No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984/11/14 - Agenda Packeti I CCD co Cl cr 7c un a CD O co w J. O i 0. ,_ ` MY OF PLANN 1977 WEDNESDAY November 14, 1984 7:00 p.m. LIONS PARK COUMUNPrY cEmTzp, 9161 BASE LINE F -kNCHO CI7CAMO27GA, CAUFORtUA A C T I O N APPROVED AS a'4ENDED 4 -0 =1 APPROVED 4 -0 -1 L Pledge of Allegiance IL Roll Call =.'Ocilmissioner BarkerExrsed Commissioner CzitieaIL Cam mission +er '.tQcNiel _X H- Announcements IV- Approval of Minutes October 24, 1984 Y- Consent Calendar Commissioner Rempel X Commissioner Stout _ x 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 ed for d is ff anyone has concern over MY item, it should *,� removed for discussion A. TI VI£ FXTFNetn.•r t,.. —_— __ - The develo ment o 2 - - - ...�... 11420 - niucAL T? 0 condominium units on 2.1 acres of Land in the Medium Residential District (8 -14 du /ac), located at the north vest corner of Archibald Avenue and -Tonto Vista Street - APN 2D2- 131 -27, 61, 62. B. uttvUP -The development of 87 units—C 9,?5 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8 -14 du/ac) locate✓ at the northeast corner of Archibald and Highland - APN `301- 252 -23, 26, 26. C. b1UN FOR PARCEL A4 - Located on the south's' Avenue - APN 209 - 131-68. w Route, CONSENT CALENDAR, CONTD. 0. (Approved 4 -0 -1) AL totaling approximately 78,607 square feet on approximately 6.29 acres of land in Subarea 10 (Genera; Industrial/Rail Served) located at the northeast corner of 7th Street and Bridgeport Place - APN 229 -261 -73.. VL Public Hearings The following items are public hearings in whirh 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 :uch opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. CONTINUED TO E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE NOVEMBER 28, 1984 -ER1M1T 84 -13 - SYCAMORE INVESTRIEN'PS - The development o a 43,992 square foot commercial shopping center with retail shops, fast food restaurant and gasoline service station/convenience market on 5.44 acres of land in the Neighborhood Commercial District located on the no theast corner of Archibald and Base Line - APN 202 -181- 27. APPROVED 4 -0 -1 F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL :NAP 8695 - 'D NNELL, BRIGHAM PARTNERS - A division of 6.285 acres of land into 3 parcels within the General Industrial/Rau Served category (Subarea 10) 'Located on the north side of 7th Street, between Pittsburgh Street and Bridgeport Drive - APN 229 - 261 -71. CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 28, 1984 G. CONDITIONAL USG PERMIT 84 -21 - ALTA LO_VIA CHRISTIAN CHUB _ -i - A request to convert an existing 1,868 square oot single family residence to an office for the Alta Loma Christian Church on .25 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District, located at the west side of Sapphire, across from Orange - APN 1062 - 332 -23. (Continued from October 10, 1984 meeting.) APPROVED 4 -0 -1 Deleted Condition requiring pedestrian opening along east property line. Landscaping to be installed to satisfaction of City Planner. _- -..•.- o + -oY - DnxynrxULAL i:+�lurxxts - A proposal for remodeling the storefront facade, additional landscaping in the parking area, reconstruction of drive approaches, a minor building addition, °nd a conceptual building pad for -an anticipated drive- through fast food restaurant in an existing Neighborhood Commercial shopping center on approximately 7.8 acres in the 'Neighbo -h—i Commercial (NC) District located at the northeast corner of Carnelian Avenue and Base Line Road - APN 202 - 381 -26 be Z8 -332 36. f- APPROVED 4 -0 -1 - with L condition that outdoor patio area is installed within two years. APPROVED 4 -0 -1 J. MENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL 84-32 - WHEAT' MOTDR ro%aaAVV - cscaomsnment of a recreational vehicle assembly, manufacturing and distribution center in an existing 168,400 square foot industrial building located at the southeast corner of Arrow Highway and Vineyard Avenue on approximately 10.35 acres in Subarea 2 - General IndustrWi Rail Served District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan - APN 209 -012- 15. tNYMONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12820 - HIGHLAY.TJ CU3IMUNITY COVENANT CHURCH --X residential subdhasion to create 16 single family lets for custom home development in. the Low Residential District (2- 4 du/ac) on about 4.1, gross acres of land in the Low Residential Development District at the southeast corner of Jasper Street and Highland Avenue - APN 201 - 214 -08. APPROVED 4 -0 -1 -with condition that no outdoor K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CORDN'lONAL USE ,, storage be allowed PERi1IT 84-35 - AACTION COMPANY /DIXIE PRODUCTS - The establishment of a drywall contractor and retail supply Office on 5 acres of land located on the east side of Archibald, north of 6th Street in the Industrial Specific Plan District (Subarea 4) - APN 209 - 211 -14. f APPROVED 4 -0 -1 L. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $4 -33 - VALLEY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - A request to operate a driver improvement school in an existing Industrial Park building with a lease space of 1100 square feet on 7.8 acres of land in the General Industrial District ( Subarea 3) located at 9587 Arrow Highway - APN 209 - 521 -35. APPROVED 4 -0 -1 M. ENVIRONN 'NTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL A ",AP 8x28 - A MAE N - The division of 11.35 acres Of land into 4 Tthe Parcels in General Industrial category (Subarea 1) located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue, between Arrow Route and Sth Street - APN 207- 262 --44 APPROVED 4 -0 -1 N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 888$ - ER D ELOPMENT MO�YIPANY - A consolidation of 74.53 acres of land into one parcel in the Industrial Park and General Industrial categories ',Subarea 11 do 12) located on the south side of 6th Street between Cleveland real Milliken Avenues - APN 210 - 082- 18 -27. COh1MISSION GAVE STAFF' DIRECTION FOR QRAFTING O. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL OF ORDINANCE - CONTINUE,D ECIF C PLAN AMEND14rNT 84-02 - HAY N VENUE TO DECEMBER 12, i 984 RLAY DISTRICT - Planning Commission review o public r;. comments and recommendations of the Interim Development PBouolicilevardes for Haven Avenue between 4th Street and Foottjll s;' CONTINUED TO DECEMBER P- 1-2,_1 CONTINUED TO ^7rEMBER Q• 12, 1984 CONTINUED TO DECEMBER R- 12, 1984 AND GENERAL PLAN I 0Y -U -t-n - navL,y AVLINUL UVhALAY DISTRICT - r1 General Plan Amendment from Office to Industrial Park for approximately 40 acres of land located on the west side of haven Avenue, between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Highway, in conjunction with the Haven Avenue Overlay District - APN 208- 33) -01, 12, 1-39 and 208 - 341 -01. y,v "Al l - n uevelopmenc U1sTrici amenament trom ue Office /Professional) to ISP (Industrial Specific Plan) for approximately 40 acres of land located on the west side of Haven Avenue, in conjunction with the Haven Avenue Overlay District - APN 208- 331 -01, 12, 13, and 208 - 341 -01. A SSESS34ENT � uM&N y;Yl Ll`/L_Y1LtY Y 0-f! ul - nAVZ -N AVx::i UY. OVERLAY DISTRICT - An amendment to the Industrial Specific Plan to expand the boundary of Subarea 7 ( Indsstrial Park category) to include approximately 40 acres of land located on the west side of Haven Avenue, between Foothili Boulevard and Arrow Highway, in conjunction with the Haven Avenue Overlay District - APN 208- 331 -01, 12, 13 and 208- 341 -01. REPORT RECEIVED S. BOAR'S HEAD GPDATE - Oral Report VAI. Director's Reports COK4ISSION DIRECTED T. APPLICANT TO PROCEED WITH FILING OF CUP. SELECTED COMMISSIONER J. REMPEL. IX.. 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 11:35 p.m. X. Adjournment The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond tl-,at time. they shall b-s heard only with the consent of the Commission. 1977 �0.� 2-4s-�, CFIY OF RP.NU -rQ— C NXIO_ \GA I'LANTNLNG CONUMISSIGNT AGENDA WEDNESDAY November 14, 1984 7:00 p.m. UOUS PARS COMMUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LINE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA L Pledge of Allegiaime u. Roll can Commissioner Barker Commissioner Rempel Commissioner C.,itiea_ Commissioner Stout Commissioner 'McNiel. Ill. Announcements 1Y. Approval of Minutes October 24, 1984 V. Cogent Calendar 7he following Consent Calendar ?lams are expected to be routine and non - controversial. They will &i aeixl on by the Comm4ssion at one time without discussion. If an me haS concern o-•er any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. TIIdE EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12256 - BIDCAL h—` he development of 2!! cond ,riinium -mits on 2.1 acres of land in the Medium Residential DistHet : -14 du/ac), located at the northwest cornee of xclubald Avenue and Monte Vista Street - APN 202 - 131 -27, 6;, 62. B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11869 - ROBERTS GRi)UP - The development of 87 units on 9.75 acres of land in P. Medium Residential District (8 -14 du/ac) located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Highland - APN- 201-252 -23, 2,3:,26. C. TIME EXTENSION'. FOR PARCEL_ MAP 6976 - B.C.G. PROPERTIES - Loehted on :he south side of Arrow Route, �" east Haven Avenue - APN 209 - 141 -68. zs. �s , D. totaling approximately 78,607 square feet on approximately 6.29 acres of land in Subarea 10 (General Industrial/Rail Served) located at the northeast corner of 7th Street and Bridgeport Place - APN 229- 261 -71. VL Public Haariag�. The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may vaice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by staring your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to S minutes per individual for each project E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE .RIYIIT 84-13 - SYCAMORE INVESTMENTS - The development of a 43,992 equare foot commercial shopping center with retail shops, fast food recta,--ant 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 -181- 27. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8695 - ONNELL BRIGNT04 PARTNERS -- A divisicn of 6.285 acres o land into 3 parcels within the General Industrial/Rail Served category (Subarea 10) located on iche north side c' 7th Street, between Pittsburgh Street and Bridgeport Drive - APN 229 -261 -71. G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-21 - ALTA LOMA CHRISTIAN CHURCH - A request to eanvert an existing 1,868 square oot anle family residence to an cffice for the Alta Loma Christian Church on .25 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District, located at the west side of Sapphire, across from Orange - APN 1062 - 332 -23. (Continuer: from October 10, 1984 meeting.) H. ENWRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERNUT 84-W-- N .► crar. lonywriPq 0— remoaeung the St arefront facade, additional landscaping in the parking area, reconstruction of drive approaches, a minor building addition, and a conceptual building pad for an anticipated drive- through fast food restaursat in an existing Neighborhood Commercial shopping centP.r on approximately 7.8 acres in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District located at the northeast corner of Carnelian Avonue and Base i L ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE k'ERMI!T 84 -32 - WHEAT MO'T'OR COMPANY - The establishment o€ a recreational vehicle assembly, manufacturing and distribution center in an existing 168,400 square foot industrial building located at the southeast corner of Arrow Highway and Vineyard Avenue on approximately 10.35 acres in Subarea 2 - General Industriai/Rail Served District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan - APN 209 -012- 15. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND lLa ZU - r"UCILANU UUMINIUMI "T I;UVIINANT UIIUKUH -A residential subdivision to create 16 single family lots for custom home development in the Low Residential District (2- 4 du/ac) on about 4.1 gross acres of ?and in the Low Residential Development District at the southeast corner of Jasper Street and Highland Avenue - APN 201- 214 -08. K. FNVIR.ONMENTAL ASSESSMENT r nnivaaI ov-ao - m it.Liun t.Vtvlr C_1r if viA1L rmk;iju% -iz - The establishment of a drywall contractor and retail supply office on 5 acres of lard located on the east side of Archibald, north of 6th Street in the Industrial Specific Plan District (Subarea 4) - APN 209 - 211 -14. L. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84 -33 - VALLEY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - A request to operate a driver improvement school in an existing Industrial Park building with a lease .space of 1100 square fee* on 7.8 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) located at 9587 Arrow Highway - APN 209 - 021 -35. M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8828 - BARMAKIAN - The division —o 11.05 acres of land into 4 parcels in the General Industrial category (Subarea 1) located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue, between Arrow Route and 9th Street - APN 207 - 262 -44. N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8889 - o�aavi.0 ✓s VY Ij%Jrt znL %..v:vir A111 - H UORSOLIGation OI 74.53 acres of-land into one parcel in the Industrial Park and General Industrial categories (Subarea 11 & 12) located on the south side of 6th Street between Cleveland and Milliken Avenues - APN 210 - 082- 18 -27. O. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL ECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 84 -02 - HAVEN AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT - Planning Commission review of public comments and recommendations of the Interim Development Policies for Haven Avenue between 4th Street and Foothill Boulevard. CYn, 14�V^e, t P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN - •••L =•L =•aa a. a 04-u4 —h - :anvEei AVENUE OVERLAY DLTRICT - A Ueneral Plan Amendment from Office to Industrial Park for approximately 40 acres of lan(? located on west side of Haven Avenue, betweer. Fouthia uouievard and Arrow rii;�: e�; in <,enjenctlon with the 17aven Avenue Overlay ?istrie2 - APN 008- 331 -01, 12, 13, and ';08- 341 -01. aiavazu%,A - a Leve!cp rent District A nendment from OP O ice: Frofessional) to :SP (Industrial Specific Plan) for approximately 40 acres of land locatee on the west side of Haven Avenue, in conjunction: with the haven Avenue Overlay District - APN 208- 331 -01, 12, 13, ane 208 - 341 -01. R. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.' AND IND -� ."I AY ntgnavArnaLt�7 �Y—UA — VAVEN AVENUE VERLAY DISTRICT - An amendment to the Industrial Speci fic Plan to expand the boundary of Subarea 7 (industrial Park category) to inchide aoproximately 40 acres of land . located on the west side of Haven Avenue, between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Highwey, in conjunction with the Haven Avenue Overlay District - APN 208- 331 -01, 12, 13 and 208 - 341 -01. S. BOAR'S HEAD UPDATE - Oral Report VIM Director's Reports T. USE U. SENIOR DL 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. X. Adjournment The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11 Am. adjoummpnt time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. Au `vHISPINITY �-�P arraaw hNFEManoNn Amp"r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 24, 1984 Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7.06 p.m. The meeting was `11ld at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout then lad in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: David Barker, Suzanne Chitiea, Tarry McNiel, Herman Rempel, Dennis Stout COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: None Tim Beedle, Senior Pian : =_r; Linda D. Daniels, Associate Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner; 8arrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner; Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Chitiea requested that the Minutes of September 12, 1984 be corrected on page 2 under Approval of !;inures to read "elimination of meandering sidewalks in front of the Christmas House. Commissioner McNiel requested that "secondary accecs" be amended to read "emergency access" on Avalon Street on pace 7, and on page 13 his statement of clarification should reflect that Design Review did not design the buildings. CommissiarlEr Barker referred to page 3 and requested that the language �brcught up and" be eliminated from the first sentence of the first paragraph. He additionally advised that page 7 referred to Gary Mitchell as being a resident of Hamilton Ranch and should se amended to read representative. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Barker, carried, to approve the Minutes of September 12, 1984. Commissioner Rempel abstained as he was not in attendance at that meetino. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McN+iel, unanimously carried, to approve the Minutes of the September 26, 1984 meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 -24 - HANRICH - The development of a 13,000 square foot warehuuse-off ice addition on 12 acres of land in the Mininrem Impact Heavy Industrial (Subarea 9) category located at 11266 Jersey Boulevard, west of Milliken Avenue - APN 209 -142- 03. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 -33 - RLR DEVELOPMENT MMPANY- - TKe event of a 34,710 square foot industrial /warehouse building on 1.63 acres of land in the General Industrial cateaory (Subarea 10) located at the northwest corner of 7th Street and Toronto - APN 209 - 401 -08. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 -37 - FORHAN - The development of a -story industrial building totaling 65,256 square feet on 5.33 acres of land in the General Industrial (Subarea 14) category located at the end of Hyssop Drive, east. of the Devore Freeway - APN 229- 283-60: D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 -38 - FOREM - The development of a 63,000 square foot industria wary Ouse building on 3.09 acres of land in the Industrial Park category (Subarea 6) located at the southwest corner of 7th Street and Utica - PON 2V3•- 411 -3 and 4. E. TENTATIVE —MALT 11 0-24 - DAVIS - Design revisions to an approved tract, the Highland Villas project, to be locatEl u�i ;iighl3 ^d Ramona Avenue. F. TENTATIVE TRACT 12490 - AMERICAN NATIONAL - Reapplication for Design Review of site plan and architectural changes for 121. condominiums on 6.1 acres of land, located on the east side of Vineyard, south of Foothill. G. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 -32 - BARMAKIAN - Planning Commission review of building elevations. M,±ion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt the LCnsent Calendar. Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 24, 19E4 P1101 T^ HEARINGS Chairman Stout advised that the following items would be heard concurrently. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84 -22 - HIGHLAND COMMUNITY COVENANT CHURCH - The proposed master plan for the dove opTent of� asquare foot church and two multi- purpose accessory building:: on 3.5 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2 -4 du /ac; located at the southwest corner of Carnelian and Highland - APN 201 - 214 -03. I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL P'iAP 8785 - HIGHLAND COMMUNIT`? COVENANT CHURCH - A division of _ acres into parcels in the Low 2 -4 du ac ) Residential Develop, :ert District located on the south side of Highland, between Carnelian Avenue and clasper Avenue - APN 201 - 214 -0g_ Commissioner Barker seated abstprsirn from these two items due to possible conflict of interest and left the podium at 7.10 p.m. Linda Daniels, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. William Enns, pastor of Highland Community Covenant Church; addressed the Commission. Reverend Enns addressed the Design Review Committee's recommendation that the sanctuary and accessory buildings be flipped on the site plan xnd advised that the reason the church had been designed with the courtyard and increased setback in the front was to create an open feeling. He stated that it was the church's position that this plan is more aesthetically pleasing and welcomes people approaching the sanctuary and requested that the site plan he al;Inr_ -Cd as su'-MZILLed. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, advised that normal setback on a special boulevard is 45 feet and that the Design Review Committee felt that the church's proposal of .123 feet was too far and the buildings would be difficult for people driving by to see from the street. Commissioner Rempel stated that this issue should be addressed at the time of precise site plan submittal and should not be considered at this point. Chairman Stout stated his concern that it is not made clear in the Resolution that approval of the site plan is nv` being considered at this time. Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, advised that the Commission is now considering approval of the master plan and that through comments made by the Design Review Committee and public testimony tonight are determining that the site plan works well. Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 24, 1984 Comm;= sioner McNiel stated that while he could appreciate what the church is trying to accomplisi•., the decision to approve the master plan with the setbacks estai,?ished may not be in the best interest of the. church. He Pointed out the expzrision problems with the Methodist Church on Foothill and suggested that this chug` might also experience expansion problems. Commissioner Rempel stated that the site plan before the Commission is conceptual only and not for approval at this ti,.e. Mr. Hopson advised that the Commission night want to add language to condition number 5 which would state that the site plan is not approved and would have to be brought back to the Commission a,org with building elevations at a later UQ4C. Commiss4oner Rempel pointed out that Planning condition number 1 of the Resolution meets that intent and stated that condition number 5 should be deleted from the Conditional Use Permit Resolution approving the aster plan. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Chitiea, carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 84 -22 for a church Facility master plan at the southwest corner of Highland and Carnelian Avenues with the deletion of Planning condition number 5. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: A''sSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS REMPEL, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT NONE BONE BARKER - carried Votfon: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Rempel, carried to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 8785. nvr�_ NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS- COMMISSIONERS CHITTZA, P,EMPEL, MCNIEL, STOUT NONE NONE COMMISSIONERS: BARKER - carried 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Barker returned to the podium. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8578 - SANTA FE LAND IMPROVEMENT COMPANY - A division of acres into 14 parcels in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial area (Subarea 9) located on the south side of Arrow Route, east and west of Milliken Avenue - APN 229 - 111 -23. Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 24, 1984 Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that street improvements are normally listed out in the chart at the bottom of page 2 on the City Engineer's Report. He asked if the Jersey and Street "A" south were to be considered interior streets. Mr. Hanson replied that both Jersey Street and Street "A" south are considered interior streets and therefore the intent is that they are covered under condition number 1. Mr. Hopson advised that improvements on major streets have been spelled out in the past as a means of clarity rather than legality. Chairman Stout agreed and suggested that both Jersey and Street "A" south he included in the chart. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Robert Sunstrom, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission stating that the applicant understands that Jersey and Street "A" are to be improved. Mr. Sunstrom referred to condition number 12, page 5 of the City Engineer's Report regarding rail service to parcels 6, 7, 12, 13 and 14 and stated that the applicant would prefer to have the option of where they are going to set the rail service lines on parcels 6 and 7 based on physical site constraints at the time of development, with the understanding that they could come tack and modify the map which is referred to by exhibit. He additionally stated that the applicant could accomplish the rail service provision through deed restrictions, or any other method dewed appropri•,te by the City. Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, advised that the Resolution addresses this issue and that as long as future rail service is oravided for those parcels it Would meet the intent of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Commissioner Barker referred to condition 3 on page 3 of the City Engineer's Report and asked which storm drain was being referenced. Mr. Hopson advised that language should be added to state as deiiAeated on the map. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 8578 with the addition of Jersey Street and Street "A" added to the street improvement chart o;. :ity Engineer's Report, and added language to condition 3 of the City Engineer's Report to state storm drains as ielineated on the map. Planning Commission Minutes �1l -5- October 24, 1984 8:00 - Planning Commission Recessed 8:15 - Planning Commission Reconvened with all members present K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12801 - DEER CREEK - A residential subdivision of 96 lots on 32.3 acres of lan% in the Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac) District located at the southeast corner of Banyan and Carnelian - APN 1062 - 361 -01; 1062- 371 -01. Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report and suggested the following amendments to the Standard Conditions: Page 5, Condition 2, amended L:. require c2oication of ii to 17 additional feet on Carneiian, and Condition amended to require vehicular ingress and egress dedication on San;an and Carnelian for the length of the project, with the exception of Lot 20 on Banyan. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Michael Vairin, representing the applicant, addressed the Commmission stating concurrence with the staff report and Resolution. Mr. Vairin stated that the applicant had spent a great deal of times and money researching the Eucalyptus windrow and felt that successful preservation could be accomplished. Art Bridge, 3715 Banyan, addressed the Commission in support of the windrow preservation. Kennel:`: Bird, 6287 Opal, stated concerns with additional traffic on Opal and suggested a cul -de -sac at the end of Opal. Neil Furphy, 6095 Sacramento, stated support of the windrow preservation. Robin Beaman, 6207 Opal, stated concerns with grading and flooding. Melinda Ryan, 6253 Opal, expressed concern with additional traffic on Opal and rats coming from the removal of the citrus groves. Gerald Dunn, 6213 Sacramento, expressed concern with flood control. Pam Beaman, 6207 Opal, expressed concern with additional traffic and additional water runoff on Opal. Bill Melzer, 9009 Regency Way, expressed concern regarding grading of the site and water runoff on Opal. Barbara Bird, 6287 Opal, requested cul-de -sac on Opal to alleviate traffic. Seggie Pasillos, 6212 Sacramento, expressed concern with water runoff and drainage. Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 24, 1984 F. Demien, 8768 Banyan, stated suppert of Eucalyptus preservation. S. Hammers, 8796 Banyan, stated 'support of Eucalyptus preservation. A. 'lahrati, 8780, stated support of Eucalyptus preservation. Chairman Stout advised that some issues raised during public testimony were not under consideration by the Commission at this stage of the process, but would be considered when precise plans are submitted. Rick Gomez, City Planner, stated that City staff would notify concerned iiIuIvuuai6 itiieri :ne i:p:vvcmcrii N1an3 arc 3o'irnii,i:ed if irsey rrouIa leave their name and address with staff. Michael lrairin, representing the applicant, advised that he would be available at any time to talk to adjacent residents about the project and clarify what is being proposed. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Ccrodssioner Rempel addressed the windrow preservation issue and stated concerns with saving the trees. He advised that preservation would require the City to incur a lot of liability and recommended that Lhe trees be replaced with an appropriate variety. Commissioner Barker stated that citizens had expressed a desire to preserve windrows in the City wherever possible in an effort to retain the character of the community. He disagreed that the trees should be replaced and recommended that they be topped and saved. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she didn't sep the need to widen the street to the full 22 feet. She additionally stated that removal of the windrows would result in the loss of Banyan Street's character and was also in favor of topping and preserving the existing trees. Commissioner McNiel stated that most people who enjoy Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees either don't have them on their property or they have large enough lots that the trees don't bother them. He recommended that the trees be removed and replaced with a more appropriate variety. Chairman Stout stated that Banyan is not a residential street and will be a major east -west thoroughfare and whether it is widened or not will carry a lot of traffic. He also stated that Blue Gums are not an appropriate tree for residential areas and that the windrow should replaced and replanted. Commissioner Chitiea addressed the street issue and proposed the possibility of providing emergency access and reversal of the cul -de -sac as suggested by the residents. She asked if it would be possible to have pedestrian access at the cul-de -sac which would be acceptibie to the Fire District and alleviate the traffic problem. Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 24, 1984 Chairman Stout advised that not only would the Fire District's access needs have to be addressed but also some type of access to allow students to get to the junior high school without going all the way down to Banyan. Commissioner Rerapel stated that if a cul -de -sac is proposed goi;,g south, permission would more than likely be required from the people on the north, because people wouldn't want to see an opening, drive up there and not be able to turn around. Commissioner Barker stated that the street as designed would encourage more traffic going through on Opal. He further stated that Commissioner Rempel had a valid point, but fire access could be allowed through the use of turf block and still allow foot traffic. City Planner Rick Gomez advised that it might be best to deal with this issue on a general basis and stated concerns with making a technical decision without knowing the ramifications since the Fire District was not represented at this time. Commissioner MCNiel stated that the street should have access to the school and if that issue cannot be resolved by a pathway, the street is still essential. He further stated that it could be mitigated by design. Chairman Stout stated that the consensus of the Commission seems to be that emergency access needs to be provided as well as pedestrian access to the school. He suggested that the design details of how this is to be accomplished should be worked out with the Engineering Division staff. Michael Vairin, Deer Creek Company representative, stated that there are two engineering problems to be considered; drainage and grade at the point of the cul -de -sac. He suggested that the best solution might be to take °E" Street and drop it parallel to Mandarin and cut the street off at that point. Further, that the cul -de -can could be designed in accordance with the Engineering Standards with::: existing right -of -way widths, which is acceptable to the Fire District. Commissioner Harker stated that the Commission still wants to have some type of pedestrian access. Mr. Vairin replied that the design similar to that used in Deer Creek's reed Hill project could be used. Chairman Stout recommended that a conditio^ should be added to clarify the windrow replacement. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiei, carried, to eliminate Engineer' S condition 1 -A of the 2esolutien, thereby requiring the widening of _1ayan to 22 feet and removal of ti!e windrow; addition of a fourth condition to require that Mandarin Street be redesigned dependent on final engineering Planning Commission Minutes -8- October 24, 1984 decision; Opal Street be a designed with a cul -de -sac at the north end and have provisions for pedestrian. riaht- of -wav; and a condition to r_la.-ify the windrow replacement to the satisfaction of the City Planner. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPFL, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, CHITIEA ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried Commissions Barker and Chitiea voted no because of previously staced r'ositions on the windrow issue. 10:00 - Planning Commission Recessed 10:15 - Planning Commission Reconvened with all members present Chairman Stout announced that it was staff's recommendation that Items M, N, and 0 be continued to the November 14, 1984 meeting and suggested that they be considered out of sequence. M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMEmr;NEni 84 -D4 -A - HAVEN AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT - A General '— an Amendment from Office to Industrial Park for approximAtcly 40 acres of land located orl the west side of Haver, Avenue, `vetween Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Highway, in conjunction with the Haven Avenue Overlay District - APN 208 - 331 -01, 12, 13 acid 208- 341 -01. N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASbtsSl M ANU UtVtLUYMLNI WbIKLi.1 NlrilUrlC111 o=r -any - nr+YLl\ AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT - A Development District -X endment from fl Office /Professions to ISP (Industrial Specific Plim) for approximz.te'iy 40 acres of land located on the west side of Haveaat Avenue, between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Highway, in conjunction with dl'? Haven Avenue Overlay District - APN 208- 331 -01, 12, 13, and 208 - 341 -01. O. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 84 -01 HAVEN AVENUE OVERLAY DI - An amendment to the ndustria per `ic Plan to e> -pan the boundary of Subarea 7 (Industrial Park category) to include approximately 40 acres of land located on the west side of Haven Avenue, between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Highway, in conjunction with the Haven Avenue Overlay District - APN 208 - 331 -01, 12, 13 and 208-341 - 01. Chairman 3taut opened the public hearing. Bill Kirkland, West Coast Netting, addressed the Commission stating that he has been working with staff to receive input and address issues associated Planning Commission Minutes -9- October 24, 1984 with developing their projact. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to continue Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 84 -04 -A, Development District Amendment 84 -04, and Industrial Specific Flan Amendment 84 -01. Chairman Stout announced that due to the :aceness of the hour, the public hearing would be cicsed and the fell4ming Director's Reports considered by the Commission: DIRF_70JR4S REPORT P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMEN"i REVIEW 84 -44 - FORECAST - The development of a 2 -story office bun a�nl- g totaling 4,340 square eet on 0.5 acres of land in the Office Professional District, generally located on the east side of Hellman Avenue, south of Rase Line Road - APN 208- 431-29. Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner McNiel questioned the signing on the existing building and stated that it detracts from the building. Commissioner Rempel agraed and stated that the Design Review Committee recommended that all the signs were to be the sane, but a variety of different signs are going tip that should not be there. He further stated that it is time that the City does something with the drainage in this area, the lack of sidewalks, and all of the traffic caused by development. He further stated that the City needs to use systems development fees and funds from not only this development but the development that would be going in across the street to help install a drainage system underground in Heilman to drain north to Base Line. Barrye Hanson, Sepia- Civil Engineer, stated that this has been given a rather low priority on _ *ce Capital Improvements Projects. Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, stated that it might be helpful to provide the Commission with additional information on the Capital Improvements Program and what the options aid expected improvements are in the area of Hellman and Base Line. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to issue a "'egative Declaration and ueopt the Resolution approving Development Review 84- 44, located at the east side of Hellman Avenue, south of Base Line Road. Planning Commission Minutes -10- October 24, 1984 .; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COKIIISSIONERS: NONE - carried Q. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 -35 - 01 DONNELL /BRIGHAM The development of two manufacturing buildings totaling net sq. ft. on 2.26 acres of land located in the General Industria /Rail Served District (Subarea 10) generally located at the northeast corner of 7th Street and Milliken, Avenue - APN 229- 261 -70. Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report and stated that the following amendments to the Resolution wer-_� suggested by staff: addition of "as per site plan" to Planning Condition #2; Planning Condition #3 modified to include a landscape planter at the southeast corner of Building A to softer, the height of the building; Planning Condition #4 modified to require that the west wall of building B be constructed in a manner to eliminate the need for a retaining wall to the satisfaction of the Building Official. Additionally, Mr. Beedle stated that the easement required under Engineering Condition #1 is not necessary and recommended that it be deleted. Roland Childs, representing the applicant, addressed the Comnisslor stating that the applicant accepted the Resolution changes by staff. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Rempel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution with amendments as proposed by staff. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, REMPEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried Chairman Stout reopened the public hearing for consideration of the following item. L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN PIMENDMENT 84 -02 HAVEN AVENUE -OVERLAY DISTRICT - Planning Commission review of public c=ents end recommend at1ons t e Interim Development Policies for Haven Avenue, :,etween 4th Street and Foothill Boulevard. Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report stating that staff was seeking Commission direction on this item. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -11- October 24, 1984 Jim Barton, 8409 Utic: -, Ranc`:a Cucamonga, addressed the Commission and recapped the Chamber of Commerce comments. He suggested that street furniture in the way of seating areas . sho0d be encouraged within the courtyards and plazas rather than on Haven. Additionally, Mr. Barton suggested that the landscaping requirements be reduced to 25 percent. He stated concern with the elimination of the use of tilt up buildings and requested that the Commission consider allowing delineation in parking and access to break: up the sterile effect of buildings placed in a row- There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Land Use Chairman Stout stated that this issue is should something other than office professional and financial administrative type uses be allowed on Haven, specifically with regard to the rail served, light manufacturing uses adjacent to the tracks on 8th Street. The consensus of the Commission that an exception not be made for these parcels. Site Orientation It was the consensus of the Commission that the word "prohibited" should be replaced with '"discouraged" in regard to parking and ci:•culation along the Haven Avenue frontage, and that a percentage for st:reetscape parking should not be used as a standard. However, some type of languague should be incorporated to provide for a variety of setbacks. Streetscape /Landscaping It was the consensus of the Commission that 25% landscaping and hardscape coverage be required for net lot area (exclusive of street right -of -way), except at the urban centers where the 30% landscape /hardscape coverage requirement shall remain. Open Space/Pedestrian Environment Chairman Stout stated that tha list of items for pedestrian hardscape areas were intended to be suggestions and recommended that the language state "include but not limited to . . . ." It was the consensus of the Commission that this language be included. Architecture It was the consensus of the Commission that a r itive statement be provided as to what the City is looking for on Haven c , ihould include graphics and reference to a pictorial portfolio of acceptable architecture. Additionally, a statement is to be added outlining certain buildi.ig forms which are highly Planning Commission Minutes -12- October 24, 1984 discouraged. Master Plans It was the consensus of the Commmission that s general statement of intent be provided with the Master Plan to indicate how o-his particular project is going to address architectural design issues of the 4 -avers Avenue Corridor. Urban Centers It was the consensus of the Commission that a more intensive statement be provided to indicate that the City is looking for something different for urban centers in order to provide the gateway image. