Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1986/03/26 - Agenda Packet
-ke 478 P `xC .� Q,a,4'4f�„ �cc x ,` ^.K+''`z „�.}} 4+' h=.f U, - C4 Z ry r �r .a x �z, y z � jGy F. lr ` 14 P 7c s° LAC-11I0`C .. , iis n MG 1977 P FW1;SpAY ;-"MAR i^H 2fi;1386 7 1141 p.sn; l �1 •� :.�Ctl3�$��iRB ta0�13IaTT�CBNTBB < , � 't,'` � - �y�j� pt'- �T'92/6�Ay.B.A^S,TELht�I/B„�,_:� (���v**��f Ri CHU;Cd'JCe ONUA C � i��tNI2; I ACTION r E Pledge 6—f'A 'egxt�[ice Con�ilasioner Backe Comisioner_Rempl xfR CConnss4 rO"' tiea� ommi$sidn& tout. V ��rt Ct�i�missioi�er,MeP(fel� *i '?p TTL Aun6unceemsn'tsr s ° IV. Atrp oert�I�of,IilYnut.ds � 'r'oved 4•-0-0-1 F�ebrkuary 26,19,86 ' � •V �attiseeet Galendae Tha�fd2jto�Wing �76it3Bnt-.,Calgridar items are expected to be'rotttirie and;non;contro ersfa! •They�;wf1i ba,actod on bytth Coma firs gn..at ane time w tho�za discttssfon. if anyone t6,ccincerii aver any iWt?,; �' itshould be.rerr�o+mod jbr iiiscussion. i*ved & Approved 5-G A. ErNIyI tO,NMEN1?!x>;. `;235ESSMEN'i!', ,FOR - DkVIMM"ORMEINT` "• 8 i.,ding.corner post to be R.EMAE NOT85-35 iiIMES-PdET RS II'PITPEDi ?Mt1DEL 1�g ter.sflade �f blue as in '� � D IONr The�sdevelapjnent o &42,313 scuhre oot: rendering. w p o„u�/,diet abution t Ilit fad b5y model�Iprodii is on: g U9 aqresi of lan 1K,96 General Iridusriai/Ra t..ervei.14s*riet (Siaber '�ft locate d=at the northeast ea coiner oY 7th Street and'l'rzdgeort Talace'-"ABN 2,29= ' VI. PabU6 Hegmgs ' The foi 6o(r. ite{is 'arse�Public,,heaarings im•which'xpncmefqed?�'� individualscerna voice theffo inion o thehreia'ed ro edp'e,"pope, wa't tolb rem 9nizedAC�ihe%Chairman aitiloddr,ess the�. omm#ssion� s' t by statingr,votimett a *and dares Attu such,.7,406,ns shdit be �i temited t`o5,ininutes per inclivrTuai"for eacTi';profec t��' hd INV g x V �iLrm"� RUE 4 4 : B Denied with Prejudice B•. ENVIRO�l�MENsTAL`ASSicSSMENT AND'TENTATI. k BRACT. Re olal ton of denial to-be`brough`t 129Ji§�-1SIiELFtOIIFtNE A tW_ re'sidentYel:subc>iViMbh and` q bar. won Covent Calendar 4-9-86. d ignore a^singResmily lots on 8 9'gcres ofland'in- a the Law.Meiiium Residential Distc�ict, located at thesoutYi s12% Lemon Avenue, 500t,feet qas#of AichioaId;Avenue x APN`. 201 252 21, G2 (Continued from Decemb`er"il,41986 mAeting� t G Gont!nued to 4-9-86 C. ENi4IRONiMBN'1`A�, ASSESSNIENB' SAND TENTA,T1Vki,TRAGT �, 13i1' 4 �SCI3IIr vTrZ`�9stomxiot subdivision on�5 5 acre"s -�a,,� g land in the ocv 3 esii3ent`iat District�(2-4 ad located a �� .z �•. ,- ,c^ ,mom � r ' the southeast corner o£Ymeyacd and Ga11eDe1 Prado APN A " 208-'921-03 t an 3 04.: (Con'Gnued„from E.ebruary',A. 1086 meeting} :_ D. Approved 5-0 D' VARIANCE- 02=SMITIi.-A.request twreduce minimum lot depth from •150 feet to 135 feet ail a 13 sere parcel in the Yery Low;Residential Distret (up Mtn 2t d��aac�1pcated on the• south,side of Staarig'L'ane;, easC of Carl 9n Aveaiie-APN lOfi1-271-07T , ,� E Approved'5-0 E. E0,196NMENTAL'=A3SESSNiEN1 AND PA�i EL MAP,9349_- SMIT73 A_div►sion�,o 3 teresioaridinto?rareelsin,tie r,` Very;Low�Itesiclentiat D'�str€ct (ugto 2�du%�e)located on the souti(side;of'St�angr+Lane,feast�f'Carnelian,Avenue At)N 1062ti71'07. (Continued fromFebruaryx;2fi;198.E meeting°):`' w:Appi^Oved 5-0 F. ENi IRON,MENTAL`ASSESSME°.IT.AI!]DTAR±GELLMAP i9537- LOZIER GQRPAR'1zATION k:A division o£26;4 acres Into"2 parcels im the tGe,��e,-al Industraai<designatton '(Subarea 2) located east of Vineyard L4eenue between Arrow I'oute and; ;1 " 9th,Strest"-"APLZ 20-01�= 0.' � i4 t G Set for Public Hearing G, CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OF CO1dDITIONAL U 4 23=86 PERMIT 84= VEw A<request fo operate aE meetmg hall and:`ok serve:`elcoholic beverage in�an exis ng t uildi g with a� ,*r lease space of 5,000 square feetr on;3, f%cres of Eti►d in the y R General Industrial' (Subarea 3), .category' ]oeatecia.nail 8751 Industrial Lane ;APN1'209=031=841:` � Apprgved 5-0 H. CONDITIONAL USE. PERMIT 88 OY DINERSIFIBDThe , Rock"veneer to be consistent developm�ento Qa 22;000 square got retail�buildingPayless, y t radjacent building. Sample with autdaar sales :nursery wrtH' san approvbdiiinteOra�ted R, . Jeri: to approval of DRC:; shopping center3on 11 1 acres of lancisgh h491,17e gh ,r�%h_o Commercial';bistrzet locet3 at t e soiithea come ]Saven Avenue and 4_'eiin�i Avencter�APN 0 '27] 53 a IT M7 IT (i a Removed r j J.;,, f,E11UIR(31 f,IENTAL' ASSB SMEIdT AN3?`. DEYET OP.MENT p:x " be re-advertised for J<l " D.E." iNIENDMEN�'� 86-a1 CI7�Y OFa nR�A�NGHO p ,7,ie hearing 4-23-8t0 -=f CtiC23MC1NC:9* gApropoa$1'sto amenvSection 17'O6 010 5'a s pert: nitt ; grachng of custbm lot s.lsdi�nsions;artd <. 17�02M1�O�pertaimng�ta defer tions of�,,ttis�,D�`e�u�elopmen,�Code f` �`(,pp�} /�� 4 of£tie } of Ra�eho Cucamonga,Ordinance 2�11 ,. ld B :'NMoved 5-0 J., DESIQN�;REYIEiW I�OR TRA-M,12U6 �G17�ATIQN&UILDEItS d esi enlaai(subdivision% f'21 41"acres+tm`the Lave�Mediu ii ' WIB mom Rest'nb'al,D�i�t< et°( 8 4iWa in o 103 dots locateii on•the wbt s leof Beryl$`tieetnorthif Base Linen adfi'`AP ,202- 75 0 �Conhnued,3Ironr,ebruany co,1988':meeting VID. New B r Continued to 4-9-86 Kq EN.V,IR.t)NmENT,'S' AsSE$3MENk. AND 'DEY>EELICI FMEi4T �+ '�REiYIE1W"8545� AAA Tnz devAloQment,of twFl m1d g totalin'���5S00 syusres�'''et°an 'three,�muiti=tens�t'��iustrtal bu�l"dangstiot ' 7 ,076 squareeet'or►7 09>uacresa land'inn the$Industrial ipar'C Dissxct (Subare`at- and Haveh� venue O�erlay Dist eta locatedafat`` he��northe'itft cornea u Haden �A enue�end.Acaeia�Sreet„-<<�pN,2Q9=�`01-01: �. .Inconsistent with L. PR LlMIN9RlY'` 'RE1rIEt9 'Wiw OClD;: A cons�sency nterm F.licies. ;"' ``detecminati-n between theFoath °:Corridor InterimEohoies ,,> ,... „anda,commereialloffie Master Plar.ceSneept`loeax6d�on the northwest corner of 0.i tWdIBoulevard�and TiL*nrr Avenue. 4 �. P� �r�iui?eats This is the time and piaGd• for the�genegal. eblic to,address the, -� Co►nrra'isaign. Items te. ba-discussed•here.:are'thee which do not. thready tpFrear oath. ,aden Z S. L&urniient 1g 70 p.m. The Planning,�Commission Chas adopted AdministrativehRngutatioiiyr that set an 11 p:m adir%u'nmenL'time. 'If.,itemspgo�beyo�nd thciV � ry time,they;shaii behean �;i�y with the consent o`f�the r=?mmission WU Y ST tie� L^•t y�', '�'�1. i.'��now Ry 4i# M.."y.. y r ■ ■ � 4 IT Y MA IL ■: tCNAiFEY �iey t.id:t,'-,•�i�'�.�ti',��''Y�$ •-_,. .• \. , COL"t80B ■ � � t: * 4eef Til ION MAO. F CITY NAAG ® D a s '. ll . PoOPiY� •yam_ Anar "R "'■ i rY e �µ Am "4 iv CUcINON9A-OUASiI CRUNTY REUIONAt IAgN (4 ONiAg10..IMT6RNAi/OMAI AIR•GNT: I L x y t Q « , MOW 77 ?.z-y 47 `O GI;C��f't0 YCIY OF ` t �Ti\CHO T ,TI �G' .0011 iNIISSION �,(T U-N 197; WADPIESD.9Y, MAACH 26,1986 7100 p.m; (( } �n • 'TIIO'd9�+PARI��CiIdTUNITY GSATI'E8 9167AS&sTuINR a ?_ IIANCHmCIICL4OId.G CA1;II?OIB,�I ' s L Pledge of;"legzsnce L RollCaltr�' '' Coiitattsstonetr Beni r Commissioner ReTpel Commissioner Ciutiea� CommissionerStoub- Cotnmissioner McN.iel� IIL A,'in6uncementa'. `. x IV. A�,d Tdinutes ` Fiabruary 26,1986 V. Com>•seAt Ca2etilar ' �1' Tho toTlow n Consent Cale ar items are eavecidd to<be routing: and non writ oyersiat s TKey wtlT.be.acteirT on bjt tha Commissi6n,at one ttme.'wthout.disctissior. i�anyone/"4as concern over uric atsm, it shouTd,tie removed f or diseusstu: -' A. E13-YIRONiMEN;T,AL ASSESSMENT FOR -DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85=36 . I' IHMES PETERS U�NPPED<� !MODEL DISTRTBUT ION - The develgpment`-of.a 92,313 sciii re foot a, ' ' wacefiouse/distribution facilify.for,:hobby«model prdducts on . r ;.. 1.9 acres of lb d in the Genera]in' Rail Served Dtstrect; (Subarea 10), lbcated at'the norlhetsti ccrier=of 7fh Street and Bridgeport Place-APN'22M61-71. VL PubU,P Hearings The fdlTowing items are-' NbTic',hearings in iv)tich %$ncerned; _ } individuals may voice their opinion of the:mlated`'.profect: wait to`be recognized by the Ghatrrnan and addr dWthe,Corrtmissior bystattng your name and address Aii" suchptnionsshailce limited tio�55minutes per.itt�3tuWit f or.each pr �y M1 }ta fie` pfS t^xf 7sue'.,. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND Ti:i`T9TIYE 'PRACT " 12991 rSHELI30URNE -A total1-1 aresiden4ial�subdivisioti�arid, ' design renew 0r'§49�n it€araiiy lot¢on 5 9 aeres�of l tni3;in . thek Low,�M'ediuYn Residential istrict ,iocati�d at the south x side of''Lemon Avenits 500t feet east cff ,rch�6ald,Avenue= ,- APN .,22. (Continued"€roil Oecembec, 1, 1986 sneetiin :), T. 7- C...' ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT*AND--TENT,ATIVE-,T- '-ACT �� ;131ir4 iS�HULTrZ A.�1 euston►d1ot sibdiYis�oi on 5�5acrea theaow cated-at the satitteas 'cwrn el Pracio-ARN 208`92h-'�°D�3 and O'4.• (Continue from'Fetituay'12z 1986 D. V ARIAyICE-86-02-SMITH-A request to redu6e minimum lot depth.,from 1507feet td 135 feet on=.a'1'3 acre-pai•cel in the a Very I,ow keai'der tlal.District (up Ito 2;du/ae),iocated`onrthe south side of Strang Lane, east oSt Carjnelian Avenue-APN 1061-271-07. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND'-PARCEL.MAP 0349- SMITH..-A rdiv lion.of 1 3,.acre o IOd Into 2 parcels in the Very L,nw Residential DistLiet,(up to 2`dO A)'located-on the `. south side o+,61rninga lane, 6$st of Carnrl.aii Aveiitle:.-APN = „ 1061-271-07. (continued from February 26,1986 meeting.) F. ENVIRONMENTAL,ASSESSMENT AND:-PARCEL.MAP 9537- LOZIER CORPORTATION - A divisipoir of 28.4 acres into 2 li parcelsI in the General Industrial designation (SutYacea: 2) located e«sto€ Vireyar0,•Avenue betuveen Arrow Route and 9th S.tpeet-APN 2009 011•i10. G. CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT'S 84-14,-VFW-A request to,operate 8 meeting hall: �? in an,exi and tq'seiive alcoholtc:heverege sting tiuildi-g,.with-A: Lease space ofr 5,000 square feet on,3.47 acres;of Iani3;in the Gener al Industrial (Subarea 3).,category locatei3F at 875-- �u Industrial ta'e`-APN=209-Os1-84.° ; H., CONDLTIONAI. USE, PERMIT 86 01 - D.IVERSWEg Tlhe development o a 22,000 square oot FetaiLbuilding a °wiith putdo , ss1Qs nucseryt w ttun ari`approved integrated ,�k shopping center on dl. i acres of land mth �Kei �iood' { `Commer lal,District located- $t_xne soutfieas rn r of ' w« r Hav'en venue end Lemon AVeriue-APN 201 271 53 " r r� � a• 1Md ` s z E are ` 2r` aa� �2 t .k'•.i' r + xENdIRON!11IENTAI; ASSESSMENT':, AND IDEME>OP,±MEN4f xCODE uAMEN..DMENsT 18.6=0194 Zi 3GITY6"k9F' �R'ANGFiO . pertaimngY 'to grad�ttg o custortt lOT�q ion 17I yS'.01025M� ' 4'�UC'AtdONC3A '�A Proposal toamend�S� �— .� �" sls b�nsions, niiE r ` 171540 ertaiiiing todefifritaons�of the eveio ment ei. p a ssc ha s r ,� -p r it e C ty'of Rdndhq Cucamonga,Qrdmanc"'X " VIL .•OIdEu�ness t 3"� �DESIG�IhIdEl�iiIEW��F.ORrEi�A�GTi'289U-�CI�IFA�IQNUII�DE�RSk.. �A re dential s110i es on?(of- U74 1 Gres m the�`L'ow�Medaym< esidentie4 istriet ( 8 ou/ao} into 03 ots oeated an I aj G' west amide Beryl Sweet-northof as ine. oad."Aii 202 ?5 0 *Gan ued nomL�ebruacy 26 986meetmg) `f x � sumz �m VOL Ne6*1Busineas�" .* x K. ,�E'1d,Y,IRON;MI�NT,�A'�L ASSESSMENT��'�AI�D,+S�DEYtEL'DPeMEI�,T -' � ,REYIErWm85=.45 A'Ji9 e development of two buildings-i tot�slirig 45"SOOssquare��feet''and lkdV'm"bl en t ipdus tai r n �.v h.w buidin�gs totaling 77,Q76uaretfeetron7.Q9 acres'of an'd'zn the Isldus al �k Dastcict S61rea 6 an�3#�IBven Avenue ' . `- O ierla Tltstrict placated at*"tiie, northeast Borne �dtq even y » . Av nine and t�cae a gt ee APN209-4 1O�ibS �� y F ,(!� +�.'...... rk �'2f' y,li $'' titer• Y L. �P,RELIMINA�R YIE�WI�`85 66,r- WOOD d A'consisencij x: ��teterm�na�ttobet aeenthe�Faothill�,Cdo�Inte, �.m$� o� s anted{a eon mere/office his.ter iFlan+coneegLoca; dan thl northwest oothE..Boulevard-and'�iirne ' venue. ; ` I%. Putilla Comments " "r This is-the timeaand,pTace for"the genera pub�ticfoadress tie �" Gommisston. Ite Trs'to be discussed here are•those�wlitch doy dot aiready�appearFonthis agenda. �c X. Adlournimt �* The Plminutg Cpm►nison has adopted AdmintstrativFe�ateons 6. that set anE1Iv � adjournment time : If itemsgbeyond th t A ' time,they Rhall7ie heard oniywi`th the consent oftiie Commission. :`. T' w t e x r. u. a _ - _1 VIC I IN� ., . MAP, `.I rj ............ a C �`. 3ti'h5 k' ■ . KWWe t sgsyyy: p.ClWFka�;++RlQeOMAt� a . t2 •t ° _ 9 °n.■n 'COLLEGE r ,� � �. rl ��. ' `LE�7a.3■AR aaS �= i � "ESl`.�F.'�1 y��. E" NNNIMMM■NN11/ 8[RILIN •:.� Y � � T '! _�s_ .tl t 'LION )AR® 'CITY FALL F. FOOOH� � •:. a ° ■ CUCARONOA.CUASTI COUNfY REGIONAL'�►A■■ ). "her ONIARIO�iM�ERMAi1dNAL dl`aP�RY MA '},��'S4N�s� ' •.:CITY OFy RA= t Yr ° CInr OF RANCHO C CAMONGA 4A}CA 4- STAPF REPORT 0 o o F $ Z DATE: March 26,`1986 j977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission �s FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner - BY: Nancy Fong, Associate Planenr SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-36 - ,F HIME -PETERS UNITED MODEL UISTRIBUTOR - The develapment of a 42,313 square foot warehouse/distribution facility for hobby model products on 1.9 acres of land in the General Industrial%Rail Served District (Subarea 10) located at the no cheast - corner of 7th Street and Bridgeport Place - APB! 229-261-71 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTIONi A. Action Requested: Issuance of a Negative Declaration. 1 , Ar B. Surrounding Land Used Zoning: North' Industrial warehouse/distribution use; General ` Industrial/Rail Served District (Subarea 10). South - Vacant with approved projects, Meldisco; General Industrial/Rail Served District (Subarea 10), General Industrial District (Subarea 11). ' East Industrial warehouse/distribution use, vacant; General Industrial/Rail Serve: District (Subarea 10). West - Industrial use, vacant; Generai Industrial,Rail k Served (Subarea 10) C. General Plan Designations: ' Project Site -'General Industrial/Rail Served. North - General Industrial/Rail Served. •'South General Industrial/Rail Served, Generai 'Industrial. s East - General Industrial/Rail Served. West General Industrial/Rail Served. ] D. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and streets °e improved except for driveways. A 40-foot M14D easement', a located at the northern property boundary (see Exhibit "C"). II. ANALYSIS• ' _ F A. General: The developer -is requesting a Negative Declaration to. ' construct a 42,313 square foot warehouse/distribution p ITEM �q PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT '. DR 85-36 - HIMES-PETERS March 26, 1986 ` Page 2 building. The site is part of a 35 acre Master Planned industrial distribution complex. Development review for adjacent, Parcels 2 and 3 was approved by the Planning Commission in November, 1984. B. Design Review Committee: The developer has worked with the Committee in revising the .tproject to address the concerns of the Committee.regarding plLza areas, office entrance statement and building,material. The Committee has reviewed the revised site plan and elevations and recommended approval with the following conditions which the developer agreed to: 1. Detailed designs for the outdoor eating/plaza area shall shall be submitted for City 'Planner review And approval. 2. The proposed 'roof screen material be changed to "Dryvit to: match building material color and texture., Upon approval of a Negative Declaration, the City Planner will grant ``. final approval of the project based upon conditions recommended by dft the Design and Technical Review Committees. C. Environmental Assessment: Part l of the Initial Study h��--•oeen complete cT by the -applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and found no significant adverse impacts- on the environment as a result of this project. If the Commission concurs with staff's findings, then issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. III. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends issuance of_a Negative Declaration for D.R. 85-36. Respectfully s mitten Brad Buller City Planner r= 8B•NF•ko Attachments; Exhibit "A" Location Map Exhibit "B" -Site Utilization Map Exhibit"C" - Detail Site Plan Exhibit I'D" - Grading Plan Exhibit "E" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "F" - Elevations Initial Study, Part II = F ' abate Cl) LAI- 10 13• -k f a —aaraa 71 i CITY Q rrEtvy *y:. RANCHO CLIII:�ONGA NIIITT SCALE.PLA f : tr_ uli { y y i IIA"m'Z �a 'e ;--r P U, F w litill r CITY O RAN T GA F; , ING DIVOON EXH'MYr.- Z � �' Laa�a�/M(f.ab:. - 'E! �k +'yr1•a' , AIM lb WOM— CL F NPIIk ••�� a r' r '�� 4'Yai+ • � �. • •� 5• f 11 j �l�i. �.+$ "` F it 't .CPARC31. 9 l er.raf ebr*uaa�(a►tsauaee uaat f i,nac sh.ri.♦en.naj NK94 nLaln NR• aRce, rraWf • nTO"M UX4 IS,It.1 1 Vay I1.lw i4 R•.30 MAL,aYw waoms n Okt.S wo II �V�/, R,�VI CrrY OF ' IT�bL• �� ' �.• � 7H0. N 011r0.A.u'� DNIS T .. EXHIBIT. SCAM- •.---_ of NZWP0111- hRiVE SCALWI •' 1 �p '_ Ir t"�� OA d a l'.�f � �. �f� ".G }' �•' .S� �,. ,r;C" ,del tY � i It VIP 4n y • `i F MRTH, �.. ' f CITY OF rrVt: CIAO WXCAMONGA ,J PLAMING '11-INIS ON ij EXHtt3IT= SCAL , ji »'' z W n a cr (J.m: „ w iD U. Ca >21 U. 1 to ate,. Ha_ 3AIII13 J,Z-dMaN F ax w- PLANT PALETTE TPIMS a�IIMW Nacvs+tla sMYaae ...sue put- la4�hh�nais `.. \\ Pq=uw•caeltaq 1 i .. I :T 4!w"ccmwj t:�Goma V. .lc r srus •=i.aa eo.a •RaWe hagtt •Miemane.folta'rllsslM' v a v � GROUND COVERS p 222 !MclaiCmG c6bir3df' y a Q. ,} W O C ii C •YM.�q Mq dr.1l.y.a� .� •Fnits.M..mu�.ou-tucur tft t.! CL •ra trM�.naa o.a±saea n a c kNnuw.Mgu.* cc a lu 7fttf9=Iir eWlf0rtcl r t 1 .. Ox - - 1 NORTH ATYOF -� ITEM: r ' T oNGA . OAK-: `- a""Gp► I 'G DIVOON j EXE tBIT=. •.yam,-...F .. �U`M" ���• � Dw^..• Y�.:dit.31.K�'�m 4e Y.,-�df� Yx r... r.1u. r ...u9•i..... �Sv"m�Y�t - . .. .e aea s. �1 ca - O ' „+ �- p •! Sb nTH -1 A'i'IC�Ng� I,� WEST L°I ey-1 iON �..�•• 4• +.. t�Y 11 NCIATW-ELEVATION Q �r EASY ELEVATION NORTH CITY OF nai: { RANCHO-CL'CAMOiNGA TITLE- PL.. MING DIVISM EXH!Brr.---- L SC ILE- x A- :. J \ Gov S S zsFR r-Qr-1 71VO ovanl z- Cot-IJM Al Amh u r• rss�mararae , .. ILI It i Em td i/r�✓ -'� a ;fin''f3 d#iu r s{ 4 Gj ( . 'rs 'r' Cr 0� F ate: - ? :. PL A1�IIVII DIVISION EXHIBIT SCALE �79 4. sir1,; t t CITY OF RANCHO CUCA`fONGA. PART 11 INITIAL STUDY. ;€ ENVIROhIMENTAL CHECRL ST DATE: k APPLICL%T_ /MSS _ sitft [I�(//l�a a� A FILING DATE: LOG NUMBER: s PROJECT; 42x 5,a:�r `7; EI D S� T>,STiC.BG7iai GAY 4; ' PROJECT LOCATION. I..ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explaradoii of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are reS#red on attached "sheets). ' YES MAYBE NO Soils and Geoloey w .l the proposal have significant results ' a. Unstable.ground conditions or"in changes in ~• geologic relationships?" b. Disruptions,: displacements„";'compaction or burial of the soil? •• c. .Change in to or ground surface contour intG-vals �/` d. The destruction, covering or modification e r� of any unique geclogic or pLysical features? f ' e. AnY:Potenti - increase;in Wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? L/ b f Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g. Exposure of peopl_- or property to geologic R hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides , ground failure, or'similar hazards? h. An increase in the rate�:of extractic...._.J/or .., ' use of any mineral res6dree? } M: 2. Ftydro.loey lAil the proposal'have significant �c. re"sult_s in Page 11 YES m_kyBz \0 a, Changes in currents;;or the course of direction Of flowing streamr' ;rivers- or ephezaeral ,stream _ -OannelS?- �•' Changes in absorption rates, .draiiige patterns, (Or the ratE and'amount o£`st-face water ` runoff? _✓ r c.''-',Alterations to the. course or flow of flood waters? ,: i ✓ d. Ma in the amount of,surface water in. any, �° bc4dq pf water? e< A.kscharge into'-surface waters, or any teraeion of surface water quality? f. Alteration of groundwater o?=sacteristics? _— ✓ g• Change,in the quantity of grouz_dwaters,' either through direct additions or with drawals' or through interference with an + aquifer? , Quality? Quantity? h. Thee reduction in the amount of water otfs'er4 ii-e avai;.able<for public water supplies? I. Exposure 1f.people or property to water t re7.ated hszards such as flooding or seiches? _ 3. Air Qunity,. Will the proposal have v•3ni£icant result- i,h- Con;,tant or pe.rodzc air.emissions '£rn m mobile or ;;ndirect sbtirces? V ' StaEionary soukYceS? - b. be/(erioratioe of ambient air qua..ity and/or s • inl[ erference_with the attainment of applicable J,< quality standards? ✓ c. Alteration of local or regional' climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? 4. Biota' Flora[. Will + �proposal have 4aigni£lcant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, Including diversity, distribution, or number j of any species oZ plants? # ' Reduction,of :ihe nutabers of any unique, rare .os,¢eudandered species of plants2 # `<" cage 3" YES 'LaYB£ NNN 0 _ c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of l plants into an area? ' d. Reduction�Ih'the potential for agricultural production?' Fauna:. Will the proposal'have significant results in: . a. Change in the..characteristics of species,, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any..species o£ animals? b. Reduction of:the numbers of any ur 'que, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of qew or disruptive species of animals `into en area, or result in a barrier V to the migration a- movement of. animals? _ DeteriG�ratiom.or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 5. Population. Will the proposal ha�re significant. results iASA n: a. Will the proposal'alier the location, distri bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of,, the human populat18ii of an area? b. Will the proposal affect existing Sousing, or creatp•-a demand for actditional, riousing? 6. Socio-Economic Factors. WV.l the proposal have v a s significant results in: a. Change in local or regionrl socio-economic g characteristics includin '':,,,economic or .,,. commercial d verszt-t, tax rate, and property values? Jf b.- Will project costs be equitably distributed among,project beneficiaries, I e , buyers, tax payers or proje._t users? ✓ 7. Land Use and Plannine Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? a. A, subr-Pantial alteration of the present or t ? planned land use of an area? b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, Y ` policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? "y An'impact upos�=rhe qulaity or quantity of r existing g onsw,cptive or non-consumptive V q, ' :,_ , recrea►3onaslr'oFporttnities? �_t2D ,e-, Page 4 +d YES D!AY3E Np 8. Transn, ou nation. Will the proposal have significant C � results ine - � _,. a. Generation o£,substanti movement? al additional vehicular. a . b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for hi . new street construction? C. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? d. Substantial imp tion systems? act upon existing transporta- V/ e. Alterations to present patj�arns of c�lcula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? f. Alterations to or effects on present and , air traffic. ; s transit or ✓ Potential water-borne rail. mass g• Increases in traf:ac,hazards to mot +wen cles, bicyclists or pedestrians? or 9. Cultural Resources. Wil.+. the proposal have d significant resents in: a. A distuzbance to the"integrity of archaeological, paleontblogical, and/or historical resources? 10. Health, Sv;fety� and Nuisance Factors. Still the proposal�6ave significant results in: a. 'Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? i b• Exposure of people to potential health hazards?'. C. A risk of explosion or rele� a of hazardous substances in the event of as accident? d. An increase in the number of iradivi,duals or species of vector or pathenogenic 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? �/ . - n h. 'An increase in light or glare? ia� `s n ` + a y,•�� T�� � ` �page�5' YES :LaTSE o 11. Aesthetics. Will the,groposal have.significant ` results An: ,., a. The obstruction or degr-cdaLion of any scenic Y Vista or view? b. The creation:of an aesthetically offensive ✓' site? e. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? V 12. util3ti.-stand Public Services, Will the p=opcsal have�a significant need for new systems, or .alterations to the following: a. Electric power? b. Natural os-packaged gas? f C. Communications systems? d. Water supply? e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control. structures? g. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? V i. Pollee protection? J. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? :. .,, m. Other governmental-services? � a .. +, 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. Anancrease in the demand for development of e %^ new sszIrces of energy? �. d.` An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of neon-renewable,forms of energy, when`feasible zenewabte socitces a energy are availabl>.? ' 4 Page YES '!AYBE ,:Jp e. Substantdal_depletion of' any nonrenewable or scarce natural resource? _ J. ` 14. Mandatory Findin's of 53 aif36ance. . a. Does the � j d Pro ect have the potential to degrade the qual#y 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`cr animal community, reduce the number,or restr;�ct the range,of a.rare or endangered plant or`hnimal or eliminate important examples ofythe major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project hav the potential to achieve short-term, :to•,the disadvantage of long-term, environmental finals?.'a)(Aj,_short-term impact on the environment is one wt;,c'f occurs in a relatively brief, definitive peri. d of time while long- term impacts will endurq, well into the future). 9 c. Does the project have impacts which are ' individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable Adak means that the incremental effects.of an individual project are considerable crherr viewed In connection with' the,.effects of past projects, and probable futute projects, d. Does the project have envi-onmerital efi which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indizaetly? II. DISCUSSIOMT nr ENFIRON:4E*ITAL EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answerz- to Mr.,above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures), AC ,,,� p' -rtS+ra .. •n,„,"�"---r=a'r .... rc"'a V.y # °afire.` M. DETERMINATION. y On the„basis of this,initial evaluation: v IF find the proposed project COULD NOT'have a significant effect .' on..the enyironment an -aNEGATIVE DECLARATION will be,prepared.,. d; I find that although the proposed project could have a significant ant- effect..-on on the environment; there will not be a sign,ificart effect in this;c`ase xbecause,the litigation,measures desc4bed on an, attached `sheet have been added tit he projecs;4�A NEGATIVN DECLARATI0:1°WILL&E PREPARED. r N ED I find the proposed project MAY ignificant fecF on the, L� envirnment, and an ENVIBO.*J;'NT RT`i`s re ire 1 j Date x - gnature Title P r� l �✓ - T.A. . � q 1� �e •,* a r� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �ICAM A% fi STAFF REPORT ' �q Oc F a' Z DATE: March 26,1P86 1977 ,A TO: Chairman and "Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12991 - SHEL86URNE - A total residential subdivision and design review for'49 single-family lots on 8.9 acres of land in the Low-Med.ium,Residential District, located at the south side of Lemon Avenue, 500 feet t east of Archibald Avenue APN: 201-252-21, 22. Continued from December 11, '1985,, meeting. #, I. BACKGROUND: The proposed project was originally reviewed by the PT ann ng Corianssion on October 9, 1985. As requested by the developer, ;he Planning Commission has continued the public hearing for this project on three prior occasions. The purpose .of the "y continuations was to work with staff in revising the development r plans to comply with the City codes and ,policies, On January 29 1986, the developer submitted revised develop-sent plans to the City for review. Based on staff review, the revised` development plans failed to address the issues identified at the October 9, 1985, meeting. Staff met with the applicant on February 11, 1986, to discuss the inadequacy of the revised plans (see attached letter dated Februa%y 10, 1986). Based upon this meeting,. the applicant is preparing,'revised plans. II. OPTIONS: The following options may be considered by the Planning � < Co m ssion: ; 1. 'Continue the public hearing with-the developer's: consent i k for this: project to flay 28, 1986, Planning Commission A' regular meeting. T*'rfs option requires the applicant to` �« request for •a second extension of processing time as a, required by State planning laws. The extension of time would allow developer sufficient 'time to revise development plans for completing Development Review process. t0 ,, _ w PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPO T ` Tentative Tract 12991 March 26, 1986 Page 2 ai 2. Deny this project. This option would require the Commission to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of a Denial to be ad'optea at the next meeting. ' III. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recormlends that the Planning Commission continue this item to the May 28 1986 agenda. Respectfully submitted, r J Brad Buller City Planner BB•NF:cr Attichments: Letter of Continuance from Appl�lcant Chronology of processing time for TT12991 December It, 1985, Planning Commission Staff Report October 23, 198 Planning Commission Staff Report y October 9, 1985, Planning Commission Staff Report ii r � f. e ? .�, OHRONOLOGY OF PROCESSING TIME FOR TT129,01 .1 DATES REVIEW PROCESS COMMENTS , . 4-10-85 First submittal 8-1-85 r)ompl`etenesst Notice } 8-6-85 Technical Review Committee N,~ approval, recortmended revisions. ` 8-8-85 Desig"n•Review Committee No approval, recommended revisions Review 10-9-85 Planning-Commission Review Staff recommended denial, as requested by applicant. applicant delivered request for kontinued Public Hearing continUi Lion at the meeting Co' 10-23-85 meeting _ 10 23-85 Planning Commission review.g .Applicant requested for As requested by applicant, continuation so that he could continued Public Hearing to work with staff to resolve 12-11-85 meeting issues and revised development plans 12-•11-85 "Planning Commission review Applicant requested for • ' as requested by applicant, continuation Continued publ's hearing >" to 3--12-86 meeting 12-16-85 Received applicant's request for an extension of l processing time for 90 days 1-2e-86 2nd submittal, revised °) development. plansl 2-10-86 Staff determined revised plans incomplete i 2-11-86 Met with applicant to discuss., ; the incompleteness of tKa ` developm6A plans. A letter was ( handed out to the applicant. T`: F t r w . a I 'r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA c�CAMo,� STAFF REPORT DATE: March 26, 1986 1977 g r TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Bray 3uller, City Planner ;b BY: Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner t SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1N14 - i ' SCHULTZ A 21 custom lot subdivision on 5.5 acr;s of land in the Low Residential District, located at the southeast corner of Vineyard Avenue and Calle Del P.rado - APN .208 921-03 and 04. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: h" A. Action Requested: Approval of Tentative 'Tract 13114 `and issuance of a Negative Declaration. it B. Project Density: 3.8 dujar- ! C. Surrounding L-d Use and Zoning: North Single Family Residential' Low Residential i South Single Family Residential, Low Residential East Single Family Residential, Low Residential West Red Hill Basin Park (under construction), Open,Space D. , ^�nPral Plan Designations: ! Project Site - Low Residential North Low ResidentiaY South Low Residential f East - Low Residential West Parks Public'Facilities E. Site Characteristics• The project site is vacant and surrounded by since amily residential uses. The si.te slopes significantly to the southwest. At the southeast area of the . project site, the grade elevations are approximately 20 to 30 feet higher than the property to the adjacent south. Although s the site is .-�t located -within the Hillside Residential District,-it does contain some.significant grade changes; which' effect the proposed development. - The total north o south grade change ir, on the order of 50 to 55 feet. Adjacent to the north project boundary is a substandard width public ptreet (Calle Del P;ado, cul'-de-sac). FiF ITEM C TTA << PLANNING COMMISSION �.,REP.ORT Tentat��e Tract 13114 Schultz y' March 96, 1986 Page-2 ANk II. AlAUSIS: a A. General: The proposed 21 custom 'lot subdivision is designed with an-east/west public cul-de-sac street to serve only the -- lots within this subdivision: The northern proposed lots are designed to back up to the semi-improved "Cal'le Del Prado":< right-of-way (See Exhibit The proposed project As a custom lot subdivision situated on a s steep hillside where s apes :and gra i*►g are critical. Drat to the topography of the projd.t site, an ,individual lot-bye,lot grading scheme is impractical since it could present obstacles p that severely, inhibit the ability to develop the pr'aJeet site 1* with a feasible and workable solution. This scheme would, ; create high 2 to, 1 slopes and reduce buildable and useable I=" areas ors the lot,. ',,The proposed grading plan attempts to mitigate these potential problems by establishing a " t comprehensive grading 'program for the entire project site (see ` Exhibit "C"). ` Staff has worked with the ;applicant in developing further mitigating techniques to reduce grading impacts. These techniques include rear yard cross lot drainage and shared use and' Maintenance of slope banks,, thereby, lowering the lot pads on the south side of the p>oposed streets below the -street grade, subsequently reducing the-:!iei'ght of rear yard slopes and allowing°drainage to the rear of the lots to be cfianneied along the south boundary line. The Proposed ^r, p p project design and grading plan also raises -the }, issue of minimal grading versus useable yard space. The City's a,. grading policy requires minimum grading, designing structures to it the natural topography and avoid, the use of retaining , # walls. However; another City policy.i's the creation of flat, 7 useable yard areas for single-family developMent. Implementation of both policies for this project ,is difficult due to the proposed lot size and large slopes. It is ttaff's F opinion that the proposed grading plan reflects a comprehensive grading program which mitigates grading imparts and implements the City's policy intentions. The drading Committee filf=seat the project site is subject to special and unique circumstances �m which warrant a reasonable- comprehensive P grading and design '. r solution as proposed. . ' 4 h., ' PLANNING COMMISSION,-STAFF REPORT Tentative Tract 1?!14 - Schultz }' March 26, 1986 Page 3 The applicant has prepared two master plan concepts in order to address the,relationship between the subject property and the undivided property on the adjacent east side. AlternatiVe I reflects the =propoosed subdivision design for the project site and a similar design treatment to the property locationr on the adjacent east side (see Exhibit "E"). Alternative` II indicates 4% a similar proposed design for the subject property. but,, instead -of- a cul-de-sac, the street continues through to the property on the east, then turns upward to form an "L"-shaped. pattern and spills out onto the existing Alder,Street (see Exhibit . 