Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1986/04/09 - Agenda Packet
� Q 0 e � k it ..� .,.w,.�:k» -.�� z t� ro r n ro x r H � G] Ula CITY OF R .NCHO J r CUC N \G t CONL!'IISSIol 1977 WEDhESI3A l' APRIL.9;1986 -7.00 p.m. �j �1 LION&PAl'r.H Cflh{Mt7N1Tv >LN^ER. 1 9161 BAS$LING It!*NCHf3,CIICAAt)NGA,C&-,,TORNU 4 A C T 1 0 N All , L Pledge,of Al Iegianee EL `-toll Cali 'Commissioner Barkers Commissioner Rempel� `Commissioner Chitiea x_ Commissioner Stout Commissioner McNial J. Workshop cancelled HL Announcements tonight and rescheduled for ,. Oril '23-Neiguborhood Ctr M Consent Calendar The following Consent Calendar`items are expected to,b routine 'Cbmnendati on Resbl uti on for and'non-controvers al, They walibe acted on by the Commission at curt Johnston. one time without-disdiossion. If anyone"has concern over any item, 3 it should be removed for dkcfasion. A. 'Continued 5-0 A. RESOLUTION, OF I, DENIAL ENVIRONMENTAL, to may 14 - at request of ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT " 12991 ' ppl cant SHELBOU;RNE• - A-total residential subdivision and design y review of 49'single£artiily.lots i,-}8 9 aeres,of.land"in the Low ' '` Medium Residantial Liistrict, located at the^south,side of Lemon Avenue, 500 feet east,of Archibald Avenue-APN 201-252=21,'22. (Continued.from March 26,-1986 meeting:).; v V. Public Hearings The following' items ar/3 public hearings in .which concerned . individuals may voice thefr.,opinion of the,related project. .pi waft to be'recognized by the flrairmanand+addressth�eMCmmrssfon by statirj� your name,and address A31 'such:.opuitons sh'alt,,-tb6A�� limited to 5 minutes perndt`vadtiat for,each projgct : �"$Y'' tit y. ✓k Y. "S�N` t��' l rfY1 _r t sr,' .r3`�'Yr�`�' a."5�.,r:; '..:r ".r,4 s . r , t « B. 'Continued to 4-23 grading B. 3NV4ROS1 NTAL ASSESSMENT:AND TENTATId TRACT to'further address g HULTZ A custom lotlsubdivision On.'5:5=acres'of issues. 5-0 land5il the Ldw.Residential,District.(2-4 dulac)located'at the sd`utheast corner of VinPVA d and Calle Del-Prado-NIPN 208- 921=03 and;04: t%ontinuedfrom I'¢arcli,"fi,1986`ineeiiiigt) G . A roved 5-0 C. TENTATIVE TRACT> 12833 - (THE MEAD.OTHS) THE WILBLIAM LYON COMPANY An`:amendment to aiiod y the condrtions'of`-approval to,pecmif occupancy of ho`•meS,.prior'to 1 ?' construction of a permanent or temporary RV-pariiing'aot Witt,in Victoria. Approved 5-0 pp D. ENVIRON,MENPAL `ASSESSMENT AND, TENTATIVE TRACT Entire rear elevations along 12952,_ "GLENFED A tesidential subdivision;and design " _9th to be upgraded. aeview.for,172 single family lots:on 317,acrd of'land4fi the Lore Medici Residential District located'at the end of 19th v, Street,.south of Highland Avenue-APN`202-211-36.' 'E.. Continued to May 14- E. EN.WRONrMENTAL ASSESSi,VIENT AND CONDITIONAL USE' Special workshop April 17th. 'PERMIT 8fi-03 -` �JA - _The development `one office building totaling 42,900 square feet,and four t9tory multiI " tenant industrial buildings stotaling 70;076"square feet on U9 acres of land intAhe-Industrial Park.District (Subarea'6) and the Haven Overlay bistrict located at•the northeast corner of Haven •Avenue ,and Acacia Street - APN 209-401-01. (Pr'eviouslysubmitted•as Development Review 85-45.) VL New husiness roved 4-0-1 F. DESIGN REVIEW FOR ;TENTATIVE TRACT. 11793' - So--out a sent) Authorized^Tree PEh`F;IELD Review eview comprised of 46 single fainily Removal Permit - Replacement to holies= detached)on 11r.6.aeres•of land in the LOW-Residential is Of City planner. District (2=4- du/ae),,4located at the northeast corner of Highland Avenue and Amethyst Street-APN 1062-561-04 and 1062-52.1-01, ,'I)eni ed 5-0 G. DR 85-46 -MODIFICATION JONES -A request to modify,.-a + condition of approvalrregWring the elimination df a driveway access on 4th Street far an droved industrial project, Ioeated at the northeast corner of'4thStreet and, a&ft Avenue-APN 229-283=41,42, t. V1L Directof's Reports Conti iced to April 23rd., H. REVISI09:.TO.SECTION ,17 04.070(d) OF DEViELOP_�IENO CODE lYIODEL HOMES�SALES.=OFFICE a { Vj1L P06Ue Comnuen i ` This.is the time and place for the general public to address.the Commission. ''Items to.be discusw here are those whic)1�do,not aireadywappear on this agenda: IX. AdjournmeiiC The Piannuig^,Gommission has•adapted Administrative,R-egiiiations at th ,=set.dn�11 ,p:m ,adj�urnmerit'time,,_Tf,iteins go bey-onkd�that time,they.shali be hear&'cniyA,w'ith the consent of,the'�Gorii Zsi& Ttie_Plannuig:Cm+*��+; c;oai ill s i1nueiittusBe ,'o inr Meetuig.io_a A' wvrtshop--tv di a�uss-tile Indti stri�tAtea=Spearfr-i']an Revisions: Ad3ourned to-ApHI 17-th �arksfiop fallowfng DRC - RCNC approximately 7:30 p.m..y,. r �• 'a. \e S we lip "• f I It Vic ' MAP , s F— °� 3 b ■V: �' ■ ■ ■t ■ Ix�, � M¢I.Id. t61NJd■ _(t`QWr(Y71rItbWGkrAIK, � N ` CGLCEGE ■ i 3'tI1 i� y ; rf< 4 ■ G■nrul Brn■A if■ w,%.,,?�.i- ea ,y.e.Nt 6 gi �, (, Feethil tAww Ism _ .�� :IGM CIYY NALY. 7 '. o •LIB • �L - .\ ■ No- Y `�R�� - ■ E _ ■ : 2j i WOIIYIi— y. • e t177 I - ■ c ■■o! a � r CUC.SYGNGA•GGASTI tGUNYY.REGIONAL PAIR ' 4 N ; GNYARIU.INiERNATIONAL A1.tPGRT;-. 'r'.gF''�s• �'34�• •r� x �+ x ��° ,y CITY OF C; b PL :r DTI\'G �Q�� lISSIO'�t "{ A L977 WEDNESDAY As?RIL 9,19$6 7e00 p.m. LIONwPA MICOMMU*hTY CBN'irEn f J1�61}Bli.SE L NE c��®larsAcAL�OIIIdIA L Ple of tilegiauee ,^� IL Rolt,�Call > " Commissiorigr Barker Commissioner Hempel. , �mi Commrssioner Chrtiea Commissioner Stout Commissioner.,,.Mejg_ a I1L .Anao�mcements �; .; IV. cone,ffC:d6e dar The.foiigwng Conse t Calendar items are_expected to be{`routine i anain n conirovers a� They w�dLb' acted on b�the Commission at one time withodt dcscussion„ If an, one has coN`erri over any'(pal, g '¢ it.shouid be�'removecl.for'discussione- � /' °�, A. RESOLUeT,ION OFF DENIAL - Es�NVIR.00MErTAL ASSESSMEI�R,',, "AINID JTENrTAT V—E 'TRW T `=42991 -- SHELBOU�RN A totalr.residential-subdivisirsa. and` design.'w i, review�of�48isir►gle familyrlots on,8.9i'acres of;land to the Ta2ur IVIe� ym Residerhal�Dt�tMC located at the south 'side of c. Let►4on Avenue; 50¢ feet east of preiubsld Avenue APN' 201=25'2-21,22:.(Continued from 1VIarc�n 2fi;]986 meefmg'2 V. PO�ltC tgP;�B[lltgS 1t ,w The following items,are-public .I� grin ut which r Once ed a tncIvtduals may+yotce tieear opinion of the related profect. Pease ' wait to be recognizedlby the'Chairman and add�essihe Gommissio , invitedit,o 5 minute merni3tviduf reach r ecto�sht b � 4- 0 - a 'EF`• ram' .�4e 13. E 4MONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 131M4 "SCHULT,Z A custom;lot subdivision' ri 5 5 acres.of landrn therL°ocv Residenteal'Destrict(2 4 dWeic)located at'•the soutleast corher of Ymeyard,and=Calle D6UPr. da APN 208- 92 -03iand�0 (CanEnued%f`rom,.March 26,1986 meefmg.) C. TE�3'l;A�i THE M AZ A12833 (THE MEADOWS) THE �M WTt;LIAML�I YON CQMRWNX An amendment to modefy the- 3, condite o :approval to permit oce'upancy of home ,.pr�or to - ' consiruction of a permanent or 'temporary'RV pecking lot, witlnnYietora.-_ D. ENiUIItO iP�tEN, AL ASSESSb'iENT> AND TENTATNELTRACT r 742952 s C�ISENI;ED4 A esident al subdiivisiion sand design- reviewforL*7p2 sing lejfamjlyriotsron32=7 acresoand in the r Lo�vit'iedwm� esldentielDis cict located at„the end of 19t4�, ` Street;asouihof HaglilandAvenue APN 202-211 36; �£ . E. EN,VI3tONiMINTdAL zASSESSME+NT ANDr CONDYIiIONAL USE P,ER+MIT, $6s03h A'JA Zlh4 deveiopmenr, of one ofidd €r�Idingntotal ng�42;900square fee and'folir Y-story multi- ten�animdus�trielbmldmg�totahng7+0,076*square feet y�?:09. ace �f land nth©` Industrialp I,R DJstrict.