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 11:50 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Rick Gomez Deputy Secretary 11 11 CITY OF RANI CHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT, DATE: November 1S, 1984 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: T FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12256 - BIDCAL - The ueveiopmenc OT Lwen-ry c:oneominium units on 2.1 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) lccated at the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Monte Viota Street. APN 202 - 131 -27, 61, 62. Z. Background: The applicant is requesting a one -year time extension for Tentative Tract 12256, as described above. The project was originally approved by the Planning Commission on November 10, 1982, and currently expires on November 10, 1984. The maximum time extension tnat may be granted for this Tentative Tract Map is 24- months . The developer has processed plan check for this project. Building permits are pending on the completion of a hydrology study and the revisions to the finai grading plan based on that hydrology study. II. Analysis: Tentative Tract 12256 was approved prior to the present Ty— adopted Development Code. For consideration of a time extension, this project was reviewed for conformance with the Development Code requirements. Based -aon this review, one area of inconsistency with the present ^avelopment Code was found. The minimum garage setback from a private driveway is 5 feet and is to be equipped with automatic garage door openers. This project shows 17 of the total 25 units have setbacks ranging from 3 feet to 4 feet. However, the devel ^ ­— is providing all units with automatic garage door openers. This inconsistency is hot considered to be significant by Staff and would not significantly alter the appearance of the project. III. Facts for Findin : This previously approved Tentative Tract Map 12256 is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, Specific Plans, Ordinances, Plans, Codes and Policies. The extension of the tentative map will not likely cause ITEM A inconsistencies with the current General Plan, Specific Plans, Ordinances, Plans, Codes anci Policies or cause public health and safety problems. The extension is within the tiM.- limits as prescribed by state law, and loca? ordinance. IV. Recommedation. It Ss reco;mnena,ad that the Planning Commission grant a twelve month extension for this project through the adoption of the attached resolution. ly sub r:7ed, r�'°' -- G: NF: cv U-a :hme:: =s: Letter from Applicant - October 11, 1984. Planning Commission Report and Minutes - November 10, 1982, Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Natural Features clap Exhibit "C" - Tract Map 12255 E2;hibit "D" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "E" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "F" - Grading Plan Exhibit "G" - Elevations Exhibit "H" - Floor Plans Original Resolution of Approval with Conditions lime Extension Resolution of Approval 11 ORO ENGINEERING CORPORATION fa 23961 CRAFTS�.AN RUD- STE. B - CALABA'AS. CALIFORNIA 51302 (818) 887 -4422 October 11, 1984 Cnairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Ranc:.o Cucamonga 9320 C Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: Tract. # 12256 ^ear Commissioners: ^his letter Ls a formal request for an extension of the Tenta- tive Tract Map # 12256. During the final processing of the above map, a number of unexpected delays occurrad. The delays were caused by the following: (1) The conplexity of the hydrology study and limited information available. (2) Refinement of the drainage plan to conform to the hydrology study and 103 -year flood requirements. (3) Revision of the original grading plan based or. the information above. We appreciate your consideration in this matter and hope that the extension will meet with your approval. Sincerely, ORO ENGINEERING CORPORATION gene Xearin Principal EK: law tmk CIVIL ENGINEERING • LAND SURVEYING • GEOTECHNiCAL RE=ORTS Motion: Moved by Remp -il, seconded by Mc Niel, carried, to adopt ResoluUan No. 82 -104, approving the :carter—p — for the 160 acres between Archibald, Hellman, 6th Street and 4th Street. Commissioner Stout voted ne� because of his concerns relative to traffic. [ i t ! i 9:07 P.M. The :Manning Commission recessed. 9:15 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE 82 -03 - BIDCAL - A change of zone from R -1 (Single Family Residential) to R -3 ( @b_ltiple Family Residential) for 2.02 acres of land located on the west side of Archibald Avenue, north of Monte Vista Street - APN 202- 131 -61 and 62. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12256 - BIDCAL - Tn development of 25 condominium units on 2.10 acres of land in the R -1 zone (R -3 pending) located at the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Monte Vista Street - APN 202 - 131 -27, 61 & 62. Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff rtrort. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Mr. Gene Karin, 20811, Roadside Drive, Agoura, representir-g the applicant, stated that all conditions are acceptable. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Chairman King stated that some time ago the Planning Commission had more or 1c-Z decided that tot lots should be included in developments such as this and asked-if a tot lot has been provided for this project. Mr. Vau-in rep3.ied that it has been a:.d is shown an Exhibit "D ". Commissioner Stout stated that there are no sidewalks from the pool in the tot lot area and wondered if a meandering side-_lk should be put in in that area. Mr. Johnston, Assistant Planner, replied that conditions 7 and 8 require sidewalks. Mr. Hopson stated that the CU R's should set out that there will be no permanent structures on the turf block so that at some future time emergency access will not be obstructed. 11 Plan-n--.g commission Minutes -17- November 10, 1982 R -Ll . Ibtior_: Moved by 9nrker, secopded-by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution I:.. 52-05 approving zone change 82-03 and recommending such to the City Council. Fbtion: Mooed by Rempel, seconded by M^::iel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No_ t'2 -106 approving Tentative Tract 12256 with the added c;ndition that the turf 'oloc!r access remain unoostructed and that this be shoczr in the CC&R's. a a H. ENVIRONI -ENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82 -20 - SRARMA - The development of a 3,691 square fct.t elementary schoo' on 3/4 acres in the R -1 zone, located at 9113 Foothill Boulevard - APN 208 - 241 -09. Associate Planner, Dan Coleman, reviewed the staff report. Chairman King asked where the temporary trai,ers are and whether they would be used during construction or to house new students in order to have new construction. It-. Coleman replied that the students in the existing school would not be affected in that the shift of playground area would be the only change. Chairman King asked what happens to the playground when he puts up the temporary facilities, he constructs the facility, where then is the playground. Mr. Coleman explained the required minimum of playground space for preschool children as mandated by the State code indicating that there is more than double the space he needs for outiide recreation. Chairman ?i^e asked why the applicant can't construct the permanent facility before putting in the trailer. Chairman King opened the public hearing. M- Sharma, 7775 Sunstone, the applicant, .zpiied that he needs the trailer for the time being as he dces aot have space and is not in a rinancial position to 3iegiii ouilding right now. He indicated he must refuse children :-vary day. Commissioner Mc Niel asked, aside from what is laid down in the text regarding conditions, what his plan is. Mr. Sharma replied it is to build a new school in Rancho Cucamonga. Commissioner Mc Niel asked how far into the future this would be. 0 Plann_ng Commission Minutes -18- November 10, 1982 i ' ... P. -S A tl C CITY OF RANCHO CliCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: November 10, 1982 TO: Members of the Pl anni na Coreai ss i on FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AiD TENTA ,ne oevetopment of 25 condominicn um is on in t!e R -1 zone (R -3 pending) located at the of Archibald Avenue and Monte Vista Street - 61 and 62. Related File: Zone Change 83 -03 12256 - BIDCAL - .10 acres of land northwest corner APN 202 - 131 -272 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: This project consists of 25 condominium units on 2.10 acres of land loc -ted at the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Monte Vista Street. A change of zone (ZC 82 -03) from R -1 to R -3 is pending and is also being considered on this agenda. Currently two houses and several other structures are located on the site. A drainage ditch cuts diagonally across the site from the north- west to the southeast. Numerous trees and ehrubs exist on the prop ^rty as shown on Exhibit 08'. Contours on the site indicate a slope of - approximately 3 percent running northwest to southeast. A block wall surrounds the property on the north, south, and west property lines. Zoning on the subject property currently is R -1 and R -3 as shore, on Exhibit "A'. Land s;:rrounding the project site is zoned R -3. :he General Plan indicates that the project site is located along the dividing line between two land use designations; Low Medium density 14-8 du's /ac) to the north, and Medium density (4-14 du's /acre) to the south. Fordering the project site to the north and west is a mobile home park. A mix of older single family and multi - family units exist an the small residential lots south of the project. On the east side of Archibald, across from the site, is an approved multi - family pa•cject. A -te Tentative Tract 12256 /Bidcal Planning Commission Agenda... November 10, 1962 Page 2 As shown on Exhibits "C" through "F", -the project consists of eight buildings with a total of 25 dweiiing units. The proposed density is 11.90 units per acre. Each unit is a two -story townhouse with an attached two car garage (Exhibit "G "). Three floor plans are provided ranging in size `rom 1,015 to i,207 square feet (Exhibit "4 "). Vehicular circulation into the project is provided by z single driveway closely aligned with the Victoria Street right -of- -way. Emergency secondary access will be provided from Monte Vista Street. In addition, the Applicant is responsible for a bicycle lane on the west side of Archibald. ANALYSIS: The project has been reviewed by the Design Review, Growth Management, and Grading Committees. Together with the recommended Conditions of Approval, the project is consistent with current resi- dential standards of the City. ® Nearly half of the site is devoted to public or private open space, including a large play area in the center of the project and private patios For each unit enclosed by a 4 -foot high wall. Existing vege- tation including mature trees and shrubs along the west property line will be preserved to the extent possible. A rcconmended Condition of Approval requires the submittal of a detailed plan outlining exactly what trees and /or shrubs are to be saved. .With development of the project, the Applicant will be required to construct storm drains from the northerly boundary of the project to the railroad tracks approximately 1000 feet ::,uth of the project site. The cost of construction for the storm dram will be in lieu of drain- age fee. A reimbursement agreement will be prepared for the dollar amount of construction which exceeds the storm drain fee. On -site improvements include a 20 -foot drainage easement with an underground storm drain to replace the drainage ditch which exists on the property. DESIGN REVIEW- The Design Review Committee reco:mn.ended approval of the project with conditions that the rear elevations of units facing Archibald Avenue be upgraded with additional trim. Colored renderings of the elevations will be available for your review at the Planning Commission meeting. Another condition reco=. ended by the Design Review Committee, as indicated ozi the Resolution of Approval, requires that the concrete emergency access lane along the west pr'oerty line be replaced by coirpacted granite with a turf overlay. A -n i Tentative Tract 12256 /Bidcal Planning Commission Agenda November 10, 1982 Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Part I cf the Init-'al Study, as completed by the hpplicant, is Provided '40T Your review and consideration. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Assessment and found no adverse impacts on the environment as a result of this project. If the Commission concu -s with such findings, issuance of a Negative Declaration wouid :e :n order. FACTS FOR FINDING: This project, together with Conditions of Approval, is in accordance with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Growth Manage- ment Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City. In addition, the use together with the recomme�3ad Conditions of Approval will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the public or private properties in the immediate vicinity. CORRESP0DENCE: A notice of public hearing was published in The Daily Report nev,�rAner and public hearing notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. To date, no correspondence has been received either for or against this project_ RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public earing to consider all input and elements of this project. If after such consideration the Commission concurs with the findings and Conditions of Aaprovai, adootiin of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaratioi would be appropriate. fully ..-Pubn+itted, CK POMEZ'r ty . 1 anner :CJ:jr Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Exhibit "B" - Exhibit "C" - Exhibit "D" - Exhibit "£" - Exhibit "F" - Exhibit "G" - Exhibit "H" - Initial Study Resolution of Location Map Natural Features Map Tract Map 12255 Detailed Site Plan Landscape Plan Grading Plan Elevations (2 Sheets) Floor Plans Part I Approval with Conditions Ig i r +r ' i ol t. A y �l ii ( r .,mss Fi r_ a � .'t E LL Y c� Q 43 I t-pi r T n 2 m O y m � z m 0` HOhTE VISTA V � NolMi CITY OF rmall: -rr IZZ4;4o RANCHO CUCA1IONGA ,nu: tiA-r=.#,L mKT,mc,,, MAP _ PLANNNG DINrISION ExHiBrr= * _ SCALE- •t ` • _ n_�r, E r -Irxsl ZONE -ft.% ir Q: M iZ�Z-� 202. 3 AST, ZONE R3; i.t MONTE VCSTA" STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANMNG DIVISM ITEM: Tnix: -rerrr T =oe r iZZ to EXHIBIT: 'C" —SCALE- 14--r-4S- k - tt V V mgm i' 1 �4`J � • O � •`•� _� � �t`t ' ii Vj .rr wrY rw+ a tia ur. e9 b ----------- "ll'- •u. •rrw.r .n. i l E —GE- N q f.+rM .fr A wCDY .I.bYby,lf0 Yrr \-. .M. .f1. .L MIY MIYr. CL11YrI - ww. RY. YU•YtY .rr wrY rw+ a tia ur. e9 b •u. •rrw.r .n. i Immosum PATIO PENCV. CITY OF tit: - rT,zu� - Pl.-i I [NG UNISON EXHI;'T= ! =" ALE: W- s E V NORTH • r.rvnGi Cn �CflGf /CbL E CJ - -i 0 0 �0 nc�t e .matt tww «rs.t ensent,.so ... •• �tttiw.�NN +wtT yWL�Mtt��t'J OtL.WI� tWiT 1UtL Mi4*t Jl�l r► CITY OF •0 RANCHO CL;CA2N40o "QA n ANNING n v`D10N F_ • ion — 1 1 w i . . owrnt _ Q ITE\I- nnr EXHIBM N Ei4 SCALE. 14 T 5. ti - %z, Gr� NORTH r 1 Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION 0 E Win MEXI: 'Pr I nTu- 4VATzte -ems - EXHIMT- .�.. SCALE- F , ,A I ,. ' t CUCANIONNGA _. a _t A ,J i" 1 1 il.. r •:,;,;' ;.. :. � � 11 F l � t RESOLUTION NO. 82 -106 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CL'LAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12256 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 12256, hereinafter `Map" submitted by Bidcal Corporation, applicant, for the purpc-e of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as a 2.10 acre site located on the northwest corner of Archibala Avenue and Monte Vista Street, 'nto 1 lot, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on NovemL-- , 10, 1982; and WHEREAS, the City 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 Engineering 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. 12256 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with ali 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 not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. Resolution No. 82 -10( Page 2 (g) That this project will the environment and issued. 5 not create adverse impacts on a Negative Declaration is SECTION ?: Tentative Tract Map No. 12256, a copy of which is attached he.•eto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: PLANNING DIVISION I. A directory shall be placed at the entrai,:e to the project illustratino the location of specific units. 2. Sidewalks shall be provided to the pool area along the rear and side of buildings 7 and 8. - 3. The rear elevations of buildings 3 and 4 which face Archibald Avenue shall be upgraded with additional good trim around the windows, or plant -ons. Revised plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of Building Permits. 4. The emergency fire lane along the west property 1`,..a shall be constructed of compacted granite with +.urf overlay. 5. Existing vegetation including trees, and shrubs along the west property line must be preserved wherever possible. A master plan of existing vegetation shall be submitted prior to approval of the final grading plan as required in Standard Condition C -2. 6. Tie detailed landscape plans shall include adequate provisions for screenira adjacent residential units and the drainage course near the northwest corner of the property, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division. 7. the CC&R's shall include an exhibit showing all fire access and a provision prohibiting the obstruction ar construction in those areas_ ENGINEERING DIVISION 8. The developer shall be required to construct the Master Plan Storm Drain on Archibald Avenue adjacent to the proposed Tract from northerly boundary to existing outlet structure at the SPRR. The cost of 1k — \9 11 \. "J Resolution No. 82 -k Page 3 IpL the system shall be credited towards the drainage fee for the project and a reimbursement agreement per City Ordinance No. 75, will be executed by the City for the contributions which exceed the amount of the fee. 9. The applicant shall try to coordinate the storm drain work with that of the approved projects - Tentative Tracts 11173 and 11608. APPROVED AND ADOPTED PHIS 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1982. PLANNING CQ4MII65ION OF�THC/ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: 11 cn I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and acepted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 10th day of November, 1982, by the fallowing cote -to -wit: AYES: -- CO- WISSIONERS: Rempel, McNiel, Barker, Stout, Kina NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: C0t114ISSIONERS: None A -Ao C O a J' N ° O 2 G y V a 6 O O N Y a N O b G L_ V 2 < - V i ^L S L 9 � + r ` L D V ^ C r n . � 2 V > 6= w D iFa r +u Tc D J O ✓ > L O + 4 Lo O � 0 � U 4 C 0 ✓ J g o V D r p cq+ N t g � n0 d A eo O n c ° L 9 V e ,V. v v G + O ^ c r = Nr 'c J N L � v > V o ° cn v v e. N C Y a . cc` P C M c a V r 7 < 9 + n L O a 9 V v a » b O i O n 9 L� o� 4= i e l _ b OC N p e V V C 4 c g O O z r V V r i N L v v n 4 a V S L w C i C + C rJ L c C u u V _ L SL f c � a 6 rpw r C a � o = Ca -JrJ V•O> � G S N w v N = c b ram,: G r O V nN <+ 4 + 4 A6 9 L ° O y rV. yr r G Evs . P O L n L ='c >O ^ F G V `w� O 9 V V V O C N PnV 2 i V j"JO W = 4 C i O V e O C b q 9 V G V F C Y O L. V G 4Vr < �Q <LOI C C N d O u G. � V z� V O C p V V y L V C C p o= V G V P V a G + q L G O � D C V O w V 7 L 1.2 = L r ° V c O o i a P G O C v ° P C y _ O J 2 V P 9 L G 4 _OaN n V V N ° C e C C N }r �✓ rl� N+ C V L w r V n e m 0 O r n p> 6 wr C � n �-5 v o G < ^ 2 r O V V N C + O O C n� C] u a b L ° NW V+ T- � r 0 C � O Y >. O V c c P� V 'J W � N ^ + C V 4 � c y r 2 9b C✓ u = G V Ms ... y V i O V e O C b q 9 V G V F C Y O L. V G 4Vr < �Q <LOI C C N d O u G. � V z� V O C p V V y L V C C p o= V G V P V a G + q L G O � D C V O w V 7 L 1.2 = L r ° V c O o i a P G O C v ° P C y _ O J 2 V P 9 L G 4 _OaN n V V N ° C e C C N }r �✓ rl� N+ C V L w r V n e m 0 O r n p> 6 wr C � n �-5 v o G < ^ 2 r O V V N C + O O C n� C] u a b L ° NW V+ T- � r 0 C � O Y >. O V c c P� V 'J W � N O V V a _+ O M V 9 D N V V a �^ 0 i w G b 6 + 7 r - G T r ` r� s O y� Y V 9 L O V r Y G V 9 4 T.°ir V � - 2r r G G C G L 4 � c y r 2 9b C✓ u = G V ^ y V 04 Z > a r+ = a y r_ v ' •1^ r• ^r G L 0 -_qm r C p ni G r T _ e GSO � O �"�G CLr >• wv N VC Or y V A C _ Tr ✓ r� nw O O e� C+ q ` V r. ✓ L � Y V J 4 Er i c N ✓ C„ � V S N~ V +a Cdr rV J V O D coG ^ V C N Gov EFe V q+ w 9 DL P4 �r a G Gw`r ^ Ll b� G O 9 qq n^ V =C6 q= ?mot le w t r r_ V r • � V ° f ^C O L Gv l N a .n .rr± q��9gV -Lv 4O M V L V r im^ ^O LQL ._= rO A� z L 9CN• ^� � 06 V ✓_L r_V J LY q 2.!! L F V � G waTi �_ ✓ �" V q V r� � > b ^ 9 c.L. == V awv R•q r ^CW g Lar Vy> V O Ow° O u 04E GC+ 4V C V + -72 v t C y i j •� ✓� N C r✓ E V r q � V V m C✓ C O O ` c C O v V C o < p G 2 P•� 6 C L V r� 9 > 2 V r C 7 4 V 5.E L.°.rL qai ^✓ i rV y L9 N4•y6r � D`CLCV N �y Cd° wr ��✓ N' r- V 9 C V ✓� V E > ✓ O r u V✓ Vr �^ r C r G V V� f _ q rOrrV Grp C r V �q d NV �wDt r C >I G h N N R O 6 C ry 1 O O V V a _+ O M V 9 D N V V a �^ 0 i w G b 6 + 7 r - G T r ` r� s O y� Y V 9 L O V r Y G V 9 4 T.°ir V � - 2r r G G C G L � y r 2 9b C✓ u = G V ^ y V 04 Z > a r+ = a y L r C p ni G r wv N VC Or y V A nw O O C 1. V O r V r 9 4 � VCLa Er i c N ✓ C„ � V S N~ V +a Cdr rV J V O D coG ^ V C N Gov EFe V q+ w DL P4 �r a G Gw`r O b� G O 9 qq n^ V =C6 q= ?mot le w t r r_ V V ° f ^C O L Gv l SrQ o N ZZ -Lv M V L V r im^ ^O LQL ._= rO A� z L C6 2.!! V>• q C > b ^CW g Lar Vy> V O Ow° O u 04E GC+ 4V C V + O V V a _+ O M V 9 D N V V a �^ 0 i w G b 6 + 7 r - G T r ` r� s O y� Y V 9 L O V r Y G V 9 4 T.°ir V � - 2r r G G C G L C u f C G PV m L o a r+ r C p ni G r 4 L C� V O r V r 9 4 � VCLa Er i c N d6� �V V Cdr rV J 4 ✓ j coG co EFe wy�^ DL V �r Gw`r O 02e O J le w t r r_ V f •� O n � r. j l C °� .O.r G ✓ C_ N M V L V r im^ r O b L O V V a _+ O M V 9 D N V V a �^ 0 i w G b 6 + 7 r - G T r ` r� s O y� Y V 9 L O V r Y G V 9 4 T.°ir V � - 2r r G G C G L 4 � 4 ? = y •� C 4 f 4VeD_ Y �1 w ¢ �� COV LS O>O 7 ^. v; :C w.L.. IQ .. _ GAP.- ..•vw_4L _ C _ 0 ` C 9 \ �'c C. wYr rtn¢ •• a d rw` \.0 O ^ D.iV. N.^L`.4 L.e.'. _ juP ANC �t rL V,l Or r y y p C• •+ ••r46 9L..¢ i�4 o:.e �w °_.�_> cL+� oLC• :. w i °.a —tn � ¢ a LGpsp -�4. ✓ 2:5 L F L P_ �' L I s 2 N;. g R w ° O < N h C r J ^J 4_ C C V L V 9 v V pJ V P w D?_ 4 L p V Gw �� GSa Cho C C yV >� ��V ® O W C _ O � o � w J n C O C � D• O. a ¢ O G L t 4 O RZ L7 'D •n c �� .' wA V Ow¢ Cure L � ` 9 L V O Vw� 7 E9 9 •^ VO �L C LYNR =TICU FVw •O v Y L G � V 4 w � �� L L B .O .L.r � q C y t Lr ..f r V ` wV O a0 Lwq C.�O twY Oe R rci Z:.2 O �V P J L �� '. _V wC O. dO LI •� C TODO C -6 w 4 � 9 V � O. =$ � C 0 0_ F F C L L w• q C -• V l� C p r= - q 4 CC r L r a jV 4 >ML LRLrL� pr9 ELyN C PO OLr... �_ _� r e O O b.2 Z5 Cw' Lit qw C L LJL G _O e z V q V G — < — b .L.. •• ra ° qr q _� > _' eon �>G.¢nC -a: ,LC CN w _ _1�c_ _ V P�7^. C EL RV22. E Cyr = G rY d _6 V VtO L `L'L Py w4$_ r q= G O, .4 r ¢ C w . V i w L C c ^_ 5 4 C G L O L T•O �� �• O V �¢ _ -t.o. -ON d >. � Z P �• T C C w � q L C V` >. q .D r C w �� N O O b L C 4 r U� C C r� C w 4 O_' y V w ` r i• O O C^ O 6 9 7 r r a 2 =� V V V n V O C O R` L= 4� r D O c w S C K G 3 P VV ��p C L1Z C� V`CC DI CSR ¢Tn> 4.L... Va.L..r VV74 C_= t O•. S C G Hiv Q =L•�.� Z� vOLLeL L Ew_ _a wRnz V -5_Z: N __ q q• P P ✓ C - G G ✓ C V T � P � � l 'n L 4 q D � P l G G � � q L L •C w J J c ' 4_ T q q V _ D V_Y U_ C °Q`• j Vr L L. °Z = G O _« _ C O O�[ ° j 6 6•T V = B J ✓ V '77 � r r � V O O ' T ' A � V = W W O � � � � V '-" V M M q q✓_, � T '.' C C.O. u � A � ° r � � � � V V V L y C Cp � � U V � ° � -� � c L Q Q y � � U H. V � ✓ - ° � - �- W t: 7 a Z C __- W 7-.5.r _ y a C^ 0= g = = r y ✓ter„ c Z L L ✓_uA e e...� a ar,.�cF ✓ cY.� =` Z AIr q qv O O°4 C C y 4 O - -da_J y y ✓ C T G ✓ ✓ A C ` y4q p p___ L w 4 q O F • S h - G ^n! ✓ C ( A° C ` C L i O 4 G •� S ft (Yl T q- r r q I M 7 ' w � . .O G= ` ` q r. ✓� C C b U � � M� O � I 7 J ' w � b✓ .� r q U O r �.q. u u : :° a a Y Y Y Yc ✓ ✓ate_° � � ` Yo Y -`•_°: G^ L q C - O ✓ V= r` M L= r r q - ✓ ✓ G O ✓ V � O d 4 0~ � _ C C N j p 4 � O � r 0 • •n C d � � M L ✓. . �� _ _ .. ° ° °i M M a a4, ° °m . =.°.> ° °rc N N.°..yaa u u1 Y «_oc c c ✓ .°.D q qA = V IJI V Y� Zg tl . M O C <.T O O -- _ _ t ._ E M O .+ � � N -J A A O q✓ T a a l i O P Y it u _ v _ _ d n n ✓ ✓ �� V V N N O S S V i b b ^ G P PV U U L 4 . .. \N = =6 2z. V ✓ L - G t � - O C q ~_ 9i Cr C � ✓O U O L L E N O 9 V V V y ry G -j -22 =7 6✓� K M� ��r' j O e p�= y P = c 5c oc� no �G''-�y 11WNge_ o _I >.n C= 1 NCV 1 N r= jII -✓ _✓ VGi- -C�O Y�itl O)I - OSCrV OC14 >�L•l Q_ = G`G4rN�q 1r ^q ^ M C v �gV4r✓ V - f 2 P i ` O 1 C L L O A d V O � tl r 2 O VAN > ;y -t LG gW. �rs `,e arr aL $ A A O Oy' G ✓ C V � _ L L 9 £ -- yEo -- y ♦ q � O - U Vup 4_V pw w n 4 G r V C LL M {`✓ CLi _ - � L wl NN V U,rO c n c O L N �✓� V N ✓ C = y V C= Y V p p ✓ N O N CN v r= i ev Pd -C Pr9 C� O V w u G a T •n l O o�uYr 4- iL'S 9�Z V _ V L N O V V r^ G. 4=O JrJ N n A, -A7� �- cc �qr N 2z 4 C y 7 9 :a V t3": r S V f,6 ys Y C � Y L CL a _ _ z iN ✓ o` Eve - a L� .l P✓ A r _ u ^C 7 q q o � gywa Y O o c V «wE 4.2rL j N _ V LVtlJIV C ^ 3 � i E <- u _ c - T 0 8 s f• G O C ✓ q C L O M P C L Z E � u �= v � - V Y O O 4 � V E 4 ° '^ E ° y V L N C - C O 9 O • y S Vy V G G G N c v i V '• O O P q C r i 4 r r ° r ° O r L C V y - V r w � « 7 M O i L _a r 4 - r n• Y N Q � C C C 000 O p tl C A w � q 4 L ✓ L N O V t1 N V D •e O � C c � O C _ C q q r e ue° O � i G = O Y E V ✓ q L O -O N - y Cu •., l - � L 9= L 17; ei <= V ` Z < =O y y ` 9 v u ✓ r I a c o,20 v 'SAG ° G v V V wr V Y _ LLB A •- V L � M i O i tl C O • q � O v N t y i d -Ca 4 V i 4 C r _ n ni � P Lc ex V 4 u. V O PN G V O u r 9 L q V � V ♦ r q � _ G: L L1 9 L c L O O S C r = A V` O o V M u0i «a ✓r �o C c C C V u Oj Z 1 P� =3 r y �w A d V O � tl r 2 O VAN > ;y -t LG gW. �rs `,e arr aL $ A A O Oy' G ✓ C V � _ L L 9 £ -- yEo -- y ♦ q � O - U Vup 4_V pw w n 4 G r V C LL M {`✓ CLi _ - � L wl NN V U,rO c n c O L N �✓� V N ✓ C = y V C= Y V p p ✓ N O N CN v r= i ev Pd -C Pr9 C� O V w u G a T •n l O o�uYr 4- iL'S 9�Z V _ V L N O V V r^ G. 4=O JrJ N n A, -A7� �- cc �qr N 2z 4 C y 7 9 :a V t3": r S V f,6 ys Y C � Y L CL a _ _ z iN ✓ o` Eve - a L� .l P✓ A r _ u ^C 7 q q o � gywa Y O o c V «wE 4.2rL j N _ V LVtlJIV C ^ 3 � i E <- u _ c - T 0 8 s f• G O C ✓ q C L O M P C L Z E � u �= v � - V Y O O 4 � V E 4 ° '^ E ° y V L N C - C O 9 O • y S Vy V G G G N c v i V '• O O P q C r i 4 r r ° r ° O r L C V y - V r w � « 7 M O i L _a r 4 - r n• Y N Q � C C C 000 O p tl C A w � q 4 L ✓ L N O V t1 N V D •e O � C c � O C _ C q q r e ue° O � i G = O Y E V ✓ q L O -O N - y Cu •., l - � L 9= L 17; ei <= V ` Z < =O y y ` 9 v u ✓ r I a c o,20 v 'SAG ° G v V V wr V Y _ LLB A •- V L � M i O i tl C O • q � O v N t y i d -Ca 4 V i 4 C r _ n ni � P Lc ex V 4 u. V O PN G V O u r 9 L q V � V ♦ r q � _ G: L L1 9 L c L O O S C r = A V` O o V M u0i «a ✓r �o C c C C V u Oj Z 1 P� =3 r y �w wl NN V U,rO c n c O L N �✓� V N ✓ C = y V C= Y V p p ✓ N O N CN v r= i ev Pd -C Pr9 C� O V w u G a T •n l O o�uYr 4- iL'S 9�Z V _ V L N O V V r^ G. 4=O JrJ N n A, -A7� �- cc �qr N 2z 4 C y 7 9 :a V t3": r S V f,6 ys Y C � Y L CL a _ _ z iN ✓ o` Eve - a L� .l P✓ A r _ u ^C 7 q q o � gywa Y O o c V «wE 4.2rL j N _ V LVtlJIV C ^ 3 � i E <- u _ c - T 0 8 s f• G O C ✓ q C L O M P C L Z E � u �= v � - V Y O O 4 � V E 4 ° '^ E ° y V L N C - C O 9 O • y S Vy V G G G N c v i V '• O O P q C r i 4 r r ° r ° O r L C V y - V r w � « 7 M O i L _a r 4 - r n• Y N Q � C C C 000 O p tl C A w � q 4 L ✓ L N O V t1 N V D •e O � C c � O C _ C q q r e ue° O � i G = O Y E V ✓ q L O -O N - y Cu •., l - � L 9= L 17; ei <= V ` Z < =O y y ` 9 v u ✓ r I a c o,20 v 'SAG ° G v V V wr V Y _ LLB A •- V L � M i O i tl C O • q � O v N t y i d -Ca 4 V i 4 C r _ n ni � P Lc ex V 4 u. V O PN G V O u r 9 L q V � V ♦ r q � _ G: L L1 9 L c L O O S C r = A V` O o V M u0i «a ✓r �o C c C C V u Oj Z 1 P� =3 r y �w -Ca 4 V i 4 C r _ n ni � P Lc ex V 4 u. V O PN G V O u r 9 L q V � V ♦ r q � _ G: L L1 9 L c L O O S C r = A V` O o V M u0i «a ✓r �o C c C C V u Oj Z 1 P� =3 r y �w d j v g. • •-n _U u L O � <• - O 9 4 C C C 4- « I I I O _.\ ^ 4 J ° _4 O f. • 'J 9 r V 4 t V V p 2 J r q w .l �. ^' r C 7• r O �_ r ` V _4 m:. +.>. n,o°, `c' °o _ W� o ro 4« ='w �-„- O � C_! � O r O 9 L Y O O i G 4 !� 4 �� �= u •^ � j r- � L r Lva CC -_.r y .2 , C` _° G � 1 GN 4 r +� •e � V � m` � I e� G o a - c € � � i b I m r 4� `� G' a � L. L° c J Y 'L i 1 •r " o w w i ., 6 o.q • _ • �_ vi r � r dbr r CV C� +mow O Cr .Vi.L r+ ' •1n.0 rJ ! • rgVJ �I i�r- S ++ OHO bt n F pinq � � OV yd yr �` L= IN rW+ r. � n�r �r N COl CO V rp O • v��r c m e ° c Lw > qc u` ri `per ^ a¢ r n -_.. wv �c v_ � ; .q.• O L V I � � � V C- V O C C r O W i= 9° T D d r y C> r L =rw W� Gq •n OHO � °> �C = L .4 =� S- �' w •,. • • Z�Cp 2 r9 � r•r� C4N dL rV ��]•.i� `V �J 4 'JJ _� =r -O w � S tN.•S^ �� � Lrd Or y s i� V+ CNL Ct C pN 4J V. Y . ® J C r • � •.fir u r �• i vn u« ° n� V� • TT r !-V ?` C_ � 3I � I I �° Cb.rr " - r T VO9r T GN Pq J_r �• ' _ y_v o � p � � °.v'. J _¢ a � o � •°, .o. � ± `�' yr„ M " �' � o= ' _ G __ G V O W L p P4. t C w �• O q C- C+W t.' • _� .Li•n O?N == d \�' JL° �Q`O u°•C BFI ..O• 4y wOVg _ r •- _ L. y G N i. V` G V` _r° , 1_ ^1 ••//Ijlj 111 r_.� b C� °GO N� ��L.. ... i` �, L w r r n y.� � b V PVyLC� •+.. 7O :i�4� _ • _f- JJ £�._ `•'n P _.G�� / � 1 'Cr � Odd �]•.V� `r C V •: ` r � r �I� CO. OPN P 9rr_ My PC �+.: Jr '.•C.r� `rM 41- OC Cy Or q_ _ rC N r°•-j £ ry 111��f¢ I �^V Orr rV ��wLu ` •• _` C� V MGy r NLd Cr •bn ` I I q Gy �F q= V �. •.= 11 +6°.. • W S L1' V Vr 6L O^ I J t. _ eu L+ E' V v � 1 � + L.Li• ••TCrq NVWr -W f j W �� L N • ¢ �. v� p 4I � 1"1 • C x C C !\ �a • � V N fw a �� - HE �9 =� A 4. •J� JO'�� ��1T anw� o _ �s .. _ 9 Ad p i n p w O r ^ gip• n v J � e}i p C wb 60A N �'DJ6 w0.- ��•.n „^,o rp sT Lwow � ` yb sing N O = � w Ofnl�jNp n n w N Cf A raw ifs •t 114 w Ib � n OrA O wr(O s SNw n ° n 9 •i \ ` U p 4 f 1 .. i p t Ln A - Ac. _ x J v o< r: u �a fw - HE 3 n v J ` yb sing N O = � w n n w N Cf O•b ��w•n w Ib n n ° n J v o< r: u RESOLUTION NO. A ' ESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12256. (WHEREAS, a request has been filed fur 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 Planni:g Commission conditionally approved the above described Tentative Tract 12256. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the fin — Sings: A. The previously approved Tentative Map is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, Specific Plans, Ordinances, Plans, Codes and Policies; and, B. The extension of the Tentative Map will not likely cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, Specific Plans, Ordinances, Plans, Codes and Policies; and, C. The extension of the Tentative Map is not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and, D. The extension is within the time limits prescribed by state law and local ordinance. SECTION 2: The Ranch: Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby grants a time -:.�ssion for: Tract Applicant Expiration 12256 BIDCAL 11/10/85 A ".°ROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1484. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM0!gr,", BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman �. ATTEST- '� Rick Gomez, Deputy ecretary A - -tt, Planning Commission Resolution TT 12255 Page #2 1, Rick Gomez, Secretary. of the Planning Cne?issinn of the City of Rancho rucaw=, do hereby cartify that the rciregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of :'ancho Dicamon;a, at a regulrr meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of November, 1984, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COW- iiSSIONERS: 6_x-1 11 El CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA . STAFF REPORT DATE: NnycFr.�er 14, 1984 1977 10: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner DV: John Meyer, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR 7NTATIVE TRACT 11869 ROBERTS GROUP - A deve o meet of 87 units en 9.75 acres of l *c' in a Medium Residential Distt- :ct (.8-14 du /ac) located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Highland - A. °N 205- ?52 -23, 25, 26. I. BACKGROUND: the property owners, Matthys and Barbara Kooyman, are requesting a time extension for Tentative Tract 11869 as described above and as shown on the attached �hibits. The project was originally approved by the Planning roccrission on October 14, 1981, but an appeal was filed by htr---;,wners protesting this project 7-nd an adjacent tract to tine cast (Tentative Tract 11928 - Wesziand Venture). After numerous public hearings and meetings with the homeowners, the City Council granted approval of the project on December 2, 1981 for a two year period with several conditions. The conditions included reducing the project density from 136 to 87 units and requiring enclosed garages. In addition, the City Council required that the Design Review Committee review the revisions prior to issuance of building permits. To date, these revisions have not been submitted. II. ANALYSIS: A review of the currant tract ;.:.p and site plan indicate that the existing plans have not been redesigieed to meet the City Council conditions of approval concerning the reduction in density. Tentative tracts are valij for a maximum of four years from the date of approval with appropriate extensions per the Subdivision Map Act. This tract was originally approved for two years and has received a one year extension. It is e?Sgible for a one year. extensir-i. A CLNy ffi the amended Planning Commission Resolution of Approva; -ith Conditions and P':.- ..,ing Commission and City Council Your review. minutes .re attached for ITEM PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Time Extension for TT 11859 - Roberts Group November 14, 1984 Page 2 III. RECOMMENDATION: Staff rec- amrrends the Planning Commiss ion grant a six month time extension for Tentative Tract 11869 by adopting the attached Resolution. The six month extension would allow the applicant to resubmit plans in accordance with the City Council's conditions, and providing time for City review should an additional 6 month extension be granted. The revised plans must be reviewed by Design Review Committee. If the plans receive the Committee's approval, the applicant may then apply for the final six month time extension. The new expiration date would then become June 2, 1985. ReszetfullY.St pitted, Rick o;nd� City. Tanner RG:JM:ns Attachments: Letter fro,, Property Owners Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Natural Features Map Exhibit "C" - Subdivisan Map Ex{ iu" ,. "7j` - 51-te Plan Fxhibit "E" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "F" - Grading Plan Exhibit "G" - Phasing Plan Exhibit "H" - Elevations Amended "fanning Commission Resolution Planni,.,, Commission Minutes - October 1981 with T'onditions 14 & Decerr6er 9, City Council Minutes - December 2, 1981 & February 17, 1982 Time Extension Resolution of Approval aa- .� U - October 9, 1984 cm'o�rA l c3 PrANn'rt1G� yt; 42kH CA AN OCT 1 11984 ��s������f��3j2i3r4►5�6 Q Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission 9320 Baseline Rd. Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. 91701 Centlemen: Re: Tentative Tract Map #11869 Please find enclosed my check in the amount of $62.00 for payment on the extension of the above Tentative Map No. 11869. This request for extension is based on the possibility of a need for this particular Tract Map during the coning year and in that' event T feel a need to extend the time before the expiration date o: December 2, 1984. Thanking you in advance for your courtesy, I remain, Sincerely, Matthys Kcoyman aa s` f El l Sit I Fdibll� -�i--4—U/a ' I II J c R412 T _ 4 -14u/a r I • A : 'i vacH \AM I ,v �I R 1- 8500_:T a i 4- 14LIta -. tV (I ' f I I 1 1 I 1 I rrr. 1 I _ i � I i I R 1 -8500 T ' I M i uti-Family 1 .w. 1 8-18500 I � I V NU;riH CITY OF rrE%1: $� RAINCHO CUCANIONGA PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: SCALE a. I 1 I _ i � I i I R 1 -8500 T ' I M i uti-Family 1 .w. 1 8-18500 I � I V NU;riH CITY OF rrE%1: $� RAINCHO CUCANIONGA PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: SCALE a. 0 t S I \\ M. ��. � {}���" --�' � � _� - 1j!(1° - � ....� `� a '» ''1. ^'�`, -„� ,Ara=`- -• � (. -1A 7.- 4 tk eI�., B t i..� - \, �.v ....'� i�f( � �• r' .n.\ -r. ' .'i •�tt)_ is 'N•� \v`_ ^• � i l' _ - �,T���wr 42 9—��•� i .J lot _ .� w - l.il Lf .]� _ _ 1 _ �' _TFLR 'JTYO•T � � • t tea: —' 1 __r''��'"_O.. .R. _ {•� NOKTH CITY OF RANCHO CUCAINJ GeNGA TITLE- � P"NNING DIXISION E?WIBIT---- — SCAL.E- t ' 1 UUMI OEM Y ✓' fir!/ Y •ice :. 7 - Mal � Hall � ' s � iu� �' Iinili . • F+ ( .. y op Y _ i h. ' '. C.. ..�� -' -�j. � r- T r r - '�y ♦r� Lr �'.� . ✓+. .:.�. ♦:x, . ,, ,. • . � I a C- Fj C] 51 j +I i Lrk \',11 \G DIvnm 1 � 1 ...� 1lOIrrH !YEN 1= TITLE: Smd'% (�'itJt�djpE I x •.I Ma I '•• ti ,1 1 � SS�� 1 �j M• w..t �.t I V•T' J I • r. ! � 1 1a p . c i� I �' � I -..ti 'T w ■ — { ;J j��\J � ��' —. 1. .' —may :i A ; \\ �.r 4 _ ! _ L"i�„•" lY _ — .".,n,,:Jar�.�r .J� . - -.,._ '�. �' �C ; Nom- \ 1 .. � �I KRM .NYC • —.� • M a I � _ r V NORTH CITY OF iTE.v: PLAN\Tl\G MriSIGN FXHI13TT= — SGT :-E �i �i I I C/` NORTH CITE' OF nT- -_%I: F2 RANCHO CL'CANIONG zt,tE: -- 44 1 � -- PLA. \NI\G DIVISION E�Ciilt3lT:- FZ- \R �r .. CITY Or RANCHO CUCANDNCA PL -U NNING DIVISIONi 0 C�/ � FORTH ITIL%I= V O %I —D% TITLE = U,U i'i �1� �sL �1/�A'i'I[`9►. E \f illllT= H • Ta _ SCALE= �•• 4, -%a 41ENBED PER CITY COUNCIL ACTIor1 ON 12/2/81 - SEE PAGE 3 t RESOLUTION NO_ 81 -115 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLAN °LING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE, TRACT MAP NO. 11869 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 11869, hereinafter "Map" submitted by The Roberts Group, 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 a subdivision for a total planned development of 136 crndominium units on 9.75 ac es in the R -1- 10,000 zone (R- 3 /P.D. pending), located on the northeast corner of Archibald and Highland Avenue, APN 201- 252 -23, 25, and 26 into 4 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on October 1&4, 1981; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Divisions reports; and (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Divisions reports and has considered otter 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. 11869 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with all applicable interim and pr000sed 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 wildli : °e or their habitat; rc, (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health prc:lems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. f:c . Resolution. No. 31 -115 Page 2 (g) That.this project will not :reate adverse.- impacts on the environment and a Negative: Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 11869, a copy -if which is attached hereto, is he.eby approved subject to all of the fc "Mowing conditior; and the attached Standard Condition.: PLANNING DIVISION I. A minimum of ten (10) feet landscaped planter, as measured from north property line, shall be provided between uncovered parking areas and the north project boundary. 2. if the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe right -of -way to the north is acquired, revised plans shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval. 3. That vine pockets with irrigation be provided at car- port posts as indicated on elevations. 4. That a di -ectory sign shall be provided at each project_ entry subject to City Planner review and approval. ENGINEERING DIVISION 5. All interior private streets shall have a croi:In section. 6. Tle applicant sr.all attempt to acquire necessary right - of -way aL the southeast corner of Archibald and High- land, for street widening purposes prior to final map approval. The applicant shall coordinate efforts with staff. 7. The Commission recommends, to the Council, that the Systems Fees generated by this project, be earmarked to widen the Archibald and Highland intersection. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE fITY OF RANCFO CDCAMONGA / . . -a / ffm T: . rman anning Lommsssion LX, - r 1 LJ Ell C]J kesolution No. 81 -115 ??< Page 3 �- r 1 .. I, JAi., ; .4, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonqa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cu:amonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of October, 1981, by the following vote - to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Dahl, Tolstoy, Rempel, Sceranka, King NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ASS -ENT: COMMISSIONERS: None This project was appealed to City Council a.id the City Council held a duly advertised hearing and made the following modifications to the project. 1. The maximum density permitted for this development shall not exceed nine (9) dwelling units per acre. 2. All carports and garages shall be fully enclosed and shall contain doors. 3. The site plan shall be modified to meet the maximum dwellings per acre and shall be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Committee. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of December, 1981. AYES: NOES: ABSENT ATTEST: Frost, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, Schlosser Ilene None uren M. Wasserman, City Clerk Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor P+- \::.:; dealing with the public's money and a slump stony wall would be con- siderably more expensive_ He felt `fiat a block wall could be matched in color very closely to what is presently there. Commissioner 7zeranka stated that he would like to see some kind or planting material on the block wall ba:ause of the possibility of grafitti. Mr. Vairin stated that the condition for the slump stone wall had been i- the original resolution ?.nd that there had been discussion on it as well. He indicated that t!a opinion of the Design Review Committee was that a slump stone wall would he aesthetically more appealing and would blend in better with what is ;resent. Commissioner Dahl asked who sits on that committee. Mr. Vairin replied that Commissioners Rempel an.4 Sceranka c(o. Commissioner To3.stoy state3 that the City, the Council and Commission has been trying to get the private sector: to do their projects in such a way tt.at they would enhance the City. He stated he fe1L that there would be a problem with making an exception on this project. He indicated tha'_ the City believes that the Commission asks someone for an upgrade, he ,7:11 point his finger a..i say that they -et the public sector get away. tie felt that this could happen with this building and if thev allow corners to be cut, they will hear about it. Mr. Michael asked if the Commission normally specifies the type of building material to be used in walls. Commissioner Tolstoy replied that the Commission has in the past. Commissioner Rempel reiterated that this Is a Commission prerogative and they do it for private developments. Mr Michael indicated that the Water District would comply with the request for a slump stone wall. Motion: ?loved by Sceranka, seconded by Dahl, carried unanimously, to require the slump stone wall, as stated in the resolution. F. (TT 11869) - ROBERTS GROUP - A cha*_:ge of zone from R- 1- 10,000 to R- 3 /P.0. for a planned unit deielopment of 136 condominium units on 9.75 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Highland Avenue. APN 201 - 252 -23, 25 and 26. Planning CO.dmission Minutes -6- October 14, 1981 is Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, Commissioner To'' -stoy asked if grading on this project could be addressed. Vairin asked if he meant anything in particular or the concept. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he had noticed that there are some 3- story elements in this project and asked if they were suggested to minimize the grading. Vairin replied that this had been suggested by the applicant. Commissioner Tolstoy asked less grading. Mr. Vairin replied that he was not sure if it was being suggested in terra of scale. could better answer the questions. Chairman King opened the project will require less grading or if that &.,t app =cant M<_. Tony Quezada, representing the developer, the Robarts Group, sated that they were in concurrence with staff's and the Design Review Committee's mecommendation and have. no problei* with the conditions. its. Quezada asked for clarif ".cation of Engineering Condition No. K8 oncerning drainage. She asked if the wording should be southwest .:ner of the property rather than Archibald and Highland. Ms. Quezada then ai.svered Commissioner Tolstoy's question by stating that it was a design function and would not affect the grading of the project. Mr. Phillip Marcacci, 6368 Jadeite, Alta Loma, stated that he waa con- cerned about traffic as a result of tnis project and school overcrowding that may result. He indicated that this project is compounded by the next agenda item which will also adversely impact these areas. Commissionet Dahl explained the school certification letter which is required before building permit issuance, stating that school ov�r- crowding is the responsibility of the school district. Mr. Vairin explained the rigorous review process that this and other items go through in order to determine the availability of utilities and other services. Mr. Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, explained that the traffic situation is one thing that is examined closely prior to approval of a project. He indicated that with the widening of the street that will result from Planning Commission Minutes -7- Oc`ober 14, C 1 this project, impaction wi!L be reduced. Commissioner iolstoy asked ,what the plan is for :4rchibald. Mr. Ecougeau raplicd t1t =t_ krchibald is prcpcsed to be 72 feet wide and compared it with other norrh -south streets which are 44 feet wide such as Amethyst and Beryi. Mr. Fred Nelson, Alta Loma resident, stated that he was not particularly opposed to this project but asked what will be done with Archibald and Highland Avenues. Mrs. Judith Heinz, Altc Loma resident, also addressed the traffic problem that she foresaw at Highland and Archibald. She indicated that presently there is a school bus stop at that location. Further, that heavy trucks will be using that route with the proposed development and reiced her con- cern for the safety of children. Mrs. Sheryl Moody, Jadeite Street resident, questioned the comment that the schools will be able to handle additions: children chat may result from this project. She asked if it were true that school children are presently being bused. Commissioner Dahl rerlied t,Lat when it comes to schools, we as a City, have no real rt:nonsibility as to what school distri ^t: will and won't do. He added that L-Fore building permits are issue -, the builder must receive a letter from .'he schcol district stating thc.t there will be room. Commissioner Dah. indicated that in the case of the Alta Loma School District, they will issue a letter if they feel that trey can absorb additional children. Chaffey High School District will also issue a letter; however, they certify on the basis of classroom space within the district rather than the local area. He indicated if no certifica- tion letter is issued, *?:ere can be no building permit issuance. Commissioner Sceranka fur they certification process staring 60 days during which tine the letter is older than 60 days, have to be obtained. explained the mechanism im olved in the that the letter is good for period of building permits must be pull._d. If the it becomes invalid and a new one would Mrs. Moody questioned the water pressure that might be lessenea as a result of this project, indic.a.{ng that there currently are problems with it. Mr. 7airin replied with an explanation, of the Growth Management Coccmittee and how they investigate these kinds of c.- -erns to be sure that service _ can be provided. Further, that this project wu.._' not take water pressure away from this area. Planning Commission Minutes -8- October 1o, 1981 r E ® Mrs. Moody stated that Archibald cannot handle any more traffic as there is presently only one lane•betwz�en 19th Street and Highland Aven+ie. She asked when Archibald would'be revamped, before, or after, %is pro - ject's construction. Mr. Rougeau replied tbatuaen this project goes in it will be fully widened. However, he stated, it will not be widened south of Highland Avenue, it will just be tr.) lanes. He indicated that this would be mitigated by a four -way stop. Fie explained that this is because the property on the southeast corner is privately owned ant in the Foothill Freewav corridor. He indicated that it cannot be expected that they will just give the City this property, the City would hmave.to purchase it. Mr. Rougeau statcd that if after this project is built, there is an unbearabie delay in traffic, staff will propose to the City Council some appropriate means to do a road job. Mr. Rougeau then explained the systems development fee which helps to provide necessary street improvements. Mr. Frederick Stuart, Alta Loma resident, stated that a myth exists relative to the school certification letter in that it carries little cr no weight. He indicated that a private attorney had been hired to investigate its legal merits and concluded that it was not zl- th the paper upon which it was written. Further, it was t:is attorney`; opinion that the letter wend not withstand a court challenge. isMr. Nelson asked why a requirement for improvement is not imposed on this development and asked how long it wou ".d be before this irter- section is improved. Mr. Rougeau replied that these two projects will aot be entirely responsible for the t -affic at this intersection and that is why the fee is paid. Mrs. Lee Marcuchian, a resident of Jadeite Street, asked if the fire station on Amethyst will be at >. to handle the additional dwellings. She indicated trat at a neigh ;:,­.00d fire recently, it took the Fire Department 5 r.ltiutes to respond. She asked if the fire station will remain opened. Mr. Lam replied that cz far as the City knows, _he fire station will remain opened. He also explained the response time criteria. Mrs. Marcuchian commented that she travels Archibald twice a day and the step sign that exists at Archibald and Highland is not observed by 54 percent of the people. Planning Commission Minutes -9- October .Us, 1981 %_ XR Mr. Lam es-Dlained the City's requirement for off -site improvements so that what has been said would not be taken out of context. He indicated that when it comes to an intersection such a: this where the developer is not the total contributor to the problem, the City imposes a Systems D_velopment Fee. 3e _ ndicated tl;at very fec, cities in the State of Calif.,rnia have such a fee and that Rancho Cucamonga is one of the first. He ad•tised that this fee is outside of tax doliars, it is contributes. by the developer end goes into a special fund for Capital Improvements. He explained that the City Council each year evaluates projects that nned improvements. He indicated that it is each citizen's right to ask the City Council to set a priority on how these improvements should be made. He indicated that a problem exists in that these aye not enough funds to make all the improvements needed. Mr. Lam also explained that outside of the public Capital Improvements Program, the City has a Public Safety Committee that advises and makes recommendation; to the City Council. He stated that these are the mechanisms for people to get their input :.nto the system when there are perceptions of safety problems. He indicated that no one is saying that a problem is non - existent. What I e explained is that there are mechanisms for ceople to set priorities and let their opi:iions be known relative to the System; Development Fee that can be used for capital improvements. There being nr further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Dahl asked Assistant City Attorney Hopaon if the school certification letter is binding or if there is some method of getting around it. Mr. Hopson replied that Mr. Stuart's reply was totally erroneous. i-a indicated that ica ,his Cit; a developer cannot obtain a final tran, map without ac approval letter. Further, that this option is written into State law and t;ie attorney with whom yr. Stuart spoke could not be mo-e incorrect in the opi.ni.on he gava. Mr. Hopson indicate; -3 that it is legal and binding and he had no doubt that if this was challenged in court, he could defend the City's posture. Without a letter, he stated, you cannot build a house. Commissioner Dahl stated that he wished to go on record relative to the intersection of Archibald sod Highland that b: believed it to be one of the most dangerous in the communi '-y. He stated that it was his hope in those pro,-!cts that are adding impacts to traffic tnat the Commission can do something to deal with these dangerous situations. He indicated that ne would not support any of these projects unless this is taken care of. Commissioner Remipei stated that h.avin -; sat on the Design Review Committee and looking at this project's sesthetical aspects and whether circulation is adequate for tlis facility, this project has gore a long wav in meeting the criteria set. He felt that the developer should be commended Planning Commission Miput=:s -10- V% -an Octobee 14, 1981 Ell E 11 C on this. He stated that with regard to the traffic problem at this intersection that it has been stated that there would be widening at Archibald and at Highland, the length of this tract, and will addition- ally, have to pay the systems development fee which will go into the City', f,, d f:r furor ;-P 0- 'eraents and possibly this intersection. He indicated that until the City has some money, it can only wait until there is enough either in the development fee or the road tax funds to make these improvements because the existing funds are woefully in- adequate. Commissioner Dahl stated that he wished to comment on the intersection stating that if it was cut down and smoothed out it wouldn't have to be widened because there would be adequate visibility making less of a problem at that location. He also stated that he wished to go on record that this is a very attractive and one of the best condo projects in the City. Assistant City Attorney Hopson observed that the mechanism with the development project would make the developer improve that intersection, however, the Commission is overlooking one point. He indicated Laat to improve that intersection the City must have that piece of property that lies south and the developer has no power to condemn that property. He indicated that if the Commission requires the developer to improve that intersection by widening it with Archibald south, the Commission will have imposed a condition on him that he cannot satisfy. He indicated that it would be nice if whoever owns the property on the south either gave it or said T will contribute by setting a reasonable value on it. He indicated that in giving tentative tract approval, the Commission m-us*_ irpose conditions that can be met. C:raissioner Tolstoy stated that when the storm drain project goes in, it will take water off of that intersection and it will be improved somewhat through that and the repavement that will be done. He indi- cated that he had somewhat the same problem that Commissioner Dahl has and he would make a statement, although not as strong as the one that Commissioner Dahl has made, in that he knows that the Engineering Department and the Traffic Department has in the past taken care of problems. Although Commissioner Tolstoy acknowledged -that there is a problem here, he felt that the Traffic and Engineering Department will continue to take care of these problems and will monitor accidents and keep traffic counts here. He indicated that the two projects before the Commission at this meeting will generate some funds and will allow improvements to be made as they have been at Base Line and other areas in the City. He indicated that he would support this project because although it has problems, it is in the right place and he felt that the City can take care of these problems. Planning Commission Minutes -11- �_RWM October 14, 1981 C C Commissioner Scerarka stated that he wished to acknowledge that there is a problem at this intersection as he lives to the north and east of this and drives it 3-K'cimes a day. He indicated that the Commission must try to deal with a so =ution to this problem in that all of the improve- ments cannot be enforced by anv one dRVelnnmu.t b�^�^n c occur all along the corridor. .ommissioner- Sceranka talked laboutstheicn Systems Development Fee and how it works. He felt that the best solu- tion to this problem would be to look at priorities, the road figures and traffic flows that would result and go on from there. He stated that the City does not have the luxury of funding to use to make improvements to what_ have long been problems as new develop= =.ts come in. He stated that if these projects were not allowed to go in, there would be no money from systems development fees to solve any of the City's problems. Commissioner King stated that basically he agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy that this is a good project that should go forward. 'However, in light o° the dangerous intersection as it now exists, he felt that the conditions of approval should be amended to state that the developer of the property at the northeast corner make an attempt to obtain some property fro_ the owner at the southeast corner, and perhaps in lieu of contributing funds to the systems development fee they be contributed for the possible acquisi- tion of the land or portion of the land on the east portion of the inter - sectior for purposes of best dealing with the intersection as it presently exists. Com rissioner Dahl, for clarification, stated that at this point in time the Commission would be looking at an easement and the widening of the intersection to get rid cf the danger. He indicated that the City could also seek out the easement and felt that it should. He indicated that if such a condition were added, be would support this project. He reiterated that if an attempt were made by the developer to acquire the easement and if the City asked for dedication as a condition of approval, he would support this. Commissioner Sceranka stated that a problem still exists with requiring this property owner to acquire the property to the south. and he objected to this. Chairman King stated that the developer should try to obtain the property and ;f he is able to do so, the money he would pay in systems development fees could be used to purchase the property. If he comes up against a hard -nosed guy who doesn't want to deal with him, then obviously, he has made his best attempt and the project should go through as it is and the intersection will be dealt with at a later time. He indicated that the acquisition of the property is not a mandatory thing. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if such a condition was legal. Planning Commission Minutes -12- October 14, 1951 A_A, L Assistant City Attorney Hopson.. asked if Commissioner Tolstoy meant, can the Co- mission require that the developer make a best effort and have the City help. He indicated that it is possible. Chairman Dahl stated that they were not talking about the entire freeway corridor property but just the property at the intersection which would allow widening. Paul Rougeau stated that to make it worthwhile, it would take the whole width of the right -of -way at the freeway and that it would taper to an easement on the south to make this feasible. Commissioner Sceranka asked how much systems development fees would resilt from this project. Mr. Rougeau replied that it would be between $50,000- 100,000, as a guess. Commissioner Sceranka asked if the City could condemn the property necessary as a solution to this problem. ;lr_ Hopson replied that the City could condemn the property if it felt that it were necessary as a solution to this problem but it could not do so for this project. Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to amend the resolution of approval for this tentative map with the condition as ® stated by Commissioner King. Ms. Ouezada asked that the Resolution also specify that the systems devel- epment fees be earmarked for use directly in improving this particular intersection. Cor „missiorer Sceranka asked how long the developer will be required to try to acquire this property. Mr': Lam stated that there is a legal question relative to the dedication_ He stated that he had heard that the developer is to t-y to acquire the - -operty and then he heard that the systems development fees are to be earmarked for use on this intersection. He asked if the Commission is trying to have both of these things incorporated into the process of this approval. Mr. Lam stated that the question on this is that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to earmark fees but cculd recommend to the City Council that these fees be used for this project. Commissioner Sceranka stated that the motion should be that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council. that th% systems development fees be earmarked for the improvement of this intersection at Highland and Archibald. Planning Commission Minutes -13- October 14, 1981 R- a� L Ms. Quezada asked wha%: the time limit should be for the acquisition attempt. Commissioner Rempel stated that the attempt has to be made before they go ahead. Mr. Lam asked if they want it prior to the issuance of building permits and askea for a better definition of tine. He indicated that it should be before final :nap approval to facilitate the street improvement: so that they ate not skipped over. Mr. Lam explained to the audience how the tentative tract map approval is done and how `he acquisition of property must take place in relation to the iSSua':cc of building permits. Commissioner Dahl stated that he recommended that the City also try to obtain the dedication necessary for the widening of the intersection. Conmissioner Rempel stated that this was part of the motion. Motion: *coved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt the Resolution of Approval for the site plan and rezoning of this property. Mr. Vairin stated to the audience that they would receive notice of the Zone Change on this when it comes before the City Council. G. E \VIRO:*SE`iAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPM -NT NO. 81 -08 - (TT 11 'SPA UIEEIITESTLAND V271!2E - A change of zone from R- 1- 10,000 to R- 3 /P.D. for a total planned development of 67 townhouse units on 5.85 acres of land located on the north side of Highland Avenue, east of Archibald Avenue. APN 201- 252 -32. Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report pointing out for the record that this particular project would be utilizing the Alta Loma channel for drainage and would be required to be fully improved. He indicated that this was a requirement in mectzse threshold and should the applicant not agree to this condition, this project would have to go back for further consideration. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Mr. Tom Davis, 9381 Business Center Drive, concurred with the staff findings and stated that he had nothing to add. lie asked for clarification of Item 27. Mr. Vairin explained the definition of affordable housing and asked if the applicant was also accepting the improvement of the channel at this point. Planning Commission Minutes -14- October 14, 1981 11 L I Commissioner Rempel agreed with the R- I- 30,000 and stated that his only co— ert on larger lots is that there isn'Z any reason that a person buying the lots could not combine two lots to make it larger and did not feel that Commissioner Tolstoy's argument is a valid one. I. ROBERTS GROUP AND WESi"I,AiND VENTURE Mr. Lam reviewed the Council action on the Westland Venture and Roberts Group submittals: stating that the City Council had conditioned these tracts so that density was limited to no more than 9 units per acre. He indicated that the Council did not r.hange the zoning to R- 3 /P.D., in- stead, they changed it to R- ?. /P.D. and under the State Planning Law, when they did this it created a regal requirement that this be returned to the Planning Commission far a report of their action. Further, that as soon as the report had been made to the Commission, the City Council would have a second reading of the ordinarace to change the zoning. Mr. Lam then explained how the Planning Commission might respond to the Council's action. Commissioner Sceranka asked how the City Council could approve the total project and charge the zoning. Mr. Lam explained that the City Council could change anything relative ® to the project at that time on appeal. He indicated that they had the legal right to do so and elected to change the zoning. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he wished to make some comments. Be indicated that this project is near where he Lives and he was not rep- resented by the homeowners and would have spoken had he known that Council was going to take this action. Commissioner Sceranka. srstei that he has some particular and serious concerns with their action on this not on the basis of the political situation within that development but on the basis of his being a Planning Commissioner. Mr. Sceranka stated that when this project went through Design Review with the developer they *Tied to mitigate homeowners concerns. Further, that he had a serious problem with how they can take the freeway corridor, Alta Loma Channel, and a thoroughfare and not consistently say that this project is not appropriately medium density and yet approve a project on Foothill near Hellman of 19 units an acre which is on one arterial not adjacent to a charnel and also adjacent to single family homes. He indicated that he is very concerned and uncom- fortable with setting a precedent in this community in not giving the northern property in this city affordable housing projects and saying that any affordable projects will be below Foothill only. He stated that because of this, he cannot support the City Council's action on the basis of density. Planning Commission Minutes -IB- December 9, 1981 Commissioner Sceranka indicated further that Council's action tool. the prices of the homes.from the affordable range to higher than what those across the street are worth. Commissioner Scerarfea stated that since this would be a report to the City Council, he feels that cn the basis of the trees per acre which is higher than those required in a single family tract, the 120 foot right -of -way, the buffering between the single family residences, and with the conditions imposed to mitigate traffic impacts, that tine density requested is appropriate. Commissioner Dahl stated that the only affordable housing that presently t--cists in the City is in the northern section of clta Loca at Carnelian a;id 19th Streets, in the Les-is tract where the prices range from $43,900- 59,000. Mr. Dahl further stated that another protect had been approved at Highland and haven which is approved by HUD, and classified as afford- able. lie indicated that in Cucamonga only two or three projects are approved and classified as affordable. Further, that any time an attempt is made to put in high density housing in an area of single family res dences, the main concern of people is not traffic and density, it is property value. He indicated that he did not know if he could support R -3 zoning but felt it should be H-2 as the Council recommended with redesign and with the ban points swallowed by the Roberts Group. He also stated that through the General Plan the Commission looked at 19th Street for high density and when you get up to Highland, he felt that it was an area where you would want to start decreasing density. Commis- sioner Dahl stated that the General Plan was pushed through to meet a deadline and now that the Commission is no longer under a deadline, they should spend more time with it and support it. Commissioner Rempel stated that he agreed with what Commissioner Sceranka said about traffic but that what he missed is that the Planning Commission's main concern was traffic at Archibald which was discussed at the hearing. One .f the things that the Commission talked about is that the street should be widened out and they gave direetlon to do that. He felt that the :ommission had done the proper thing in making the recommendations that the} did for the Roberts Group and Westland Shafer. Commissioner Rempel stated that his recommendation going back to Council would be to adopt the recommendation as passed by the Commission as they did the right thing when they sent it to Council. Chairman King tated that it is difficult to view separately the question of the projects submitted to the Commission apart from the zoning reuested. He stated that if a piece of trash had come in for the same art-,a and a change of zone had been sought, the Commission would have viewed it differently. Chairman Ring indicated that this was a totally excellent priject and when the zoning was requested was viewed in con- junction with the General Plan and the project, the recommendation made by the Commission was totally appropriate. He indicated that he had no reservations whatsoever. Planning Commission Minutes -19- December 9, 1981 u Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he wished to be pictured as a balancing scale because on the one hand you have the property owners nrotestirg the high density and he is empathetic with them, and this project as the Commission looked at it is not in keeping with the neighborhood as it is today. He indicated that a freeway will be going through, although it is still a dream. He stated that he knew Commissioner Dahl is wrong to think that there will not be one because in a foothill community it will be there whatever it is called. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that there will be some people who will say, Planning Co=. ission, this is where the density should go. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the f-' 1-P side of this is that there are people who live rent to him who don't take care of their property and he agrees that the density is high and his only concern is Archibald. There was discussion on the area set aside for higher density in the General Plan and higher density as proposed. in this project. The Planning Commission consensus was 4 -1 against the City Council's decision, to rezone these projects to R- 2 /P.D. and to uphold their recommendation for zoning of R- 3 /P.D. for these projects. There was discussion between Commissioners Dahl and Sceranka relative to the definition of affordable housing and where affordable housing is located in the City. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the City Council has a ver- .7 sensitive situation facing them as one of their calculation;: has to be what is the consequence of what they do. If they were to re-verse thems4zlves to agree with the Commission that may trigger something the Planning Commission may not like and that is the swelling up of a wumber of people in this community with an initiative of no growth. The City Council will have to look at that, he stated. Further, he thought that as a Planning Commissioner he made the right decision tonight, bur he thought it would be pretty bad if the City Council doesn't measure the community and he would not be upset at all if the Council chooses not to go along with the Commission. Because, if they did not, the citizenry may close this City down. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Rempel, carried adjourn to a Terra Vista workshop on December 17, 1981, Neighborhood Center. ADJOLT:L`Zr= 10:52 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Planning Commission *Minutes -20- unanimously, to at 7 p.m. at the December 9, 1981 City council Minures December 2, 1981 Page 3 - Parcel Yap 5907 - located on the northeast corner of Cleveland Avenue and 4th Street. Owner: RaCO- Development. Labor S Material Bond (road) $92,000.00 h. Revision to the Annual Subscription. Resolution. Staff is recommending that fees for the -.ailing of agendas and minutes be increased to reflect increases in overhead and nailing costs. This represents the first cost increase for subscription rates which were established in April, 1979. RESD DTICN �iO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COL•NC1L OF THE Cin OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, SLIT ^:G CERTAI: FEES FOR ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTIONS AND CODES. i. Set December 16, 1981 for public hearing on: City Environmental Guidelines - Guidelines setting forth procedures to implement $Late required environmental review. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Frost to approve the Consent Calendar with item b removed to Staff Report Item SE and deletion of item d. !lotion carried unanimousiv 5-0_ G_ PUBLIC HEARINGS- -11. -wc Ur rLA LNINU LU;IMI :b1UN UBCI510N ON vNVIRO"Y''NT'V_ ASSESSMENT A'M PLANNED DEVELOPMENT y0. 81 -07 (TT 11869) - R03=RTS GROG A proposed planned unit development of 136 condominium units on 9.75 acres of land located on the north- east corner of Archibald Avenue and Highland Avenue - AP% 201- 252 -23, 25, and 26_ Mayor Schlosser +. de the foilovino comments fer Council to think about before opening the meeting for public hearing: He stated that at the last meeting a public hearin( was held and Council listened to concerns of the citizens. Both Councilman Mikels and he met with a group of the citizens. These citizens also have met with the developers of this project and the developers of :he next item. Sere Of t(:e concerns involved the alig:ucent of Archibzld, the access reoaire- menis, schools, policy, protection, crime, eucalvitus tre s, ope , carports, water pressure, fire protection, quality of life style in t.. ` community, and consistency of devrlopr_ent in the area. He ., c�rr1 that he felt the most important issue to the neighbors was the neighborhood compatibility and the severity of L festyle chan.g2s that may occur with this development. He stated that he felt these changes could be kept to a minimum and provide for a better neighbrrhood compatibility and yat meet the housing goals of the city by reducing the number of units to a zone of R- 2 /P.D. Councilman MikeL who was also at the meeting with the residents, added the follr-ving: He reinforced the 9avo:'s comments in regard to the carports with open doors. He felt this wan a valid concern, char garage doors would be preferable to open carports. ?hare was also Lencern regarding the amount of "Li Ltor packing and the width of Highlanh nvvnue_ Residents wanted cc be assured :here would be enough room on Highlane Avenue for traffic in h,t :, direction_ If cars were parked on the south s!de of the street. He said he talked with the city engineer and was assured that the improvements would be sufficient to provide for traffic in bott, directions and for cars parked on both sides of the street. Another concern expressed was in regard to the color scheme, but he stated this had been worked out. There was concern about the Arehibaid entrance which is now being worked on by the city engineer. Although there were other concerns expressed such as fire protection, schools, in ftd rr.. Res e c t f u 11 t t ed, AdIlk [bmi JACK I�M, Secretary I, t l' 1. U Planaing Commission Minutes -21- December 9, 1981 1. . , {r • ~ � 11 ��I 11 li ''. 11 i! I'll • L I' Citv Council Minutes December q- 1981 Page 5 Mr. L.z: stated that Lhe zone change, development plan. and the tract map w appealed. The council has the authoriry to set the number of units as a e dition of the tract .:an and of the deyclepme:.t plan. This is +:haL t , e Council has discussed. Therefore, the zoning is a clean -un action to reinforce the action of the first m otion. Toni Quezada asked that if this occurs at Design Review. will the Planning Commission be :.:ore administrative_ and not require coming before the public again. Mr. ram. stated ves, unless appealed. He went on to state that once the council set the densit then there will be no further discussion_ John Christison, d9 +8 Klusman. He wanted to know how much more high densit•_, was Seine ota�..�.+ .�. -_..gh t,• _r �� ,; tius set a precedence for a whole belt of high density'.` Councilman Mikels pointed to the general plan map on the wall. Mr. Hasser:^an stated that at the break. a staff member could go over this with him to answer his questions. Mere being no further response, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilmzn Frost asked if the product which comes out of the Design Review Com.:.ittae, :could tnis be subject to Council review if then so chose'. Mr. Lam stated that the only way this •.'ould return to the Cocnci'_ is if it were appealed or if council made a special request_ Mr. Frost a-.ked if this request needed to be a formal one. L;ith the potential for major design chances. lie felt the Council should look at it. Mr. Lam stated it really depended upon what the Council desired_ Councilman Mikels said that once the Design Review Committee has made its review and modifications to the project, staff car. notif Council. Council could check it out to make sure it is in line with the eocnci:'s suggcst;On :,_ If not, then council could appeal it. Mayor Schlosser if council would still have a chance to look at this at the second reading. Councilman Mikels stated that the second reading was on the eone0 change. He said if council were notified of the cnmpiction of the design review, that would suffi:e. CdunLllman Palombo called for the question. City Clerk >lasserm: n read the title of Ordinance Nu. 16L. ORDIN:NCE NO. 166 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE !'IT" OF :.ANCHO CUC :MONGA. CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSO:: "S PARCEL Yu:NBER 201 - 252 -23, 25, AND 26 FRC)i R -1- 10.000 TO R- 2 /P_D_ FOR 9.75 ACRES CENERALLY LOCATED CS THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AND HIGHLAND dVE :.UES. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to waive further reading of Ordinance No. 164. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Motion: Moved by Mikels, s�eonded by Bridge to uphold the appeal in part by modifying the development plan and tortative tract nap to reduce the density to a maximum of 9 units per acre, plus an additional condition to include doors on the garages, woe: with the city engineer reuar,:ing the Archibuld entrance /exit Pro- blem. and condition the devolepm�nt plan and tenta•:ve map r.specti :•el;:, and to refer the Final mudifiod desinn to the Design Revi.-, Committee for .1csi,;n review approval_ Motion :arr:cd unan_no' :sly i -O Motion: JtOVed by `!i;:a 1::, :seconded by :3rid4e to .,no roce i ?rst readin, ,.f Ordinance No. 164, and reque•ct the Planning Commission to renorr accordin :; to Cuvornment Cod., Section 65337. and to xt the second rcadinq of Ordinance No. 16- after receipt O: said report from the P lannin•, Commission. Motion carri•:d unaaivously 5 -0. W S-3c City Council Minutes December 2. 1951 Pege 6 Morey McConnley. 6481 Jadeite. He stated that he had heard that the Environmental Impact Study had been waived on this project. With two other projects in close proximity to this project, will the EiRs be waived again? Mr. Lam stated that a master EIR was done for the general plan. The EIR vas not waived on any of these projects. It is either a determination of an EIR or a negative deelatatioa, not a waiver of the environmental process. They all vent through the process according to the State Environmental Quality Act. The action to be taken will be the reduction cf density and rho i�_�_...,.._ -- finis means a y find :: g of no significant adverse impact b by this project. Mt. McConnley asked if all three projects were considered as a whole when !caking at environmental impacts or were they considered individually? :fir. Lam st. .d that by law you have to .:.ake an individual determination. The accumulative impart, were dealt with on the master environmental impact renort which was heard at Dub! _c hear: at the time of the adoption of the general. plan. - ^.s Mr_ McConrely asked who does the environmental impact reports? Mr. Lam said thev are done by consultants for the city and raid for by the developer. In this case each project went ti-rough an environmental review and was judged in accordance with the general plan. A full environmental impact report was done for the general plan with all the density categories and the land uses adopted last spring. The findings made for these projects is that it is consistent with the general plan_ �w vtV1 C: A proposed developmen of 67 tounnouse units on 5.85 acres of land located on the north side of Highland Avenue, east of Archibaad Avenue - APN 201- 252 -32. Mayor Schlosser stated that he felt essentially the sane wiv about this iten as the last One. Council has heard input and net with residents. The item of greatest IIII�� importance is the neighborhood compatibility. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. Sam Angola, President of Westland Certure Company. He felt that everyone basically liked their project. The only criticism was the off - street parkin-4 which they agreed to mitigate with staff, and the nature of the design. It was very simple to change — all they had to do on the five -plex units was to drop off one unit apiece which would reduce their development by eight units. Bill Conger. He said they went into discussions with the developers with good intentions of trying to reach some type of agreement. Up until this very moment, they were told "no deal." He urged Council to follow through with the same two motions made for the Robert's project. Councilman Frost stated that he disagreed in a direct comparison between these two projects. His main concern on Archibald and 19th Strut is the visual i-pact within the area. He felt on item B there was an indication of a willingness to compromise by the developer to come up with somech i. ^.g closes to what council desired. Sheryl Moodv. She seated that when they left the meeting with the developers, they had requested a time extension. They were turned down. Both developers were to nocifv them of their to comnl; wit^ their requests. They were to be notified by Wednesday before Thanksgivir., ;. Thev did not hear from the Shaffer /Westland group until eonday. Thev were told at that time they would work with the city and whatever they re' regarding the Highland Avenue park : ^.g, but they would not reduce the density. NIL City Council Minutes December 2, 1981 ?"Se 7 Szm Ango ^.a, of WestlanC.'Shaf f er, stated that he had an extreme emeracrcv come* up and was not able to c'+ntact the residents. Ken Kettner, real estate agent representing Mr. Salvat -, property owner, stated that the Robert's project abuts housing to the wesr -- Mr. Salvati's property Fees easterly and abuts a flood control channel and a church. Reducing this Project by one unit per acre, giver- the fact that the other project has 9 units per acre, mitigates that clement toward Mr. Salvati's property. Counci L=n Mikels stated that heea;se the other project was so high in density to begin with that in reducing the •tensity, it would have to be redesigned. Hou- -- °' - - -- ----- pre }a::. ii,e dcnsi ry vis not so high. To require a total re- design would cost considerable an cur: of money. Bill Conger. He stated that this was their first proposal with the dev%lcper. They requested rime from Mr. Angona to take this to the homeowners. inev were reused the t"Ie. He said that if the council would like to see a reduction of this type, he would like the opportunity to take this to the homeowners. He personally felt that they had tried to negotiate in the past and were told "no go." therefore, he was not willing to accent anything less that what was proposed by the city council. Margarita ward, representinp the resident at 10142 Archibald who only speaks Spanish. She expressed that there should be better guidelines for the developers so things like this would not happen again. There . being no further response, the Mayor closed the public hearing. :lotion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Mikels to dupli: ate the motions used in item 4A- Councilman Mikels stated that he would like to know what the costs would be for a redesign. Mavor Schlosser and Councilman Frost concurred that thiL was not a relevant question. Is Tom Dais, architect for the project, 9581 Business Certer Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that a reduction, is possible, but it will take some money to redesign the project - He stated there was a difference between the two sites, ho,.eve-. On the east side there is a drainage channel which the city is requiring to be improved at a Gust between 5150,000 to $200,000. This is quite an impact on the project which the other project does not have. By reducing the density more, then the cost of the units will sky rocket. There being no further public discussion, Mayor Schlosser closed the public hearing again. Councilman Palombo called for the cuestion. Counci ?man Frost disagreed with calling fox the question at this time. He felt there was a need for more comments. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mik.:ls to close debate and vote on the question. Motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Palombo and `fikels. NOES: Frost. Bridge, and Schlosser. Councilman Frost stated that the intent of his comment about inquiring into the costs for the redesign of the Project was that he basLiall•: felt chat this vae. not ® council's role to determia,e whether something was aff,rdable for a develoncr. Motion: ;loved by ridge, seconded by Mikels to up :%o id the appeal in Hart by modifving the develepmer,e plan and renrative tract map to reduce the density to a maximum of 9 units per acre, plus increasing the visitor Parking within the develop- ment, and condition the development plan and tentative design to the Design Review Co:mnittee for design review approval. ?lotion carried unanimuulsy by tite following vote: AYES: Frost, Mikels, Palombo. Bridge, and Schlosser. NOES: None. 0 UM City Council Minutes December 2. 