'IF"). According to the Planning and Engineering , Division, alternative II is the preferred concept mast€r plan. due to. better grading, and drainage'design solutions. B. Design Review Committee: The Committee and 'the applicant. agreed to a redesign of the proposed subdivision as an , alternative due to the grading issues. The Committee suggested the,ptssiblity-of fronting the northern tier of lots onto Calle Del Prado Street and sloping these lots to the re,r jtowards the proposed street), allowing drainage onto the proposed street. This gives the ability to distQ Bute the high slopes along Calle Del Prado and the proposed street and reduce the height of these:slopes. After working with staff, the applicant prepared and submitted revised plans. It was determined by staff that the revised plans presented further problems and should be aband:ned. After continued work with staff, the applicant prepared and submitted additional revised plans which staff feels is a workable solution. Althou fi the revised .nl°ans differ from the Committee's discussion with t!:e a licant the intent of the e'�scussion content, which was to minimize grading, has been a' acdressed uu on compliance with code requirements and further staff irection. C. Techr.i.:al Review Committee: The Committee reviewed the project. `and determined that with the recommended Conditions of Approval, this project i{' consistent with all applicable r' standards and ordinances. Overhead utilities exist `ainng j Vineyard Avenue frontage. The Vineyard Avenue frontage'\\�has 12KV and telecr 'ation lines with a telephone service 6 p on the north s`, Calle Del Prado. Engineering recommends a( that the 12KV ani, +mmunication lines along Vineyijrd A�epue be undergrounded g developer. The applicant will, be ' required to install, a►,,,`off'-site and on-site improvements per. ' h City Standards, plans, and specifications _Conditions•- of " Approval are provided in the attached Result' con for` your review and consideration PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tentative Tract 13114 - Schultz March 26,''1986 Page 4 D. Environmenta)rrAssessment: Upon -Wew and completion of Part I , and II of the Initial Study, staff has found that the proposed project ;would have significant impacts with regard to soil disruption and displacement and topography and ground surface I. contour interval change. 'These findings have been mitigated by ' developing ream yard ^ross lot drainage and shared use and •, maintenance of side yard slope banks and slope planting. These techniques would significantly reduce the grading impacts. r IIl, FACTS' FOR FINDINGS: ,The findings listed on the attached Resolution, are hased on the spacial,.and unique circumstances of the site in relation to custo1, lot subdivision grading impacts,, to :P,Mvide flexibility and allow comprehensive grading of the site. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been previously advertised for I '. public hearing .and environmental review in The D2aj.I Report newspaper, the property posted, and notices sent to all property owners within 306 feet_ of, the project site. To date, no ` correspondence has been received.' ', 1i RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommegds that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Tract 13114, based on the Facts for Findings, per ¢ the e'tached Resolution and Conditions of Approval. Respectfully Submitted, l ad Bul'le, City Planner B3:DP:cu Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" Site Plan Exhibit "C" - 'Grading Plan Exhibit 'D" - Grading Sections AA thru GG Exhibit "E" - Master Plan, Alternative I,, Exhibit 'IF" - Masser Plan, Alternative II • Exhibit "G" Parkway Detail Section, Calle Del Prado Environmental Asses-, ment + Resolution pith Conditions of Approval Standard Conditions of Approval .Wd :#far?'-"•ss�,� �� ...., ��. _�_,at: �.. _ j x�_.�^e u f MGM S30 3U1 3tl lf1M 3 NIS mu 1X3. IAa32 -- L _ o nrav h Ju.I MM ti w o ZW s a L. V�✓ 133M1i U,� 31Mai1W—�tloaMlP _z* rc 31w3nr f TNY.QlIn1 . la m 1 t �I lift a n 4 1Mr�M ? n O Nutm auwn""Go t Tuva3a aasodsoaa 4• o01%k 3M4 1 I S K- d ^BHA LLJ ag it tTrfi = ;a a a f a Jyi j �..... MOT L [w � c9tr to X q'-•arts 't�ve� x�rk vatam3na Tod' W LSu ~ 1 - �.T �%/ /! ill M�"i.. •. -y M/�. F_r a` I //i% � lie 4 pd 96 71-1 A4 ,1 WAR fR,rvrffmr.�. fI/�fl l�eF�► ���►� pro, .s.�,ns .,� � �`i�.�d r��L..nt�il���.�1 �►/I ��2LIIOSInil!� eL' .�t/_y/err u�ir ►nrI i_'r- %L �` F�>'+►ii ! I aril • rt:,� sy� • c, r -72 ia,i fs 1 ► fir: ..f II 7�- r"PAC Eity.<t3?2a a � _33 z z ll. ti _ IG - •- � t �F��L 1 go C y3 ��� _ � � �1L:4ROutvO UlIF �X15T.IlG! PQoPasE,D 5/a/ Pt:oP A.G. ROF.g"c.k�..- -SEC. A-A . t•alo"twsa=. a NOM CTTci' CF rrEm.?. T RLANTCH cucAMCTGA -TITLE: -12AA�k1[i c-n "AA ------ PLVqNMU DRqSI01V mmrr; _ _ . — w CS E f l RAU EtEY,—(392.1 p �. 3•IS y: Fall. L ill -:Z . q ...� •� � �• � �8x. GLOl1NR L.11.IE SEC. : tc' noels, n, ✓ �l CI'1'Y cv TI' m: T`CM,CLT C TGA TtTr�: DE, a SF roA1` v� "PLA1�TIVING DIVLSK T' EXHUr —Z" s �' PIztVA'TG h 8PILL- 1 RAI A� E= SEhr116T1'1��T UJ s M {F t i1 --aEC. catc 1 I NORTH CITE OF imm. NTCM CrLJCMs/1-O GA . TITLE: 7i "e rANNU433V N EXH VF 5 tC. u � p�IvaTt= vrraiNac�lr Am EgSt=rA>=1.Ir till . .� P�DEt.cv 1424.2� � 11 } •3,y,_ -E.T...4fiaJ wG l.1Nv. t / iN�Lv1=NG� ur1� Fob SEC. D7 / 1aar Y01 t!.ACIL, !� 'Y �Z�1 = 10' VCGT 1nAou�r9 unr, T:1�.7 - ,IT Gp F-x.S.F.SL:. J .ter - l�.A CLOuwo 1.111E �y t.A SEC. E-E CUT v6er. . 1. i NORTH s . CI'1"v' Of 3 1 Tnu- A PL.A�dNIP`�1G I3TtTLSIIV' EXHIBITtD_4" K SCALE V � s q1 1 o O a s w § , I u k x 7,1 r/'i ooww.in l .aw z # \ 6.4l a w �;S3 3013Y ,Id! 91RS: 9Y 2110 Ya IT n -3]7rK 13rrT7 = Cl7 Z 7 F•-i w - � y.. �' 31�GI0•1W et W j CO 'g•� 137aK � 9N17M1-•�rO�rl= , UP ff' � i arpzlR �I W t ��ilfi W f 't 1 - � I Ira ulwlia+r#o� �'nl+aar • aaso�sow � �• �r �" Ar as Y 'lu u! OR FIX3 '\ a. • • ' —1�� �� � Ems., F ivaau aiwx+a t � k r a -1 gw Maw VtLw fi�yr.. q ... .. X. � 133Ylf'. aro/3xT--la2m:2 n s m `fit !yz . aaraaxlAIt _ (� w :2 I T . 71mw AllmnMti�. 17Wa3m a3sadSDmd ,00L,t:airac � � f IN V R 17 r Fi Eaat Eus�r' ' sa ELSt 3� , nlar.at. -:ULLp OEl - --CR100 f !! f E �O�Eht TENTrIVEI TRACT j1911F �. —_ Ln bALb,�:-- T� i WALL '� L•t,1DSCA?IN�I 1 SEC" H H" NURTH CITY OF ITE1�I:-`1`�• I31/-� �' �:, TCI10 CLTCA.MONG TITLE: VIALS SFCTiD{� PL_�!NI'3I\G DIVISION ,x,YHIBIT 11 n N SCA[�: .t:1Tc ', d a' S` CITY-OF-RA14CHO CUCA_MONGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY h ENVIRONMENTAL CHECK`.IST DATE. A�PLr::aa-s::J u�r`x. FILING DATE: /[fL �.._ /9B LOG IRWER: T!!✓. ✓QACT✓�/ PROJECT: /1�T �!>T SC/f 5,�/> PROJECT I.O«AT_ION: STL= t Y, E.WIR,)% NIAL IMPACTS (Explanation or all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and Geolozv. r7ill the proposal have significant results in-.' a. Unsta5le ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? b.. Disruptions,: displacements, compaction or burial of;'the soil? C. ,Change In topographyor ground surface contour intervals? d, The destruction, covering or modification* of any unique geologic or physical features? V e• Any Potential increase in wind or water erosion of-Soi7,s affecting cities on or off site conditors? , f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g. Exposure of people or pr,�,perty to geologize hazards such as earthquaees, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or's3alar hazards? h. An increase in the rate`of:extraction andfor use of any mineral resource? Hydrology., Vf 11 the proposal`•have significant 4 results in: Pag4;"Y ' YES uAY$E \0 a. Changes in currents; or the course of direQttiorj. ~Of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? b. Changes in absorption rates, runoff? drainage patterns, 1r ' or the rate and amount of surface water 'f C. Alterations to the course or flow o flood waters? f J e a d. Change in ,the amount of surface water in any body of water? j .• Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? V/ 1lteration of groundwater characteristics? Change.in the quantity of groundwaters, either .through direct additions or with-.` irawa�s, or :through interference with an aquifer? Quality? !. Quantity? ' 4AM h. The Weductio- 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 Quality. 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 applicablr, X air quality standards? C. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting cir'movement moisture or temperature? M 4 4. Biota Flora. -Will the proposal; have significant res•ilts - in r. y. a. 'Change in the characteristic- of species, Including diversity, distribution, or number �s of any species of plants? b. Reduction of the numbers,%t ry any unique, rare ',,-.� ;R _ •or endangered species of lanes? ' ,t ?age fi � u yea YES '_LAYBE, .1p c. Introduction of new or disruptive_species of plants into-an area? M d. Reduction in the potential-,,for agricultural -� production? Fauna-,z�Vili the proposal'have significant results in: a. CE:anae in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? +� b. Reduction of he numbers of any unique, ra or endangered species of animals? t c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? f d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? S F_--latiou. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the p pro oral alter the location, distri- ,{ bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of I the human population of an area?' b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? . 6. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: l > a. Change in local or regional socio-economic I characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate and, property ' ` values? b. Will project costs be equitably distributed ,» among project benefici ,ries, i.e., buyer:, tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and Plannine Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? � a a. ' A substantial alteration of the.present or planned land use of an area? I b., A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? t An impact, upon the;qulaitq or quantity of existingconsumptive#'or non-consumptive 1 ' recreational° opportunities? a t �'_V k K Page a" YES ,i4Y9r E0 '8. Transportation.. Will the proposal have significant V' results i'a: _ `i a. .Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on exi'§tang streets, or demand for ' new street construction? y C. Effects on existing,, arking facilities, or ._w demand for new parking? ' & Subs tantial�,U'04ct upon existing transporia— tion systems? + e. Alterations to ,present patterns of circula— tion or�ovement £:peeple and/or goods? w f. Alterraiions to or ecfects on present and 1 potential water borne, rail, mass'ti:ansit: or / air traffic? g. 'increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or` pedestrians,'? 9. Cultural Resources Will'the proposal hwe significant results-in: � a. 4 disturbance to the °integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and/or historical resources? 10. Health, Safety ,-and ; nee Fa'c: ilX the tors. po —significant :W r,ll prosal have resales r a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health / hazard? ✓ i b. _ £xposuro of people to potential health hazards? c.. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous• substances in the event of an accident? �•:,y-tj d. An increase in the number of individuals ` or species of vector or pathenogenic orgonisms or the exposure of people `to such I organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels?; YYY f. Exposure of people to'potentially dangercds ? noise levels?, g. The creation of objectionable odors? - h. -An"increase in light or glade? Al �. , r Page 5 M# YES O 11. Aesthetics Will the,pro posa1 h;ve significant z results,in: a. The obstruction,.o ',r degradation"of any scenic i ° vista,or view? / " b. The creation of an raeszheticallY offensive site? c. A conflict with. theobjective of designated or potential:.scenic corridors? d 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a significant need fbennew Will the proposal alterations to,the following: 3 a. Electric power? �f b. Natural or packaged gas? ✓/ c., Cormnunications systems? / ; ¢ d. Water supply? V e. ' Wastewater facilities? / f. Flood control structures? g• Solid waste facilities? / V h. Fire protection? i. Police projection? / J. -Schools? ✓✓✓� k. Parks or other recreational facilities? 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? m. Other governmental services —� • rl 13. Enere• and Scarce Resources,. Will the proposal have significant results: in: , a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? ✓ F� b. , Substantial increase in demand upon exist sources of energy? existing C. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? ` ►i d. 'An Increase or perpetuation of the consumptio�l cf non;-renewal le„forms of energy* when f rEnewablesouro ,sihre c . gyare ? a•" " available? -19L'144 +'J AU ' - r ' p �h Page 41 YES MAYBE NO j4. e; Substantial depletion of any nonrenewab a scarce natural resource? le or lk. Mandatorv,Findin s of Si aificance. a.: Does ,the koject hd•te the potential to degraCe the quality of *}ie enviTariment, gmbstantially : reduce the habitat4f fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife populatiiin to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant:or Animal community, reduce the number or, restrict,,the range of craze or endan-eyed"` g la nt o'- ' p or -- Animal or Important eliminate rt P ant .exa examp les of- t he. ma ei J periods of California history: or � / prehistory.- b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short.-.term,to the disadvantage of long-term,' b environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively termf� defiaitive period of time while "long-` 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 an1. in`divid+ial project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects Of`past p+•ojects,' ' /and probable future projects). J i d. Does the project, have environmental effects which will. caus_'`substantial adverse effects ¢ _ on human beings, either directly;or Indirectly?' ` 9 f IT. rZSC11S$ION OF ENL'IRONHENTA3 EVALUATION (3.e., of affirmative answers to � ., the above grestions plus a discussion of d Proposed mitigation measures), j The design of the proposed,;project will cause a disruptiOn, and displacement of the project site soil, and change topography And-ground surface contour intervals. These impacts m"ia be mitigated to be acceptable by developing the following grading techniques'. 1. Rear yard cr(ss lot drainage, and si ` 2. Shared use :td maintenance .of side yard s1OpE banks. These 'techniques woulgi,allow the lot pads to be lowered, subsequently reducing the height of rear,,. d slopes and in turn, reduce,`.the overall amount of grading. "Y �4 t. 4aA `^F a �-> e ag'e�7' III. AETE` iT�O�I.� On the basis-oz. this<thitia2 ev { D I find the s rep eed project COULD NOT have a;sl a * i on the envirponment, and a :v£G?�TIVE DECI.�IRATIOti v3111benprepared jkv I find rthat although the propoSeC ' 1 ,� r Projec `o_uid have a�s ignificnnt d�l effect a the environment, there,crxlj.>not be'u s r in tni$ case be ause,�tfie,mitigativn me"asutgsdescrzbedcunta�f ect.y, � l .A attache,;sheet.'h tre been added to the'pra ect A NEG:kTIN'E DEC LRATION WILL 8a.EREPz1REA. =, ] I £end the 4ioao- ed prajec a*LAY hav ads envirnment; ana yp�, gnif-cant effect.n, the 7.7 CTy f�R RE Date a �c gua e itlrexa, �# A f � a , x a RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLAMNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,• CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13114: WHEREAS,'Tentative Tract Map No. 13114 hereinafter "Map".submittad by « W. M. Schultz, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property s x. situated in the City of„Rancho Cucamonga, County oe San Bernardino, State of ' ' •; California, described as a residential subdivision of approximately,5.5•ao-res into 21 lots, regularly came bef�k)ro, the P-lannin,g Commission for public hearing and action on March 26 1586• and' WHEREAS, the Cit�;Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions 'set reports; and .forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's 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. +. i NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning _Comm iss,ion of the City of Rancho • Cucamonga does resolve as follows: E SECTIOK I: The Planning Commission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract No..13114 and the Map,;thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan,,Development. Code, and'specific plans;_ - :r (b) The design or-i;�rovemepts of the tentative tract is = consistent with the General-Plan, Development Code, and specific plans;(1 _ (c) The site is physically suitable- for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause r"' substantial environmental damage tand avoidable � •, injury to humans and wildlife or tneiv habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design .of the tentative tract,will not conflict t�ith any easement acquired by the public at large, , x° x now of record, for access through or ,use of the property within the ,proposed subdivision. is ,`d6 y� a ' -. Tentative Tract 1311 Page 4` (g)'' That this project, with the implementation of the ' Initial Study Part II miti gat I rig'measures, will not create_adverse. impacts on the environment and a Negative Decl�rat ion' is issued.: t SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 13114, a copy of 'which is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Cof:ditions: ° PLANNING DIVISION: 1. Prior to issuance of building pemits, ,.precise designs A , including architecture, plot plans, and landscaping shall be submitted for re-riew'and a�provai by 'the Planning Division it order to assure architectural compatibility with the surrounding homt=c!(i.e., exterior and roofing materials, and design theme). 2. The developer shall be responsible to install and maintain the perimeter landscape parkway on Vineyard Avenue and Calle Del Prado Street prior° to annexation into the City's Landscape Maintenance District. J 3. A detailed wall plan for the north boundary line along Calle Aft Del Prado Street shall be submitted for review and approval'by ` JP the Planning Division ,prior'to issuance of building permits or prior to`final map approval. 4. Slope banks five (5) feet or greater in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than Z-1 slope, shall be at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate groundcover for erosion control by the developer, to, the satisfaction of the City Planner and Bui'lding Officiai prior to relep-, Af t P . grading bond. 5. Slope banks five (5) feet or greater in vertical height°and of,. 2:1-or greater slope shall Le landscaped by the property owner- prior to occupancy, and irrigated for erosion control and t soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger ;?I, size tree per each 150 square feet of slope area, one 1-gallon or larger;fize shrub for each 100 square feet of slope area, and appropriate roundcover. In addition,' slope ban((ts in excess of eight ?8) feet vertically, and of 2.1 ar greater slope, shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree :per each 250 square feet of slope-area. Trees and shrubs shahiT be ° planted in stagger-ea clusters to soften and vary t-lope._plane. Slope planing required, by this condition shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the property owner prior to.occupancy. 01* . ace r , u5[}$��I&I^N.'%i�..•w.i,'Y 4' n w:.,..w'C'a. ._x w r _ iT.t �. .1.1DIIH'w�..y� Tentative Tract 11�14 Page 3 Engineeiina. 1. Existing 1;2KV and telecommunicticn .lines along the east,side } of Vineyard Avenue shall,-he u[Ldergrovh1,ed at the expense of the developer by either one of th'e two choices below.. (Consideration than be. given to the telephone service line along the north side df Calle Del Prado). a) Fnj, the southerly tract boundary to: the 'first uti),.ty.pole north, of the northerly tract-.boundary %approximately 165 fee''t.); nor b) From the southerly tract boundary to a new utility pole installed",-along Vineyard Avenue just north of 4 Calle Del Prado. 2. A private\,drainage easement for�;cross lot, drainage shall .be required for Lots 11 through 22' ana shall be4delineated on the final map. r 3. All rights of vehicular ingress to and>.egress. from shall be, dedicated on=the south side of Calle Del Prado. ,` Building?nd Safety w A rear building setback line• on the south tier of lots,!that prohibit any construction,W'.thiin the "slope influence" line as , produced from the to of 'Pear p yard slope that exists. to`the: ! satiL,'action of the Building Grrlcial,, 'as 'ntommende& by the Soils Engineer and verified by a third party review, and shall lit be delineated on the final map. a a APPROVER, AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF MARCH,, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSTON OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Deputy Seu;. ativ; , H �.'7W, „ ti f Tentative Tract 13114 " 1 r Page 4 `� , I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of 'i Rancho,Cucamonga,'Ao-hereby certify_ that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced., passed, and adopted by the Pl'annitig.;Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th,-jay of March, 1.986, by.the following' vote-to-wit: 1 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: it ij R I x. 4 a 1 t � r I + • a—Z au ou Ya.i eoa �a 73 .54 �a oc:+=t 1`; • tie Lw ncLN.o vLoL>...0 '°' ` L oIt u. uq wil .Y+c°'n at o,. � .o cy u.� EEES't + vimYURON N.d G. wA noyu o u�_ VtO CyOyn OI YAO SaaiY tdL LO�t q N O t.L V SL'. Ouy �V�ua c`,C u�Y qV4 tabu p FF O �.n Ynw wr ', . eu t.a .b, oo« �c ao q n...QO tt2 Nq y Y qt '21 +C.QYN yb E N0.�. .rS.O9 ad a� Sb ae. c•R Yqt},.. RCL C:9Y0 Vu:O CL DO �An V U.N� •tdy o42s YvR e IL y2bwb�«4L OW4 po64V b.NN VCS y�VO a4+la 5 LN SY.y OL bqv w. L^ .:ate CO.n Cwa SQ^.� 3aOr�� "w_L q.Vw VLV� LbRO @ tOi# b>t L 4 Lp LOB Chit qS'. n Y� u Sg V Y A+ QOY bGt VOA CV 6CgC wQ' S -.CC pVd O to > O 4 �EY�w VS bCY� AQN SG= YyY ..M1.M w L tw =149 L p lllll��"'''' da R YI~L Or gp : 5 Y «y RCT --5 VYa V bON V Y VV gVgq O�,Nq C 1_ * LS 2 o.t^OS G C pw.0 ffi VSS•V Oyu 4 w V J .a.-vr.'t ou ' a Ro V}.m >�u nL u c n LN v ci u`eca`z..'.�w.`X� a Fcodaw .cu« QN+-ritr+^�c 4otom Y�t6L6Y '; Al W S V � C 63NO C 6 V CZ"9 1 pO.,ntL4 .N qIN J J. l' �.: }cl� aT nb 00 Rpw�G rSd� •"� 3. P•� i �, ll' �� , y, b q t � r G C V� J y`^ t 1`;^t c o ,a a cnpd o rnoc� L Y'° n Yam~ Oi ^G q 'w tJ V V NqV 9C W nA Ot � ar q0 gGRb,O nv �:�y pj A •S ,C A � O'C •�ti0 C+`� �' ~ �t Y Lby U R O Nr O�tVg� Ji$-y.Cq , ] � ^ i � .' R + Sa,, N • � Ga.X nz; J • N Ft f ttf ._ A 47�'T R ^COTC Np Na CYgOir ^�LdV� ULr O L@uY.. -c• Yx. V O L^ 1.V y®® do _ C'Ci A VL6ui0 �Q gg O�.r $ q Y .V.L 2 ^L. '•L O q. Y_'V �M. C 6pO [wN7'N. ALLA1p�.6MOU S\1 GL4 L d^ NO y. a'J 040 Vt> .x p rq. yy V'�VN op VO. UUNY O0 Ype pNq Nn 6 -q N Y w - dALYI A uu dgA:,GNU yyap U4p qN.. y ST L._r C.u.. sDa%.'. Vq 29 NLC.�. OP Y�=CV Gp A AL q^Y'G AL O o�oi 91. ` . L U C gg Y r' 61 A u AB p MC 'e A:.0 C Oa A06> COCA .p��T„OYUM � Y �qA Yam. O N.L�� O Lu AL O.e tg0 YO-.y C Vg O.0.. L..e AGE A 921 a 0 9 N u 3 d3 L Y J A^V V A E pl O O Rp G. 0o >Cy�y w U -fc gG O_h 1 =p V A A�.c. Y^A.�N L� oYuaC.. u ao Fn�.ww�.^ o ..ram LA sn no L mN L Cyy.p Ny .> Wa. Y.I Ug MOpe a c.US VO.N 6 U u EV yV G01aU dJ N LOIE C. r N Y l..n.0 YjY �n Li �W.yptl CA apL l Er+nG6. OC vniYY.C 1/1 xwV=.=N YU <1HN Yy�Lp /V. NLG w b E • ~) r.l �� �I �I NI >� 74 � I u V S^ bu^ .r,A= L LC r' O r'•� u LH L Y �A o A .Gb 4yn -,so L G p n4 N �. �1Y.a YES C O z.�. ...a A U L G A 2 C gC _ .0 y•�u `r°, �Wp�yA ^ •ona .o�.sAi�y u�•r �c ^~6.i�eC Y �' �C y.0 S. Ou �bY ANN r. �.'GnZ Y.Er 9 G� ^da. xYs� .E L Y C N.M. A • D.L aO.AO 4E en0 +•WS �v.SCtpY tiC�NL v�0`^Vid a'Ty n^ G_.O,uC NaW oC a^gT �o ilnp ^L V4 i Y "zO 'pp N _ ^�>Y NN •.€iW OY•"�.c �..pUNqu NUa N O dd 00 pi YY.M.Lf 4N 'V.iIYO Yat+"n A l'Ey Svq0 � `:tiLY 6 !1 ex q�i C NYpp.. LntT j; nac.OTx Z r W : + VM u 1 WYR 6.� r yu �>d O�. p�L U b 2• C p pp0 :. �BLOOy SgpU L. V.•N r>U n up,Op 6 NA L N a�'C yn� �' - 2�p. �•� O. a.Yµ LC ncL p�A c y EV G4 OYR .... u=O poc L w Q N A d Y p A L V Q Y N H $, T�� .P p xSY SG'7 �'LCC OMN�.� c dO,CV ^a p • NW O nL • p C.= Yl pp r V CLC#F'S q 01. OC �G„L�rL Y uy V 0 4 c i c c 0 yyp U L'R` i�4Gq `p L CL L ALyI{O..•Y Va'^""'A O UUp 9 n GAO41A Lp O O AO YLLLp > u 'L Or - u 4pp .0�a nLC wN,n FLNCA :t�Na NCO 6U JM UyfntL Ce L Cnr.SJ C.V.w u rti..r. R V p dtO a'c y �u at oo.o o:.Y >cm O.r .:L x E.. x .� ••a ncC FN n :ia F:a nm o�`Qji d 0 9 a Lro^pVu r O G O� Y ^ L W � Y.0 p 6 U V:p �p 00 V L x 'O t O rf L b d 6 pY � Ly •C pC qd T�:S oc;a NNM. ✓,a aT A M9.G d4Z Z d y > C Y N.0 .Q a SL 9 droy,� Nd Qta✓W Vzz EE. Cy q L'.utff O1 Nro Tq �✓TT Gro ND M � � �A L,�t+N 6xI J O N O 6L 19d Qq�O�C r DRH ro GO✓Cl. � L �A -i U OO O..F Y✓ cG L Dy�j� J caTiOj' dS0 Y� O GP `^ L .H:WO�� -L roit Y •gpON E �� t N✓ .^✓t.a N L N O rx{Mr d O.N W N H 'SC. SS A. W`Wro O d L d G OV O R O�q ay. GNt bi G LD xL D �il d L .p p L qr tom. aOS. M -NO n E p u. ✓L�Ew E.G trill t y N CD 6V C. « Uq �7,p.�M N ^ C w N O O MC ti A ✓ > Oy 6'o U-5 O d 6 V L.,c G N n as x rD.G pti, sr e. ;ry ti .ate .00� c L�iw dM xrona L'. A 4 ^ C q U01 ,^ yd o,a ^ Go c oqa+ ip r2 GG C g O N C O NwCC• GO E d� O j �tyxy{�. ^ L ^ � q N� • r y Ow t1 1t1n �, YpC I �'T,- � V ✓ SG C r E^ -tn ro.E O roM ..I yy>. Grro.N N Y SUN d C �.✓ O N� ^SD A 5-, 0r U a a i Yr 6: G? U N^ d TFg t: L y C'G CC S✓ � Amh Yi'N } n Y9. 4 u n bU �i U U N N yp LO T nndL -✓ L C>` u•S.r0.6 .xrEud�a is n s cL rLp xdi,c 4oa r^ 4✓MO' Q a 6roN MON ZV 6C fpNw-r 40C C •.GN W66ti N�a 0. .� A •Y 79 1 d d^o-ti 6tl GGb d y=� IC�Ok vOiLL J . Eaa CA6 OWO H xd� y C • J Ate. C `\` n d 'dO Atl ..a V 3, O 1 b�E _ 'ALA Oad LLC 6.d'Qt pN. d a Lb y U.�dS ' C y N LfY CG,y FNF G yam.. J L � .Y dk a✓ ^ •L n uNk bL0 • L O 44 U .O Y) �. LNa ,0.✓A=n�, 'p V G�n� EE Ny! GC�"•� .G 'LA .. S-. �E.p. G•.�j O oEO :k Qeu j �.G u_ q:�. ow E.+[ �. y d:UGVy. a j L �N p m 11 tea+ gib. � dOYk �O.c O� i5 V YV C~ pkm NMu bt?Etld > UL N1L `N.•ytltl c i. -^u •,...G �b a- M P ^a.6 _T^ 6yr20 V •H t U Oa�99. doA a YL.. d G qw ai i € d N T A O L, 2 O •�p N u 'Y G L Y CI V tl Y L2A �La 4tl. ca UC a V':did y.q � L �l 23 N . l- 6 L � G n > bndC N K W7dG0Y O. h �' LYC.9 O LF^Ern d > CACO 6-^ N Yrn AY-tl p 6 i f Na C6. SLY.Y'6 titl q N d>W L 0.�12 w pyy Aft ad„k. d YLO.. L pu sG fi A a C G^M R c aoc s no; oa' 4>o Lb 5 ai u �M a a uo 0 we nr F G^t q�O y,y EN 6G a N EE `T.0 6. C^ T d 6 • ✓ u CnR y Oy 9L O.Y N 01 .Y.. O G y Ln ad6 Cp it +EL' LLdkN b _ C � L L d a � m dFi �.•.�so ic tl 'o• u c a o f ' •.1 AL � Ea OI� L d L L C � Y.y p t� Ab s tea= tlN ov C m tlo rnnp� o y.n wi Cn C a jT O pG aT kd at C ^,tlL �aE�` •-r.O� LL� 'O 39.P aL p1 J. N p I. en tlo W.< u �. m::'wA •'. a Gc id. N3o a�.Nl �..: c nE e u S };�'O p.• = q^ O. 1tl YC 41 WLL '^YL tl N Y b. _� C _5•C O Qa �b ,tla�.� c ..'• uo .'�+ _ a4 b c i tltl c Ao� OdkLAYo oc �O G da tl M Okt BELL L p d db WW JS v ti d. P C tlpC pC d WO CL OOEy .. }.W.O YaJ N.N .r'3"'^ JL�£'^ G h.4...qr 66W GO W� L4 ��Y 0.�.�y +'•"�f, ' •V Pd Of '.wj < . r ' v e c rnra.N, y i,!� MC Oryp E� LYIi Cp 4� E u A�.. yb ,d [(� ..T E s i s"- °d'•+o n \T c 9 J a N a o ?L uEpnT LAq � y � pac M `.�IIIJU � a A yE ^N v r AL OI x d U :O: aL 'PU7 �� 'gym ty.-+r naL wdi C.i� i pin 61N LA - wNA ww W pN i N Ca Ecr yp 5. T� N L NdOd y >•dL ^ �.v d .. MC.Q %.O 6 -a L ,.r •. a Y A q A. UA .M1..' Epyp F`: a Y EEC E M 4 C • �c qw of a Apt. L !, d `p ry udcd is K�Nwpucp` .L.. oZ (� E or. L aof )� G� i 6-y j (� tim'T •YOUV. Or,O � C., x{�O 9^ � d Cq ^Y^p. �[ 6 An Sr 'N OOt{W CW ' U.b 6� Zc x W a `c cu G U Dw A Caa O ua>. Lpyy pt!. V 1] nn^� C O O pry d C dT 4fj. N L 4p � �LL V�. .pryer V A a .^.p r�Ol Cy �Cd �Js C �G q� y Fla•.. My C. N�=a= LA 4 U p aL fJ rpiy RZ ry - �i'A T Y'• W t p y A.'1 N at g _ Ap -0ri aC OA�w. AN �p uOLG :Gy y E6+•o� n O E p ! bCp t d°•. r^ d w m.^ a ,c N q dv L °�y d.- bb .j1„1 V • L N O1 Ep U.p N R f. O d A N Lpp L C.r p y Ny6 N6'9 CN �.�V.Y nV 4N. 01�Cr• OY 4 NY�VIT �C qAD �C L, Wni W'YV 3P '3D GY Ku ra r Y y� � r Q N • _a L _J' O O p od L r ^p q L p LL •' r:pr Ot � OI yLE d.'''' q+N' C = - • • L L C. — A .^ u V _ A p O Lu 9r V LCU N O>.E Cy y4«'. Ny a In9 C w�a ,non i.o Ece co cu o d n q :' o. L ^M Eo 09 .a. - ' NY o u w c L ~n qq c •� r p.Np E� .n 9A AL �. p 6 Lr i ^ n a n y • d y L O d al n'Y L L^ N d u oz TE y A q E N T ol d2 '^ du O.H `j O Ll tiW Eb aW S L S vaN Ay Y 6PC � t 2�.. o do i6 G -�ni c:. u 'pan qq y.E yW u 4 a^� CL d UW O L L o Mr u a m o. U a r 4 V = 6r �� tr E—Cc t u Co V FV p, v aC a ¢ Lvs. q 6ye G:•1 4'd Ola L� O� ¢6 E O a awi G . '.N aye L r 011�O' CL uw. l�.l t�.7 n T � L aW e as p.E C p 4R � � A a . N 1.1 t~i1 • � ICI ,`il! �� '#S► ✓q, \ T, 4 �," Yell nM L O• OIL Y �: 2 ` Nv i L q i�ii d y d c .. '.5 Z •'" � O q N O Y E C w T• ID � 4 iL o Y .+ �•r a Y u O. dA �n ,Q c L .. v CLI ^ '`o^ E "Q O• 40. 4L.q 4 E 6 6 b N�� ,. > 'Zi uqa o ` ni EGE m m �' dlf� a:: c O d !•V !iV tq C d L > L < � uQv.. Y.r si. Y d'a ai �d L ti •'...o Ea! • .' > 4 y O.t c •-.d Y u C N gt gv m > > 1! .n o-in s,<--.'. �uo� - II Z d N t7 o o. 01 «« «•O o m` E c a i, 0 6 a p « O I O r AQN aM NL qy x 6l. .4 N T CO b N q i-qr.q r NO L Y•� � c q v G Y L y N S m � a. LT:� ink. •.- Yi N c4'O.�' 9. L » I-R '^aaY.N a ,a b �. LL MOd :�� rq OEO W N<Ld ti Nd tL '� NL Y w O Y d Q r O Z Y c 2 A 4 O• 10 a O:• d peC • 9L d0 � � O U� Cc� �N irr �L 6 �RL OI_c c VEc• ,rn Li + N S c 6 L c Y T U 0• O L - .S —c rn O AO L SQL ...yQ yu LL�..<• L?+0., L of O>• W qA OV. Lr • - • Y d d 'Q 06 d.L ✓ < d�A' YY ( LY O.jV OL q h0 •.O. 1-.Y•Y GnN 6N JS{ C] M++.S9� i5 A N 1•! O •A 1D � @ � N • < IiY-1 ( o • �1.�awi4 +e 3�L.,_... .T�.Ss'rwne..�:: _ .. 1 tb e...�. $.a a CITY OF RANClIO CUCAM0NGA, �CASTAFF RE Q DUE: March 26, 1986 ci 1977 ' TO: Chairmcr_.,:and Members of the Planning -Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Bruce Cook, Associate Planner SUBJECT: VARIANCE 86-02 SMITH A request to reduce minimum lot depth "frog. 50 feet to 135 feet, on a 1.3 "acre parcel in : the Very Low.Residential District (Up to 2 &fac), located on the south side of Strang Lanes east of Carnelian Avenue APN: 1061471-07. Related File: Parcel Map 9349 1. BACKGROUND Pao,cel MaG.&349 was.,heard as a public hearing item at the P`ang Consnision meeting of February 26, 1986: At that,time it was discovered a Variance would bQ iseded to allow ;iot depth below the;district standard of 150 feet. ''The item was continued to the next Planning Commiss'ioh meeting, to allow thEs applicant time l� to process this Variance application. II. ANACYSIS• ThP existing .situation is a 1.3 acre parcel "with a s t" sing i aWelling unit. " The property owner would like to subdivide this property i0to two lots, one with the house{Parcel 1), and the, other to be -vacant - or possible future development (Pa,60 2). Section 17.08.040-B of the Development Code requires a minimum lot depth of 150 feet. With parcel Map 9349 the proposed lot depth -for Parcel 1 would be 135 feet. The purpose of this Variance is to permit the reduced lot depth for Parcel 1. The Project site is one of a series of "land locked" parcels, i.e., having no access to a dedicated public street, originally approved; under County'jurisdiction,- Access to these lots has been obtmined 111 via a' private street, i.e., Strang Lane. As a means to.iYaprove - this situation regarding site access, it has been City policy that " with any requests for Nty review, e building . 9., permit, subdivision map, etc., an ot'rer of dedisata+n would be required by the City as an exaction for project approval. This procedure has already been implemented for lots 4, 5 and 8 (see Exhibit "A„). Con:.istent with this procedure, the -City is requiring as Ll ' condition of this parcel map, the offer of dedication for the northerly 30 feet along the property frontage to be used for ,future street purposes. This City imposed requirement for an offer of .. dedicaifc ="reduces the lilt depths";7 parcel 1 from 165 feel: to 135- feet and it is this action that has ,necessitated the deed"; `ar a yarignce. ITEM D , x ;x VARIANCE 86-02 Page 2 Thy tD'Pvelopmeot Code reauires that the Plsanif�l Commissi,- ,n make certain findings before `a variance can be granted, Sufficient grounds exist to make these necessary findings based on the following rationale; t 1. The substandard lot, depth directly:results from the imposition f by the Cilty.O"of a requirement for an offer; of dedication as a, ronditian of parcel map approval. 