(Subarea 6)-and the,Haveri Ouer'layADist %Kloceted et t�re_northettst corner of � Haven Avenue and Acac;sue Street AI'N 209=401-01. (Preciously scab''"I Od as Development Revi�W 85-45) y_ VL New Baseness F. 1ti DESIGN REVIEW,, 'FOR. TEIeTAPIVE .PRACT 11793 .- PMNFIELD .= Design Review compresed,O£`46 single family homes detachedhon 1T 6 acres of3and in'the Low Rpsi,ential Distrtet (2=4 du/ac), located of'',the nortl.east ;corner' of Highland,Avenue and Amethyst Street-APN iQ62-5'61-04 and . 1062=57t 01. G. DR 85-46 MODIFICATION JONES -'A reqluest to`-modef�y, condition of approm requiring the elimination of a�'d`ravewayr sdcess en 4th Street for an approved industrial*prod et' located at+the norttieas*~corner of-4th S"treet dln Santa Wn a Avenue-APN 229=2`83-41,42. * w a VIL pirq!tO S 18epDrta H rREVeISYON NTO.SE.CtT,ION 7.04:.U7Q(d)�OFr ,DEYEI;OP�MEN .'s��@ODE"�`�MQDEL�IiOML5�3ArLE5+OFFICE k �� o •'S k � s � � r It r. �LA� Piil�u�f.�,3VgdR'IQ�llt$ 'r " p Sl ,yF' y y. . Thzs-is,they ttme,and,piece for the general.public to address the Commrssion. penis to'' discussed here are those which do not• 4' GM aireadyzappea on th�sagendac Tthe+Plarini'ng Commission ias adoptedAdministmtave�Reguk tions . Y that,sTIn Ip and�o urnment time Ifems�goRbey�ond thaRIFI e�heard or�ty with+�ttherconsent o e�Commission. The PlennuCommtssionill ad�ouent Rguar itVleeu►gto a w�elcshop to �scuss theInduscal Area�Specific PlaMV i►kReons. 'a 5 i '4•F t fin' 9- ttyyyt�� xa %L r 4, C ,A 1 IN M� A p _.,,,_,,,w................. _�_.__.____.• r '' iwlt,fa. cEiu1�KavleHA�rAxc i '■ iY�"Yi3 'Surm.il sow :� ' :., >_ __ — ■� —=� Mltr .Y Loom I w CITr HACC ' -. F ., ■ ■ ■ A ■ i i reeve■- e i .�u y; e7 i ILan° ■ ra 32 V CUCANONOA-OUASil COUK(Y AEOIONAL PARK ` h.. t F OM(AIIId-"i�H(EANAi1dHAL AlA1!adr � ��? 1 YF� py A�■� �( l. � e t . i 'F CIT`i OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - GVGa.Mi� STAFF REPORT 0 _ BATE: April 9, 1985 1977 Td Chairman and Members of the Plannira Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF DENIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12991 SHELBOURNE A total residential' subdivision and design review of 49 single family- lots en 8.`9 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District, lc ted at the south side of Lemon Avenue, 500 feet east r. Archibald Avenue - APN 201-252-21, 22. (Continued from March 26, 1986 meeting) ; . ; 1. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission, at its March 26, 1986 regular meeting, held a public hearing to consider the above described project. Absent a letter of continuance from the applicant or verbal request for same, the Commission denied the project without prejudice and directed staff—to prepare a Resolution of Denial to be adopted at this regular meeting. Staff met with the applicant on March 27, 1986, and informed him of the status of his project. He then submitted r.vised plans"for staff review as well as a letter requesting continuation of this project. The revised plans_ address the minor problems; however, the major, issues identified by the Commission .at their Octobert 9, 1985 hearing have .yet to be resolved. Staff is working with the ' applicant to resolve these issues and they areas follows:" a) Unimproved Flood Channel Along the•East,.Property Line: The applicant has not accomplished this requirement but "agreed- to cantact San Bernardino -County flood Control District for finding out the necessary dedications and improvements of the flood channel.` The applicant also agreed to submit a copy of San Bernardino County Flood Control District's requirements to the City and"revise the site plan per those requirements. i b) Master Plan: The revised site plan that staff reviewed " on March 27, 1986 indicates master planning of the site wwith the lots tiering and street patterns as recommended ,* by staff. However, .details such 'as perimeter street dedications and off-site easements have yet to be resolved. '� ✓S - �, y,._ram'.d .�1 -.�s. I F ITEM A 4 �z\� d' PLANNING COMMISSIOti.STAFF 'REPORT TT 12991 - SHELBOURNtV" April 9, .1986 Page 2 c) Abandoned Railroad `Property - to the South:' The •, applicant claimed he has acquired the 44 foot abandoned railroad` feasement and has incorporated it into his. project. However, staff has not received any documentation, such as recorded,,deed., to prove such acquisition. II. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recammends that the project be continued to, the May 986 agenda. However, if the Commission feels that inadequate progress has been',made, then a Resolution of Denial Without prejudice has been provided. Jenial-without prejudce would permit a project to be refiled on this site. Srtfully s fitted T , Brad Buller City Planner , BB:NP•ko Amok, } Attachments: Letter of Contin.u3nce frorr Applicant March 26; 1986, Planning Cormission Staff Report Chronology of Processing Time for Tentative Tract 12991. December 11, 1985 Planning Commission Staff Report October23, 1985 Planning Commission Staff Report October 9, 1985 Planning Commission Staff Report k�solution 'sf Denial l.� t 1 r aE 77 ITT 4' Marcii 27, 1986 City of Rancho Cucamonga Post Office Box 807 = Rancho Cucamonga, Ca'rifornia 91`730 ' Attention: Planning ColmOssiort AI Re:, Request for-extension Dear Chairman S Member of Planning Commission, We are still in the process Of completing the substantial revisions to our plans which you have �!eviously requested.' Please grant us an extension to-complete'�our, maaterials to your satisfaction. Thank you for your continuing patience, t:a rr' You y sly ' H KrenteT Director ')Y Forward Planning s SHKlshk p t, i f��t��1NOS �6 y" An Am ' CHRONOLOGY OF PROCESSING TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12991 a 41 DATES RE-VIEW PROCESS .0MMENTS 4-10-85 First submittal';' 8-1-85 Completeness Notice ( 8-6-85 'technical. Review Committee No approval, recommended revisions y 8-8-85 Design Review Committee Review No approval, recommended revis,i.ons a 10-9-85 -Manning Commission review as - Staff recommended denial, # - requested. by applicant. applicant delivered request for Continue&public hearing to_� continuation at the meeting, 18-23-85':meeting., . 10-23-85 Planning Cbmmissi6d review. Applicant requested for , As requested by applicant, continuation so that he,could continued public hearing to work with staff to res61ve issues 12-11-85. and revised development plans. 12-11-85 Planning Commission review as - Applicant requ~ ted for' requested by applicant. continuation. Continued public hearing to 3/12/86 meeting. �- 12-16-85 Received applicant',s request for an extension of processing time fwj 90 days 1-29-86 2nd submittal, revised'development } plans. 2-10-86 Staff determined revised plans incomplete. y 2-11-86 Mu with applicant to discuss the incompleteness of the development plans. A letter was handed out to the applicant. 3-12-86 PlanningCommission meeting g cancelled. 3-21-86 Met with applicant to disrgss hack of progress since iast 'me'eting Reviewed issues and rd6sionsti t necessary'"to comp,Tet processing - �art r# v, 3-26-86 Planning Commission 'conducted Applicant did i,ot attend mQeting `Y nor :submit letter -!of continuance,- CommifiSs on den4j,ed without w prejudice and directed �^ staff to prepare a `Resolumbn: of Denial to be adopted"on April..9, 1986 regular meet' ng.w 3-27-86 Met with apolicant: dn£ormb hint of project status ; Submitted reviiel <,?Iarss I for staff review - a which -addressed minor corrections. Mj6r issues still unresolved by 6001 icant u y hi 7 �r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA `a STAFF RETORTGv "o�; E z .q DATE: March 16, 1986 1977 TO: Chairman and ^"ambers of the PlanningCo mmis.