1981. Page 8 Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Mikels t: approve the firrt reading of Ordinance No. 165 to modify the zoning of the stbject properry from R- 1- 10,000 to R- 2 /P.D. and request the Planning Commi�sicu :a report according to Government Code Section 6585, and set second re -iirg after rece.pt of said report from the Planning Conmissio %. Motion cartied by the following vote: AYES: Frost. Mikels. Palombo, Bridge. and Schiosx r. NOFi: None. Sity Clerk Wasserman read title of Ordinance No. 165. vnu t :.A.�I.E :vv_ ..o5 irirst reading] AN ORDINANCE OF i :!' "Ti COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCA.MONGA, CALIFORNIA. RESONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 201- 252 -32 FROM R -1- 10,000 TO R- 2 /P.D. FOR 5.05 ACRES OF L;,ND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHiAND AV1JE. EAST OF An CHIBALD AVENUE. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to waive further reading. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Mayor Schlosser called a recess at 8 :20 p.m. The meeting reconvened ct 8:30 p.m. with all members of council and staff present. Because a number of people were present for Item GG. Council concurred in hearing that item next. LG. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGARDING THE DRAFT RED E'*-, PLAN AND THE DRAFT ENVIRO•MI:NTAL IMP.ICT REPORT FOR THE PROFOSED REDEVELOPMENT PROTECT_ Mayor Schlosser called for item »G_ Deputy City Clerk made the announcement that Notice of Meeting had been duly published in the Daily Report, newspaper of general elrculation,on November 6. 13. 20. and 27, 1981_ Also, certified notices had been mailed by certified .:ail to last know asp- -ssee of each parcel of land within the Project Area. Agency Chairman Phillip Schlosser called the roll call: Present were Agency Members James C. Frost. Jon D. M }kels. Michael A. Palombo, Arthur H. Bridge. and Chairman Phillip D. Schlosser. Mayor Schlosser and Agency Chairman Schlosser called the public hearing open. Mayor Schlosser stated that the record contains the following documents: a. Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Rancho Redevelopment Project, b. Report to the City Council on the proposed Redevelopment Plan, e. Environmental Impact Report, d. Assessment of Conditions Report. Executive Director, Lauren M. lasserman. introduced the :Agency Counsel, John Brown, and Consultants. Abraham and Manual DeDios. and staff members. Deputy City Clerk administered the oath. Executiv= Director. Lauren Wasserman, presented an explanation of the proposed Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Abe DeDios continued with further explanations of the Plan.. Mr_ John Brown vent over the legal procedures including the procedure of condemnation or eminent domain. lie stated that in the very beginning of the plan. it was made very clear that for the purposes of this redevelopment plan, the acquisition of real property does not include the employment of eminent domain proceedings. I 1� 1' City Council Minutes Febtuary i7, 1982 Page 6 11 Motion: Moved by Bridge, sec=ded by Mikels to waive further readicg of Ordinan. e No. 165. Motion carried unanieously 5 -0. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. *Ken Kerner, of Shaff,- /'.'e .s,and Venture. He stated they were requesting a continuance from the home,.1 -,ers. *Philip Mareacci stated that they were still working with the developer and the homeownern wnnld nn. nh4... Ts,... beint no further response from the public, Mayor Schlosser closed the public heating. Councilmen Bridge stated that he felt !her should keep the 9 units per acre as originally desired by Council. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Mikels to approve the contiziance to April 7, 1982. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Frost, Mikels, Bridg:, and Schloss;: r. NOES: None. ABSENT: Palombo. Mayor Schlosser called a recess at 8:45 p._:. The meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m. with all members of the Council and staff present. ararr report by Paul Rcugeau, Assistant Civic Engineer. Mr. Rougeau stated that the item had been before them at the February 3 city council too meeting. Although this was supposed to have been the second reading of Ordinance No. 169, there had been some changes made by the Traffic Committee to the speed limits on Base Line. Therefore, these changes had been incorporated into the Ordinance which was before Council again for first reading. Changes in the ordinance were: Page 3 to change the speed on Bass Line from Camelan to Haven Avenue to 40 mph. City Clerk Wassetman read the title of Ordinance No. 169. ORDINANCE NO. 169 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA. AIMMING SECTIONS 10.04.070, 10.04.100, 10.20.010, 10.20.020. 10.40,010 A 6 B, 10.052.030, 10.52.040, 10.56.020 OF TITLE 10, VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC. Notion: Moved by Falombo, seconded by Mikels to waive further reading of Ordinance No. 169. The motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting fir public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Mayor Schlosser set March 3, 1982 for second reading. 11 City Council Minutes February 17, 1982 Page 3 h. Relocaricn of the C6affey- Carcia Besse. It is recommended by the Historic Preservatiom C =SssjT that the Cbaffey- Carcia Besse be relocated from its current eitz at 6295 Etiwanda Avenue to a site situated just south of the Eti- wanda Congregational. Church be approved. i. Acceptance of Nap, Bonds. and Agreement for Parcel Nap 6724 - Devid Development located on the northeast corner of Heilman ..^d 7th Street. It is recommended that Council annro ^.a ch. me;+: RESOLUTION NO. 82 -28 A RESt=-'=" CF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCA`'ONGA. CALIFORNIA. APPROVING PARCEL NAP 6742. IMPROVEME"r AGREEMENT. AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY. j. Acceptanca of Parcel Nap 7012 and Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement - Crescent Business Cente.. Recommend that Council accept the subject map and lien agreement located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, s=th of 6th Street. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -29 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA. CALIFORNIA. ACCEPTING A REAL PROPERTY IMPROVE-m= CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM CRESCENT BUSINESS CENTER AM AuHORZINC THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN TO SAME. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -30 A kFSOI.Vr -DN OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TEE CITY OF RANCHO %MCAHZGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL YAP NLMBER 7012. k. Acceptance -f Real Property Iagtovement Contract and Lien Agreement for Director Review 81 -11 located on the west side of Archibald Avenue. south of Devon Street. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -31 A RFSOLDrON OF THE CITY COUNCIL. OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCA*lDNGA. CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A REAL PROPERLY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM DEASON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. AND COSTA- FERNANDES PROPERTIES AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE SAME. 1. Release of Lien Agreement and Acceptance of Lien Agreement for Joseph and Rebecca Bonneville located at 58" East Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -32 A RESOLUTION Or THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAGINGA. CALIFORNIA. RELEASING A REAL PROPERTY IMP='S Z4T CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM JOSEPH W. BONNEVILLE AND REBECCA A. BONNEVILLE. 6 -3� Ir`.1 U Ll RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11869. WHEREAS, a request has been filed for a time extension for the YYL 1T. -V C.I .I ii,._ai Project pursuant to Section 1.401.11.2 of Ordinance 28- -3, the Subdivision Ordinance; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the above described Tentative Tract. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: A. The previously approved Tentative Map is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, Specific Plans, Ordinances, Plans, Codes and Policies; and, S. The extension of the Tentative Map will not cause significant inconsistencies with the cui,rent General Plan, Specific Plans, Ordinances, Plans, Codes and Policies; and, C. The extension of the Tentative Map is net likely to cause r.•blic health and safety problems; and, D. The extension is within the time limits prescribed by state law and local ordinance. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby.grants a time extension for six (6) months. Tract Applicant Expiration TT 11869 Mr. and Mrs. Kooyman June 2, 1985 APPROVED AND ADOPTED T-61S 14th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ;. ATTEST: Rick x. Gemez, Deputy Secretary K . Resolution No. Page I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the P'.annirg Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoi i Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the P inning Commission of the at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day cf November, 1984, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: P. - .a'7 11 E 0 11 DATE: Tn. FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT November 14, 1984 Planning Conaniss7GT1 Lloyd g_ Hubb% c;ry rnginna, Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician T_ 5I si W:; 5 - Located on APN 209 -141- Parcel Map 6976 was originally approved by the Planning Commission on September 9, 1981 for -iAe division of 49.93 acres of land into 22 parcels within Subarea 9 of the Industrial Specific Plan located on the south side of Arrow Route, east of Haven Avenue. Revisions reducing the number of lots to 14 were approved by Planning Commission on May 11, 1983. A one year extension of time was granted on September 14, 1983. Ttis original tentative approval was valid for two years and with appropriate extensions, an additional two years time car be granted. Dje to the death of one of the partners of B.C.G. Properties, the engineering firm of George MimMack is requesting the final one -year extension on behalf of their client. RECOMMENDATION: It is'recemmended that a one -year extension of time be granted Parcel Map 6976. The new expiration date will be September 9, 1935. No additional extension of time can be granted. ly supgitted, ko Attachments: Map Letter Conditions Resolution ITEM C rr r- CI`CY OF RANCHO CUCANIO \'GA F ;9 ENGINEERING DIVISION VICINITY NIAP I tits Me ,J e � I � � I r i '1 � r r :1+ o °s x� a CS •fie'"" ^9 b r^ r p (� a � C M 1 1�Z SAO m s� r T �D a as Z O i m m t N m 0 WIGIi'MAY DESIGN TRAFFIC ENGINEERING LAND DEVELC- ..:ENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS UTILITIES STORM DRAINS r September 7, 1984 G -eorge H, Mim Consulting Civil Engineer Mr. Lloyd Hubbs City Engineer 9340 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga California 91701 Attention: Barbara Kral Dear Barbara, ENVIRONMENTAL I have been au *horized by B.C.G. the owners of Parcel Mao No. STUDIES 6976 tr, reque:sr. a.1 extension on the approval of the tentative map. A death of one of the partners has caused delays MUNICIPAL more extensive colusul than anticipated and they have not been CONSULTING able to complete the final financial arrangements, ACOUSTICAL Enclosed is processing ANALYSIS a cheek for $62.00 to cover the rocessin costs. If you have any questions please give me a call. Yours verytruly, George H. Min Mack GhM I , 214 SOUTH EUCLID AVENUE. ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91761 • (714) 983.0439 C- -U �J i RESOLUTION NO. 83 -62 A RESOLUTION OF THE PANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING REVISED TENTATIVE_ PARCEL MAP 6976 WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map 6976, hereinafter "Map" submitted by Richard Capellino, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of California, described as an industrial subdivision of 49.93 acres being divided into 22 parcels within subarea 9, located an the south side of Arrow Route, east of Haven Avenue, was conditionally approved by the Planning Commission on September 9, 1981; and WHEREAS, a revision to said map creating 14 parcels and a realignment of the circulation pattern has regularly come before the Planning Commission on May 11, 1983; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering Division Report. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga resolves as follows: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: A. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. B. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. C. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. D. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: Revised Tentative Parcel Map 6976 a copy of which is attached V -ito, is hereby approved subject to all the following conditions: Condition of Approval contained in Pesolution No. 81 -103 shall apply to this map. B. Vehaeular access rights on Arrow Route shall be dedicated to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. c_� Resolution 83 -62 Page 2 C. Open space area on Parcel 1 shall be fully landscaped including sprinkler systems, or attached to property adjacent to the west prior to issuance of Building P^rmits for said parcel 1. Other uses of the area will be explored, subject to Community Development Director approval. The City shall have the right to _ - ..t. ..y ..ua. yc pi '•Nci t y UwtIC r :- it becomes necessary. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11114 DAY OF MAY, 1983. PLANNING 99MMISSION 9KTHE�CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA M , ATTEST`: ssion I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of May, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNIEL, STOUT, REMPEL NONE JUAREZ . .1 11 11 E RESOLUT;,ON NO. SI -103 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLA %KING CO ?SIISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 6976 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 7,10. 6976) LOCATED AT THE SOUTH SIDE OF ARRO:•1 ROUTE, ErST OF HAVEN AVENUE. WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Plumber 6976, submitted by Richard J. Capellino and consisting of 22 parcels, located on the south side of Arrow Route, east of Haven Avenue, being a division of the south 1/2 of section 12, T. 1 S., R. 7 W., San 3ernardinc Meridian was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and, WHEREAS, on July 2, 1931, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above - described tentative map; and WHEREAS, on September 9, 1981, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above - described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOI -IS: SECTION 1: Thst the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the proposed General Plan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the proposed 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 Negat-,%e Declaration is issued on otember 9, 1981. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 6976 is approved subject to the conditions of the City Engineer's Report pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1981_ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF P.AiICHO CUCAMONGA Resolution ;1o_ 81 Page 2 ^ Jer r king/ Cha .-man ATTIST: t�1if.''i r" ' Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of September, 1981, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: CO1U',1ISSIONERS: Sceranka, Dahl, Rempel, Tolstoy. King NOE5: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None C - o. L 11 11 LJ L J Cc �c CITY OF RANCHO CUCAb10IlGA CITY tNGINEER'S REPORT FILED BY: Richard Caoellino TENTATIVE MAP NO. pig 6976 LOCATION: South side of Arrow Route, east of Haven DATE FILED: 7/2/81 Avenue,_ NIINRFR QF I nTC _ 22 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: subdivisior. of the south 1/2 of RECEIPT NUMBER: 11958 section 12, T1S, R7W. San Bernardino Meridian FEE: $250.00 ZONE: M -2 TENTATIVE MAP PREPARED BY:Georae MimMack GROSS ACREAGE: 49.93 ADDRESS: 214 S. Euclid Ave. MIMMUM LOT AREA: Ontario, CA 91761 MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: * * * * x * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RECORD OTWNER(S) ADDRESS PHONE r Richard J. Caoellino 1884 Del Amo Blvd. 213/320 -1234 Torrance, CA 90501 REPORT OF THE CITY ENGINEER Dedications X 1. Dedication by final map of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. 2. Dedication by final map of the following missing rights -of -way on the following streets: additional feet on additional feet on additional feet on _ Corner P/L radius required on Other X 3. Rights of vehicular access shall be dedicated a ong a i lots Conti uous to Arrow Rte except two 50' openings centered on the property lines etween o s & 6* 4. Street vacation required for: 5. Master Plan of Streets revision required for: 6. The following perimeter intersections require realignment as foilovjs: *and shall be delineated on the map. RCE 20 e, _c,% TENTATIVE MAP No. 5975 Page 2 Imnrovenents (Bonding is required prior to ® Recording for all parcels ) ZI Building permit for ) X 7. Construct full street improvements (including curb sidewalk, one drive approach per lot, parkway trees interior streets- (Sidewalk shall be on one side of 8. Construct the following missing = mprovements on the and gutter, A.C. pavement, and street lights) on all the interior streets within following streets: separate% Ga.�C111C1 L J STREET NAME CURB & GUTTER A.C. PVMT. SIDE- WALK IURIVE APPR. STP.EET TREES STREET LIGHTS tIEDIAN J ISLAND *I OTHER r Rte. X X X X X X 9. Construct all storm drain and drainage structures as shorn on the tentative map, or as required by the City Engineer. X 10. Provide all utility services to each lot including sanitary sewers, water, electric porter, aas, telephone and cable television.conduit. All utilities are to be underground. 11. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary. X 12. Install appropriate street name signs and traffic control signs with loca- tions and types approved by the City Engineer. X 13. Developer is to provide all construction plans for drainage and street im- provements. Such plans shall meet approval of the City Engineer. X '4. Sanitar; server and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County !dater District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. X 15. Street lig ;;t locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern California Ed ;Son Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be decorative poles with underground service. 16. The following existing streets being torn up by new services will require an A.C. overlay: 17. The Fo owing speci is dimensions, i.e., cu -de -sac radius, street section widths) are not approved:navr^ ant width for all interior streets shall be 44 feet wide within 54 feet righ -Qf- -w , 18. The roilowing existing streets are substandard: They will require: Approvals and Fees _ 19. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of San Bernardino County Flood Control District. X 20. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities ties involved. Approval of the final map will be that may be received from them. RCE 20 e- - %r. approval from CALTRAPIS/ and other interested agen subject to any requirements CC Qt TENTATIVE MAP 110. .6976 Paoe 3 X 21. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: _A. Caltrans, for: S. City: - X C. County Dust Abatement District: D. D.I.S. Trenching Permit if any trenches are over 5' deep: x E. Cucamonga County Water District: __ F. Other: Mao Control 22. If only a portion of this Map is recorded, adjustments shall be made to pro -' vide for two -way traffic and parking on all affected streets. 23. The following lots appear to be substandard in either frontage, depth or area and should be corrected on the final map: .jx 24. All corner lots shall have a corner radius at the right -of -way line in accord- ance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga standards. 25. A Parcel Mao shall be recorded prior to the first phase subdivision to preve-t tie crea'.ion of an unrecognized parcel located X 26. ":he boundary of the Tentative Map needs clarification as folio;•rs: fee owned ,,M oerty by F.T. &S.F. Railway at easterlv boundary (O.R. 5421243) shall be* 27. Vr, border shall be shown to centerline of existing perimeter streets, or t41- a Rxplanation required. ®*excluded from map. Parcel Ma, V;a fiver _ 28. Information submitted at the time of application is / is not sufficient to support the issuance of a waiver of Parcel Map Certificate, according to requirements of the State Map Act and iota: ordinances. Floud Control (Bonding is required prior to 12 Recording for ) ❑ Building permit for ) X 29. Proposed subdivision ,fails within those areas indicated as subject to flood- ing under the National Flood Insurance Program. This subdivision will be subject to the provisions of that program and Ordinance No. 24. Zone A -^ 30. A drainage channel and /or flood protection perty line may be required to divert sheet Such flow may be required to go under 31. It water surface is above top of curb, 30" back of the sidewalk at all downstream cur 32. Culverts required to be constructed across wall along the entire north pro - runoff to strc°ts. sidewal!:s through culverts. walls shall be rer:ired at the returns. streets at following locations: X 33. Broad scale hydrologic studies will be required to assess impact or Increased runoff. X 34. A drainage retention basin per City standard shall be .~ s. __ -it the down- stream end of the project co retain increase in runaff rr _ltimate develop - merit, prior to recordation of the map. The basin snai; rou_: in place until such time as the master planned stomn drain is built in this area. RCE 20 CC TENTATIVE MAP NO. 6976 Page 4 Miscellaneous X 35. Dust abatement will be made a condition of issuance of the grading permit for this project. X 36. Noise impact on this project will be mitigated in accordance with the Planning Division report on subject property. 37. This property is rot within the present City Boundary and will require 3E. A11 -info matio. ^. regl ;real to be chn_.tm on the tentative map is not shown as re- quired: X 39. Proper grading and erosion control, including the preventation of sedimenta- tion or damage to offsite property shall be provided for as required. 40. A preliminary soils rc"ort will not be required for this site for the follow- -- ing reasons: A copy c. the soils report furnished to the Building Division prior to grading will be furr.:shed to the Engineering Division. X 41 The filing of the tentative map or approval or same does not guarantee that sever treatment capacity will be available at the time building permits are requesteu. 'Wher, bUildir•; peg :.• 1!; 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. X 42. The City Engineer shall make the determination, in accordance with Section 65436(C)(1) of the Subdivision Map Act, that division and deveiopment of the property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity or public utility right -of -way or easement and the signa ture of any such public entity or public utility may be omitted from the fins map unless the City is notified in writing of any objection to said determinz- tion within the specified time limits of said Section. X 43. At the time of rival flap submittai, the following shall Le submitted: Traverse calculations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and/ or showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. 44. Development shall be limited to one drive approach per street. Multiple lots fronting on a single street shall use common drive <pproaches at lot lines. X 45. Reciprocal access and parking easements ensuring access to parcel_ 1 to 3 and 4 to 7 inclusive over private roads, drives or parking areas shall bu provided and the easements shall be noticed an the map. X 46. A blanket drainage easement for cross lot drainage shall be provided and delineated on the map. X 47. Grading plans for individual parcels shall be submitted for approval prior to construction on each lot. X 46. Appropriate drainage easements along the southerly boundary of parcel :nap are to be recorded as part of parcel map to the satisfaction cf the Building and Safety Division. CortinuE,i on attached page ............. CITY Or RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD S. HbBBS CITY ENGINEER Sy: r`�vrfy+ 110E 20 IM E a CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT //" - FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 697 t continued..... X 49. On -site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatering or protecting divided properties,are to be installed prior to issuance of building periits for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to or contributes to, drainage flows entering, leaving or within a parcel, relative to which a building permit is requested. X 5G. Grading plan shall be submitted to Chino Basin Municipal hater District for review prior to any grading work within their easement on the east side of the prof ect. C_ -IL A RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO'CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION, APPROVING THE TIME EXTENSION FOR WHEREAS, a request has been filed for a time extension, for the above - described project, pursuant to Section 1.501.8.2 of Ordinance 28 -B, the Cuhelivic inn fl"Mnnn . ...A WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the above- described tentative parcel map. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: A. That current economic, marketing; and inventory conditions make it unreasonable to build at this time. B. That strict enforcement of the conditions of approval regarding expirations would not be consistent with the intent of the Development Code. C. That there has been no significant changes to the character of the area in which the project is located that would cause the project to become non - conforming or inconsistent with current standards. D. That the granting of said time extension will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or mater"ally injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission he:-.by grants a time extension for: arcel Ma Applicant Expiration 59 S.C.G. Properties Septeeber 9, 1985 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY Or NOVEMBER, 1934. PLANNING CCMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAN.ONGA BY: Dennis out, Chairman C_ - \v ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gcr.cz, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resol,,Lion was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Zommission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular sneeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of 4ovember, 1984 by Vie follow-Ing vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COWISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: n \J 11 11 CPT'Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: November 14, 1984 T0: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Linda D. Daniels, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENI "EYIEW NO. 84 -36 - '6 J NN LL RIGHAM AND PARTNER - The development of two industria bui. ings Iota ling approximately 78,607 sq. ft. ,, about 6.29 acres of land in Subarea 10 (General Industrial /Rail Served) located at the northeast corner of 7th Street and Bridgeport Place - APN 229- 261 -71. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A, Action Requested: Issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Purpose: Construction of two individual industrial buildings which total approximately 78,607 sq. ft. of gross floor area. C. Location: The northeast corner of 7th Street and Bridgeport ac— D, Parcel Size: 6.29 acres. E. Existing Zon'.ng: General Industrial /Rail Served. F. Existing Land Use: Vacant. G. Surroundino Land Use and Zoning: North - Industria Development; General Industrial /Rail - General Served. Served. South South - Industrial Development; General Industrial /Rail - General Served. Served. West East - Industrial Development; General Industrial /Rail Served. West - Proposed Industrial Development; industrial /Rail Served. H. General Plan Designations: Project Site - General Industrial /Rail Served. North - General Industrial /Rail Served. South - General Industrial /Rail Served. East - General Industrial /Rail Served. West - General Industrial /Rail Served. ITEM D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EA & DR 84 -36 - O'Donnell, Brigham & Partners November 14, 1984 Page 2 I. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant of structures with aniy the remains o an old grape vineyard on the site. The necessz.ry street improvements for Bridgeport Place, Newport Drive, Pittsburgh Avenue and 7th Street are already in. II. ANALYSIS: A. General: The developer is requesting an environmental assessment for the construction of two industrial manufacturing /warehouse buildings. The site is presently one parcel, of about 6.29 acres, but is being proposed to be divided into three separate lots through Tentative Parcel Map 8655 also on this evening's agenda. The two buildings proposed for development are on parcels 2 and 3 of this Tentative Parcel Map. The subject property is part of a maser planned 75 acre industrial distribution complex. The proposed manufacturing /warehouse use is a permitted activity in Subarea 10 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The street improvements are already existing and the proposed development will not substantially alter existing drainage patterns. The development plans also show that adequate off- street parking facilities are being provided. B. Impacts: Development of the project will generate additional traffic and increase the amount of water runoff from the property. However, these increases are insignificant since the surrounding streets and drainage facilities have been installed. Also, there will be adequate parking facilities to handle the expected traffic increases caused by the project. III. RECOMMENDATION: Basel this project will nit environment. Staff _Negative Declaration. tted, Rick &m City Plaa /RG:LD:ns upon site analysis and the Initial Study, cause significant adverse impacts on the recommendation is for the issuance of a N -=k C 11 13 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EA & OR 84 -36 - O'Donnell, Brigham & Partners November 14, 1984 Page 3 Attachments: Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Initial 11 "A" "sr "C" "D" °E° Stu - Location Map - Site Plan - Building Elevations - Conceptual Landscape Plan - Grading Plan dy, Part Ii -+- 4- -4- -+- 4- 4- T � 1 NORTH CITY to RANCHO C UC,. ,\,,10.N �A 1:1:x:: LtcATiCN MAP SG.LL•:- PAICQL 2 c.rr..,.rww.. �AAGib Q ur.....rwwr ..w.rw.rwr+rw .....r wr..rr rwrw.�rnrrr wrw.. rwww.wr.or... -w ..wrw. w�..rw rwrn.. wwrrrnww w..r w.. r.owrw.r.rw..r w.0 rw..nr..ww,rrn.r, rnrrw.. w «wrl�rn...« ""`•rrww,...r..r_ raw wwr.....w.. «..wr_ea.w PLAC2 7 h �kti a� PAARRL � a — Ell 3 1 i CITY OF RANCHO CUCtuNIONGA r; PLNNNING DIvLSaN .4 ' r 'sr`^" ! h 111 _ ' AwPL.ICAw/; y.. rM1l...lMMM. mrra P&.AN NORTH rlTl: DR 84 -3(o TITLE: EXI-it rr- SGA.-E: .N -Q 0 i a qill, .1?1, MI ._WWI �s � g 0 ayy L -E , o �. - 133" HLN3A28 ® CITY OF RANCHO CL'GUNIONGA PLANNING DIVISION Lei 1 C� NORTH ITG\ 1: _ DR 8�4 - 3!o TITLE: -GONG ?T 111N AF1~ AEI EXHIBIT. wD., SCALE: -- r WEST ELEVATION SOIJTFI ELEVATION HART ELEVATION CITY OF RANCHO CUCAI -VIO.- PLANNING DIVISICkN NORTH ITL• \ I: DR 84 -3r0 TITLE : —_de rtA E Ee +�a#+orrs GL! i1IiIT: %% SG \LE: tN —b m< e ;► �s a a g:g i Rc v � FORTH CITY Or RA ?:C HO CUCATMO' r�rA PLV WING DIVISION ITG\i: OR 84 -y TITLE: — Cyradirk, EXHIBIT: F-" SCALE: IN -R 0 G� FORTH Ll ® CIT: OF RANCHO CUCA_MONGA 1Y1� PART 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRCI:IPIENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: / % 1 q94 APPLICANYT: O'1Jonnell - 61Z1E•.t4RAI a.,a- PR2TNF -ZS iiLING DATE: OU& 27, lw# LOG NLZ!BER: OR Sif- 3(0 PROJEC -: Deve/oFr nt Of- PROJECT LOC,'_TION: tjr =C pf 7* Street *nd 61�id glC f FlaeB I. E%VIR=T1 -VTAL 1�f? .CTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "°Hagbe" answers are required on attached sheets;. YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and Geoloizy. Will the proposal have significant results ii.: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? b. Disruptions,. displacements, compaction or burial of the soil? V C. Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? ✓ d. The destruction, covering or modification Of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? f. Changes in erosion ;iltatien, or depos'.tion? g• E -/P^- -sure of people or property to ;-ologic hazards such as ecrrhquakes, landslides, mud - sl�des, rround failure, or similar :Hazards? i h. Ar increase in the rate of extraction and /or use of any mineral resource? 2. 4lvdroiozv, idill the proposal have significant `` results in: Changes in currents, or the course of direction Of flowing streams rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? b. Changes in absnuption rates, rirainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c._ Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d- Change in the amount_ Of surface water in any body of water? e_ Discharge into surface waters, or any alteratior. of surface water quality? f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g- Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with - draw=ls, or through interferencc with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards sacs as flooding or seiches? 3. Air 0ualitN._ Will the proposal hdve significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indir'ct sources? Stariz;:ary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or inter-erence with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? C_ Al.terttion of local Or reZioral climatic conditions, affecting air r.:ovement, moisture or temperaturc? 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in tll,! characteristics of species, includin^ diversity, distribution, rr numSer a, any species of plants? h. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare :w'! or endangered species of plants? RA o YES MAYBE no V J J V __V J _ J V 'J El r � C . Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area? d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural pr-..,,,ion? Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results a. ChanSe in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? C. introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migratior or movement of animals ?' d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? S. Population. Will the proposal have significant_ results in: YES MME NO r V a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- ® button, density, diversity, or growth rate of the hu=.an population of an area? Y b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 6. socin- 'conc,c:ic Factors. Will the proposal have sitiniiicant results in: C1:an �Ze in local or regional socio-economic characteristics, including economic or co=crcial diversity, tax rate, and property values? y/ b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneiiciaries, i.e., buyers, tar; prr:ers or project users? 7. i..-Ind ":e nrd Planninc C.nnsideratiors. Will the proposal have significant results in? a. As ubstant:al alterction of the present or planned land use of an area? \/ b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? t/ c. An impact upon the qulairy or quantity of existing tonsuWptive or non - consumptive recreational opportunities? \/ YES MAYBE NO $. TrinsrortatioI. Will the proposal have significant results in: a• Ceneration of'substantial additional vehicular A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, movement? paleontological, and /or historical resources? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for P have significant results in: new street construction? a. Cr.:;tion of any healtF hazard or potential health hazard? C. Effects on existing parking facilities, or J demand for new parking? b' '''sure of people to potential health hazards? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? A risk of explosion or release of hazardous �L e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- d. tion or movement of people and /or goods? � f. Alterations to or effects on pr�!sent and Or species of vector or patherogenic Potential water - borne, rail, mass transit or organiss cr the exposure of people to such air traffic? O r �+a ^. i SAS � g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, hicyclists or pedestrians? _ V 9. Culturol Resources. Will the proposal have szoni leant results in: L11 a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and /or historical resources? 10. t?e21t: ". Safety. and Nuisance Factors. Will the P have significant results in: a. Cr.:;tion of any healtF hazard or potential health hazard? J b' '''sure of people to potential health hazards? C. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous subsrances in the event of an accident? d. An in ^_rease in the number of individuals Or species of vector or patherogenic organiss cr the exposure of people to such O r �+a ^. i SAS � e. increase in existing nOlSC levels? f- Exposure of Pe ople to potentially dangero••^ noise .levels. g- The creation of objectionable odors? h- An increase in light or glare? L11 r' 1 LJ YES MYBE NO 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? c. A conflict Witt; the objective of designat!d or potential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the Following: a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? C. Communications systems? d. Water supply? � e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control structures? ✓ g. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? i. Police protection? ;. Schools? k. Parks or ether recreational facilities? 1. :ainterance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? M. Other governmental services? 13. EncrcY and Scarce Resource,. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon t-xisting sources of energy? f c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? d. An rzcrease or perpetuation_ of the consumption of non - renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? �/ II. ( YES MAYBE NO e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural resource' 14. Mandatory Fi :dinz-3 o`"Si =1i °"canoe. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? J b. Does the.project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future). y c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, and probable future projects). d d. Does the project have environmental effeccs which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? DISCUSSIO\ OF MMONMENTAL EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmatj +,y answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). p- 11A 11 0 Y] E On the basis of this initial evaluation: l I find the proposed project -COULD NOT have a significant effect 1 7X on the environment, and a INEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the prcposed project could have a significant { ; effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in th'_s case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. EDI find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the envirnment, and an wRTiRONMMIT IMPACT REPORT is required. Datc Ql1f.�1GtJ .% 19N 06. Signature Q.a_eo_ �ccrt.� C�- �llacrrr.�1 Title I 0 DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM November 14, 1984 Chairman and Members of th/- Planning Commission Rick Gomez, City Planner � Dan Coleman, Associate P.Ianrer ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GUNU11:UNAL ...t rtrcru1 04 -4.2 - Y R NV NT -, he dove opmen---43- of a , square foot commercial shopping enter with retail shags, fast food restaurant and gasolin� service station /convenience market on 5.44 acres of lard in the Neighborhood Commercial District located on the northeast corner of Archibald and Base Line - APN 202 - 181 -27. The City Council, on appeal of the Planning Commission denial of the Conditional Use Permit request, directed the applicant to go back through the design review process and revise the project to conform to C -ty policies and standards. The Design Review Committee reviewed revised plans on November 1, 1984 and felt that the pedestrian plaza area and intersection of Base Line and Archibald needed additional treatment. Therefore, the Committee recommends that this item be continued to November 28, 1984 to allow the Design Review Committee to continue working with the applicant to resolve these concerns. RG:DC:ns ITEM E El 11 CITY OF RANCHO CJCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: November 14, 1984 TO: Planning Commission FPnM. Llnyd R_ Nubbs, City Fn9ineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8695 - 0- DONNELL, BRIGHAM. & PARTNERS 7A Eivision of 6.285 acres of land into 3 parceis within the General Industrial /Rail Served category (Subarea 10) located on the north side of 7th Street, between Pittsburgh Street and Bridgeport Drive (APN 229 - 261 -71). i. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of Parcel Map B. Purpose: To divide 6.285 acres into 3 parcels. Parcel 3 of which is the site for an industrial building on tonight's agenda as D.R. 84 -36. C. Location: North side of 7th Street between Pittsburgh Street and Bridgeport Drive. D. Parcel Size: Parcel 1 - 1.889 acres Parcel 2 - 1.599 acres Parcel 3 - 2.797 acres 6.2T5 Total Acres E. Existino Zoning: General Industrial /Rail Served Development District ubarea 10). F. Existing Land Use: Vacant G. Surrounding Land Use: North - Existing industrial buildings South - Existing industrial buildings East - Existing industrial buildings West - Vacant ITEM F YLA -ML NG GUMMISSION STAFF REPORT Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 8695 November 14, 1984 Page 2 H. Surroundinq General Plan and Develo meat Code Desi nations: North - General Industrial /Rail Served Subarea 0 South - General Industrial (Subarea 11) East - General Industrial /Rail Served (Subarea 10) West - General Industrial /Rail Served (Subarea 10) I. Site Characteristics: This site is vacant and slopes approximately 2% in a southerly direction. II. ANALYSIS: The Developer is requesting the subdivision of Parcel 3 of previously recorded Parcel Map 7555 into 3 parcels. Parcels 2 and 3 are to be developed as industrial buildings and are on tonight's consent calendar as D.R. 84 -36. The improvements for the adjacent City streets are existing except for driveway approaches and landscaping. 