acvuu. v..x i I i i MILLER AVENUE VICTORIA LOOP vv o� ------------- •N w - Y'u1KN CnulbNa _ V.: CJ�i^U CGrr•�! .S DAY CREEK BOULEVARD c i" [v � vN TOO TRILL 80MEVARD TYPICAL STREET SECTIONS J NORM CrFY OF R : ��CHO CUCAl O\GA TITLE: '�-yc� �I\G DIVISION t ioF MM manna j BISELwE M)AO an:i.�<� i L _�c�c.. wyS. .sue• a�ie�v_ RR S ?— rruaaars y ``s`�k� �'• ;= _� Ik < _zta i' RR A < E3 �n64ORu UO'EsV 2J P, R t..41' it l v L RR r 9 M C _ kl .R rsmwc sa. ' Ifj � c. �J._�• �: i L`roar wrirr L MILLER AVENUE V {{� ]`RRzB RR E ji>� CL. — L HEGRN4l CENTQi' U� i RC- VICTORIA LAKES. RR W' EE� E LAND US,LEGEND I 'i ' � �,.". s^1_�,'` �L+p. Y' �•iG"�,•• i� RESI0ENT7AiMIA I. RR L RR J a FOQii _ reaurn.cY v-a.au�. COMMERCIAL Em ' F �• /� a^-• '4C�RIL gY�1D CrrKa/CWYIaCY� 7iF i I. -� , �� � L'„J vyYLt COYY.11b/l CpT01 7 '�I RR Ci Qy`r' OTKER USES iF� Q unwu. `I ' r COMMUNITY PLAN Ale f - Victoria A Planned Community in Rancho Cucamonga the swa grow Land planners CITY OF _ � -�y k RA\CITO CL"C�MONG� �I: TITLE 11�L'Tb �A 3A�►1� P& PL A\T\I`:G DI�'LSIO\' E,l'HII3IT= _SCALD { s.—>rae..�--r 1.a:sa- P^"m--".-c•r.'� ��:s�9�._ ^^-,.'a..:-.rrs.:,c_. r< .a ��3,= -., '—� —• �• �-•_.__sue""` 3 ' ;�. _=3 � -L� _, c.=--.�-� a - �a�, III_ --- ZZZZ ts 3 ��r�` ���� 1r wes'-+rce'4 ..• S• fir: r . / , Imo. _ ........, t N. . -ILLUSTR_A_ME CONCEPT FLAN t '_ VIC.ORIA LAKES AND F2FGIONAL CENTER Victoria 4: - d'Planned Community in Rancho Cucamonga the swa sroup r = .and piarmers CITE' OF' crE%i: _ 6,09 24-®�o P,LtkNTNIt'G DIVISONT EXHUNT:—.. _SCALE- _ ;-43 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIvIONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STAFF REPORT DATE: June 19, 1984 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP - REGIONAL MALL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 5 - HFA ASSOCIAicS - Conceptual review of a Master Plan for the deve o;nent of a regional shopping center on 100 acres of land in the Victoria Planned Community to be located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of Interstate 15). MEETING OBJECTIVES: The purpose of thi, •design review' workshop is to ootain the full Planntng Commission's input and idance regardin-x the following design concepts: (1) site planning, (2rlandscaping, and (3) architecture. The material presented in this report is intended to aid the Commission in understanding the conceptual Master Plan proposed by the applicant, and to explore design opportunities for each of these three concepts. The attached booklet and renderings were prepared by the applicant to explain the design concepts for the regional shopping center and are printeii ore tan paper for easy reference. Also attached for your review and consideration are excerpts from the Victoria Community Plan text, printed on green paper, relating to the regional center. Large, colored Irenderings will be available at the workshop. The Master ?:a: is a conceptual plan that will e.rlve through time based upon the particular needs and requirements of the major department stores. Further, it is impor'ant to understand that the planning and design of a 100 acre regional mail is quite distinct from a 10 acre neighborhood shopping center. A regional mail involves a much larger scale that requires a different approach to traditional development standards. ��auoti, �I OI O 1977 PLANNING COMMISS;-1 INORKSHOP - REGIONAL MALL June 19, 1984 X Page 2 AMOL The Planning Commission will have another opportunity later this summer to review the Master Plan and Use Permit. An Environmental Impact Report is being prepared to focus on traffic, drainage and aesthetics. The Draft EIP,, Master Plan and Use Permit will be brought to the Commission in August. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement between the City and the applicant, precise plans for Phase I of the regional shopping center will be submitted to the City for approval in 1985. I. SITE PLANNING The propesed site plan, Exhibit "A" , indicates a two level mail with six major department stores arranged in a linear fashion. These majcr departmert stores or 'anchors" are located to create maximum shopper flow from one end of the mall to the other and from the upper level to the lower, *hus creating greater exposure for the mall shops. The center is oriented toward the ;.rimer) entrance from Day Creek Boulevard, as well as the freeway for r"aximum visibility. The lake is proposed to be located at the northe: -t corner of the site to create a natural aw,ark-like" setting for ai.cillary buildings such as restaurants and oitdoor activities along the lake edge. The community trail system wraps iround the lake and continues around and into the mall as a local trail . The Victoria Community Plan concept for the regional center, as shown on page 77, was prepared prior to the applicant's involvement with the t project. The Victoria Community Flan envisioned a regional center designed around the lake edge_ The lake system was intended to 'cane right into the heart of the "®" shaped center, creating an attire exciting place for people with a mix of civic, community and cc-nercial activities along the lake edge." This concept is discussed on page 80 and illustrated on page 81. Thus, the lake became the major form-giving element for the regional center. II. LANDSCAPING The conceptual landscape plan, Exhibit "D", indicates a landscape treatment for the perimeter streets and parking lot areas. The landscaping concept emphasizes parkway planting along the perimeter streets and the project entry streets. Victoria Loop and Miller Avenue will be planted with upright evergreen trees on 35' centers within. a 13 foot deep parkway strip. Day Creek Boulevard will be landscaped with a staggered double row of palm trees on 20' centers within a 9 foot deep parkway strip. These parkway landscaping setbacks will expand in some areas, such as project entry streets and the lake edge. Each of the project entry streets will provide an entry statement usira_ flowering accent trees and shrubs. The interior "rinv" road will reeive an informal tree planting. Within the parking areas, alternate planter islands at the ends of parking rows will be planted with trees or , S� , c yyw, Yir�e Y ��fi 61 A .'r t •y � r. J h. '.N. A f•� SL(Q- �4 •4K 1�\ y iY y wt'iA _ xr •1.14 ' v , .e.. r PLANNING COMMISS;"1 NORKSHL'P - REGIONAL MALL June 19, 1984 11 Page 3 shrubs. A typical detail if the planter islands and painted islands is shown on Exhibit "B". No landscaping concepts are presented for the Edison Corridor or the median islands within Victoria Loop and Miller. Landscaping is major design element in the Victoria Community Plan that is intended to "create an overall landscaped urban environment which is perceived and used as a special place." This landscaping concept is illustrated as a planting palette on pages 154 and 155. Victoria Loop and '?ilier are designated for a speciai planting of palms and regularly spaced street trees. Day Creek Boulevard is shown with a dense windrow style planting along all edges shared with Southern California Edison. The regional mall edge along Day Creek is to be planted with a staggered double row of palms within a 16 to 31 foot deep landscape setback. This typical edge condition for Day Creek and the Southern California Edison. Corridor is represented on page 157. the City's General Plan policies for parking lot landscaping would apply to commercial centers within Victoria because the Community Plan text contains no guidelines or standards for on-site landscaping. Typically City standards for special boulevards, such as Day Creek Boulevard and Miller Avenue, require an average 45 foot landscape setback with mounding and extensive landscaping treatment with specimen size trees. The General Plan contains specific standards for tree planting within commercial center parking lots, as shown in Exhibit "I". `A sufficient r number of trees shall be planted such that when they are matured they f will shade 50 percent of the parking area .. . This entails, at a minimum, planting trees at the required spacing (10' less than mature diameter) in all strips between parking stalls." III. ARCHITECTURE The applicant has provided conceptual elevations for the mall to indicate the linear configuration, massing and relationship of the anchor stores to the mall shops, as shown in Exhibit "C". As mentioned earlier, these elevations represent one concept for a linear mail and were not intended to represent any one particular architectural style. The final design will be based upon the needs of the major department stores. Detailed plans for Phase I will be submitted to the City in 1985. However, it is appropriate to discuss the architecture in terms of an overall concept. The Victoria Community Plan envisioned Victoria Lakes Village as a high quality, water related urban community; "it is important that this (regional) center fulfill its role as the active terminus of the community wide open space system, and as an outstanding regional commercial facility_" The City's General Plan states that, "The proposed regional shopping center ... will be a major landmark and focal point to motorists approaching the City . .. Through design features and landscaping the center can reflect the City's history." PLANNING COMMISS;" WORKSHOP - REGIONAL MALL June 19, 1984 Page 4 ISSUES: Riie following are the main issues re .aced to the design concepts for the regional shopping center. A list of questions or "sub-issues" has been provided below each issue to facilitate the workshop discussion of design concepts. 1. Site ?lamming: The primary issue regarding the regional center what should be the form and function of the lake and its relationship to the regional mall? o Should the lake be a separate visual element or a form giving element that interfaces with the edge of the Center? o What is the function of the lake? - Passive or active recreation - Water body or activity center o What activities should occur on the lake and the lake edge? - Commercial (e.g., boating, vendors, restaurants, theatres) r - Public (e.g., civic plaza, day care, meeting rooms, park) 2. Landscaping: Does the proposed landscaping concept meet the goals and objectives of the General Plan and the Victoria Community Plan for landscaping as a functional, aesthetic and unifying element? o Should the planting style be informal or formal? o Does the type of plant material, location and size reflect the desires image and quality? o Does the landscaping concept create a feeling that the regional center is a special place? 3. Architecture: What architectural concepts should be included in the design of the regional mail that reflect the City's history and create an "outstanding regional commercial facility"? o Should the center provide a defined period of architectural style (rural vs urban, contemporary, rustic, missicr., mediterranean, etc.)