�Hon " z), FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Tong, Associate-Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12991 - SHELBO'URNE - A totalre'sidential subdivision. and.desig❑ ' review for, 49 singie-family lots on 8.9 acres of land in the-Low-Medium Residential, District.,- located'at the south , side of`Lemon Avenue, 5P3 i�.et,f east of Archibald Avenue - APN: 201452-21 22, Continued from December 11, 1985, meeting. I. BACKGROUND: I The proposed project was originrliy reviewed by the Planning Commission (;%� October '9, 1985. As requested 'by the developer, the Planning Commission has continued the public hearing , A& ' for this project on three prior occasions. The purpose of the:; continuations was to work with staff in revising the development plans to-comely with the City codes and policies. On January 29, 1986, the developer submitted revised development plans to the City for rev iew. _�sed<on staff review, the,rev-ised x' development plans failed to address the issues .Identified at the -1 ; l October 9, 1985,. meeting. Staff met with the applicant on February ,; 1 11, 1986, to,,discuss the inadequacy of the revised plans (see ` attached letter dateiO February 1.0, 1986). Based upon'this,meeting, the applicant is preparing revised plans. II. OPTIONS: IThe following options may be.considered by the Flas,ning To-mission. 1. 'Continue the public hearing with the de,.eloper's consent for this project to May, 28, 1986. Planning Commission regular-m�tii.g. This option requ fre5 the applicant to request for a'second extension of processing time as required by State ;`planning laws. The extension of` time ., would allow developer sufficient time to 'revise;? =f development plans for completing; Development Review- F process. , R' _ n PLANNING COMMISSION`,STAFF REPORT Tentat,iv_,Tract 12931 k' ' March 26, 1986 Page 24, 2. Deny this, proji�gt. This~ option would require the {4_ Commission, to direct staff to prepare,, a Resolution of" Denial to 4bF adopted'4t the next meeting., — III: RECOMMENDATION Staff=recommends 'that the Planning Comm;i'ssi, continue this item 'to the May 28,. 1986,agenda. Respectfully submitted, ' Brad Buller yy City Planner BB:NF:cv Attachments: Letter of Con tnuance from Appiicant Chronology of,processing time fer TT12991 December;?"Li985„ Planning Commis ion Staff Report r October;:?" �85;.Planning Commissior,�Staff Report-.,, October, sr.—` Flanning C.imnission`Stiff Report t z t ✓� O GQC 4MO1 l � CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 0 r ar y-Jon D.Mikels _ Z ! CouneiLnember� U 1977 ' Charles J.Buquet ii '- Jeffrey King' Richard K Dahl L�; �meTa J.}Crigf,t February 10 1986 ' 5 Don MacClean II Shelbourne Develcpment ; 'V' 6:160 Alessandro Boulevard'' Riverside, California 92506 �= SUBJECT: TRACT 12991 Dear Mr. MacClean,. Your application for the ahove referenced project has been reviewed for leteness and accuracy of filing. As a result of the review, the ject application has been found to be incomplete for processing. ac%Ld please field a list outlining the additional' information needed to finding the application complete. Furtrer, processing of your- project cannot begin until this additional Mformation is submitted al�d the application accepted as complete. To avoid unnecessary delays; inlproce5sing, please submit the information as soon as possible. Should you have any questions regarding the review process, or if we can be of further" assistance, please feel free to contact the project planner, Nancy Fong, of this office. a Sincerely, Cn":+BHA TY DEVELO ME DEPA ENT Pi_,NNN76 DIVISIQ Dan/ n Senior Planner " X DC:ns Attachment List of Required Additional Information Engineering Comments s cc: Barrye Ranson 9320 S6LI, I AL c[•I lMOfICE�Ba8T RANCHO CUCAhONA,CALYFORIVA0 7,d)991s ,7 52,• � lfi 4 t k� a LIST OF RE4U RED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR TRACT 12941 The followaig. items must'be corrected in order for the application to be complete: 1. Master Planning, of the area bounded by Lemon Avenue, y, Archibald, Avenue, proposed Street A and the railroad ` IT easement should i0, shown on the site'utilizat on map. 2. Obtain written' comments from fan Bernardino CountyMCounty Flood Control-:Distract and submit a.copy to the.City regarding the.^requirements for-fiche Flood Ch_anhel improvements: "7he,. subdivision_ design must'" in corp9rate these minimum'' required Amprovemohts such as .a-structural block'waT,l, a building.;setba&, from ,the channel-, -and a ded1cat .on of right-of-v ay-,for" an acce�C road along the. All of these req�airements•w6t!ld afFect the lot size, "the lot zftimen3jons, and the plotting of the houses for this' project. 3. The southertr tier of lots, must hayea lot"depth of 134 _ x- fs:t ($n-'feet minimum from City. Code, and"44 foot extra ' long�rrom the abandoned railroad easementj. The purpose is to allow the extension. of a future street aligned with the proposed Street B through the parcels to the west. t �. 4. Site Plan. y5° a. Driveway depth for all lots shall have a minimum of 19 feet,, b.. Corner lots" should be wider in`'&-der to accommodate the required sideyard setback. :. C. A perimdter decorative block wall shall be provided 6' along Lemon, Avenue, the easterly property boundary, C" and the south property batQdary, as well as between n lots. The 6'esign;, eievat`yons, and details of al " black walls and fencing shall be include&yith this development package;-. ' d. Slope area should be shown on the site plan. A minimum of 15 feet rear yard must be i provided.: exclusive of any slope area. t n � 4,} 4 y�^T^ u> . �» — � 5 Gra inax Plan. a 9etailed 'cross--sections.-"drdwn to scale should 4e `provided at' the souther'.y site boundaries for: Lot 11 and Lot,18: 6. Maximum height of-any retalning'' wall is 4 feet high. c. More spot; elevations, street elevatfons should be r. " uprovided on the•"grading-plan. " µ 6. Comments have been,inc(t�ti'at9 �„ your regrew Ii is recommendedthdt the,`following l iss"ue be addressedyprortto schedul ing Afor Res��gnand*Techn�calRev�ew �venhou�h they pr�o3ect meets the minimums req�ti�ired`a sldej,,y d; lth w�idt�h��of; he�f�loor p`tans appears oufi'd proportion to t'he ots', th s crea ng aaco ges d feeling for streetsc'ap°e: °Setacks shou�ldprovid •an element of?�penness f and human scale: -,'Tease' revise,th6didnt re de,�e_ opment package and resubmibt' fou'J4 by February-19, 1916,"T re�l ew idf compieteness. a� IF w _ . i 11 CITY OF RA.'V m CUCAMOZ4,�G GUcnii-ion RANDUld � O WW C DATE: December, 1?1w, 1985 TO:. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, Cit w w yi'Planner. .. ZY: Naricy Fong,,-.Associate Planner ' SUBJECT: ENVERONMEH.TAL': ASSESSM!'r AND', TEN.TIITIUE; BRACT 2_99,1 SHEL'BOURNE, ` A total residential subdivision ands_designs review f�osy-49 single famsly lots one8 g acres of,land in the Low Medium�Residan a D3striet 'lpeated.tat soUr side of Lemon Averiue,, �00 feet east of llreh3bald Avbnue' # 201-252 lti 22 r °(Cgntiriued fom Qctober 9tih: eetin ` BACKGROUND: At its P Cetober 23, tg85 meeting, the, Planning Commission continued the public hearing for this•projecti tgj�th s,,regular meet-f" as requested by tW applicant. The developer �s'agam�n requesting a continuation to;,s;aJise the Entire development planes to comply weth`�,�the ` City's Codes and rolio es Attached for your revi ews zs. a cogy, bf the letter of request from the appl; ant. *` ` RECOMMENDATIOr4: Staff "r 11 el�ommends that this item 'be continued to the ` ' March 12, 1986 regular.meeting so 'that the applseari> has spfficientime � to complete]the tievelopment Revi�rw}9process° prior i o.Planning Commission review, i BB:NF:dad §.. Attachment: Applicant's Letter of Requesi r sk ok 'r# •:,� a4w�ra`��, ti. IN r - } J � tJ 't i T / / ?