2. A precedent to a1,1ow substandard lot depths resulting from offe`s of dedication has already been established .with the existing condition of:parcels 4, 5 and 8. 3. ,Farrel 1 or the parcel_omap is the ,parcel in need of. the. variance, yeti this portion of the property would be unaffected whether the parcel" map would be approved not; this lot is k* already, developed, The, primary purpose of the,,parcel map Is the creation of" yaroel 2 -for aosiibve fi�uture� development. , Parcel ; it 'should be noted, conforms to all, applicablR standards and requiremetits of the Development Code:. III. FACTS` FOR FINDINGS- 1� 06re granting. a variance, ,the :Planning 7z ommission s al make the follnWing findings that the circumstances prescribed !`plow d6 app,iy: s4 1. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified reg0ation would ;result in practical difficulty, or unnecessary,physical hardship, inconsistent=with the onjectives . of this code the Development C640.. /I 2. That there are exceptional;or extraordinary ci.rcu;�stances, or conditions applicable .to the property involved, or to the ' intended use of the property that do not apply 'generally to ocher properties in the same-zone.' 3. That strict or literal inte•pretation and enforcement of the specified regulatioC, would dep, €ve the applicant of privilev_es,j ;I t enjoyed by the owners of the properties-=n this same zone. a 4. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant- cf special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other` properties classified in the same zone. S. That the granting''of the variance will not be detrimental -to 5 1 the public E llth, safety, or welfare, or materially inuriota« to propertles�.or improvements in t;e vicinity. } afr "' a Y Wier 17T7 . 2 ams, VARIANCE. 86-02` j Page 3 _— _:gin �.• _ _- _ _ " _ _ _ IV. CORRESPONDENCE, Th1s "item has been advertised ;as a public hearing ite' a-in'The Daily Report newspaper, the property posted, and ' notices were �ent'to all property `owners within 300 feet of the;; 4; subject property j iF. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Variance 86-02 througWedoption of the'attaehed'Resolution. a . k RespectfuTly submitted, tt Brad Buller �{ City Planner M x BBBC:cv 1 Attachments: _ Exhibit. IM ea,Map Exhibit 'B" �.Pr�ce1 �iap'9348 Resolution"of.•ApprovaI rc 6�'5 7I l fi�l a , �. •-�.. 1 `p.kz r..:,~ t ----- •-- ,P to 1 L ts•- �..,,• r� a 4 � .a• NF I�,�,y, .� .. '' 1 •• ` 4 _Hart�• i -• f C _• !•7'y6 -^EABiLLERO IF i G L4. " FA •• \ a 00 WOOEN FARN •ROADr '1. �Q� Cf AtION W ® lj10 ! � !aa p r 4�• .. ,4 �• aK i I3• � 1` �i t � ... ... tiv '� � 4 � ® •N 1 9 w A �a St. ti � qa a I1I �V y LEGEND CITY OF i 'rIT!,M: PARCEL MAP 9349 R TO.0 VU VDAMO.NTGA AREA MAP µ„. s DMI TON �:'+MBIT." EXHIBIT 'q�� by cam. Harr✓.c,rt» R ' r a e m cra cwrs AR aw ccrr=v,- b - y 1 t STRAND -LANE tu � chi P OIf1R AsA-NF'6fX,C57:ltaV JXc 2• � C'ASGR"YI jb TNC CIJY W �s'rl/RppeGerrS��l4[ /'� /xis .�...� I DI57XA e R/ P3wARsnFEcr+� ���--- ARCEL�2%" �o 20.122.S¢F'R;ET ; N ti o � s.•rc.rc.asa $ ��ss RltaO' .l�L LOT 5 t ((araFa/,<eriesr �y C(. • 1t \\ \,\ ,P xA i'F.N��RfCtal' 1 'HILLSIDE ROAD M 1-� �— i.7b' t3' 2G/B'I L9./T p ,,.17•694%:W 7dt3s'QF�` NORTH 'I CITY OF fit; Variance REAP (pm 9349) i PLANNING O/fY`•1`��y�'vT 1�O�TG TTI7.)r1.�3rse1 rya 4� Exmrro_ 'Z� . t _ ,ti �. i `•� ' \� ,5 �., .is :�" - ,#I ;; r 8 "' r . . _ } W — �- ' ;;-. i r�.� 'I �. ,� . � )� �: .� �� .. f � �'�; ' � ,. '�7 .. yJ f w7 _ I ! AEI " �.\� � :.ill }` '. � �� i .. - �� .�\ ... ��� o - y �Ali '�� ' I' A�. ' w��r '.0 �+{� f � .,, - .�, ,'J d ��\,. I.1' R �s i,��xA 1k � x ���� � � _ � �� I���� - K. , RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF`THE;.RANCHO CUCAM9NGA PLANNING COKMISSION _ APPROVING VARIANCE NO.,86-OLZ TO REDUCE XIN'IMUM LOT DEPTH FROM 150 FEET TO 135 FEET, FOR. PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE S011T.91 SIDE,OF LSTRANG LANE, EAST OF CARNELIAN, -IN THE -VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SUP To 2 DU/AC) WHEREAS, on the 1,Oth day of March, 1986, an application was filed and accepted in the above-described project; and 'WHEREAS, on the 26th day of Marchy 1986, the Planning-6)mmission held a duly advertised,public hearing pursuant to Section 65854'0 the California Government Code. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: n r 1. The application applies to a 1.3 acre parcel in tk'e 'Very Low Residenti;-.T District (up to 2 du/'ac), located on the south side. ; of Strang lane, east. of Carnelian Avenue - APN: 1061-271-07.- , 2. The surrounding properties are also located ..: 'the Very low r [, Residential District (up to 2 du/-ac) and are developed vita single-family residences,` 3. The projxt contemplated involves a subdivision of the 1.3 acres into two parcels (seep Parcel Map 9344): Parcel 1 i _ curz^ently developed with a single family residence. Parcel is currently undeveloped and vacant. 4. The related Parcel Map.930 requires an offer of dedic+tion of 30 feet for Strang Lane which would- reduce the lot d6th of Parcel 1 below the required 19 .feel. to 135 feet which necessitated this variance a�plica.ion. 5.. The precedent to allow substandard,lot depths resulting from offers of dedication has already been establish0 with the existing condition of parcels is the west along Strang Lane.'' 6. The parcel in need of the variance is Parcel I: of Parcel Map 9345, yet this portion of the property would be unaffected,-,) -„ whetr•er the parcel map would be approved or 'not beea.Yse cF ,. existing development. The primary purpose of the parcelima'p, is the creation of Parcel 2 for possible `future development Parcel 2 conforms to all applicable standards and requirements of the Development Code. N ' - mr 6• � t�t*'"�` � —a �s +r- —^�+rc• �� via VARIANCE 86-02i Page 2 t 7. Based upon_ substantial evidence presented to, this Council. 9 referenced March 26, 1986, hearing and upon during the ;above- the spec�)fic' lndfngs bf facts set forth above, this Cdt,,, lion hereby finds-'and 'concludes as follova >% a) Thaf Strict or literal interpretation •and enft;-'cement.of the specified rLyulaation would'rgrul.t in practical difficulty or unnecessary';phy,�ftal +M, hay-dship-inconsistent' with: thr: obJectives of the gevelopment Lode. k: l b) That� there are except.ior�al,, or. extraerdinary circumstances 'or f . zonditionS applicable to the. property invoel,ved"or t to the intended use property .that &• not apply general ly' to Properties in the,same oistrict.. c) That strict or literal interpretation and s s- enforcement of the., specified regulation would deprive tho applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district: d) That the granting 67t :the Variance 'Will not constitute a grant of soecial privilege inconsistent with the limitations-on other properties classified in the same district. 1� q e) That the gran{,in`g of the Variance wil be,., detrimental to the public, health, safEtlf, ` or welfar4a , or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: Based upon the findings an conclusions set forth above, this Commission hereby approves toe applicat:`on subject :to approval and ' recordation of Parcel Map 9349. ' APPPOVED An ADOPTED THIS 26TWVAY DF MARCH, 1986, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY Or RAU'HO CUCAMONGA Den:is L. Stout, C iT mm ATTEST: Brad guller, De)uty ecretary M A6 , h � ,�„�,"""°'�. *�P+y,"�. ate" ^t'w ram,r .,y� „r^^,,•: +'�, . VARIANCE 86402 r Page 3 I, Brad 8u1.1er, Deputy Secretary of the Planning\ Commission of,.the, C#y' of. Rancho Cucaronga, ado he e�y certify„that..the.foregoing Resorlu,tion was duly,0d regularly`i6trod.3ce f pawed_ .:and ado�rted• by the Planning .�ommissian of the a City of Rancho Cucamonga;.at a.r�egllar meeting held r x,' on the 26th day of'-aroh, 1986, liy the fgllgVjing vote-to-wit: w AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES., COMMI5SIONER3 ABSENT:: COMMISSIOWERS: of �V I, tv '1 yt; v v ry a,. r. r, Page, Ai� -ndo fackeet 26 0 ,'02 "' 3 46,P C ,,,_,/Age ft � . CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CAMEMORANDUM �* cU �op tu e c DATE: March 26, 1986 i 1977 > TO: Planning Commission FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Supplemental Report for•Parcel-Map 9349 Background; Parcel Map 9349 was initially presented to the Planning Commissic^� on February 26, 1986, a copy of the staff report is attached..; The project was continued in order to obtain additional information on the following items: 1. Verification of .Equestrian Advisory Committee recommendations, 2. Resolution of the parcel dimensions, and 3. Adequacy of access to the parcels. Analysis: issued: Equestrian Advisory Committee Recommendations Exhibit D contains the recommendation of the Committee, which are shown on the Parcel Map and are required to be constructed per Conditions F8, Grand G2. Issue 2:- _Parcel Dimensions During the discussion phase of the project at the previous Planning C!yMission ' meeting, the Planning Division stated that Parcel l did not meet tE„, minimum dep',,h required by the Development`Code, therefore, a_variance was necessary. This was a chan9e from their previous approval of the parcel depth. This change invalidates the originali'x staff report statement that the parcels conform to the Development Code requirements.` The variance is on; tonight's agenda for the Commission's consideration. continued.... ;, r ..3' ITEM E MEMO: Planning Cdiiunssaon F Supplemental Report for Parcel Map 9349 , � March -26, 19P6 Page 2 -01 Issue 3: Access to the Parcels As stated in tha original staff r}port,, the'project does not conform 1:1 the basin Planning Commission Subdivision Access `Policy, which stains ttiat 4 street with a minimum 40-foot dedication and 26 feet of pavement shall'-br provided from the site to a .City maintained street. This ,project,is locz-te"' t on a, private street (no dedication), and the pavement is approximately 20'feet' t in width.- Staff strongly supports the general, policy, therefore, it becomes a ` question of whether this project should be approved under the 'allowable variations subsection of the policy., For reference, a comparison between this project and two other previously approved projects with similar circumstances -is a follows: Applicant: Kortepeter Olsen Smith Street: 23rd Belle Vista Strang Project: PM;4773 PM 8011 PM7349 Reference Exhibit: °tE" "F" Approval 'Date: 10/24/74" 7/27/83 40400 Dedication Required:*1 No*2 No 26-foot Pavement Required:*1 Yes*2 Existing ? Z,;isting Pavement Width! None 30' 201 + y Had Private Access 'Rights:*3 No Yes Yes Additional Parcel on Street:*4 Several 0 2 Existing House on the Site: Yes Yes Yes No. of Parcels Requested. 2 Z 2 *1 To extend from the site to the nearest public street. *2 Initial approval required. 40 feet of dedication and 26 feet of pavement. After an appeal to the City'Council, the Planning Commission changed the requirement to 26 feet 'SF pavement only, to be com--tructed prior- to I building permit issuance fore the vacant parcel. *3 The property had private access rights to a public street. i *4 The number of additional,, parcels that could be created by future subdivisions along the street. The above information indicates that projects have .previously been approved which did not meet the 40-foot dedication requirement, but none have been: approved with a ,pavement width less than 26 feet. In the case,.of this project, it`would appear impractical to obtain 26 feet of pavement because it would require the consent of several other property, owners..and would be disruptive to existing landscap !ng and driveways along the street.,i PC MEMO: P1anjTng Commission Supplement-dji':Reporiw for 'Parcel°Map 9349 March 26,1986' Page 3 y There is concern that approval. of the less than 26400t pavement width could establish an undesirable precedence. The argument could be made that this is a unique case in that there exists a private paved street"serving an established: neigborhood (13 out`of a _possible 17 parcels are developed) and only two additional Parcels could be created along the street', therefore; the r` approval would not set a`general precedence, but would only apply to a sma}} number of similar situations within the City, CONCLUSION: The Planning Commission appears to have the following options `subject` to approval of;the lot;depth variance: 1. Approve the Parcel Map as proposed, 2. Continue the ;Parcel Map, with the consent of the applicant, until he :.. obtains the minimum 4G-foot dedication from the site to'a public street, and then add a`condition that a 26-foot paved width be provided within the dedication, or 3. Deny '_he Parcel Map ,because it does not me ':the established access policy. BRH:jaa . ks t a n c R: A � x EQUf TRIA'LV ADVISORY COMC.lTTEE COMMENT SHEET PROOECT SCRIPTION: iiLi:L SURVEY: - Existing Trails Adjacent Trails - Noteworthy topographic features or 'trees - Unusual Conditions/Problems RECOMMENDATIONS: Plans are acceptable as shown (please circle one): Yes fro Trails required-.';please circle): Local Community Regional Special requirements (fencing, vehicle barriers, etc.) r Comments t� l5' �,9, ,��� 1 .� REVIEWER'S SIGNATURE' (/ DATE 7<l7? ._ Y a y r EXHIBfT sipi r-4 -o ro .o xa. a2 st � cp -14 .at 4 v titi11 .JI �°M a cmo V � 1 26RaJR. J/l nr •G. yJ ro zoo CA m a a iryQo rn 4 O ln11 W I _ yG kX IM?2 h JJ2 ivI Sl i V ... EAST VENU n � td p ppatva..cc FW �1 sdcre.A t;J. �- i� y ® _ 'N o C M, ®. -. CD n ' m q 'CARNELIAM• —STREET-�-.-�_ . ...nl,. O y !' •�lwON0 57REELI+ ,• +� M•`r!C ` I bfAb 13 t.tAOAi[E/R OWL Ic NINE Wl C 3i } .s ce +. .._+ �v +� _. e�nGOEN Fngw- NOaD, f ...e fie. '• { M O :y MI \7b Ir2 die •� ,.?1 � • � CIMT10N 0. t. I w.a `f Q: fl �tJ. Genie/ . O 0 1 0 a •' u B: 4 s w ft fl O Y _ c i O ! i`/ t 3 LEGEND # ;i Existing Homes : CITY OF R �! /�"gy��ry q PARCEL MAP 9349 ` ""�"jjO <J l i 4J1�dY1O1V lTA r TnLE: AREA: MAP Al DIMI®N .l I. ', 9 , 77-11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA coo ISTAFF REPORT G,ro , z DATE: February 26, 19$6 I�J> I T0: Planning Commission 1977 FROM: Darrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Assistant Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:AND-PARCEL-MAP 9349 'SMITH--= A division of 1.3 acres o. an 1rto-,`e parcels in t e Very Low Development District (2 du/ac) located-on the south side of Strang Lane, west of Carnelian Avenue. APN 1061-271-07 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCR"IPTION.c A. Action Requested: ppprovai of Parcel 'Map. B. Purpose- To divide 1;3' acres of land into.2 parcels,' in the Very - Low DeveloGlment: District. C. Location: South side of Strang Lane, west of Carnelian. D. Parcel Size: ..Parcel 1 - 25,341 square feet Parcel 2 20,122 square feet Average Lot Size - 22731 square feet E. Existinq Zonings Very Low Residential (2 du/ac) r �. F. Exist and Use: Parcel I Existing sinnl, ,family Parcel 2 Vacant G. Surrounding Land Use: s ort - xis ing residential i r. South - Vacant East - Existing residential ' West - Existing residential H. Surroundin Genera1iPla,i and Development Code Desi nations: Nort - Very Low Res den.m u ac " South - Very Low Residential (2 du/ac East - Very Low Residential (2 du/ac) West - Very Low Residential (2 du/ac) ;AAA aT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9349'- SMITH R February 26, 1986 ^ Page 2 017 I. Site Characteristics: A natural drainage' channel runs through the " wr,,terly!side of-,Parcel 1. A single family residence is also located on Parcel 1. Parcel 2 is'vacant. II. ANALYSIS: the purpose of'the parcel map is to subdivide an existing 1.3 acre parcel into `two, parcels. Parcel '1 will• contain'.the ;existing residence on the property. Parcel 2 will be developed in the future, ,. Both parcels will take access from Strang Lane lwhich is a paved private street extending; to the site from Carnelian Avenue a distance of approximately" 1,000 feet. Strang Lane is presently maintained by the r, abutting property owners. T;;is subdivison .does not.confroir ,O'the basic Planning Commission Policy stated in Resolution.. No. f_*-07 requiring dedicated access for : subdividing, however it. couhd be approved under the aliowable vari,, ins section of the same.resolutions (refer to Exhibit C ). Staff feel, iat - a variation is appropriate: because the parcels' eonform to the G-aral Plan and 'Development Code requirements, there ,are several parcels of generally the same size along Strang Lane, and the parcel ma- will dedicate street "right of way and provide a lien agreement for the future constructions of a needed cul ;de sac bulb at the terminus of Strang Lane. The Planning Commissions appears to have the following optii'ons: 1. 'Approve the :parcel map as ,proposed subject to the access variations, 2. Continue the parcel map, with the consent of the applicant, until dedicated access is obtained to the site from Carnelian Avenue, or 3. Denial of the parcel•map. Staff has received a letter from the adjacent property owner in favor of the proposed parcel map. III. ENVIRONMEfffAL 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 environmentalchecklist, and has conducted afield investigation.. Upon completion ?-)d 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: 4 site has also been completed. k :. s aS ::,rem ahs { g c.:olea " q p EN ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9349 - SMITH ,. Februavy 26, 1986 f " Page 3 k f. : V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission,consider all input and elements of Tentative Parcel Map 9349. If after such consideration, the Commission can recommend approval, then the adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be ap.,ropriate. Respectfully submitted, BRH:BK:bg Attachments: Vicinity Map (Exhibit A)_ Tentative Map,(Exhibit B) i Resolution 79-07 (Exhibit'C) Resolution Recommended Conditions of Approval Initial Study 1 }F 4 a..a.t } .. .1 .. .. ..&I.n.c:'.".�. ...., Pact t,=,1•, {� O �. Vol Pant Paa2 9�r •� 5989 97/o 406.,C MA �T{� POr.3 FOR Us Port v.3 G p C 5 G3 q" u1 3 0- 2 a , m O yisOZ /O'er /02 ,v 11 CJ 21 Q 22 ;n; 23: -2. 7 24 5+aa.wv LAND s st r� z O •y0 O � 4,? �. PROTECT SITE Is 0 !e p C! ` re e p' e J 10 p yr F K� CITY OF jTM. PARCEL MAP 9349 y. RANCHO CUVAMVA / a' ++alati. VICINITY/MAP A sst`1C7resys� vl rr I+iR1NG DIIO�T . � CARNELIAY AYEME"• 1 �7 F � 22 NiM•J6•N'► \ 7�y1 � � �j ,iQ P.t� ^.'�..A � icon^.• +"`2'� f-::�IN-Eljz- I z� IL • 71t 8f62 MO.39-6! i. a s FR am � � 4i le r z . $ HIS 8 U l + �. QL EXHIBIT nBu g , y #zk. RESOLUTION'.NO. 79-07. A RESOLUTION OF THE PL4q„NIiJG COtgIISSION or T7tE * 7ITY GF'Re\NCHO CUCAL`IOPiGt. ESTABLISHING SUBDIVISI)N a, ACCESS tiPROVL7'NT POLICY. MiERE ',7.,, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga': wishes to discourage `the proliferation of private unimproved streets, and WHEREAS, it is necessary to establish firm policy gu.`aeline to inform property owners of the City goals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE'IS RESOLVED AND ESTABLISHED, that as a condition P of approval of any Parce flap, Parcel 1-1ap Waiver,` Tract Map or Lot,Li,,e Adjustment an applicant shall have access to a Tulle dedicated and maintained. ,• City street. Where dedications and improvements do not exist, theapplicant shall obtain a minimum of forty'(40) feet of dedication and improve with twenty-six (26) feet of pavement needed street frontage to reach the nearest maintained City Ystrepk. Variations from this•policy will requi e- approval of he City n PP t ty Engineer > of the City of Rancho, Cucamonga subject to appeals to the Planning Commission. APPROVED AND ADOP_,XD THIS 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1974. t PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO r Z41ONGA p Herman Rempel, Chairman, Y ! ATTES ..> Secretary of the Planniug Commission I, Jack Lam, Secretary of the,Planning Commission oftlie City of,Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the for-!going Resolution was and regul:,,1v introduced; # passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Ranci..,°Cucamonga at, a regular meeting of the Planning Gommisdion held on the 24th day of January, R197, by the following vote to-wit: r. AYES: CO241ISSIONERS' GARCLA, TOLSTOY, JONES, R[7`D?EL , NOES: COIZIISSIONERS: NONE fi ABSENT: COMISSIONERS: DARL s .. G. ' --itfCEIVED CITY Of RANCHO CUCAMONGp vr,' V,oj PLANNING DIVISION �a Y 1&,tY 'H AM FEB 181986 98 ^ 7a8�9, llt'r1j2a5i4a5e6 � � © l 4 a �h�.u1 C� Cl Lt'CA,111 tJ G A l t ipovtNG It s- -E--w � ► G�t.tV,iZ ' i_ 2FNc.�� `-0. Ct , � _ ._.-_�'�►yet,"_� � � ,� 71 -t. 1Y_1-15—�tratflG,C rV:pE3, O.IQ� @ e_c 77''/- RLr r '1 . 1.�:—�3_t_t�.0 c-��c�_,+4 i���„Ge�+�rrt"�i'7._.�.►ti`Z."5 nit t-t l�`° l s� '"Co_°'�Wit= �.''�l2.��.3'_`-�-�t~_,FkR Eo:�f�►%t A�r t 1 v ' "C: 4 SSE83?' - � try A m So r .T' � _... .wF�t 4Ata i n. NOTICE OF'PUBLIC HEARLNG ' RANCHO CUCAMONGA � PLANNING. COMMISSION The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission will be holding public hearings at 7:00 p.m. on ;-'ebrnary 2f;, 19,85 at the Lion's Park CoR)iunity Building located at 91G1 Base Line Road,'„tatvsho-cue an,onga, California 91730, to consider the following described proaect(s): 41 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND RARCEL Mn!t 9349 - SMITH - A division of 1.?.acres of land into 2 parcel•s. in the�Uery Low'aievel`opment District (2 du/ac) located on the south side of Strang Lane rwest ot, Carnelian Avenue - APN 1051-271-07. Anyone having concerns':or questions on ;any of the shove items are•welcosre to contact the City Planning .Division at (714) .989-1851 or Visit the .a:°fices lcoated,at 9340 Base Lj4�e'Road, unit B. Also, anyone objecting to or in favor of the above, y appear in person' at the, above-described meeting or may submit their concerts in writin5.,,t;.o ttse Planning Division, City of Rancho Cucamonga prior to said meeti;�g.` February 14 1986 Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commissi o nki k Y .T ? 7 7 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 9349 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 9349 LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF STRA46 LANE EAST OF CARNELIAN AVENUE. ;s WHEREAS,. Tentative •Parcel Map Number 9349 submitted by Brian Smith and consisting of 2 parcels, located on thersouth side of Strang Lane, east of Carnelian Avenue,, being 'a division of Lot 4 Block 13, Cucamonga Homestead Association Lands, as recorded' in Book 6, Page 46 of Maps, San 'Bem-7rdino County, State of California; and WHEREAS, on June 28,_ 1985_ a formal application was submitted requesting review of f;he abnve-described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on February 26. 1936 the Planning Commission held—a, .Auly advertised public hearing for the above-described map. FOLLOWS: NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSIC, RESOLVED AS SECTION is That the following findings have been made: 1. That the maR is consistent with the General plan.' 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3.; That th^ site is physically suitable for the propose,, .,._}elopment. 4. That th ;srd su'division and improvements will not cause • ;tantial environmental damage, public health problems or, have adverse affects on aoutting property. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse° environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration is. issued; on February 26 1986. l SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 9349 is approved subject to'' the recommended Conditions of Approval pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF February, 1986 y . PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE tiTi OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: u r Dennis L. Stout, Chairman �•f �Y;.� ,L Ora �� ATTEST: rgrad BuI br,. Deputy 5ecre ary I, Breauhler, Deputy Secretary of tie'Planning Commission of the=City of Rancho Cucamonga, do:hereby certify that the foregoing;Resolution was;duly and regularly introduced, passed, and a ,`;pted by the 'Plai.,iing Commis sion of the City cf Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting. of the"Planning Cortmiss'ion held on the 29th da. -� Pebr`uary 1986 by the folioviing vate-try-wit: AYES: \'` Ct� IISSINERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: JWE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 41. I Ix k CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA y RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL i . i LOCATION: south side of Strang Lane, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO: 9349 east of Carnelian DATE FILED: June 28, 1985 LEGAL DESCRIPTION:-_Being a division of a NUMB EE2 OF LOTS: 2 portion of Lot 4, Block 13 Cucamon a GROSS ACREAGE-±1.3 (net v . Homestead Association Lands, recorded in ASSESSOR PARCEL NO: 1061-211-07 Book 6, Page.46, San Berne^dino County, State of California P-'-- -. i�/e&ie**k*�ci�-kkir�#*st*k�eiHrc*5t�tF:'et�k`lek:t*ak:F:kitArk*il•:t**ieirk*itYrYrtie*iF:?Heiet** ... .. mkt.*�t�t:t•,t DEVELOPER OWNER ENGINEER/SURVEYeR a Brian Smith SAME _ Michael F. Mc Barren 8861 Skrang Lane 1720 Woodland Street Rancho Cucamon a,CA917,30 Oxnard,CA 93M Improvement and dea-fcation requirements in accordance with Title 16 of.the Municipal .Code r' the City of Rancho Cucamonga include, but may not be limited to, the ollpt;ing; A. 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. Offer of Dedication -sha31 be made of the following rights-of- • way oo;;the following streets (as shown on Tentati'Ve Parcel Map). *, 30 xxxxxxxxxx feet on Stranq.Lane / additional feet on 1 additional feet on t; 9. Corner property line 'radius will Standards. be required per, City k 4. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shalt b as follows: a dedicated r 5. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance,:agreements .ensuring ,.. r access to all parcels 4nd joint maintenance of' all.4common roads, drives or `puking areas shall ba-jprovided by' C'0C. Res and shall be recorded concurrent with the 4 y ir, �4 3 ti •d. 4. o- t �1 6. All existfrng easements,-lying 'within future right-,of-way are:to y be quitclaimed•or delineated on the ma requirements.: P per City'Engineer's 7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall 'be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. St B. re et Improvements Pursuant to the City of Ranch Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 16, Serl-ion ` 16 36,.120, the subdividdr' may enter into an agr'RFinant and post security�'with �* the",`ity guaranteeing the required` construction pt a-dation of the'map and%or building permit'issuance. { 1. Construct ;full street improvements including, but not I'limitei!( to; curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches;, Parkway trees and street lights on a17 interior streets. 2. A minimum oft 26-foat,wide pavementVithin a 40-foot wide dedicated r-tight-of-way:; shall be constructed for ail half section streets: 3. Construct the following missinar improvements: Prior to recordation for 7 Prior to building permit issuane for r+, .� 4 � a Curb.& A.C. Si e- Drive Street Street A. Median 9 Street Name Gutter Pvmt, tda1F: 'Appr. Trees: Liohts Overlai Island* Other 999 *Includes landscaping and irrigation on meter 4. Prior to any work be rig performed in the public right-of-way, - ,, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained f* " from the ,City Engineer's Office, in^�addition to an,� other ' Parmiis•,equired: ;I `t 5. Street improvement plansi shall be 'Registered _prepared by a ` Civil --Engineer and approved' by they City, Engineer prior to issuance of an encroachment permit. .i 6. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the i relocation of any pow utilities as necessary. er. poles or other existing public , r 7. Existing lines of 12KV or less fronting the property shall` be, undernruunded. 8 Install appropriate street name signs, traffiz control Signs,, , striping and iarkings: with-l-4,ations and types approved by'th'e ,' T City Engineer': -2- E-\C1 ri � it,.._. �`" . 9. Street light locatinns, 'As required, are to be approved by thf�/ Southern California Edison Compah3, .and the City of Ran`o , Cucamonga,' Lights shall be Pb decorative 'e poles "".4"th r underground service. i -. lD• Landscape,and �ArM gation plans shall be submitted to and approved by Lhc pTanninq.;Division prior :iwo the issuance of ;)Ui ai'ng: Permit. � � 11. Concentrated drinage, flows shall not 'cross sidewalks. Und'ersidewalk drays shall be installed to.:City Standards. C, Surety' fit. ? Surety shal11; bye` posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction o the City Engineer and City,;"Attorney, guaranteeing eomp7et7ort= o�f the pubigc 'improvements prior to recording for"and/or`prior to buildingt,permit'zssciai'ce fibr' +'.= ` X 2• A lien agreement,Must be executed priota to,recording of the map _ for ;he followiny:"-Construction of Strang,Lane, for ParceTs 1 and 2t to include. curb ,gutter, A C,a: pavement,, s�dewaT , street ' trees and.street Ti gilts, ; 3 Surety shah be pasted and an agreement executed, goal-anteing completion of 'all on-site drainage facilites nec-----'y for. devraterirtg a7,i parcels to the .satisfactiam-of the Building and Safety Ddison prior"to recording the final map. D. Drainage end Flood Control " X 1 `;'Private drainage easements for cross-"lot drainage' shall be required`,Apd shall be,.del ireated or inbticed on thei final,-map,.- X Z• Adequate prolusions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering,rthe property from adjacent areas. 3. The following w ]�k. g storm d,ain .shall be 1 instal led�i to the Ji satisfaction of the City Engineer, .` „ ------------- It _j- 4, Prior to recordation�,, off, the map, aA hydrologic and drainage " a i< study for the project shall be submit �d y to the. Engineer �r for review. Cit S, A drainage detention basin per City Standards shall be constructed to detain increased runoff' 3-F -ao .t w�a ' E. Grading X 1. Grading of-the .subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading g plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual gradi^^7 plan. X 2. A soils report -shall be prepared by a qualified engineer 4 licensed by the.State of California to perform such wore,prior to issuance of building permit. IV „ ` 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 radio sa5 grading plan shall be jecf to review and approval y' by the Grading Committee and sh�oll; .be completed prior to recordation 'of' the final subdivision map or, issuance of r, building permit whichever comes first. XX 5. Final grading plans for each parcel are to -be submitted,tp, the h Building and•Safety Livision for approval prior to issuance of .ep building permit. F. General.Requirements and `A.nprovals . i� — f j - X 1. Permits from other-agencies will be required as follows: CalTrans for San Bernardino County,F ood Control District -7——Cucamonga County Water District for sewer and water. San B�rdino County Dust Abatement (required prior to issuance of I grading permit) Other Z. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (GX.&R.$) \. approved by the City_Attorney is required prior to.recordation I` of the map. ' ? X� 3'. Prov;dQ all utility services to each lot including. sewerage, water, l)electric power., gas and telephone prior to, street 4. x 4. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to C6c-6jonga County, Water District standards. A: letter of acceptanc° is + required. 5. This subdivision shall be subject to Conditions of approval from CaiTrans/San Bernardino County Flood Control District. X 6. Approvals have not been secured from all utilitles and 6thdr= [ inter,�sted .agencies involved. .Approval of;the fAal m,a be 'sub a p�,wti�l)1�' � .ct to any requirements that may be rece`ive&7from tiem, .9 :.a —4— :. "' #r X 7. The fr j cil% the tenta�ive map or approval of same does not guaraW that sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time building permits are requested. When building permits are requested,- th'e•-Cucamonga County` Water District `trill be asked to ,certify the availability of. capacity_ Permits will not be issued unless said certif is-rt^.ceived in writing. x 8. Local and-Master`'Planne'd Trails shall be proyi.ded in accordance with the Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan 'indicating widths, maximum slopes.; pbys,#al conditions, fencing and weed control, in arcordance with CYtyrtrail standards, shall be submitted to and approved-• by the City Planner prior to 'reoordation` for Parcel 1 and prior to building permit issuance for'P:arcel 2. X 9 Prior to recording; a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the 'assessments uncer Assessrtlent,District 82=1, among the newl; created,.parcel s. _ X 10. At the time of final ,map' submittal,' the following shall be submitted:: Title Report, traverse calculations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and, deeds ,used as reference and/or showing, original:•' land division, tie no"*es and bench marks referenced. 5 11. Notice of intent to joi>-;`the proposed Medi-an Island Landscape District shall be fi'ti;du wf,+th thr. City ,•Council prior- to recordation of the Final.Rap. 1 0- A 6, Special C^rditiosis . X 15 foot easement for local equestrian trails, should be provided along the ?east,property, line of Parcel-',No. ,2 and 10- foot easement for local cal _trail shall be provided along the south property'`Ithes of Parcel l and 2. X 2. The 10 loaf equestrian trail shall be constructed on Parcel No: 1 prior to recordation of the final map. 4 X_ 3. Drainage :from this, site will not- be allowed .to flow east ' Drainage fact ties to direct the flow westeriy,'from parcel 2a across Parcel: 1 shailrbe constructed withii-a private drainage easement to,the satisfaction df the Building Official prior to recordation of t1je final map. ,r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD 18. HUBBS, CLTY ENGINEER' Av -5- -CA r C P 0 ENVIROM11ENTAL REVIEW 77 r `ol� ��: `-' APPLICATION INITIAL STUDY - PART I 197 GENERAL For aft projects requiring environmental review, 'this form Cast be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department:where the projects application, 5s made.', Upon receipt of this, application,;-the Planning Division' staff wil1,prepare Part II of the Initial Study and.make recommendations to Planning Commission.. The Plannina Commission wei,11 make one of tfiiee determinations: (i) The pro;dect wi11 have no significant environmental' impact and a Negative, Declaration will be ,filed„ (2) The t project will have a signi-ficant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be 'prepared,': or '(3) An additional information 'report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed proii c Date Filed: x Project Title• ,[cam- r� Applicant's Name,'Address, Telephone �,.