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 or the environment as a result of the proposed subdivision. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property oviners and placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. Posting at the site has also been completed. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resoTution conditionally approving Tentative Parcel Map 8695 and authorizing the issuance of a Negative Declaration. Res / tfuullyy su itted, Map - Tentative & Vicinity Resolution City Engineer's Report Initial Study . i 1 E a • m.a•, • _ . tYl.r Q_ lc r D 4 z U.2 0 z Q LAND USE= IND�zSTRIAL MEWPONT . — VAIVE /! arr • S YZE .wvw\ ..e •E. PARCEL EL 3 15" "M ftCr t�wD alwwsr PARCEL 2 Mw.••D MCIYaT7 MCI I W 1 p t Z W l ry A �z w c m i� M LAND USE r .INDUSTRIAL 11 o[�_:' � .•;�'' is .l 4Wwrlr ... t . ' , rrltn'rr },Ita1 III\, mamltrlt•► ' � - . - . - •- - .w• a.r. +.rr o.w� wlma .`wme� • �: •. ; ,plrE�� tir• r.la.Y mrrws.w sW 0 • ' � ' •^" maw M Y�10 O.fial wm!• a. r• at.wY\•Y ae\/IIIw arm II.. . - waa Iw. ��•r wYY.lr. r.mY• .44.Nw La aYIaYYlY• mIO,MI "� • v..••• w r �r.m wln. w .� ww r r a•.r FEEL .. MAR.: - 'J . ` M A[ [Elf d ll a CwCW . (YOIII W SM aaMW91W, S-IME W 0t - a OCINL \ nCSIM IN .WQVS M lMCfL v ASS +u Sr/ •. _ - 0 \ w Into t! .wa . m" .. _ W eMaw FMS. ' W\ s w 91D town.- . - rrffM MIaF. JIM . Io.c.(. fuawlfS. 1YL1 W �•n•a.Yale o-w•.wc.e•L:: �..� •.w cw�a�ilY: (Mf Yom. N+Y {yIY4 a•�r tea• ![/ra. �M 4 f[G•KLC \OIS MOrr.6 yYY YuO...i. .IY. Q_ lc r D 4 z U.2 0 z Q LAND USE= IND�zSTRIAL MEWPONT . — VAIVE /! arr • S YZE .wvw\ ..e •E. PARCEL EL 3 15" "M ftCr t�wD alwwsr PARCEL 2 Mw.••D MCIYaT7 MCI I W 1 p t Z W l ry A �z w c m i� M LAND USE r .INDUSTRIAL 11 o[�_:' � .•;�'' is .l 4Wwrlr ... t . ' , rrltn'rr },Ita1 III\, mamltrlt•► ' � - . - . - •- - .w• a.r. +.rr o.w� wlma .`wme� • �: •. ; ,plrE�� tir• r.la.Y mrrws.w sW 0 • ' � ' •^" maw M Y�10 O.fial wm!• a. r• at.wY\•Y ae\/IIIw arm II.. . - waa Iw. ��•r wYY.lr. r.mY• .44.Nw La aYIaYYlY• mIO,MI "� • v..••• w r �r.m wln. w .� ww r r a•.r i 0 ti i IIEVENTIy BTREET I1�.�1111�IIliiM n � 111 auaa ° / 1 r• aA r t n_ n a� r � i _ Z —i i'°aveca _ _ g z °era ■7 I.P,1...:.. E I ? NEWPORT ORIVE • ly _ t' Z r _ . NT9A p iNDUATv,' ^s,.,:. - - ■ F-4/ 1 1 II Z I� �l m z, a M a :D n m am..r� r. mrrr.•�.+r �_ _ j� i i 11 11 0 0 G . I Po-. r-s!� We I ' rac a' DWECT -- '— -- 44 SWE � iy• � n :vap ,T : :� . ••�• .--DAY Air fy 35 - - -- •z A• • �4 •. 4 per z 6.798 dL tc I 36 re..c i •: 169x:••2' BIC Ppr.S v'✓. 5 I 7 iaSnC 37 ..Jr! ! r `l 'C i t: T96nC � o �9.�c r_ f a 39 7z o 7 c. + I� i I � t f. \6% OF RANCHO ENGINEERING DIVISION VICINITY MAP PS title; A DM. N page CITY OF R. NCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Re =: ic: Fee: $87.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and suLmitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made_ Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the pub4ic 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: Tpntatiye Parcel Man %n 86'5 APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE:R.C. Industrial Co. aCnGr..�aYT__ n.._ n ._.. ..__�_ .. _. _____ — NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPEONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: .lames R. Wectlina LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) LIST OTHER PERNIT3 NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: I -1 L' 'I G PROJECT DESCRIPTION ACREAGE OF PP.OJECT ARE,^_ AND SWARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF AN!: Total area = 6.285 ac., proposed buildings. 119. 680 so ft DESCRIBE THE ENVIBOM NTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION CN TOPOG.ZAPHY, PLANTS (TREES), ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (,ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series of cmnulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? No. I -2 r-_7 t t ::ILL THIS RROJ':CT: YES NO _g_ 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? :L. 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 exiating trees? How many? _X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of Potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? E Explanation of any YES answers above:_ NOW IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the pert 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, nd that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the beet 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. Date July 16..:1984 Signature U J tQl0J-'g-<:::� Title Project, Engineer 1-3 i4 g RESIDE'NTInL CONSTRUCTION The fallowing information_ should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Panning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability Of the school a strict to accommodate the proposed residential development. Name of Developer and Tentative Tzar -+. w-. . Specific Location of Project: PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE Z P1,SE 4 TOTAL 1. Number of single family units: 2. N7=.ber of multir:e family units: 3_ Date proposed to begin construction: 04. Earl_.st date of Otcu- 1:707' Mode- and = of Tentative 5. Bedre-)ms Price Raxiae I -4 r -49 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION "1)F THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 8595 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP I:;,. 8595) LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 7TH STREET BETWEEN PITTSBURGH STREET AND BRIDGEPORT DRIVE iii nr..iu, TCIItaulYO raz'%cl naH nuiliuer 8075 submitted by 0:0onneii, Brigham & Partners and consisting of 3 parcels, located on the north side of 7th Street between Pittsburgh Street and Bridgeport Drive, being a division of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 7555 as recorded in Parcel Map Boot: 77, page 43 & 43; and WHEREAS, on July 20, 1984, a 'ormai application was submitted requesting review of the above- described ' ative Flap; and WHEREAS, on November 14, 1984, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above - described map. FOLLOWS: NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMO !zA PLANNING COKIISSION RESOLVED AS 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 ph }iically suita.ile for the proposed development. 4. That the F ^oposed 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 anvironmental impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on November 14, 1984. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 8 695 is approved subject to the recommended onditions of Approvai pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND AAJPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, C airman iii: 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, passer:, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City ;,f Rancho Cucamonga, at a reviiiar meeting of the Planning Commission, held on ti.-- 14th day of November, 1984, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COKMISiIONERS: NOES: COKMISSIONERS: ABSENT: MIMISSIONERS: 17J CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LOCATION: North side of 7th Street between TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP: 8695 Bridgeport and Pittsburgh Street DATE FILED: July 20,1984 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 3 of Parcel Map NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 7555 as recorded in P.M. Book 77, GROSS ACREAGE: 6.285 Page 42 & 43 ASSESSOR PARCEL NO: 229- 251 -71 t.�t,r�rtr *rirtt�t�x :ter* � DEVELOPER 0WNER ENGINEER /SUR"r -OR O'Donnell, Brigham & Ptnrs R.C. Industrial Co. Joseph B. Hyde 3505 Cadillac Av:. 0 -110 same address 602 Nelda Street Costr Mesa. CA 92626 Anaheim, CA 92806 Improvement and dedication requiretaents in accordance with Title 16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga include, but ,pay not be limited to, the folimring: Dedications avid Vehicular Access 1. Dedications shay be made of all anterior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. 2. DP ration shall be made of the following rights -of -way on the following streets: additional feet on additional feet on additional feet on 3. Corner property line radius will be required per City Standards. 4. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated as follows• X 5. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels shall be recorded concurrent with the map. _I_ Surety `{ 6. All existing easements lying within future richt -of -way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the map per City Engineer's requirements. 7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. 1. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public imprcvements prior to building permit issuance for each individual parcel. 2. A lien agreement must be executed prior to recording of the map for the fallowing: 3. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed, St.-iranteeing completion of all on -site drainage facilites necesslry for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Divison prior to recording for and /or prior to issuance of building permit for Street Improvements 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 :rot limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior streets. 2. A minimum of 25 -foot wide pavement within a 40 -foot wide dedicated right -of -way shall be constructed for all half- section streets. X 3. Construct the following missing improvements: Prior to building permit issuance for individual parcels. Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street A.C. Median Street Name Gutter Pvmt. Walk Appr. Trees Lights Overlay Island* Other Seventh X X Pittsburgh X X _ 3ridgeport X X *Includes landscaping and irrigation on meter -2- C D X 4. Prior to any work being performed in the public right -3i -way, fees shall ba paid and an encroachment permit shall be o3tained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to ary other permits - required. X 5. Street improvement plans shall be revised by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of an encroachment permit. 6. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary. 7. Existing lines of 12KV or less fronting the property shall be undergrounded. X S. Install appropriate street name signs, traffic control signs, striping and markings with locations and types approved by the City Engineer. 9. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern California 'Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. L,ghts sF.01 be on decorative poles with underground ser ice. 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. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Und- sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards. Drainage and iF�eod Control X _ 1. Private drainage casements 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. 3. The foiiowing storm drain shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer ! 4. Prior to recordation of the map, a hydrologic and drainage study for the project sha71 be submitted to the City Engineer for review. 5. A drainage detention basin per City Standards shall be constructed to detain increased runoff f {'., -3- Grading X 1. Grading of tie subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform . Builcing Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall • be in substantial crnformance with the approved conceptual grading plan. X 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer I icensed 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 whichever comes first. X 5. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of building permit. General Requirments and Approvals X 1. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: CalTraris for San Bernardino County Flood Control District X Cucamonga County Water District for sewer and water X San Bernardino County Dust Abatement (required prior to issuance of a grading permit) Other 2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C.&R.$) approved by the City Attorney is required prior to recordation of the map. X 3. Provide all utility services to each lot including se�ierag., water, electric power, gas and telephone prig- to street ccn r tructon. X 4. Sanitary sr-wer and water systems shall be desig;.ed to Cucamonga County Water District standards. A Ietter of acceptance is required. C.C.w.U. is requiring a 10' Easement. _ 5. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from CalTrans /San Bernardino County Flood Control District. X 6. Approvals have not been secur -2d 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. -4- F—/6 X 7. The f i ring of the tentative mar or approval of same does -got guarantee that • server treatment capacity will be avail able at the time building permits are requested. ?then building permits are requested, the Cucamonga County Water District will be asked to �ertify the availability of capacity. Permits will not be issued unless said certificatio- is received in writing. S. Local and Mas.:er Planned Trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencin5 and weed control, in accordance with City trail standards, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to recordation for and /or prior to building permit issuance for X_ 9. Prior to recording, a deposit shall b!� 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 r:alcilations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and duds used as reference and /or showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. X 11. Buildings shown on parcel map require a recorded document setting aside common usage of yards between structures in order to obtain Building Code compliance. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNGA LLOYD B. HUBBS, CITY ENGINEER JAML by -1 9 n LJ r1 U u CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: November 14, 1584 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission :ROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dino i-itrino, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 84 -21 - ALTA LONA C4RISTTAN CHURCH - A request to convert an existing 1,868 squar,2 foot single family residence into an office for the Alta Loma Christian Church on .25 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District, located at the west side of Sapphire Street, across from Grange Street - APN 1062 - 332 -23. I. PRt?JEC' AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Convert single family residence into a church office. B. Purpose: Provide administrative office facilities for Alt? Loma Christian Church. C. Location: 6390 Sapphire D. Parcel Size: .25 acres (10,890 sq. ft.) E. Existing Zoning: Very Low Residential F. Exist:nq Land Use: Single Family Residential G. Surroundinq Land Use and Zonira: North - institutional church , Very Lour Residential South - Single Family Residential., Low Residential East - Single Family Residential, Low Residential West - Institutional (church), Very Low Residential H. General Plan Designations: rojeci Site - Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac) North - Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac) South - Low Residentiak (2 -4 du /ac) East - Lcw Residential (2 -4 du /ac) West - Low Res-.dentiai (2 -4 du;ac) I. Site Characteristics: 'he subject property is a rectonguiar shaped ot. This pri__•rty is basically surrounded by the adjacent church propf-- ITEM G PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 84 -21 - Alta Loma Christian Church November 14, 1984 Paue 2 E J. Appl. cable Regulations: The Development Code permits church office facilities within the Very Low Residential distric,� subject to a Conditional Use Permit. In addition, no structure originally designed as a residence shall be used for an office use unless the building and site are improved to meet all code requirements for an office development. II. ANALYSIS• A. Background: On October 10, 1584, the Planning Commission continued CenditioW Use Permit 84 -21 to give the applicant ample time to revise plans indicating the relationship between the proposed use and the Master Plan of the Alta Loma Christian Church. S. General: The applicant is proposing a Master Plan of the Alta Loma Christian Church which incorporates the conversion of an adjacent single family residence into a church office. Due to existing site conditions, the subject residential structure does not meet al the site code requirements fm- an office development. These requirements include; lot size, setbacks, and land - ,:aping. is The applicant has indicated that it is important that the proposed office be used for church relate, groin meetings and group activities. These activities increase the intensity of the use which may cause it to be incompzuible with the surrounding single family residential uses. The secondary proposed entrance to the office uouid be located at the rear of the subject structure. This entrance does not architecturally identify an entry statement (see attached plans). Since these features arr not prevalent, the inclination to use this entrance, and encourage fhe use of the adjacent parking lot, are lessened. Visitors would be inclined to park on the street and use the entran -a closest to Sapphire Street. Unlike other similar projects, the subject structure is existing and located on a separate parcel as part of a residential tract which in this cane makes it difficult to meet Development Code Standards. C. Environmental Assesmert: The proposed pro4ect has been determined to be categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15301, Class 1) in which the conversion of a single family to an office use will not have a significant environmental impact. C - oZ dJ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 84.21 - Alta Loma Christian Church November 14, 1984 Page 3 III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The following findings fir a Conditional Use Permit cannot be met: That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, Live objectives of the Development code, ana the purposes of the district in which the site is located; That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable t)eretu, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or :materially injurious to properties cr improvements in the vicinity: That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Codef and, That the building and site meet all code requirements for an office development. IV. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends denial of Conditional —Use Permit 84 -21 since the proposed use does not meet the requirements of the Development Code for Office Development and is not compatible with the surrounding uses. Wpectflen submitted, Ri Ci RG:DP:ns Attachments.: Letter from Applicant Exhibit W - Master Site Plan Exhibit °B° - Floor Plan Exhibit °C° - Elevations Resolution G -3 1�} ' i I F •.1�'; I i l � � i °ter' �':.�P F H 1 •.y.Z• J V� $� �.� glt z /� ;t awe- o� X� • O Z I� JI I � U i I �( ,s rwr ►^.. Vr, lu H A W T J t^'1 G G W � vo S c - u v,> U LL 66 LLl iY W 40 S.J z . J., V fi v J �1 IL F F F V � U > a C� E)q%MNG'. TILE ROOrr 'T -rMCAL - 1 Ilr!'I� 7713 y� y�iTll f 4PIvsI' P ,•3 .>.• uf+n i'". .rr`. , ' .r,'f„'� j ' -+.r, 1 { 1 7 1 Nil 1 ••fllSu Ill IJG YI I�f •� r 1 t 'S � r nll,•� � ._ti ..�� > .% �—.:.:: �- 1�+ 1r��z_ tilii 'ir�a•�Iil�iy����ji'•';'Ilrl ll;li!,r� {".; ,. ! f���h -�'.: . i � ., �� �.. tit /bJ fr �' it +!!J }�.1.!u:W CaF�'.t�4•�1m "''a y�+itia:� ~'` I '�:. 1 >. l i f1�..� ,i; •r.. EAST �Fjt15TING rExTURet STUCCO, - ,`rPICAL Ew.6T ING IEV 15TAI y-O'C 57 TO r AJ'PLT SIP -Ar'Y DoOle7 STPW GOt.OR TO NRTCH ' MJLTIPUftPOSC/ PRC�a:IhOl. GL�G, TYPICAL � � \ 1 1r ti t •'. . lj • ;' y.JJ - '+.. :, iv %4Y .� r ::> {u ill JS'� .era rs1. +..y�1. !: ?• L SWTH ®' r- %M'nNG Wr JO SirlIIJG) —E%ISTlWr. WOOD tASCIA- . 5TT4N. ,%'5 AsQM STAIN AS ABC•VE, - ryml•.ALJ i r :1VEST - NeW' 1 x 4 WUG4 FIR Tr'M TO NIATCFI MULT:PUK°015V Pt:C5cuoOL bLVd; �:TAIN A5 ABC4r, TYPICAL —•�. `EXTE1;;�10R, ELEVATiC11-I S CITY OF G I R.,kNC�O CUCAimO.NGA -,- ..�tsrtf�r l_ PLANiV[ \C DI\rLSI�.i EXHIBIT: ., C tl SG1LE :� 11 C RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84 -21 FOR THE CONVERSIOR OF A SINGLE FAI61ILY RESIDENCE INTO A CHURCH OFFICE LOCATED AT 5390 SAPPHIRE STREET IN THE VERY LOIN DISTRICT ;_HEREAS, on the 7th day of August, 1984, a complete application was filed by Alta Loma Christian Church for review of the above - described project; and WHEREAS, on the 14th day of November, 1984, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above - described project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as SECTION 1: That the following findings cannot be met: I. 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 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. 4. That the building and site meet all code requirements for an office development. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman. ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Depijty Secretary- G- 7' Resolution No. Page 2 I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Pianning 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 Cemrrission held on the 14th day of November, 1984, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COI,ISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUSSIONERS: G -P f. 11 E 0 11 E CITY OF RANCHO CUCALMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: November 14, 1984 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Linda D. Daniels, Asscciate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND USE PERMIT NO. Wr b4 -34 - 6tNtYILLAL t�ui a t� - rroposai .or remoaeiing the store front facade, additional landscaping in the parking area, reconstruct drive approaches, a minor building addition and a conceptual building pad for an anticipated drive -thru fast food restaurant in an existing Neighborhood Commercial shopping center on about 7.8 acres in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Development District located at the northeast corner of Carnelian Avenue and Base Line Road - APN 202 -381- 24,26,28,33 and 36. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of a precise site plan, proposed changes to existing building elevations and issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Purpose: Remodeling of an existing commercial center and a conceptual pad location for a potential drive -thru facility. C. Location: The northeast corner of Carnelian Avenue and 'ase Line Road. D. Parcel Size: 7.8 acres E. Existing Zoning:_ Neighborhood Commercial F. Existing Land Use: Neighborhood Commercial Shopping Center G. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Apartments; Median Residential (8 -14 du /ac). South - Commercial Office Development; Office Professional East - High School Facility, Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac). West - Single Family Residential; Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac). ITEM H CUP 84 -34 Page =2 H. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Neighborhood Commercial !North - Medium Residential, 8 -14 du /ac. South - Office Prdfessional East - Low Density Residential, 2 -4 du /ac. West - Low Density Residential, 2 -4 du /ac. I. Site Characteristics: The subject property is presently deve oped with approximately 71,000 square feet of commercial retail area. The street improvements and parking are all existing. II. ANALYSIS: A. General: The site was constructed approximately ten years ago under the County of San Bernardino development standards. The developer is proposing the remodeling of the facades of all the buildings, with exception of the Bank of America and Carl's Junior buildings, as well as other cosmetic chanoes which will make the existing development more consistent with today's neighborhood commerical standards. The applicant is also proposing a conceptual building pad location for a potential drive thru restaurant and two minor building additions. The proposed changes, which include additional architectural treatment and style, additional landscaping, pedestrian convenience areas and drive approach and entrancE changes, are consistent with the goals of the General Plan and Development Code. B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee has reviewed the plans and has recommended approval to the Planning Cormission with some suggested improvements. These comments of the Design Review Committee have been included as conditions on the attached Resolution for your consideration. Brief ;y, most of the suggestions of the Committee related to Providing more landscaping, establishing an entrance statement at the main drive approach on Base Line Road, the addition of trellis work on the building facades, and the opportunity to review the proposed architectural elevations of the drive -thru restaurant pad to insure consistency with the center. The Committee did discuss with the applicant the possibility of improving the building elevations and adding landscaping to the Bank of America facility. Aithuugh no specific improvements are proposed at this time, the Resolution does contain a condition encouraging this effort. D ,� z 11 CLIP 84 -34 Page §3 . C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee is recommending approval of the proposal as well. The only special condition - that-the Committee needed to call attention to was the requirement that the proposed conceptual building pad and the two additions must be sprinkiered. This is necessary due to an inadequate fire flow available to the site (3348 g.p.m. available; 3EOO g.p.m. required). A condition to insure that the proposed new building and additions are sprinkiered has been included For the Commission's consideration. D. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study 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. If the Commission concurs with these findings, issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: This Development Code and the Genera design and site plan, together approval, is in compliance with addition, the project will properties or cause significant project is consistent with the i Plan. The proposed use, building with the recommended conditions of all applicable City standards. In not be detrimental to adjacent adverse environmental impacts. Iv. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution and Conditions pertaining to this project. Rick o ez City Planner IG:LD:cv ttachments: tted, Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Building Elevations Initial Study - Part II Resolution of Approval with Conditions /`7','3 _ ^7 +J L NC 4 OP Fc)## "TT�CC` ^^iTYM ✓ 1 ?jj ill i V ��Q j• f: �. 1 ' � �.f NORTH CITY nF � ,i o T IT L& SUP 8rf -3 Pit; - %'ti3 \G DIVISION I i r -' i a•.fi L onn� � J —wwe ni I' . € A Ea I I 00' � ..7. �MI♦I♦ �S� W1.% Gqt- o A 00 - — �p o a T- r o all llil 9ASE1.1NE � BTREET an ..tin. UD M c NORTH CITY OF ITL%i: COP .BSI --W RANCHO CU &,VVIONNGA. TITLE: tiled Q-�b Plan PLMNNI \G DIVISION EXHIBIT= "B" SCALE SOUTH E16EVATION .�• —t•�• d n n A. n m n m J ORTILELEVATION .e CITY 01- RANCHO CUCAI-IONGA PLANNING DIVISION .m5er3lti�S.EY8Ii07i__ •�- -:... ITI;\ I: cup 94 -34 TITLE: &Ji ldilaq Elerafrans LXHIBIT: .0 — SG\LE: -" v NORTH {r '::,, r, ililktJ�•f'lI 1FUlINf!1IiNn. „tit' 9-0;F. t•1 ELEVATION WEST [� i, f� (wwQQ !.��R111T�•J � Y EAST ELKV—ATlQv- MORT11 ELEVATION 1 L. .� f Sr•'r • .. l � 'wJl',. � d y ' wa 1l'� e f•fau .�.r yJ J a.ti ivt•'..4'.'.'."`'$ ". �', '! �tf, `^'' `CrYG. ' M�a Si ti%s.A«.. c�S t i:. NORTH CITY Cup 004-3LI SCALE- tj tj CITY OF RANCHO CUC,L'10NGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRMIENTAL CHECKLIST DATE:_ C fober FILING DATE: try 1011g8V LOG NUrSBER: a)P 3i PROJECT: remaietttn cstre�clibn �= ar Fx;3ttn h cPxittt a new bldg. PROJECT LOC.1^IO ;�:_fj p�_ �dnefian AYenuff, I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ,.Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). 1. Soils and Geolczv. Will the proposal have si8:liticant results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in Zeolo -i.c relationships? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of the soil? C. Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? d. T.:e destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either or. or off site conditons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? h- An increase in the rate of extraction and /or use of any mineral resource? 2. Itvdrolo¢Y. idi.11 the Proposal have significant results in: YES MAYBE NO E V V V i �L ✓ ._ V i YES MAYBE NO \•, a. Charges 1., currents, or the course of direction of flowing streans, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? Vol b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of s•3rface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or £low of flood Y d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? -4t- f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? ✓ g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with - drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality: Quantity? h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for publi water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Air Oualitv. Will the proposal have significant results in, a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? aL b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or interference with the - tainment of applicable air quality standards? t/ 2. Alter-tion of local or rezional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? 4. Biota Flora. tJill the proposal have significant results in: y� a. Change in the charac*_eriotics of species, ® including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? y b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? �/ • YES i11YBE NO C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of Plants into an area? V d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, - clu ing di::ETSi[ y, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? ✓ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? V C. Irtroductinn of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? V 5. PODtllatlon. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human populati--n of an area? ✓ b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 6. Socin- Economic Factors. Will the proposal have sig :'i =i:ant results in: a. Change in local or regional socio- economic characteristics, including economic or con:.ercial diversity, tax rate, and property .al.ues? ✓ b. Will project costs be equita';i,y distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and Planning; Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in' a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, Policies, or adopted plans of ar.y governmental entities? V C. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non - consumptive recreational opportunities? V /� e. Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? g. The creation of objectionable odors? ✓ Z • An increase in li;lit or glare? YES 1k%YA£ 1.0 8. Transnortation. Will the p_nposal have significant results in: a. Generation of'substantial additional vehicular movement? Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? c. Effects on existing narkino demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? ✓ e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and /or goods? ✓ f. Alterations to or effects on present and potential water - borne, rail, laass transit or air traffic? — g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bic;,clists or pedestrians? ✓ 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have signiiicant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and /or historical resources? ✓ 10. Health. Safetv, and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a- Creation of any �ealch hazard or potential health hazard? ✓ b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or patlicnooeric organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? g. The creation of objectionable odors? ✓ Z • An increase in li;lit or glare? C 11 E t 1'ES MkYBE NO 11. Aest}ictics. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction nr degradation of any scenic vista or view? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? C. A conflict with the objective cf designated or potential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alteration• to the following- a. Electric power? ✓ b. Natural or packaged gas? — - -sL C. COmmun ications systems? d. Pater supply? e. Wastewater facilities? ✓ f. Flood control structures? g- Solid waste facilities? v h. Fire protection? i. Police protection? j. Schouls? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? I. :Iaintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? M. Other governmental services? — _IL 13). EncrN, and scarce Resnurces. Will the proposal have significanr results in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? c. An increase in the demand for development of ro,r sources of energy? ✓ d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non- r: :cwable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? C 11 E YES MAYBE NO \ e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural resource? 14 Pfar.dntor•: eindins of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat_ of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish o: wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eli-iaate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? V b. Does the.project have the potential to achieve short - tern.:, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, cefinitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future). C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an ® individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, and probable future projects). ✓ d_ Foes the project have environmental effects which will cause substar_tial adverse effects on hu7nZn beings, either directly or indirectly? Ii. DISCjSSIO`. OF EZ�7IRO:�T:SENT.ILL EVALUATIO`y (i.e., of affirmative answers to tha ai we r;:estions plus a discussion of p_cpased mitigation measures). 11 III. UcTcC"I:;, \TZO.� � f On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed Project, COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environaent, and iJEG TP1E DECLA£UaTION will be prepared. _ I find that although the propcsed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect u in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached have been added to the prcjecr. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE kxLFAZZD. Eil I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the ervirnr-.ent, and an ENVIRONKENT I;?ACT £W ?ORT is required. Date �iDEpy IOF i�84 All Signature Title E J �:J RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO_ 84-3t 'OR TFiE RFM_01..LlNG AND NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL CENTER LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CARNELIAN AVENUE AND BASE LINE ROAD IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 10th day of October, 1984, a complete application ,ias filed by Beneficial 'couities for review of the above - described project; and WHEREAS, on the 14th day of November, 1984, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above - described project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as 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 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, wili not be detrimental to the pud is health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious tr properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. Tha the. propcsed use complies with each of the ap:.- licabie provisions of th? Development Code. SEZ7 ICJ% 2: That ihis praiact will not create adverse impacts on the en%r'.;%7!Tt :r't tr>> *:oar a Negative 06:1iv.ratior. is Issued on November 14, 1984. =d-T; ' - " t l Use Pcmwit No, 84 -34 is approved �.- 0: .. T::dl a.f3iw.�i0ti.�.. .-ubiccc 'Ili e a! cwirg co- di'Gi:G: '_. in order to r_ +a i zr safety requirements an} !).---Pored bui flny or addition mk:si haiE a fire S[•y;nkiee- sy$tc'" -r;s_slled. Z. A ire %l s, or simi" ?r pat in jy-a structure, shall be prov`4e lez&;. :r. : •�!- th : Stater Brathers canopy to u ^ canopy ove"angs tc i.he east (drug store) and T.,'est :li:i?or st ^rsl. ?ha trrllis structure shall Planning Commission Resolution CUP 84 -34 Page 2 accommodate the already proposed pedestrian seating benches and landscaping in these areas. 3. The proposed canopy overhang shall be finishe' at the ends in an angular manner, similar to the canopy t-eatment being shown at the hair style location on the south elevation. 4. The architectural design for the proposed building pad shall be submitted and reviewed by the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission prior to the issuance of permits. The eventual design of this building shall be consistent with the design of the center. 5. A sign program must be submitted and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of any permits for the remodeling of the center. A generic tenant sign program is encouraged which allows the use of one letter style, one color and the generic service of the tenant (Liquor, Hair Styles, Bakery, Phar-macy, etc.). In addition, only one monument sign is permitted per each street frontage of the integrated neighborhood commercial center, regardless of the existence of individual parcels. 6. Planters around the building columns, landscape planters between the columns, or potted plants under the canopy areas shall be provided. 7. A stonger entrance statement is required along Base Line Road. This can be accomplished through the use of a textured driving surface and large trees at this entrance. 8. A landscape island shall be provided in both rows of parking adjacent to the main north /south drive aisle. Through the use of compact parking spaces, a six foot landscape island can be provided. 9. Two trees shall be provided in the end planter areas in the parking lot. 10. The pedestrian area provided between the two groups of buildings by the east property line shall be expanded if possible. 11. A landscape planter area shall be provided along the east property line which will be in direct view of the east /west driving aisle directly in front of the buildings. 12. A continuous east /west drive aisle shall be provided l -16 Planning Commission Resolution CUP 84 -34 Page 3 ® midway in the site. This will cause the necessity for landscape planters on both sides of this drive aisle to protect the parked cars. Again, through the use of compact spaces this can be achieved. 13. The developer may wish to consider providing a pedestrian opening along the east property line for use Dy the high school students. 14. A texturized pedestrian walkway shall be provided leading from the proposed drug store building area to the row of buildings directly to the south. 15. The applicant is encouraged to improve the building facade and landscaping of the Bank of America building with this proposal. Engineering Division: 1. Each drive approach proposed to be reconstructed shall conform to City Standards for commercial drive approaches with a 35-foot minimum width. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1984, ® PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Denris L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: .. Rick Go3ne2, Deputy 5ecretary 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 Csscz.To -ga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of November, 1984, by the following vote-to.-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: G /7_/! Q 2 V w ..7 d M 6 O i W O v O O O O U 0 0 N c � - 4qP ✓LL o bJ c ov c c c c L n ^M ^N -'eo�i ✓ -r =Np� �o .- O•. N A ✓ C d - Nr v- Nr ° -q ez ?o�ca �g: iy°• fC -.°,. � 4 ° 4 -N co c L'L•ott .. W°L✓ >o�b CL t W G + J p t c g O� d V _ Fm LNpLY•aV =�M 0 V Z L v O •� V d p L O rLr V ✓ O A. dO O =.L .i.-� C ✓ °L -.] 7 06 C- ` p OV O q O C 0. C . q` E O✓ u q W V' ✓OCi. °.A.c�� O. 2_ - d Tyu C bo•j�T �-- = ^ «V OPU °uYC� acre° � >6 Pc ✓^-Nj Li0� w��a� r� � �P u0.•ic v ^�_ .r.NE.4,. q N �_ j� O• b L 4 4 •r �� C _ d 6} d nO V` y y .E..r�d a N` C �� ' V � ^ a C V 4 � b W O 2 C a w Y n W V d 6b O M^ V.n w! V gvza ✓PO ^r ✓�V""C• A�J a 4b GU4 ��q OF G P O VEN N.°i cW d f�TAi a W .p. m 4drey 4'd'v�A V Yc .VP L =r.r V CDyC > C ` •OCR L ✓ � J A ✓ O 6 ✓� 1r i.Ji.n rt i� > Vai b .-6NC Oc.diA..a_ SV�L NbP =r=_� •.Jd �G PEEq qO ^p iLV BEd yJ Lc�7 N. ^9N D�iW u C?M O 6 C• E byyD `d _ Ow= � �"• ^VO�•_i. O tA.I O ACOnu _ EO ^ei 9•••�— bC.�LL6�CV �� Na_M r^ ^ IL�� e'L OYO.N 9>N �L n�VBN w 1 =rte. •Cj CO'�� `�6 C'• n .0 ` O 25 t V O ^ O VN r v p y w C✓ � V N d� � ��FFjj C L^ n N D 060 L P r � H O`y J--q q Cbq db �Od >�J Z N >C ^L q =AM CV n�r�y 6 „ w� ^�.•.0 c_a �L-' eon my °��= TJ �c.N n =L 7&0 ^fir b4r -L�� J•r r4 b q.7. VO'dN V. d 66N a> Cyy i.r C. ALb Nf� �.:5L� OJ _ ^N� 0��� an�i4 N5EaVN u •N^�2y L O ^VL NOW n .:5.5 ��V� -4i.rO nd .A wS L• E cV O y d^ a C r r � � C n l O C• W V d q 9 D y M qy ryry i 4 V.V. - C N r ✓ 4 E N 4 G CA y N � q P ,qdV� O N= • r^ N y uG '�C.]C r ^pNa d✓ uCAq> 6C4gylOJ y} 9+ V^ b u E C �� C � 6 •� V A` V y i� � _ N^ T y L-E q 0. �.Ji.�y i a.L...D •r _^ •tid� b --` M r J C pqO LnLOV 646L6 dy O 6 O i W O v O O O O U 0 0 N v c � - 4qP ✓LL o bJ c ov L n ^M ^N L T ✓ > O•. N A ✓ C d V 4' 4 C. D^ -q ez c �g: >.di. n^°L.c Wpi by ? F V 2 CL t W G + J p t c g O� d V _ Fm LNpLY•aV =�M 0 V Z L v O •� V d p L O rLr V ✓ a .�.. l y °b ryE d v a V W j .V pD ✓�3 00Vp`•O O N � 6 � ^ V E r W to O✓ bC .E..r�d a P` z Ty 9 G � 4 � e ^cgW VD c c r °• o -- d^ eb E� V 1 V A •�_ N ° V O O O P O a W .p. m 4drey 6 q V A C •,J{1 V CDyC > C ` •OCR L ✓ � J A I O 6 a �A 1r i.Ji.n rt i� O 6 N Q J � �"• v c � - 4qP ✓LL o bJ c ov L n ^M ^N L T ✓ > O•. N A ✓ C d V 4' 4 ✓ V99� 0 o. ✓N N L D^ -q ez r >.di. n^°L.c Wpi by C t c g O� d n Q. N. Fm LNpLY•aV =�M 0 V Z L v O •� V d p L a .�.. ryE D pD ✓�3 00Vp`•O ✓ N � 6 � ^ V E r W to O✓ bC .E..r�d a P` z Ty 9 c s � °-N• e ^cgW VD c c r °• o -- d^ eb E� C O O O O P O a W .p. m 4drey 6 q s qP m4 ^ s > q' CDyC O ` •OCR L ✓ � J A O 6 a �A 1r i.Ji.n rt i� 6 �r /� Pi'1 V. T w C O ✓C y�o'y"9ya9 —POyy E d d C •� V p N ✓ 6 r Y o"cgoL•"v�' rc� �. - 0 O�gVfid•Lw0✓ •n —��U- �L� yCr T� Oi 4Nd. V yz w G tCV C Sc V �nN C j +J —�Ny COQ rc ' Q NyL/ pJ•n T�VprC LLd Pi r t — c Q• •Ti C ° C y 9 9 V p M •wC1rr NN O C q V + S q C ry p U P� ✓ .� gOr�a =r0 y •C� � i ypL. g�9 �eu-•� N c�wH N N c L V T'� ✓ G 0 9 � V�� V y L L` r j C O C• C L N O q Vy t0� CI .T �Ty9 ✓ r y V q G VO OBI NC � 6Y ate' r ✓•�i•NLff OCL `•Orw uOiC •• = c O q •n y — •GUN � � on _ —�i L9 p�ri L� C` L _ � K t Q r C �r wV✓ V ✓✓ r S_ - • FS✓ u' V_ 53 _ V C —CT -w LV y `W eOC HdPO —Zq= yC L — r O w O L N O q✓ V 4 Y �✓ V VL c yy L N j V_ 2 QO• =rC P C 9> C= y V _ 1 L L q ~ c ° s L C l G n Pc O 6— �•VC�NVC 7 d '• — l��CC+L.