`•f {' rsa Cu e u(3714GA,. s 1/0 44%3 4i516 A: Al Ali ACV 3 Aw �a fi z *, 5 ItxSrtisDev� m r, �P: nt Cor io poratn&.11r cer�omta s2�oa,+t4l,raa Asa _ :ITS'OF KANCAO CUCAMONGA ��CAN I J s� NC MEMORANDUM U� 9 it U1 M b Po DATE: October 23, Y985 o { T0: Chairman and Members of:the Planning Commission, FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Community Development Director+ c l BY: Nancy Fong,-Associate Planner ' 5CBJECT: ENVIRON14ENT,AL "ASSESSMENT AND TENTATI.V--� TRACT 12-991 .- ` SHELBOURNE - A;tatZt -residential subdivisicn, An' "design review'fore 49 single,family 'lots on 8.9,,acr6s of land in the LowMedium Residential District located zat south side of Lemon Avenue, 500 ±feet-jast df Archibald Avenue - APN 201-252-21, 22. (Continu#d'-erom,,Dctober, 9th meeting.) l i At its OctS.,ber 9, 1985 meeting, the Planning Commission continued the Public Hearing for this project to thi.s•regul;ar meeting as request,.ed by the Applicant. The developer again is requesting for a continuat (irf of „! time so thai'he could work with Staff in resolving those ideiAtIfied' issues /,`Attached for your review is a copy, of the letter of request from the applicant. Staff recommends that this item be continued for 50 r days tcf the December 11, 1985 regular meeting _ I 41 JL: ,11 NF:das Attachment: Applicant's letter of request ,• m b 4 7 r §, i lki a �,J . � LOW .� Pfl 45 ` P fp TY kv x She hmme Development Corporation 6660 lalaa"Vm Boulevard _ n. Riveraid%CaFhwNN•'92506. t714)760-3636 „I LBURNE Dean MbcLean,11 ' 'i yr r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -STAFF REPORT DATE: October 9 1985 rsr, TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission w• FROM: Jack Lam, d ruPr Community Development Director L BY: Nancy Fong, Aitociate Pl'annerlaJi- i SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL A�;SESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12991 - HELBOURNE, A r ddentia• subdivision and design review for 49 single f y''lots mon 8.9 acres of land in.the Low Medium Residential. District located at' south .side of Lemon, 560± ea.. of Archibald Avenue - APN 201-252-21 & 22. m I ABSTRACT: This project ha?! not received approval from the Design r Review, Technical Review and Grading Committees because of design k i? issues and technical issues such" as; architecture, drainage, ' grading, and circulation. In addition, the required-easements and/or dedications for flood control access road have not been I� r provided. The applicant, .h,owevery has, insisted upon full Planning Commission review of the proposed,.subdivi•sion. Therefore, the tentative tract mapjs no,'n before the Plaaning_Commission but with a recommendation for tur denial without`prejudice. .'r II. PROJECT AND'SITE DESCRIPTION:`'A. Action Requested: Denial without prejudice. B. Pro3ect Density: 5.8 dwelling units per acres. (i C. Surrounding Land Use and Zonin hors - . Ingle, ami y omes,, new,*ingle family homes under construction.; Low Residential District (2-4 du/ed). South Abandoned railroad tracks,-vacant with approved 78 single families.,(Tract 12914) and 59 townhouses * (Tract 11928); Low Medium Residential District ,(4-8 du/ac)• East - Single family homes y vacant; Low Medium Residential * " District (4-8 du/ac). - West Unimproved flood channel, vacant; Low Residential District (24 du/ac). AW * i ITEM L; � ' a:. 7,-7 PLANNII'NG COMMISSION STAFF'REPORT TT 12991 - SHELBOURNE October 9, 1985 Page:.2 f.. `. D. General Plan Detignations: Project Site - Low Medium Density Residential. z North - Low Oensity,Residential. South - Low Density Residential, f. East - Low 'Density Residential West - Low Medium Density Residential. E. Site Characteristics: The site currently contains' one rest ence;, two garages, anda large storage building T•h,<<'site . slopes so 6utheasterly from mon "Avenue at approxiTA. ly b% grade to the south 'property boundary at approximately 3% grade. Existing tees consist of approximately 40 Lemon trees and large Eucalyptus H4pdrows located south of Lemon Avenue and along eastern property boundary: T F. Applicable Regulations: the Development Cods permits subdivision of single family lots in a 'Low Medium Residential District at 5.8 &tka,,under the base Development Standards. a III. ANALYSIS• A. General: The developer initially.submitted this project last 4 April 1985. The .project was reviewed by the Design Review, ^' Grading and Technical Review Committees where the Committees have pointed out numerous design and ..,technical issues that the developer electe&.not to address or resolve. Such, issues as; ' repetitive elevations, roof materials, circulation, y drainage/grading, abandoned railroad easement, and flood control_:. B. IssuePlanning Commission Consideration: 1. Design Issues: The developer has proposed four floor plans an two variations,.to each floor plan {see Exhibit The Design Review Committee reviewed the project and determined that the elevations for the four floor'plans are. very similar in design, and thaV'there is ne� pronortionate ' mix or distribution of the four floor plans. Both-Plan 1150 and Plan 1250 "have' been placed an 17 lots -ands 118 lots respectively, of the total 49 single family. lots§'isee Exhibit "G"). The Design Review Committee determined that the proposed project conflicts. with tha General Design Guidelines (Section '17.08.09OD)v,of the Development.Code in the following provisions; ; a) .Design Theme,: A project must provide -a recognizab+ie , design them' with variations to create visual inferest k _t r 5 PLANNI`LNG COMMISSI011 STAFF REPORT a d TT 12991 - SHELBOURNE;"; t October 9, 1985 Page 3 t b) Architecture: The architecture should consider compatibility with surrounding character, inc)ud`ing hai!mdnious building styles, for(n, size, color, material i and roof line. Individual dwellinq units should" be dstinghshabl`e from one another. In particular m- 'Lot.", Medifi esidentaar dev,e'10 ement should Eie designed fi l up grad,0d.architecture. through, increased. deline.att'ion o.f service treatment and architectural details. The ! architectural concept should also comp iment' the grading and topography of the site. c) House Plotting; A project should provide for streetscape variety and visual interest particularly in the Low Medium District through angling houses to the y street, side. entry garages, or reverse plotting. [, The Design Review Committee recommended that the 3eveloper r revise the -project and the elevations; to comply with those identified General Design Guidelines of the Development ' Cede. i 2. Technical Issues: Both the Technical Review Gommittee� and ti Grading Committee were concerned with the proposed tentative f tract design as It may have potential limiting effects upon the future orderly development of the, area bounded by Lemon Avenue to the north, flood channel to the east, Archibald, Avenue to the west and abandoned railroad properity to the south. The issues associated with this project 'are drainage, grading, unimproved channel-along east property line, unused. railroad property to the. south of the tract, circulation and lots fronting on a collector street (Lemon