�,v�i�,,.y,� �" �'.f'G:/ ,.S'r;�.fc:� L.0 .•fir .—s. .�•�r,.-� � � , �ai7cl Name, Address, Telephone of Person To Be Contacted Concerning this Project:_ _<<< Location of project: `t 4 Assessor's Parcel.,No.• List other permits necessary from 'focal, regional, state and feder al agencies and the agency issuing such permits: y ;. *4 i f `.. t,_l ". ` 77 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed use or proposed project: Acreage of project area and square footage of existing and proposed buildings, if any: /, ,5��c E T .Cta , Describe the ,environmental setting of the project site including information on topography, soil stab.? ,ty,-plants (trees), land animals, any cultural,. historical or scenic asperl_,s, land use of surroundin description of ant` exis„�n� structures and their us properties, and the sheets):_ !i/�u� (attach necessary II ,i�F-n.`—,cam s'.ccn� 5•, -�i.t1�• l=.�ch-+ f{ T---4 _LtLO1.—I,—is-S Tr T/d c7! r7ST 1�/ct //Uri/irill�t,=4 i%iJ.6 i� ?ItmFS f'ar�tc ?t/ T71 ?/fie l�izBFe. d 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 19 p u„ 3 ) WRI THIS. PROJECT: YES NO 2. Create a substantial change in ground contours? 2. Create. a substantial° change in existing noise of produce vibration or glare? 3'. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal i ..; services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? 4. Create changes in the existrn§,Zoning or General Plan designations? 5. Remove any existing trees? How„a`any? !i 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such, as toxic substances, flammables or explosives Explanation of� an y YES answers above (attach additional sheets if necessary): + 7. 'Estimate the amount of sewage,and solid wad r`G` will generate.daily:'__ �f,/ ;,PateriaTs this project B. Estimate the number of auto and truck trips geq�'rated daily by this project: /ixf 9. Estimate:,;he amount of grading g (cutting and filling) required for this project :in cubic yards; 10. if the project involves the cons ruction of,residdntial units co t t« the form on the next page. _ e_< CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information;-required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability,, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information 'u;ay be requi^red�to be submitted before an adequate eva Division. luation can be made by the Planning Date: 7. Signature y. Title uo�C91`JC(✓ �� m GLS * j.3 A RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION t The following information should be provided to the City of Rr,,icho Cucamonga ' Planning Division in order I aid the school district. in Messing their-ability to accommodate the proposed residential development, Developers are required to secure letters from the school district for,,accommodating the; increased nuO,;er of students prior to issuance ofbuilding permits. C Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.- Specific Location of Project; PHASE I -PHASE 2 PHASE-3 PHASE 4 TOTAL 1 1. Number of single family units: { n ` 2. Number of multiple 1 j w: family units; 3. Date proposed to x begin construction: ii, r / i 4. Earliest datcof' occupancy: f ;,. Models I r and A of Tentative • ! 5. Bedrooms Price Ranve _ Er,. f. r n -aed I-4 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION`OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY, OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUk-L-V 9349 (TENTATIVE 'PARCEL MAP N0. 9349 LOCATED ON THE SOUTH y SIDE OF STRANG LANE EAST OF CARNELIAN AVENUE. l WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 9349 submitted by Brian Smith and consisting of 2 parcels, located, on the south side of Strang Lane, east of Carnelian Avenue, being a division of Lot 4, Block 13, Cucamonga Homestead Association Lands, as recorded in Book 6, Page 46'of Maps, San Bernardino `• County, Stag of California; and WHEREAS, on June 28, 1983 a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above-described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on March 26, 1986, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above.-described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE�ZANCHO CUCAMONV, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the fallowing findings have been made: ` 1. That th,, map is consistent-with the General Plan, 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is cons stent with the General Plan. 3. That's the s4_�e is phys Bally suitable for the - proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will .,, not cause substantial environmental, damage, public health problems or 'lave adverse_affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on March 26, 1986. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No, 9349 is approved subject to ' the recommended Conditions of Approval pertaining thereto. X' APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 1986 _— .i PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: ; Dennis L. Stout, Chairman `, Lk I- 1 .iq,�. -F4f ..•y�.-q- � �..�` x Pn� - T" . _.�..,,.�,� . �...*•4 m^ ". Tk.' ' e'"�i' ATTEST: LL Bra Buller, Deputy Secretary R T, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Conn _a of the City of a �3. Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby cerwify that the foregoing'aesulbtion eras duly '�jnd regularly introduced, passed; and adopted by the Planning Commission of , e City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission he�d, on' the 26th day of March I986, by the foilorting vote-to-wit: 14 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: r NOES: COMMISSIONERS; ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: k kF r x, 1 ' 1 a ,; 7 ,i 1 t ib Maw r CITY.OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '' REC041ENUED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LOCATION: south side of Strang Lane, TENTATIVE PARCEL .? NO. 9349 east of Carnelian l �- ` DATE FILED: June 28, 1985 LEGAL DESC-�?PTION: Bein4',�a:division of a NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 portion of Lot 4, Block 13, Cucamonga GROSS t.CREAGF: '1.3 (net) A. Aomestead Association Lands; recorded in ASSESSOR PARCEL NO ,.;1061-271-07 Soak 6, Page 46, San Bernardino County, State of California DEVELOPER OWNER ENGINEER/SURVEYOR` Brian Smith SAME Michael F.'-Mc Barron 8861 Strang Lane 1720 Woodland Streat Rancho Cucamon a,CA 91730 ' Oxnard,CA 93033 Improvement and dedication requirements in accoii7dance with Title 16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga include, but may not be limited to, the following: A. 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. Offer of Dedication shall be made of the follotvin rights-of- way on the following streats: (as, shown on Tentat;ve:Parcel Map). 3v - xxxxxaxxxx feet on Strang Lana` _additional.feet :on additional feet on 3. Corner property line radius will be required per City , 4. All rights of vehic+:lar ingress and egres,1,-shall 6p"dedicated " as follows• 5. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuriig j access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all common roads drives or; parking areas shall be provided by C.C.&R.s and shallbe recorded concurrent with the map. YA Ey k i3 ,+ „R' 6. All existing easements lying within future right-of-way are to dw be quitclaimed or delineated on the map per City Engineer Is requirements. 7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property, B. Street Improvements Pursuant to the City of Ranch Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 16, Section 16.36.120, the subdivider may enter into an agreergent and ;post'security with the City guaranteeing the required construction prior to recordation of the m ,<and/or building permit issuance... ap 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. ^ minimum of 26-foot wide pavement within a 40-foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be constructed for all ialf- section streets. 3. Construct the following missi;ig improvements: Prior to recordation for Prior tolbuilding permit issuance for Cur A.C. Side- Drive Street Street A.C. Me ian Street Flame Gutter Pvmt Walk Appr. Trees Lights Overlav Island* Other I , *Includes landscaping and irrigation on"metar I ' 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, 4r 5. Street improvement plans shall be--- prepared: by a:, Registered ,¢ Civil Engineer and approved by the City ,Engineer prior to 'eL issuance of an encroachment permit. 6. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, relocation of an pay for the utilities, as necessary. P her existing public y power ales or of 7. Existing fines of 12KV'or less fronting the property shal'i beJ °. undergrounded. 8. Install appropriate street name signs, traffic ,controrji signs, striping and markings with location-;.and types approved by' the City Engineer. r �'�.`�'�.�°,�, ,�''�” _„ae.:�.�,.. Ott.'" .,,,_ ' '� - .• ".�.-.i,.. .. _ z � d .' Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the �. SoUtJh'ern California Edison Company and the City of Rancho,: Cucamonga. Lights shall be 'on decorative poles with" underground,service., 10. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted- to and approved by the Planning- Division prior to the T53uanq.e of a building permit; 11. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Undersidewaik'"drains shall be *stalled to City Standards. C. SuretXr -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 and�or prior to building`permit issuance for E X 2. A lien agreement must .be executed rir- p : recording of the map . for the following: Construction of:' Iing_Lane for Parcels 1 and 2 to include curb gutter, ,A.C.`"k_trement, sidewalk, street trees and street,lights. X 3. Surety shall be 'posted z,nd`an agreement executed, guaranteeing completion, of all on-site drainage facilites necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and t:. Safety Divison,prior to recording the final map. x; D. Drainage snd Flood Control 'Private drainage easements frr cross-lot 'drainage shaft be required and shall be delineated or noticed 4n the final map. X 2. Adequate provisions shali 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 Enginep-• 4. Pr-ior to recordation of the map, a, hydrologic and drainage i study for the project shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review. 5. A `drainage detention 'basin t " per City Standards. shall' be constructed to detain increased runoff 41 x r .x -3- . r .. }✓, a - 4 �t 4'. r E. Gradin X 1. Grading of the subject property. shall be in accordance with the, " Uniform Building Code, City Grading, Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be to substantial conformance with the approved conceptual grading, . plan. X 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer, licensed by the State of California to ,perform such work :prior to,issuance of building permit,; 3. A:geo"logical 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 pian shall be subject to review and approval by` the Grading Committee and shall, be completed prior to, t 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 buildingpermit.; F. General Re uift-ments and Approvals' X _ 1. Permits from other agencies will -be required as follows: Cal Trans for San Bernardino County Flood Control District — X Cucamonga County Water.,District, for sewer and water San Bernardino County Dust Abatement (required prior to issuance of a grading permit)' Other t 2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C.&R.$) x approved by the City Attorney is require' prior to recordation : of the map. X 3. Provide all utility services to each lot including sewerage, water, electric power, gas and telephone 'prior to street constructor. -' X 4. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall- be designed to Cucamonga. County required Water District standards, A letter of acceptance is a 't 5. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of a(+pr.-:val from Galleons/San-Re�nardino County Flood Control District.' X 6. Approvals 'have no-c been secured from all uti-ilities and''other -4' interested agencies involved. Approval of the final mapf ' ii,i " be subject to any requirements that may be recer'red from tfi, -4- X 7. The .filing of the tentative map or approval of same does not `guarantee. that. sewer treatment capacity will be available 4 'Wrthe time building permits are requested. . When building per its are requested, the Cucamonga County Water_ District.will�,�be *.� asked to certify the availability of capacity. Perwnits: wall'.:„ not b%• issued unless ... sai'd.certificatiin is received in witing,, X 8. Local and'Aster Planned Trails shall be provided in accordance R `with ,PTan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths, maxi(,,y slopes,`,physical• conditions, fencing,,sand weed controxl, in acco!�dance Iith City trail standards, sh611 be submitted to'� and b app y ,the City Planner. or or to recordation for Parcel 1_.artd prior to building;,p"ermit issuance for A,arcei 2. X 9. Prior to recording, a deposit shall be posted' with theCity, coue�ing the et lmatedk cost Jof .appoi^tioning° the,.asses^Smen v., under AssessmEnt;Distric 82=1 am�ang the newly cheated parcels, i#f X 10 A 'the time of final :map �submitta=1,•t.the fr� lowicig` sha1.T be f ; submitte ;; Title Repor.j.;1 itraverse 4calcut,afiltlns .(Sheets a, t copies of recorded `maps and",deeds,:used' .as. reference anFd/or shf;wing,-.original land" di•v9s on,f,Al'e notes -and,,-bench marks referehced, 11. Notice of intent to Join Ahe,:proposei2 Piedian Isl°and Landscape District:, :shall be filed with the Ci'Cy Counci 1 it pri or t� recordation of the,'Final.Map. r . • ,. G. Special Condii'�ons . X 1. R -15 foot easement for local equestMij trail•. sha17 be provided along the,east property line of Parcel No. 2 and 10 foot easement for local equestrian'trail. sh lal be prjoyided - alon tithe south_property;tl ines, ofk.PzrceT 1 and 2 7 ncludi`na scan- daa",x corner gout off,r . X 2. The- 10 foot equestrian trail shall be constructed on4Parcel'"No. Ai —" 1 prior to recordation of the final map, X 3. Drainage from this site will not-be al Towed to 'flow,•east. Drainage facilities to direct the flow westerly from paree',1; 2 across Parcel 1 shall be•constructedOthin easement to the .satisfaction of the Bu',idin aOffic riV al draltage 9` prior;.to recordation"of the final map. y. CITY'-OF RANCHO.CUCAMONW , LLOYD�B Hun- NEER by. 17 "S' 8 r : y s CITE'OF RANCHO CiJC 4'VIONGA CA,yro�, STAFF REPORT z ° U o , DATE: March 26, 1966 0 1977 � TO: Planing Commission FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil En;in,-,er. j BY Joe Stofa Jr., Associate`Civil Ergineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND=PARCEL MAP 9537 - LOZIEk CORP. 4 A division of 26.4 acres of land into two,parcels in the general r industri'al.designation (subarea 2) located east of Vineyard Avenue between Arrow Route and 9th Street. (APN 209-012-16) I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: approval of parcel map. B. Purpose: To divide 26.4 acres into two parcels for development of industri0 and'rammercial buildings. C. Location: East of Vineyard Avenue between Arrow Route and ItTi—S eet. i' D. Parcel Size: Parcel 1 - 4.5 acres ffff Parcel 2 - 21.9 acres E. Existing Zoning: General Industrial F. Existing Land Use: Vacant ' G. 'Surrounding Land Use: => North - Vacant South Industrial,, Subarea 2 East Industrial,,, Subarea 2 -West - Industrial, Subarea 1 H. Surrounding General Plan.,and Development Code Designations: ` North - Resi entia South- General Industrial ; East - General Industrial ` West General Industrial l I. Site Characteristics: The site is.vacant, and slopes approximately A 2.5 percent to the southeast. 4 II. ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting'to divide 26.4 acres-into two', . f industrial parcels in Subarea 2 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. r ITEM F i,. PLANNING COMMISSION`STAFF REPORT ' Environmental Assessment and,Parcel Map 9537 March 26, 1986 Page 2. Y - The parcel map submitted tonight is for financing purposes only. The Developer hers been working with staff in the preparation of development plans for portions of the site. : A master plan for the total area has been requirl;d to be completed and approved with the first development on the properf* (refer to Condition G 1 )..,!, Overhead utilities exist on the opposing side of Arrow Route frontage, the property side of Vineyard Avenue frontage, and the property side of 9th Street frontage-. It=" s'-recommended-that the applicant be'rQqu;ired ' to pay an in-lieu fee equivalent to line-half of the established cost•of undergrounding the Arrow Route frontage. In Addition,,A t is recommended that the applicant underground. •the telecommunication lines -and all electric lines less than 66 KV along-the property frontage :ori 9th Street. The property side-of Vineyard Avenue contains 66 KV electrical lines as wel-1 as electrical lines le,5s than'66 KV. The Commission recently adopted a policy that if electric lines less than 66 KV`,existed nn poles with lines equal to or greater than 66 KV, then,the applicant was not required to undergrcund_ the electric lines. Based on that policy, the electric lines along Vineyard Avenue-, will not be undergrounded at this time. There -are no existing telecommunication lines on these poles. "t Ask 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 a Initial Study and field investigation, Staff found no adverse impacts on the environment as aCresult of the proposed subdivision. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: ,lotices of Public_Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. Posting-`at IF the site has also been completed. , V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider a input an elements of 'Tentative Parcel Map 9537. If 'after such consideration, the Commiission can recommend approval, then the adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. Respectfully submitted, ' �f w:. BRH:BK:sr Attachnentss Vicinity Map '` Tentative,Map ' Resolution Recommended Conditions of Approval Initial Study pr , -A -...... .• •.`_. - - - —�--�M NOW ,T FOO�H/LL BLYD. f PRGJEGT j W e . Q NlIV714 sr E/v'HTri O Z ST �x I . I : ' • t -i p CITY OF PARCEL HAP 9537 RANCHO CUCAMONGA � VICINITY MAP, y�e� Fes. i r smr"�c' = TENTAT/VF PARCEL MAP NO. 9 5 3 7 ,. F /N THE Cl"6FR*WMO WC4MON6A 86/NC A SUED.YI�JON OF pARCE4 MAP N0 959� j 1/�AC 44LY m q- A3 CR MAP DECO ROGD IN BOOK BS OF PARCiI;MAPS AAcrs zo 21 A�crcanSaFsav�wawaan AXlJV7Y.5TITF dr l sDUE.itizn0'. DEYELOPCR EIYO/NEER� Oxw.FR+ - 1 CMN-Vl N&.L' MGSSeA VO KARAT 4 AV %j xr.,MCRICN.L-7 f AWS4eVW.'AAAEER. IRVtN CAOIM 2AYE7f� $brltlRLV P.WAISMgATN 7VQ Sd E/CAWU£AVQ 1RY/NG�CAI•i R.l+2716 909CITA MSJMVit'f NliT,WnG bOD ovrl/f�.Vq�olm.PAV 9741 - 4Tt-1'30 O i dAANCG�CALlft O2A00 (AI/9JlO/N, - A N nANw SAIJOER,S,'. a��e�lV.,1•i i �� �Ot' �we['L� O � �. FNI�Q LEGEND . ufu / _ W — Gye Li @ @ wevrs 1P.e u�1-� F -- Ti/erhMeaen[m;f tk- M1F E iAr g� �^ho •t. s7FElruar tFEnn�nuoae� ;� j4 r°0im�► Itt at z vlAll wOtrrLf4Y Trq w ca c•rovrwrnoic[ar[a+a cuss � IMMt�YIAVIJ(LT]lSSA'.'ASJF!!T �— SC, V Q•9 N/aVgY.T RYl wI1 RJ1INt 1 A - A'OJ'At1tM.8mlrRkYittILMA7✓ /Oii�bMOrFDO/ldltOw T.aea7: .jC PARCEL MAI NM sSS•{ 41 Awwrxw.•w1•IRW PM® TD/Jt Cen"rAe/N�AIL i • (ca¢erz �� �II . 1 AST t t/nun!?a rsrras slacmJc.>nvAr..voltaaevypGyyi ' taerseurraa..r. Lr ,a. as�aurcawar •u rnu . �k' ar 4et: eainrFv�LAtNA�fww sv FF4.. ARADW AG!/7E 99• :'6[APA'JI[iCIAgMLOfisvNACIr61GISr.4'R'l .u,. �-'� �� AurER a/IsueE.evwowo O.rJnRwm/retlrOwvre�,a7. •e cs• rr �� awais +� I. ,wa'�"ir.'�wJwres+waclx�cwcc.wLcaaaaTlcr c NNEYAPD dVENLEIT �� � IYWSTAIAL� 7 WL r S �.. d '' �:1YP%Cd1`SECT/GbVS-• YcnvirvnciP .:�s r ' ' l ENVIRON:;INTAL REVIEW APPLICATION =N Calf `' , . 1977 INITIAL,STUDY - PARfi I GENERAL For all projects requiring environmental review., this form must be completed and submitted to •the 06,,elopment Review Committee through th°_.,.department.where the project appircat'ion is made Upon receipt';of this application, the " Planning Davisicn staff will prepare Part 1I_af the TnttSal Stud and recommendations to Pl+anniing"Cortumssian ; ake- ,The PlacningCommission will make mane. of three detarm nA.ns: (1) The project= will have;6no 11gmaF cone environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will bey"filed, e (?)` The project will have a significant environmental impac± and .an' Environmental Impact Report will be:-prepared; or M An additional" information report should be supplied by tha applicant giving further ;information concerning.,the proposed project. r Date Filed: October 16, 1985 Project Title: Parcel,Map No. 9537 ! - Applicant's Name, Address, Telephone: Iorier corporation P.O.Box 188 `. cmaha Nebraska 68101 (402) 541-5000 ' Name, Address, Telephone of Person To Be`Contacted P Concerning this Project:'' ceorge`H-mim Mack 21&So Euc12d Ave. ontario, calif. 91761 (714) 983-0439 Location of Project: South side of Arrow Route East of Vineyar(I've. ' ?09-012-01 a 012 Assessor's Parcel`Na� _ List other permits.-iecessary from local, regional, state and,federal, agencies and the agency issuing such permits: None PROJECT' DESCRIPTION Proposed use or proposed project: Division of one parcel into 5 parcels all on vacant land Acreage Of project area and square footage of existing and proposed buildings, if any: 26.38 acres Total square footage of buildings in Phase I & IT = 354,045 s.f. There: are no existing buildings on the she. i' Describe the environmental.,setting of the project site including, information On topography, soil stability, plants (trees), land animals, any cvItsral, historical, or scenic aspects,- land use Of surrounding properties, and the description of any existing, structures and their use (attach necessary sheets): This site is composed of a gently'sloning_L approx. '� % ) alluvial cone and is now-totally vacant. The site has no plants exceF: n3turaal The fauna is composed. of insects, birds and grasses ground squirrels. T�) site has'no historical or scenic aspects The site 9s�bordered on the north by a vacant lot on the south by an industrial bu ldinq; on the east by industrial buildings and on the west by a storage facility under construction and b: the ' revious Otis Elevator building. Is the project part of a larger project, one '.i ul f, a series of cumative , actions, which although individually-small, may as a whole have significant ;i environmentzl impact This project consists of 26.38 acres of industrial land w;dch was part of a previous parcel map of 37 acres. The previous parcel map considered the effect of the development of the pared upon the environment. There is therefor no significant environment6LI'impact from this project, M WILL THIS PROJECT—YES NO -- — 1. Create a substantial: change in ground contours'? ' 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise of produce 4 vibration or glare? 3. Create a substanti for municipal .a�l€ change in demani ' services (police, fire, water, sewage; etc.)? Y 4. Create changes in the existing`Loning or General �. Plan designations? Y 5. Remove any existing trees? Ho-1 many? 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially j hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? .. —x— Explanation of any YES answers above (attach additional sheets if necessaiy): 7. Estimate theJamountof sewage and solid waste materials this project will enerat�: Bail v5,0 0 allons P.oJect y:0 per day of Sewage & 550 lbs per day refuse" +� F., Estimate the number of auto and truck trips generated daily by this project:1.300 vehicle b�iis per day' 9. Estimate the amount of grading (cutting\and filling) required for thi$ project, in cubic yards: approximately, 20,000 c.y. over the entire site. 10. If the project involves the construction of residential` units, complete _ the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present- the data and information required for this w initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, -and information presented are true and correct to the nest of my knot ledge artd " belief. I further understand that additional information may be,requ1red-to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by :the Planning Division. R Date: October 2, 1985 Signature�✓ �;N ///=GrnC/`! � ;t Title Engineer I_g __ t e RESOLUTION NO. ., F; A RESOLUTION AF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVI„G PARCEL MAP NUMBER =9537.(TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 9537), LOOTED EAST OF ' VINEYARD AVENUE BETWEEN ARROW ROUTE AND 9TH STREET. WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number, 9537, submitted by lozier :orp. and consisting of two parcels; located east of Vineyard Avenue between.Arrow w Route and 9th Street, being a division of Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 8597 as reco California; and rded in uook 89 of Parcel Maps, pages+ 20 and 21, San Bernardino County, ' WHEREAS. on October 16, 1985, a-formal spplicat.ion was submitted requesting review of the,above-described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on March 26, 1986, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above-described map. FOLLOWS: NOW, THEREFORE,\THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING CO;M-?SSION RESOLVED AS {• " SECTION 1: That the-;11Owing-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. x. 3. That the site is' physically suitable for the proposed development. 3 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 signif"icapt adverse z environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on March 26, 1986. k . °,' SkTJON 3, T�iat=Tenta'tive Parc el Map No. 9537 is approved subiect to the recomme—n�e�Co 'nd ipns of Approval pertaining thereto. a , APPROVED ANU,;ROOPTTiED THIS 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 1986. , PLANNING COMMISSION OFj '.HE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Dennis L. Stout, C 'airman ITTEST- Brra3-P.;j erg eputy ecre ary �,; s I, Brad. Buller, Deputy &&e ,et"ary of the Pldnn4 ng" Commission of the ffity of Rancho CucPmnga, do hereby eertify'that.sthe foregoing'Resolution',was du`1y and regularly introduced,, passed; and adopted ,by the Klanning Commission of the City of RanchG: Cc:am&ga,,.at a kSgular'meeting of the Pl�anning.Commassibn held on the 26th day of March,'198.6, 6`� the following vote-tb-wit.: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; NOES: COMMISSIONERSr ABSENT: \COMMISSIONERS: Y A y h CITY OF RANCHO CUCJAMONGA " w RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF.APPROVAL . _. LOChTiON: East of.Vineyard Avenue TENTATIVE PAQ°,E.' MAP ND: 9,537 w Between Arrow.Route and 9th Street PLATE FILED: Oraober 16, 1985 LEGAL D SK-1IPTION:—Parcel of PM 8 9 ,LUMBER-OE CUTS 'Teu :,: +fcDSS ACREaG ASSESSOa PARCEL NO: 209-012.16 t z �` **�: era**�* x*-� ��,t �** ***�r�-kit*:�4F��x�x ��� • r ;{ DEVELOPER OWNER ENGINEER/SURVEYOR Messenger Invest. Lozier Corp. George Mirtr,.ack' 16912-A VonKarmaia 'Avenue P. O., Bax 188w 21 S. E60V,Avenue- Irvine, Califorria,9271 Omaha, Nebraska 6L101 Ontario, California 91761 l� Improvement and dedication requirements in accordance with Tit?e 16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga include, but may not be limited " to, the following: y A. Dedications and Vehicular Ac ; 1. Dedications shall Le made of all interior street rights-of-tray ` and all necessary easements as ,shown on the tentative map. �ed'ication shall be made, of the folloring rights-of-way on the " following streets (measured from street centerline); 50 total feet on Arrow Route additional.feet on f additional feet on ', F" X+ -3. Corner property line radius will be required 'peh City Standards. 4. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall,'be dedicated as follows:--- r X 5. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements.ensu ngis,� access to all parcels and joint lnaintenanee of °ail common ._ roads, drives or parking areas shad be provided Eby" Cam`&R� and shall be recorded concurrent with",-,,the map. 5, X 6. All existing easements lying within future right-of-way are'Cn 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. B., Street Improvements Pursuant to the City of Ranch Cucamonga Mu n �.ipa1 Code, Title 16, Section 16.36.120', the subdivider m9y. enter into an agreement and post security withs� the City guaranteeing the required construction Prior to recordation of the mad , and/or builoir;g permit issuance. 1. Construct ,full street improvements including, but not limited to,,.curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, -zar%way trees and;street lights on all interior streets. 2. A minimum of 26-foot wide pavement within a 40-foot wide ' dedicated, of shall be construct d for all half section .streets. X s: Constru-t I*,,e following missing improvements: Prior to recordation for Prior to building permit issuance for eac pace Curb & A.C. ,,Side- Drive-Street Street A.C, Median Street Name Gutter Pvmt. Welk Appr. Trees Lights Overlay Island* Other Arrow Route X** X X*** X X X f Vineyard Ave. A X X ' Sth Street X X X X ,. y. *Includes laridscapin acid irrigation on meter **Remove existing-an , rep:lace at 36' from centerline ***Meandering sidewalk X 4. Prior., to any work being performed'in the public, right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtairpd�., E from the. City`Engineer's Office, in addition 'to'�any utht:r permits required. _ X 5. Street iF7 rovement piant shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City °Engineer prior to issuance•of an encroachment permit.- X 6. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power pones or other existing public utilities as necessary. SVII 7. 'Exi'sting lines of 1P2KV or less fronting the'oroperty shaYi be undergrounded. ; Y r X 8 Install appropriate street name sigi1s, traffic, control signs., i pi CityCi ng and markings with locations;and types app Engi neer, roved' by the J. a City , g. %Street light 1pcations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern, California Edison Company, "and the City of Rancho' Cucamonga. Lights shall be on decorative poles iwith underground service. 10. ,Landscape`- and irrigation: plans 'shall be 'submitted to and approved by the Manning, bu7ding.;permit,:; Division prior; to the issuance of X 1L. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Undersidewalk,drains shad be installed to Cy a Standards. ,r C. Surety X 1. Surety shall be p`osted,. and an 'agreement executed ,to the ra satisfaction. of the "City ;Engineer and City, Attorney, guaranteeing completion of 'the putil- c improvements prior to recording for andlor prior to.,building permit,issuance for,.each-parcel.. : R 2. A lienAagreement must be ex ecuted, X ed pri or p to recordin g _ o for.the following; _ 9 f thee..map X 3. Surety &all be posted and an agreement executed completion of all on-site drainge;;faciltes executed, efor dewatering'all parcels_to the rsfaction of the 'Bu13 ling an t{. Sa#'ety Divisors prior to recording for and/or prior to issuance pf building peit for sc — Parce., rm a D. Drainage and F1aod Catitrol X 1. Private drainage easements for,. -cross-lot drainage "shall be required and shall be delineated-'or noticed on the final map"'. '> X 2. Adequate 4 provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage, entering the property from adjacent areas_, ` 3: The followingstorm m drain shall be installed to the r, satisfaction of the City Engineer 4. Prior to recordation of the map, a hydrologic anddra�gage study for the.project shall be submitted to the City,Eng�ineer for review. 5 A drainage detention 13asin per, City Standards, shaia]a; b �constructed to detain increased runoff �r E. Grading X 1. Grading,..of the subject property shall 'be in accordance w.ith-the Uniform Building Code-,` City'Grading Standards .and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan- shall be in ._. substantial conformaa..re with the approved conceptual grading plan. c... X 2. A soils report shall' be prepared by' a qualified engineer _? licensed by the State,,of California to perform such work prior - to issuance lof building permit., 3. A geological report shall be preparedXby a'`qualified engineer or geologist .and submitted at the time of application 'or grading plan check. 4. The final 'grading plan shall be subject-Wreview and approval by thd.�Grading ,.Commi'ttee add shall' be completed prior to recordation of the final ' subdivision map or issuance of i building permit whichever comes first. ' X 5. Final goading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of building . permit:,,' F. Gene. 11 Req',� xements and Approvals _ X 1. Permits from other,agencies will be required as follows: COTrans-for San Bernardino County Flood Control District X Cucamonga�County Water,District for sewer and water _San Bernardino County Dust Abatement (required prior to issuance of a grading permit) Other X 2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C.&R.