+9 •C ? c ✓ L 7 d � c �O'�ya�6aCy N O O Y V O r O V L✓ T O° d N V ✓Y dL CO.— _� cn ^yPY P .lY O^ T C � b6 �V•W.r V9LL .•W.�v •.r o gooua W 9T� O -O prNq` V Y d C t tVyrM 4u �Sp r OCOL q9L� N tf p.q OTC IONp /� DO P a V y q ^ L Y O r N O' Y q V r V O 9 SJ w d V V =✓ C y o T L a O O l r✓ p P C O d V V 9� a � y J^ V N Q P rn 4 pN 9 � N 2 C 0 L r _ •'• 9 0 J Z 9 q O T L ✓ O G �j T q 9 r d S 9 9 P A ✓CC O L a W= iLa rC N �= Ca t q (J ^� 'u �� >T G r �u� >qy uCV� N ✓N a u a O G nN lr 4 j l O� W 9 6 L d • ^i � V L P A � W✓ •^ �^ 4' ^ C .� j A •rt w C 'L V P > � • Y 9 0. O L ° Niq ^ a O N N g J C > C✓ d J V O N C °�9 i• ^ aV✓ �9 C 6VC' � L L V4p r C✓ r � N VV V= �O •� C d C r V a Y' Np C L L q c r4u `� 9Li d�N Cb }r✓ V9 .V ^B�( erV�r 4 .n � L ^N c.nr� �o Ya�r9r9 aouwY C �nL4. Lr j._ N Gd i r urr N�aY Pa NrN OaL =q` PVO d >n ^ L G C GC I � ��O P V dl2 d O ^ N d� C L P g r� N l A� �• N V V a • t � V C V p C G 6 v L i YI L r^ N C ✓ O V l 9 �� V f^ N y d✓ p O N y P V _P ✓ V q 6— 4 P u O l = pi _P yr V ~P NN �LwY.✓ q r rLr C> N ` C N V � 4F � L • O VC> 9 9t Ld 9C T 4 ryV NC✓ � '�� rV �' N ✓q PD 9L0 q C O 'o a4 rrO✓ .n V CNC Nr rP N O � qC N �TVC •q d L M d V O ^00 = p G� V Cy TP °JU =�tiNP ^ V l r wO�L P9C4.. pGP t N N O =Ca 9 w 9 r ✓ 9 a C H4 ✓ r r M V N N6 NV >pC �• •qA Ld 1MNW L�^P r ^ O L C O y YO` ru C C O V LI V C V d M y^ C '� ` C P✓ r O 6 p M J 9 9 w C 6 —! 0 O C L✓ d O L N 6 ^ q 9^ C 6T q= V A V UP dC L rr �•CC �G6 d ^Uw Or.E OL Vr ✓l aO9O Pl C✓ GO �V PV Cr 6 G CC 6 >ii pr Pl ✓ _ ^ a Pd 9 ✓� y L d y r V- O q� 9 N. 6� C. j S N 9 d C< • 6 C C O G L r � C L Y ^ O L 9 O O d M 9 V `• ^ O C ✓ a w 9 d✓ N N O •+ N y. O Y •Ln y G Y C pwO G '^� • Y° LNa V �' 0 v .� rJ EE �P b L 4. rr�nM =Cr O 5 P V P9 ✓a OO G YEN x �N 9 ° Y L O M eL d G 9 9 L d w O S O O 4 L.A L✓ 9 � ° w� �rLC a NN ✓�.o N I e 9= aL N O L G >OCc Cy r cN� art N� NO O.r p Gp6N YV `r q•-. V 1L c6• °G w `✓ Oi �� L C OVOV Ndxr � O4CC VC V G NV✓ _ ��6 =�0 V +O • ar OV CC 4f' V wV N rC7 UW_ C� O C =LV r 2 � p � P N O' C •n f� i 9 l C J✓ N O JON 0 C 6✓ m L �S. 9 C d✓ V = Y • V 9✓ C w• y I L C 0 0 0 q q N v C > U r C V 0 6 S ° V O O^ V r 9 d °✓ b 6✓ W— O 9 r N V N = r V w• o V r r n q D C rCif ✓C •o 4 P V P A N V ^^ r O ✓[[ ' V N q f+• C N V O V^ V V 9 O ^V9 L O CLC a ✓� V O NC NC�� ^DCr VV nC� NL Gy —x1 � `� V pLl �^ ✓M y'�`rV _9 P Nr 4 V SPY wVi� 4 V O O 'C C e.wir G` 6 '..�� °.,a: `9 w' >LOO ° °'•u°r,fc °'N - w Ja �a••i V 4 .L c re u ° ✓> V i L i V 4 V^ � 0 4 W w\ V✓ P N V d� ^� ^ 0 � a` Q rVi r N L ^= < M d a 0 p L 6V 9 Oj � G9 wry MO pt ✓ CNC ✓ N 1N QN 2N0 >.NL s <CM HGN tO ^ON r, l W 14 -2o cn �! I 11 O � G �L9 4�a L ar °e CTG Y V g r C 61 i d r .� r C N � r« Y •� p r C _ TJ �r. OV q0 q �pfgCJ N I VO .v Yo O C dL' �C v `� U. _75 zt go. QZ N L nq N q c p W V V S M N g Y V � w q�✓ c N C� Y. = N N � O N V C W Vr�4� yr ✓ ` N n •7 V i0 O ` 4 d r 27 f l d G ..V- _— yea' 7nYC t m O CV rU 9` ar tL V OYQ a.r. —rO G VJ'Vk0 NOY din_ ✓M✓C m` S C3 c q. t C n p _Y -Y c �. ` C 2 .Tr ^ p c O VO —r _ y C�V t � _'_Or u0. N.rV r r a4•• S= di ��,� 6dnm� � � �_° ✓✓ "'� p �N c�WFL. do O 2VSI 2V Or n.•..y4 =9yO,V � rYl =l nV.� V� `•o�o OL !! 1.L n LL I nU VrO °ON _r .�` cC °q nir6r P`•� Gl O6 gaLd C «6 q 4 L Nl� L_rO Y �c4ur GIV �� V. Varr 'Z% L ° gc yw4 NO NN20 •". or mV.� --c 1�^ �✓ N Y L Y L O C f. V V y` ` n O l n W V N V yV O C 0 O O O O= C t` PN O •0 O 0 C ='Z p V O Vq` O9ya_ ra q ° L 7T Z. g V C O O Y d C � �g p.TG r 4Cj- VO _ °{ Oa _dp i Lzz -21O a V 6 NnV< •^ ]4 O V E m° V O° V V O War IL W 6 I L T O 4 i Y �° ^ 0 L ✓ v` N y L a.O.V�V .00 m I q v° E c y •> V - N ^ O O q P �, G w O N _ M u _ =V O mod V �6 N V S �°.Orc r.✓ q N L 9 Cp J q v O G u � L VOV � V V_ ✓�•- •� L N O �VWL _ L06fi aLN 6�9�p N L J a[Oy �<q0 9q .O�w� MV u�uz sr �! I 11 O � G �L9 4�a L ar °e CTG Y �r. OV q0 VOae �pfgCJ N I VO .v Yo O C dL' `� U. go. QZ C N q c p L O V✓ T 4 c .O`a°L� 4 Vr�4� yr n � 4 NC E ¢VC tL V OYQ a.r. —rO G VJ'Vk0 NOY N N ✓ S C3 c q. t C` C n p , ✓V 9 u .l ` �. ` C 2 .Tr ^ p c O VO —r _ yY C�V t � _'_Or u0. N.rV r r a4•• S= q O c rYl G� cG T'J M =O Jl !! 1.L n LL I nU VrO °ON _r C° cC °q nir6r P`•� Gl O6 gaLd C «6 q 4 L Nl� L_rO Y _VqN S GIV �� V. Varr 'Z% L ° gc yw4 NO NN20 •". or mV.� --c 1�^ �✓ N Y L Y L O C f. V V y` ` n O l n W V N V yV O C 0 O O O O= C r PN O u L` O 0 C ='Z p V O p V JaL V r c L V q°e p ° L g V C O O 9q �g O r 4Cj- VO Lrpy °q _ LC i Lzz -21O a V 6 NnV< •^ ]4 O V E m° V O° V V O War IL W 6 I L T O 4 i Y �° ^ 0 L ✓ v` N y L aLN O. �-ww u L �! I 11 d v c r 1 i - ° ° ' ° n' �°• °e I I L � 3< d � Y ��r O•n L V N°Ii P6 ° V o 0 ` o at •`• „d uG'L ` J L •r r N j C „ L i � d 6' t � ^ CP , uE O „ 1 r�q�t 6Cl is ��l �N• GG faj LT I I -G l C_ L 9vn WP d q PV L _'46 O• � „V GgOO O_V vq � Ro^ cooy n i =_a ccq cL�r�R d pia. O q...✓ T r O• id„ O V r n E T r T PGrO q V ^ .Lu d° CVydy �q^ .... °IGrP° V O °VCP g9✓Or n” L a T...1gT _ „40 -� DLO C G� V OC OnOV`C „LUKE wN _ r •^c o °E ` Lr .Ni. rr °P o GiW%r Jv c �q-. � 4 . d•OCnaL. G,e .'.° L„ L r C q v '•' J Lc ^ T G P Moc ro d r y L n L 'J Po= L oa C L L P° T� � _ P 7 C d F GOB ° r�0y � ^PQ•.di ��• Gy •� VM OLV YMO.d r.JCJ � °uG inn ^V. {CZ: Z rS7;4 cOV VO Pq O V V M i J�oo V L r N q d E 2 r Z N C _ L q O C O e « a.n°e rir o . c q `- o r uv cJ.o xq L -`i c2 •'^•sir �c N C G n L V O V N y L a b b q ^ P [VL O � OII it O SZ u u` L P L n v F L > L � oe mr c =� ^ O 1 c p L n •^ E q c � a d ^• E c VI a V c C y „ q _ C ° L � q i � V C O = O p CI N Ln '•lQw O G 4J U d O L d °c a C V C cE, 0 E E ^ V r iC cc V^ �I O N W W CL.I ✓ � O � � � L C N 6 uW � °J yr Nr'O Cc •` YW L ✓ c_ Q (�•tO NT , N J �l '� •a •gwOLN O l � c ✓ q r ✓ O W 4 V O ✓ U L oc L y.. ✓ N L q ✓ u q C)♦ O J y r C N 3 N— uS a K 6 L 9 � ` S W W V L G t; S •n �� V j y N •.. C L a d vv N t V n N Y • WE _ T d C. r z - N a✓ n � W W r n N c t i r. �• d E .L... NLVQLi .c. � >. .+. o CV 'NO ✓C N LV � I C.V C nCA lW VIG�� V •nC ` C V� �� T^ T^ •w� p � T. u T 4E q �o.r � a✓i� NC _C V uW �vC �✓ ✓ u L r 9 q — p C wCC NC.S Y Q ' —> V J p� C U C V C L • Cw i. T p l n y� ✓ O� L r N — O✓ Lv� �� �� � + `w 4 q O d � L °a "'�`eo LvL.` c m ^� a•�„ � =�V _ .• n� v m nap r O C L q � � � ✓ a✓ Y 2` ✓ G C i V � C C_ L O a L � �} V n N V C n ;STN✓ �� I ar Sq �: +� V" Ns dJ _"L c``. 7.:e °..' �_ °a no` Cn q c✓ wi�v i ✓ d c � '�._ d. c ^ c Op 'C 6 ✓ W aqo F .e C Er a. —L.� n T u a` r •�N `ci r� i e �c e:n w— of � r E+ L Y q L � a o van N •= .d°o« —•„ = w V c l w• V✓ V 6 � Q 6NV 9� T> V t0 NplCi C✓ O C d NO�� TC t l � L r q LO• ^ V ° G yI — q 7 ^ LOi ✓ C M n V u C H � �.I C -' C O. q= _d +O •Oi „= LP �V w VVVw qM r. � � .� y �w .•. dC 4w I CO C✓9 �V I n `V q — V. d � •T. •ra V v J V — Q n q W 8 J N O. W✓ _T V V q ✓ C^ V 7 O C V 3� W N � LV 3p O VC S L+ rC � I ��i y pC l Y V <nN 6w �t 2 °c a C V C cE, 0 E E ^ V r iC cc V^ �I u L� 1 E O N W W CL.I ✓ � O � � � L C N 6 uW � °J yr Nr'O ¢'o •` YW L ✓ c_ Q (�•tO NT , N J �l '� •a •gwOLN O l � c ✓ q r ✓ O W 4 V O ✓ U L oc L y.. ✓ N L q ✓ u q C)♦ O J y r C N 3 uS a K 6 � W W V L G t; S •n �� V � � l t V T vv T d z W W r n N c t i r. u L� 1 E O N W CL.I ✓ � ..r OL � � L W � °J yr Nr'O •` YW L ✓ ✓ Q (�•tO NT O�` �l '� •a •gwOLN O l ✓ q r ✓ O W 4 V O ✓ U L O L y.. ✓ N L q ✓ u q C)♦ y r C W p! V L G t; S •n �� � l t V T n s c t i r. �• d E .L... .c. >. .+. o E �� T^ T^ C q.T✓9 T. u T q J n _C V CLJ� C e' ✓ u L V L 9 q — p C wCC NC.S Y Q ' —> V C�VV p� C L' C V C L • Cw L n g p e — � — t• �� �� � + n 4 q O d a q>O r O C L q � � � d 4= n Y 2` ✓ G C Q q p r Op 'C 6 ✓ C F .e C C• q LV T u — H O E+ L ✓au : c L a van N _i = w V c l w• V✓ V 6 � Q 6NV 9� NplCi G O w� NO�� NO �l -1:23 u L� 1 E 4 Pr C Y• V U� dl P O P P� l G c n o -. o y _ c c c c � �✓ 4 a V F O 6 f✓ N' L P O O � C V C s Q q � r V j J - ✓ 0. �V d _T q_ UV J J O OV -mil Nam i C O •p = � � 7V 0 O V N �-•'!• r V r y J ^ P V V -J ✓ � M V w N y L =^ E q L O �" q � V = g 9 L� V L T M-� Y• � L V r Y ��` V I q N ✓ C � e. T aOr� v VP E •Vi•N YN .0 � `y V u T O G N L Ny O✓ 4 ^ 6 � � � �' c N� vo VN aai « �� Beni O YE v�� 0 a°c a -'•d L � o•' -: i� Nr a v a i �� Lnl 01v JLy �N � ^L ^V 7 \ � I V C V r' FN 2 q yn� L Y q p i c W L ^ .• w r O ✓ 9 M F M « q V C � '^ W 9 1 N ✓ ✓ . � V^ ✓9 V T i Y= V V T✓ � ✓ i _ Y` Y O q l V •,l M L ✓� f^ F .Li v a M 0 �« 6� ✓ >> �V Ei y I r 6 G N 6^ •O.r 4 ^ o N O Y wLi � a N � ✓ N u � Q L v ` O • O J N V ^ V ^ V ^ L N M Q 6 O O 9 d O Q C V O N q L q V � o ^ y q O 6 q « C O q r p �• N V • � l rp V ^ V 1 O -Lj y L V L Y V W O. f• 6 r CJ E •I CITY OF RANCHO CUCMI01\TGA STAFF REPORT DATE: November 14, 1984 TO: riea ;.. A ..� - -- .11. M=2WC1b Of the Flans,ing Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Linda D. Daniels, Associate Planner 19r, SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERM? NO. 84 -32 - WHEAT MOTOR COMPANY - o allow :ne estate isheTent of a recreational vehicle assembly, manufacturing and distribution center in an existing 168,400 square foot industrial building located at the southeast corner of Vineyard Avenue and Arrow Highway on approximately 10.35 acres in Subarea 2 (General Industrial /Rai! Served) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of a conditionally permitted use B. Purpose: To establish a medium manufacturing facility in the enera] Industrial /Rail Served industrial category C. Location: The southeast correr of Vineyard Avenue and 4rrow Highway D. Parcel Size: 10.35 acres E- Existing Zoninq: General Industrial /Rail Served F. Existing Land Use: Industrial Development G. Surroundi2 Land Use and Zoninq• North - Vacant, Medium Density Residential (8 -12 du /ac) South - Vacant, General Industrial /Rail Served East - Vacant, General 'Industrial /Rail Served Test - Vacant, (industrial development proposed), General Industrial H. General Plan Des nations: Project Site - Genera ndustrial North - Medium Density Residential ITEM I South - General Industrial East - General Industrial West - General. Industrial I. Site Characteristics: The site is developed with a 168,4GO square foot industrial building with approximately 280 parking spaces. The street improvements necessary to serve the site are installed. The property has also granted additional street dedication for further widening or Arrow Highway at a later date. II. ANALYSIS: A. General: The proposed us3 is defined as a medium manufactrring fac�ty. The Industrial Specific Plan requires that in Subarea 2 (General Industrial /Rail Served; a Conditional Use Permit must be approved by the Planning Commission for any medium manufacturing use. The proposed site is already developed as an industrial manufacturing facility. The applicant has indicated that the existing 168,400 square foot building and off street parking are adequate for the proposed medium manufacturing use. The application indicates that there will be no outdoor storage of raw materials for use in the manufacturing and assembly process. The facility expects to produce approx- mately 4 vehicles per day which are then directly transported to the is Purchaser or sales location. At the present time all employee amenity and rest areas are located inside of the bciiding. The applicant has indicated an outdoor patio location at the northwest portion of the site which will be provided at a later date. Because this is a non - construction Conditional Use 7ermit there was no review necessary by the Technical or Design Review Committee. In conclusion, the proposed medium manufacturing use would appear to be an appropriate use for the site and the area. B. Environmental Assessment: The proposed project has been determined to be categorically exempt (CEQA guidelines Section 15301, Class 1A). III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The proposed project is consistent '-:ith the goals of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the General Plan. Further, the use is one which can be approved through the Conditional Use PFrm•it process. The proposed use, together with the recommended conditions of approval, will not be uetrimental to the public health or materially injurious to properties in the vi=inity. T� t;;. tV. CORRESPDMDENCE: Tnis item fias been advertised as a public hearing at �n the Oaily Report Newsaaper. In addition, notices were sent to s .. all property owners vrithin 300 feet of the subject site. To date, or no correspondence or oral communication has been received regarding ti ;e project. g g St V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission a approve Canditional Use Permit 84 -32 by adopting the attached di- Resolution ar_d Conditions of Approval. `A" .s" .r" ors L] City Planner RG:LD:cv Attactments: Exhibit "A" - location Map Exhibit "@" - Site Development Plan Exhibit `C" - Floor Plan Resolution of Approval L - �"23 5ub4 0 � P ` W CITY OF RANCHO CLCAivIO\'G:k PL INNING DI\'ISK)}N, ITEM: C -uP 94 - 32- TITLE: LOCATION Mr,? Gl'l Ili' -IT: "A` SCALE NUitTH 1 31(1P2� MOb�b' 7 77 y CITY Or- RANCHO V C Nj jxG P LkNNING DT VISICk\T Y� S Y t1� � rI Eet: GVP 84 -32 TITLE: Stl` f7MICPr ent Pt&*t EXHIBIT •,$•• x,ALE- ti I r 0 E a V V T }o z � d m ii O 2 1 i J I� I a ( Y � a I 1 m t. y CITY Or- RANCHO V C Nj jxG P LkNNING DT VISICk\T Y� S Y t1� � rI Eet: GVP 84 -32 TITLE: Stl` f7MICPr ent Pt&*t EXHIBIT •,$•• x,ALE- ti I r 0 E a V V T }o z � d m ii O 2 L 1� I �taoR ASSSH9tr A.F, WHEAT MOTOR COMPANY CITY Or RAINCHO C CCAyIOiTGg PLANTN[N'G DIVISION c.c.r A. = 0 E COPPORAT i/anapvo.Rrcrzs f�sEk7i8LyF�,q� /f/ /O! L5�- NORTH ITEvI= GOP 84-32 Trrl E= �Ic0r Plan ® I EXHIBIT= �G_ _ SCAi.E _L co E RESOLUTION NO. A 2ESOLUTiON OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPRCYI NG CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 34 -32 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MEDIUM tiANUFACTURING FACILITY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER, OF ARROW ROUTE AND VINEYARD AVENUE AN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL /RAIL SERVED DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 10th day of October, 1984, a complete application was filed by Wheat Motor Company for review of the above- described project; and WHEREAS, on the 14th day of November, 1984, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above - described project. "!^'.', iHEREFORE, the Ranch3 Cucamonga Planning Commission foilcws: SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met: I. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Industrial Area Specific Plan 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. _�lved as '. SECTION 2: That this project is categorically exempt under California Environnentai Guidelines pursuant to Section 15301 Class 1A. SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 84 -32 is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. If outdoor storage is proposed after the establishment of the use then appropriate screening measures shall be installed in conformance with the Industrial Area Specific Plan. 2. The existing landscaping be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition and be free of weeds. Planning Commission Resolution CUP 84 -32 Page #2 3. The Conditional Use Permit shall become null and void upon termination of the proposed use for more than 180 days, or upon increasing the intensity of the use beyond that of a medium manufacturing facility. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1984. PLANNING COK4ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCA nur_n 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 14th day of November, 1984, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: 0 NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: E C CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT SATE: November 14, 1984 TV: Cndirman and members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Linda D. Daniels, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT. 12820 - HIGHLAND COMMUNITY COVENANT CHURCH - A proposed custom lot subdivision to create 16 lots on about 4.1 acres of land in the Low Residential Development District (2 -4 du /ac) located at the southeast corner of Jasper Street and Highland Avenue - APN 201- 214 -08. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Ps,provai of a Tentative Tract Map and issuance of a Negative Declaration B. Pur ose: Custom lot residential subdivision to create lE lots C. Location: Southeast corner of Jasper Street and Highland Avenue D. Parcel Size: 4.1 gross acres E- Existing Zoning: Low Density Residential (2 -4 du /ac) F. Existing Land Use: Vacant G. Surroundiin Land Use and Zoning: North - Single family residential; Low Density Residential (2 -4 du /ac) South - Vacant; Low Density Residential (2 -4 du /ac) East - Vacant (prcposed church facility); Low Density Residential (2 -4 du /ac) West - Vacant; Low Density Residential (2-4 du /ac) H. General Plan Oesi nations: roject ite - ow ensity Residential (2 -4 du /ac) North - Low Density Residential (2 -4 du /ac) South - Route 30 Freeway Corridor East - Low Density Residential (2-4 du!ac) West - Low Density Residential (2-4 du /ac) ITEM J I. Site Characteristics: The site is predominantly vacant with only weeds and annual grasses indigenous to the area. There is a row of eucalyptus trees and palm trees along the unimproved Jasper Street. II. ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is requesting approval of a 16 lot single family residential subdivision. The lots_ their Ghana. size and general configuration are in conformance with the Basic Standards for the Low Residential District. Due to the proximity of the freeway corridor, conditions have been included, for the Commission's consideration, to insure that appropriate noise levels are not exceeded once units are proposed for development. B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee has reviewed the project and has recommended its approval. They have recommended, as a condition of its approval, that no one - story homes be constructed on the lots adjacent to the freeway corridor. C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee has reviewed the project and--Was recommended its approval subject to a drainage study. The Committee stated that the proposed tract is in compl -ance with all applicable codes and standards of the City through compliance of the attached Resolution and Conditions. D. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Part II of the Environmental Checklist has been completed by Staff which shows no significant adverse impacts, which can not be mitigated, resulting from the proposed project_ If the Commission concurs witn these findings, issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: This project is consistent with the General and Development Code. The project will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or cause significant adverse environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed use, building design and site Plan, together with the recommended conditions of approval are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Development Code and City Standards. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The Daily Report newspaper and notices were mailed out to J -2 11 0 U C 11 property owners within 300 feet of the proposed man. To date no written or oral communication has been received regarding this project. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recormiends that the Planning Coamissinn issue a Negative Declaration and approve Tentative Tract Map 12820 by adopting the attached Resolution and Conditions of Approval. `f,�l7v c.rh,n��k e.t 1 .Rick on Zz RG:LD:cv Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "8" - Subdivision Map Part II, Initial Study Resolution with Conditions of Approval i=3 L' t l l l t l Zc:J.e . �- . - t6,. C- tie T �{ r, NORTH CITE' OI. ITE \t: TT 12820 RAINCHO CLC ATMO `GA TITLE: LOCATION mRP PLkNNI \G DIVISION E\IiIF m 'A' SCALE, T --'7 1 I NORTH CITE' OI. ITE \t: TT 12820 RAINCHO CLC ATMO `GA TITLE: LOCATION mRP PLkNNI \G DIVISION E\IiIF m 'A' SCALE, T --'7 1 r it , S.irG {�r.,� s.yL �•" �- L _ � �v'f�CnL s�.w�.r r.�� rr r.. �n r __ - r� 41Y er/YYw M1l 1L rte{ — CITY OF RA\ -CHO CLCANIONGA PLANNING DIX'ISION ITBI: TT - 12$20 TITLE: -5vw ✓isl�," min E \1iIBIT- 8" SCALE= J -S \ORTH CI:'y OF RANCHO CUCA%!O%GA PART II - INITIAL ST1MY E4NIRONXE :;TAL CHECKLIST DATE: �..�°.bis- 1Y11?l.Y 25 1 APPLICAN -r: 14ihh1e7riq �.... FILING DATE:�jL*� 28, 19E r LOG : rrU`ffi_R TT 12820 Si results in: PROJECT:Ci(r--10!p bEY SUbLinfes(,0n 1 (a RESrdcntp Loi � PROJECT LOCATION: •." "= E +— ��-�'___�Pe� acrd !- hghrand I- Mr'!ROti'E%TAL T:TACTS Avenvej (Explanation of all "yes" and "mavbe" answers are required on attached sheets). YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and Ceolozv. dill the proposal have Si results in: a. Unstable ground -ond ar in changes in geologic relationships? -- b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of the sail? Vr c. Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? d. The destructio:z, covering or medification of any unique geologic or phvsical features? e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of sofas, affecting either on or off site conditons? f. CSanges in erosion siltation, or deposition? g- Exposure of ;2eople or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, grot:nd failure, or _imilar hazards? h. An increase in the rate of extraction and /or use of any mineral resource? 2. 8vdroloevv, will the proposal have significant results in: J'� Page 2 YES `i4Y3E No ® a. Changes in currerts, or the course of direction Of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream charnels? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ✓ c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? ✓ d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? ✓ e. Discharge into surface waters, or ar_v alteration of. surface water quality? f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? 9. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? - 3. Air Oualitv. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? J 6. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? b. Reduction of the lumbers of any unique, rare or endangered:pecies of plants? J -? ^ ?are 3 a- Change in local or regional socie- economic YES `AYHE No characteristics, including economic or c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of commercial diversity, tax rate, and rroperty plants into an area? b. Will project costs be ccuitably distributed d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, production? 7. Land Use and Planning- Considerations. Will the Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results Proposal have significant results in? in: planned lard use of an area? a. Change in the characteristics of species. b. A conflict ui *_n any designations- objectives, including diversity, distribution, or numbers entities? of any species of animals? ' b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a Harrier to the migration or movement of animals? Deterioratier or removal of existing fish or Wildlife habitat? ✓ 5. Population. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, dis =r= bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 5. Socio- Ecorozi= Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a- Change in local or regional socie- economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and rroperty values'f -_ b. Will project costs be ccuitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and Planning- Considerations. Will the Proposal have significant results in? a- A substantial alteration of the present or planned lard use of an area? b. A conflict ui *_n any designations- objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any govern= =nta1 entities? C. An 1=pact upon the qulaity or quantity of exi- -tang cons=ptive or non - consumptive recreational opportunities? J - G __ �% Page G _S `AY ^r `Io 8. Transport_ atioz, Will the pro -osal have significant results in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, ,, demand for new street const- action? C- Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? d. Substantial izzact upoc, existing transporta- tion syste^s? ✓ e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and /or goods? V ` f. Alterations to or effects on present and potential water -borne, rail, mass transit or air traffi ' J g. Increases in traffic hazards to rotor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have ® sigm if scant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and /or historical resources? 3.0. Health. Safetv, and Nuisance Factors. Will the Proposal have significant re•:u1ts in: — a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? _ v b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? V/ c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? d. An increase in the ru=bber of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organis -.s or the exposure of people to such organisms? ✓ e. Increase in existing -noise levels? f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? — g. The creation of objectionable odors? }.. An increase in light or gia:e? ✓ YES `L;,Y3E No 11. Aesthetics. Will the arop051!'_ have significant results in: Page 5 a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? c. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? ✓ 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a significant need fQr new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? c. Comvunications systems? d. Water supply? e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control st- .zt,,res? ✓ g. Solid waste facilities? —_ h. Fire protection? J i. Police protection? J. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? ✓ 1. Maintenance of public facillitzz,- including roads and flood control facilities' m. Other governmental sorvices? 13. Enerry and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? c. An increase in the demand for develo=2nt of new sources of energy? d. An increase or perpetuation of the cons"- ption of non — renewable fors of energy, when feasible renevable sources of energy are available? u El 0 117. Page 6 YES *gYBE y0 e. Substantial depletion of any monrerewable or scarce natural resourcV ✓, 14. Mandatory Findin¢s of Siznificance. a' DQes the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or zestricr. the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment is ene which occurs in a relatively brief, definiti +•e period of time chile long - TC� L+�Y =cts 'il endure well into the future). c. Does the Project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed In connection with the effects of past projects, and probable future projects). w d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Ii. DISCU'SST_o`' OF EA- VIR0'. 4—%TAL EVALUATION (i.e., of aff =ntive answers to the above questions 21 us a discussion of proposed mitigation zeasur�s). I. F`.t)ad concerns c.r:d ncc s io wffe, on Jasper etmett ✓!°all Lv eacpWe i in fAo required draL:Dn a , / .poop( repcNf- ACH necessary mea�5vria5 sha.0 k;6 provided tx9 -$-e, devuopw s. noise y and -:cund a- itenmhm �D rn;tic�at� an'9 p&eM-ial impacts U-- I I Loall- will ta, rIgqureef a� -yn& propo-Sel freewzx ;. TTI. DETE?-IIaATION On the Lasis of this initial evaluation_ I find the proposed project CO= NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIIc DECLAR.yTIO :4 will be prepared. VIII find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on ti:e environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the proiect. o pr ;*o nrm A P ,�r� ,. C; —i R 7 find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the �i envirnment, and an EN TIZ01 �7T DIPACT iREPORT is required. Date /-I aS �oJB� i Page 7 �J 11 11 RESOi -UTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12820 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 12820, hereinafter "Map" submitted 5y riiy'iu' Coas —m nity Covenant Church, 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 a residential subdivision of 4.1 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Jasper Street and Highland Avenue into 16 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on November 14, 1984; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject to al' conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's reports. znd '�",REAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering 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 ;: The Planning Comnission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract No. 12820 ani the Map thereof: G (a) The tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, 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 wi;ajife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the propert; within the proposed subdivision. J -i3 Planning Commission Resolution Tentative Tract Man 12820 Page 3 APPROVES AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO C'UCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman Al iES : 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 cn the 14th day of November, 1984, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: J �S FI L wl N� O V d O d a 0c��lr�L a c Go eqi °x cec'°r m -.�o «V c c,°o `i 4 S'5 rye >OV VCd ..c y r G P�rQw 2 r C_u .r =L_ar d` qN Ed `�c V NC ^ Tq yCy Lr0 _i Nr Jut Gn -° ° qCL V9 INK ^ U ^O� ."tU E L�q..a •�Oyq LoiO`L �.�. GL. u•y,d �° m- mar .,-aL v c °oN Cl. L n g y q ' 9 4ae jG wu COr d OVN `J G °rV''V6w wVD Cam.. =dzz Nip. =d C... q�.° PgEP• MO�d > ryF « LC ^d q ° a L N a" a C V a •°• y Y •` ^ C O E N- O C P A M OLr �P -VNq C4L 0.2 LnL4�°.l '_ J L N ^dq ^L J� 2 t O ° L F- ' y} O S° •. N° O g a C Z-_ •. � q> q'< V r�� r �Jd C «rd ^GeV NNE °�O(CJ�V �Ty- �'CK VK= Zd M l �J O° r D N�� O C M�� C r M S G r C Y' > d V_ 6 C� 0�� �^ • e tl Rc`Pn y <wrpirt 60nYJ �L GL °V Ke UZ m G N L qN� L 7 4y !Gr_d ° Ll�oL p Od0 pr _Ti= dCr `� z oavq co 'L'�c °a G- y _4 OC Vr.�Jy �' y GGr C� arCJ ZN+`y O "•E p L �lr NnLigy d L d L d n � P O.E L � $ .= dam` c. qL a9 cc. Va °_ �♦ q r NGC r d _ qO °a tCU4G b6 lz J h E d C4 M f Y v O L d 11 Ll C9 f•4 CT Z12 O n_ Fc «� •e F ^ T N 4 "- y � A i u =° -•c ✓u u = � E J _✓Q J r L v'J�N r c V ^ W L v E A L y G O r q C = = 09 ✓ d A q P G q b C N 9 V - A C ^ O V u ✓ L A C 9 ✓ A� EO `V✓pJ Y L y✓ � n 9 p f o q orNCO..uuo � r l• Y O V r v •f� w^ O_UN i � a C ro'•OCZ 4i V L p ` N ✓ D J rN• �.^ d qm Y N N j t � c O NUUC„ •y l% C�q W VAN_ LK1 ✓SO V o a m � <. 5 j � ••• r p Ty yi q O V 4 vyi a•°-r 6 ✓ r P V >. . � C ✓ C « p9 O O^ AL L9 M L N a i r E c • N � L ` A E C L O V = O V O J C d i N = d. L rD _ ! V A p �✓ N - U 7 . .-z� 9 • r OD V 9 L v^ y Q.'• N r - V C 2 V U� H • C O V D V 9 C J y L� i W c C Lq— Ns c— E A 0 q a+ -aiddv L p u- ' Cn0 -qOd ✓ d . L P V V A d .- V T o g V r L - d d N = c "d 'E L F d P L g N V � ✓ e A V O Y NC qL L qPm J _ O C O A d J L C ^^ E d r w % Y 8 c N C c — n o'I Li q �O C 9 a v V L V O > a .= O. d P O C 6 E v Z O vr� G °J! q V d 6. a i _pr r O r � -WT O O z z V V L ° C .LOL N A `C; 1 c b 9 � _ - 9 C q q dN9 4 >�Z L p = i .2 c E � r C y L J O o dr C OA O� i Q V C •' O M V L - i q N r9 N P✓ nr — 9 >•OWN CDE C9 C'°a C'lrt '•V VlC o n. -• n V q 96 •Y 9Y.9 9 > ^ F y� C L •rw OLL N i d0 �r� C r C C✓ g q O V" �✓ i r H Y � V✓ G N V _ C ij N d C� LJi Q N° O r0•i _N Ly. V - Au a 09 C V 'v C ✓^ O A °n y m e�uGr G _ O g G e V F L p qG LY99�^ 90'> 9 P M C G L V PgV y V C W 9 L v= °a'"ncc =LnLq q Cq V9 °ro 6b � qcY a'yOC qo g'eri�.r ✓g�6 C N q O ✓ O L -� q- N O L• C j` K Y N✓ 'O n V q� P. Y N_ V Y V C O N D r r L F L N C pOp« S^ LC ✓SF d F - N Q J g N u b P9 H d w C • W Q y q y E• ✓ V L� G N a 6 � V q � r _ c v V 9 F V G V 9 q L •�qC _O .N+PN N oN c c c c t °�O Nor O � V r V d 4 a V N ••aY.Ji. V N c q �Gb V99 D 4 D y c C C a g q NC_G LCL NN °P A O L G C Ly 0 Cr ]Y ° O- V O � O Y < P N r C9 GG u y D N Z N ✓J c^ .V q Eud G. p 9qE a�n� nMOC may..° q C ny r r r �P- _ 6- KrNO <s�m ci ,p• V _ ^ w d G A �YN b v c G O N V c C < Qq� V N V > V Y P O p r V L F G r NUdi✓ V ^ L <— d Nu�•� 6 d v e o e A °u N O O C a N rt,Lo 9r6 Ar >• C F � ou•^ u C q u.4o ` o,ro d�n�Ce ` L C ✓ ^ q 6 q 6 i L C = ^ V nC •, o a N C V C q 48 «= d N N�D�• O A M O l C � O N C V L ••' C N V C � 9 O E N NE> •q`O q L O L YO p l ^ !1 G= q u 4 29 . n cu q_ — d E < E v a p N a N� O Z Y V Q i d `mob -L L c � •a. _ d V V 67 NpL P'a U M • C C r L z r E '� ✓PLG CC C qV« Oyq CCL V C t n O -q- °o l Y V = d O y r✓ a +°i � �. V T Y r� G °e- Nr6 ' u q 9 � -J .d'J O � y. L r�•J OL Y r o,` -n'o 04 �` c vq Ngce L bQ•a r^ .�YOL°i ✓V V. q C � A9 C. q VC_ >_ v �G 70 G Od C A C1N r iq.°__ A y Grp �U�CA p vrGNN .� lLr4 NI P A �Va b066 C � d ✓� Gd NOV L 9 9 d C y. 9 .r°. ✓ G _ V� V 4 q O -J � ✓� r } q✓ b° � ^G�q =_= y Q L t r uVi A � S •". � C r r00 r� q V OP.^L 1r0.' L G r uC.•`r9 q VrE na T I N ✓��r ` ^r Od NQ =L P }.c yLC ^O7 Cq r rN ` «GV `.Li�v N� L LrayC ✓ r �GOd N ^r 9 C �OdVN '-OC „rN V V P Cf�j� A L M N5 -7Z: O rl G_PO.` N.°.. qr O OTr ` � .0 V � �`ne fi O 4M C O Pr •LC `° • bya� d G LV QG�A = q•r VdrT TAL Cd66�� 9bG0 pCCV _ G S ✓V 4 V GEC VTdyO �L dA� .Vi. q0 �GCO Tq 'JTR Nr G LpV 6P0 O UP . G` L d VN ^N r .w u Pn _ C20 LOS pp ^�O n.•J ° VG TN nrr G. d C �.p N °.L.•�.�.•� ?Lr NL qY L ✓CY 9 r ✓ NA AG G `✓n r 7G V C ^AO` LWNNW r a�0. «�.✓ NOO ^y �_ CV�sq ..G Odp� d0 Cd V _ y LCy V ✓ RN IV.V4 QA�Op RV 1`OAGw �Np V.L+ N N C ✓✓L 9°1nC Sqw °} P� r) • iI I I I Nl � rI �� W = c oa C✓ n c qPa c�E ALA aoAO Gp oc O AL �� q >q h✓ r_ ✓ NI �� 6 VnLL 6 �' LN V.L•L NG V Vt •-. (1 qG E r N " pr C N �y � C. L n O N r✓ q Q✓ . W d 0 4� C y L y q'n y 4 N N A L 2 O� N Ld6.Y NA A Vq ^C `O OWp ���9LU Lr q✓ A� Ar N n P r✓ O C .4j. `✓ A.Vr L ^V � PJ .L..• O VY.OG M✓ MNr 'O .L.TN L C qG ^I q v `M�na _A G oc 4 n � w4t. = G• L ouo pr` nL qQ T I V�`LO' gy-.Vn Nix N Q p Q, � .L..� •✓i. N.L..t ✓cep p V 4 d '✓ n C O L V G nr A Y G' O .)PC N uV Sa CCU .a �_ ALT �• OO�C lid dw C� ^ q p' �»C b�C° L =�C.q� G.✓i.UT L>A r�q �O M r0 I r L y V} L q v y r n A O '° S ✓ .. > N N L A q q` _ •O L' ~ mo t n r N ' V V L 1 r= C V g T O. U` N ^> q V L r�� d W ✓ O l O n = 4 C° .Ln P A N ^ � '� i P c � d r �„ G q A� V O •Vn r q Y � T d`° L V •J O' L ✓ V L 4 v ^ �C� ✓�N LN �d CVy�� P P 4 a y 5i �ri4 c 'S w I A 4 E pVp A` M U l .rear ^_ L O r�..d� r✓�� r 4 ✓L L �A •.O ^ �' V V J ✓d A O V Y= d b d C N 4 + O > 6E N h. pN 61J _ QV .r «� O L � L¢ A ( pA M d t 0� l .• L L E ..• _ V l � L. V NO pt N�MbM 6 Nr S NO MZ NI ^' �� N� •I N� O� „I .OI � 6. j� � 11 cn Y V V A 7 •J = r� f`!( CV C> AN` Va�Y ftN 0C f.. Vry Y G. W -C C� c�`r L -L• �� V ApC r aC Q d i n r .• N 'r '- a ^.' A C P O w F V O. r K•=i •OO E r�� ncddC a Q� °� p an tO.�4 AC _ Vq•na6 OW Fy `A rT W6 uA NCNP Tw U SVur � ^'y real O'yC L T �� iC ` l 9V CC d` l FY.- +•C -L•Vr �L� ✓6 n ti .Vi. rL �J VP 6�Cw N6 O C O YC'aA a—°✓yc °Y C7 d L= �r QL �� V'� �� n,Ds uA _ 8 Vi Of N` V Q ^r A nVQ M c� PC 9S r� MVO .a0 Vj rCOC N c. w >��6 V =w C� V� N tlC`Y N J ��y� OOr C••d .°nom W q N . �P/�^ yV1V C.- `? -°' pG � q r� r V Ty � y •e P a. W C T L L P✓ �� ° m N 1 i V ivO A •^ c tp —i LcT�vu i'c ndv u a o _ ° end c i�qt N.n N o �uW wpuasN w_.na „°•o w .i. suc u..°.i rte ° °o °c ^- pLr d i d V WL'V �6 aJ�wS <�• m= yV V S C CL9 w. a.VN R V O` CTS q e L O r d Q S _ U � J✓ 6 q Vw � y r0 lrn C r0_ y 'I Oc0 W•� C •CVa ,n D_� � � � iEV _CC Zp _w SO Gly wM 00 as P'> y a• L.V.r�V_ 7r FrN V O O E 7z VO Lr_ r l A..• �R� N ` O i N vg CI r r i N A V N N V C A 0 f T W Q V b V I- C Y 6 P� uL LV N20 Oy nV V^ rV P .•G � `G Pr` FO aViV v.0 .. wTr NT �_ O �•T•COl SACS .^EW Nay � NL ,a N' ML IO r Y�� Q .�.jq V MOq�O lr OCC L_C V� Y °rp O 1. y'C ^�V3T ` Vl°I PNQ ryi� d -T M y D �CQ y0 PY P ^Ci O i irq <4 p O V Y W V. W Q S 6 V r V n'^ A c O v �� I I •' O,- q° •• 6 d YiWNw v b a 0 a ✓ c n _ `o «L L c 4 ��'•' ±Z ` ar boo v co c «N � race r« ` GN w G.O l aNO= l C =C y Y q�� LCN..• «V9 r p ='JG Pv d L.T•?_ ynLCa c c r v a. ✓ 'Y' uoNC va•r'v L ( e aaaiav aL ` N C PO PO. >•�� ✓grV rP0 ✓GO `a _ C L O V u� qG�.^ NOT `m O l N COD` U N l N .• •au � G O N � a' ✓ U F O 0= d C � y= T C � r �� •n N V `^ O�..0 l• C I G 9 r L 9 •_VrP �' � G q � l " p �� i '^ I N Q c V > >>• O 6'. '^ r P •Ln E d .o V L `o I u¢ C V `v wro T L f L f N W O N W G N • � l _ r� � O _ 9CP Q G =VWO Vq� b � T r _ 7 J P q ✓_ G � G u N 6 �_ �1 NLNP� ✓ 6 p��( Ny qE p4' p Q% P ^J L,vD \C �_ rOw.r 'ILLO Gd `j l NJI (j•• L✓ O ` P p q T L4 y [- Y>. ' L a O N r N 'r •NJ � N� ^ L v 9 N 0 C M G O` _ 6 O C � �Ny00' —L� � � T•an NE NO P' G�a0 C>C 6 ��� OS �•C•p�__ 7 � NC C q V M O_yOq s0 C• (- y q nP e•1 O rrp O d9L'n0. �r O G u GN = C l =•a � P= j '` —C� q0.• 6qe VljUC n 0 �� n• 0 N V �✓L � G J r N L •n N q P V N O N V N _ 1� �'f p � en a O �' 9 j y P O C C _ L t O• v== .V.. O. P C O C D L` 9 qL,• •C � •O o _ ? « s N v_•i�"9y' O N ` L.i Iq _L _O cv ar nOd� VyVVO.•V.• PC C. '.b 9 N1 c —W._ fd or pW ap � a� D i G '�5'_ ✓an Wa >r tJr „V nN 6VO> y ` � C O OCq OP P •O• y `C 7 y V N— 'I CNON>•q,P O G r E r L `Jn O _N~Or_ O � V ✓ L. O a d .r _ y r 9 6 ` L Qbd C O I N •� O C,9. O V `� C1 c r �, N a • n 'Ot' ' Nib �i V N a ` d p a I O V � q g_ G O YO_'s N 99 Y �Otl C G O 8Y i• d I �� My ` VNNLO r9 d.. 9•' �fi .r d_ N 'O 6 O� WN a gVdOi >00 O T _� O P N i r6 p•_ r_O + ,i fi O N_�= 'P C'O v i O s C 0 a C r O a• V= O r � 2 L o g C 9 r 9? ¢ �� V cCya N _ ✓ � v = W y V i c✓ O "N VC 69 E 6r0•C.L6 6V•L+ pq J 1L O 69NNN m� _• i q « PL9 _ `o «L L c 4 ��'•' ±Z ` ar boo v co c «N L G.O l l C =C y Y q�� LCN..• «V9 r p ='JG Pv L.T•?_ ynLCa c ��YJS r v a. 4,vQ Iv' g 'Y' uoNC va•r'v v e aaaiav aL ` N C PO PO. >•�� ✓grV rP0 ✓GO `a C O V u� qG�.^ NOT `m g6 `�OOa COD` OC .• O 9 G O 4. 7 ✓ U F O 0= d C � y= T C O r �� •n N V `^ r a C Q V G 9 r L 9 •_VrP �' � ✓ T Q q � l � � p �� i L O•rr A V •� uOL m V V > >>• r2CV O L N C L. a � P E d .o L = c L `o I Le V `v wro �c O _ 9CP Q G =VWO Vq� OZ NLNP� ✓V ClM� G N� Zt iV EVa. Nr:.✓V _✓ ' C � �Ny00' —L� � T•an NE NO M �Oyy G�a0 C>C 6 ��� OS �•C•p�__ 7 a NC C q V M O_yOq s0 C• (- y q nP e•1 O rrp O d9L'n0. �r O G u GN = C l =•a � P= j '` —C� q0.• 6qe VljUC n 0 �� n• 0 N V �✓L � G J r N L •n N q P V N O N V N _ 1� �'f p � en a O �' 9 j y P O C C _ L t O• L N� GOO .V.. O. P C O C D L` 9 qL,• •C � •O Q 4 C V C N O O O N ` N_ .q _O O nOd� VyVVO.•V.• PC C. n0� _•Vn 6. 9 r =� G V •n •�.��y� V 6 n_ V� O V L � a� D i G r r= p C�� O G P tJr „V nN 6VO> y ` � C O OCq OP P •O• y `C 7 y V N— S 9 9 C CNON>•q,P O G r E r L `Jn O _N~Or_ O � V ✓ L. O a d .r _ y r V � q g_ G O ^ f N C G -20 ° ,i W J `] I Ll \1 0 0 0 G D G O E C V ✓ ® L C G U �• y Wi`o F l• b NY O O O ` ✓ Y V ✓ r w > � E G G ` -c C N Y N • O �• i.- � 9 4 u CP � Sr _S O G ✓ C C .) L C ✓�O �C dr « d O V P V r V q d T ND✓ 4 C �.Li�L✓ V q 9f: N4p =✓ C V q O r N 4 ° 4 L - G� V C P N L F o Cy N $ ap4 _Oq G FO L° �' a N C L r •C C 11 a L C• L ` T Gn• ) � W Iy r 00. 1J ✓ T• ✓ O.✓ � T ` L V p C � ` W •V.• b � E q O j '✓ G R — O' a O J• W G ' V l •j P� ° i S c ✓y ✓ d Q. _ Z..✓i '• - w _ Vp r-r•r � 6oN �` p = v� - V�` P N • C N d N N C� C O ✓ - L � r q 0 L T L � � ✓ PSD d rV oO 4 Y - c I -u... E:; c. c nos- ° F ✓r L C p` N O _ O O q� ` ✓ b CC ° CL Ed V�•.•O d9 DL � �� q C L Y V L b V q • •cyrG ..•> O q _u.��.- T x ✓o �• C V r '• O� q O q q ✓ u _ C W p Gr ipW A� O q4 VN V q 6 r < V p� W✓ N L V O L � Z C � L V 26 Up S �-y L '• N !� ` G 0 0 G D G O E C V ✓ ® L C G U �• y Wi`o r 9 �•. p NY O O O ` •LU V ✓ r w v � E G G ` -c C N y L �• r 4 u '• < O .) L r ✓�O �C dr d V P V r V q d C 9f: N4p =✓ C V q O r N 4 ° 4 G� V C P N L F o Cy N $ _Oq T•s FO L° C L r •C C 11 D d i o t uC Q I Gn• ) � W Iy r 00. V u. pN q N L Ly � ` G N •V.• R + O' N J• NI i✓ r 9 �•. p NY O O O ` •LU V ✓ r w v � E G G ` y L �• n '• G N .) L r ✓�O �C dr d V P V r V q d C 9f: N4p =✓ C V q O r N 4 ° 4 G� V C P N L F o Cy r V p _Oq T•s FO L° C L r C 4 O ✓ D d i o t C ? 'o V W r 00. ✓ ✓ y ✓ pN q N L Ly � ` G N •V.• �. G • O' G O d O J Y C O c ✓y ✓ d L 4 r-r•r 6oN .�w �L S C Cd d NY L r. •LU ` •L.• r M�� r w � E G G O L C L r C 4 O ✓ C ? 'o V r V � 4 Y I -u... E:; c. c nos- ° F ✓r � �� q C L V �_qq� q • •cyrG ..•> c - _u.��.- T x ✓o t p tl C � L '• N !� ` G O_ P ° C ° `r i• L V q a � r O _ 7 J N � 4 4 q 4 N .•• G 4 C b V O C n� •yi P V � _ 4 r V> Q V F _ 4 «V V Y C N6W q. Q° N O c p r a ri . c a C = s zr 0 0 n E. v 0o I o d a r 1[ {I or L� d I I Cp C V y � rLc 9 •ri � O �+ C � \ t V 4 � •+ 21c z— 'OCCi rv� � 1 a v 06q PO L _ d O dr C C I•l� 9 L C= L1 I I YO dr c - cL � aoi a i \ 71 v 0 0 n E. 21c 06q L 9 y L1 �C I YO dr C, i 8 _ d y -+d � •n [p C O M A M 4 t •rn S E i Obi 6 w oa V r✓ C� M� L�� ` 7 f 2,- MC. 4 � V O M L q L r9,• e_ I a_ .c. c u dd �... .ed y oo ✓f L 4 � > V C O •� V f ^ d �> nL" L L N r V V 6r 6 O� ¢� �O CO pd g�N GCaJ JI O nd d Q ° S- z.2 • 6 0 0 n E. El r 1 U 11 yy.;..' CITY OF RANCHO CUC_ATN1ONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: November 14, 1984 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Go-nez, City Planner BY: John Meyer, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 34 -35 - AACTION COMPANY /DIXIE PRODUCTS - The establishment of a 000 square foot drywall contractor and retail supplier iffice within u 5 -acre industrial complex located on the east side of Archibald, north of 6th Street in the Industrial Specific Plan District (Subarea 4) - APN 209 - 211 -14. 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of a non - construction Conditional Use Permit B. Pose_ Establishment of a drywall contractor and retail supplier office C. Location: East side of Archibald, north of 6th Street V. Parcel Size: 20,000 square feet E. Existing Zonino: Subarea 4, Industrial Specific Flan F. Existing Lard Use: Industrial Park G. Surrounding Land Use and Zonina: ofi rt — industria Park, Sub`area 4, Industrial Specific Plan South - Industrial Park, Subarea 4, Industrial Specific Plan East - vacant, Subarea 4, Industrial S$_:ific Plan West - Single Family Residential, Low H. General Flan '?esigrat2ons: roje�e Ge n`r al Industrial North - GL .-al Industrial South - General Industrial East - General in,:.;strial West - Low Residencial tjEM K PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONDiTICNAL USE PERMIT 84- 35 /AACTION COMPANY November 14, 1984 Page 2 El I. Site CharacLrristics: The subject location is a 20,000 square foot unit within cne Rancho Industrial Park. This unit is located in the middle of the complex.. H. ANALYSIS: A. Geoeral: Under the Industrial Specific Plan, Aaction Drywall Contractors is designated as a building contractor's office and yard- and Dixie Products is classified as building supplies and sales. Their location in Subarea 4 is conditionally permitted. The major concern involved with thi; activity is the compatibility cf :and uses. The applicant is requesting to operate a building supply service in conjunctic-% with a drywall contractor's office. The products involved would be too"is a;,a supplies corn ,2cted with the installation of drywall. The applicant indicated that the deliveries of the products and the drywall are made to the job site. However, there may be incidential storage of drywall and supplies in the warehouse portion of the unit. Any -stail sale J product that may occur at the unit would be to other contractors. Th3re will be only folar employees at the office; the Industrial Specific Plan would require four parking spaces for the proposed use. Typically this woulC not conflict with other uses in the cor,.plex. A. Environmental Assessment: I.: accordance with California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15301 Class 1(A), this project is exempt from environwntai review. III. FACTS FOR F: ;iNGS• The proposed activity is consistent with the ob3ecctives oto the 1ndustriai Specific Plan and Generai Plan of the City of Rancho Cuc.monga. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a PLSlic hearing item in The Daily Reoort newspaper, the site has been posted, and notices were sent to property owners within 300 fe:t of the project site. To date, no correspondence has been recei=ed either for or against this project. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONDITIONAL USE PEWIT 84- 35! ?:CTION COMPANY November 14, 1984 Page 3 V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 84 -35 through adoption of the attached Resolution. Respectfully.s tted, Rack a ez1 �ity fanner f C:JM:jr ttachments: 1H Letter from Applicant Letter From Rancho Industrial Association Exhibit °A° - Location Map Exhibit `8° - Floor Plan Resolution of Approval k "- 3 CTION (714).987-6N72 0-M A1V jT Dryualt Contractors CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P. 0. BOX 807 RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CA. 91730 GENTLEMEN, Iwo ? 'a jVo. 2993E 1 OCTOBER 22. 1984 ATTACHED IS OUR APPLICATION FOR A. GOND1iIONAL USE PERMIT. AT THIS TINE WE WOULD LIKE TO EXPLAIN WHY WE WANT THE PERMIT AT THIS LOCATION, WHICH IS THE RANCHO INDUSTRIAL PARK. 9227 ARCHIBALD AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA. AT THE TIME AACTICN COMPANY, WHICH IS A 7RYWALL SUBCONTRACTOR WAS FORMED, WE RAN THE SMALL BUSINESS OUT OF OUR RESIDENCE IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA. WHEN WE ES-iA.BLISHED THIS COMPANY WE APPLIED FOR A CITY LICENSE AND RECEIVE'.: IT. NO PROBLEM. BY JANCIIARY OF 1984. +E COMPANY WAS EXPANDING AND WE NEEDED MORE STORAGE AND OFFICE SPACE. THE FIRST OF FEBRUARY WE MOVED OUR LOCATION TO WHERE WE ARF NOW. WITH THE INTENTION OF WHEN THE LICENSE HAD TO BE RENEWED. WE WOULIJ CHANGE THE ADDRESS, NEVER CONCEIVING THAT THERE WOULD BE A PROBLEM OF OUR Li-ENSE BEING TRANSFERRED TO THIS LOCATION. ALSO WHEN WE APPLIED TO THE COMPANY RENTING THE OFFI„ES IN THIS LOCATION NOTHING WAS SAID THAT WE COULD NOT RUN A DRYWAL_ BUSINESS FROM HERE. IN AUGUST ::£ DECIDED TO OPEN A COMPANY CALLEL, DIXIE PRCCUCTS COMPANY. iT IS T;•) SE A SMALL MATERIAL SUPPLY F;RM DEALING MOSTLY WITH SMALL CONTRACTORS. WE WOULD USE PART OF OUR WAREHOUSE FOR STORAGE Or- IMATERIALS AND SUPPLIES. THE MAJOR PART OF THE BUSINESS WOULD c� DIXIE PRODUCTS BUYING FROM WHOLESALE SUPPLIERS AND RESELLING TO SMALL CONTRACTORS. 95% OF THE MATERIALS WOULD BE: DELIVERED BY US DIREC'LY TO THE CONTRAC70R; FROM THE MATERIAL SUPr'LNERS. THE WARE- HOUSE WCULD BE USED BY DIXIE Pr,-.DUCTS MAINLY TO STORE SOME SMALL TOOLS, METt.L AND SUPPLIES OF THIS TYPE, NOTHING CCMBUSTIBLE, EXPLOSIVE OR DANCE 'dOUS EITHER TO PEOPLE OR THE ENViRO,:MENT. VERY LITTLE OF DIXIE PRODUCTS COMPANY'S BUSINESS WOULD BE WALK IN TRADE AND VERY FEW MATERIALS WOULD BE OELIVEP.EP BY TRUCKS OTHER THAN OUR OWN, WHICH IS A ONE TON FLATBED. AT THE -IME WE FORMED D1:<fE PRODUCTS COMPANY AND APPLIED FOR A SUSINF,S LICENSE WE WERE INFORMED THAT WE WOULD *AVE TO A °PLY FOR A CONDITI7NAL USE PERMIT FOR BOTH COMPANIES, AS NEITHER COULD CPERATE AT TH I', L'".JCAT I ON WITHOUT A PERM-T. 7 P i3¢r 1224 ! 922 7: rrhifxrld Are. O Itarreho Curnmurtg2 (:4 9 17:ip AACTION COMPANY Drywall Cuptractor, (7.1-1)9N7-6872 Lic 1Vo. 2 993 +it PAGE 2 WE HAVE ESTABLISHED OUP DRYWALL EUSINESS HERE IN THIS CITY AT THIS LOCATION, WE HAVE BEEN HEnE FOR NIN.'MONTHS, WE EMPLOY APPROX;MATELY T:JENTY PEOPLE FULL TIME (THESE PEOPLE WORK ON THE VARIOUS JOSSITES AND RARELY COME INTO THE OFFICE AND NEVER ALL AT THE SAME TIME). OUR OFFICE IS KNOWN NOW AT THIS LOCATION AND WE WOULD LIKE TO ESTABLISH DIX1= PRODUCTS COMPANY AND CONTINUE WITH BO ?H BUSINESS AT THIS LOCA "ION. ALSO IN THE SAME !NDUSPRIA.L PARK IN THE BUILDING JUST WEST OF US IS AN ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR ;HO ALSO HAS A RETAIL BUSINESS, BECAUSE OF THIS WE -ASSUMED THAT THE OFFICES AND WAREHOUSES WERE ZONED FOR +HESE TYPES OF BUSINESSES. THE OPERATING HOURS FOR AACTION COMPANY AND DIXIE PRODUCTS COMPANY ARE S:UO A.M. TO 5 :00 P.M., MONDAY THRU FRIDAY. WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE WORKING IN THE OFFICE FULL TIME AND THE BALANCE OF PEOPLE ARE IN THE FIELD. !T WOULD BE APPRECIATED BY US IF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT COULD BE GRANTED BY YOU TO BOTH FIRMS SO THAT OUR BUSINESSES COULD CONTINUE OPERATING I% THIS CITY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS AND COOPERATION IN THIS MATTER. SINCERELY, AACTION COMPANY i, DIXIE PRODUCTS COMPANY B,UCF- 'vt I LCOX GENERAL PARTNER B'cJ: G ISO. (dux IN.'d O 9y4i arr•)tiixtfd Act•. O kancLa /'uc•amn+>wi, ('A 91 i:i(I STEVEN MARKS PROPERTIES REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION / MANAGE-MEW / DEVELO"MENT October 23, 1984 Plan -. ;ng Department City of Rancho Cucamonga c/o Aaction 9227 Archibald Ave. Raxlcho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 RE: Aaction 9227 Archibald Ave. R.C. To whom it may concern: I am writing this letter in support of the conditional use permit applicati -)n required of Aaction. Aaction has been a tenant in our industrial park since February 1984. They are in the drywall business and conduct their business in an orderly , neat and profes- sional +Wanner. All of thier activities are contained within the building they lease from me. They -re evidently good neighbc.zs. I have never received a complaint about the nature or conduct of their business. In short, I approve of this business and would be personally disappointed if they were to 1-e denied the use permit required of them. Sincerely, LL'- 9- � Rancho Industrial Associates Mark Sarrow General Partner MS:br 9024 WEST OLYMPIC 8CKA EVARD. SUITE 210. BEvERLy HILL$ CALIFORNIA 90211, T9MIHONE (213) 274 -5870 E 11 0 i I _I •i J 111111 �1 1 • i� 1 i i I _ i 1 I� — 9221 -3. ^M ..f 9223, -3,000 >.f. WICHO lNt:VSTRZ:, ?ARr RETAZ:- O°9:= - RIAL �i I i �n1 1 W O Ol OI O O O yi v O W O N' \1 N rn •• N e'1 C fV l N 1 � 1 N � C Y ry .Ni = Z. Z � !1 C• 1 C I C C �i I i s ` 9275 V 92?; :S5 9:27 ?550 s.f.l 9:?? 15tH ^.f :55-� S.f 929 ?A ✓5�yy V NORTH CITY Or lTevl: COP a4 -35, RA."NCHO C.'C,ANNIONGA TITLE: _ Lcx- .�ra�ti; MA-P PLANNING DINTS N E\HIMT: _�i_ SCALE: ACT —It S—sA W O Ol W C( W+ O W C v O W O s ` 9275 V 92?; :S5 9:27 ?550 s.f.l 9:?? 15tH ^.f :55-� S.f 929 ?A ✓5�yy V NORTH CITY Or lTevl: COP a4 -35, RA."NCHO C.'C,ANNIONGA TITLE: _ Lcx- .�ra�ti; MA-P PLANNING DINTS N E\HIMT: _�i_ SCALE: ACT —It S—sA N 9 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CC`1DITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84 -35 FOP. AACTION COMPANY /DIXIE PRODUCTS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF P, "C'r:IBALD, NORTH OF 5TH STREET IN THE GENERAL IND'vSTRIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of Octo!;er, 1984, a complete application was filed by Bruce Wilcox for review of the above - described project; and WHEPEAS, on the 14th day of November, 1984, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above - described project. hOW, THEREFORE, xhe Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following findings car: be met: I. 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 Fermit No. .84 -35 is hereby approved. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14th DAY CF NOVEMBER, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY. _ Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary u.- Resolution No. CUP 84 -35 Page 2 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 Canmission of the City of Rancho Cucarionga, at a regular, meetir3 of the Planning Commission, held on the 14th day of November, 1984, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: NOES ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: 0 0 11 E CYTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: November 14, 1984 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84 -33 - `!ALLEY IMPROVEMENT ROGRAM IN iF C. - A request to operate a driver i rovement School in an existing industrial park buiidinq with a lease space of approximately 1100 square feet on 7.8 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3), located at 9587 Arrow Highwa, APN 209 - 021 -35 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Apr--oval of a Conditional Use Permit B. Purpose: To opera *o a driver improvement program C. Location: 9587 Arrow highway D. Parcel Size: 7.8 acres E. Ex ting Zoning: General Industrial (Subarea 3) F. Existing Land Use: ilA ti- Tenant Industrial Park. G- Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning: North-- Single Family Residential, Vacant; Lcw Residential District, Office Professional. South - Industrial; General Industrial District - Subarea 3 East - Restaurant, Vacant, Single Family Residential; General Commercial District, Low Residential District, Medium Residential District. West - Industrial; General Industrial District - Subarea 3 H. General Plan Designatiuos: Project Site - General Ind stria, North - Low Residential 2-4 du /ac, Office Professional South - General Industrial East - General Commercial, Low Residential 2 -4 du /ac, Medium Residential 4 -14 au /ac. J ITEM. L JI. I. Site Characteristics: The proposed use has occupied 1100 square feet of an interior unit in an existing industrial building within.an industrial park. J. Applicable Regulations: fne General Industrial District allows Personal service such as a driving school. ANALYSIS: General: The applicant is proposing to operate a driver improvement program for those individuals who have received violations for driving under the influence of alcohol. The major issuQ, is the compatibility of the proposed school with the adjacent uses. Typical concerns are: traffic, parking, and hours of operation. The applicant has proposed to offer the classes from 5:30 p.m. to '10:03 p.m., Manday through Thu ^:,,iay. The 'aximum number of students occupying this schoo' at any orte time s fifteen. Due to the cropesed hours of classes and the proposed number of students, there is no conflict or impact on the parking requirements. III. FACTS FOR FINDING: This project is consistent with the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the General Plan. The proposed use will not be detrimental to public health or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. IV. CORRESPOPOENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The �Reoort 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. IV. RECOMMENDATION: It is recd - mended that the Planning Commission approve Coniltional Use Pe .nit 34 -33, by adopting the attached resolution. r RG:NF:cv Attachments: Letter from applicant Fxhibit. "A" - Location Map Exhibit "3" - Site Plan Resolution of Approval with Conditions IA C I O--tuber 5, 1984 C Voliey Improvement Programs, Inc. 210 West "B" Street a Ontario, C31ifornia 91762 a (714) 9R3 -3&65 •i587 Arrow I igirway. Suite E. • Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 • (714) 967 -4036 Mr. John Meyer City of Rancho Cucamonga P. O. Box 793 Rancho Cucamonga., California 91730 Dear 12r. Jdeyer: 'Valley Improvement Program is a program designed to aid those individuals who have received a violation for driving under the influence of alcohol. 7hc progMun ru:s for three months to a year and while in the program this individuzl is absolutely restricted fro, drinking alcohol vmich is verified by breathalizer at the time of e.a,h meeting. Programs are held Ibnday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday evenings fran 5:30 to approximately 10:00 P.M. the Program rotates; daring the first week as an average there is never more than fifteen persons in the building at one time. the second week there is never more than five Persons in the building including employees at any one time. 11:ere has been an ongoin7 program for five years i, Csltario and there have been i" scmplasn�s or problems in that period of time. I will be -happy to answer any furtaer questions. Revy L. or. Director RUw /sg cc: file 5�� u I .. s; i f-- . ......... , . _t IMF Et d I Poll, 11111111117 �1 I— 1 1 1 - _�. — 1 .,1'. •. Ill /- tn1!:t1� i- 1 JItIJ ili!!li� f- = �t 1F- L --S LU L Z V v �L w C C L U� U T r5 O W, G RESOLUTION NO. A kESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMO1+GA PLANNING COMMISSION :APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84 -33 FOR VALLEY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAV LOCATED AT 9587 ARROW HIGHWAY IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the Iitn day of October, 1984, a complete application was filed by Valley Improvement Program, Inc., for review of the aL-ove- described project- and WHEREAS, on the 14th day of November, 1984, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a puhli„ hearing to consider the above - described Project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plar., the objectives of the Industrial Area Specific Plan 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 Industrial Area Specific Plan. SECTION 2: That Condit;enal Use Permit Na. 84 -33 is hereby approved.' APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DA7 OF NOVEMBER, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman. ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary o t; Planning Commission Resolution CUP :• ,- Rick Gomez, Deputy Rancho ., hereb-� certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and .. .: .. Cucamonga, .. Planning 1 on the 14th day of November, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit: I �• J � AYES: COMM ISS 10 ER S: ll.! iv t NOES: 4 f' D 1 • - ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: • 1 T; l [' J CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: November 14, 1984 TO: Planning Comission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8628 - BARMAKIAN - The division of 11.05 acres of land into 4 parcels in the General Industrial category (Subarea 1) located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue, between Arrow Route and 9th Street - APN 207 -262- 44. 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval B. Purpose: To divide 11.05 General industrial (Subarea C. Locaticn: West side of V Ninth Street. Emm of Parcel Map acres of land into 4 parcels in the 1) category. ineyard Avenue beLw-l?n Arrow Route and D. Parcel Size: Parcel 1 - .73 acres Parcel 2 - 5.21 acres Parcel 3 - 3.54 acres Parcel 4 - 1.51 acres li.N Total Acres E. Existing Zoning: General Industrial (Subarea 1). F. £xistina Land Use: Existing lemon grove G. Surrounding Land Use: North - Existing condominiums South - Existing industrial East - Existing industrial West - Cucan.onga Creek and existing industrial ITEM M PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 8828 November 14, 1984 Page 2 H. General Plan and Devel nar-Lr - mealum Resiaentiai t4 -gi4 au /ac; South - General Industrial (Subarea 1) East - General Industrial /Rail Served (Subarea 2) West - General Industrial (Subarea 1) Site Characteristics: Project site slopes at approximately a 26% grade in a southwesterly direction. The site consists of any existing lemon grove with a eucalyptus windrow along the south side of Arrow Route. II. ANALYSIS: Parcel Map 8828 has been submitted by Andrew Barmakian to divide 11.05 acres of land into 4 parcels in the General Industrial Area (Subarea 1). This is to be the site for the development of project C.U.P. 84 -27, approved by Planning Commission on September 26, 1984. Parcel 1 is the site for the development of e gas station; parcel 2 is the site for the development of a fire (5) multi - tenant industrial building; parcel 3 wil'1' contain a mini - warehouse facility; and parcel 4 is to remain, vacant. A copy of the approved site plan is at:ta:hed. Th_ natural contour of the laiod allows the entire site to drain into the Cucamonga Creek Channel at the southwest corner of the ::Ate. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Also attaches for your review ,and consideration is Part I of the Initial .3tudy as completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part LI of the Initial St:.idy, 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. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached reso utiois conditionally approving Tentative Parcel Map 8828 and authorizing the issuance of a Negative Occlaration. Res I pertfully sub fitted, i LBH: K: ko Attachnents: Map - Tentative Resolution City Engineers Initial Study & Vicinity Report El C fSni� � kp r9 �_ C}�C� .0l30 r+e3:� .fly '. =i• �.... G 1 � = u F.. � � -: ;-:;; Iii• !t �•�... ..., 11, V z, i t c lm�I e 7 ( n >a \j� � 4d yOlf! 11 Cil�� c'wiC 'i1s� _—ts __vnv li ma m s) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONC;A tit Sao ENGINEERING DIVISION XT Z VICINITY MAP Fyn ' 1 page X aigl e°< c�,5 nY5 8�Y 1^ :9r �.o 7 ( n >a \j� � 4d yOlf! 11 Cil�� c'wiC 'i1s� _—ts __vnv li ma m s) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONC;A tit Sao ENGINEERING DIVISION XT Z VICINITY MAP Fyn ' 1 page f��! | '$7 ƒ �§ } mow,! �\ � [ � � � � i �} $ ) }| § \ § |t �§ e � � I | 2 q ! < m IT� \ � � \ !� || susoft*mxw, now __M -&RMWV s_• $ �f ] � if � ■ |\! k ■ t�f � 2 § 0 E E C � 1 4 1 tea. ✓ + ` J !- } O 1 1 tr 1 11 1 , subarea 2 10 ^, 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 t' C � 4 _. tea. ✓ ` J !- } O 1 _. tea. ✓ !- } O 1 , subarea 2 10 1 tl 1 1 CITY OF RA-*Z_ 0 CUCA-MONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PRO. BCT IhFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Fssessment Review Fee: $87.00 For all 'projects requiring environmental review, phis form must be completed and submitted to the Development F.FView Committee through the department where the I.- .oject application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II Of th•t 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 deterLi.nations: 1) The project will have no signi- ficant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant r.-,..romaental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional infcrmation report should be supplied by the applicant giving further informa- tion concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: Vineyard West APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS TELEPHONE: Andrew Barmakian 9375 Archibald Ave., Ste. 101 /4ancho Cucamon • CA 9 ; 750 (714) 987 -3084 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING TEIS PROJECT: same LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) West of Vineyard Ave. between 9 h I Street and Arrow -'sors er - LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: Building permit and grading permit from the Building and Safety epD artmen of the Ciry of Rancho CuC lIDnnv I -1 M-6 -6 v C PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The proposed parcel map consists of four lots for aT for se _ -s�IT service station, multi- tenant use buildings, and mini- ACRE -AGE OF PROJECT AREA AND.SQUAR= 00TTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: project area = 17. acres .nd proposed buildings = 153,000 square feet DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF TIM PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPaY, PLANTS (TREESI, ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCE::IC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUN`D:.NG PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): The site slopes 2% from north to southwest. Existing lemon grove. Ground dweiling animals. No cultural or historic aspect. Remainaer or past c:tres industry. The adjacent properties are vacant, rILgh density res,.dential or industriali commercial type structures. Is the project part of a large- p:cject, one of a series of c=ulative actions, arhich although individually small, pay as a uchole have significant environr -ental impact? I -2 M -rI WILL T1HIS PROJECT- YES NO X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? X. 2. Create a substantial chance in existing noise or vibration? X 3. Create a substantial chance in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, selvage, etc.) ? X a. Create changes in the existing zoning or general Plan desig: --tions? X 5. Remove any existing trees? How many? 800 + X 6. Create the need for use or di ;3posal o� Potentially hazardous material_ such as toxic substances, flaaanables or explosives? Explanation Of any YES answers above: The site is existing 7 eWlrgrove. In ro ose *e��_manv of existing trees as possible. IMPORT.WNT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. G N/A CEr.TIFICAT -TON: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and an the attached exhibits present the data -.nd information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facto, statements, and information presented are true and ^orrect "to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understa^.d that additional information may be required to be sub:aitted before an adecuate evaluation can be made by the Development Rev' -- Conr-?ttee. Dat : a _e- : Title President 1-3 M - S 11-A C C RFSZDM,TIAL COAISTPUCTZON The following information should be Provided to the Ci,,- of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability Of the school di_trict to accommodate the proposed residential development. Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: Specific Location of Project: PHASE Z PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHAS% 4 TOTAL 1. Number of single family units: 2. Number of multiple family units: 3. Date Proposed to begin construction: Earliest date of occupancy: Model # and ; of Tentative 5. Bedreoms Price Rance �.J 111 µ�11 gµll RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION -OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TdE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PPTCEL MAP NUMBER 8828 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 8828) LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF VINEYARD AVENUE BETWEEN ARROW ROUTE AND 9TH STREET WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 8828 submitted by Andrew Barmakian and consisting of 4 parcels, located on the West side a,° Vineyard Avenue between Arrow Route and 9th Street, being a. division of the East 112 of Lot 17 and the East 112 of Lot 24, Section 9, Township 1 South, Range 7 West; and WHEREAS, on September 13, 1984, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above- described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on November 14, 1984 the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above - descried 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 w?th the General Plan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivisicn 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 pr:ject will not create significant adverse environmer -tai — pacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on November 14, 1984. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 8828 is approved subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 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 24th day of November, 2984, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT- COMMISSIONERS: M-0 r 1 U 1. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMuNGA Am RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL U1 LOCATION: West side of Vineyard Ave TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP., 8828 between Arrow Rte and 9th Street DATE FILED: Septanber 13, 1984 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The east 1112 of lot 17 NUMBER OF LOTS: n W and the east 1/2 of lot 24 Section -9, GROSS ACREAGE: 11.05 T.1.S., R_ 7W ASSESSOR PARCEL NO: 207 - 262 -44 DEVELOPER 011NER ENGINEER /SURVEYOR Andrew Barmakian _Charles Pfister Andrew Barmakian 9375 Archibald Ave Ste 101 P.O. Box 1206 9375 Archibald Ave Ste 101 Rncho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Ontario, CA 91762 Rncho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Improvement and dedication requirements in accordance with Title 16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga include, but may not be limited to, the following: Dedications and Vehicular Access 1. Dedications shall be made of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. X 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights -of -way on the following streets: 20 additional feet on Arrow Route iA additional feet on Vineyard Avenue additional feet on X 3. Corner property line radius will be required per City Standards: 24 foot radias as shown on the tentative map. 4. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated as follows: X 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 and shall be recorded concurrent with the map. -1- X _ 6. All existino 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. Surer; X 1. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public improvements prior to recording for said Parcel Map 2. A lien agreement must be executed prior to recording of the map for the following: 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 recording for and /or prier to issuance of building permit for Street Iaaprovements Pursuant to the City of Ranch Cuca*ronga Municipol 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. I. Construct full street improvements including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior streets. 2. A minimum of 26 -foct wide pavement within a 40 -foot wide dedicated right -of -way shall be constructed for all half - section streets. X 3. Construct the following missing improvements prior to recordation of the parcel map. Curb A.C. Side- Drive Street Street A.C. Median Street Name Gutter Pvmt. Walk Agar. Trees lights Overlay Island* Other Arrow X X meandering X X X X Vineyard X X X X X X X 9th X X x_ -- X X X X *Includes landscaping and irrigation on meter E -2- tj-13 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 frov^ the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other perm, its' 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. 6. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the .relocation of any power poles or other Pxictina nnh1ir 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. Lights shall be on decorative poles with underground service. E X 10. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permit. 11. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Undersidewaik drains shall be installed to City Standards. Drainage and Flood Control X 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. 3. The following storm drain shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer 4. Prior to recordation of the map, a hydrologic and drainage study for the project shall be submitted to the City Engineer for revi-w. 5. A drainage detention basin per City Standards shall be constructed to detain increased runoff -3- Grading X 1. Grading of the subject grope -ty shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and .accepted grading practices. The final grading p'an shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualifies engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work prior to issuance of bu'.lding 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 Cor^mivtee and shall be completed prior to recordation of the final subdivision map or issuance of building permit whichever comes first. X 5. Final grading plans for ,each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of building permit. General Requirements and Approvals X 1. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: 1 CaiTrans for X San Bernardino County Flood Control District X Cucamonga County Water District for sewer and water San Bernardino County Dust Abatement (required prior to issuance of a grading permit) Other 2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C.&R.$) approved by the City Attorney is required prior is recordation of the map. X 3. Provide all utility services to aach 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. X 5. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from San Bernardino County Flood Control District. X 6. Approvals have not been secured from ail utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final mar.) will be subject to any requirements that may be received from i:hem. -4- M -/'-5� 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. Local and Master Planned Trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing and weed control, in accordance with City trail standards, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Flanner prior to recordation for and /or prior to building permit issuance for 9. Prior to recording, a osposit shall be posted with the CiY.y covering the estimated east of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District 82 ?mong the newly created parcels. X 10. At the time of final map submittal, ine 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. X 11. Traffic Signal relocation, if required, shall be completed by the developer. X 12. This site is required to drain to the Cucamonga Creek Channel via existing stub - connection in the Channel. A permit from San Bernardino County Flood Control District will,, be required prior to construction of the Storm Drain connection. X 13. All applicable conditions of C.U.P. 84 -27 shall apply to this Pa, cel Map. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAFDNGA LLOYD B. HUBBS, CITY ENGINEER by: -5- E CITY OF RANCHO CUCA 1ONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: November 14, 1984 TO: Planning Conmission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara K. z?], Enginee -ing Technician SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8889 - KAISER DEVELOPMENT COMpANy - A consolidation of 14 -53 acres of land into one parcel in the In ustri�i Park and General Industrial categories (Subarea 11 & 12) loc;o.a" an the South side of 6th Street between Cleveland and Milliken Avenues - APN 210- 082 -18 -27 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of Parcel Map. B. Purpose rpose: To cansolidate 74.53 acres into 1 parcel. C. Location: South side of 6th Street between Milliken and Cleveland Avenues. D. Parcel Size: 74.53 acres. E. Existing Zoning: General Industrial and Industrial Park (Subarea IT &-i2)- F. Existing ! and Use: Vacant_, G. Surrounding Land Use: North - vacant. South - Vacant. East - Existing industrial. West - Vacant. H. Surrounding General Plan and Deyvelopment Code Designations: North - General Industrial Subarea 1 South - Industrial Park (Subarea 12) East - Industrial Park (Subarea 12) West - General Industrial (Subarea 11) I. Site Characteristics: The site is an abandoned grape vineyard sloping approximately 2,- ,a a southwesterly direction. ITEM N PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Environmental Assessment of Parcel Map 8889 November 14, 1984 Page 2 II. ANALYSIS: Kaiser Development Company is submitting Parcel Map 8889 to consolidate 74.53 acres of land into 1 parcel. This site was tentatively approved on September 9, 1981, as Parcel Map 7051, Phase I of which has been recorded. Although Phase I of Parcel Map ccrs racvrucu, rune of the interior streets have been constructed. When this Parcel Map is recorded as one parcel, ai" previously dedicated interior streets will be vacated. Curb, gutter and asphalt pavement have been constructed on Milliken Avenue, 5th Street and Cleveland Avenv� as a part of Assessment District 82 -1. A Master Plan Storm Drain has also been constructed in Cleveland Avenue The remaining improvements to include; sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights and landscaping will be completed at the time of building permit issuance. This site will be subject to further review when development plans are submitted. 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 ch =cklist, 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. :OItRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding prrperty owners <<nd placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. Post-'.ng at the site has also been completed. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resoTution conditionally approving Tentative Parcel Map 8889 and authorizing the issuance of a Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, L BH:EK:ko Attachments: Map - Tentative & Vicinity Resolution City Engineer's Report Initial Study AI n /' :� 11 u u E is g II � I I •4KR I I .aoN,:a I � a I P A a S Kam. i i I I I I s =� Iz i- - -- n I I I i i I t I I N ` a t � J na :u. t I' • f II • f —i • s Z ' tTj s •_4 S E_ a I I i i i , t t � = Tifd'ce {� F {1{4 .Y'e3 a }�fptsrr ¢ i _�• �i %e T�eR� cEr iaT� �fjYLT ° {! 1 MIT } ; _rsr} tT rA '�Yi Y fiat�3i'S -arc ell -- c t i e J I t I' f II I .f —i • s Z ' tTj s <� ' .a D .r. � r €� try Dci ,F z N i o q Z OD � I ✓ CLi l 1 I I i i i , t t � = Tifd'ce {� F {1{4 .Y'e3 a }�fptsrr ¢ i _�• �i %e T�eR� cEr iaT� �fjYLT ° {! 1 MIT } ; _rsr} tT rA '�Yi Y fiat�3i'S -arc ell -- c t i e PROJECT SITEZftliji 4 IG: 1�9 7zeAC. -' 6S ']Gant 4°G 7 e43..0 i I' 940 AC. it : -frAC. 534 AC i ice- S � C 16c1 C 1291 AC] FOC4 pm. 21 J' 0r5 :ee+A: fps YG 30 ' M.31 AC i36• ti J V j ..- - •t Y r TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA t i t Ie; P.M. ENGINEERING DIVISION --- VICINITY MAP j4j_</ page faf.G C10 474 AC 25 :esf cc � Cti' 56 Q Ect ! Block 13 b.4: AC � I TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA t i t Ie; P.M. ENGINEERING DIVISION --- VICINITY MAP j4j_</ page E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87 -00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ter_ (10) days before the pubiic meeting at which time the- project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three detersi.nations- 1) The project will have no signi- ficant environmental impact and a Negative Dec_Laration 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: Northview Bossiness Parcel II APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Kaiser Development Co. P. 0. Box 308 Carlsbad, California 920o8 -006 (619) 438 -2636 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: E. J. Woodward, Jr., Kaiser Development Co. LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) South side of Sixth Street ti- -?en Clevel.an a venue & Milliken Avenue LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: I —i r PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Being a reversion and merger of Lots 1 thru 10, Joshua Street Ponderosa Place, jacarandn plAcp o10 er str-e c.r,.- nnro Drive. and Lincoln Avenue Per PY, 7061 -1 PPm 77 /6o -7n gnd nortianc n T +c 1 ?, 18, 23, 25 and 26. Section ii ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA 7�ND.SQUARE FOOTAGE. OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: N/A DESCRIF° ::c, ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE_ !L�C�UDIi]G 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): Site is currently an abandoned grape vineyard. 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? r., I -2 A ., , v 6 0 E WILL THIS PROJECT; YES NO X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? 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, flaimnables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: T_ 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- S61UEe'-a.n adequate evaluation can be made by the Developme-jntj Rqview Co *t\tee. Date /D p y5ignature _ / Title_ I -3 AA- / RESIDENTIAL CONSTRIOCTION The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the school district to accommodate the proposed residential development. Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: Specific Location of Project: PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL 1. Number of single family units: 2. Number of multiple family units: 3. Date proposed to begin construction: 4. Earliest date of occupancy: Model # and # of Tentative 5. Bedrooms Price Range A �I -4 /V —T LI G7 RESOLUTIONi. N0. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CCMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA., APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 8889 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 8889) LOCATED ON THE S/S OF 6TH STREET BETWEEN CLEVELAND AND MILLIKEN AVENUES WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 8889, submitted by Kaiser Development Company and consisting •sf 1 parcel, located on the S/S of 6th Street between Clevela;.d and Milliken Avenues, being a consclidation of Lots 1 -1.0 of Parcel .3a^ 7061 -1 as recorded in Parcel Map Book 12, Pages 69 & '70, Sari Bernardino County, and portions of Lots 17,18,23,24, & 26 in Section 13, Township 1 .South, Range 7 West, as recorded in Sook a, Page 9, San Bernardino County;, and WHEREAS, on October 25 1984, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above- described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on November 14, 1984, the Planning Cot;missinn held a duly advertised public hearing for the above- describeG map. FOLLCUS: NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING CO'44ISJ,-ON RESOLVED AS SECTION 1: That the fcilcwing findings have been made: 1. That the reap is consistent with the General Plan. 2. That the impro .cent of the proposed subdivision is consistent w "= the General Plan. 3. 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 November 14, 1984. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 8889 is approved subject to the resorrnnni�ec-i-To-nditions of Approval pertaining 'thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gamez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning CaT.— nission of the City of Rancho Cucamo ^ga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced., passed, and adopted by the Planning COT-:nission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of Noverv?r, 1964, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COK41SSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: E C v CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECONLMENDtD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LOCATION: S/S of 6th Street between TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP: 8889 Cleveland and Milliken Ayenues DATE FILED: October 25, 1984 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1 -10 of P.M. 7061 -1 NUMER Or LOTS: 1 as recorded in P.M- Bk. 12, Pages 69 & 7 0, GROSS ACREAGE: 74.53 Sn Bernardino Co. and portions of Lots ASSESSOR PARCEL NO: 210 - 082 -18 -27 17,18,23,24,& 26 in Section 13, T.I.S., R.7.W. as recorded in Book 4, Page 9, San Bernardin_ Co. ENGINEER /SURVEYOR Kaiser Development Sane Derbi!h, Guerra, & Assoc. P. 0. Box 308 124 E. "F" St, Suite 12 Carlsbad, CA 92008 -0060 Ontario CA 91764 Improvement and dedication requirements in accordance %ith Title 16 of the ® Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga include, but may not be limited to, the following: Dedications and Vehicular Access 1. Dedications shall be made of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights -of -way on the following streets: additional feet on additional feet cn — additional feet on X 3. Corner property line radius will be required per City Standards: 24 foot radius as shown an attached map. 4. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated as follows: 5. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and join*_ maintenance of all commn roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by C.C.&R.s and shall be recorded concurrent with the map. -1- Surety 6. All existing easements lying within future right -of -way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the map per City Engineer's requirements. 7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. 1. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney, guaranteeing completioi of the public improvements prior to recording for and /or prior to building permit issuance for 2. A lien agreement must be executed prior to recording of the map for the following: 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 recording for mid /or prior to issuance of building permit for Street Improvements Pursuant to the City of Rench Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 16, Section 16.36.120, the subdivider may enter into an agreement and post security with Is the City guaranteeing the required construction prior to recordation of the map and /or building permit issuance. i. Construct full street improvements including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, AX. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior streets. 2. A minimum of 26 -foot wide pavement within a 40 -foot wide dedicated right -of -way shall be const -ucted for all half- section streets. X 3. Construct the following missing improvements prior to building permit issuance. Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street A.C. Median Street Name Gutter Pvmt. Walk Appr. Trees Lights Overlay Island* Other 6th St. X X X X Milliken X X X X Cleveland X X v X *Includes landscaping and irrigation on meter -2- A% -4.2 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. 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. o. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary. X i. Existing lines of 12KV or less fronting the property shall be undergrounded. X 8. Install afprnpriate street name signs, traffic control signs, striping i.nd markings with locations and types approved by the pity Engineer. _ V. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the _ - Southern California Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Lights shall be on decorative poles with underground service. X 10. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permit. X I1. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Undersidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards. Drainage and flood Control 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 enterin; the property from adjacent areas. 3. The following storm drain shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer _ 4. Prior to recordaticn of the map, a hydrologic and drainage study for the project shall be submitted to the Cit., Engineer for review. 