Avenue): a) Drainage:(ti.Both,the, original and revised drainage plans, utilize a system that goes through rear yards and side yards of single family lots (see. Exhibit "D"). This type: of drainage ,--System - is unacceptable forn the " following reasons, ' would be extremely difficult`to C n'_ gain access to the "system ttir maintenance' rand reconstructions; secondary flow path is not avalabe if ` the catch basin of the terminus of the cul-de-sac were to be plugged by debris.: ;Further, it did not p:ov-i.de a :. means of the draining of the adjacent property to the west. r " The Committee felt that a-street connection between;,the two ctQl� de-sacs: extending to the property to the�westt,; would provide theibestt:solution to these-ohlems. i - PLANNIING COMMISSION-STAFF,,.REPORT TT 12991 SHELBOURNE October 9, 1985 Page 4 4',- b) Grading: The proposed tract dear;,° 'necessitates ;:,,e t `,s � extensive we use of retaining walls aw shown in Exhibit ' ` . "4" The Grading Committee is particularly concerned ; with the height of the retaining wall between Lots 24-27 ' and Lots; 23-21 (see Exhibit "I`"). ' The residents 'on Lot 23-21 would be exposed to a total wall height of 15-16 ,. feet. The Grading Committee felt that .a re-design of ,M. this tentative. tract as shown in Exhibit "Ell would lessen the requirements• ,for retaining walls and its, height, and it, will be more sensitive to the natural contours of the area. c) Unimproved Flood Channel Alonq the East Property Line: .' Staff has instructed the developer to contact pan Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCO) to, i determine tkq required irprovements for the flood $' channel. It'�i usual practi�;%`that the developer obtain written comments from the Distr 1, supply a copy to the 'City and incorporate the design into the tract map. The developer has not forwarded a copy of the subdivision map as requested by SBCFCD. Based on previous approvers tracts that abutt the flood channel, the minimum requirements include a structural block wall, a building set back from the channel and the , . dedication-,of right-of-way for an access road along the channel. •therefore, compliance with these requirements is essential for flood--protection while the setback and access road extra dedication will affect the lot size and the plotting of houses d) Abandoned Railroad Property to the South of the , '- Project: Ine -ommi.ttee is concerned with Me. -toot wade abai,dpned railroad property located south of the project site. Exhibit "CO, shows the relationship of ° this strip of railroad easement to the site of the adjacent projects. The strip of abandoned railroad easement could become a public nuisance by,being afire hazard due to teed growth and a breeding, ground` for vermin. The project site is' the last port;on of the m r undeveloped property that can be logically absorb this, strip of land, more..so than the approved tract''to the,, south. A conditon' of approval for the tract to the_:, south (Tract 11.928), required the developer''s" cooperation to acquire this abandoned railroad easement. According to the, developer of this`,Tract !� ` 11928, he had contacted the+ railroad c:.aany who 'has verbally agreed to sell the rai lroad',,easemeni. 1yn, 4", ry PLANKING COMMISSION STAFF REP 9RT �� �� TT 12991 - SHELBOURNE �' October 9, '1985a Page 5 addition, past developers had *been required and successfully obtained portions of the railroad property, (Tract No. 9567 located at the northwest corner of Highland avenue and Hermosa avenue). Staff recommends that the developer of this ,project should acquire the, 44400t abandoned railroad easement >' prior to the project 1- ing considered by the Planning' • Commission. The reason-'Is that the Subdivision Map Act states that the City cannot delay recordation of a"f?nal map if the developer cannot fulfill a condIzion requiring improvements on property which he does not control. e) Circulation: The 'Committee was concerned with the orderly evelopment of this area as shown in Exhibit "B" as well as providing a'secondary access to the westerly vacant parcels. Botli the Fire .District and ' the Sheriff Is Department, members of the Technical Review Committee, have stated that they prefer the cul-de-sacs to be connected providing a looped street pattern. As discussed under the 1drainage issue, the loop street system and its extension to the westerly property will I� resolve the drainage and grading concerns. Staff,Recommendations:• In order to find the best solution to the problems associated with this proposed tentative tract design, staff has developed .an area master plan showing the general street patterns and lot tiering configurations as shown in Exhibit "Eil. Master planning of this area would provide an efficient overall circulation system, would resolve drainage and grading problems associated with this tract'. and would eliminate lots fronting on collector streets such as Lemon 1.Avenue. C. Enviifonmental Assessment: Part I of the initial Study has been completed y the app- 'icant. Staff has completed Part IT,of the ^.; Evironmental Checklist and determined that the development of the subject site could expose people and property to water- related hazards, such as flooding. However, this could' ba mitigated through the construction of the storm 'drain facilities and completion of flood channel.,improvements per the x requirements`of San Beri.ardino Coun`y,Flood Control District. Since the developer; at this timef-' unable to proY dean . acceptable drainage system as well as ,incorporating 4:y` improvements designs for the flood channeli staff •bias determined that. adverse environmental impact,could,39ccur ,as.a result of this project..- PLANNILNG COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 12991 - SHELBOURNE October 9, 1985 Page 6 IV. FACTS' FOR FINDINGS: in considering a residential. project, the'` Planning Commission must make the findings listed in the attached resolution. Further, the Development Code establishes absolute policies and idesign guidelines which ail residen'..ial projects must comply with 'before approval': However,jIit is tke recommendation of" the Design> Review Committee and staff tha'- the pre used project does not meet these findings. Therefore, the findings listed in the attached Resolution of Denial was supported by the following` j 1. The proposed building design,* mite plan is inconsistent with the General Plan Design Guidelines of the Development Code regarding house plotting to, provide streetscape variety and visual interest and architecture that provides disti-166;shabie individual dwelling units. 2. The proposed subdivision design, site plan is in conflict with the intent and purpose of the General Plan regarding access and , circulation in terms of limiting-.,,and 'impacting the orderly future development of adjacent vacant properties. 3. The proposed subdivision design site, plarr.and ,building design is inconsistent with the Absolute Policies of 0,e Development Code in regards, to providing master planned draina�,-) farilitiet so as to adequately dispose of surface water run off or alleviate .grading constraints. 4. The development of this proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment with regards to exposing people or property* to water related hazards such as flooding; when the potentizl hazard is not mitigated with adegvc*.jy. drainage f:+cilities and necessary flood channel improvements. V. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing ' in The Daily Report newspaper, notices were sent to property owners ' within 300 feet of the project site°and a large 4 x 8 sign was posted at the site. Q. RECOMMENDATION:. Staff recommends denial witiv nt,predudice through_ '. adoption of7he attached Resolution. Resoe tfuliy submitted, Jack Lam Community Development Director F JL:NF:kQ l ^ ,� 3 4,E rr :LANNIING •COMMISSITON>STAFF REPORT f TT 12991 - SHELBOURNE f October 9, 1985 Page 7 $' Attachments: Litter from Applicant Re_ponding,to Desigp Grading and Technical Review:Cammittees'Recommendations Exhibit "A'-,-' Location-Map Exhibit "B" Site Utilization Map { Exhbit "C" RailroadEasement,'Map Exhi'bft "D�' Apphcant'S Proposed °Orainage Plan ' Exhi"bit "E" �Area�Niaster Plan Exhibit °'F" = Tentative Tract Map `r Exhibit "G" - Det�aa'led*Site Plan x' Exhibit "H" --Grading Plan Exhibit "I° .,`Cross Sectisns (2) 71, r Exhibit."J" - Goncep'tual 'Land scape,Plan Exhibit "K'! _ Elevation: Initial Stgdy, Part 11 and Addendum µ Resolution.of Denial. Al jl 3 Y l 6 f B 1 _ d 3 t. t .CIVIL ENGINEERS,'PL'ANNERS ANO CONSTRUCTION'CONSULTANTS J.N. 365 Septenber 9, 1985 Ca mi-dty Development Department .,:. Planning Division. _ ' City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road Suite C ! Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Re: Tentative Tract 12991 - Grading Review Calmittep', Attention: Loyd Goolsby a Gentlemen: p Submitted herewith are four copies of'a revised grading plan for Tentative Tract 12991. The revisions have been made based on the canments which were received during the technical review meeting held August 6, 1985 and ' F a discussion with Loyd Goolsby on September 5,; 1985. As a result of the above, and a meeting with City Engineer Lloyd Hubbs, an underground storm drain pipe has been proposed from the end of the most westerly street easterly tor the east street aryl then by easewnt to the Alta Lava Wash. This has eliminated the easement and surface x drainage on the most southerly lots. These lots all drain_ to the street. Daring the meet-ng with Loyd Goolsby on September 5,, 1985, it was•agreed that any developmnt plan would Involve limited cross lot drainage for lots facing onto Lanon Avenue and the plan as now shown meets the ari- teria of the City. An area has been reserved for a future storm drain easawnt to serve the undeveloped property- to the west of Tentative Tract 12991, if that property developes in such a way as to require an easterly storm drain outlet. Your early review and approval of this revise,41'pldn is requested. Sincerely, X.W.C.!M/G)MMS, L. C. Bevi.ngton� n E 8420 F.. t LLB:sp ; Enclosures m� rt ' If 770SOUTHRAMONAAVENUE SUIT 104 v^CORONA,CALIFORNIA 91719 0 714/7344130 77 K W.C. ENGINEERS, INC. " CIVILENGIN EERS,: PLANNERS AND CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS J.N. 365 August 26; 1985 Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer Aa If,2 �? City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road MY OF JANCHO UCAMONWt Suite C EMINEERING DIVISION Rancho Cucamongap California 91730 Attention: Mr. Barry Hansen Re: Tentative Tract 12991 Dear Mr. Hansen: ` It is the opiniot of the Shelbourne Development Corporation, the pro- posed decn=lopk:r of the propertye that the proposed,ba,:i.c street and lot layout which was developed after,considerable study and consultation meetings with the City staff meets the Codes and Regulations of the City of;Rancho Cucarmnga'and is the most productive and livable arrange- ment which can be used, The developer and x.W.C: Engineers have reviewed the crnme is of the Technical and Design Committees regarding ID-6tative Tract 12997_ There were seven concerns raised. Each of.these concerns has been considered and,is commented on in the follawing material. " Technical Review. Committee 1. Storm drains, including drainage of the cul de sacs end the property to the west. By realigning the lot line between lots 13 and 14 and by an ease- t nent between lots 42 and 43 to the west property line, an underground � A storm drain systan can be achieved with the longest portion of the 4 storm i3rain which'will be in an easement being less than 250 feet. This is certainly an acceptable length, particularly with the marr- It holes to be placed in the public streets. The total length of storm drains in easanents will be reduced by approximately 250 feet and the number of storm drain nwholess in tract easements.i y would be reduced to zero. p 2. Alta Loma cY.annel The future develogrent and the construction required in the Alta mama channel was reviewed with the San Bernardino Environmental Public Works Agency-Flood Control: Division. included in this review #„920£OUTNRg1A0NArgdEIYUE�SUIT�04^ CORONA,CALIFORNIA91719 s 7141734-2130 41 Ail" i, .. oti S Lloyd fiub?s, CityF.ngiiieer City of Rancho Cdcainonge Ji - August 2b 1985 wi Page -2- r t;as an exe ofnataont'of7 cccttnents and �'" Q- adjacent tca;or atfected by the Alta del n land subdivisions. . The�I asic:_r utflow xfra 'the retention basins north of the proposed . develoFment ; , i ll beeast'into a major drain in the haven Area; At this tame, the County of Flan Bernardino.doe,not.'have deli Platt,or, regi,reyi fs for- the Alta Loma channel. The stated ��t VA they.zaosld approve,a plan which included pakment of the 3rainag fee by the developer anti-the con-stt at:i:dn of a,structw aYly esign = ; * perameter wall on that'portlon of the tract rah rh.is adjacent to ' ` the ct nnel. This :is an acceptable arias to be fair and gement'to the'developer•and would appear equitable to the developer,,City and County.. 3. Contacle AT &,SF Railroad The developer has Started theprocess toward aauiring:the AT & SF A eight of way and 111 do`so a.f the AT & SF-Railroad is cot }q &•r perative as to time and cost. Apparently, the old AT &.SF right'of -,ray has t =been sold to f)velopers in otlier cases in the vicin#y' at a r-eason- able per-sm awe-£oot price. , Adding the additional area''to the tract 'would cause minor changes• but could allow.wider lots and thereby mare of the larger units. 4. Sewer line and water lines/easenent needs a. ,r 'The Cucarmnga.County Water:District has stated: a. They will ;require,a six-inch (6"t) main in each street ZI but the:g3mes will not reed,to be, interconnect 'd',; }-: b. Sewer line outlets can be achieved( three different manners.' u (i) If the condo develogn�nt.to the south proceeds .. ; sewers can go cH.rectly- to'the south, through tfie. ry` condo. easan°nts to Highland and east i,`Highland* w. r If die,sincle-family develogmnt to the southwest, Proceeds, sewers,,cati be•through easements and satseets to Hi�ghlanti an3'west to_Archilialct. x If°rez then"pro3ect proceeds pr-ior to Traces sewer fames"woMU"be buigt_to Highland and east`tc ' �} eaca sting sewer line, with xi reinibi rss4rt'estaF3appshedr � Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga August 26,'1985 Page -3- it for any development using,the sewers line. The Plater District; has agreed to he'jp in obtainingnecessary easements. Design Review Committee 5. Revise mix of units The high percentage of plans 1150 and 1250, at the expense of plans 1350,and 1450, was caused by the rern,irem:nt of a 35' building set back on Lemon Avenue. Where the set back,is a front yard set back, no material chan,e occurs; however, the 35' side-yard set back as opposed to the normal 23' side-yard set back.had a substan- tial effect on the corner lots and several of the lots in the same tier. The developer is also r,ry interested in achievin; as many as possible of the larger (plan 17: 0 and 1450) housing units. ' Particularly if # the AT & SF nighf.of way can be obtained, the'lot tiers on the north/ south portions of the streets can be widened and an increase made in plans 1350 and 1450. ' 6. Tile roof/asphalt roofs The developer uses.a high-grade asphalt roofing material which zs .. expensive as tile roofing and has a comparable appearance Several Of the currently accepted tile roofing materials are of questionable appearance and have maintenance problems. The devAloper would there- fore request that this item he left open with he burden of proof of r acceptability incimbent or the developer. 