$) R approved by the City Attorney is required prior to recordation of the map. t, X 3. Provide all utility services to each lot including sewerage, ' water, electric power, gas and telephone prior to street constructon. X 4. Sanitary sewer anrj'water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County Dater District standards. A letter of acceptance is re requid. P . . ia�,k tt 5. This subdivision shall he subject to conditions •o; approvval ^,: from CalTrans/San Bernardino County Flood Contro, Ug rict,. X' : 6. Approvals ;have not been secured from dll utilit'ies, and&,other ` interested agencies involved.. ' Approval of the f1nal�map w'il"1 be ;;object to any requirements that may be;received,fro t(iein � .ter= 'yr, -4+ y .. aa r 7. The filing of the tentative map or approval of same does not Aft guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time building,,�ermits are requested. When building permits e-'ire requested, the Cucamonga County Water District will be asked to cerjtify�the availability of capacity, Permits w4111 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 widi: s, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fer'►cng'and weed control, 1 •n accordance•wit`h City trail standards, shall be submitted'-to 9. Prior to 'recording;.a deposit shall be covering he estimated -cost of apportioning the�tassessments under Assessment District 82-1 'among' the newly created parcels. X 10; At the time of final map submittal, .the following shall„ be, submit* Title Report, traverse calculations (sheets), copies of recorded maps, and `deeds used as reference and/or shoving origi)JI land, division, tie notes and ,bench ;;marks referenced. 11. Notice of`intent to join the proposed Median Island Landscape' District shall be fished with the •City Council prf.r to i recordation of the Final Map, t 6. Special Conditions _ X L The applicant shall prepare and obtain approval of a master plan 1 for the total area prior to development of the first parcel., \; X 2. A common-use, 35-foot dr veapproach shall be provided on 9th x Street between Parcel,-1 and Parcel Z_',and' shall be noted•onahe final map:pr,.-M-tR,r_gcordation.: X 3. overhead' Utilities ~ a. Arrow Route'.- ';ne .applicant shall pay, prior to recordation, a Tee in lieu of undergroundibg overhead eiectric lines less than 66 and telecommunication lines along north side of Arrow Route. Said fee shall be one-half of the front-foot cost of undergroundi,ng,.as established by City Council. b. 9th Street Existing overhead electric lines iess than 66 KV ;,and telecommunication lines on the north side of 9th Street from �t��`'L the first pole east of the easterly}property f 9th o the first \'" pole west of Vineyard Avenue shall be placed under round to issuance of an occupancy permit for either Parcel prior Parcel 2. • a rv: X 4. Notice of in to join the proposed median islands f, landscape maintenance district hal l be filed e;��th_=the City Counr�l�pr"i'or ` to recordation of the f ina� crap, r h + N Y = 71 4_ X 5 Adequate provisions shall be made,for acceptanceand tlitnsal of m surFace fdratnage from ;"NOT A:PART." Dra�riage$ basements as,, regitired,�b the.;Ci y Enga.raer, sha71 `be plrace`d on theTi nap for to recordaton� At , X 6 Upon: development of the first parcel, drainage fac�ltt�thall be prov d6 td accommodate runofa from�:thle 'nall�areaabou ded,by ArrowRoui e;i Vine"yard &Venue 9th Str�et�, and thE� raroad tracfcsA "drain'age study shall be' providpdf` to {verify the �,: rT Wl . � ` it ;r y ; . 5 4 i CITY OF RANCHO` r , UUCAMONGAg ° �toirAa Ruses xy. sIiYEN&IfdC by G Y �+ MEEMW RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTIAON OFi THE PLANNING COMMISS'+ION OF THE CITY OF, RANCHO CU,CAMONGA, CALIFORWhA, ANPAOVING'PARCEL MAP NUMBER* 9537 (TENTATIVE:PARCEL MAR, NO: 0537),;`LOCATED `-EAST VINEYARQ AVENUE"BETWEEfV�ARRt1W ROUTE 4Nd 9TH STREET. WHEREAS,$Tentative,Parcol" Map Number 9537 sub�,—itted by,LozQer 'Corp. and consisting of Wo;oj�areels,�located east -of Vineyard Aven6646et'een%Arrow - Route and 9tih Str2et, being yak d�visZon of u.Rarcel 2"' off" Parcel p 8597 as recorded in `Book $9 ofParcel �Maps, pages 20 and, 21, 'San• Bernarda.no County, Cal ifbrn,i a; ;and . "� 7e n WHEREAS, on October 16 1985,.�;a formal appll,c tfi' iwas= submitted requesting review of Attie above-descr•�bed T,errtati` a Map �arid WHEREAS, on Mauch �,6, 1586, °the Plfanning Commission -held a` duly advertised p6blic'hearing for.the above described map.,.- ry NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO•CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSICi�d RESOLVED` AS. FOLLOWS: at a SECTION 1 That the. ol1'owing findings have ��eep.made ' 1. That`theFinap.tis cons}stentwith the Gererat` Pla`r. 1;. 2. That tih* Ymprovementw of the 1proposed"sybdi vision is co:Isistent kilt_h`e General 3. That the site{ is " physically suitable for the proposed devei`opment. 4. That the' proposed subdivision Sand imps q*ments will *' not .,causes .substantial ,environmental a6Rge;,.p6blic•'. , c health problems or have adverse affects5 "n abutting property., SECTION 2 That this project will not create sigrnf��ant adv_11-erse environmental impacts and"a Negative Declaration is,issued on.March; 6 1�986�:,: ` .�%•' ,I(` �? , IRA Ak r3 h a 4 i n � SECTION 3 That entatiVe Pa del ,yap No., 9537• is approve&subject,;to "'' 5, the recommende Cenditions,rof ,,Approval-,pertaining thereto. APPROVEDI'IIND ADOPTED THIS 26TH•DAY OF MARCH, `19$16. ` PLANNING COMMISSION;OF'THE QITY OF RANCHU CUCAMONGI�,. "^ BY: Dennis L. Stout,`Chairma7i�-w ATTEST.,,: " Bra Bu er, Depti�Ly eorptary' I, Brad Buller, Depu4t 5ecr`eary of the elann' ng nGo rthmsxion of the City. of Rancho Cucampnga, d`o herCLy certify that the foregoing;Resoiution.was duly and reg�l arl�=gin produced; p ssed,hliA,and adopted, byi the P,,amm�g `Comm ss�,on the on the 26thRan'Cday`�faMarch, 1986 A'l at rby�th�'followept4ngngfvote- o:thawit 9 Commissicon' ,held AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: M- li ABSENT: Comm`ISSIIJNERS. x �' k 4 "J 5 a ' € � + 77 -- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA o�CA�ro 4 k4 STAFF REPORT E � w a n O 0, 4 L DATE: March 26, 1986 1977 TO Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner k BY: Dino Putrino,`,Assitant=Planner s SLF JECT: REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-14 VETERANS OF FOREIGN`WARS - A meeting. hal'l serving alcholic beverages in;an existing building with a lease space of 5,000 square :. feet on 3,47 acres of ' land in the General Industrial District, '(Subarea 3).located at 8751 Industrial Lane - APN 209-031=74' I. BACKGROUND: On ,August 8, 1984 the E-tanning Commission approved �• conditional Use Permit 84-14 with a '12-month review period. On October 9, 1985c, 'the. Planning Commission conducted a 12-month review of, Conditional Use. Permit 84-14 to determine the use operation consistent with the conditions of approval and applicable City codes. It was. reported that the applicant .had yet to meet the Foothill Fire District's requirement to install fire alarms. The " Commission granted the applicant SO days to comply with Fire District requirements and direct staff to prepare a status report:__ for Commission review. II. ANALYSIS: According:to the Foothill Fire District, the applicant Was yet to meet the Fire District's requirements (see letter 'dated January 6, 1986). The applicant has failed to submit a letter of intention and plans per the Fire District's request. The applicant did install a fire alarm system, however, the nstal;tion does not meet, the Fire District's standards. After .re-construction to address the Fire District's correction comments; the Fire .Marshall ` made a recent inspection (week of March 17, 1986) and found tf the installation continues to be non-conforming with the District`. requirements. It is believed that the applicant has had more than ` a sufficient amount of time to comply with the fire District,'`_ requirements. r. The Planning Commission may periodically review any Conditional Use Permit to insure that it is being operated in, a manner consistent with conditions of approval or any manner which is not detriimritaT to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially Tridrious to prop eri es in the vicinity. If, after review,, the CommTAion deems that there is sufficient evidence to warra;ft a 4ull-` , examination, than a public hearii;j shall be set to consider, revocation.of the Conditional Use Permit. .`x ITEM G` +, a a PLANNING COMMISSION-STOF REPORT.{ CUP 84-14 --Mi ... :, March 26, 1016 Page 2A .t III. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the P.lapning Conmission k determines that .there is sufficient evidence to warrant a examination for revs?cation and 'set .a public hearing datQ for April 23,'1986. A R ectfuIly itt Brad Buller , t; City Planner BB:DP:ko r � 1: F:• y k- {r q jar, ---- � y alat a edit i� a F� M I� N� 3NVl m ` 11fiLI1S(10N1--• i1 cV0' I ry '3AV - •3+y -- i SWISH -- n f— O Q • x 1 • "a. mil! p � �l 01 ae Fire PROTECTION DI[S°ICRI[C'IC P.D.BOX 35 a 6623 AMETHYST'ST,i•.RANCHO CUCAMONGA 91701 (714)987-2S_5 Janucey 6,1986 Mr.Matt Hogue, Commander °4 Veterans of Foreign Wars,Post 8680 8757 Industrial Lone ,. RFr;'ho Cucomong4;CA 91730 ;µ. Dear Mr. Hogue: An anonymous camp/Dint regarding the VFW occupancy was turned in to the Fire Prevention $" Butleau. It specifically chorges that: 1. Loose and toped wires Ere all through the ceiling in the bar area. 2. )*here is a 3"canon shell,.with al live explosive head,behind the be 3. There ore no emergency lights,nor smoke detectors The first two items ore a complete surprise to me'and,will regdire me'-.;Z make an nn-site �'nspectlon. If the conditions ore truly as we hove been told, the VFW must correct this situation immediately. + 1, The third item sounds like something to do wit) a fire alarm system. You and I earlier discussed what the code requiredin*the Way�tf fire alarm. According to the Uniforr» Fire Code, a manually operated fire olarts sv;ter?_is required in`the VFW, This would exclude the use of smoke of?ctors., _ According to ray letter of Sep amber 6, 1985, I sent you a copy of the fire alortrl Y requirements found in the fire do4`e• We are still waiting to,receive fire alarm plans F ' You are requested to lto;the falloviing: F 1. Send us a letter..witPdn five business days stating your intentions to install on approved fire alarm system. The fire alarm system is still required for the VFW even though you have reduced the occupant load of the k lgrger room below 300 persons, The lost time I requested this you verbally contacted Fire Marsha! 1 r Almond,•I believe your orgoniza/ton was looking for o ?e:v lac otion. I must have a deg jsion from you now. 2. Within 30 calendar days,sabmit two sets of plans to the fire department f:,^approval,prtr+r to installation of the fire olorm system. t 4 E ., 11 Mr.Matt Hogue, Commonder January 6,iB36 ,Page Two Failure to comply .with, this ter will leave us no choice bu# to advise the planning department to revoke CUP 84-14. Thank you for your complete gpoperation. ,fir A Sincerely, ., Susan D. Wolfe H ., Fire Prevention inspector "* SD W/ss cc: Dino Potrino,Planning Division :. . r r, U J � 1 RAY A F _ �-` CITY OF RANCHO CUCf,,jONGA CAA A, STAFF REPORT °` rO"q j ;a F Z U > } DATE; October 9, 1g85 L �2� r TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning a ,emission FROM: hack Lam, Community Development Director 3Y: Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: CONDZtMNAL USE PERMII'84-14 - VETER^,NS OF FOREIGN WARS A one-year rEviaw of they Veterans of Foreign Wars meeting hall within an existing building A a ace of 3,000 square feet on 3.47 acres of it of land in then General Industrial (5ubar�a 3) Category located at,`8751 Industrial Lane APN 209-03x-74, I BACKGROUND: In August 8; 1984, the PIInning Commission, approved Conditional Us0,, Permit 84-14 with a 12-month review period. The Planning Commission required that the use be monitored for 12 months to ensure,, that it is being opera}ed in a manner consistent ,-' ns of Approval and ap(, cable City codes. with the. ''onditiq II. GENERAL ANALYSIS: `'As indict ted in the August 8, 1984, staff report attached), the-G'F9 facility is and will continue to be used for bimonthly meetings and an occasional dinner-dance. These activities continue to occur in th• la'e afternoc os and evenings during the weekday or on weeken Atcord ng to the VFW past commander, most of the activities occur on the weekends. There is also ample parking for the S _^eanding-industrial uses and the VFW Post together. The VFW nr-:�mbership LAS'dot increased in tFR past year, maintaining; approximately- 110 ' members. However, is anticipated to reach 250 person, Upon talking to the bminess owners within the surrounding buildings, staff has concluded tF,at there is nog c:rnflict between the VFW post any the surrounding businesses. In fact, the surrounding br,siness owners have expressed their appreciation and gratitude for the efforts made by 0e VFW in maintaining the property The conditions of approval require compliance with the Uniform z Building Code and State Fire Marshall regulations. Recent inspection by the Foothill Fire District indicates two requirements „e k refrain to be completed, they are:' 1l, initalTation of a fire alarm, w� ' s. and 2) repair an existing door. As of Saptember 26, 1985, the yF41 ` has yet to reet these standards in entirety;. however, according to Susan Wolfe,'of the Foothill Fire District, the VFW ar`e working" diligently to complete compliance. . , ,ITEM T. 71 PLANNING COMMISSION' S "^ REPORT �',', k CUP 8444 VFW 4 ,,.. October-#9, 1985, r Page 2 .. 411 III. RECOMMENOAT ON �Naff that the Plarning Commission. require ccinplei ion,, of the Fife �7i;stricts regr �rements 7T'th n 90' days. If nod coitipl,eteH, tho: CUP <Wil l 'be "br�u:ght :bac� far:: consldera-i9p of revocation; - 4 �R77ctfuTl Ubmitt - Jack Lam „ F Community Develop Director;,. ' JLDP:ko Attachments Y Exhibit';"A� -:Rciniq Map' ' ExhiW'-B" -.Siu�e.Plan �. Exhibit !'C" - Floo Pats Focthi'lI Fire Oj--tri ct PsFam.Check Rep art FFoot'§JT FireDisstriict Lett,4.to theA-00.1icant Foothill Fire DiatrFci Notice; oltViolatrgn 'August 8, 1984 Sta T Report,Tesolution of Approval with Gond7t1pn'r',and Minhes ' f � Jr t'' A 't } 4 will1111111, Commissioner until the. Remped kvas the site 'Was concerned with not aPPlicaet's time comes UP tq standards dr-i,vewa be enou•h inCe'just andards9 he Y location and 5 to bring the S,� fixing up the felt ft stated Comtisslon,er front or might be a that UP to standards waste of an extens Chitiea the buiidfnq would not o addr stated at would Re Pecommissioner Barker ess these cPmments. be w}i'lin9 o grant the ` on stated aPP 1'icant imPoss b7e'`to7s Issue and that 6ec Would have' tc he time. it consistent ause agree wifih, the site 1 ic�itiat with Commis, Motion: Footfs ions goner. 17 Mov .Iriterim ,poIic iSm7ght be �evClo ed:by Re Pel, seconded b at this Pment Review 85_ I7. AYES; Mdtio Y at .O dfreet n earri;`+,d b COMMISSIONERS; Y the rollowin staff �QES; REI4PEE 3lvote: tJ deny Minor COMMISSIO'�VERS: BARKF.n ABSENT: tiatTIEA, COMMISSIONERS; Commissioner MCNIEt2 „TOUT' therefore Chit- stated . -carried : would have grahtadt,tha t�je 'mProvements aPPl icant a tine have beer- extension. :,sed in; T. ANNUAL RQ VIEW OF the V r CONDITTO e.,eeans of F- NAL-USE a leaseore,gn y _.,PERMI:T Indusi rialPaye of SOr+ Square eetfn9 hat`j h��V,FW - q one-year 081-74, �SabarQa:3) Cate feet on 3.47 an existinreview of 9orY located „t'g; Irls of land 9 the�nq, with Dino 1'utribo Industrial General Assista:t Planner %a��e APN 2ag- Commis` nei, . reviewed t ComPliarn Chitiea the staff >e of Footh17 asked how St;. ePort, Mr, a Fire District• h`d rrtGed 3t the 90-da utrino re lI 'atbe unt of thmeFire 1?,istrct Y time line for !ic 4hairman .Barker had de+eMinad that 9O days Mats invited Publfc Comment. ' Y would repaired andre�resentn9 the few weeks, the spoke ala �F'�. advised that r alarms Were s,Chedul.ed the break away Commissioner for insal7ation t{�7n h,;d been adjustment. Chitiea z- ,►_ .��,at the next shk Undr«;'told that two P7anni, doors, need; jissen Minute. s.. October g� 198x x rtY` Mf:`Hoag rE �d thatl'bgth doors had been rep-aired. i .: Jack Lam; Community Deuelopm��nt Director, advised that it was nit the Fire District,, who-dealt wstth 90 day issue but that it was a courtesy in the stafft, report to,all�w the app"`lir�ant tare t� Complete improvements thereby allowing the:u,;e to con .inpe. 1 " Cam„nssioner Barker asked if''it were,`'appr,priate to place a condit.11, that would require theCUP ta'be tl.q placed on-,the Commissions consent calendar in 90 days. h Mr. Markman advised that staffxshotild be a•irected to report;batk in 9b days on the'' status "uf compliance;`and' if.; not in ,complia;?ce at,'that` a�.ime to; set revocation hearing Motion: Moved b',y Chitiea, seconded by Rempel, to grant the applicant 90 days, to complete fire -district •requirements. Staff "directed to prepare` status report in 90 days.. Motion earriiad by the,following ;votes a7GS: COMM fSSMNERS: CHITIEA, REMPEL, BARKER tOES: COIM ISSiONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:` MCNIEL,'rSTOUT -carried " U. XJINUAL 'REVIEW -CF'.._CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83-13 LOYAL rrRDER,OS-M'iCE: wear review; ,t .the Moose odge"'tneet`ing" hal in an existi,�g tl sgt.ar!e' foot unit of ,an ,industrial comp'.ek, in" the- General Industrial aYea (Subarea 4), located at 9375 ,nrehib:alk Avenue - APN 2J.J-071-4ts:: Dino Putrin' , Assi-tant Planner,�revie;ed the.staff report. 'r WE Coa,Assio6er R^mpel suggested that staff.report back, to t;�e Commission within 30 days �)on the status of, the items not in com'PIi nce and seek t,the Fire Districti,s input as to:,whether those items not com-lied with are serious eOou h to warrant rrl g rocation. N Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Rempel, to grant applicant 30 days to comply with fire district requirements. Staf,' directed >to prepare status report in 30 days, if no effort made to comply, revocation may be considered. ' COUNCIL REFERRALS i '< a 4_ Planning Commission Minute� ober''94,'?98Si 1 � z h: " CITY OF RA14-CHO CUCAMONGA" � ��yCA STAFF REPORT DATA ' March 21% 1986 �'� TO: C.'!arasri-and Members of the Planning Commission �Y x FROM: Brad Buller, C ty'Planne'r BY: Nancy Fong* Associate Planner. SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL ,USE. PERMIT 86-10 1 -- DIVF.RSIFIED The deve opment of a .-„ . square foot retailhsbu lding.'' (Payless) with outdoor, nursery sales within an aQproved integrated 'shopping, cerjter� on,j11 41.acres .of land `in.:-a Neighborhood Commercia�,I"Y-District,, ]ocated.at the southeast •,. haven Avenue and_Lemon Avenue - APN: 201-271-53. corner,�of i Related File: CUP 8441- 3 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTIOii: A. Act-,,',,.Re nested: Approval of_.site; plan', elevations 61d' outdoor nursery Tales. �' B. Surrounaina`Land Use and Zoning: j. North Single FamilyResidential; tow Residential District (,2-4 du/ac) South Vacant, proposed roothill N eeway Low Residential" District (2-4 du/ac) x' East - Vacant with approved apartment-project; Medium flig{i Res-Nential District•(14-24 duiac), West Vacant, apartments, service'�statian; M•-dium Residential Dist-ict ('8'-14'du/ac) and Neighborhood ' i - Co=ercial District C. General Plan Decigna� Ae +I Project Site - Neighborhood Commercial North low Residential South - ow Residential" East Medium-Nigh.Residential Wect Medium.Residentia, and Nei�ghagrhood;-Commercial ` l D. Site Characteristics The project` site is'vaean', and slopes to the south ar= appYroRzmace�l 4% to 5% grade. PhAse,. sy currently under construction. f a ITEM �. - 4t, t PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Conditional Use Permit 86-01 March 26, 1986 R Page 2 ` E. Applicable Regulations: The proposed retail business is E a permitted use in a Neighborhood Cormlercial District;. It is the outdoor•nursery sales''that requires c-'Conditional 1Jse Permit to be approved by the Planning Commission. I1. ANALYSIS: - s A. General: TtR�; }site: [is part of Phase II of the approved Tntegra`ted shopping, center- Haven Village. This approved masterr plan dstablished building Fareas, parking areas, and architectural program that reflect a= rush style of architecture it The site plan and elevations for the proposed Payless store'oxe consistent`with the approved master plan and the archi_2ci:urai"program. 8. Design Review Committee: The Design ,Review Committee has reviewed the project and recommended approval with the following conditions twhich the developer has agreed to:' 1. Outdoor nursery sales shall be limitedito plant or` planting . containers only., Other. materials' _ incidental to nursery, such u�: `insecti�ides, tools, equipment, fertilizers, moil, etcc, shall he prohibited from being "tsp•iayed or `stored ' within ' outdoor nursee�sales area; _ 2. Expand „pedestrian connect ion' to the nursery by y ' eliminating one parking space i. ediate]y.adjacent ;i to the,pl aza.area as shown.in F bit, uEll. '. 3. Rock veneer shall be added' to the building face' , adjacent to the two main entrances of tEie .front (west) elevations as shown in Exhibit "E°,' C. "Environmentul Assessment: A Negative Oe'cla:^ation has;' been,., issued with 'the approyal of the Haven ,Village Shopp,ng•,Center t> Master Plan (CUP 84-31). ' III. FACTS FOR FINCIINGS: This project is consistent with the Development. Code and the deneral Plan, The project will rot cause detriment to the adjacent' properties or cause;, si�inifiicant environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed dse„'building, " design, and site Flan, together with the recommended Conditions of i Approval, are in compliance_with;�the ,applicable prow signs Of the Devel'opmsnt Code and City Standards:" d A } w !•U.{ ,x PLANNING Cv n4SkOt� iAFF REPORT Conditional Use Permit March.26, 1966 Page I ?l TV. CORRESPONDENt 2: This,item,has-been advdvitifsed 'W The 'Daily Report newspaper as��a public hearing'.y°and notices were sent to all the ro ergown I y w feet of,the project site.. ,rs within300' V. RECOMMENDAT,I,ON Staff recommends that, the Manning 4g Ustdn- a approve CondYtionai Use Permit 86-01. Respectfully sutzi-tted° Brad Buller ; City Planner - + ' BF rNF:cv •fin Attachments: Exhibit "Ak *Location tap. # Exhibit,u8" limn'V,�3iageAhoppihit"Center Master P,(an Exhibit C De ai]ed Sate Plan Exhihft- ,1'1"4- G. ding Plana r Exhthitt,}E., CakceptuA Landscape ?'lane Exnibilt '' '-,L Elevatjon's Resoluti4trs juf §§,,ro6l:`witW Conditions ;t ` r i`� 9 t lyY`.kwY 'Af, .. �4 tx: r s K�+ni4w+ + Ai I ! ~®ix I h ! 46 A-Mlm, how � i r LJ �' .:� r'r'• Ever ?�,tP?r� :aroma? C "Y 0 Fry I. PLANNING DIVFSIC& F.YHIBi 1 , SCALE. ' r' 1 . - Iltl'nd c 4:/ :t INA— oil, i I.e4.c:i� r _ �.. 66 a u • aZ h- 5 �t w 1.4 t NIN _ 2 i•ifs f � � . n ; i �. R�.5 N3/Itl CAN,]NJM I it shi �a ♦t AOL 4 `'� '�1„-,.�. •` ' ^�� a' !t • �bn�to F• . � k _ 8tr cam. •� Vk 3(illl ill v NOW37 Sill -� --3H.3AV CNVTMl1 -• -Cw�.___.. i I Y ool foX w =Ezr I us LU 21 f L♦ '� 3 1• i 9 tu q "R —�• t. ILI��aaw �j.�i� 1 �[� f p �iJ ' � �[fp�.'j{�{'il �� 4��� 1����V+j1�,�•4"�11'la R • r6tif �^° � �. �t �"Y 1 Z71 f i j• . of e. t t 1. Iola _ 1 ` OZ It r f ' vi d t ^ + C, µ • '.7 1- t G� RESOLUTION NO. a A ;?ESOLUTION ,OF 'THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION ' APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-01 FOR A 22,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING WITH OUTDOOF"?NURSERY 'SALES LOCATED AT THE `fOUTHEAST GJADRANT OF HAv,A AVENUE AND LEMON AVENUE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONNERCIAL DISTRICT` UMEREASPlanning Commission a approved 84-31 a master plan for the developCucamonga y sof April 1985, the Rancho neighborhood shoppingpcenter;'and , p. ment of a ? ,`WHEREAS, on the.31st day of January, °1986, a complete appllcaz filed ,'by Diversified Corp. for, review` of the above-described pro3eat, a {" portion of Phase IT; and w: WHEREAS, on the 26th day of March, 1986, the kancho, 'Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider she above-described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Ciicamongi:planning Co:m. issica. resolved as . follows SECTION 1: That the following findings can i; met: 1 That the proposed use lJfs-in accord with the Geneiai - I 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. =ditions, applicable thereto, will ro be detrime'tital to the public health, safety, or lielfare, Lr_�mater'ially- ipjur.ipus to propert-fes or improvements in the vice rtty 3. That the +• - e proposed use coms7i�s with .each n, the applicabI,i provisions of the D(Nelopment Code. SECTION 2: That a Agative Declaration was issued on April 24, 1986, for 'Master Plan, :CUP 84-31- , SFSTION 3': That ConditionC,,-,,Use Permit No. 86-01 is approved S• i3ect to the following conditions: Planning: 1. All pertinent conditions of CUP ,84-31 as contained in �4 Resolution 85-57, shall apply. } hz .4 ID .. , 1= W71171 f 'V IF ,s,,.—..Rm .i,'yr"_"-":^�1r^; dllk"4 "�' •" Z. The aut.,,ur.nurser� sales shall be limited to^ ! plant or planting * co,nta,�nersl only.,, }Other materWis incidental' 'ta nursery, such as, -%'in sect icides, `tools,>4quipm6nt, fertilizers, soil-, etc., S`. shall be;,'pribbibited from being displayed or stored within the s outdoor nursery^sales area. 3. The'pedestr*an connecttm,y .-the nursery shall be expanded` by eliminating,one parking iidce irmrsdiately adjacent to the plaza'° area as shown in Exhibit "E2". ' 4 Detailed plans including elevation and floor plans of the �. nursery sales area shall be> included in the Landscape. and Irrigation plan to be m,mitted f-3r Planning Division review F- and approval prior to isst-,*ante of building permits{, f 5. Rock veneer, shall be added tn�the buildiga face adjacent to the two main ent we ances of the st elevation (front elevation) as shown 'in ftib,it;"E", Engineering Division: All pert"nent conditions of 9,Arce'1 Map 9416 shall apply. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF'MARCH, 1986. ' PLANNING COMMISSION: OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST:_ ` Bi 'id -Buller, Deputy ecretary p I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of.the P1annnq.+Gommission of the.- (;ity 4f a ^ Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly^and regularly irtm iced, passed, and adopted by th1 Planrring Eom6issi:on' of the City of „z�amonga, at a regular meeting of^+t;�>: PlanninIg "Co�issian held on the-:oth n 'L March, 1986, *he,�olawing vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSICnERS: I r NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: � � S+1u, � NI - : YySa�..V.OL .NY Na LOb �� aY •Y . N4O do nii FFEE O tip 6 nY_O A^ L Ti-• O:A d a•r. Y p d 6 0 a.Y 6 •L p 15-E O C t. d O.b _ a•'1 0 .. �q O M. '� a1 O f. � V rnY t GS� tT Vqu Su �Y d CY OEa 6Y O L d � � �Ol L G►� VyY C, y W.dV aq o LO'� V CLa ow 40y U 'Y'l V�Ld .o..L• 3 � bd�dT C.q VL G dAV V y�� ' i n 3aYSC y aQ Lrs: c ooNrj =-.w it vat �. q OMO L _ CL YSb t.y O D.:C. Y. •L V ��N ^QI Y ONd CWdq GO q. Ow A. qG.6 tr �. V al. CiOS .9F O - EE q �i C E L EE60LL6'�:'.�y G.>..Y10 b^L A1�N.L' 'wq0 gCsd�iC GO d Ld 46u N 'w�. q0 y C d q t'd a Y O A aM q N 6 N Ygg n Ox a U > T.- F d C^G ^ g L rn m,^r�do-a'Gic oftRq.- a`u.L mawgLa2E.2 N H 6 ^ 00 • L � u n �yyEv gg ti V E �'.O q 0 L •C Q O1 . �� d d c u 6i Oytr u. d EQ� `` V NC O 04 d6 c y d E G u Y E O d d Z d L p Q Dq G 3 L 11 S Y O E o~.d • xa. LN ICC)d 6^Ym6V$N�A�2 F�O.O C,N Cu.+ QN�YYS 4"O qm •I�t 6L6tf i m 0 ed .•� M g Lam^ eoA ooA Eu "\ is It L N a.,o a O O 5 .�'.� a iti e H ao�; a a z : Gx^f �cdr 2.1 a{� ?. tn. O .O CIS I ,•. G C x O W 2 • W =VI Y,•� Ste v s T'F 0 S N p C M p gap p. a ~ Mt a. N, V G•= o vOp +J V.v tld NY~u t . t s A C • rs... � i L.....'�. .-a op: n. oeo Etro U."'o„ `- S x NZ V.n F Q..O a N f�1 U� J • _ N 4. � � 6Lps f• �; QA- - _. iEw1r dq O..L d 0 r p u w Z. E a �py y� Od.. A vad .ate d Ed L A N 9p Ou. y.�E �Af d q J W a 2 b ..0.u L EE E^>.To u� Vn .L rS uNY 4J L O}_ Ouo C.�^LLAV 4N� TNS n9 O g32L dQ 6 N O L C . b Ov'u .p w u ram. rdgY yy� �� q w.A '= L ^b �• E. F p �p L A.N 9u. UM Qy ca Sergio^ w.E� AE C,O.c u T 6U a� c p Ear. q n} L c T ... o o. b al N� Od ipC N2 C CL� O E ^6m ESd p^ C A�r Sp �T N T� q-j2i dA Auw E w: �L a eYu O �Y n.• 1n ^ N O Ta b A 24 Y Tq 0 p V +d TOa^i Cy T O Ow Ly 026 nG n Q L EqE .,• A E'1._. u wwr S d pT T p q y c AWN. CC n _ 'q- nn 6 w N c La E SS V W� N w N N L S S N d(i S N ^ I o .-i. wYbY. TGN E u '� o O d w A a N g E r pL. 9 • c O L n O N : k �u opa L E' .•-E•-•- va. iN=N .V uWo Adw,6 d� �Nyy M Cy4 E T V d z i G L w N L w d c N bpi W O r o°' o � o �„oJs �N.Lnw• u Ni �coy� ra�uY c u. O N uou �-dgoa A� cv qca �^ p0 C L Y +.. �..6 C '^ 6;Ems,,. C O C LL C d r b N C 6 Z G o U L.:LO.n O N V O 0 0.2 cef S O' L2 Lnq -u E NH. A Y O N d y L A C u d S 'Q M b w C 9 0 tl N C a 6� nw L n E O d C �'.O q �V �� W b b x N p N q C r.a w�V � ,�...0 •.� oA.Oy ail qw L. L N OLL A b b C 5 C f uu F qO ....0 _c CN _aA C E a N YG O SYbN dL n AL q y E A C - -.2 -:a CE � yn0 :V L Cwd.^ „•� ^ N x J L A C YO rz N 60.f 'b ��NE C, = y C Ey pb N2 q0 wLC N O w. wNQi W b d C • V b� Eu` Cy CL.�� Cq OC O~dyO dA Lj'• L NO LY�q C C bC AOb L^nCE y SO T.O. A Ly z v NC.Ot p ACq 6TiOb61 vkE cea OYR>O OYA E AUL a N V ptL CVC VY Y Vn O O..L O,b V M P. ; �1y 1.\ A.N O.Ln NG 1~.L NOO 4 Na Nn9 GY Jwb 6d.qw dd L QpEL "`^#. pe L g g. p E L N A Cy = c f g. NL60 N u 0 NQ =L f� 6. d ; EV �d m0 < L 9 q m O a O O U < , d _ O t' ~ E o9� q asu c0 O VA y LY LL AO..p U.. d = hi 0.. y+.AN •. < qd • �� �....3.dU y.UZ 9 < 4J EE rn 3 L �'•�+. +� u d d V Y w .O.N L�� ta0 K. C� NO d� 'O a a+ die n.q a u N a u p L q aa.. n% o v d ce n+ +1II �• "�,<q� n+ I o a < p y a'•L d d d N p n..<-r E= d oc L.o LO n2 N+L d O.-. •Oi 06,0 EE P d:AL . Evy� L� <� N^q =.0�+-Id y+<•d 9N.L NN L dN- u= U-yN ANT < S. _ a O N'q O y U L pU0.0.N E O = =d N ET pp � < :O p NO« o `r qVU Lo�rNO�IL ° nqw cM�d C9L nu. -p ` A Lu L c � `6i rn rn a i° ae od' ~s gHrn a U n O^KI O N Y`•Y _� a ��' •<q L,. 'O} n` � C n a d U:'i ENS y`_p ^' pQt N,ygp -A dLqu� L E s'' L E Ed y Oay. V f N A Q N•� <N S N( `i•••N Q N d Oi>aT g N Q q.2 0 6 4 Y W.U. &O g 6 N q01 .o O. •�L�.•d.� d qu L O^ N 94Ay cn. o Ns i' ago as o� ec 6 ci�n C0.0 .F--�o we Fo W.!. cc �� LA. guy n q: .p A Tqy+> au qL < iy o < t U ^ d y -5 q q O O q d N ' G Y •" ,k N LO. LT O.'. n L L•�' UmL9. d V y... < +— - 24� q ELd C O E C�W� �•On � �,L N.O OCa s d q C y c= = N C. 2< 6'• d ?N Ol L E C l wp. dLa N =d • as, TCC CVO.O N� Lddy A9T L rOQ S y d y9d VU 40 yal N d Ldry E O. 4 N • O.mi O.W CN w.LL O.q Lq OLq�a - •„<rn,y 6• O�y� 9 � C N a<1d � 4u_ L p'pp d<d�l i q 6ay60 �n U�o c V O • C^ �•O A d N qy O .4 6 N V q .OfW •p O u G FF 6 a01.L d N N q L O +s V•N 0.0. 0. '1! '^ 6�N0 QgLm �' E 49N FGN Qu' Q9 1=-.O NwC QG6 Y C 0.9 W6 CMLlyO`O. _ �,..•, } cz r � mr L . as > �u 0 clz y�l ♦ L o a E U p E C E r LL E a n c toAft ' � A LL E p Nx> { b. E A d'G A.p G� - .F I C ^ Vp bi � _NE E.m- V p U a,,g. C E f L y L �E.o CttlA CO. Nou mD ... q.9L EY d EA Y < E q m m C r J. '9a ^ 0 i pA E O V p �I bU O p. qDE et .. o AR n Nam 06f 4o iii O p.Er _ _ tS',r a abai a c^ E T. me a 1 m La L. ly E n Em q A ` as . LAp vSi 6�U... D jdN^ H.L d ` '^ AbA 1"6 n� S.LlL 1ryq 1- N p 1-UWL 6>nd Y.N 6Y AYp N r y mi t N t ny. E L� Ab C 'q9 q.pn C C A ud y A - N iCO V V N a.•. dY� .sdEs a L q Y N A i r ^ d.L uYilL.� 2C 2 A bap. . EA L"w nA E:i N't�.FV.IN i1 U.G OYW 4y p N ry w a V nN E p L qi n N.b y.N4i C 2i p D•� a N^0 2 r deb plan 2 a as cam: 66 QQ ya.,. 06 vwtL W L f ba N L eE M.0 T` Cp 4a Nm WN ^NUY yea a m ~ 2 N G n.l pL E A O. LL A N O w- n �-V? o2.�c Lea,sl ur u'o msd t v°l a bYL bt-.e L ao n 'c^ GYa,��r L qs� ovE0-GEy hNaVM NN =3- C�1 E. , @ f.-5 66m pYN� Y 'WLL E3 aa� u t� u - n A Yn Cn ZEE a Y b^ C E L O N u O4 FE V� ^Y C i.iy Cp C ate.. y jya dy0.W lOb m� ^c y N ta. O O ER po I" n qy0 bN ON^ p nL, a� o^ dN O N b1".c. N F 1 W Y. C� •- Ev r _ bLmd V'NA OL ✓, W CE d cC o �O CL u� N Y O CV 0. C p V CN bE O N�• � .. A^_ c. NN c ^O > vggs {LimdY 4.OYYO-m N 3 N Y^ O a9il c a' a ooczc. c..o. L vv ¢A ¢u o �l "� M� f,• NI �i �! umj i V i LC Ol pv L a.m ra°.:u LO ,\Y C A C • C C O N E C ' q^ L LC Lcni .01 E y Ol- Ny C2 YEE ... =MO C� gg LbuG CI O �.aa ON^O y d1�n C �•YC. C L L Oyu{pp dY _ .TOT S O N OIC gar A^C C.9-• C V u L� C 9 E ��� �m� ^ aco y A j o aq 'ma rn Wo o n`o v. m yoY a W. Y V L n...1 V: 4y Y.. M � p .�ONC bai L. �•. bOp - uC6 u O. m q 66OI. V YM m 7�u C. Vs. mL to �C LdE O..O .-p CT: L. Alt ` .ayy Al"; A. V ' S O adv MO. jj O •A m ]C� p O W mi.0 D. YO NUY G �.p N EUN aAi F . T Y �OdNN p4b c> N Tq' Y. 4ng0 :06� YY N� G..d Lq vauL. NN E ^Y wq NY9N� E.�.L �• Ask T E ftm0 '^Au b G.Q pOb dY q -; - WNV WYU 41, F..�OL O 000 • O..L •p u..'d O LO LOd dd d ',AIL pt � s a ^ C - y .M a C A E L E N _ E�`A q E O.;N • Nr N .+ L ...d Lad d °N'm �c uo a•u da .tltt 'E°.a I _o nE 1.1 w0 d C O aI.0 ^ cia o n f ao i E 6A A Gam. v� T rnn as 4 '� E� T A O 3 ' O L u.>-�.,_•r u cu L.. <'a•y a d'•' Nt N L A c L .^ m i N'v ra aiw c yi• nw nAu. E L x« c awLA p o d y au.:, s92. - � gm i Cad W'. NE-^ > L 1. L t • E La' \ p1 Op t L n C q • d A t o E^ VL L� wW Od •_ u ,L^ •Co._C' w ud w OaO+C ^ 2 L O tl LY A Tri nA W" a+ NC V^ U A N u q e LT aTi q EEd. Oq Tom. C G L .N 2 N .T N 6Wm 66NM N'LO5 6U o ' etu c i Y^ dd � L WtlO F TY � uaLTc oTi s b2.r E tY� 3 e ¢i N _A N L••t c L _ DJ q0u • L v Na wu c i ram. i x :h C i 'N L6 �.0 SLO N � C d .,•L O ^N cL Y tiW L G„O +A O ON N C So41p .L, `o L v n �vY E�. } q c n`p ���� n E o a • n �q - �III is C C' yy d �� 3A NpO OIm Oa ^ NS G a +a1Aw C9 N :y Cvr DA 7a^^2 DA •.L 604 E O.. C Cb� 2 vi� F L^ u f 1 � r �a J'a.� • .,..."k-ata+ft erdv� J.�...:.'_ _ - .. -_ L 2 a. U .c a q tl +OiC1 M Z uy ^y a > u cmc - qW ^1r Y E 2 .01 n d d o Y C W� d C a L < C ib CE do�N9 NC q Y :ip a ��� Y L. r- c Oid C O O.