? o What architectural statement expresses the mass/bulk of the center in relation to the City's character (low-scale vs high scale)? Q-/7 .7 PLANNING COMMISS7_1 WORKSHOP - REGIONAL MALL June 19, 1984 Page 5 o What colors and materials reflect the City's history? - Earth tone vs pastels or dramatic colors - Natural materials (wood, stone, masonry, rock) vs man-made materials (metals and glass) ALTERNATIVES: In relation to the site plan and the lake treatment, there are a variety of alternativ,. design solutions. Regional malls can take many forms as shown in Exhibit "J". However, the relationship of the mall to the lake should be conceptually defined_ Several alternative design concepts are described below. Alternative 1 - As proposed by the applicant, the mall becomes the central focu_ of the site and the lake becomes a separate element located outside the "ring" road, see Exhibit "A' . The lake could function ac a major activity feature and/or as a natural setting for restaurants and outdoor functions_ Alternative 2 - As conceived by the Victoria Community Plan, the regional center is designed as the active terminus of the community wide f open space system, as shown in text on page 77. The lake actually comes into the heart of the "U" shaped center to create a place where civic and commercial uses mix along the lake edge, as shown in text on page 81. Alternative 3 - The lake could be modified to directly interface with the mall and create a natural character for the regional site. This alternative is a combination of alternatives 1 and 2 wherein the lake function becomes a stronger element; however not as dominant as envisioned by the Victoria Plan. An example of this concept is the Hahn regional shopping center being constructed in Escondido, see Exhibit "H", where a transitional open space linkage is provided to the adjacent regional park site. Alternative 4 - This concept would delete the lake entirely from the regional shopping center site. The Victoria Lakes system would terminate at Milier Avenue, however, the trail system could continue into the regional site. �-�d PLANNING COMMISS- WORKSHOP - REGIONAL MALL June 19, 1984 N, k Page 5 RECONTIENDATION: It is recommended that the Plannina Commission review the issues and provide appropriate direction regarding the alternative design concepts. The reco.,endations of the Commission will be forwarIed to the Redevelopment Agency late this summer. Respec tf)ly s�tted, Rick Gbme. City Planner RG:DC:ns Attachments: Master Plan Booklet Exhibit "A" - Conceptual Site Plan. Exhibit "B" - Sections & Details Exhibit "C" - Elevations & Details Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Grading Plan. Exhibit "F" - Drainage Plan ® Exhibit "G" - Street Sections Exhibit "H" - Escondido Mall Exhibit "I" - General Plan Tree Planting Standards Exhibit "J" - Shopping Center Arrangements Excerpts - Victoria Community Plan R t I / l CITY" OF RANCHO CUCA`IONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: June 27, 1484 cl O TO: File - CUP 84-06 III I z i 1477 FROM: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION W.ORKSW^IP SuMMARy The Planning Commission held a "design, review" workshop to review I the taster Plan for the proposed regiunal shopping center. The ! purpose of the meeting was to obtain the full Con mission's input and guidance regarding three major design concepts: 1) site planning, 2) landscaping, and 3) architecture. The following is a summary of the Commission's recommendations: 1) Site Planning - The lake should be a stronger form - giving element that reflects the Victoria Lakes Village theme. The lake should penetrate inside the "ring" road to relate more directly to the mall and provide greater visibility of the water element and lake edge activities. A mixture of active and passive recreation activities, and commercial and commmu- nity activities should occur along the lake edge to encourage people to go from the mail to the lake. Buildings and activities should be planned to promote visibility of to lake. The trails around the lake and through the center should be designed as an attractive focus of attention. 2) Landscaoing - The landscaping theme was approved in concept subject to providing planter islands within the larger expanses of parking. The landscaping should provide an attractive unifying theme that compliments the architectural design. 3) Architecture - A unifying architectural theme should be developed for the mall with common design elements and materials. The use of natural materials and earth tone colors is recommended to reflect the rural/rustic character of Rancho Cucamonga. It was suggested that design features that reflect the City's winery history, such as, covered trellises and vines would be appro- priate. DC/das cc: P.C. C.C_ A RESOLUTION OF WE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE MASTER PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-06 FOR A REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, WEST OF INTERSTATE 15 IN THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: That the Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit 84-•06 are approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That this approval is conceptual approval of the Master Plan and CUP only and does not constitute approval of any specific designs. That specific site plan and architectural review is required for each phase of the project. 2. The northernmost lake shall become a stronger form-giving element and penetrate inside the parking lot "ring" road to provide greater visibility of the lake and lake edge activities. In adds%tion, a second smaller lake shall he provided at the northeast corner of Day Creek. Boulevard anal Victoria Loop consistent with the Victoria Lakes Community Plan. Buildings and activities :.round both lakes should be planned .o promote visibility of the lake. f 3. Trails around the lake and through the center shall be designed as an attractive focus of attention through landscaping and special treatment. 4. That mitigation measures provided within the Environmental Impact Repor" will be required upon each individual phase where applicable and when no—scary to the satisfaction of the Community cevelopm«r Department. 5. A unifying architectural theme shall be developed utilizing common design elements and materials. Natural materials, earthtone colors and design features reflective of the City`s winery heritage, such as covered trellises and vines shall be incorporated into the overall theme. SECTION 2: That a supplemental Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and certified for this project which contains mitigation measures that reduce impacts to an insignificant level. y • I yy11 1' h.. 16 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1984. y. Von D. Mikels, Mayor A Z . Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk r. i •� I. Vix 4.0 r , 1 it RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCA14O14GA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A MASTER PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 140. F: 84-06 FOR A REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED NORTH OF i FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, WEST OF INTERSTATE 15 IN THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY i WHEREAS, on the 6th day of June, 1984, a complete application was filed by HFA Associates for review of the above-describe; project; and WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of August, 1984, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above-described project. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed use, together with the condtions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Victoria Community Plan and Development Code. SECTION 2: That a supplemental Environmental Impact Repor- has been prepared for this protect which contains mitigation, measures tf,at reduce impacts to an insignificant level. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: 1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government Code, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 84-06. Resolution No. Conditional Use Permit 84-06 Page 2 2. That a certified copy of this Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council . APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22nd DAY OF AUGUST, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick G,zez, Deputy 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 Piar^ing Comission held on the 22nd day of August, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM OP c9 YI,I I� IIZ DATE: August 22, 1984 t . TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission iFROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner IBY: Curt Johnston, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENv'RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL UDDYN AMENDMENTS 84-02 The following three staff reports provide information and analysis on three sites selected by the Commission at the July 25, 1984 meeting for General Plan land use amendments, resulting from the 19th Street corridor study. The specific purposes of these staff reports is to provide an environmental analysis of the proposed amendments on each site and allow Commission consideration and public input regarding the ® i corresponding Development District amendments. i i RG:CJ:jr CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA G���nrpti, STAFF REPORT Z F DATE: August 22, 1984 Y97, TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner i aY: Curt Johnston, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84-02 A - I9TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY - An amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map frET Medium-High Residential (14-24 du/ac) to Medium Residential (4-14 du/ac) for 4.96 acres of la-nd, located at the northwest corner of 19th Street and Beryl Street - APN 201-221-08. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVFLOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 84-02 A - 9TH STREET CORRIDOR TUDY - Development District amendment Trom "MH" urac) to "M" (8-14 du/ac) for 4.96 acres of land, located at the northwest corner of 19th Street :-nd Beryl Street - APN I201-221-08_ I. SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Parcel Size: 4.S6 acres B. Existing Zon-ina: MH (14-24 du/ac) C. Existing Land Use: Existing church site, partially vacant D. Surroundina Land Use and Zoning: North - vacant property; zoned "L" (2-4 du/ac), but within the Foothill Freeway corridor South - Single family homes; zoned "L" (2-4 du/ac) East - Single family homes, single family subdivision, Beryl-Hellman Channel; zoned "L" (2-4 du/ac) J West - Sunscape Condominiums; zoned "MH" (14-24 du/ac) E. General Plan Designations: 1 Project Site - Medium High Residential (14-24 du/ac) North - Foothill Freeway Corridor South - Low Residential (2-4 du/ac) East - Low Residential (2-4 du/ac) West - Medium-High Residential (14-24 dulac) ITEM K & L PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT General Plan Amendment 84-02 A Development District Amendment 84-02 A August 22, 1984 Page 2 F. Site Characteristics: A church building and parking lot exist ` : on the southerlyhalf of the site. The northerly y portion of the property is vacant with no significant vegetation. The ° site slopes uniformly to the south at roughly 2-3 percent. The Beryl-Hellman Channel and street improvements are currently being constructed along the east boundary of the property. II . ANALYSIS: As mentioned in the previous scaff report, the existing church building represents a first phase of construction, and a conceptual master plan is approved which covers the entire site (see Exhibit 9") . The vacant northerly 3 acres of the site, however, may still be developed as residential. Considering this and site conditions such as the small size of the lot, single family homes to the east, and the Sunscape Condominiums to the west, the Commission consensus was to reduce the density to Medium Residential (4-14 du/ac) to provide a density transition from west to east. The corresponding Development District amendment is to Medium Residential (8-14 du/ac) . III. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed and is attached for your review. Staff has completed the Environmental Checklist, Part II of the Initial Study, and found no substantial evidence to indicate that significant environmental impacts Nils be the result of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Development District Amendment. The following is a summary of the major environmental factor.. considered by staff during preparation of the Initial Study: Traffic and Circulation: Traffic volume counts generated by residential development of this property would be lower under a Medium density designation on this property. If the 4.96 acres were to be developed at the mid-point of the density range under MH standards, approximately 753 trips per day would be anticipated. If developed at the mid-point of the M district standards, approximately 430 trips per day would be generated. Peak lour traffic volumes (10% of daily total during one hour) would also be lower if the site were developed under the M district. Drainage: No change in the amount of runoff will occur as a result of the property being designated Medium-High or Medium residential. In fact, development of the proposed church master plan church will probably create more runoff than a residential project because a larger portion of the site is devoted to a impervious surfaces (i.e., parking lot and building area). Schools: Development of the 4.96 acres under the Medium res—idential versus Medium-High residential standards would generate s. an estimated 16 fewer students (assuming development at mid-point density) . K- t PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT General Plan Amendment 84-02 A Development District Amendment 84-02 A August 2z, 1984 Page 3 V. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: To approve the amendments, the Commission should make the fo lowing findings: A. That the amendments are consistent with the intent of the General Plan Land Use Policies; and B. That the amendments promote the goals of the Land Use Element; and, C. That the amendments would not be materially injurious or detrimental to adjacent properties. V. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The Daily Report newspaper, the property posted and notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. To date, no written correspondence has been received either for or { against the proposed amendments. VIJ . RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission review and consider all material and input regarding the amendment. If the Commission can support the facts far findings, adoption of the attached Resolutions would be appropriate. Re yectful ubmitted, ic' G _ City Planner tRG:CJ:jr Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Map Exhibit "B" - Approved Church Master Plan Initial Study, Part I r Resolution of Approval C ' EJECT PROPERTY --a Single Family "tract NC wf Comm. Condominiums L Single E Family 75:h BNi � L J + Vacant L L. ! Si le Family C�rac Vacant I Vacant LM i - 1 � n 21 SUBJECT PROPERTY .1 r. . 17 �] �y�{S l.1 f � ♦ ) ♦ n�0� . • `F�wEaiwEn 4{In li . +]w TIN _ _ r' •• � ]iP[CT � - -♦MY[iE[M[M I FORTH CITY OF ITE\I: cam, r4-c:A - 19M-4 sr now RANCHO CL'CAN'10'.\ TITLE: Ai4 C fY�� yFl�i'L_ PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: rf SCALE: — w=. - � ro" v 1 I ,-I I III III 1j, , IHII - 1 Y [ LJJJ1 Iiil ! ! � I � I• ! I 41 u L.1 I I I I ! 1 II Ili ill lllli (1-IIII11lIIllliu nu, I in i fill GlCO�h ���C Atti4 . 2��.?A2-4 3q. r{ G1 o4 ;erAL aAOC�ti:' MBA. (nl �i+L :v.i . T'1.2=c�.8 Sq ►r C9V.�ti� 'CALE IN SET_• PwL'�hAu:L;L SEAT•+.li �zcv �pWAsg Si:. 3co� _.-:SASE�'L PAGCw.G)-.4PALBS-p!�ros^ � :xG 1^wwSt �= Ts� ® CITY Or IMN 4: gf�—�;Tylc a -oz A — ri T- ST f2 C-r RANCHO CZCANIONGA TITLE-. M..re:_ 19%Ys/ c3 -, — FtAA4 PLANNING LIVOON L'\HIMT•= ;a SGALE- -- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROXXT INFORflATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87. 00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the Project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will. prepare Part II of the Initial Studv. The Development Review Committee will meet and 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 applican, giving further informa- tion concerning the proposed project. r PROJECT TITLE: GPA 84-02 A and DDA 84-02 A - 19th Street Corridor Studv APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O- Box 807, Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Rick Gomez.. Citv Planner. (714) 989-1851 LOCATION CF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS ARID ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. ) Northwest Corner 19th Street & Beryl Ave. - APN• 201-221-08 z, LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND S FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: None sf I-1 , A41 i PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: rRA and MA frnm Moi-High Roai�lorstipi to Medium Residential- ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 27 Apra DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION 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) : A church building and parking lot exist on the southerly ha;f of the site. The northerly portion of the property is vacant with no significant vegetation. The site slopes unifomly to the south at rough lz 2-1 percent. The Bervi-Hellman Channel and street improvements are currently being constructed alona the east boundary of the property. Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental imaact? No. : .: 1-2 �. X WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO " X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewace, etc. ) ? X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X 5. Remove any existing trees? How many? X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation_ of any YES answers above : None IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional- information may be required to b submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the De aloam t Review Committee. Date August E, 1984 Signature \ f Title City./Manner t �- I-3 y RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVA"_ OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84-02 A - 19TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY, TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL FOR 4.96 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 19TH STREET AND BERYL AVENUE - APN 201-221-08. WHEREAS, the Planning Comriission has held a public hearing to consider said amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all public testimony regarding the requested amendment, and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment will not be materially injurious or detrimental to surrounding property. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: 1. The amendment is consistent with the intent of the General Plan Land Use Policies. 2. The amendment promotes the goals of the Lard Use Element. r 3. The amendment will not be materially injurious or detrimental to adjacent properties. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that Aaendment will not create a significant adverse impact on this General ffa� the environment and recommends to the City Council the issuance of a Negative Declaration on August 22, 1984. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 22nd day of August, 1984, of General Plan Amendment 84-02 A. 2. That a certified cony of the Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council . � a APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L Stout, Chairman ATTEST• Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of August, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: t i 4- Y, ® RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTI01 OF T'i= "^,P:C:?_ r—PW.ONGA PLANNING COMMISSION: RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DISTRICT CHANGE NO. 84-02 A REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE DISTRICT DESIGNATION FROM MEDIUM-HIGH TO MEDIUM FOR 4.96 ACRES LOCATED AT 7HE NORTY.'dEST CORNER OF 19TH STREET AND BERYL AVENUE - APN 201-221-08. WHEREAS, on the 25th day of July, 1984 the Planning Commission initiated the above-described project; and WHEREAS, o- the 22nd day of August, 1984, 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 h,.. made the following findings: 1. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing lard use in the surrounding area; and 2. That the proposed district change would not have significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and 3. That the proposed district 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 an the environment and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration on August 22, 1984. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government Code, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 22nd day of August, 1984, District Change No. 84-O2A. 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt District Change No. 84-C2A. 3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Connnission shall be forwarded to the City Council . Resolution No. Development District Amendment 84-02A Page 2 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY• Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy secretary I, nick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of August, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT 9 O O y Z F U > 19777 DATE: August 22, 1984 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Curt Johnston, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSEMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84- 02E - 19TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY - An amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map from Office to Medium- Residential (4 to 14 duiac) and from Medium-High Residential (14 to 24 du/ac) to Medium Residential (4 tc 14 du/ac) on 18.75 total acres of land, located on the north side of 19th Street between Archibald Avenue and Amethyst Avenue - APN 202-101-07, 11, 21, 22. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 84-O2B - 19TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY - A ® Development District Amendment from CP (Office/Professional) to M (8 to 14 du/ac) and from MH (14 to 24 du/ac) to M (8 to 14 du/ac) on 18.75 total acres of land, located on the north side of 19th Street between Archibald Avenue and Amethyst Avenue - APN 201-101-07, 11, 21, 22. I. SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Parcel Size: 18.75 acres. B. Existinq Zoning: MH (4 to 14 du/ac), OP (Office Professional). C. Existing Land Use: One single-family home exists in the center of -Ae site, a water district well exists on Parcel 7, and the Foothill Fire Protection District offices are located on Parcel 11. D. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Vacant land and Ocrus orchard; zoned L (L to 4 du/ac) , but within the Foothill Freeway Corridor. South - Single-family homes and single-family subdivision; zoned L (2 to 4 du/ac) , Brock domes Subdivision; zoned LM (4 to 8 du/ac). East - Neighborhood Shopping Center; zoned NC (Neighborhood ® Commercial). West - Office building and post office; zoned OP (Office Professional), retirement home and vacant land on west side of Amethyst; zoned M (8-14 du/ac). ITEM M & N PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GFA 84-028 - 19th Street Corridor Study August 22, 1984 Page 2 E. General Plan Desianations: Project Site - Medium-High Residential (14 to 24 du/ac), Office. North - Foothill Freeway Corridor. Low-Medium South - Low Residential (2 to 4 du/ac) , Residential (4 to 8 du/ac) . East - Neighborhood Commercial . West - Office, Medium-Residential (4 to 14 du/ac). r. Site Characteristics: The property slopes. to the south at a 4 to . grade. Veyetation on the site conssts of approximately 83 mature trees of different varieties, including a Eucalyptus windrow. The majority of the site remains undeveloped. I1. ANALYSIS: Staff was directed by the Planning Commission to advertise General Plan Amendments and Development District Amendments to allow the Commission to consider three possible land use alternatives for this site: o Redesignating the entire site as Medium Residential, or, o Maintain the Office designation and redesignate the remainder of the site to Medium Residential, or o No revision. policies within the General Plan and Development Code can be interpreted to support any of the alternatives. The General Plan hier Land Use Map supports the concept of urban centersidetns h al,ghor intensity land uses, such as higher density commercial and office development, at major intersections tempered an and by strong design standrads. In either case, the General P1Design Development Code also stress neighborhood compatibility. guidelines within the Development Code state: Projects must to compatible with and sensitive to the immediate environment of the thee aand esthetic conf lict projectbetweena designs must proposedfectively developmentigand surrounding land uses, and the mass and scale of buildings should be proportionate W surrounding development. In addition, the in-- -- of the General Plan and Development Code is to promote Pr_ transitions of density. III. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Part I of the Initial Study has been comps and is attached for your review. Staff has completed the Environmental Checklist, Part II of the Initial Study, and found no substantial evidence to indicate that significant environmental impacts will occur as a result of the proposed amendments on this site. The following is a summary of the major environmental concerns analyzed: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 84-028 - 19th Street Corridor Study August 22, 1984 Page 3 Traffic: The proposed amendment would result in a net reduction in the potential traffic volume generated by development of the property. This analysis is based on a traffic generation factor of 8 vehicle trips per day per multiple family unit, and 280 daily trips per acre of office development (Citywide Traffic Study, DKS, 1980), and assuming residential development at mid-point density. Under the current land use designations approximately 3,234 daily Trips (MH = 2,394, GP = 8401 would be generated. if the residential portion of the site was redesignated to Medium Re_ iential (15.75 acres), the anticipated traffic volume would drop by one third to 2,226 daily trips. If the three acre office site was changed to Medium Residential (OP = 840, M = 264), the anticipated total number of daily trips would drop to 1,650. Drainage: Redesignating the residential portion of this site to Medium Residential will most likely not affect runoff from the site. If the three acres currently designated as Office is chana_ed to Medium Residential, runoff from the entire site will be apporoximately 5% less. This reduction is due to the lesser amount of impervious surfaces for a residential versus office project. Development of the site under any of the alternatives will not ® adversely affect the surrounding streets since storm drains which service the property have already been installed from Highland Avenue to the railroad tracks north of Base Line. Soils and Geologv: Cevelopment of the site under any of the proposed alternatives caTi occur without significant adverse environmental impacts. The applicant has indicated that a portion of the property was previously used as a dump site, and that large quantities of soil would have to be excavated. This operation would have to occur, however, regardless of the land use designation on the property. Socio-Economic Factor: The applicant has indicated that the cost of excavating the property, ds mentioned in the above section, would create a significant economic effect if the density on the property is lowered. The CEQA guidelines, however, state that economic and social impact changes shall noc be treated as significant effects on the environment. Significant effects, as defined by CEQA, only occur as a result of a physical change. In this case, the change is purely economic since the excavation would have to occur with any development of the property under the current or proposed land use designations. Schools: Revision of the residential portion of the site to Medium Residential will reduce the anticipated number of students generated from 90 to 52 (basee on .3 students per unit and assuming development at mid-point density -- 19 du/ac for MH, 11 du/ac for M.) Redesignation of the three acre office site to Medium Residential would generate approximately 10 additional students. yJ�-3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 84-028 - 19th Street Corridor Study August 22, 1984 Page 4 IV. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The Commission must determine which of the alternatives is more appropriate and should make the following findings: A. The Amendments are consistent with the intent of the General Plan Land Use policies; B. The Amendments do promote goais of the Land Use element. C. The Amendments would not be materially injurious or detrimental to adjacent properties. V. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The Daily Report newspaper, the property posted, and notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. To date no written correspondence has been received either for or against this project. VI. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission review and consider all of the information presented in this report and determine which alternative is most appropriate. Should the Commission determine that a revision to the current land use designations is appropriate, adoption of one of the two Resolutions of Approval would be necessary. spe tf ty,submitted, Ri om Ci y P anner RG:CJ:ns Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Map Exhibit "8" - Natural Features Map Initial Study, Part I Resolutions of Approval IL �,�-y Siagfa Vacant Mc v =B!JECT PROPERTY C Family � ✓- i,��. W Tract —I; ilacafsc _ Sf VI SF E P.o. 12597 O? M M ¢ r Srx}e Fam➢y I Vacani L Vacant. Lint —1 Family ?r�e' L S.F.T. I Mobile rlm ea ~a. L4ND (2J ml M10M AVENUE y-. ' L •: t Fta 12 s7:9rE r+• �t•�r var. .0 w,K e T 1:0 nC.A B•E� T. to wi = ^9 r vacs Z0' •n;c WJ Q. >.or c ue ' I SUBJECT FROPERTVi. STREETS4­. J9m ,) of . � • 45 FORTH CITY Y OF ITLM: ._&MA&I-07- - 19ML S'r. srurX RANCHO CUCANIO\GA TITLE- eS /94 4Kr-4A.eH6lZl-,' T PLA.NNI`Ci DIVIRION E.\MMT: SCALE: 7yl-S W (il L L L 4.35 AC I •Z , ul VACANT VSC. NT L VAC4 NT VACANT < j VACAVA 2-03 AC WELL \SITE �.� :\ VACANT \ \ \. P. L4\\ • —"S.� PAR.\ \ \ ? 7 �I 1• �\\\ \PAR "` `\ '.=i+1 `\,\\\\\'6���3\AC^� u I 2: \ —� \T FIRE 5.1'STION -N. 6z9,u �. PAR. 2 � �. -\.�. f^•. �w40"" �- ,S � COMMERCI S 19 Y OF `\.\� ` \`.\`. \� +\..r\'enccimJl as eo• (46� \ OF\ PAR. 2 r COMMERCIAF ` ' �'�.,\��\\�\'- '--•S��\\r\\\ .\ OFFICES \�jl Y1r. \• \\-\\\ • �\' \ 'x I i J 19TH STREET RESIOENTCAL L' I to I K Li ie jj GAL4 O •• aVENUL- W "� C� V V NORTH CITY OF RANCHO CUCAiN,10.NGA TMLE: 5T/�/� ��_ .�► JS PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: n � SCALE:-_-- .- - _ CITY OF RANCHO CLICAMORGA LAW OFFICES OF COMMUNITY DEVROPMENT DEFT. R O N R. G O L O I E AUG 17 3984 3311 OCEAN FRONT WALK O. COUNSEL MARINA DEL REY. CALIFORNIA 90292 COLO:C LAW CORPORATION As PM iEL£PNOrv£ 121J) 822-8488 August 1.5, 1984 Rick Gomez, City Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Comaissicn Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Re: 19th Street Corridor Dear Mr. Gomez : As you know, my office represents Mrs. Lillian Bennett in connection with property owned by her at the intersection. of 19th and Archibald. As you are additionally aware, Lincoln Property Company has presently pending an application for site approval- for development on the subject property. 1 have received and reviewed a "Staff Report" to the Planning Commis- sion from you, dated August 8, 1984 , relative to "Environ- mental Assessment and Development Code Amendment" regarding the l9th Street Corridor. Please consider this letter as my for.nLl request to be copied with any and all such further staff reports as in any way relate to the 19th Street Corridor generally and, speci- fically, that relate to my client' s proper y. i S take the position, on behalf of r__• client, that she has a vested right to proceed, by extension, with the sale and development of her property by Lincoln Property Company. As you are undoubtedly aware, the submittal of Lincoln Property in all respects complies with each and every code and ordi- nance of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and any attempts by your department to create public controversy or to seek to cause disapproval of the project when, as you are aware, the law allows for same, will be met with an appropriate legal response by my office. . We believe that the project will ultimately be approved by the City Council, however, actions are being considered against the City of Rancho Cucamonga for activities undertaken to date which have constituted attempts to cause inverse condemnation of Mrs. Bennett' s property. in fast, without Rick Gomez , City Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga August 15, 1984 Page Two waiving or limiting our theories or causes of action against the City, I believe that delays have already been reasonably caused, so as to attenpt to circumvent the existing law and cause my client's property to be subjected to unjust and unreasonable down-zoning and regulation. I will expect to receive all further documents, as recuested, and will look fcrward to your response in the event that you feel I an inaccurate regarding any of the recitations contained herein. Thank you for your anticipated time and cooperation. I remain Very truly yours, (:R: LLIa RRG:mkd a i Y y` , CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMUNTION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analvsis 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 Conurittee 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 irfc.mation report should be supplied by the applicant giving further informa- tion con �rning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: GPA 84-028. QDA 64-02B - loth Street Corridor Ctiidy APPLICANT'S NAND, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: City of P=nch� i: , anoa,a P.O. Box 807 Rarcho Cucamonga California 91740 _ NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Rick GOTP7 _City Pl arnar LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. ) North Side of 19th S rFat_ 1et4P,-n Ar hihald AvPrua and AmP hyct Avenue. AM 201-101-07.1 1 _91 .99 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: i-1 , PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: r_pa R nil6 from and office to Medium Residential M- 2g�esade ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF AN.y: 28.75 acres DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFiNS FOAT ION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PL.iIQTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICIL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, ANf THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AidD THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) : The ropert slopes to she south at a 4 to 510 grade. Vegetation on the site consists of a proximate mature trees of different varieties, including a Eu alyptus windrow. The majority or the sate remaans un e- velooed. Structures or.