5. A drainage detention basin per City Standards shall- be constructed to detain increased runoff -3- i4%-l3 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. A soils report shall be prepared licensed by the State of California to issuance of building permit. A geological report shall be or geologist and submitted grading plan check. by a qualified engineer to perform such work prior qualified engineer of application or The final grading plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Grading Committef2 and shall be completed prior to recordation of the f :rol subdivision map or issuance of building permit whichevac %;47es first. Final grading plans Building and Safety building permit. General Requirements and Approvals parcel are to be submitted to for approval prior to issuance agencies will be required as follows: CalTrans for San Bernardino Ccunty Flood Control District X Cucamonga County Water District for sewer and water X San Bernardino County Dust Abatement (required prior to issuance of a grading permit) Other A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C. &R.$) approved by the City Attcrney is required prior to recordation of the map. Provide all utility services water, electric power, gas canstructon. Sanitary sewer and water systems County Water District standards. required prior to building permit each lot including sewerage, telephone prior to street shall be designed to Cucamonga A letter of acceptance is issuance. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from CalTrans %San Bernardino County Flood Control District. 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 freer, them. C 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. Local and Master Planned Trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing and weed control, in accordance with City trail standards, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to recordation for and /or prior to building permit issuance for X 9. Prior to recording, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cos*_ of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District 82 -1 among the newly created parcels. X 10. At the time of final snap submittal, the following shall be submitted: Title Report, traverse calculations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and deeds used as re -Ference and /or showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. -5- Al CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B. Hl1BBS, CITY ENGINEER by: 0 Ell r� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: November 14, 1984 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL 1977 /1'IL IC {J19L111 UT -:1C - R'IYLI\ f1YL1\VL VYLRLf11 - P1: amendment to the Industrial Area Specific P an to create a Haven Avenue Overlay District located along Haven avenue between Foothill Boulevard and 4th Street. The Overlay District will amend permitted land uses and provide specific design standards regarding site planning and architecture. BACKGROUND: This report is provided as a follow -up from the previous meeting and presents a draft of the Haven Overlay District for the Planning Commission's consideration. This report provides an overview of the four components of the Overlay District: • Land Use Regulations • Master Plan • Development Standards • Overlay District Boundaries The Planning Commission should review each component separately and provide staff with guidance along with any recommendations for desired changes. It is anticipated that the final Overlay District plus related land use amendments will be brought back to the Planning Commission for final action and adoption on December 12, 1984. II. OVERVIEW_ Staff has in,:orporated into the Overlay District text the recommendations of the Planning Commission and Chamber of Commerce presented during the previous series of hearings. The following is a brief summary of the key components of the Overlay District: A. Land Use Regulations: The permitted and conditionally permitted land uses of the existing Subareas 5 and 7 have been revised to reflect more appropriate land uses along the Haven Avenue Corridor in tight of the Planning Commission's Interim Policies_ Primarily, light manufacturing is proposed to be prohibited within the Overlay District boundaries. Other uses proposed to be prohibited include custom manufacturing, light wholesaling, automotive uses and fast food restaurants. ITEM 0 PLANNING COMMISSION Industrial Specific November 14, 1984 Page 2 STAFF REPORT Plan Amendment 84 -02 /Haven Avenue Further, ancillary commercial and business support uses are limited to a maximum 20 percent of the total floor area and should be dispersed throughout a project to de- emphasize these uses in any tevelopment along Haven Avenue. A complete list of permitted uses is on page 3 of the attached Overlay District text. E. Master Plan: The intent of the Master Plan process is to encourage integrated master planned development versus fragmented, piecemeal development. The Master Plan process facilitates rer_iarocal parking and access, clustered common open space /plaza areas, and coordination of improvements without the constraint of parcel lines or specific site boundaries. Master Plans emphasize performance oriented design criteria instead of prescriptive standards that dictate minimums or max4mu s. To facilitate the Master Plan process, it is recommended that the Commission define appropriate master plan areas, as shown on the attached Figure V -2. These areas represent logical planning boundaries based upon existim or planned streets, potentially beneficial site plan relationships, and property ownership. For master plan purposes, it may be necessary to include property outside the Overlay District boundaries. The Economic Development Subcommittee recommended elimination of conceptual architecture for Master Plans. There are two reasons for requiring architectural concepts with the Master Plan: (1) to ensure design compatibility within Master Plans; and, (2) to provide guidance to developers on the desired Haven Avenue design image early in the review process. A policy has been added to require architectural compatibility within Master Plans. The Master Plan requirements have been modified to provide a statement of architectural intent to be submitted to adequately define architectural concepts (style, form, materials, height, etc.). D. Development Standards: The proposer development standards for site orientation, landscaping, open space and pedestrian environment, architecture, and urban centers have been tailored to implement the intent and purpose of the design goal for the Haven Avenue corridor. These draft standards are based upon the interim development policies and reflect the Commission's direction from the previous meeting. In addition, graphics are being prepared to illustrate major design and implementation concepts for the Haven Avenue corridor. These graphics will be presented to the Commission at the December 12, 1984 meeting. V- 1 11 LJ J PLANNING COMMISSION Industrial Specific November 14, 1934 Page 3 STAFF REPORT Plan Amendment 84 -02 /Haven Avenue E. Overlay District Boundaries: The actual boundaries of the Haven Avenue Overlay District are proposed to include portions of Subareas 6 and 7 as shown in Figure V -1. From Civic Center Drive south to Trademark the Overlay District is generally one lot deep in most locations, which equates to a minimum of 225 feet up to approximately 600 feet on larger lots. At the key intersections of 4th Street and Foothill Boulevard, where the "urban centers" are to be located, the depth of the Overlay District widens to greater than 1000 feet deperding on street locations or property lines. As the Commission is aware, the west sid3 of Haven Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Highway is currently designated Office /Professional. To provide a consistent base zoning for the study area and eliminate duplication of the Overlay District in the Development Code, staff is recommending that the land use designation on the property be changed to Industrial Park, as shown in Exhibit "B ". To accomplish this, three public hearing items, including a General Plan Amendment, a Development District Amendment, and amendment to Subarea 7, will be presented to the Planning Commission at the ® December 12, 1984 meeting. However, staff is seeking Commission input on the westerly boundary location of the Industrial Park and Overlay District designations. There is a discrepancy between the existing office zoning boundary and the approved tentative parcel map for the property, as shown on the Exhibit "A ". The parcel fronting on Haven Avenue is approximately 350 feet deep; whereas the existing zone boundary is approximately 660 feet west of Haven. Pursuant to the Conditions of the map, the applicant has prepared a master plan, as shown on Exhibit "CO. Staff recommends that the Industrial Park and Overlay District boundaries coincide with the future westerly property line of Parcel one, provided that the Master Plan be revised to adequately address the requirements of the Haven Avenue Overlay District. An example of how this plaster Plan could be revised t:) provide greater relationship between the office and residential uses is shown in Exhibit "D ". III. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The Initial Study, including the Environmental Checklist, has been completed and staff found no significant impacts which result from the adoption of the Overlay District. The land use and development standards and regulations proposed are designed to implement the intent cf existing General Plan and Industrial Specific Plan statement and policies. In addition, further environmental review will occur when development 0 -3 PLANNING COMMISSION Industrial Specific November 14, 1984 Page 4 STAFF REPORT Plan Amendment 84 -02 /Haven Avenue projects are proposed since site specific environmental analysis cannot be considered at the policy level of the Overlay District. If the Commission concurs with these findings, a recommendation to the City Council for approval of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. IV. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: To approve the Haver Avenue Overlay District on December 12, 1984, the Commission should make the following findings: A. That the Haven Avenue Overlay District is consistent with the General Plan land use policies and Industrial Area Specific Plan; and, B. That the Haven Avenue Overlay District promotes the goals of the Land Use Element and the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and, C. That implementation of the Haven Avenue Overlay District standards and regulations would not be -iaterially injurious or detrimental to adjacent properties. V. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The Daily Report newspaper and notices were sent to all subject property owners within 300 feet of the Overlay District boundaries. To date, no written correspondence has been received either for or against the proposed Ov�,rlay District. VI. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission review and consider the draft Overlay District regulations, receive public input, and provide staff with specific direction regarding text changes anei the boundaries of the Overlay District. The final provisions and boundaries of the Overlay District, plus related land use amendments, will be brought back to the Commission for final action at the December 12, 1984 meeting. RG:DC:jr 04 LA C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 84 -02 /Haven Avenue November 14, 1984 Page 5 11 Attachments: Haven Avenue Figure V -1 - Figure V -2 - Exhibit "A - Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "0" E, 11 Overlav District Text Overlay District Bounda:•ies Master Plan Areas Parcel Flap 8345 (NWC Haven & Arrow) Proposed ISP Boundary Master Plan - NWC Haven & Arrow Alternative Master Plan - NWC Haven & Arrow V. HAVEN AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT Purpose The purpose of the Overlay District is to establish development standards which address the unique setting and character of the Haven Avenue corridor. The Haven Avenue Overlay District is located on both the east and west sides of Haven Avenue extending from Foothill Boulevard south to 4th Street, as shown in Figure V -1. Applicability The Overlay District is to be applied in conjunction with the Specific Plan for Subareas 6 and 7 and provides more specific and!or restrictive development policies, design standards and land use regulations for bo':h Subareas 6 and 7. Areas not specifically covered by the Haven Avenue Overlay District will continue to be governed by the regulations of the Specific Plan. Setting Haver. Avenue is located near the geographic center of the C4ty tnd will be the most significant gateway into Rancho Cucamonga. Another important aspect is the distinctiveness of the Haven Avenue corridor in relation to other major arterials designated as "Special Bo,rlevards ". Haven Avenue is the major travel route for the City and has the potential for high end office development with a unique combination of direct access to the airport and the Interstate 10 freeway. This provides the City a rare opportunity to enhance its image by encouraging intensive, high quality office and professional development along the Haven Avenue corridor. Relation to General °lan The General Plan affirms that travel routes are predominate elements of the community's image and encourages the distinctiveness of individual districts and roadway corridors. In addition, the General Plan states that a consistent design theme is necessary to reinforce the image or perception of a route. The Specific Plan states that the Haven Avenue corridor and the Industrial Park category should be designed to project a °campus like image for firms seeking an attractive and pleasant working environment with high prestige value ". -1- O� E. 11 Cl A. Goal Statement Goals a =e statements that define the community's aspiration and intentions. The goal for the Haven Avenue corridor has evolved from sessions with the industrial and business communities and with the City's elected officials. This goal represents the cLrrent conceptions of and future aspirations for the best interest of the City for the Haven Avenue corridor. o Encourage long -range master planned development along the Haven Avenua corridor which enhances Rancho Cucamenga °s image by providing an intensive, high quality gateway into the City and by promoting a distinctive, attractive, and pleasant cffice park atmosphere in a campus like setting with high prestige identity. B. Land Use TVDes The intent of the following policies is to encourage land uses and development consistent with the design goal for the Haven Avenue AM corridor as an intensive, high quality gateway into the community. B.1. T'ne primary land use function along Haven Avenue is intended to be cf an administrativeiprofessionai and office nature. 6.2. Select ancillary commercial and business support service uses shall not exceed 200m of the floor area in any Master Planned development. Concentration of such uses in any building or along the street frontage is not permitted. B.3. The following land use types are Permitted or conditionally permitted within the Haven Avenue Overlay District. All other uses shall be prohibited. Permitted Uses Administrative and Office Communication Serv; ces Eating and Drinking Establishments Financial, Insurance & Real Estate Services Medical /Health Care Services Professional Services Administrative Civic Services Cultural ,ancillary Uses Business Supply Retail Sales & Services* �usiress Support Services Limited to 20'Z of the floor area per 9.2. Conditional Uses Convenience Sr.les & Services Entertainment Food and Beverage Sales Hotel /Motel Personal Services Recreation Facilities Public Assembly Public Safety & Utilit -• Services Religious Assembly C. Master Planned Development The intent of this section is to provide for 40 integrated development at the earliest possible time in the review process. Through the Master Plan process there is opportunity to coordinate the efforts of single or multiple property owners and discourage piecemeal development. The City Planner may rewire master planning of property outside the Overlay District, adjacent to a project proposal, where necessary to assure integrated development ani promote the goal of the Haven Avenue Overlay District. The following standards shall apply to all projects and shoulJ not be constrained by parcel lines or specific site boundaries: C.2. A conceptual Master Plan shall be submitted for Planning Commission approval together with any development proposal, including subdivision or parcel map applications, to address harmonious site plan relationships and potential for shared access and open -3- 0 D '8 spaces, and reciprocal parkin3. Master Plans shall indicate conceptual building pas loca�,inns, points of ingress' and egress, parking lot configurations, conceptual grad i:ig and drainage, landscape and plaza areas, pedestrian circulation, and signs. in addition, a statement of architectural intent and /or conceptual elevations shall adequately define architectural concepts, including style, Torm, bulk, heig ;st, orlentation., and materials. C.2. The Master Plan boundaries indicated in Figure V -2 are logical planning boundaries based upon i)i?ysical con *craints and property aKnership. These boundaries may be modified when it is determined that the Master Plan is consistent wi'h the intent and purpose of the Haven Avenue Overlay District. C.3. No Parcel Map or Subdivision Map shall be accepted or approved githout concurrent submittal and approval of a Master Ilan to assure integrated development consistent with the goal of the Haven Avenue Overlay District. C.4. Architecture within Master Planned development shall have a compatible design style. Lot Size C.5. Minimum parcel size shall be two (2) acres with a minimum parcel depth of 225 feet within a Master P1ar. development. A 300 -foot minimum lot width shall also be required, consistent with the access control policies. The Planning Commission may waive these requirements when it is determined Viat the parcel is part of a Master Plan Bch i ch is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Overlay District. All lots of record are allowed to develop according to the requirements of the raven Avenue Overlay District. i 3 r Access E E Pedestrian E C.5. Vehicular access onto Haven Avenue shall be discouraged wherever suitable alternative access may be developed from other stree�s as determined through tie Master Plan process. If vehicular, access onto Haven Avenue is granted, said access shall be shared with adjacent parc-:!'.s. The ,ninimum distance between drive approaches shall be 300 feet with 100 feet the minimum distance between a drive approach and the curb return of any intersection along Haven Avenue. Also, reciprocal parking and access easements shall be required, where appropriate, with any development proposal. C.7. Public transit facilities shall be considered within all Master Plans. Convenient pedestrian access shall be provided to designated transit facilities, such as bus stops. C.8. On -site circulation for both pedestrians and vehicles shall consider existing or planned circulation patterns on adjacent properties. Connections shall be made where zPpropriate to foster more integrated development and enhance pedestrian movement. D. Site ,'lrientation The following standards are intended t.� promote integrated, pedestrian oriented, office park development in a campus like setting: Orientation D.1. Site planning, including configuration and placement, opportunities for courtyards and other landscaped open promote safe and convenient movement : +ith continuous Pathways between buildings. -5- 0� /o building must create and plazas spaces and pedestrian landscaped Parking Setbacks D.2. Parking areas and circulation aisles along the Haven Avenue street frontage are disrr)uraged unless their visual impact is fully mitigated through dispersed parking areas and extensive landscaping and berming. 0.3. Vehicular circulation around the rear and side portions of a site is encouraged. Circulation aisles which fragment or disrupt the connection of pedestrian spaces throughout a project shall be avoided to the extent possible. D.4. The use of dispersed parking areas which provide convenient access to buildings without interrupting interior pedestrian spaces is encouraged to reduce the need for large parking lots. Where necessary, large parking lots shall be located in areas less visible from Haven Avenue. D.5. On- street parking along Haven Avenue shall be prohibited. D.6. Building placement at or near the streetscape building setback is strongly encouraged within all developments, particularly on corner lots with high visibility. Multiple building placement should provide variable streetscape setbacks to reduce streetscape monotony. 0.7. A 45 -foot average landscape setback and a minimum 45 -foot building setback shall be required along Haven Avenue, as measured from the ultimate face of curb, including existing lots of record and condominium lots or lots within a center when designed as an interval part of a Master Planned development. D.S. Ancillary service and loading areas shall be designed and located where least visible from public view and adjacent properties designated °Industrial Park-. -6- i 0-// D.9. All existing and new utilities, including electrical service less than 34.5 KV, within the project shall be installed underground. E. Landscaping Requirements The intent of the following standards is to enhance the visual quality of the streetscape and provide an attractive and pleasant working environment in a campus like setting. Minimum Landscape Coverage E.1. A minimum twenty -five (25) percent of net lot area (excludes right -of -way dedications and private streets) shall be landscaped areas and pedestrian hardscape plazas and courtyards. E.2. The landscape /hardscape coverage requirement may be modified for individual parcels within master piained developments when it is determined that the mister plan as a whole meets the required coverage and the project is consistent with the intent and purposes of the design goal for Haven Avenue. E.3. A maximum five (5) percent credit toward the required landscape /hardscape coverage may be permitted where appropriate public art is to be displayed in a setting which enhances pedestrian spaces and building architecture. E.4. A consistent streetscape design theme shall be developed along the Haven Avenue streetscape which incorporated intensified landscaping with specimen size trees, alluvial rockscape, mounding, meandering sidewalks, and appropriate street furniture. In addition, a program of street dame monument signs shail be developed to include low profile, natural alluvial rock monument signs with individual letters formed in a sandblast---d concrete face. -7 6 -ice 3erming E.5. Landscaping and, berming shall be desicaed to create visual interest and variety to the streetscape,_ enhance -building architecture_ screen utilities and buffer views of automobiles, pavement and service areas, and to define and to distinguish the pedestrian environment from vehicular spaces. Water Conservation E.6. A combination of water conserving landscape and irrigation techniques are required such as the use of drought tolerant plant species and hardscape (non - irrigated) surfaces, and special irrigation systems such as drip emitters, low volume stream rotors, deep watering of trees and shrubs, tensiometers to measure soil moisture, and automatic timers. E.7. Landscape materials shall be selected for their low maintenance, drought tolerance, and heat and wind tolerance. F. Open Space and Pedestrian Environment The intent of this section is to promote the functional design and location of pedestrian spaces, and provide convenieTet pedestrian circulation on and off site. F.1. The development of a pedestrian node or focal point, such as a plaza or courtyard is required within all projects. F.2. The lccation of plazas and courtyards should encourage maximum pedestrian use and be separated and /or buffered from vehicular parking dnd circulation. Such locations may be near a prominent building entrance or along a centralized pedestrian path. Pedestrian Facilities F.3. Pedestrian plazas or courtyards shall be designed to create an attractive, comfortable, and functional setting with a "sense of place"'. A combination of the following design elements are encouraged, but are not limited to: -8- (j-13 0 Jr San pavement or surface texture; elevation /grade changes; use of landscape materials and structures 'to provide shade and define enclosed spaces; seating (eg - benches, steps, or raised planters); and outdoor eating areas. In addition, the use of water features, covered walkways, and public art are encouraged. F. 4. Trash receptacles, drinking fountains, light standards and other street furniture sha':1 be designed to enhance the appearance and function of open space areas. F. 5. Convenient pedestrian circulation shall be provided throughout all projects to connect parking areas and pubiic transit facilities with buildings and pedestrian open spaces. G. Architecture The following standards are intended to promote a high quality office park image with high prestige identity: Style G.1. Desirable architecture along Haven Avenue shall project a high quality progressive, sophisticated, and urban style of development. While the use of a variety of exterior materials may be permitted to achieve this image; Spanish, Medicerrane.n, or traditional architer..ture styies are not generally considere� appropriate for office buildings. G. =. Variations in architectural styles, construction methods, and materials for certain ancillary uses, such as restaurants and banks, may be permitted where a particular design is necessary and more appropriate considering the intended use of the building. -g OW Multiple Story G.3. G.4. G.S. Architectural Variety G.6. Multiple story buildings of sufficient mass are encouraged that reflect the scale and proportion of the Haven Avenue right -of -way and streetscape setbacks. Low, linear buildings are discouraged. Building design elements that are considered inappropriate for an office park atmosphere include: retail type storefront elevations (linear configurations, continuous glazing, multiple doorways), and numerous overhead roll -up doors which promote concentrations of ancillary connercial and business support services, and are therefore prohibited_ Service and loading areas shall be screened from public view and adjoining properties, wherever possible, to reduce site design constraints on future adjacent development. Architectural planes shall have variation in depth and angle to create variety and interest in the basic form and silhouette of the building. G.7. Articuletion of the elevation surfaces is encouraged through the use of openings, and recesses which create texture and shadow patterns and provide variety in the building plane or surface. G.8. Building entrances shall be well articulated and project a formal entrance statement through variation of architectural planes, pavement surface treatment, aind landscaped plazas. G.9. Accent treatment such as changes in exterior .atarials and texture is encouraged In conjunction with variation in the major fora: giving elements of a structure. -10- C 1 Signs 6.10. A coordinated Uniform Sign Program shall be required for any development, including wall and monument signs. Building wall signs shall consist of individual letters and can signs are E El prohibited. The size, number, typical design and location of the signs, as permitted by the City's Sign Ordinance, shall be submitted with the development application and be reviewed concurrently. H. Urban Centers The following standards are intended to promote the hichest quality development and intensity to create community focal points or "urban centers" near the key intersections of 4th Street and Foothill Boulevard, as shown in Figure V -1. H.1. The applicability of these urban center standards for specific parcels shall be determined through the Master Plan review process. H.2. :Alultiple story office and professional oniidings of the highest design quality are required, particularly at the immediate corners of 4th Street and Foothill Boulevard. Desirable structural components inc'ude steel, and concrete in con - unction with curtain walls, spandrels and glass. Wood frame structures are discouraged. H.3. A minimum thirty (30) percent of nit lot area (excludes right -of -way tied ?cations and private streets) ahaii be landscaped areas and pedestrian hardscape plazas it courtyards. H.4. Special landscaping and streetscape design features shall be developed for the intersections at 4th and Foothill to create ar intensive and prestigious gateway entry into Rancho Cucamonga and the Haver Avenue Avenue Corr'dor. -11- ()'-16 H•5- The use of parking structures is encouraged to promote intensified development and maximize the site area devoted to urban pedestrian plazas and courtyards. Parking structures shall be harmoniously designed with the main building and located around the rear or side portions of the site. H -6. The minimum parcel size shall be five (5) acres unless waives by the Planning Commission when it is determined that the parcel is designed as an integral part of a master planned developrr -nt consistent with the intent and purr.o;e of the Overlay District. -12- I Urban Cente Overlay Dist TRAILS /ROUTES 0000 Pedestrian 0000 Bicycle 7C,CJ Regional Multi -Use Special Streets Landscap;ng Power Line/ Utility. Easerneir Creeks & Cham I Bridge 4 Access Points El (Park © Fire Station u 2 0 Ac: es O 4G0' 8Ge 760C t i! 0 FIG. V -2 ASTER AREAS CIRCULATION q� 120' RAW. s� 100' R.O.W. 88' or less RX RAM SERVICE Existing ''*''' + +- Proposed TRAILS /ROUTES 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian 0000 Bicycle [Z][:] RegicL.gal Multi -Use -• °n^� Special Streets Landscaping Power Line/ Utility Easemen -••° Creeks & Cham �u Bridga Access Points >#?" Park t Fire Station p5i 10 Acres EJI� -es 0 400 800 1600 �•J Ll t ke i AMENDED TENTATIVE Q �° PA C L AR Oe 8S4of iN THE CITY Of RANCHO CUCAMONGA BEING A D1vtSION OF LOTS 15 lNO 16, SECTION It, TOWNSHIP t SOUTH, RANGE T WEST.-ACCORDING TO MAP OF CUCAMOjtGA LANDS, AS PER 'PLAT RECOROED.IN BOOK 4 OF MAPS, PAGE 9, RECORDS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTI. CALIFORNIA.. uer r sa-.. ux:T' K IY L.I�E < jjjj��•• 1 loptly EX /6T. /CC./LTC./4§je_ _ MMLT LIVE ldT'i r IS Auo 14 £ lll. LINE O•Drtts' L u n o -- Nsr2raA•w KE'la, co RyEII j7.t'jt ZLi11 '���� - �� iD 2 : f T Y4 I I! sp ID SKYl R ZM T�y cam - LS ESN. D +4A I /'1CO. D OF /Prt_ OlF11 W M. X IYR 1 OloolI/ TICN fOR V % //� C.A. 4204 TM /VC. Li.d,tZ OQItlG 1, a �_ I I oPAfiC PARC �2 PARCEL 1 {C ' 7� tb.LI.6[t!i •fC.oi'1 w/ifv ,ice' q -�i1c CG? I•�F� �' `Ph w I =1azT s+QU'T UUes Er �• yy JI l+ruiaeD cN.c S ^ 1 • 4� 1 +• • 4- Q' Zo..e I LI I GA /3T COMML Jp'�p .•. /('p 4pi /Ll1 2 ' Q TRUCK /NG , I I �sb• R•� Oh JtO, G4.oL, � I B4_•ri YWl /!C' II +' Gnp.n L—A ll .+ _ou...�s Co. rd P.' �.e i I .Gh...�Ly /FJjjO O C Ct10.vE DwTC 1. _ t•!1 rf' 11 - 1 ERIN T•SD d2 CE •; W CORNER I t..�/ RI. tom+• 1 ..� 1 —T ARROW %6"s 3o' L° i.tuo�T— ••ROUTE .. —..— > -. —� -_ — C� V STREET 4/If a 0 M, PER COR / EC I I V KS Z 31a •O.� ITh+ Gw'•�T GOt_F FO I COR SEC 11 -CvOJG 15 1- I TGLGED RCE I A *11f3^{•T1 �� -Q CENTER STREET (NO• .n Ux) 41670 5] ASK <014g/tjo 1 I l�ti11[i7 • UTM V CITY OF ITEM: -RA V EM -ANle. RAITC -I� Cut rkl%1i0 \-GA TIrI_E: PLANNI \G DIVISION EXHIBIT: SCALE: •--� Za H M tow .. wtw wwrron.c wY) O i� w \Mi A Y) w. w.r. K �u•s � Y.r. ww w Iow wY •r Y1r. rY .. Yww w •r� LA 1 � _ y 3 i it" I -!l: 94 PROPOSED ESP BOUNDARY O i //GC sc MI GC IRS _i �n-r l.-..-�nnnnnnr.nnr�, ■ ■.■13 ■tS�iib■ ■t■■ ■tt ■i ■ ■ ■i @ ■ ■11 ii Future City Hall MET■ ■ — drrlmor•.t � CITY or rmm: ,w.�;m A6a RANCHO CL'Cr1NIO \GA 1NC�:7t�W3r Ps+eK/ Tm ,air -05124--- ,ts�t•.,�p PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: 's° SCALF- ()a / F] 0 I/� NORTH LI i It / / �"'� susaow 4� it ii i1 .� •li it Lj 1 m a: ja a U C • e'. y� IJ IT 0 f Z� c. nF ;i Y �Y 3` uY ai zz -�-- t l4ly t a L 1.7x11 ,i . H .v �� ,�i�s� � �• ii i v m a: zt z LIB �a .r_LI ,ail "v D Z 5 e 0 m f Z u� 2! aim 2 oi o �Y is 0 IL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM UM 19;- DATE: November 14. 1984 % M. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Co'eman, Associate PT am r SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL AS'SE -IMENTi AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84-04A - HAVEN AVENUE OVERLAY UBSTRICT - A General Plan Amendment from Office to Industrial Park for approximately 40 acres of land located on the west side of Haver, Avenue, between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow H:3hway, in conjunction with the Haven Avenue Overlay District - APN 208- 331-01, 12, 13, and 208 -341- 01. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 84-04 - HAVEN AVENUE VERLAY DISTRICT - A Development - tistrict Amendment from OP (Office Professional) to ISP (Industrial Specific Plan) and MH (14-24 du/ac) for approximately 40 acres of land located on the west side of haven Avenue, between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Highway, in conjunction with the Haven A-:erue Overlay District - APN 208- 331 -01, 12, 13, and 208 - 141 -01. ENVIRONMENTAL A55P,SMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLANT AMENDMENT 4- - HAVEN AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT - An amendment To- the Industrial Specif it Plan to expand the boundaries of Subarea 7 (Industrial Park categrry) to include approximately 40 acres . land located on the west side of eiaven Avenue, between. Foothill SouiF_ard and Arrow Highway, in conjunction with the Haven Avenue Overlay District - APN 208- 331 -01, 12, 13 and 208- 341 -01. Staff recwmmends that these items be continued to the December 12, 1984 agenda in order to resolve the District Standard reoula`ions and boundaries. RG:DC:ns ITEMS P, Q, R 0 E. G DATE: T0: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: C= JF RAN�;HO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT November 14, 1984 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Rick Gomez, City Planner Tim J. Beedle, Senior planner 1. ABSTRACT: In order to ensure that the Development Code regulations will permit all sit -liar uses in each district, the Planning Commission can determine whether a use not specifically listed as permitted, secondary, accessory or temporary use in any district shall be deemed a permitted use or conditional use in one or more districts on the basis of similarity to uses specifically listed. The procedures of this section shall not be substituted for the amendment procedure as a means of adeing new uses to the list of permitted or -nnditional uses. The City Planner shall compare the proposed use characteristics with the General Plan goals and objectives as well as the purposes of each of the use districts and may determine if the proposed use should be a permitted or conditional use in any of the districts and shall make a report of his findings to the Planning Commission. H. BACKGROUND: Representatives from the California Retirement Villas, incorporated have approached the City with the concept of a Senior Citizen Congregate Residential Facility on the south side of Base Line between the existing Exchange Building and the Cucamon a Charnel. The site is designated as Office /Professiinal {OP}. Within the proximity of the site is Vineyard Park, located just east of the site, and north of the site a neighborhood shopping center. This concept of a Senior Housing Facility has been successfilly operated in several communities in Southern California. It provides for congregate living facilities wit"' all services operated under a State licensed care facility. The facility typical iy includes 90 to 100 residential suites which consist c- one bedroom, living room, private bathroom and no kitchen. All services in the facility are provided for one fEa, which include furnished suite, three meals served in a dining facility, a game ITEM T PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Senior Citizen Congregate Residential Project November 14, 1984 Page 2 E room with arts and crafts, personal laundry services, paid utilities, and 24 -hour security. The facility provides lobby rooms, beauty salons, lounges, outdoor courtyaras, and ors -site licensed fac -lity managers. Parking is provided at a range of one stall per 4 to 5 units, or 20 to 25 spaces /unit, in addition to employee parkin -1_ is general its clientele are typically those who are indt,,endent and can pay a moderate price for all the necessary services and care. Review of other communities which have used this include both Fullerton, and Placeitia. One community has destined the area for residential use, while the other has the facility iocated in a similar office zon?. Further, the facilities have used parking standards which have reduced parking from normally acceptable multiple family projects without ap�.arent problems. Because the characteristics of this use art geared more for the moderate income group and above, it is not a candidate for ' Senior Citizen Overlay ;strict, which is specifically targe-ed to low and moderate income clients. II. NA'_YSIS: The issue to be considered with this use determination is whether it may be considered under the Conditional Use P-am it process as provided for hotel /motel uses within the Office /Professional designation. If the Cot,,nissioo is willing to make this consideration, then the applicant can be directed to proceed to make their filing of an application.. The Commission can then consider the merits of the project and any specific location. The use is typically associated within a residential hotel or motel for congregate living. However, that defined use is not contained hithin the Developme:t C-)de. The closest land use category to this use 'is considered either a hotel /motel use, whi�.i is permitted within the General Industrial category or conditionally :emitted within the Office /Professional, or a multiple residential project of considerably higher density category. The options available to t►7e Commission include the following: 1. Proceed to consider this proposed use under Conditional Use Permit within the Office /Professional designation; or. 2. Define the use withir a residential category to be considered either as a Conditional Use Permit or as an acceptable perm =tted use; or 3. Establish a new land use group associated with a use category which might be more specifically targeted to this particular us P. %z ®1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Senior Citizen Congregate Residential Project November 14, 1984 Page 3 Because the use is a hybrid of a hotel /motel and sLnior citizen residential project category, and is a long term residential c %.re facility, it would seem no one option is totally satisfactory to meet the merits of this particular use. However, it is likely that through the Conditional Use process, this type of use can be adequately assessed per the locational relationships which are necessary in order to assure its compatibility with surrounding properties. Further, it would appear that the overall characteristics of this use would be similar to that of a hotel /motel facility with the exception that its occupancy rate i,culd remain consistently high, compared to the more transitory population of seasonal residences in a hotel /motel facility. Given the nature of the population characteristics of this project, it appears unlikely that this would cause a substantial impact above and beyond those normally attributed to other types of hotel /motel facilities. The importance, therefore, of this particular use, is the relationship of that use on the surrounding property and its land use compatibility. It is moi,e important, therefore, that the Commission provide guidance on those characteristics which they feel are important in order to assure for lard use compatibility and to assure that the process, through a Conditional Use -Permit, will provide for adequate assessment of the characteristics of that project within its locational criteria. The decision on Ppprovai )f this use should be considered on a case by case 1)asis beca6se cf the inaerent site characteristics which will influence this type of facility. The important criteria when considering this type of use is the surround:ng su;lnorting environment, such as the proximity to stores, type of recreational facilities, office use, and support transportation, in addition to its overall surrounding neighborhood environment consistent with the policies of the Senior Housing Overlay District. III. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Commission make a use tTetermination that would allow the applicant to proceed with filing an application under a Conditional Use Permit process for location of a Senior Retirement Congregate Facility within the Q'r designation,, with the following land use characteristics necessary to insure land use compatibility: 1 Adequate surrounding uses for recreational facilities. 2. Close and convenient support s`+opping and office use. T 3 PLANNING COW4ISSION STAFF REPORT Senior Citizen Congregate Residential Project November 14, 1984 Page 4 3- location and proximity to a public transportation corridor. 4. Compatible surrounding neighborhood environment. Based on the following f`- dings: The use in question is of a similar intensity to Other permitted or conditionally Iermitted uses in the same district. - The use in question meets the purpose and intent of the district in wh-;rh it is proposed- - The use in question meets Pnd conforms to the applicable goals and objectives of the General Plan. Upon filing of a Conditional Use Permit, the lication will be studied and reviewed in relationship to thesecha acteristics to the overall develr.oment purpose. Re ectfu _ ubmitted; � c me ' tO Pi . n e r :TB:ns Attachments: Exhibit "Aa - Location Map Exhibit °B° - Example Site Plan 4 �'J lu L rvi MCC L L.Y. -op - NC OP 0 Lv L A-41-N Fc 1A i A op OP L GC I m rms CITY OF ' INC A cucki\ !ON G PLANNENG DIV EK)NI C� N07RTH ITEN I: nTL.r: 4-- �► EX H 113IT- SCkLE: T-� �!G A/C LINE POf t • ; PGr.3 + 8-10 AC 9940 ,- A zs P� Ple Por.2 ''p) 7 25 AC % /AcA -r 4 CITY OF N .\"G cPd1-LSIO. r 1614 SCE -i OL ^yjn,� VN "llff' (10.67AC. Mil) Sul%9=T AFcA I tj r 0 f V n'OM ITEM 1: TITLE..' 1 {'�s ��r� • C E{I- INT: fit • s + ,� L]. 11 A �Mei:.j Fir 1 3- L "i I it it F�it1: ;1nj �t E� 1 I , �. � of y� '.X�= ��_•1� j `.L `: �_ ._� � � i •7 M1. • 1 1 a ji LL - �, �v =.• - ..t922�1��: 'c f'4 91T t `' i � q is � s � wst 4I� Z; �' 1.1 (' _ } 3�� + gyp; { �e •}��J.� t 2�,.Ibr_ rJ rr i ..r_ 4.__ t ,✓ T—'/ '/ VnA-A IMCUtttTA3 C#70UP r"E FA !L y MARK J MEIPP 777d ll. ��ora T—'/ '/ it f. d Ott ii II ;TT9 T-2_7 ��� _, T-f Ila] 7r u t; -1 if. i an ; E5 jLLr_j ki Mm --- i q A. 10 VAA_A :r 11 MI! L11 [A 0 reo T- f of i 77, jz r, ri d Iii, y r_,,if, � y Va- C;=Cxjp D7 =A;I'J=-C=QtSry nnL.LUC -JME=S - All T- 9