> u 6N� �9V� Q�• 70 aG.c-:N aL,�N tL6 66 H+c- i f : S 1 a ai M M M q `o d c iS o a p No T c qEx: i« Y O. u P a ., r � d d y Y W d va q E �.." N q ca 8 � N pY M.. NqO. d CW oy uy u G G C N a E Y d ^V a� Y oa`dEft- ac Es cd.Y a aN yi a co as cLcr '^d V. V F= dyy x C c Y C V V N G U O�r d q q C D 25 d o N oG LL c w aa.6 � . o ,� I� l ICI I !, I � l �� ��•: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA oLcni►ro STAFF REPORT 2 k U� DATE: March '26,.1986 1977 5 r TO Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad uBuller, City Planner BY: Bruce Gook, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL sASSESSMENT _AND_ DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT' 186=0 °-.c CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend Section~ 7. 6. ' :'pertaining to grading of custom lot subdivisions; and A7.02`,140 pertlaining to definitions, of the Development-Code of thee% of .Rancho Cucamonga, Ordinance 211. I. BACKGROUND: Thi`s_Development Code Amendment is in `response to the direction of�the °lannin Commission to provide more flexibility regarding ,gcading of custom lot- subdivisions. 11. ANALYSIS: In reviewini'the DeveloFntent Code,„sLtaff perceives .the source of the pfoblem to, be primarily the result of two specific i issues: . ' U u the misapplication' of the term Vcustom lot subdivision", and (2) the-"all' or nothing" inflexibility of the current ttandard'for §'riding of custom lot subdivisions which.does not foster 'innovative grading techniques or alternatives in-unique situations where strict adherence to grading policies would be' impractical'.! There are three types of subdivision an,tications within the k Development Code as follows: Custom-Tot Subdivisiork: The condition where a piece of Land is subdivided_-and lots are sold in an- undeveloped state on a .lot-bv iot basis for individual` development. s ITract Subdivision The condition where a piece of land is } subdivided now,but to be developed at some future date as a single tr,,ct Sy one developer. Total Residential Development The condition where a ece of land pi is subdivide concurrently with site v development of a housing product. The term custom lot subdivision has been mistakenly applied to both' custom-lot and tracte subdivisions. The intent of a "custom-lot;, subdivision" is the condition where land is subdivided and s. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DCA 86-01 City of Rancho Cucamonga March Z5, 1§86 Page•? undeveloped lots are sold for individual development of "custom i ' homes". The rationale here is that custom homes are traditionally. t; higher-end• products In. which grading of lots is left 'to the individual property owner instead of being predetermined, in the, hope of enccuraging innovative site planning techniques and a variety of housing :styles. To apply, this term to projects that are being subdivided now, but to be developed as `a single tract at a• future date, is a; misapplication of the term for custom lot subdivisions, not consistent witfii the intent.. As a remedy, staff would propose,,.,the following definitions." be added to Section 17.0?..140 of the£De:�eio%At Code: i Tract %bdvvision: A subdivision which creates five or more parace'fl� to be developed-as a whole or.,in part by an owner or; bu:ild*g` for 411 residential prdSects of mg-, than four (4), dwelling units.. t Total Uerelopment :Subdlvision: A roiert.,which inaudes '. the t6ta7 revJea" of A,.resident4al deve! bbient.including 'tentative trait ., moo aupraval., unit ulacemen�, Tanscap�ne an revs_ews etc. The primary issue 'involves inflexibtliti of,'the current standard for ra in of custom .lot "su "iv siansDeveioptnEnt ode stipulate5 that grading within, custom of sutdivi.sions-shall occur for streets only. As stated abovei.the primary purpose in limiting grading of custom lot subdivisions is to 'i.eave" the' land in- as ,i natural a state as possible to allow for the greatest flexibility ^` in the ability of the property owner to design and build-hi:/her,, own uniqua dwelling. However, there-'are some situations where Arc R individual lot-by�wlot grading scheme becomes; impractica:Z ,.:Tbe: physical :dnstrainis of .the site may 'require certain techniques such.;as rear"yard cross4ot drainage; shared use and maintenance of slope banks, etc. In these situations, for these techniques to . work, grading of lots becomes interdependent upon adjoining lots.. This type of scheme can only be reasonably expected U function if this site is graded on a comprehensive, mass gra,14 g basis..;' In situations such as this, the Development Code requirement limiting the grading to streets only for custom lot subdivisions can.pr'esent, ` obstacles that severely inhibit the ability to develop-a,particular project site with a feasible, workable solution. As a.remedy; . ' staff would' propose a revision to Section 17.06.010-5{a:} '" as ' follows- : i 6 € ae � T, MIZI _f UP PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF,OgEPORT DCA 86 O1 '-'City of Rancho"Cucamonga ;4 March Fi, 1g86 Page 3 , • } r i tip encourage innovative site planning techniques and S Frdvide-for a,.Variety of housing styles, grading within custom lot subdivisions shall occur for streets, trails, ands drainage control only. Additional grading' may be allowed where innovative grading techniques are utilized` andl where the site constraints and strict adherence to this requirement "'to limit grading t +gld, render development of the-site infeasible subject to approval by the!.�lann.ing Xomnission£,upon the recommendation of the Gra(dfng_Committee. '!he •intent is that built structures' be designed to fit ,the .national topography and that grading be minimized. 'wherever possibl;, I-'. ENVIRONMENTAL' ASSESSMENT: Staff. recommends that the Planning Commission make the findings required pursuant to Division 13, Chapter, 6, Section 21166 of the Public.-Resources Code, that would not require subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impart _Repor zi and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.` This fin(1J,-j is based upon the fact that the Development Code 'implement3 the existing goals and policies of the General .Plan which Ylere fully M' analyzed Frith' regard to environmental imp acts',,during the General ,- Plan EIR. IV. FACTS FOR �!.NkNG: Before approving this Development Code Amendment, the .,Comission must determine that the Amendment will not be detrimental for individuals and for property, and Hill not cause,signi;-icant environmental impacts. In 'addition, this project must be consistent with the intent of the General Plan. V. CORRESPONDENCE: This Development Code Amendment has been advertised as a public hearing in the Daily Report newspaper. y , VI. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planni 9*Commission review all elements and input regarding this proposal. If the Commission determines that this Development CCode Amendment is consistent with the Farts for Findings, then issuance of a Negative neclaration and adoption of the attached Resolution would 'be, in order. Res ectiully submitted, `�;' a Brad Buller . City Planner &" BBBC:ns # q'., s PLANNING CDMMISSI�SNS�AFF R&PDRcT "° DCA 86 1 ancho Cuca^ :.Ya 4 . March 4 26, 1986 1 r ,, Attachments: Staff Repgrt February 12, 1986 Initial Study,'Part II Resolution-of A prova7 4 f 8 t: a + i a ` 3 p � t — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AML STAFF REPORT f. i a 1« Z DATE: February 12, 1986 19777 TO. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner _ BY- Bruce Cook, Associate Planner SUBJECT: GRADING OF CUSTOM LOT SUBDIVISIONS ' I. ABSTRACT: The purpose of this report is to recei•re policy direction regarding grading of custom lot tracts. Staff is ` recommending W:L' the Development Cod(I policies on grading be I► revised to allow greater flexibility to deal with varying site conditions. II. BACKGROUND: The Development Code distinguishes between two types of Subdivisions. "Tract Subdivisions" are themore traditional form whereby the developer subdiv des the la'4" into individual lots ch and then builds a house on ea of the lots from a previously approved set of house plans. Once constructed, these tract homes are then offered for sale to individuals for residence. A "Custom Lot Subdivision" is a case where subdivided lots are sold in their undeveloped state to individuals who then build houses on these lots on a one-by-one basis. Per the Development Review process of the Ci,v, before home sites can be constructed, grading plans must be approved. With tract subdivisions, mass grading occurs over the entire r, including both streets and lot sites. However, gradin. .with custom lot subdivisions is limited to streets only and also to trails, when applicable. The Development Code does not permit mass grading of lot sites with custom lot subdivisions. Mass grading should be distinguished from "padding" out of the - dots Padding of lots is characterized by �Ht and fill lopes-to create terraced, flat, building pads. Mass grading involves grading techniques that are sensitive to natural terrain, such as contour grading and variable slope bank gradients; (King Ranch Estates is an example of mass grading).' III. ANALYSIS: The operative word in the definition of custom lot subdivisions is individual; custom lot subdivisions, as opposed to home developments, are where the person owns a`raw piece o? land and has the opportunity to design a custom:-home specificalT suited to the site.constraints. To encourage a variety of housing: styles and• site planning techniques, the Development Code limits grading for custom lot subdivisions to streets only, and requires -41 buildings to be designed tc ;the natural topography. Gradingof PLANNING COMMISSIOPi�_'AFF REPORT Custom Lb� Subdivisions February 12, 1985 Page 2 "r Lir_'ting grading to streets only requires that each lot be craded independently in a se;lf-contained manner. There are some situations where an individual,. lot-by-lot grading scheme,becomes �f impractical. The physical •constraints of the -site may require certain techniques such as rear yard cross-lot drainage, shared use. k and maintenance of slope banks, etc. In these situations, for these techniques to work, grading ,of lots. becomes interdependent upon adjoining, lots. This type of scheme can only be reasonably expected to function if the site is graded on a comprehensive, mass : grading program. In situations such as this, the Development Code requirement limiting the grading to streets only for custom lot subdivisions- can present obstacles that severely inhibit the ability to develop a particular project site with a feasible, workable solution. The primary source of the problem is that, as it currently exists, this Development Code requirement applies as a universal standard to a31 projects regardless of special or unique circumstances. It is staff's opinion that a reasonaf.le solution to this dilemmawould be to still require this limit &Jon on grading for custom lot subdivisions' as the primary direction but to provide the flexibility to allow comprehensive grading of the site when special circumstances warrant such a solution. Another aspect for consideration is the issue of minimal grading versus usable yard space. Grading policy of the City has alwaysbeen to minimize grading and to design built structures,to fit the natural topography as much as possible. This policy is reflected ` in Development Code criteria for grading stipulating the creation of minimal building pad areas. However, another City policy is the creation of flat, usable yard areas for single family developments. This policy is reflected in the Development Code criteria for a min9.iai 15' usable rear yard per sins.: family homes. Both are useful and necessary, policies to. promo.a design standards to achieve a, high quality living environment. However, staff has recently, experienced situations in which the implementation of .both policies concurrently for the same project has proven to be problematic. The problem is that these two policies can be mutually exclusive of each other; to implement one is done at the expense .of the other. If grading' of the site is kept to a minimum, this obviously inhibits the ability to provide flat, usable yard space. On the . : other hand, to provide.flat, `usable yard space obviously implies mor(-,extensive grading -or the site. Because of these situations-in � r whic.+''two City policies are in direct conflict with each other, i.e., the implementation of one limiting the implemehtatid'n-of the L%� ...... PLANNI'NGXOMMISSiot? FIFE REPORT'" Grading of;Custom l'ot.Subdivisions ` February 12, D86: P Page 3 } +., r�J ptl _ other, staff—, has had difficulties in: res,blving design "s inconsistencies of project subm%ttals ffi making them ccpfnaj» to Ci+ty Standards: ,Staff is requesting k4e CommissioWs discatsion�af, this issue to Arov%;p,staf� feedback and direction in 'es abiz;sF� g F priorities so that when these twojpoligfels'4of minima] sit gradl`ng Versus flat, usabW yard''area are irt`'confl ct with. sac, other there is a consensus;policyxas,to>whichw.�"i�rec Vim :to prb64 d�.,, : p a IV. RECOMMENDATTONV Staff reconxnends that, 6e Planning igmmUsion- a direct. ie I toff to,*propare., oq the Commission , revihw `•a Development,Code Amendme�st tha "vold-:°a�tnend the section that now; t limits grading of custom lot subdiviseion`s to''streets bnlj,#`Ato where, a this limitation on gradrrg �foi".streets only is sti 1't the,"'rimary' _ direction f�br custom.lo ubd�v'isions, abut whereval"so . dEgree,' of � flexibility ts,,pehrrtitted to allow-,mass gradttigifo the pra�ject"area When site conditions?warrant it as deemed appropriate %y. the responsibie agency of the Ctty; Respectfully submitted Brad Buller Lity Planner 8B:BC•ns Attachments: Developmentr,Cbde Defbitior ai Custom Lot Subdivision .a Development Code Section Limiting Grading pf Custom bat Subdivisions- to Streets Only r; ° ,A w �s V' Y .�. AMh CITY OF RANCHO CUCaMONGa l PART II =-'INITIAL STUDY ENVIRON:ENTAL CHECKLIST DATE:_ APPLICANT: FILING DATE.-__tUiareg h Lauf LOG NUMBER:' PROJECT: 4`4LaAi� � _ � 'ice--"—��1ta�edls � R�o►'��":�IOTiy.�, PROJECT LOCATION- el I: E'rV�IRL—MUAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all,." and sheets). "maybe" answers are required on at-,ached ,4 YES MAY SE .NO +' L- soils and Geoiony, Will the proposal have signizicant results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships?_ b.. Disruptions,: displacements, compaction :or burial of the soil? - c•' •Change in tc?ography or ground surface *I; contour intervals? 4 d. The destruction, covering or modification Of any unique geologic or physical features? ' e• Any potential increase in wind or caster erosion of soils,, affecting eitl+er on or off site _onditons? f• Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? ,* Exposure of People �- P p or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or-similar hazards? 't h• An Increase in the rate of�"ex traction and/ce use of any mineralresnw4t'.�? 2. H drolo Will the proposaY have,significan[ �• : resutits i4. • 1-4 a r Page,! YES .Lkya- .`0 Changes 3n nurrentsV. or the course of direction of flowi;g streams; rivers, or ephemeral stream a channels, a arc: b. Changes in'absorption rates, drainage patterns; r or the rate and amount of surface water s p. runoff? the c. Alterations to the Course or flow of flood ua waters? k V ,,. amoa. d• Change in the amount of surface water in anyj� body of pater? su; a Discharge £nto s»rface waters, or any surc alteration of surface water quality? grec- f• P..iteration of groundwater characteristics? _ qua- g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, di: either through direct additions or with- k ,croup drawals, or 'through interference with an n: aquifer? C Quality? Quantity? to z h. The reduction in,the amount of water other- for wise available sor public water supplies? � 0 1�• a� p i• Exposure Of people or property to 16:Ater s su. related h; "'S such as flooding or L*vlches? '- the 3. Air Qualit — ' X• ., a proposal have significant results in: P` riodf a. Constant or periodic: air emissions from mobile arcs or indirect sources?' == -.ces Stationary sources2 of a- b. Deterioration of a•.Ibient air quality and/or ith Interference withthe attainment of applicable ands- air quality standards? :oca c- alteration of local or regional climatic 4 ` Cect. conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? ' A ' Biota z opa flora. Will the proposal have significant results :uxr a. Change in the characteristics of spet.' s., sic Indlpding eiversityribution -a1: =nber ~ off. of any.saeciep-of planes? 5 b. He.:uction of,the numbers of'any unique, rare,c� ` or.endangered species of plants? q ,�' ' E Page 3 F r '£S MAYBE 0 p c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of Plants into an area? ` a. . :eduction in the potential for agritiultural production? Fauna. Will the proposal'have aignif£cant resulca _ in: - - k _ s E a- ;in the characteristics of species, 1 intlu-ing diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? b. Feduction of the numbers of any unique, rare o^ endangered species of animals? + c. Introduction of never or disruptive species of y" annals into an area, or result in a barrier } to the migration or movement of animals9 u d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or h wildlife habitat? 5. Population. Will the proposal have significant 4 results in: AARL ( a. Will the Proposal altar the location, distri- bution, density, divarsity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 6 b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 6. Socio-Economic Factnrs. Will the proposal have significant results £n: a. Change is local or reg ional gional socio-economic characteristics, including economic or y commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? b. Will project costs 'fie equitably d$stributed C among pro,•xect benelic?aries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and-Plannine Cons iderat -ins. Will the proposal have significant,,resuts in? + a. A substantial alteration of thr present or ' planned lard use of an arcs? � b. A conflict with any designations, cabjectijres, policies, or adopted plans o:;any governmental yA entities? 4 ;z, An impact upon the qulaity or quan=ity of existing consumptive sr.non-Consumptive ,.,. recreational aopportiinities? IP�' 1 Pages 4-,j YES MAYSE NO s 4 8. Transportation. Wi the roposal have signifit " F+� ll p can results in: 11 » Generation of substantial additional vehicular- '+ • movement? ' b. Effects on existing streee or demand for new street construction? JW c. Eflerts on existing parking facilities, or demand fo,, new parking? d. Substant{ah impact upon existing"tiansporta " tion systems:"-..� e. Alterations`to present,patterns of circula- tion or movement Of People and/or,goods? Alterationsto.or c)Uects on*present andpotential Facer-borne, rail, mass transit or • air traf£i67 g in,:ceasres in traffic'hazards to motor vehicles, _:icyclists or pedestrians? 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have r ' significant results in: " a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and/or historical resources? 10. Health. Safety, and Nuisance Factors,.. Will the proposal have,significant ,xesslts a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. Exposure of -7eople to, pateti�ial health hazards? c. A. risk of explosion or release of'hazardous substances in the event of ar accident? d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenggenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous, noise levels? t. S. The creation ,of .obi ectionable:odors? r y 9 h. M increase in lighi..ar ?• glare nr tic'y : 1 .. Page 5 YES �3YBE ;i0' m I1. AeLthetics. a�Will the propos have significant l AW results a: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? C' c. A conflict with the objective of,designated •` ----- or potential scenic .corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Services.' Will the have a significant need £or new systems, or posal alterations to the following: a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged4, gas? c. Communications systems: R d. Water supply? e. Wastewater £acilit' i�x f. Flood control structures2- g. Solid waste facilities? x' h. Fire protection? i. Police protection? J. ..Schools? k. Parks nr ot3;�t recreational facilities? 1. Maintenance of public facilities, ,including ' roads and flood control facilities'? t. M. Other governmental services: 13. Enerey and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: .G, a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? _ b. Sabstantial increase in demand upon existing �� � sources of energy? c. An increase Yn thi/demand-for --"opment of .: new sources of energy? ' d. An increase,or perpetuation`of the consum n'ptio V } { of,non-renewable forms of ever r ^ ' gy. when feasible Yenewa6le sources of energy available:? 4. in Pa ff. x YES 40 e.- Substantial cepletign;of any"nonrenew dle or_ scarce natu=al resource? _ 'L Mandatory;Filid-ints f'a�ificanc ' + a. Does \h p2oect�have� heotential� to degrade the qualitykrof the 'enziranaent, substantially T reduces the habitat�5"cf#f4sh'or cril'dlife sp`ecses;- cause a fis ordwf-01 >fe'populaiion� to`drop - be]�ow+self star ��ri �" VI I n g levels, "threaten to elimiwCate asp l�antT�anim`al community,�reduce ,, 1 theumbeej ao resa r t 'the range c rare or r r e' angered plant,or.animaareliminate ` t. mPoranzamples of the'major;ge=ions cf California hi1t00r�zehistory? ..g " b. Does tie pro'.ect a`ve the,_potenU& o actiie e short-,P;- q`L r e�d3�sad ntage 'of" lon a"era, enwlronmental g ao ls? (A shbii—term impa t on the environment s one,ibich oGeurs in a relatives 4 brief; definitive period off= time wh�Te 1- term impacts 311 endue well into jfje fiuture`) Does .th pr sect AV&lmpacts which are irdivdualZ .Pima eeil;but cumulative"ly", K`" Y;. collsidera ie? (Cumulatively considerable, means 't'�alt7ie is r,emnta] effects of ,aim! ind L,pa7 p o3ectare considerab3 a vhen;-viewea= �s 4 in `connection,wits'the effects o£;pas[projects, 4 and}probable::' utu�re pro3ec2`s) d. .iDoes the prodgr,& have environiYental effects which Will cause,substantial adverseffects ' on human beingsy either directly'4 `g3ndrectly? II. DISMSSION,OF ENL'YRONME'3TAL EVALUATION ;(i.e., of affi'taative'anss�ers'to *y the �ftbovequesC ons=plusma' discussion of proposesdm3['igatYonmeastit es y M1 '7" s IYI. DETE?MIMT'TONJ On the basis of this initial evaluation: f N i I find the Proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect � a s on he lvironaent, and a. trEGATIVE DEGLARATIC:] will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environmeiCi there Will.not be a sigg�ficanr.,effect ' in this case because thelhiti ation measures described on an._,' attached sheet have been•,addeT Id to, the project. A NEG.TLVE DECLARATION W;ILVIBE PRE?ARED A Y find,the,..pzoposed pioj,eT MAY:'have, a'sigii icant effect.ron`the _I envirent 'and an E,YV+I O'vT`I�SACT REEQRT� s , equ�' d: Date I ,yp k o i aiture a f T tle .T:2 C M r , r At p . �' • �' _v......c�,u+k�r�.....e .._a{- ,:.14 �.Ge.�ill Y�iwk �� .- -- ay. ^� ,. z ,�i ate" +s• 7m, 4r__ r ` w a71,"77s �r Foe RESOLUTION No. '. A RESOLUTION,OF+ TiFIE �PLAli�J1,NG COMMISSTON. O THC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, 'CALIF05NIA, RECOMMENDING "§ ;4 OF ' DEVELOPMENT ��CODE }I��MENDMENT NO '86 Ol, AMENDING SECTiOfi 17.06 0 0`LS(a) PER= AiINIiVG, TO �GRh TNG OF" '`CUS�T01 OT SUBDIVISIONS, AANND�"V�BM_b PERtTrAINxING TO DEF«INIT�IONSa:; WHEREAS, on the 2-6thday'Vof AAtaki,1986, 'the Planm g..Commiss4on jheid ,a/ a duly advertised,$U61l jc�heari:gt;Rursuant""id Section 65854•of,the hil.itden;ia Government Code,„•arid= = �' a "- "3'�; i any+• ,# WHEREAS,, lianni°ng .Comm sign fi �t necessiary,• to clarify the I ids andL a revise, the Development Code regu1rement45 per�ta%nzing to grading of,custom•lot . divand ritalnTtg bsubdivisions, isions,, SECTION 1: The, Rancho Cucamonga Planning Gpmm1ssion .has 'made the following findings: 1. That;fire E�e'ndment*� s warn"arrt�d in� orde 'ta� bring current standards fo`j4 gra"dung of'``eu�toin lot subdiz_vis.ions•;a into j, conformance m th .established City;policies Viand.<procedures; � and ` 2. That" proposed D'eveilopment Cade Amen dmentx>would not have * Significant.Imp act on the environment; and rh .: 3 That th phposed " Devalopment-k Codaw 'Amendment is yin coniorme�t1itn thegodls and ;policrjes{ of anc the General. SECTION 2.., The Ran ho ,Cucamonga Planning Coffbission has found that,' this-project will•not create Agt ific#ni ad"verse impact�,oa the enul:ronment and , ' ' recommends 3'ssuance ofga-Ndgati•vve Decl+aration on March 26, 1986. ; NOW;, THEREFORE,eBE IT'sRE ILVEO, . � 1. That pursuant to Se.tion. 65850 to 65855 of the Californfia Government !,Code,,Ahat* they-Planning Commission of I the City, of Rancho Cucamonga hdpA y recommends approval th'o .26th:d�ayrt 6.'x of March, 1986,-. Development Code Amendment 86-01 amending Sections 17,.06.010-5(aj `and` 17.02.140 a :follows; � a . a � T_A� , Resolution No. DCA 86-01 - City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2 Section 17,.06..010-5(a) to read as follows: To encourage innovative site planning techniques. and ' • r provide for a variety of housing styles, graMog e�rthin .,custom lot &bdiv '•sions shall occur for streetsy trails, an,u ,drainage control only. ' Additional grading may bg_;°homed where innovative grading tecPoniques ate utilized and where the site,..; constraints and strict adherence to this`"quirement&' , to limit grad1ngl,,Wkould render.deve3opment of W! site infeasible subject " to _approval:, by the. P-iannih6 Cbm-4ss'an upgw the recofressendation, of the Grading } Committee. The, inbent�p=is that byil?. sltructures: tie designed to,. frit- <the `natidnal tispagt;aphy and than grading be miaaimized ;.wherever possible•::'" .Section 17*02.141 amended: as follows: Subd7�',sion. Tract: A subdjtiision'which creates five or more parcels to be developed as a whole or in:part by an owrior or builder for AT residential projects of more thin-four.(41 dweli'liino •unxts'flH10f, shawl>1 be reourred toreapply'for �ievelopmentOde�rgn review as a total. fdevelo menu,.-Such reaip-lication shvI "f e { requared as `atcon it3on of tentative tract approval which, sham ybe- satisfied riots to issuance of uilding permits. ;. ` Subdivision Total Development A,project which . me u es*;,trie -,total_1-1review "of a. ':re"s dents evealonment anclddin" tentat�rv9 tractk map approval unit p?lacemenp, landscaprn`Q, desr;9n review:,k,etc. 2. The Planning Commission,,hereby recommends that the City Council approve and .adopt Development Code Amendment 86-01, as stated herein. ° 3. That a certified copy :of .this Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be a t forwarded to the City Council. c- APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26th DAY OF March, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION:OF THE CITY OF°RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: ;. DenniF L. Stout, Chairman k�. ATTEST: Brad Buller, Deputy,Secretary ,. ,.del .iEc!"•' 7,7 Resbhu.tion No . DCA 86 OI - City of,.Rancho kCucamo ga Page 3 : fix" ray , I, Brad 'Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City-o�f o here certify that the foregoing Resolution was dul, d, Rancho Cucamonga, d regularly introduce}, passed;_"arid adopted by the Planning Commission `oz kt ` City of Rancho Cucamonga,, at,a regular meeting of the Planning Commi"ssion.,he)d<< A on he 26th day of March,U 198E, by Chet fol7nwing vote-to'`wt: ` AYES: COMMI,SSIONE"RS: NOES: COMMISSION"-'A ; ,`t r ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: �, A -4 IV �tt _ ra r f Zt ,4. ' It ,4� k �;• 4 �'� � �� � o fill fX . 2, ..pip' '3W.' .._ 1tX�",+S• CST.'OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA c�^�o STAFF REPORT � DATE: March 26,"I986 tin , { TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad°Buller, City P",nner BY: Bruce Cook, Associat�!1Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRA�rl 12830 - CITATION HOMES -" Design review f oIract 4U.83Q, a residential subdivision of 21.�41 acres in the lqw-Medium Residential DI ri,ct �4-8 du/a .), into 103 lots,\,located on the west side of 'Beryl Street, northmof Baseline Road' - APR: 202 751—, 0. I. BACKGROUND: "This item was heard before the Manning_Commission at their meeting• of Febm-ary 26, 1986: At that time, concern was raised whether the sfii,is being graded consistent with approved' _ grading plans, particularly a_t,ong the southerlyj tract boundary. The Planning Commission 'continued' this item until their next- meeting to allow staff the'opportunity to research this issue and present their findings to the Planning Commission, Ii. ANALYSIS: / A. Generals The grading plan approved for construe�tion- is k consistent with the conceptual grading plan. The pad. s elevations shown 9n the construction grading plain are, in all cast 4., equal to or lower than the pad elevations shown 'on,the cone6utual .grading plan. Staff also conducted a . field investigation of the sift,.; The{ tract appears, to be:graded;;% consistent with° the approved grading plan. standard .grading practices, Given tie parameters of maintaining ,existing:street grades and lot drainage to the street, the lots are essen't°ilally being graded to within a few inches of their minimal height and could not be lowered' significantly. However, itshould be noted that grading of the tract is not comple';. , and t'e developer has not issued certification of his pad elevations. Building permits wil'T not be issued until such time as t eing iese Pad elevations have been surveyed and certified accurate by the project engineer. 1 �, A'. J ITEM J .` ..a 4 7P ��. PLANN NG COWht�ISSION'STAFF REPORT Tentative Tract 1283�0 = Citation Homes March 26, 1986 Page 2 " 8. Rough grade vs. final grade: At the prior meetird, the Comriission was ;shown P',,i tographs of the area as it is presently graded and expressed concern that lots .appeared to,, much higher :above the streu't than. necessary. Staff has prepared an exhibit(See Exhibit "A'") to help explain the situation. Fx , The tract is ,currently graded in a condition known as "rough grading". This is, it essence, the preparatory stage, getting the site-'ready for construction. The primary purpose is. to �- achieve street,and building pad heights, with the earth .being moved to create level; benched areas. After the house is constru:ted, final grading, is done to achieve a finished condition. In,,final_ grading, the 1'ot is reworked sq th`at it a Milt drain properly. The, ground is sloped away from the house } _ so that water will properly drain, and a Swale or channel is F created to drain water from the hack of the.lot to-the front. The dir,.t removed' from the pad area'in di.ggirig out"tha Swale is deposited in. tfie front of the lot to "smooth out" the bench created in the front yard at the rough grading stage. ` C. Storm Train Easement,(Lot A)• At the prior meeting, discussion, ` occurred about the possib l ty of eliminating lot A and >>uttirig r tine storm drain easement in the sideyard of none 'bf ,the I adjoining lots.' The Commission directed staff to-Anvestigate the background behind the establishment of Lot A and what are the possibilities: T' In reviewing tha establishment of Lot A. staff has been able to ascertain the following facts: Storm drain area between Parcels 100 and 101: I 1. The l t e isj,ensidered to be an essential master plan y T' 2. It is open and in working order. W 3. It is a County Floyd Control Facility, therefore, f maintained by the County. 4. Status of the" area; a. It is a lot dedicated to the City,. „ . ` b. The City will grant -a Storm,Drain casement: to the r County. 110 r , PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tentative Tract 12830 - CitaiAon Homes :A March '26, 1986 - Page 3 *; c. The City took title to the area because it was felt that the-City wou d',maintair the surface area in a better fashion than the County. d«•It,had been 'suggested that the area be used as a walkway'wi,th landscaping on the sides to co;�nect to Garnet` Street, but this concept -was abandoned due to the obdection of the propefty•ownerls to the south. ( � e. The County vacated the portions of their existing Y easements which occupied -area now contained within r dots 31, 38, 39 and 101, in order to accommodate the tract development, under the understanding that the new alignment ,could not be within'a lot. k In summary, the Ciic. and County Klood Control District (FC) a' undertook negotiations, to. realigr��:�heir flood control facilit; . TKi 'FCD originally wanted the pipe under,their fee ownerships but were willing to accept an easement with the under!sanding that tha'property would, remain in fee tithe with the City. To deviate from,.this would be contrary to prior commitments' made by tha City 1:o the County.Flood Control District. D. Unit P�lottin _: -Per the direction of the Commission, the attache esolution of Approval has been revised to limit the plotting of 2-story units to Lots 92-87 only, with the. stipulation that for these 6 'lots, variation of 4treetscape ' must be maintained consistent with the rest of the tract. III. RECOMMENDATION- Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider 6 aterirl input regarding this project. If the Commission concurs vith the -Facts for Findings and Conditions of Approval, adoption<of the attached Resolution would be lit order. ) I Respectfully submitted, i c Brad Buller City Planner +'t BB:BC:cv ¢ 1 PLANNI' v � NG�G�dMMISS�I�C" �STAFFi REPORT ` Tentatwe`Tr..at 128,.1 Ntati..n Homes March 26=, 1986 Page 4 " a Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Grading Section Exhibit "B" —'Storm Drain Alignment i Exhibit RV -.%onceptgal 'Grading Plan approved by -Planning Commission Staff Resolution rebr of .pFoval uarwith Revised Conditions ,t �i t .R Laa- O- '.. �T(ZE��aF'SGi2 OE� �,e¢dC{.I��CactP�iR/�'�7E ToP a FLS CTG?'4VII4 Ttus>4 ,t3Ha�Ys UAL.bww 35 l.l�-rCxv�cae is G�,ss�za�r_�t t+18" ,aww 'Z.��� �m4 a G,t�B t�tG�l c is G�or•F,aL"La{ a^L��T%F-uxS �,� �:6'�ll.