-site inc ude a LCWD well , F-are Distract�?acPs ar:d station, and ane single rama v residence- Is the project Part of a larger project, ore of a series r Of oa.=ulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? No. 1-2 t t 4 WIT T THIS PRO3ECT: YES NO X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? _ X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc. ) ? X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or General plan designations? — X 5. Reinc ve any existing trees? How many? X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Exn_ iar_ation of an_v YES answers above: None I_NLDORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further un3erstand that additional information may be recuired to be submitted before an adequate s` evaluatio_^. can be made by the Develo ent Review Committee. Date August fi, 1984 Signat=,re Title 9tv Planner 1 tr k: 1-3 )�- 1l RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84-02 B - 19TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY, TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM HIGH RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL ON APPROXIMATELY 15.75 ACRES GF LAND, LOCATED ON THE NORTH Slut OF 19TH STREET BETWEEN ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND AMETHYST AVENUr - APN 201-101 47, 11, 21, (IN PART ONLY), AND 22. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider said amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all public testimony regarding the requested amendment, and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment will not be materially injurious or detrimental to surrounding property. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: 1. The amendment is consistent with the intent of the ® General Plan Land Use Policies. 2. The amendment promotes the goals of the Land Use Element. 3. The amendment will not be materially injurious or detrimental to adjacent properties. 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 the City Council the issuance of a Negative Declaration on August 22, 1984. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT °-SOLVED: 1. That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 22nd day of August, 1984, of General Plan Amenwoint 84-02 S. 2. That a certified copy of the Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Corrnission shall be forwarded to the City Council . APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L_ Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foreqoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of August, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: s ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: C kk ,1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DISTRICT CHANGE N0. 84-02 B REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE DISTRICT DESIGNATION FROM MEDIUM HIGH TO MEDIUM FOR APPROXIMATELY 15.75 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 19TH STREET BETWEEN ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND AMETHYST AVENUE - APN 201-101-07, 11, 21 (IT: PART ONLY) , AND 22. WHEREAS, on the 25th day of July, 1984 the Planning Commission initiated the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of August, 1984, 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 findings: 1. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and 2. That the proposed district change would not have significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and 3. That the proposed district change is in conformance with the General Plan. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Cunnission has found that this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration on August 22, 1984. NOW., THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government Code, that the Planning Commmission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby iecornends approval on the 22nd day of August, 1984, District Change No. 34-02 B. 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommaends that the City Counr*t avprove and adopt District Change No. 84-02 B- 3, That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related taaterial hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council . r APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1 BY: tennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of August, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: t: 1 f- (I i 1 n' 1S', ® RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84-02 B - 19TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY, TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM OFFICE/PROFESSIONAL AND MEDIUM HIGH RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL ON 18.75 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 19TH STREET BETWEEN ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND AMETHYST AVENUE - APN 201-101-07, 11, 21, AND 22. 1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider said amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all public testimony regarding the requested a endmcnt, and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment will not be materially injurious or detrimental to surrounding property. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: I. The amendment is consistent with the intent of the General Plan Land Use Policies. 2. Tine amendment pr_motes the goals of the Land Use Element. r 3. The amendment will not be materially injurious or detrimental to adjacent properties. 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 the City Council the issuance of a Negative Declaration on August 22, 1984. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 22nd day of August, 1984, of General Plan Amendment 84-02 B. 2. That a certified Copy of the Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council . APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22PD DAY OF Afmi'ST, logo PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of August, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: s F' F f RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DISTRICT CHANGE NO. 84-02 B REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE DISTRICT DESIGNATION FROM OFFICE/PP.OFESSIONAL AND MEDIUM-HIGH TO MEDIUM FOR 18.75 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 19TH STREET BETWEEN ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND AMETHYST AVENUE - APN 201- 101-07, 11, 21 AND 22. WHEREAS, on the 25th day of July, 1984 the Planning Com^ission initiated the above-described protect; and WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of August, 1984, th^ Planning Commission held a duly advertised public Nearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the California Government Code. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: 1. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and 2. That the proposed district change would not have significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and 3. That the proposed district change is in conformance with the General Plan. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has fount that this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration on August 22, 1984. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1 That niircount to Sprtinn 65850 tn 65855 of the - i --- the Planning California Government Cade, that 9 Com ission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 22nd day of August, 1984, District Change No. 84-02 B. 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Cour.cil approve and adopt District Change No. 84-02 B. 3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related rr_terial hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council . APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY. Dennis L. Stou an ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy 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 Cicy of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of August, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CgCAM01, STAFF REPORT W7 DATE: August 22, 1984 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Curt Johnston, Associate Planner t SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN kMENDMENT 84-02 C - 19TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY - An amendment to the s' General Plan Land Use Map from Office and Low-Medium Residential (4-8 du/ac) to Low Residential (2-4 du/ac) on 11.23 acres of land, located at the northeast corner of 19th Street and Hermosa Avenue - APN 202-191-13, 14, 23. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 84-02 C - 19TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY - A Development District Amendment from "OP" (Office/Professional) and "LM" (4-8 du/ac) to "L" f2-4 du/ac) on 11.23 acres of land located at the northeast corner of 19th Street and Hermosa Avenue - APN 202-191-13, I 14, 23. I I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: I A. Parcel Size: 11.23 acres B. Existi q Zoning: Low Medium Residential (4-8 du/ac) , OP Office Professional) C. Existing Land Us ,: Vacant D. Surroundinq Land Use and Zonino: North - Single family homes;zoned "L" (2-4 du/ac) South - Single family homes; zoned "L" (2-4 du/ac) East - Single family subdivision; zoned "L" (2-4 du/ac) West - Vacant property with two approved residential condominium tracts; zoned Medium Residential (8-14 du/ac) E. General Plan Designations: roject Site - Low Medium Residential (4-8 du/ac) , Office North - Low Residential (2-4 du/ac) South - Low Residential (2-4 dulac) East - Low Residential (2-4 du/ac) West - Medium Residential (4-14 du/ac) 'rc ITEM 0 & P General Plan Amendment 84-02 C Development District Amendment 84-02 C August 22, 1584 Page 2 F. Site Characteristics: The property slopes to the south at approximately 2-3 percent. A number of trees are scattered throughout the site, in particular near a burned down residence at the west end of the site. II. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission determined that a Low Residential designation on this site would De appropriate considering the single family character of the area and t) , possibility of extending the streets within the easterly tra.t through this property. Also considered was the isolated nature of future office development on the southerly half of the site. III. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed and is attached for your review. Staff has also completed the Environmental Checklist, Part II of the Initial Study, and found no substantial evidence to indicate that significant environmental impacts will occur as a result of the General Plan and Development District amendments. The following is a summary of the major environmental factors considered in the Initial Study. Traffic: it is anticipated that 1,855 trips per day would be generated by development of this site under the "OP" and "LM" District standards using generation factors of 280 daily trips per r acre of office and 12 daily trips per single family home at mid- point density (i .e., OP=1411, LM=445). Develupment of the site bs under the "L" District standards, however, would sutantially reduce the anticipated daily traffic counts to approximately 408 trips (34 units x 12 daily trips) . Drainage: Development of this site under the District standards versus "LM" and °'OP°' will reduce runoff by approximately 58 percent. The major reduction in runoff occurs onto the southerly cortion of the site cu°-rently designated "OP", since office development has significant portions of the site devoted to impervious surfaces (i.e. , parking lot and building areas) . III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: To approve the amendments, the commission should make the following findings: A. That the amendments are consistent with the intent of the General Plan Land Use Policies; B. That the amendments promote the goals of the Land Use Element; and, C. That the amendments will not be materially injurious or detrimental to adjacent properties. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT General Plan Amendment 84-02 C Development D4strict Amendment C".-02 C August 22, 1984 Page 3 IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The Daily Report newspaper, the property posted, and notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. To date, no written correspondence has been received either for or against this project. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission review and consider all material and input regarding the proposed amendments. If the Commission can support the facts for findings, adoption of the attached Resolution would be appropriate. Respecat'fulYy submitted, 0 R ck ez City Planner RG:CJ:jr AttE.hments: Exhibit "A" - Site Map Initial Study, Part I Resolution of Approval A VACANT APT. to I = 51853 i susscr�aso �N 3 ! 11781 - = s IF t. _J � VACANT 1 rr--� L -- - - - - - �}- -^• f n vI POr.3 Par. ! �.7— '�J�� 3 i I� f.tO d7 1 1.J�•4^ ! LC34C ��j i�- '�' :� � � c O .I C c Ac -- �i SUBJECT PROPERTY gal .aim r 3� nyl E: ��ai: oI J:<�c.a a Ll ct `7 SJ. . ;La .•sjul�n 1, I�,� J, 1�, 1Gp� i5LK. ,F.-1. l,O: IFia cJ.IE IL-. �©r,6. ��© • _. 5: ?LET � a014f :' r- :rya. a.- . aa. a a � `( i•- -1 - _ 1 •. - �� - is �-1-.. ',7 ' •r'^`/s' ? a O � I I J a �.p 5.32 AC. I ) 5 Pr NORTH CITY OF f ITEM: ��s - 19 RA\CHO CLC-�;-\'IO\GA -n TLE= t�r ,��,z=,�_ PLk\, TNI\G DI\rO,()\ EXIiIBFr: A SCI LE: — 4 ' U CITY OF RANCHO CUCA14ONGA INITIAL STUDY PART 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87. 00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this fo ., must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Studv. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Cor:-nittee will make one of three determinations: 13 The project will have no signi- ficant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant environmental i::pact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further infor:ra- tion concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: GPA 84-02C, DDA 84-02 C- 19th Street Corridor Study APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE:sity of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Rick Gomez. City Planner (714) 989-1851 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. ) Northeast corner of 19th & Henosa. APN: 202-191-13,14,23 LIST OTHER PERMITS Iv?:CESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: I-I `� 1 PROJECT ?'ESCRIPTIC" DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: CPA Fin ML-frem Off ir nd Ow-hied p?GiriantiA1 to I nw RPCirianti Al ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 11 _23 arrac DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCI•UDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIhALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE CF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) : Tha j rnnarty clnPac to tho south At ApQrnximataly 2-1 narrant A numhar of traac Ara cr ttarari thrmifihmit tha Sita in rartiriAar near a hurnad r'nwn raci nra At tha t anri of tha cite Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, pay as a whole have significant environmental impact? No. 1-2 r; O -G ® WILL THIS PROJECT: iES NO x _ 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? x_ 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? y _ 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc. ) ? X _ 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? 5. Remove any existing trees? How many? X_ 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flarunables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: None IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I herebv certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submi5ted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the De4elop ent Review Committee. Date Auoust 6. 1984 Signature Title C4 Planner 1-3 O �� RESOLUTION NO. A PESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84-02 C - 19TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY, TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM LO'd-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE/PROFESSIONAL TO LOW RESIDENTIAL ON 11.23 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 19TH STREET AND HERMOSA AVENUE - APN 202-191-13, 14, 23. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider said amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all public testimony regarding the requested amendment, and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment will not be materially injurious or detrimental to surrounding property. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: 1. The amendment is consistent with the intent of the General Plan Land Use Policies. 2. The amendment promotes the goals of the Land Use Element. 3. The amendment will not be materially injurious or detrimental to adjacent properties. 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 the C4-ty Council the issuance of a Negative Declaration o . August 22, 1984. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 22nd day of August, 1984, of General Plan Amendment 84-02 C. 2. That a certified copy of the Resoluticn and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council . Resolution No. General Plan Amendment 84-02C Page 2 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, gassed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of August, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: o -q RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DISTRICT CHANGE NO. 84-02 C REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE DISTRICT DESIGNATION FROM LOW MEDIUM AND OFFICE/PROFESSIONAL TO LOW FOR 11.23 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 19TH STREET. AND HERMOSA AVENUE - APN 202-191-13, 14, 23. WHEREAS, on the 25th day ,)f July, 1984 the Planning Commission initiated the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of At _­st, 1984, 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 findln�gs' 1. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and 2. That the proposed district change would not have significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and 3. That the proposed district 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 issuance of a Negative Declaration on August 22, 1984. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government Code, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 22nd day of August, 1984, District Change No. 84-02 C. 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt District Change No. 84-02 C. 3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Ccros,issioj� shall be forwarded to the City Council. i Resolution No. Development District Amendment 84-02C Page 2 APPR- VED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 1984. PANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST• Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy 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 or the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nO day of August, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: i' f 0 -// CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT O � IO �I a Iz > DATE: August 22, 1984 i9 TO-- Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Linda Daniels, Associate Planner SUBJECT: EUIRONMENTPL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84-32 - BARMAKIAN - The development of an industrial complex tots ing 123,000 square feet on 8 acres of land in the General Indu trial/Rail Served category (Subarea 5), located at the northwest corner of Center Avenue and 6th Street - APN 209-261-26. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of a precise site plan and architectural design, and issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Purpose: Construction of a 123,000 sq. ft. industrial/manufacturing complex. C. Location: The northwest corner of Center Avenue and 6th Street. D. Parcel Size: 8.04 acres. E. Existing Zoning: Industrial Area Specific Plan, General Industrial/Rail Served Category (Subarea 5). F. Existing Land Use: Vacant. G. Surround in land Use and Zoning: North - Vacant, n ustr:al Specific Plan (Subarea 5). South - Vacant, Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 6). East - Vacant, industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 5). West - Deer Creek Flood Control Channel and Vacant, Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 5) . H. General Plan Designations: Project Site - general Industrial/Rail Served. North - General Industrial/Rail Served. South - Industrial Park. ® East - General Industrial/Rail Served. ® West - General Industrial:/Rail Served. ITEM Q i": cuviranmental Assessment ana UK 64-SL - uarmakian August 22, 1984 Page 2. I. Site Characteristics: The property is currently vacant and presently slopes in a southeasterly direction. vegetation is limited to an old grape vineyard and indigenous grasses and weeds. The improved Deer Creek Flood Control Chanrel borders the subject site on the west. II. ANALYSIS: A. General : The projerc is designed as an industrial/manufacturing complex with each building expected to have a different user. -he exterior materials include the use of tilt-up concrete panels which will maintain a natural grey color. Around the window areas along 6th Street and at each building entrance fluted concrete and sandblasted concrete textures will be used. Each building entrance will have a reveal of approximately six to eight inches in width. Each entrance reveal will be painted a different color in order to establish building identity. Access to the site shall be provided from Center Avenue and a public cul-de-sac leading from 6th Street. S. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project and recommended several design and landscaping changes which the applicant has addressed. These addressed changes include such things as (1) the addition of fluted and sandblasted concrete at the building entrances and window areas, (2) the extension of the landscape area at the corner of 6th Street and Center Avenue so that it wraps around the main building entrance, (3) the provision of landscape areas adjacent to the buiidings, (4) the screening of loading areas, and (5) the natural grey be exposed on the building facade rather than painted. The Design Review Committee also requested the appiica.+t to provide three to five foot landscaped area on the west, between the proposed buildings and the property line, in order to enhance the buildings adjacent to the proposed Regional equestrian trail. This is possible with the present site plan design. The Committee also commented on the colors propc- 2d for the buildings. They preferred the concrete to remain a natural grey color and that the accent colors carry out low-key or muted tones. Suggestions as to appropriate types of colors were steel blue, rust, navy blue, forest green and dark browns or tan. The applicant has chosen to use some of these colors in addition to various shades of orange and purple. A condition requiring a more appropriate choice of colors is provided for your consideration. Environmental Assessment and OR 84-32 - Barmakian August 22, 1984 Page 3 C. Technical Review Committee: The Development Review Committee reviewed the project and determined that with the recommended conditions of approval the project is consistent with applicable standards and ordinances. D. Grading Committee: The Grading Committee has also conceptually approved the grading plan provided the two—foot swale shown on the north property line is constructed- E. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed the cr.irc�ae .+al rtiocklict and hac found no significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of this project. If the Commission concurs with these findings, issuance of a NE-ative Declaration would be appropriate. II1. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: This project is consistent with the Industrial Area Specific Pan and the General Plan. The proposed use, building design and site plan, together with the recommended conditions of approval, is in compliance with all applicable City standards. In addition, the project will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or cause significant adverse environmental impacts. T IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised for Environmental { Review in The Daily Report Newspaper. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution and Conditions pertaining to this project. Resp ctfui su itted, RrittyPplanner C WG:LD:ns Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map & Industrial Specific Plan Exhibit "B" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Illustrated Site Flan Exhibit "D" - Grading Pian Exhibit "E" - Building Elevations (3 sheets) Initial Study - Part I Resolution of Approval with Conditions p L FSF 8th E •/!ice ' p �v�� nCO' YT'r�.0'N-• tl Y� rar �y .ae J I ' ° cI COl era, < -©_4 i r � Q ; Q �G 0. rea a jj Lu ""' ; __- i A '� ♦6}J>t LI �j I C euws•ro.acov. no..ma. s. I �Z U�7 O A O \ t � _�.� y �11. y�� '8 �.�� �.Zvo�� � ` u ,,,,,.,,,o-��r..•>.m.. V a L; g • pl wt •ri - _ U U( •i a ..� . i � ....r.sio.,.�...�.. w,.o.>me. :tea• 0 LLJ(� 'S -�.�• r '^y � • �r�'73 d �_ T��l � � wa+s c...�oaa+.e/zesa+: :/ � H N v - UI 1 azCUM subarea16 ,'� ' �— : ,. - n"'o"..�.o+=iaawo '�•'e4""'•'o'�'�sZS ��I���:,. f k $ITE P1 A �- 4th a 0 a -- �L. \ORTH CI1'1' OI CITY OF iTcNr � 3� RANCHO RANCHO CLCA\�IONGA TITLE: _RhUbd. PL:k\NI\G DIN PL VNNI\G DIVLSIGN c�[3i��iT= SCALE- t 2 PLANNING =11MISSION STAFF REPORT Environmental Assessment and DR 84-32 - Barrnacian August 22, 1984 Page 3 C. Technical Review Committee: The D•:velopment Review Committee reviewed the project and determined that with the recommended conditions of approval J,e project is consistent with applicable standards and crdin!�nces. D. Grad",no Committee: The Grading Committee has also conceptually approved the grading plan provided the two foot swale shown on the north property line is constructed. E. Environ-mental Assessment: Part I of the Inr .. ;al Study hcs been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed the Environmental Checklist and has found no significant acverse environmental impacts as a result of this project. If the Commission concurs with these findings, issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: This project is cons stent with the Industrial Area SpecifiE Plan and the General Plan. The proposed use, building desigr and site plan, together with the recommended conditions of approval, is in compliance with all applicable City standards. In addition, the project will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or cause significant adverse environmental impacts. IV. CORRES.JNDENCE: This item has been advertised for Environmental Review in The Daily Report Newspaper. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution and Conditions pertaining to this project. Resp ctful su fitted, Ri�cck _ ez 7 C�ty,Plannar 1 �G:LD:ns Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map & industrial Specific Plan Exhibit "B" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Illustrated Site Plan Exhibit "D" - G-adinc Plan Exhibit "E" - Building Elevations (3 sheets) Initial Study - Part I ,, Resolution of Approval with Conditions Sth �i I 1 n � 11 7th ? p u , rea 4 �� >- • i U 6th Ole ci OO • ♦ 0113 0 4 ° T � T � sutrarea 6 r s ? � = subarea 161 4th s < ' ea aoa 00 000v wnooa 6 alolo " V 1 NORTH M ISION •• I B cc �' •� I�''��.Jt�.f � (�7 7-�e_ �r—�.'.{ fu 5 � . ' ��I I � y 5 11 LM cc F, 'P. � �•�`_ 4 `� OC�`/�'K 0�eer• Tra�1 ii.i (. 9 --. }i _` h^,N�/,' a. _.e• , I3] cz LU cn 44. e '_ 1 7 lip C 9.(� ��_' ii1'C'•r It srrE PLAN NORTH CITY O1; ITL-\I= RANCHO T,TLE:_&bV7d :9 Iz PLtVNNI\G DTvjS?QN EXHIBIT. u — SCALE- 4 z9 I� i _ �y; s r c Cam , o ZaL L UJ Ala 10 11 i = k l; AIL SITE PLAN^J WORM CITY 01�- Ai\Ci-iO C CAXIONGA Tom, Tifo�fra Q � - PLANNING Di1'V SIC?N "- - t1rt� � m �'. •-im l® 1 � I ..ram i. W - LU UCFL --T-- w /I !" -- is � ,iCCcU i 1 f d1 - t GRADING PLAN i p (� 1 C1.1.UNIONG 2 jTlZc: r n��,il .! DUI T-ULG\ CUZ i�i i 602 y. CU = `' vim_ CLtsrricN. _ Z II. U c> C.} _ o 1@ p a � 7C Yb'-ram i 1�J �•ir.�v a mourn or_--, Mob ISSN V FORTH CITY OF RANCHO Cg.C�1\'I©�C`ir� TITLE: eeLfP�"%6?' ��PY -� xo PL`��Ttii\G DI\'LSIQ� e\111sIT: "G SCALE- i Z �E E 3� 614 I7< ? C) q LU Cr cv'.'rY c !BtatT�v= !L U ccz ,..- a �2 r O sr Lu Z? cYi9s -rrf= f I� L FORTH CITY OF ITE,\I: 29 +� RANCHO CLCAiN,10t"GA T►TL"E: o;+azzw eler rdxa PL\-NNING DIVISION E\I3IBIT: uGii SCALE: r 620 I MT wo co !1 �ovnar av-C..rrw�v as r3�CLI- Oi .r T! r US .s�'�c ccarr�r• i�-Q LU � �Z CL L) Cj Q�u L = I aa -- �-h f NOR T H CITY OF ITEM: ®X 94-li32� RANCHO CLC.AtiIO\GA TITLE: efthrdbdna) , � PLANNI.NG DIVISION EXHIBIT- � SCALE: "no" _ G- / o r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT Ii1FORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87. 00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this fcr:a must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the devartment where the project application is made. i,pon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff wi' l prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review C01--mittee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time 'the project is to be heard. Tye Committee will make one of three dete:=,inations : 1) The project will have no signi- ficant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, ?) T ,e project will have a significant environmental _mpact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further informa- tion concerning the proposed project. � f PROJECT �/� i TITL : . 2' � tL f APPLIC;LN,21S NAME. ADD =S$, E ONE: t .rQ NAME, ADDRESS, Tr--*L%PHONE Or, PERSON TO BE CONTAF�-TTED CONCERNING THIS LOCATION OF PROJECT ST.�,r,^fi ADD{�SS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDDERA _jr�GENCIF ANQ MHE AGEtp-_)�ISSUING SUCH PERMITS : -1 e.: PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCR7 PTIO_ OF _ RO ECT: r] y i ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND StIUAPE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGSr IF ANY.- DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFO:RN,ATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) ;LNIMALS, ANY CULTTJRAL, M:STORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTUPES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) : r n - r f Is the project part )f a larger project, one of a series of cumulative action , . which although individually small, may as a whole have ignificant environmental impact? I-2 WILL THIS PROJECT: YES. NO Create a substantial change in ground contours? L-/2. Create a substantial change in existing —/ noise or vibration? _ ✓ 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc. ) ? �4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? �_ ✓ �5. Remove any existing, trees? Sow many? ,/ 6. Create the need for use or disaosal of potentially hazarslo_s materials such as toxic substar_ces, flammables or explosives? Explanation. of any Y£S answers above: IMPORTANT: If the prc-ject involves the construrtion of residential units, complete the fort on the r. Yt page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and inforrc.ation 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 t?: ional information may be required to be submitted fore a adequate evaluation can be mad by the De _ Went Re . - tt e. , �M- Dat e sIggnnaaturree l/ T I-3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 84-32 LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CENTEP, AVENUE & 6TH STREET IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL/RAIL SERVED DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 20th day of July, 1984, a complete application was filed by Andrew Sarmakian for review of the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on the 220 day of August, 1984, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above-described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following -an be met: I. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and 2. That the proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and 3. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of t the applicable provisionz of the Industrial Area f Specific Plan and the Development Code; and 4. That the proposed use, together with the condition: applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or wBIfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: That this project will not create ad-._�rse imparts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on August 22, 1984. SECTION 3: That Development Review No. 84-:? is approved subject to the following conditions and attached Standard Conditions: I. That the reveal colors proposed for the entrance of each building be revised to include more subdued colors such as steel blue, rust, dark brown, forest green and tan. ?. A three to five foot landscaped area shall be provided along the west boundary, between the buildings and the property line. n - / y Resolution No. Page 2 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS PLA4Tjl4G COFIMISSIOY OF THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST OF 1954, RANCHO C 3Y: UCAMONGA Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy ecretar Y I, Rick G Rancho °met, Deplit S Cucamon Y Secretary of regularly introduced hereby certify that Planning on City , passed the forego�no Commission the on the Ranch° Cucamonga, at a and adopted b the P-g Resolution City of 22rd day of August, IgB�F regular Y tanninas duly and meeting of the Planning CoCmm'ssion of the AYES: by the following arming Commission held COMMISSIONERS: 9 vote-to_wit: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: r G�-Is ' L ? ✓ V N 4 G O V � � rdir y✓ w0..L O D � O n lJ �` 7✓ O COc _ _ >Ga G ✓O q T O C 6 O C O 9 C L ✓ G ' O U P r" O E ', rVm GV qC�_6 CUG �C� O TV VL ` OD O T N C T p y r - V � - � CM1 � E c- O-� u O O " •� N (- N � ✓ V C V 7 L r u Y O ✓ < N^V C � 7 V G O �. C �' 'w l r�r A V G u�G r C✓ C O_ ��O q L O � G V G L q ConCO q N L O N' Y� GCNL r✓ Z9C ` VV� V '�L V� 7 G✓LP D=b✓ • w.. C 9 >L G q J d u r O O g d O d r O o� L O y n G L rs Y C - r✓ 4✓ _ E O_ _ G I a� V` E U n g N y Y O✓� =D = C V g J O Z l� `�✓✓ J C d q _ ✓a No✓a � O 6 10rq 9 >CbN '- L O.N`LN qC dC N�qA � �9 Gq � L � O✓ GCJYJ q N Ndq � rOn ✓ Cqd J dq rV� C O T- A-2 P N d 9 O U Y C✓ N Q r lC1 d V p G O F✓ N G N ` qC _ .eC rFu q 6r� � O Jg _ r^_J f�•] _^rn✓ O D 7 C`a O � G P✓ p7 r N d✓✓ N _b D O d 6� 0 � ?` v V `J U Nam: qDV .^ t1!✓ NG O�V �. NLuO p - nN T06✓� _ u0 > d�0 y M1. L C `.rVO O. O.'. � owl:. .✓ TtY- u V"' !�- OP _o>.u` r0.� iy � rOG E6_ CTyrl .". d .gr •+nc�ca c� .d.c N..a <=4 °'E dL Nb o�QP o Nc J _ 9_ Y r Y o c_>a qy E .��o d d✓— N c mqm iaY- nc�goadi �q e ✓` 1 -V _dM T p 6� Y g 6 V Z .Jn� t C W L G •J O L d O L�IhI e 1 u rev p ✓ r J L C Y ✓ ' ` ^ q� G n N d iMNw o pq NL Oi v C O J r V C O C V G N V q .Ui.6 L q ZC 4^..rD O_ M1•a� O tq ra_� Y✓..� Y SJ j t TNi bbL d � J O� _ ✓6 ij Or _ c o G� c u`e ✓arq IJ y. N O I ✓t9 rw g V 7 O C r N OI N L .Lqn �✓ uu O O q v uI d_u _ — E 6v aY O• V . VO�►1 .` .T.' P r Y q q o q c r— ' P d u r V q C M1 G r N V N = GJ - G a L Y Ner gy.Ni. • r- u to �I • � C9 >nD GVPO+NOrC V V+ LV V A - > �Q D L v D 9 D C V q i O✓ O D L D V A • O A 6- _ ✓_ V d � C �i_n Pi.d d�i ¢C J� - A L S^ c O✓ o w� >' •Oi q n �` P (' w2 •• Syl Vng Va L •GwNOGL9 rJ� G_NA Cr+ �DCq O .n .` O� l L Y y r� O N 9 •O � .�.. O N S A � V�-- O✓ C•q•VO WLO � � G 9� N A 90 V✓ >6 'i R E C C y C r O•Li•g9bVu 0✓ ury..• _CDVA ONN CSp � � O NNdC 2 p0-O �l � L•'.• r G O O Y � C� q o i� A N L V V�O - � = n•q d p g V N y 9 N 9 P'j 0 � - V�� q q 9 L y �'• >•� �• C C y r G q y✓C r-D �� ✓ C u �. N O O L W✓ O N C A d _OL Y •.yE ITLC_ O^ UN p2r V >•f,D C' NN d dC_ >� aL V �4 J y "O. L Lr`• yT•G LV V• - ' r V Ln OYO > `] _ i •l� COVd U rN� NR .� •G� � ••'L L 97�r G¢- oONV • i •.. .,. -- fir N`o ^o_ d N •' No _ c r L•-• c G G S- E`^ q A E c i f � E^J 7 S. c c < L A JLL Ned �rG J E 72 u n c c G n O C � N�d P L N - .v L ^ Ct� DOLT- VVV - ILC V�' 6 y= o✓NO q V�NN O r� U P�E� G L 9 � r o � G� C O n C A O i l V '•D _N 9 N 9 r' � u N C N C p C.- - 6 O • V r A N _ A r n V V r i V C D O~ •N V N A 9 y 1 V�+ �• _ G V G✓ L y y� E (YJ j V q=✓ =�=09 r9 uuNGN•o-_O �u - Or L G VV D [ NOO C L VPr C. L✓ 20 P-Ayo• G-L. q�rN � N- L•O• ryuN CVL CLN q VOgV `Lu-O aPC=CTVV CO'- L -9 = ` 9� j+ ` p qY - c N N �o L' '� � vp,c• = ` O N� - qdL aLL G>•nr •O•.-9•.. VooV_ y4'_/jr•� �^ Se � � Lb •' rD iL_ Ldp yqG -r- '• C M- FCLFV f•' O uVO4✓ �N CV C '- fd •Vn ✓P LV > O V u V L ^ �d l D O r C 9 G C >• V q�' J N L 2 O N'C ` O V L] u quV YY� Y >N •�.••�..L. N OV•gi• CF: O•"- L r L� A� j i �iG� 4✓- .L.s L. dG 1 cg6oPD�_ �Lo= a. - _ Lc� __�a _ .+Lir- `� �•'oc p' �N :o cow ep� oc L �� Er Gco rz- o +r 6 V� M•-+ NN� 239 bV N� C`• N + 6 -S CL 6J6 6r NO 6AWm O G G; N 1 6C TP U>• G^ q CC ETC•r 9• VGV � drrd _rO da pS b�- t C q v O� •L.•� �Cj L •ri• O O G' O O i U= ? G;r J Lr qu \` � O � r. F2i9 v^" uNWrp u ruN Lpu ' w'd �n� L90 pr r V- d OCy Or 2- C `90T L•Vr M aMr qN c D , € L YL 2 c cr +•G ..,,•� d E fi _T L W H A o o V E✓ c -V O� L ��A V V V q - O `q l • 9` O O •Go „ d N O V e.'.. �c..•'a uc i r .Ti = Es ,z - ¢ qr N r Ear L P G A! O D O +^ W N G O 9 V V a C N L +•=C] OL vE. Pr�-y Oy _C•e LOV 4p - HO POy q-9C vC C9 Nr Pp[U1 roN p- `'o' 'L`o is - L .�..` o'O N•". J� _"c"= P �o Vq 'n NFL. pE 72L C �Cy9r VqN � VV� O ✓NVr� •: GdL L.• 9 D V c E r q G T C q P a u V r N N L 4N- A d+ To? CdA 9u -JP wrC J7p <• LS401 WHO •eyN q2 OWN �rD q `V >7 CCC-JG CrAd •D��V Cl C' � NCr JW C QN i yam. N �� � >> GOB CAN C� WO�n .2- N�ri•q �dG O oiC O NE> d7 O'� A V9�• C Tyoj6PL; LLC C_ LTOOu -G, oA Vo^ `O L t - C V O >�q C d C 9-• 6 V q q G r V � � Pl C N ; O tq NL - >d LOLL Cgquq C9 C9 CA rCd t�CUM VC C q 9 V r N r V -J� 6 'e V 6 C l_r C n�•9 O C E V I E O C O 1 O p L • L+ r a Q V ... > S a O d u E - C G O q C a t+ C! C••G n O= C a V 99_ N V6r•J r0 LONGZ C_ -_ GA C Lr� 4rLP C•^ LrV Vy E •vrL N q - V uVlr ?r L q±` GOG ' o0.' py >•� C VC 90rA Eu9 9r_ ^-- 6 C C O r y0 .9 G 4 M N ' O C q C` C C O' f• Y E A V c c ✓o C � c C v y c > r O O A D qr q- dE uc AO •u _- 69V � o o c cr�yy � - G r L N O !•-N D N q 6 V 9 n V !r P-- r r Y C T � 4 6 g p 6 E r 6 0 ' _ -• .�.-' c _ e ion`- .._. = c -'" L cq �rL q- `jv ��.. CCU gCgCV •n �I C' O� -jMi q G _ T.C'O O J >r n V T O V O n L �-Cli R PCC �L O > L T O l "J• r `� q G C Z V C-_ � q �Of V C R � C'�r O rj� p 9MN C r ryU ��_ _ rn rn OLD d0 C �..1 CVCO La �'u Ca N C V ;;•Ln fjr YdO6 ' v q = d ✓ q . O nC` aT✓' <7 9NaL 7PP J > 'J C✓ _JL V_ 9VL _^ccoq __n=i cr �o•r� "`.dam w � <- u --" _ oo +• P C N O T I = G u hEV Ol� v �-.• Od > N V V rn _' C_L N 77 2 `` �� ✓ �+ nw ; P V y u r` SL C nr 6N ��- c00 Pu L L <A •S Tqt Ld 9P✓ q V Vr C LC qv N T Ca 6q0 V ^j C LV P L j �LVV VM2 9 N � Cr✓ rTf✓✓ O L C'"rC P^ qL.• o � O r� 4 + � C d n=`�" q C_ V t C G V +✓ l •n � `�V �^J A O Tj C q O a q n•rC• •rQ• n �� 4� O y 9 L 7 J`a C =6 C _ _ Z _ ✓a •nN^ 2q� � _ T j •ri•C ✓ Ca_ Vq a01' Qq� _N OLLLL wL� OC C q` ` YNNW L - L- P .V+r✓r V C G V d O. V C a-V-^ ` V L C G v 2✓1 V V 6 q� 0 6 6 u ar O g n M � N p V� N N q�2�._ ✓ E r r q� q O ^ ice! J V C d^ C P ^C 6 d�" U S b u L p• C✓ O•L N ^O 6 N l Y N q= O✓ ^ q O L � ^ � �L_ J q e L C y O C C q C V^ -q 6 w ^ u r P V + O 6 L= 6 < N L Y p q 6 O. C w d C< ^ n C p Nn� l q V V� ^O q C ✓ OY dn.0.• W C` 9 4` rd• 6� r VnC VN 9 _ G_ N ✓ � O Ny CC_ `✓00 V~ C V O CC NC L OS =r✓� = Cr E O� Pd uNL L..• � Oq ✓O v 9 f � L .t Q + O •-i• C' N+ N 20 ~ d62 � 6 ^y=qr` L✓� W I . `Y OV ' x Od .t PV grVw ��0� NC>^or V3q q O q V4 G ^ VC V �a •Lr•Mg7 � 40C+� C P �✓ qVN Ca L q b z: - V qQ V•r o L No + y` ooi ^ qua io- e L- ov ��~ e '^v -O '^ or :. e� �.d.or nc�.o., �^ c ' ua qo�r. qn • � ^a am d n `r c " c+✓ b�nLi PV G.w n� 'nm..I o + c �9 r .L. L rc-� ��Lv�` 'L. o✓ � ar^ c ov. v Sa d Cr OJ�00 L aN � nT _ •r C L�9� MSC d� - q L _ y^ 'I C C'..C S n C V q•`Or V O ' C O C C M V T >q r•O d O �.i + v _`. o.+ .�. a� vLo a 4 d� � i^ E�i u r oP •'� �` e q i u� r �cq q rw L.n~r c_ a NN+ q- d ^.n ✓ L + +[ CC C V CO .r Cr V •Oi•✓ C lr �ir NnV O� � Y•Or J-t ^ 9V 4 a nL 4 r L nC` O� V G O VVV _ rL •nC C•N LV �✓V wYa ✓ > V T L d N y O - r O•V \u l + L C d P �Vi V ` L ZM L• ^_ q moo + - - d �.. � n �n om •. w� V ^M n i �� V� N�•ri• s •n Ca-^ n•n 6 V 6 O O I rn Yl V o O W•J V G ✓ 6 E Y C !•b L� V p 0 C E O I d V _ Q T dc'r Yr`9lJ Ib NO ` � Y � = w 9qG C V d✓.� ` y v _ G P q E O T L a O O q j1 i� VV rN1rC nr C Or ~ 9 q9L Y V V Q O V""• L` G'N C VM ur ld O b• C C G� ✓ � p^b � Q.r V O L a q O y d� G `I✓� ✓N V C. r k Y n r N qp e.== E nc d_� n E o w ,� a L �✓�n '°aLi a -oL` Lcrm - crr-i v` - <� •" : d` �ecc a V O✓ C q V�a �baGidV } O q Er •Or V LO GL dO T y b•p•�V4 _ g1aq � d r rn n P qy O G� C_ _ � yCrC 6 L � a� �b UP O•Ti Qq do O O C g T a-p•.• •'G O U G v L r O ^ V_ '^^ G V e.0i Gy •- _- \' Lu. uu c_on -G .a+ am `^ r = - dL Noq � � � V Y -d Gl cJ q bt „ Vb qC O•I ✓` V� q0 P n ~L d C Y r q•: n _V O y O C G .n V Y=N W b r Y„ _ a i O 'w V C •� a Y O_ TW C }•Y d dr t p O� pON d� y _V✓ M 4 N_ .y u E P � N CI ^ -Z�Lb q •_O O N_G O G r• L _ C F _ GE V� � „N^VWL LVGa Y.N L�q^p N r dVC WO '♦p b G '� t � N ^'b W VV Jp V�GS t✓ V Y� I NI �� • C •� N C \~III Q " O N 0 V Y � r c �Y E Y ••G Orb Y'L".r G_ O ` �G _ vq u I oL b= V •rnO O r V d0 W C •�V r � b d✓ O - q o b ` L Y �= 4 Y � y C .'cam 'o � r ^_ L.,' d n Lev •-cq V� cFN. _ r =b � i L .. r o o L� n q � r c..O a. a•^ Yc ^ a7 vc •„w C_'o 60e La oCo Q o -G'•SycE .Y..0 } b „� 6r � Lqn ` y V }•�� p �QV . S dd N CVq a -_ 6 LC t rV tO Or `� CW Vv E O dp� v0 NO..+ 2' d 'qi �ir� C CO u0_ Q � W PVC d bC � G q � r C � •L..• L L C r r U q L W=„_ q r _ c y P a r N g C V O q y O �Y Nr V�G L✓ J l OL'f d C O 9FL N Cq � 4 qO qVr O�_^ Cp rLY C •V G✓ L pO r L f, N nb NYC C Crr OG `•rW �y� rG q0 � q PL yrb •♦ }_ 2Eo` i i oq Ob rEa NOG. R 9 - � •1nYO it �` G` F � �� OO 25 ♦ O�C LG �_ TOO O T_ _ '�+� u �, VU PNO bCyOL G"T P�W C l0 G. G' n n.a V C` r • q F L O C C_ tG L _ d C _ q tG0 OV V LEi� E d✓G G uE i a •L-i nr G I f I I ` �� _.+ n N N b P r � f r N = 9 >>__ � N ay • N •' rc. .. q N c� c � .or. = a i •�. L � co y 1 v c u L L o v u Mec ♦J � �� 1 O N 11 L L•Oi U L U �_. l 6 d Y" O o` O .+ �. O ._ co o co c oPi q�¢ L u _ c '• o `�. ;., n v'^'- �_ d o v uu uu L.N. d e � o L � ,N,. c c � r4 = •nG n '.`° U J P N E O O a S L Y J O G L 7 L 7_ .•. C .n T` L �L q �.L N C C G�_ ^'n C O 9 =•L+ O C Q C O .n E V V' n O .. q aVi d o O D` q O P �' ` ` • yr' O T �c •� l � u nP i t .'. GgZS yga 4 z �D Lc o— c•�_ q_ o da Lq.. �.a u �N c `P�=.. o L LO n9' ... L Jv` G O� ' � N fOJ9 <N ¢rgVU �_a e — V .et O C909.On Epp n L n ¢ V�• t� 0 4 O t u t � U c g N� G L, R. O _ N ma c a iq= L .V.d9E _ o0i raven dec �Mua>� i•n .4'm '• L L V O U ` v E VP U PV06 VD P Y� TS� r — PO`_ 60 L ?=r q 9 O C C` •J N L c r .2z C J r �� O N V q T�O q� O—`.' r V C•^-.r O � � CT r qd•L.. uvt r 'aD V tN ^ O o _ L O = s C M r 9 W P C U V d v N L V L 6 _ q • T J n 0� C' J•�•' L P n N V� d ` q•� �_'7N r< L?e n�•... Sao — c E ,Ne _ C. _ nil J � COq rC C qV Y.a T PC _ f. +' O'. C GN C>V .UnO WI VM ]: uj c^= w = Ow q v•JO q�_.] c•S C9 P� � �� <, Vn V DV O E r O .Ji LCVO C NO? PPP1' nOy _ d .ar.^ rr ® L q O V r q O l •Oi V C V O'r C O_ _ .J q P u T . �'" P= q N •' O P v q V L � q N n d O > • O M T g Q C am^ r' —N d C v �.V.. �I O dOy NV7Nr n9 s_ C N V` _ J '] _� Vy.r r � e s q O O O _ .'0 p M 7 N� O 4�T-.. N Y M •O,. O q � - N r L « «C V W-• O O = V O « U ci CL C G J •o q 'M1 �� VjM V` �� C n•vy qVU C� �r Tvr v «O nu � \ �ti �? Od «O E...ro o u�L.l o Ln cal x y ycd p _ p - roc -� �a o =- q I n'•o c � Ma •c.s •" S_ c C'' r6r d .Ji, V re .•- V Q L _ u O n d « n V F�.O. C .Ln q 9- C C� C .> na C y •r' 'o �� V O W - OOs O� rCo 4 q O �V O v N ? O • LO� ` V r.Lr.� dy C- P V9� P «� LLw• V � u Ol« q9 6T a� � C V d Ty u V nd V NCI C > 7 � O u «l V Sp V9 q' rO 1 4.Cl2✓ Opy V = rV q< o« d< Iz o u L •• PV 1 q � G G G C L _ L W p N Y L CGV •q.. _ SOS qV C LOB •e0�«Z � � �ud � O A °, • nndr Y as $�= T `pL- I d pN.:. "-� u n- r J •q. "t .. a L I F C r - _� � 0 1 L _ p_f E- e _ a •ee.- �+� nd• c .c,, c-�. m o - tee - " Lc c cElo _ c o � ` i L- u L �I a 11 I r 1 _ t � o r i QI _ I � i1Cr it a W U V C d � C � u d yy OC O «� C- r p O .LjV O S P nu � G•� L p L ~ C=r s^ 9~a 0 d I e 4 vI n C V�r C � d✓ b_ C' Tl P rUn4 I a �� ur p d Or ry � i O i.«. o i. O .'..oa c'.r �L � � a• E .fie c 72 c9 tp r0. � =.. b ` n ` a Zo CZ qL � qd DP ad c� co" aY. o _ _ C L u J? o ` d � a• rzr ta„ 4 .TJ =vim ` c .' r e m p O c n