�'{Ze�.t� 3• t-+E�iaa te_ Ga�a�gece.`( �Srt�cldctze T1�3.-fit t�c�,a 3' ly �teE.Va-Ctc,.i. NO�tTHt CITY OF, RA NT .IWC" TITLE• r PLAI�11 DI�JtStON A EXH cr T' J e ir 31 � i 3 37 3$ 39 yr. b � � Cl E L ITC New sfar+�^ STJ3. ii 15e °"i ee s� 98 �9 too 101 !oz 103 srp SSA 2e1� G3f CSC G4' NORTH CITY CF x it Eli l i 16 E 1,5 yn o i=t Ili t tS. it r zl, � ! 1 411 i 11 fRi } iv� S t-;�fl � f ti cit on i ;3 l4 I 1} t j a:i co CL b v1 r_ - _� to Lfcz � t yE�• a ' ''° a. a3 � a 1 �Q r L ail F • - - aR�a 1 g'"-17 a - t• ; _ _.I ,a !U sa` �` - � '�i•a 'I ! ' •r- !. ate'.. •a 3. a a' ?• (` t r y���• ,.p° •a 6 t c�1 i �6. a �t:ali 7*7TrI CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA > CUCAIV i k : STAFF REPORT 20 4 - r 0 & tr- # DATE: February cS, 1986 19:7 r� TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission ` FROM: Brad 80 1er, City Planner BY: Bruce Cook- _AS sociate Pianner SUBJECT: DESIGN' REVIEW FOR TRACT 12830 --'CITATI04 BUILDERS,-`Design ' review for Tract 12830,;A residential 'subdivision of 21.41 ' acres in. the Lowy Medium Residential District (4-8 du/ac) E' into 103 lots located on the ':west .side of, Beryl' Street north of Base Line Road - AN 202 751�40. I I. BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract 12830 was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a total .developmeat package on December, 12, 1984. The apol.icant was the A-M Company. Since t;fs,.`xori'ginal approval, the tentative treat map has been recorded ant;:.a grading i permit has been 'issued. -The A-M Company;has sold their interest in the project site to Citation Builders. Citation Builders i now submitting site plan and- uilding 'elevations for the consideration of the Planning Cortmtission: II;: PROJECT AND aITE DESCRIPTION:. Ar A. Action Requested! Approval of plot plan-and elevations. B. Surrounding Land Use .and 1onin . I Worth,- Single family residential (Hamilton Ranch); Low Medium Residential.(4-8 dufac). South Single family, resid'ential;' Low Residential (2-4 , du/ac,). East Single family residential;,Low Residential '(24' A du/ac).. West Single family residential; Imir Residential (2-4 du/ac). C. General Plan Desionations: , Project Site - low Medium Residential (4-8 du/ac). f Borth Low Medium Residential (4-8 du/ac). South Low Residential 2-4 du/ac). East Low Residential (2-4 dufae). West Low Residential (2-4; du/ac). Ay Y PLANNING COMMISSIOb STAFF REPORT Tract 12830 - Citation Builders ? February 26, 1986 Page 2 7 % MGM 4 0. Site Charaete istics: The project site` ,�s currently being graded for ho. a ads under the current"grading permit ,issued with the orig� .,Ijl tentative tract approval,. III. ANALYSIS• z.ay . „ A. General: This pre3ct is proposed as a .continuation of the development of the,Hil�lgate Community product (Traets. 12238 and 12530), located at�athe;:northwest corner of Church and. Hellman across from Cucamonga kz7unior High Sch'�ol. ' Howeve`r, a floor a-, plan (1251) fs b`ii g{added,that is not, now noluded as 'part oaf .the available floor pX'an for tfieHi.7 igatt Co�*munty. The unit models offered as a part of this proposal aNe''as fo77ows: ' Fl Model _ f.loor Area* No. of Bedrooms No. of Stories 1251 1,251`sq. ft. 3 1 1439 1,439 ft. 3 2 b 15z3 1,523 sq. ft._,. 3 2 (833 sq. ft, - 1st floor) 1707 ,1,707 -',4. ft. . 4'p, Z i (933 >;il. ft. - 1st floor), *Living area only; does not"include garage.. A variety of building -elevations are: offered',,,with each footprint with unit architecture .of a'trad"otionaL icontemporary nature. All roofing material is proposed as -tile. B. Design Review Committee Thee-Design Review Committee reviewed ` the project making no recommendation; instead referring°this E ' item to the full -Planning Commission to cons4der the issues,-of y house plotting, unit mix, and building setbacks because of the past controversy ^regard.ing .tOs tract. Hoi,7�er,,_ the Design Review Committee did,offer the''fol lowing dire&J4,69`. 1. Realign the driveways on Lots 2.5, 36, and 99 to eliminate M1 turning maneuvers within.,street intersections (the revt ed' site plan does show realignment of Ariveways per the; direction oi= the.Design Review Committee).: 2. Provide upgrade.treatcaiits for corner.-side elevations'and, second story rear elevatlons.that_face the street. a 3. Architectural details do the front elevation should be x carried out to some exteht. to the other three elevattons�,, P. v PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tract 12830 - Citation Builders February 26, 1986 ?, y Page 3 4. On unit 1251-B, continue masonite siding to other, side of, r garage and wrap around to side elevation., 5. On unit 1251-C, eliminate windwall ;end continue masonite siding to ether s ide of garage a•,d wrap around to side elevation. ' 6. For Lots 88-103, the following items should be considered: � i a a. Lot 90 should be a 1-.story floor plan only. b. Lots 96, and 97 have both been proposed, as 2-story ` units. One of the lots should .be revised to a single r stony floor plan. ' c. Protection of privady for existing homes' adjacent to. the project site should be a major consideration; i.e,; upstairs windows of 2-story units should not have ' direct views into the rear yards of ex---sting homes. Site line studies should be provided fo-,Lots '88-103 for lots prc . sed with 2-story floor` P-fans to show their re7ationshi.p to existing homes adjacent to the south. Items 1 through have bein incorporated into the Conditions of Approval; Item °6 invoWas' the issue of the tract interface F` with the existing homes, to the south which the Design Review 'A Committee has referred to the Planning Commission for final E resolution. C. Site Plan Comparisons, The Design Review Committee directed ' staff to present a,:comparative.3nalysis between Citation-'s new proposal and the previously appray.04, site,-plan and bu. slding '� elevations proposed by the A-M Company as.part of the original tentat4ve tract approval !back in 1984. Briefly, the approved design of the A-M. Company 'shows more 2-story houses '-with smaller rear yar&'o,etback-s plotted on Lots 88-103 adjacent to a existing' homes toy the south than does the new' proposal by a Citation. The new proposal` is certainly less impactive and A; would be an improvement over the approved plan. However, with the project, as proposcJ, there would still be impacts to �- houses to the -South resulting from the plotting ,of 2,-story ,) houses that could be mitigated by restricting housJ plots .to single-story models only, For a detailed analysis of the Site plan comparisons, please refer to attachments (Exhibit "I"). D. Site Line Studies: The Design Review Committee requested that {n the applicant subrnit site line studies,indicating,relationships of all 2-story units `plotted on Lots 188=103 to the adjacent . v" houses to the south. The Design Review Committee indicated ti , y V 10 +, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF ,REPORT Tract 12630 - Citation Builders February 26, 1986 Page 4 e that in their opinion, upstairs windows of 2-story units Should not have: direct views_.,into' the rear yards of these existing "homes. ;The submitted site line studies indicate that for`Lots 91, 94, and 96.1 views from second I story;windows-woufd have direct;!access,:into adjacent lots "to 1the south. Based on the criterf a established at the Design`Review Committee meeting, it is recommended that only i-story units be plotted on Lots 86 97. E. Neighborhood Input: A 'neighborhood ,meeting was 'held between the project d.evGloper and local surroAding %residents on January 6, i986: At this meeting,, residents"voiced concern that house pads,at the southern''.perimeter of the tract adjacer,t to their own.;l,.ots yere�. 'sign`ificantly higher than. theirs ard' would greatly�',lmpaetti both their views and. privacy. The k developer responded that-,he has val,_Ugradinq permits issued by the City and that he has been.,grading the site to the approved plans. StafVVindicated to the residents that grading,,of the- tract had already been approved, buty that'other.amethods'exist to minimizeiathe impacts to their homes s(1 as by controlling both the number of stories of units plotted on these lots and the rear yard-:setbacks from. these new` houses to the common property line. The following. issues "were fed. and resolved at this *' meeting as follows: I. The perimeter- wall along the southerly tract boundary,is to be.built per the 'agreed upon design with the ,A-M,Cgmpany. This design includes_,a_ 6 foot wal.i, d 1/2 feet 'of which w will be,masonry, block construction with the top 18 inches to be wrought iron (see,Exhibit 911). 2. The storm drain easement, (Lot "A".) is:to be: walled off to prevent through -access to the south. Galls should be of a +.;I similar design as the southerly perimeter tract wall: A wrought iron gate access to Lot A is to be provided with the 'interior of the easement to be landscaped. IV. FACTS FOn FINDINGS: In order for the Planning Ctmmission to v consider approval, the following findings must be made: ' 1. That this project is consistent with the Development. Code and rt, the General Plan; 2. That this project W 11RY not be detrimental to' adjacent properties or cause significant environmental impacts; andz, 3. That the proposed use sand site plan, together with tlie ; , precommended Conditions of Aov,a -are in complianc e with-the Cade -and y 4 applicable provisions of k;r Standards. 41 rM PLANNING COMMISSI(3N STAFF ;REPORT Tract 12830 - Citation;Builders 4 Y" February 26, 1986` 194 Page 5 r , V. CORRESPONOENd'# � A though` this is not a pub1�� hear �"g, item, letter have „eenv:ma� e°d to .ally members 'of the Lavine street 11 Neighbors in. att� dine a ` he, neighborhood ,m2efing.trho legit,their ,' names and, a6ft6sR s on `t a .vurnishecfma iling�l'p' t. IV. RECOMMENOATIOty � �Staf��r eommen'ds, thai the .Plann ;y Commssnon :$ consider al�l� mat�epw input"-Ategarding. phis},projectk.. If the Commiss�or, eoncuRsw��;t `the YFacts for ^Filndzng and Conditions Hof Approval, adopion�of the•:a£tached Resol.utipn would be, iit order.A* , .w. Res ectfully subrixtted,' � * fi ?. Brad Buller City Planner +' BB:BC,.ns ' Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map ! Exhibit "B" Suhd�iv��sRoni+lap � ' Exhibit "C" Propo$ednStePlan. Citation ' k Exhibit "Q" Proposes FlbS Plaris/Bujld`ing Elevations Ci-tat,ron Exhibit "E" Approued'S� a Plan' A ht CGompany = Exhibit "F"'- Approved Fluor'Plans/Bu�idin'gk"Elevations A-M"` o. Exhibit "G' - Sightine Stu'di`es " }R Exhibit "H" .- Bock�Wa°11 Design �+Jouthefly Tract Pe'rimeter �., Exhibit "I" SiteVPlan�'Cpmparisons -.;;Citation,-&"'A-M�Com any Resoluti,)n No 84-140 ' t � Letter of TNotificat an"to�Ad3acent Residents Resolution of�Ajiproval with Conditions ' r �. � �. r A� Sk .: F�.. 11111 u' er o ian �lel�Hm����11 II111W11 I WFFAH e :S ' : � � g +N�S11 a ■������{��� :_ ss fill I .� '�Q �� W►/ C1Q = 4 0 _ , 1 a M V. ."� ENGINEERING DIVISION z z 11 t , ram.• .. ., a-" Tnu ..r�.. u7,.alu nw 1.- .. L: , )'Y�' . ��•' .:a' �+. a ar• .,i� 1< ..�: I ', ..MlM tilt• . ,t, •r� �,��• a n tl a1 • ,W .^� !t .3. !ems z If� ,�1 � .I. .' ` I �I - ' '� -� 1 �� °. � • � �� ICI) :� � tsa� ... �. 'r •p - D kr-. R -61 It q _M .µ t: K x zA It 4 �ti y�•' p� ,�. t. NORTH g, CITY OFITEM. =146-zct� `�]�rHO CLTC 1i�01�TGf� TITLE- SaE.F�I�iS/crV .r�ul�o l ]]r PLANNING`DIVLSON EXHIBIT= SCr1L E ll --,- �-•• :.>u„.`;�%•s .,'+ram:, - z MTO 4,1 .2 1 Eli jEl it } I! La ct1,11 3 lR•r ! s� I��its.� 91 t!i �..�a his 1 tin I � �_ t E'i���a.5'$Aa �alEEa#i•a'�iiit aE-�tJrs.EadA Etz}} � a .a � '"!�� • � � �F.� 1�E a �d 5Et5�E��,EpEi; �.f�il1�� t¢E8e � i,i�� 3 4'�i�j iE"9`� Hill !� aaaEE 20 no . S o t •••• • X.. Ai: A...'. :Y% AAA Xk 2 yA t � � rr r llhi a! 19 fA 7+ E tF?f— n_u VS o a t ' rj T ..'0 . a _ 'D f 3ifi�l ! tj91 m 3 W . d cc i A s•+_...fir—! , e r.'"Y -r. r': r"' g� xryati^te�F., "�^s� 375. •.� sg, _9,�"i,'�yjt.. ^G,�' 'fa"$ ,r�L a.@ i > kd n +Ea Of Lu LU i � i �•4 k ull FYI cc j La, 4 J W VJjsL\j i I�'•r 4 .`f.._ .t i•ar,�".f�la ;J [ r "� , : 9[ x :s �gzr1}} fitt <� ; s .....f ZEN r LU } ;.. , ICE , t j ,V +u } � IL 4r) ' - t i..- ++�.� .-.........�...,;.�„� t S r--•+..t� ` \s a t =i k .t: �.. s a � `,�#t 't�.r i. �r .t. f f• 1: 4L i!- - _ ,fit•� f.Ti79,:N�1W.6�"' � �° %.tk 5�a.ti�,� >' u i a•" a t ?t�� �� _ I� tttcs,lwd , + ,e t— 4 i( 1 ST Ir•• r' �. J of a rt, ' x Jill, - aULT , � , -�r—E---1� t� {s• 'ti} '� �..,�i r x <�i r-,�,�F .ij tc " �P O rr /f v- ih tl i �} a;p.; }tit{•S't 7.5 _ •",• •'1� ter, i• ti. x ' �ia�l+s t t t 3 j. tr� , ftx (� � Yt yrtil� trti� . gin"iK 4' s t1 4��N' �•�'l ti1L...z'tt'i}t+' t ' t .r t t -i `• t \ S!.� ��31YC Sra k,:a•yj{"'1itlt"�irerr,.�l•r S� *� __ ; �� •.{` a t<�.., Sx c 4 t .,�'Ej��,• 1��p�St�1Wsj� �':4,x ;l it i '1 . .1 '( \. { ; i •� ♦t� SySSw r>� i i?.•.t t; z� ft �` �, v;`. �,1 a'c � t t ��" t t• � �4 eiv cr Maw ¢9 �y�,� ` a ,, r eJ ,..�..a ,'rr•.• ..cam r._::c- a 47"` q E po{{5P liij tEEESa:: i J Buz fit• .�in'v5° i �� ' O -a�l' �, 1 '• L"j 1 �-a� 7. x� '�. as — p _ Ir s� ► , l a� :' ? £ �f a Ya'rtr ar':'st.rr.�`� _..y .eas.�_ �-�. ..r_.-. . .} '.�•-n.•- .r•' .�' .�. —_ Ali df w � _ .....ec +.. Y-. _ ..r•c.,'~ l.. •Y =^ I •� � ' -____��. any- � ��; �r1.veAll !Ec ..QO. 6 sett 9i ��J ?"i�,,no ma's s ""r" •� '. �� Wu ., _,-• • ,yl. ' � + •i8 .. ♦gyp �� �f �t i ti - - — � _ � � I I.c'���►��.an�dF-`'fig ,. . t � a fi ` . lu fAll , * die , ��• •;{tl i .i• ,.i Tv 3; AOL .9s , - � 1 �� �y � M1 �a�� E S��i�. ;M1;•1 3 I ° 3 R. g �k 'ID li El aL lu - 1 Yi ,M • - "fi''..n R'�y���13es`aav�•�.w Y '!5 ✓.r a�' ••+� -4= � �` t'-•� .'"f .7fr`�a;�:.FL�`L'�i`v�'K`✓ �i..+...+.5�s•b'YS 'r.T-��.S..'��...t.Y i f'• +t• t � . •-a is t �;.�}.�. '6 �w �u pga"t '°1 � cry V^ .`. ac :•... " cm 14 `r � ® tj • _ - 'lye/ .. r - ti - TMr`- LT - 1� - �: � ` - jy t •1 t _gem { ® .>s�• a mot- ���- I. ` � . r/ }:� t mow. •{=ec-} 7 ..7zj: lu i 4`1 Y .0 U - �� s -w,?AS �_` � a o , �Y � x.l g•'" �,'�a. ; rl }• •.' `et iK���'T .iR,`,,.•. .2 `.: a "` �a _�..4:: -� ,�,�. -r'�- K..e'k.�vi.:- � ..oc.+-t•.:Y1r~n'�t•'� a��`'�4`d+�- ON Ev, . ry 11 11,Tllo !^® INLU �f--� ff- A It lu 1 lIP I f, — Li .s 4 I ��1R*1hk_.o1y4—� '�<;1. r. < .�• �9', " +/ F-.. !? '►�1 �?•a310 i =s r lm ti 21 < PP � I t ^• \� ���:its �`- e q� s i, €.I•� _ • � � �Y~w I. �• � lam•• O t t7' BMW. , _ y i �• cn - 40 TO i GO IN t IF lit V Will , ����..j•_S�rS S�1p.��y.� •f.LY+r+�. �\S.'1 retj.f}.T A.`J+.-•� �} !1`� S ys .i► �:Y "�i .!'—+£gw..a!+i.a.'v.��l.'+i-.f+lit+• �F.f., •.. :.s .F. �.^.X,�`;.,,,r,I, r �tr.. CMIM Ln x 1� 1 i � ;u •- • HE tp r' �1 IQ N-- m v< 11 i,. _ -:!^sr,3+ �r;7-'-t= i:.. .s..:�.a:.�a.�r - �_`r��� �..di•1•r fV' '��� s~''�+ +-^c...:� f �M v a s � aL •4 IEJ q CIO r To s i tit, :: •— • ` r . ' Ell ( - E Oa -a mxw Aft LT t tf`' MY �fi [ g, a It LL 41 it $ 99 �w . •,P, • �I _ �� `( _ , '. r� u`of I .i-: �' _. � -�•-§ _ t 4: "\CCt r`�ay�� ,••..�dt'..a��•"T �•~r..ias.�A'._ �j.��ry .:1. _tY?v1....n.'.6-i Y�L�.. .7� ins. r'•�'-�^-�'—.. 'Y •r- — ••y r 'ti:�s i . ! � ., •' 4 � .� "-'±r s oo � _ - � t 14 f `• _ . � ,x � � — �R as i a..��. IC2 x x� /"�"j• 4i —mot +....- i. L ' ��..� 1. .; t•.�V. _ .T ' i >'..c Q , ' ` � -rr,P �L--.. l,�i}S i.. � � `•.' R "R' y -'rf t'3 a:. � ,.. dam•I � u�_� oec e':•C'�� �_ — �:� a �,„ � : � _ � _I •lam t 11i I � t• P yJy Y � V�M�! al 4 ! 6 V .� - r t n a f L D �awinr:ru �• I _ •I - � ..ram 4 . Ir ~�}' •'v k 1 � -- IR —77 ES 46 a • pT I X II t"1 j. f. s ,'`+mow I I � i. !i -• I r ,�_••.,�,� �' �3=-`.moo �a�rr, `� a I �1 �r`� � i-• � � � a sr . y f tI `� t4 fEf3a j� St I I Il�ti ` Bill 89 1.0,20 tt1111111 I9 �'. Y 11 i A .:=. - -, 1 Via.- `'� ;:�„�:•�� .W z. ryi ��. � nti t n t �- 1 I , W , N k _ 9 ?�a. l fill w1t ,'F .1,!■Xji.® rs�FSS �,.i E lei � �. � �•:`y. a� �� �,,� ■■ ■ lhHMS O R _i Y y la �S y f,l�f ajL hl it i� ,.a �■ ��•aiss !.� L HIRM r e a■ ,—� ~�t4�•;s , i ,;; �r dN�; ''{ � r r�Iatmxoa , 1 t : No lJ-1��YAaY �� ®i qad�.4i oaf. Mt napeHill �W E � I 1 � v h T ;7 _ f F �...... IRKNl► r NZU r. �/ p a \ �r c b p� ®� SLC■■le ,eaoe. 7 ��lMnli R�n� e11 �, u 4■d5a�■n a�i� 110110e■,,� '� � �a� ■■■■onr 5�v '000110 • t ���q■t Oar:$. .3� 1 JIM a is°a■Secea°m nTi 'sun] i a�H ®I44 • ii a i • k b i d 1if ws�lw■ �� •�■ v�vl �� t t�:, lit 1��. ` ! t �� ���stc •it c M1 a `. �4lituit v� I Al \�i� '.1'fllii '1I111Ci xi�fli���Il;�.l �1��I1►I,fA '•' —IZt V ,�..-•-�r elttttq i ,I � dwupnn. 1� r�-i. um �[ � ■1�tity a..l,''T � i•. �I i yll"�i■ l ` t, tI a A. t i.l wvt a� II � `�`• , $ i j ; it HIM. aligns ess6 : .. 6eeaireras e� is s teas Ia■®. �` il�ir1°simrslj`��•• @I@flH10p1` 7� mi; laic s Q �►- L:L SWOONS G7t���iT 4 A '.►�i � .'' 'vim +'. J�allllil �� Illll�li � r I1 a •.-_ 111�--'�`lilllUt � '�i „�r����tillliY.� � _ eei $x �.... i �a■1\ {{w,.i�� —ilia 13231111 e !il��'r:fii r �'• �tlilt (=ws- c •a.. 91 zz PM gm rr. '� �■�1 � ,il,�,ii� rl �IUIUI., t, s - P, � . r _ 4 lid ila pjs{ s1 !( f } a i — a 10 14 R _ �•1, tC .7pA.,�• Imo..—r , Z, F �� 4 j II =7777- fir, i 15 e - .. } wry} II '� W1'3uVnM, l7tlM 311S�YLLN301S3tl_ , Almos JIy M3N 30N3.4 HO''nvM JNII � �I• i, i 1 w = I `� 9 o e. m S W IL 1 IC! 033�X3 OA ION St 11tlM M3N 01H�I3H 1V102_r,: T1VM OMN r e s - " • F .. x. Qw p � t 21031FMCED CAPBgrWEEN' xf ioIn' t r- MM wA11 OR FENCE wi _! I APPROv. IrAG Flh6SH D GRADE �� L , masrrNG FOOTWG SECI1'N r fi , SITE PLAN COMPARISONS 1. Floor Plans: The floor plans compare for the 2 proposals as follows: CITATION BUILDERS A-M COMPANY Model Sg• Ft.3 'Storfes Model Sq. Ft.3 Stories 1251 1,657 1 1 1,582 2 ( 880)1 ( 702)2 1439 1,900 1 2 1,688 1 1.r,23 1,989 2 3 1;840 2 (111561 690)2 ( 890)2 1707 2,131 2 4 1,946 2 (1,:414)1 (1,166)1 ( 717)2 t 780)2 11st Floor Square Footage ; 22nd Floor Square Footage 31ncludes Total Square footage - Diving Area Garage 2. Unit Mix: Both proposals show an approximately even distribution of Aftv their four floor plans throughout the project site. Since th'(.,I approved unit mix for the A.-M Company included three 2-story units ar)d just a single 1-story floor 'plan, approximately 75% of their units us plotted were 2-story. With Citation Builders, their approved floor plans show two 2-story units and, two 1-story units. Therefore,_ there is an approximate equal distribution of 2-story houses to 1-story houses. Of pr mary concern are the plotting of Lots 88-103. These are the lots at the southern perimeter of the tract that are adjacent to the existing homes to the south. In the design of this new tract,, sensitivity is needed on these lots to reduce their potential impacta on the lots to:the south. The approved plans for the A-M Company show 2-story units plotted i on 13 of the available 16 lots. 'Citation Builderc.has plotted only 8 2- story'units on the same 16 dots. 3. Building Setbacks: Since the pro,,rrt site sits at a basic grade elevation that is significantly higher than the existing lots to the south, rear yard setbacks on lots 88-103 'become critical in determining ' how significant the impacts of these new houses will be"in relation to the existing houses to the south. The rear yard setbacks for lots plotted with 2-story units are :;; follows: A-M COMPANY CITATION Less than 30' 2 1 Less than 40' 2 ` 3 ' Less than 50' 4 1 More than 50' 5 4 RESOLUTION'NO. 84-140 A RESOLUTION OFwJHE PLANNING COMMISSION'OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA CONDITIONALLY APPROVING e TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12830: WHEREAS, Tentative Tract" Map No. 12830, he "Map" submitted by A-M Company, applicant, for the purpose of subdivading,the real property situated in' the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of.-San Bernardino, State" of California, described as'"a subdivision`of about 21.43 acres of laid into 103 1 lots, regularly came befcre the Planning Commission, for public hearing and t action on Decenber 12, 198Q, `.and WHEREAS, the City. Planner has recommended approval of,the Map subject to all conditions set forth.Y in the Engineeri ig -and .Planning_ Division's reports; and f WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has, read and considered ^'the Engineering and Planning Division's reports and,has considered other evidence presented bt the public hearing.: N041, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City , of Rancho 3iP Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTIAN The Planning Commission makes the foll:owifig findings in regard to Tentat Tract No. 12830 and the ive of: + . (a) The tentative tract As consistent with,,the General s Plan,-DeveTbpment Code, and specifi.c..plans;' (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Devel'opment Code, and''specific. plans,; �. A (c) The site is physically ;suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is.not like'v to cause < substantiaT environmental, dar,ige :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 easemant< acquired by the pubIAt at large,,. now of record, for access ,through orb,use- of the property within the proposed subdivision. ('y) That this project will not create adverse impacts o �' the environment. and. ' a' Negative .00*dtion is d `' issued. +A K '^ Resolution No. Page 2 SECTION 2- ,Tentative Tract Map No. 3.2830, 5a ccpY i of Aic 9 h is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the 61 lowing' conditions, MJ the attached Standard Conditions:' i' PLAti_ NING } V1: The final design of the pedestrianand emergency access is subject to the approval of the City_Planner and must be completed prior to, the mass recordation. 2: The maintenance of the twenty-six. (26)_fodt pedestrian and emergency Peasement shall by subject to the satisfaction of 41 the City Plahner,.and done prior,- to the map"'s recordation. ' 3.. The setbacks'-of the .northerly units on'the 2.north/south City Planner.. 3 cul-de-sac''s Shall`"be increased,to the `satisfaction of the x 4.; The wall design for the decorIaive wa1�1 on Beryl street shall mateh''ithe wall design ,of lleact�-'1-2414 to. the north. The sa13 design.should � clude,asm�nimum 35-foot opening AOL ` at,the frank of the cul de,--sac facing 8ery�l: 5. where possible, on te' 'perimeter-s„ the retaining wail's F` shall' be eliminated 4�nd slope .:banks zused to adjust the a grader. y &4 6. A drainage; Swale shaVI. be pryv�dkd along the rSouth i " property Line of the adjacent �o�'jn :t`he northeast portion of .the "site 7. Lot 103 shah drain "to the street, to,the satisfaction of 'the-Grading Committee, in order to' help reduce the ° difference in grade elevation. ., 4, 8. The developer shall , make ake a good 'faith .effort to contact the surrounding residents so-that a coimnon single vtali'may be constructed along the perimeter ,tract property lines. ' 4. The 26-foot " Pedestrian and emergency access easements shall include water easements to the satisfaction of Cucamonga County Water Oistrict.` W t X ENGIlVEERIN' I. Reaglgnment} of the existing " storm drain through, the `` ,< �. eastern, p,rtjon of the project shah coniorm,' to the'." standards of bath` the„' Uty.and. the San Bernardino �Floa , ,:the- Control -D:i'strict s The manhole proposed to be located': within Lot. 10I shall be relocated 'tb the.,Garnet Streets p .� right ofwiay to the�sati?sfa9tian_ofa- e ty,,Engjneer: g T . , 2. A modified.ncul c—i-SH 1 de la1 be designed''and constructed at Y the north end o Garnet Street. 'to the s"atusf=acation,df they,. City Engineer. a . J }' APPROVED ANDADOP7ED THrIS I2th .DAY OF,DECEMBER, 1984. k' PLANNI MISSION<OF"HE C-1, AOF RANCHO CUCAMONGA " .%� Dennis L,! Stoa Ch'a'Ihman s r ATTEST: •, •Ric¢ am,z D puLe ny Secretary s . I, Rick Gomez, Deputy. Secretary of thePlannngComm�ssioi of the'Ciy of Rancho Cucamonga,,.do hereby certify than the foregolpg; Resolution was dul:�and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted -- the P]�ann�ng} mm�s,aton o� tfie City of Rancho Cucamonga,;at a�reguilai`,meitin4 Of 7theyPlan!M xCprr�n5'ssRon held on the 12th day, of.`,,bbiember, I984;by too+fo2"low�ng";v`,ote"to-wit." *`y AYES: COMMISSIONERS xt"" " 1CNIEL, BARKER; CHITIEA, REMPEL, STOUTJ" NOES:' % COMMISSIONERS: NONE x • x y. 7r f� ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS,: NONE ", r ',tJR1,r . F. 00 _ .. :_Ot ESN C ut. 6C 0� ^ O.,y v ovP Y Llu�.. L u VOU V..vu Lq„ Y P q•C paL E y L u O A J Y b U Js awe O� g'L Ou�62 tL Gd H?V LO �V '• n`7� YdOy `C IVEY d LL yC utu q V Q• G V ?N � P .� =sizOuuyE = OTu t. y y q C Og ' u C x G u C x n�'u Pa At d H„L tea.. k i.p JU,601� n 9.� AL nq.±H w-V d pp= - „ Oa >_ E oaL ym v� aqd „\ y p r V 4 6 C^ A Y O x p C 9 T o. Yr s q 69..2.n L w Sr: OI H OC��n „V n �� �'• y b ; CYu Cx^.d�,S Q-O qm Ir-G pL pu.-.4A 6.c 6.. i r� O u • O '_ L O V G E n E C L'w aU Ou w r Y J. aey C O 9 • � � CS � 1 x o f S F =•^ �E H „n u �t q n� w F. U � V 4 C�i. C1 O p _V y J'a F R.E Y y a�rat, , _ db€ ... o N > N qd b ad Vw • vnq tW O O n•Uq`: a�.0"xv p V.r=a O n O-U �� A _��- L M IV; y.. F. r �'Y Qo �e ��� R.L n. y� • �.9y.Y Qf O. ,.O.L « nM �W'•O V i >i ` V E T s.m, •O a` J n �U �� O,Q w. u 2 b m as C 9 Ky Vr V q O 9 E b 9 u C:L 2 E b� C g A q E N•pr N W y E d �q.b R CL.«.O. n E Lr L. N>, CCN r r•. v'.c o of qH y L q.:q9 Y pS0 �•r O � � E ny q Z. S. b� S u Vu LL ,oT `v� p.= a•-ooUa �Y'.i n � non` y o n q G 6 = bO f q. Ob NU NNUX 2 nYti OS O C E'"• xVx G =.tea .,• �:d y Sr - 6•r.n +-6 .�.5 G c 4�Eta Q u N O 6 q Alk m 11 1 ao u Pv ac b;.: qoY 3.. o ism,. 2 '• �,A nn = LN oo 'o so by ca e� nN E��•_ <�.'• L c•+ Y L C C �,�O�A 2 S L G d.e � d d n YLa ` E Y = • 'Lq _. b� p^ CC C'^ru nu�p On qq0 Yn O LE'V9 O' M� EO "9?NCC. yREb y I OL ou O L �0. q C E 5 c • � b c e a i n � b. E HL G V o.0 CV 9.o N n Cp 60 L O Z u T C n C o E V O O O o 2 g72 O M E T 4p Yip y.• idA N � p p b 6 ti O`.O n G t E p•u O �� > qt n•. C4i � LG Ct Off_.. = n d�P ,�so o•- n q01 L= a Yo'`- yo oc ayo as q,i 37c C,Y _ y+ u b v�• 4E.a= EbLq G U v b L.>'.I�G b Vo = rnL Nu V�L A b Sn] O Nr O V L TC N ' Nn ,►L•a.No `.o-Maf N:qN o ��cs�•a`i Y nv:c_u uo L,L n $ 0 4 R p 4 ETMr 6 4 •f.Y ..$4_ .Y.,. �..'��11. .JIL.YxaWffi2.. Tdx,�,.x .l.n. .. ... .. �...w: �.N •.#, Elm O O •u L �y Ol V � � [_ G c Ci N d l 'p V c <Ot f G O E b ) L ) 'l. • L O .T.d L � �. �j � a^O � _ a` V O q' V G V n 22 `l� O VPQ� c CL aZa� �a � ENO Ga• O^ �4 ' N - C r< t - Ql yU.`. � d •DNS .R� .ON c�'� .. O. C L Et �` _^ A � •r` LL u v yi Y uo. `oo` ai —N'- _ n _ of La pCi 6b�T M =pl. q NZ d q qrr G• 6A C y Nb OEM ��Yqp b o � ^. Q V f 2 N d b ^b d b L r C d c« P'OL V q n 6u Woon�N � Or �'�• n o.. A ^ d 3 N2 n L G^ nN npa q6.^ry G q.2« G b ) E.q .O 02 q i 6 q� a� N X ...q .•C a V= w C N o O Y.. 9.C6pV c V �b VL... .V OH qNO ^^ a � y C L Ob 2 O.a _n p` - XI O•�Q pi Lu by LS G� cQ! Pc Nv V 9 v p� cd ado ')L n.L,c Eb.a,o. 2 L cd A q ti ys• c._4 ^ C N �� b OJ d� n 6 ^.yq d N L e b N^ u J« a J« « to ai ` C^ o`y .� U L N -� o =0 d w ti C V J i OOq c bno D�vd OI bd 0• H d 4q EW o1 �O I Op mq dE 00 by a Y y� Q� � ndp �dp� `�bN -: f'..1�:. .t•.Li. L.o NC cNN - rT. = PN w.:. u a u a E c L �wp. du ti n.P ci Y H jAW. • N�:d �gqo.• u Y rO. oti tea. 'i�..c •�G my cd bv� `•q. ^"UWL 6�6CWvy1..-.O.c-qy..p o of ua'.. mquu ;Sa u5 ni <'c 14 m = AML Oath.. E = LQ �Q 'r3 Y< �O.0 CACc _ w oo uo q. v o¢ wm" V CN. v L yyL.y E L o q y ,- Y aS O� u opu 9v` y o o$i y A n� E ai a'q.a a N o n d �d.. b �.. VE d y q vu E L dq L_ va a d Y—u �E. `� a \ c .�pV -TIE 4 Ub d O - �L SO O _LL =yd Oa ~c WW�.O d� L n F� 9.0 L d Q CO L � Cn. n�d<O •N B u�♦ r- � -1 � 11 c �"t. E � is �.._ aoo oda,Y. Y p. s` uqu •gnob ��• .o eauE �i. Liu ny n.L e cp oo =O Y OiC CY.. =C d6 N 6 G W 4m act y Cyr. n q 4641 n -O E..... L U WW W Es GdS �y i.¢n i ud ( 1 (.� ..c- •n. �°-" d _ 2Lu.Nn •'�.. _ Iz r 1,. v' qp 55 OL. V V.. l' u U Y • V •— �j � Lam• V`d 6 ;T � v V •n < Y - uq«o won �• o.� V.. Y O.0 O. .p Y. .• N-V 7p.0 - C T O D O <O V <n a q • u A •� E C'<i7 G.. a.0 yea �a �� c u .'`. v - Po _ zt < 2 LC — } � �E TC Y eEYiO a.<a C Ott V L O. O — •• v E- • .r.-• 1— Vp Cc PO n 92 Y <O EZ v p'•y O s 4 y <E I O O p` LN ^ y s > E 2••• Cu '.' Est Q4 Q.Oi f , 6 f Fes: nj • w L. y • I �I J �I b � ^ � Oi � E N E e a y nS`o v v V q o mp �d vq ar C q L Q G C �q �...•.< V 2iq Gq Y n NV'O.= Oil a CO .. — 1 Lc•E ✓,,. •. L� ^ — Q CAP. < dy yqN LV—O OL -EE p ev o cL p oy H q •.i$�. o LiWE z t ' q N.E = <Yo� CY•�,� L C.�^�' ,:.oi on�p�.o pTN A � i n O<.y •n « lo —C —t. G n P C O y., o e t • _ E q �a ' .2 64 N 6Vv� u•O�T O < —E 6 E4 L� ��'�. a. Pp0 �•> S NYV Vf+ K.egG 06«E•V.l IrOa v Q3•'E up�4 =� '•"� 9>+ ' J b�` fFEF p M p M c u f ,`•'. c` e. c� _ •-a L. Q ,_ as vQ _ o • d4 � N Ly:6 S.w• N O L Y 9 � a �" L ^� N Y 7 q ^ O O • L. O.d L •� C.,qu u rY CG4o � N . ':O y.G z Vj Q .^. - ti V:C p N V T =oq E n nq NV Cpu •Zi TO'•+ V �u �n� Y'7 an Nd �. a P 3p` 0.6. C O.••¢dY C CC y '• 40: d Q Y o w q - Q^W G. Y •O.Oi t9 �^ � C OY �_ Y LNU W C^ V Tr V Ca OC � i f t go.NQ? ~ xG ' Q uP YT � 9 P NOu �W: t u a ` _ � E UW ? L •"'d uQ OY U d d'°.Gu Ya G O B 6tN O Y G^ L r. R Q E n q m Qa �� U�. s •c a p rdo c=o O • I a p �L� V i a q C ^� ' � �' tlW b a�CL >qa E.A •,. � V acbY yY. - �� f -E s � Vi p. v Q T N Vao Et N 41 ci aM • 4 r N V u� L i L Y H.� u Y o�+ � ou>w 'O=. O • C — i� E.E O r y N. • - �. a� _ oa ��, tom, L. c—y � c _ � Y L a[1 O w.0�• L All c V�. 6N� 'C.O♦. L� �i 0�...pG OG3 GO O.y :. N Is CITY C)PRANC® CTCAMON F A }� ,J st yorlon A.3fikels. a Z Councth"maen to > CharlesJ.Huouet If 41 t 977 Jeffrey King Richard31 f)ahl PamclaJ.SFri�ht February 19,, 1986 Dear La Vine Street Neighbor: *' Citation Builders has submitted plans to the City t6 build,single family homes * ' on 103 lots for :Tract 1283D. Tr?ct 12830 i°s a residential' subdiv?sion, for single, family homes located on.."ne W�Nst side of Peryl Street, north of 'Base Rine. Road. k,1T plans and fires related to this, project are, available for public review anti-,are located in the Planning Uivis;`on at City Hall, 9320 3ase Line Road. 0ffi`- ', hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5to0 p.m.., Manday through Friday. a - w, The Planning Commission will be reviewing these development plans, and considering them for approval at its regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday it evening, February 26, 1986. These meetings are open to.4the public and we welcome your,presence. Meetings are held at Lion's Park, 0161 Base Line Road, (just west of„Heilman) and begin promptly at 7:00 p n. If you have any questions or c^mments please direct; all inqulaies to myself,. I will be happy to assist You.'--We Look forward to work,'Ag With you as strive towards the development of a City we can,�all be proud of. Sincerely, ;M COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Bruce Cook Associate Planer BC:ko i n ! fr ax ky i V .'� 4`320 HASELfPIE+ROAAtfdTE C eOS�TOFFICE HQI!807• u 1Q RANCHO CUCAXQNGp,CALIFORNIA 91130,•(7 9891 5 t. a Y. + , 1; t � . `�. ad::.�c. �';>'- _ •__ ,:fir �i�',�i�.%, f RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING 'DESIGN REVIEW FOR 7R'ZT 12830 'LOCATED 3N THE WEST SIDE OF BERYL-STREET, NORTH OF BASE LINE ROAD 1N THE LOW MEDIJM RESIDENTIAL DISTR :T WV_7" on the bth day of December, 1985, a complete application was filed by Citatiok,'Builders for review of the above-described project.; and i WHEREAS, on the 26th day of March, 15o,:, the Rancho Cucamonga r ' Planning Corn. ission held a meeting to consider,the above-described project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commissions resolved as SECTION is That the following can.be met I. That the 'proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and 3 2. That the proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and 3. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the. Development Code; and 4. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not.be detrimental ft- the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: Taat Design Review for Tract 12830 is approved subject 'co the conditions and Standard Conditions contained within Resolution 84-140 p - and the following conditions: 4 1. All corner dwellings and 2-story-dwellings shall have the side or rear elevations facing'the street upgraded with additional wood-trim around windows, additional wood siding or ,plant-ons, or some other appropriate method, subject to review and app.-oval by the City Planner prior , to the issuance.of building permits. l 2. Single story floor plans only shall ba plotted for Lots 92 through 97. While these lots are restricted to single- story house plans-on1 J, the intent .is "still the saire to" ' provide a variation oT streetscape consistent with the rest of the tract. 'The streettcape elevations for these lots shall be subject to the review and approval of'the City Planner and may, rwcuire some alterations to" unit elevations ,unique to these lots' to achieve the desired- , rr1,x intent. _3= 2 gat.. 7 March 262 1986 i Page 2 3. For all elevations of all models, architectural details on the front elevations shall be carried out to some extent on the other three'. elevations. • Final details shall be submitted for the review and approval' of the City Planner i prior to the issuance of building permits. k 4. On Unit 1251-8, continue masonite siding to other side of ` g.rage and wrap around to side elevation. ' 5. On Unit 1251-C, eliminate windwall and continue masonite siding tc„ other side of garage and wrap around to side elevation> fi 6. All roofing material is` to �e tile. 7. The wal'1 design for the decorative wall on Beryl Street shall match the wall design of:Tract 12414 to :the north. The wall design shov,Id include a .minimum: 35 foot opening at the font of thE'cul-de-sac facing Beryl. 8. Ali retaining walls exposed7 to public view shall be provided,,with decorative treatment. The final design shall be subject to review and approval by the City Plnner prior to issuance of building permits. E 9. ` A perimeter wall, shall be provided along the southern boundary of the tract; This wall shall be 8 feet high with the lower 4 112 feet of masonry blc* construction r and ' the top 18 inch portion of wrought iron construction. This wail is to be consistent with the 1 approved upon design agreed to by the previous developer -s A-tit Company. r _ 10.- Rear yard fencing shall beyii;stalled by the developer. 11. The southerly boundary. of Lot A, the storm drain easement, is to be walled off to present through access to thii south. This storm drain easement is to be walled off %sn - three sides (south, east, and west) with a wall of the same typz ,of constriction as the wall provided along the southerly perimeter of 'the tract. Along its northern side, 'a wrought iron gate shall be provided, to permit h+ access. The interior. of the easement is to be ' landscaped. The details -uf'.the landscaping of the storm E,. drain easement shall be included in the final landscape and irrigation plans submitted for review to the Planning Division. The final design and improvement of`the storm drain.easement is subject to the review and approval of . the .City,Engineer F. 12. Side yard fencing for corner lots on the site adjacent',to x N the.street shall,be provided by the developer to insure an adg4ate setback of the fence behind the back of walk" . x t 4 gar"ch 26, 1986a ra Page 3 .' Aw ", 13' $ide yards on corner i.�ts between side yard fencing and back ,h walk, shall be landscaped and, irrigat6d by the developer The landscaping: details shallbe included .op ' the final landscape aKd ir�^ig,atioR p-ans ,submitt; d'for they review;,and��app�-ovalto: the Planning ,Division.. + 14. For s gpon lots at, the end of eul de sacs (lots 3Q> 31 73, 74 63; 64' 10,'and 11) the developer shall irrigate ,y y and landscapeu'that Port7on'"'of the: f �"Ord between the driveway an thy; adjacent proper , : rF nal „ landsCapmb4deWls, snail 'be included on tHd1%AhLr„ - and irrigation,1011a submitted for reView a�i agprova7 Planring` Division: 15. The finai design or,mprovement and maintenance plans `Fer the 26 foot µ,pede&triar. ands emergenpy eisement shale 'Ahe . ; A.,.. subject tc ife app�r val..of,,the City Planner, prior Ito the issuance Af".building`.per,'mits.' APPROVED AND ADOPTED THLS'26TH DAY OF;MARCH, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OFikANCHO CUCAMONGA � ` BY: ' Dennis L. Stout, C 'zzrman ATTEST: , { Brad Buller, Deputy ecretary s.- x I, Brad Buile4, Deputy Secretary::yof £he Planning .Cormibsion` of the City�;of Rancho Cucamonga, do-hereby certify that 'the fore ot Resolution..Was tlul and regularly int:rod'ed, ,?ssed, and adopted by-the Punning Commission Of the } City of Rancho Cucamonga;,"at a e ular•meetin of the Planning Commission field E on the 26th day of March;'1986; by ttie following vote=•ta wit: AYES C&i11ISSIdNERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ' f ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ; * e' d � -- CITY QP RANCHO CUCAMONGA c�CAAyfc%r� T :F REPORT C�, O E-I1 Z 'UI A DATE: March 26, 1986 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY Nancy fang;_AAociate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL-ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT,_REVIEW`1545 AJA - The development V 5—ne 1111:1: 1 "T building totaling 42, s 300 square-,feet and four 1-story mulbi tenant inAstrial buildings,total in, 76i 076 square..feet on, 7.09 acres of land in the Indus'trial Park District (Subarea 6), and Haven - Overlay Di°strict_'located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Acadia Street - APN .209-40141 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of site plan, elevations and issuance of a Negative Declaration.' B. Surr,unding Lane Use and Zonin Nort,i - Vacantt,A� .Rai road tracks; .Industrial Park District (Subarea ' Haven Avenue Overlay District. . South Office building under construction; Industrial Park District (Subarea,•6), Haven Avenue Overlay District. East - Warehouse/distribution bu ldings;*Industrial Park - District'(Sljbarea 6). West - Vacant; Industrial Park District (Subarea 6), Hav9P Avenue Overlay District. . C.! General Plan -Desi nations. roject to - Industrial psrk,, Haven Avenue!,-Overlay District. North - Industrialjpark,'Aaven Avenue averl' 0istrict. South - Industrial park, Haven Avenue Overl•aj U;skrict. Ea=t - Ind'ustrial'park. West - Industrial park, Haven Avenue Overlay District. D. Site Characteristics: T►e,site is vacant and relatively level. R tdetropclitan Water District easement exists within the landscape setback aneal'along Acacia Street, _A landscape. )� easement and, a construction easement exist, within' the . i laii,.','•:ping and building isrAback area to the west and an 8tfi Street' easement existswftiiin the parking area tOX the (8th Street has been vacated-by the City). `Although the grade .A,.- is substantially below Haveir Avenue, the ultimate, plan to buiad # m Al ITEM k:. x ..� n %'':r P 8 PLANNING COMMISSION:;STAFF REPORT";' ;l N DR 85-45 - AJA March 26, 1986 Page 2 ti an 'underpass under the railroad tracks grades. would reverse the = E. Applicable Re ulations The Haven Avenue Overlay Distri:t covers the westerly 00, feet of the project site (inclyd�ti Building,A,IB, `and C) ti",The Haven Avenue Overlay pistrict gave ' special consideration to the site"and wau.l;&d allow Research and Development uses within Buildings 8 F,_ C subject to-. a_ Condltinnal Use Permit _T6e`office use of '8uilding A is " permitted. ;, The multi=ten,;nt industrial use of Buildings D & E lF is permitted by Subarea 6: II. ANALYSIS:"; ; A. .General: Ine proposed development consists,of Office, Research & Dave1O mP<VOffice' and multi-tenant industrial buildings. . The overalfiite plan with this building placement, dispersed" parking areas in the; plaza, complies with the development policies for Haven' ''Avenue. The, "elevations` reflect a sophisticated style of architecture that consists of painted concrete panels with..reveals, painted accent. :ids and.spandrel glass (see Exhibit "F"). 3 The proposed land use for Buildings B & C is Research .,and Development/Offi`ce At the,time of,. the Design Review Committee'- process,?the Planninj,Xomm-iss.ion had recommended-, to the City Council an amendment4to the.-Haven Avenue.Overlay District to . add Research & !!tV61gment/Office ai a permitted;use. However, after twe .publijc hearings, the, proposed amendment failed to,,' receive -City '`Counci'3 = approval. Thereffore��.: Rasearch & Development/office would no re"uire review rand approval of a Conditional Use Permit.. The applicant;was notified of this reauirement and "a �blic' hearing wii;l e+set upon receipt of a .'l CUP application a([a balance of fees B. DeSjgn Review,—Committee- The Committee has reviewed :.the �r pr jnct and' - rec6fdmendbd approval with the foll'owin. ' ,., -tra6ndit ors which the developer- agreed'to: g CFI m 1. Cross sections should .,be provided for` the. nortKast portiow of the site showing,'the proposed site design without the "detour" :and one with the "detour" incorporated: u 2.' Buildings should be •identified as multi tenant industrial bui"ldings with 1 per 400 square i foot parking ratio. ,) : .` PLANNING COMMISSIO'NSTAFF,REbRT " OR 8545 - AJA March 26, 1986 Page 3 3. A combined monument/project identification sign should be ,provided at the northeast cornea of Haven Aven and Acacia Street. I The design of , `F such sign should be, consistent With the southerly approved project,(DR 84-51). 4. Special landscaping treatment should b'e provided along :Acacia Street and within parking "area, including canopy shade trees, to mitigate ahe loss cf tree planting within the MetropoIltan., Water District easement. 3 5. Any proposed roof mounted equipment should be• s screened and the design be -,_`!chftectur'ally integrated with the elevations. The applicant's revised plans address Items 1 and 2 as shown in Exhibits "C"and " !', Items 3,,'4, 5'would be included is the Conditions or approval for,the CUP. 4 C. Utility Underaroundina: Overhead, utilities exist on they"opposing, side of Haven Avenue and the project;# side: of EghthStreet easeT'+nt -It is recommended that The applicant pay an in lieu fee #. egv',ialent to one-half of.the establisha,nost, fkundergrounding., the to recommumcati.an 1 ines along, the street fronfage10 `.Haven Ave6e and `` -- " require the,,. applicant. to underground the:, electrical ' and telecommunication` lines along the Eighth Street frontage at their, expense. . ' �i. Environmental :Assessment: Staff has completed the Environmental �-1 .`< Checklist and found-no• signi, ..ficant adverse environmental impact as a 4 resul ,of this .project. If the Commission .concurs with these findings,.: issuance ,of a Negative Declaration would' be in 'order,. following:the'CUP hearing. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff, recommends that the Planning;.Commission:conntiinue this item so that pub1i hearing for the CUP can will be 'set Aprrl 9; III 1986. �( Res ctfully sub 'tted K j Y.- Brad Buller a " City Planner BBNF:ko Tr t ;::,R; ..� ,p•_.*^T �i 'rr .r,;.,aFpi'+�. v�' }��gp-cry T— .�s lG+� �xt PLANNING CDMh1I'ESS ION"STAFF REPORY + ' DR 85-45 :AA _ March 26, 1986" Y' Page 4 j• Attachmen�sl E=xhdb�ft SAE' Location Map If Bit Spite tail#nation Map Exhi6'� , ,C D6rtail,Ste Plan Exhibit "D" Conce-,trial Gradang Plan Exhibit "Em - GG�nce t $l-Undscape:Plan Exhibit "F" 4,n's PaAUg,,Cal culatians - I:n1t�a9 5tiidy,,'Part IIAlm ti. y t e. CIRCULATION 120'R.d.w. o ARROtSt o rxc'a`'o�s o®o a 0'��a o:•o •x 100' P.O.W.. m .�.w, �.1Z,.. , ® 88'or less R.O.W. 0s RAIL SERVICE l^"TT Existing •- • barea 9 O ++r- Proposed s ®4 y TRAILS/ROUTES = •l ` 0000 �} Pedestrian •> k 0000 Bicycle. �, k a•8ys�tni .u. . . Regional 1) ar V Multi-use SpecialStreetscape/ Landscaping Power Line/ Utility Easement t S. .•s Creeks& Channels subarea 5 f n Bridge 'Z • oe _ i • •c o• �en•u a:6th Access Points bares„ • y . Fire Station ;. oLQ C ,2 -o- ' 1 + -..-AO "• 1 •. •p•O to 00 - ! '� z .. ua _NORTH CITY, ,OF, NCHO (LTJC IONGI'i : ITAMING D� ON EXI 1IBfT= SCAI E �� AI F GEMMALIMMRIAL F 1 .;.14 { NO G CITY OF r tCHC� �LeAMG NGA PLANMNr, DIV1Staly Ex tIBrr —*/ _ ANk • 1 s - T ' t y 1 1. 1 aZ i Z � u l •I — .I. e• . le .l ' I T'LAZA ,, t ..a..d r t SCIIA10 � R e u'Ot a t. t .d d �f 4,V Mh'V.Ne•tu' nd oa�'c•�)carx �—'- -`!. \\�.` MWD EII.SEIdENF �'a1R Yr.t1C7tiMP t9tll.ti I[SaQ9 - �— l.tO�**"((//y� 7 M.IB010.R..(t.ip tq.L.t1�q.1!...llt,lF�.q..R.ftt.. • .. tl to srt,ur _ 7! ' (a.".q rnllt tar 7tm,0i N.Re�. 1.1 G1�t- (/�I�.+ ,'..� tilol+t uu lu,.ty w x. to r a T'riu- usevt atm w ue s, er. na s 4....t.t�,...� ,t.t.., ft. t. . F.JfHIBITt SCALE.- �yq i �..'Fsi�.:« ... ., .�a.,p �...•SF.aKa,. .."ti-{I :1Cs.a.... l ..m 3 4.�ar'� .,..... r r rw roll- jr7 q ,_ r ,ti:c_ nl rai. 41 I ��. Il ' i-�.*• ail 'i �• r; rrf'u.1 � .� .. �,. I • I z F�'r.`'f +s.I.,, ii1• `• .1 .,,r � `��y r 1, f 1 NORTH Y CITY OF ITEwt: P. RANCHO CUCAMONGA Triu: LANNIhG DIVLSTON EXHIBPT: SCAI.Ez R ir, '. _ -- �i u� ,i � . ► i,11► �� �,► ��► ��► + � 'fir �i t� n i� r r `�� ,�1 i[�Ii ,!► G �P� fir, � .��(� �'.� � �� ,.. �a� � � 1'i .�, � � �r. '► . .� ,�, N ,� :� #�a, � ��T ?► 1� ��1 ,� :� _ ,�-.1► tit �+ "� -- was �=�-�:.a'ai't � �. ■ � . . Ii�iaiR a �. S. ,� ,� � ! � • t ti k:. � 1` R 16 r� „�- � a z _MAN G�311i�� Yt FA h�4t„ z,. . r . 7m � <Sy fA U, LU ful - 3+'Z 2 IF r .- ��� "+ � � 4•� ' 4 4 } a •R `� a�ski i� • l 7W & � 4 tF VJ�.0 n I lift— s ®R i r � T• W rD: .. ',T. � s'r�'- � 'hen 4.1 Z w i 1 J �t- 1-4 41 s, I a 5'. S *Rg;. it.. a ■ aid 4 �M DR 85-45 -' PARKING CALCULATIONS k Building/Use Area Parking Ratio Required Parking (Sq. Ft.) A/Office 22,835 1/250 91.34 B/R&D 20,092 1/350 57.40 r t C/R&D_ 18,848 1/350 53.85 D/Multi-Tenant 14,388 1/400 35.97 t E/Multi-Tenant 23,840 1/400 59.60 ° Total Required 298.16* " Total Provided 299 A *If Buildings B & C are Office then: Total Required 343 Total Provided 299 v y Total Deficit 44 4. NORTH CITY C)F ITEM- RANCHO CUCAIV ONGA TTT[.E:__4t. .K1 AA!T 1'LA'dNM DIVISION FXHI m___� _SckLE: CITY of RANCHO CUCA`iONGA R�• PART II INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONk1ENTAL CHECKLIST DATE• APPLICANT: f}grdG FILING DATE: -Ci- S A LOG NUMBER 12 PROJECT; 2 S`u1 GT —+T6at1MlT`/Nt�e$71i'rI/i= PROJECT LOCATION: j� 7'ff-- „pe��o pG1Fll� �rF- 7 ,�rr.d c7 1. ENVIRD%M. NTAL IMPACTS 4 ' (Explanation of all "yes" and t'maybe"'answers are required on attached sheets). YES- MAYBE NO '' 1. Soils and Geoloev. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? b. Disruptions,: displacements, compaction or burial of the soil?. C. Change in topography or_g:ound surface contour intervals? / d. The destruction, covering or modification . „ of any unique Lgeologic or physical features? .� e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off .t site<aonditons? f/ J f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? 1/ g. Exposure of people or property to geologic 4 -hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,`mud- slides,.- round failure, or'similar'hazards? r 5 h.: An increase in the rate of extraction and/or use of any mineral resource? k 2. drolozy= Will the proposal" have significant <` results'in: s'. �, s page 2 11 YES :L4YBE No a. 'Changes in currents, or the course of direction Of flowing streams; rivers., or .ephemeral stream :. , channels? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 1 or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? g 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? `l f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? M } a. Change in the quantity of either through direct additionsdor with- drawals, or through interference With ai aquifer? Quality? Quantity? Aft h. The reduction'in the amount of water other- wire available for Public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property, to water related hazards such as flooding or seciies? 3. Air ualty.. Will the,proposal have significant results in: r a. Constant orperiodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? ` Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or interference with the attainment of�:�ppicable air quality standards? c. Alteration of local or regional clit atic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? /r 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results In: .r a•` Change in the,.characteristics of speciesy including diversity, distributiont''or number P of any species of plans? "k b, - Reducton•of the numbers of any unique, rare or end'angeted species of pl�antsr? ' F V 'aee 3 c YES. Xk4 BE. NO c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into.an area? d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural x production? `. Fauna. .Will the proposall.ave.significant results - in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of ,animals?_ b. `-aduction 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 migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 5. Ponularion. 'Will the proposal have significant results in: e a. Will the ro osal alter the Iodation, P tion distri- bution, istr' f 1 _ .•, bution, density, diversity, or growth sate of the human population+of an area? �. $ b, Will the proposal affect existing housing, or / create a demand for ad;uItional housing? _✓ 6. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change iu local o'r regional socio-economic characteristics, including economic or, a commercial diversity, t ;ate, and pr'o)?arty r, values? b. Will project costs be equitably distributed x among project beneficiaries, i.e.., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and Plannine Considerations. Will the proposal: have significant results in? j a. A substantial alteration.of the present or planned land use of an area? R b A conflict with any der ignatiaas objectives, y policies, or adopted plans of any governmental ' enti"t'es? c An impact upon the,qulaity or q';,aitiey of un° 4 h 1 4un„ existing mF canstaive or non-consumptive -w ,, :. n �teceationa] oppoitunities? t page%4. YES MAYBE NO 8. L nsoortation. Will :the proposal have significant results in• a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? f b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? J d;. Substantia'i impact uron existing transporta- tion system?? e Alterations to present patterns,of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? f- Alterations to or effects an present and M Potential water-borne, rail,.;,nass transit or air traffic? r 9. Increases 3n traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 9, Cultural Resource Will the proposal have significant results in:; a. A disturbance t o the a nte r itY of arc haeological,ot` o:g i c al,paleontologicai . and/ r historical resources? 10. Health, Safety andNuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant, results in: a. Creation Of arty health hazard or'potential health hazard? J, b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? _ 1 d• An increase in the number of individuals or species Of,vector"or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to :such organisms? J ti e. Increase in existing noise levels? � V$ f. Exposure of people to potentiallydangerous , �. _ EW— / ,. noise levels?, g• The creation oll objectionable odors? h. An increase in light or glare? Page 5 D A YES a4YBE NO 11. Aesthetics,' Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Tha. obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? b• The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? e. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Pub lzc Services. Will tha proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following. a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? �f c. Comm,nnications systems? d., Water supply? e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control structures? g. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? i. Police protection? j. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? .1 , M. Other governmental services?, y 13. _Energy and Scarce Resourcts. Will the proposal ~ have s g ficant results in a. Use of substantial or excessise fuel, or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? c•' An increase in the demand for development of k new sources of end 3y? x � d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption - of non-renessat;�wiforms of energy, when feasible �. .. renewable sou''s of eneT�;r' are available? `� ?,a " YES MAYBE NO '. e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or Y scarce natural resource? IT 14. Mandatory Findings of Siz�ifican e. a. Does the project have the potential to.degrade the qua7Iti,bf the-environment, substantiall'y rp:iuce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or ciilalifa population to drop 1 S below self,,sustaiiang. levels., threaten to eliminate a, plant or animal, Community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a'rare or endangered plaat•,or animal or eliminate important examples,of the major periods q5 California history or pre3ristory? i b. Does the project,4a•.e the potential to achieve short-term, -to the-disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A-sbort-term,impact on the environment is one which occurs in aWrelatively brief, definitive period of time chile long- term impacts will endure well, into the future), of c. Does thu project Dave Ulpacts which are - individually limited, •bu� Cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental ef6e:rs of an Individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, y and probable future pi-ejects). J d. Does the project have environmental effects. + /� y which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly Or Indirectly? YI. DISCUSSION OF ENI'IRO:IMENTAL EVALUATION _~ ~ above questions plus a discussion of prep of mitigation measures to proposed mitigation measures}, -• a H T[ p K Page E, III. DETER`S� I_NATIOy On the basis of i ,is initial evaluation: " I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant_effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATIOTt 'Will be prepared. LJI find that r althou t6e proposed� P � p project could have a significant effect on'-the envir,;onment, there will not be a significant effete ' in this case because the mitigation measures :escribed on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIV DECLARATION WV-L BE PREPARED, I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the f I eaves`..:sent, and an ENVIROI,"—WT MPACT i4 PORT is required, Date - S Sat . Title �f d t A y k.y t . CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA G�cn A;�1c9 STAFF REPORT t :n r . F � Z V 9 DATE: March 26, 1986 1977•, i TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission i FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY REVIEW 85-66 WOOD A, consistency determination a peen, the oo i Corridor` Interim Policies and a coa.n'ericalloffice 'Master Plan concept located on the northwest corner of. Foothill Blvd. and Turner Avenue. 1. BACKGROUND: On November 13, 1985, the Planning Commission e ert3—' m—'ned hat Preliminary Review 8a-66 was 'inconsistent with the FoothiU Corridor Interim Policies. However, the Commission gave the applicant the opportunity to develop a_Master Plan of the subject site and surrounding properties to ;address the Interim Policies for the Commission's consideration. The applicant has; submitted a Master Plan for the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Turner Avenue indicating a specific site plan of the property in which the applicant intends-15--de—velop, incorporated with.;a' conceptual Master Plan of the surrounding east and west properties see x ibit "C"). This Paster Plan was developed around the applicant's initial plan to develop a two-story office building within the center of the Master Pian (See e Exhibit "D"). In addition to the above Master Plan, the applicant has submitted three similar Master Plans which demonstrate access alternatives to Foothill Blvd. (See Exhibits "E", "F% and "G"",. IL ANA`T-YSIS A. Generals The proposed Master Plan concept is a multi-tenant prof essional/executive office use. This use is permitted, in the deneral £ommerciai 'Oistrict. The Master Plan demonstrates specific and' conL,zptual building locations and orientation, ?. overall circuiation, points of ingress and egress,, parking area layouts, transit stops, landscaped areas, and pedestrian nodes. In addition, this plan provides for possible access to *° the approved shopping center (Kanter) to the adjacent east side. . for future shared access from Foothill Boulevard. The Master. Plan incorporates eight non-conforming lots. The: ¢° lot proposed for development by the applicant is non-conforming ' in lot'area,W dth, and depth, t ITEM'L u e _, M1 - PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPO& "^ March 26, 1986 ~, PR 85-66 Mood ; Page 2 1. Minimum site/lot`-area 40,000 square feet 2. Minimum lot width - 200 feet 3. Minimum lot depth - lay feet ,I However, the -Interim Policies state that development' on non-conforming-lots is allowed provided such development is an integral part of the,master planned development const;tent with the Interim Policies for the Foothill Boulr=,,gird C&ridor and Development Code". In addition; if the Master Plan is approved as a unified a shopping center, parcels created within shopping centers are exempt from these standards as Iong'as a.conceptual development plan for the entire center has been developed and appropriate easements for reciprocal access parking_ and maintenance is provided'. B. In'terim'Policies: The FoothiTI Corridor_Interi:m.Policies are provi e o e p direct the design potential for development along Foothill Boulevard and guide the Planning Commission decision' making process as it relates to thelconsistency of these policies:.,; The._proposed Master Plan is 'subdect"to`those- polici.es which ;relate to master plan integrated development,' thus, not all of the policies "are applicable to, the proposed project. These policies are, outlined and addressed as follows: Poiicy 1. Master Plana Thb Matter plan is intended,.to assure an ,grated development', °enhandc harmonious and orderly development, mitigate site cdnstraints on adjoining property and maximize land potential. Vurther, the duster Plan is intended to 'deemphasixe t strip-comerciai 'by, creating organized'gr-oups Of structures and uses.....O.The Ci'ty'.s General Plan..add's that "Future commercial activities hill be organized into planned, group cone,ration as opposed to ca me;cial activities organized in a linear fashion.°' The boundaries 6f.such aE Master: Plan shall be determined by the City Planner and should provide for consolidation of substandard parcels. Comment: The proposed Master. Plan only partija,,tj addresses ,the goai�l,s and policies access, recjproca-i..accets and parking�between parcels is provided, Howe :the,_pI n h '; M. .. i r j t 2 n j* of s PLANNING CO t+ -is, 'N STAFF REPORT [ ,- March 26, 2986 PR 85-66 - good Pane 3 ` proppsps fqye separate buildings arranged in F a 17finear,fashiari;,4n a small• 4acre site. t Consideri'ng that there are eight existing s� parcel1s;:t he'Master`,Vl an has not,-achieved a logi"calr ncentratton of buiidtngs. _ The"eighty.parc6ls being master planned are „ ' der separate¢ ,.ownersh�p�..t. :(See _Exhibit Tfie,applicant has submitted;a 1eater �' ind ;eating.he has.i`'t e'ved comments from 2 Hof-F ' the�. s3 propergy, owners on. the proposed- t constedctiona� of an }off�c .building (see attache+ 1`Qi:ter) Thou�gnno 'ob��ect�orrs were rai,wed�d":the 'offsce bui, Tng (ro nter'est or -support was expresse'd-fpr the proposedrtaster Plan Policy 2 Pedest -Ria.,, Orientation: Site- oannjng, 'r ric aging-r'uz� ,arag orzenta!%- m parxir� , 1ot�"eanfigurat�on, s .l v hance 1oe�_"t an'' CQ(IIIeCt3OTis On +�hd Oft ly W czvst Oa1S \' pe astr�ian• system is tequlr,,ed� in 431 near p_rdOri s Ynth conect ions, b tureen buildings, parking ,areas, strneet 4djer►t-sidewalks and ,iranstCt�staps. •,� ; Comment:, Thtnroposed building _)alarem�mt and parking 1o`t layout--'; a4tomob,�e orier'ted. A logical pedestrian system to connect building on- and of3 =siie is not provided Tito• plaza• areas are, �.rovided—The westerly' plaza doesn't ori'errt., wel.1 to ,the four nearby buildings. k The; easter'ty plaza.•is enclo*d�,i�completely by a bdilkding and is not connected `to the parking areas. �Rathen Ethan creotlng plazas as focal points that vrould unify, the center, the . master Plan relegates plaza areas toynegative' space between buildings ' Policy 3. Combined.Access: ihrough1he +paste+. planning; ;.fw process , r veways on to.Poothil`1 BNA. 'hall >> be coardinated.far consistency with Atsting City access_policies ire. .80D' ' driirearay separation;); to the 'extent practical, ; regardiess,of parcel iddth. Coiodnt: The proposed master`pl[ap access points �meetn , the existing City access •polticues. Also; three alternitibes for access from Foothialll- are; prr;vtded (Exhibits E, P; G). ,. a } � S PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 26 1986. , ` . PR'85-66 Wood Page 4 ' Policy 4. Public Transit: Public transit facilities s ar a considered within' -all: waste plans: Convenient pedestrian-access shall-Pbe provz�ded. fir Q .designated transit facilities, such as.tius stops. Comment: .!«A transit facility location has been pra;ided ahang oothiil�,B,oulevard; No access from the transllt stop into the site,Ts provided. Policy 5. LaudscapVng , L'andscaping shall be designed A o xcl; RW7-v'i suai-4 nterest and,vary ety. °to, the stireetscape, enhances building:} h�tecture buffer views of.autoa�;Ziles, "-screen utiltiitie-s . ;a and servtce�areas,=.and�;distingpish pedastHan 4", {. s aces from vehicular-areas P V „ti. 1 Comment: �_'The'conceptual Master^Plan meets,the minimum,_ landscaped deptFh along the streetscapes.' Landscap0 g around -the buildings is inadequate: _. It is clear that,'-.based on;the review or the above policies, the proposed '.Master Plan'.. does- 'h6 • meets the intent `of the Foothill' Corridor.Interim.Pol.ie' es tas it'rel�ates to' harmonious t and orderly development of a concePtua7,,ftster flan. III. RECOMMENDATION:', Staff" recommends ttlat the Planning Commission e ermine, re,;urinary .Review 85-66 .,tag be inconsistent, With the Foothill Corridor Interim Policies. Respectfully sub fitted, Brad Buller " City Planner BB:DP:das .; Attachments: Applicant.Letter " Letter of Property Owner Contact Documentation " Exhibit "A" Victnity Map Exhi bl't "B" Site.Uti 1 i xati wi Map e Exhibit "C". -'Assessors Parcel Map ;Exhi bi t "0 glister°Pl an 4 i .Exhibit V "F!' 11G11 ,` t.,100D Engineering,(_ec, .S(ruelurnl E*nginer•ri.ng February 18, 1986 10040 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD.RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA.91730 - - TELEPHONE;(714)989.2087 Rancho Cucamonga PlanningDepartment 9320 "C" Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Subject: Proposed office building on;the northwest. corner of Foothill Boulevard and Turner Avenue. Dear Mr. Putrino, Enclosed please find four master plans that could be accommodated with the proposed office building in the[diddle parcel of land. The drawings are numbered 3.1, 3A, 3$, and 3C, Plan 3.1 maintains the 300 feet between the proposed driveway and 6he west approved driveway of the Kanter project. The entry throat is 120 feet from the property line. There is no parking off the entry throat. These three requirements for the proposed project are difficult for the following reasons. #1. The 100 feet minimum throat eliminates 12 parking spaces. 112. The elimination of the parkingspaces requires that the bu lding be eliminated. #3. Also, with the 5 feet landscaping requirement down the east and west property lines, it becomes difficult to make use of the landI between the . i 100 feet throat and the property lines for any parking present or future, and this creates and inefficient use of the land. A.This is an office complex, and the volume I of traffic generated for this project does not appear to warrant concern about parking off the throat,but the future need is understood when the troffic volume is higher. Plan 3A offers an alternate solution. The 300 feet is maintained front the west Kanter i driveway, the 1011 feet throat is maintained, and there is, no parking off the entry throat. This option however dces not provide for ingress and egress for the proposed office. Plan 38 offers another solution. The 300 feet is maintained for the west Kanter " driveway, the 100 feet throat is maintained, and there is no parking off the entry .. throat,; This option provides for egress but does not provide for ingress for the proposed office building. . Plan 3C provides the most desirable solution.for this project.'The 300 feet distance to - the Kanter driveway is almost maintained with a dimension of 275 feet. - For the 3* proposed office building, this should not create undesirable traffic congestion because of the low volume of traffic for the office building. A 120 feet entry throat is maintained.' There is parkbig off the entry throat,however, this should not present a problem with the low traffic volume from the office building; 41 Plan 3C provides the most efficient use of the lend for parking and buildings for the present and future development. When future development"occurs,plan 3A or 3B'can be implemented, at th i City's.option. This will allow Optimum use of the land for this development and alsofprovlde for a much better main ing•gess and egress in the future, • when traffic volume is higher, with a long throat, no parking off'the throat, and a } comfortable distance 'sxceeding 300 feet to either the nearest adjacent street or driveway. t,•; Sincerely, a Donald E. Wood, P.E. ` { �a: D 4] - u A G C DCI_. DD =OGC 3 1TET . a 7 �•J 9-5 1 I to Pal 'M r F3��Pr� �1✓vl!�G}ry AXT2raTlvE !�Aua:----lot Vim:•°+NT LANO 10 S :J-11,}-i!AL-51NxvL-5 FAMILY I! Tit2E �'_ �l151'DrrPTivE - ^1l :�,N i IA1._-APA(Ztl'1QyTh IAL-I'1��1L HOME WORTH CITY Of ITEM: RANC� CUC:AMONGA TITLE SLTE Ur 7- n��'�? PLA.NNII\u DIVLSIQ 1 EXHIBIT:'" ,ir _S..ALE N Z"S j ze 13 }aa II! n 421. •,� ,REE •� IJ ra C),13 19 Ir ,L1za'�f 21 tLi AM i u�;� �� BLATNtK Ou1NEt'-•\ 1,�._ 32 �—51�C11=1C 4�• ANt1Eil pR�A,� . ,r '� NORTH CITY OF . BLANC CIO CLTC�NIO�v�. .,. Pl.+L']ly2IM DL Vd.T�R"RV ExHiBrr. SCAILD �.a4,A '4; w; 77779 7,-- �02:'XC1'Jdd'r 3ON3At" y3NNPl1 T 9dI�1J 3Y71(l� ��6�E I O i ;. o . I 1 I I I I I- ► I n Z ) 4 d U. O W _ di , ib T'r � 'r SCR'2p17un=f- t 9 f o f -TM i t J :5 �, = OL[W IM c. o • Lu f F M fix l —oar-- � �•t b �� &ems c• � +, �,� � b 1 10 In �U z �✓, .' , � �� 9M1TaY1g i I ,c2�•xc>ad�r -- 3nM3nte 83Nat1L' I _ Ul •v I Q `�i^�� a ° 11IIi1 17 I I1 � � to V o to ca zJ ID ' Is ej i! hMT»9. �ra 7":�S"'".tea,, ✓;�w�Y�d�6:,a::�.. _ ..�,�zz sY�e;..;'.dW:�6.. ,1001) Eiigi]11d.erIngs�...1C. Stzttrtkrn!lh�i�rrrritt� �. 10040 FOCTHII l 6OULEVARC�RANC.HO CUCAMONGA.C.A.91 730 i 5 Yr THLEPHONE:11714)999-2087 l March 10, 1986 ; Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 9320 "CI' Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Subject: Proposed office building on the northwest corner of F`ooth[1[ Boulevard and Turner Avenue. I Dear Mr. Putrino, At your rewiest, contact has been mddi,with the adjacent property'2owners. #1. Mr. & Mrs. Blatnik, P:0.=8oX AS, Rancho Cucamonga, CA,,A1.730 714-987-1329. Owner of Eastern two parceis,. #2- Mr. Ken Gilbdrt, address ur known, 714-822-6862. o, n e r of 4oi .Bello$ Restaurant. #3. Mr. & Mrs. Equis, 10006 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CAA 91730, 714-989 3019. Owner of Equis' Restaurant. Upon contact, it was ex,plained that ari, cffice building was being proposed for 10040 � Foothill. It was also no\! d that a conceptual master plan had btien developed. Owner F1 was,nr'-,sure iSy they were being cant_;Zed, but had no objections to the � project,a new bu:.ding wou'd be good u;he:t they sold their property, and offered good r" luck. �. 4k; Owner 112 was left a message'on;phone recorder and did not return call. y} Owner #3 made mention of attempt to remotZ.,.,nd was turned down by the City and ` mentioned that he does not have objections to:the prgpo;;,,ed office and offered his good " luck. 44 Sincerely, rr' 7 Donald E. Wood,P.E.