7. Contact with AT & SF Railroad See Item 3 abt>ve. Shelburne Development Corporation and their engineer have spent.considerable time and expense in developing the current plan. Tentative Tract 12991 as F submitted meets the zoning ana-aevelognent codes of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and will be a very salable and livable development. It is there- a' fore requested that with the,minor changes discussed abcve�_that Tentative Tract 12991 be set for a hearing before the plaMing camdssion at the earli.- est possible date. n Sincerely, , r� K.W.C. .•� Sf1C ,, .;a '{r r .a: i7 mm� �R.�` rro�_-c eb »¢::•i i6: B - � �m�■m�•.® i •. t 9 y ii :{' 1 t- kd'2�W ,r,`t+ �1 5�t Y 's �� b r j.,"wst•`..< 4 e 4 t �.�J-�-$.;�'�.� �".. ' i 7 h f ��t { F. �.%.-s-tX s a�}� 1 {� r. �di.r�y-x♦ 'x ,« �,.. ;f �..,k >-�✓'t�tP rt ��4��, ��>t +as a 't•Wl"":'.;k, 7'�...ts;•, ♦`l.;. �.�� ,1 r.i* '� Y,'I' b� ��,s ( ���.f 6�`}r�'� `` } t;: Adak �•-^ �" � �,��p .t IF•.yr. .'�,�.'�,'r�i � "� '+ ��- �im� •- e sr�♦iZ,ta •-a, �..1: �.�1., �1 ..t�_i. .�r_t"-;<"->. �•+�.y 4 ..r i A r l t �1 ,4, rF ,6446(62 Pqr. Par-3 tas; ST '� i�5 P 3 n5 k5;4.3Ac s l Q © Q•� o Lwlev,�'pgsy,{(G?dr+1, Pvr 488TCY LEM 1. r SJ= `Pord� 3 C� s�_ r g�A Por.2 v e6 e 2:9AC, 4.4AC. 8. AG v r O 4 1'5 3,}d8r 3AG)6tAc,M/t z Par.3 Pac 4 �I `' r Railroad V MAP I804.3S-8N e1 / :PAR )NO P,,Mf?o ^ � I er t' ryS 41,RQ1� Par l r f , AP o a a 4 1 38i i \v 7�.•1.65AC 1 PAR.NO,26 t� 26 �t 5.6RZ )AG 6t/1 / r m Q 13 S ), 14 -, T• [2qt ,I 5, a9ZO NORTH CITY OF p., a 1Ta�i: yl2 R_ lNgHU CU ON GA: •rnU. V } . FL.AI'�1NIl�G ll TISIChV EXHIBIT; SCALE=— � - �tM 5 �` ic �° :7 j5` �_�O J•. r^• � �tE' 9Y, W:f•�„hta'w;,q lg ":si'.e:�9 •�' l Z Sp J'�,T�M�1 •'f..y°�l S�\+1 :,. + 1"� J jx ri�'r1. 'tiurnac tit", -7� �� �;c: 'L4•-SSS.�.��fi" � ?1 'S�' y "" ,.,, 3 4 �hL , n �ry"s'•A +.., � i 'r �� , �° c. thxSztCD^ui!i�T'-' y � �: ♦� � .xa t•. MN �i -3E.'^�'.._,'..� 7s,,`.•+ �y'µ7.�.. � IAt','. - f, t' tz"'sL`�...�� ,V + �,,,'-Ras• y�>."'X.;�Z" { .. f :ryy: a t r'1 '2sp�p•y�t t4" �!'?Ywf 6vN O " %46 K FF v �`.i tP.. "l�n• CT , i r�iar.rW r �i: b'�.,�" nM 5'�i.L'� Y,e }' y a'�M, �c��,' { �"t1•� .x .�� ri;S iA'•i �r: w "• / ,ri.,,d�Y"� •st3•`;S.,w 1',t y d_ F 3 r ��Y 's,kry j'�f.•5'. ,�3 Xyyy`r!^,.x-�"�3�T..� "� #. �"�'' ''.�� �_± lw.t •;3�.�' iN ���f fit`" y,;, ��r'�Y•� r"�+�. 4 .�..� ~y c',�y��,�. c — _ T! Cfrte) Ordicdivh e "al; u l� •6"Si 7 90 44. -� — -1 i_ � 10 ` ��. ij; t ._. — — —1 W 4 V ! fir/►1.,� .r rt. c t tin 12922 -------------- AVENUE t _ .V ar 2 27 1 26 -1 2 24 y y t#f ar_!T-„'f I met:.,,;arwo�.wvrranmasr � w.•�`,«W:o' " •• '4" +..u.l { ( aaea'., ae+srtaisa ae 1?2 L + tt 229 ` 2 ^2.2�. p C'•. I 1 M.Or.,.M.Gb Nma 1 \ Li ZI t ae mot 2t\Q .., " .�.. 1 W 0 ISO h{ 14.ww q a...v "is 17 - 1! l t Iz<l a a_ r pC� Iwur�u ....+emu q43a' u +apt IS s.e.t 12 ' yao 1 M .�� t 7• ��� meJt[.35 I NI �iw l I w 13 .. y 1. WI l .ae �` `.37 12 11 10 .IQ VA-MIT LA;! NORTH CITY OF 1�CUo:CLT ONTGA TrrI.E: T-A liQ "-- '- ,PLA.NMNU DI c- N VI, �i EXHIBIT-x: r ;_ �. : w µx LEMON AVENve 1 .J 28rj :. •27 j 264C nr IIM u rt day .1..1111 nr lkl 4 �� 1:v:1� Mnw�� r M•, lw ' lit ff a i. i F` M1 3 `I 20. -. I S rlrllu'r"' ' Mna 0 nrny � STREET '`� ••Cw Wi I "? r- —r— I — o `� a �Ja p � r � Nrl.a.� 1 MIIq� �'. 45 f . ,. tyd9 f 44 � �1� } I! ry�ne l •r•• `(f• I 42 \\ ae� _ nr n. Nj f M IiH 14 36 411�• 12 Mnw .tm.e.t Nl�'CJYI. M1Jd-MVAL"AY/ AMZrOr ."o". .E .. 71ACMI!'lt LAM, NORTH CITY OF ���(�{�{ONNG{�� TEIM: _ TITLE: CUE- PLANNINZ DIVISIOi EXHIBIT:, SCALE- Pr .!- �•; x," 3 AVENIX 40 .2e. 2M t^ 24 ax' •.,.n r _L CL ... is w'r..'e %. . lFl AS EA TENTATIVE TRACT.MAP `r47 20 21 2R as `tNO, 12991) ! 2.1 - 41 .J .+.eer UT AMA � couno rl RANL (IM ONGA,CA 1 i . al fa' c d� NOT " ALL LARGE TREES,. (� ""'-• ° Vie'^' is �%r•� f ARP WCALYPM L/ �� ate♦ ai tr is e C ij. Till"DIAMEfER3.15�TO38:�" •'�` g ��"� R ��� { � ARE LEMON TREE9.' �/ �� 1 R•'3 ..�.e It /6' 7 '+� 1,: TROI!K mMAE'TERS 5'TO 10' 45 '�Z7 Y ••`•r �"'�s.. :.� i ,• 7` 4 `` Ao .TAR A,. - - bra- `KTA /// 1a 12. F nxrirr.+ec_."_".�.=,a•••.-t�4"nv��, .:.Y^� _ 29�*- J. ,. 9 .�„_.._. •..�,� .....scv-may, x' � .'"t' i' �-• r la, �� .� ~ —. „�-__ .. CUT M 4. �&r n'x' �-•,�ry i '+ i, i,' '. � . ILL.AREAS='_,J."'�! i} aerur xra.a.anara�e. 1 �. .. AETAWINO WALL$ a � t » CITY-OF,T TTFr�f: 1 f� ° CHO �%LM0l�T('7A TrrU: �,- 1, PLANNING DIVISI0i�1 EXHlarr. .. � -'35 � # M. co-vc ARC O,rcY - - (-WEST R ) } e ; 'o GFJNL�SCAPE (. 0 RET. wlJtC � .. p RET Watt 3 � S'MAX.HISs1 tsrG. NRruRRt,� o SECRON 5--8 �• JSCora /�!! r . �J-r�Jif iu�ry J:rrnnyiw�°ia��i,� e (NORTH' LOT 2/ :; V \I NORTH, ITY OF ITEM AiNHO CUCAMON A Tom: �. PL N U\U DIVEM EXHIBIT- SCALE, , vL•E�, S MAX. fI/GH W//L G G.+P FENCE 7Pul f 1 z LOT 3 � 7 wacc �•s'ro,vx.aiGH j U F— X SECTION C-C uw (EAST �) 407,!/ rrto'w P,qD c556.6 SECTION `7-0- (SOUTH �) NORM MITI'.OF rr� R�TCHOt�CAMONGA TTg LE= t - PLANNING I I [SIOi°? ;- EXMTBIT SCAI& H JJhAl:s. �' * ,'�'S�•..h2a.s:s.K iw i -A¢�c wm��.+Y•�af'y=.t'+^Ri .w�'rti a Sa- 4� 1 TRAIV tin 1 d -3- a grow Bv�wu a�' _ t L 11 {D" I T ~2 �23.� 24 1 W r R M TD 4 ry '�.. 27 , ft/0 BOYMI:IOOTA08 NOYB[ I TO 1 1 TN! SWAB!IOOTAOE INCI. i , DAR.G.ANO[V[OVCANAINLai 6 t sN rid t � ! Ti00 BOYA OOTAOBMW{[ f 47-:N r 3{ , 1 O 1 I't M. WRAC IOOTAS[NICE. Z._ is 4 { �. 1 • i ARAO[4NO l-[OVCRNANO 4A.:\ +•`•' r '17� Jai._!I--'-' 14� "lauAa/Sou..a IoorAot IooTAae hll � C,. �D �,t7�1 I — -- DA[AO[ACO[v[ h 1 'N oveRNAr� Ei 9 [NOI Ncaoa roclnfK alhrAan� , `Od� Bl�87ta`8d - f{I j N CONC.IHTAiIlE[BL -LOCK �. LiWtO ANBLR IG'C!C /[t_ TTa LANO[CAI! N8 "VA s DRIXMD COVEII TOCAV."t[ClMOSIS ILAN IOR.WAEE NEIONTO EOCATIaff tNOWN.S- •r RETAININS WALLS ANC WOCC[N MOB 4!L[CT[Y LOCATIONS f 9 } NORTH CITY OF s` ITEM R,A TCHO CUCAMONGA. TITLE= — /�/r09� PLELNNs DI,VYSIOi1 E7{HIBIT __ SCpL aISO, ismove �® :�. as■ C �� ® 1� ® �■® w.m� pii- -- i s �. . 4 1 ''' IIHIII EED ®®®_iiiiF_ : 'I -II IC Fl[IFTE]OC10 QnZq i �QQOE10' f PLAIN •1 95GA -7jr7joo PLAN. 135®B NPRTli '. Ql Imo. T T1�CHJ CUMl1.I�GL ' �rriz E: PL.ANNII�TG,_DIVISIOi\T w a EXI IIBIT SCALE- r a , � D is i.PUN `1450A NokTHiL LL CITY OF , 1i 4; ; M, T616 HOLTOlTGA ITEM, 9� ` PLANN TG O IVISIit .EXEt O tBIT: a 4 Akk My'Or"RANCHO CUMMONGA ` PART II -'INITIAL STUDY ENVIROI*fENTAL CHECKLIST mDATE: �'Q i APPLICArT;�S 7��1lc r n 77 JE7 <s Z FILING DATE 3 -_/ -g LOG NUMBER: 1`++- 6Ji'ul- r PROJECT: PROJECT LOCATION, I'; LMIRONMNTAL IMPACTS (Erplatitition of all "Ye,;" and "Maybe" answers are req sheets) uired`on attached _ YES MAYBE NO 1. Soilsl!and Geoloey. Will the.proposal`have sgniricant results in ;; a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic"',relationships? b.` Disruptions,, it8placements, corpaction or burial of the soil? ci Change in topography or, ground surface * contour intervals? . i d. The destruction, covering or modifYcation T3 s of anr`unique geologic or Physical features?' M e. Any Potential increase in wind or water erosion Of soils, affecting either on or off site conditous? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or'deposition? t .r^ g. Exposure of people o`r Property to geologic hazards such as ear.thquakes,;landsIides, mud- slides ground failure, ,or sit •hazards? �, h. An increase in the rjpte of:extraction and/or , dc` use of any mineral resources < rE N77—2 Hydrolo¢y, Wih %; a proposal"'have significant I1 leStlltS , ' Page'? YES '"AYBE \o a• Changes in currents. or the course of, direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels. _ - -- � _ b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate-and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alter waterationss? to the course or flow of flood d. Change in the amount of surface water in any, - — body of wa e. Discharge into surface waters., or any altera7-ion of surface water quality? f. Alteration, of _ r;S groundwater characteristics? �• g. Change in the quantity of gFoundwaters, r either through direct `addtihns or with c' drawals, or fhraugh_dnterfe ' with as aquifer? Quality?, .. Quantity? h. The reduction in the amount of water other- � wise available for public rater supplies? i. Exposure of people or property related hazards such as flooding orater seiches? 3 3. _Air ualt Will t " result:in., he proposal have significant ; a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? tl b. Deterioration Of ambient air quality and/or _~— interference with the attainment of applicable air quality 'standards? ` c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air.mo;•ement, moisture or temperature? t 4. Biota Flora: Will the proposal have significant results . I , i x a. Change in the ts pecie i characteri�sfiYcs of species, including diversiOfo.4 stribution, or number .. o anYs of planS. b Reduetin o the numbers of any unique, rare a2nd4fifirea,s e e ci s o a Pl es? g a � k ?age 3� YES 'LAYBE N0 c- Introduction of�. new of disruptive species.of _ .- �_ `plants into ar urea? - 4 A, d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? Fauna_. Will the proposal-have°significant results in. a. Change in the charactezisticy of species, including diversity. distribution, or numbers of any species of animals`? b. Redaction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of,antmals? ' C. Introductiorf•of new or disruptive species of e animals into-an area, or result in a barrier /r to the migration or movement of animals? a d. Deterioration of removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 5. Population. Will,�be propoeal have significant . results inc a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? b. Will the proposal affect 'existing hou,ting, or n create a demand for additional housing? f 6.. Socio-Economic Factors. Wilt .the proposal have significant results in: ' a. Change in local or regional S socio-economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property ; values? $ b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project benefIciarie.s„ i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? r 7. Land Use and PZannine Considerations. Will the proposal have significant-results -in? 4 a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b conflict with any designations, objectives, " policies, or adopted plans of any governmental � / entities? V if c.. An,'Impact up'on the qulaity or quantity of zd. •;existingTconsumptive or non-consumptive recreatianal .opportunitiesT �a y yPT g ti Y f� "FS�MAY3r_ NO S $. Transno tion. 4Jill the proposal hove signif{can t s results a. Generation of substattiai additional vehicular movement? _ b.. Effects on existing_streets, or demand for new street construction? C. Effects on existingi parking facilities, or :-demand for new parking? _ 9dr Su,�stahtial impact upon existing transporta- ~~ /' Lion systems? e. Alterations to present pattLrns of,circula- w tion or movemettL of,people and/or goods?' vl'" <� f- Alterations to or' effects on present and Potential water-borne, rail, mass transit or air trau:e? a g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ` s 9., Cultural Resources, Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance t6,�f�..he integrity of archaeological, _ I paleontological,, and/a7,historical resources? 7/4 10. Health. Safetv and Nuisance Factors. Will the g proposal have significant results in: •;I l a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health / hazard? �! h. Exposure of,.people to potential health hazards? V 4 c'i A risk of explosion,or release of hazardous substances in the event of�n accident? ' t. d. An increase in the number.nf individuals s ., or species of vector or path enogenia ` organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? f e. Increase in Existing noise levels? o f. Exposure of people to potentially.dar_gFcaus r noise levels? g.. The creation of ob3ectionabte odors? ` An iY crease in light or glare? Page+5 t` YES :14YSE. NO ll. Aesthetics. Wtll_ the proposal have significantes r r �;.,. rults in: . r a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic visa or view? b. The creation of anaesthetically offensive siCwz. c. A confiitt with the objective of designated or potential scenic,corridors? F 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal r have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? L b. Natural or packaged gas? c. Comr:rxifcations systems? it d. Water supply? ✓ e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control structures? 9. Soli&waste facilities? h. Fire. protection: i. arulice�protection? s ✓ "+III �. J. Schoois? ll f I:. Parks or other recreatio tdl'facilities?I• i 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including � roads and flood control facilities? m.. Other governmental services? 13. Energy and Scarce Resources. Will the nroposa! ' gave significant results in: ' - a a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? Substantiwt increase in demand upon existing f r sources of energy? !` c. Anineease n the demand for develop mentt�,',f " k'pM new sources, f energy : ." *- 3 d... An d`ncfease or perpetuation of the consumption #` o€^non renewable,forms of ever $y, when feasible renewable4gatirces,of energy ate available? 41 u� Wage, "YES e._ Substantial depletion of an nonrenevable or scarcei natural resour,%e?, Y F 14. Mandatory Fin33nes of SiRnif cance. _. a. Does the project have the potential Co degrade 4 the quality o*f .the environment, s4bstaotially reduce"theshibitat of fish or wildlife species, cause .iv fisb4or wildlife population to drop below self ys staining, levels, threaten to eliminate`a pla4 t-,or raniaial community, reduce the aumber�or reLktrict tSe range of a rare:ora endangefed plant or animal or eliminate important exa pies of the`�ma a jor periods of ,,.. / 1 � Ealifoiafhistory or prehistory? b. Does the project have the"Potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, = ' environmental ggais? (A snort-terra impacd- an thew envirotiment"lis one which occurs irr.a rela' r.ely q brie£, definitive period of time while Vag- term Impacts will endure well into the future). _ C. Does-the`prec't have impacts which are individual 1inlit'u-t ut(cumulatively considerabx � (`cumulatively considerable 11 means that the incremental effects of an 1 'individual project are.consid'erable when viewed In connec°tion With the effects of past projects, / and probable future projects), � 4 d. Does the project have environmental effects j which wi11 cause substantial F adverse effects Or, human beings, either dir�I;;1I or.Indirectly? T. ZI. DISCIJSuIQN nr ENt'IItON!SEE:ZTAL EVALUATION (I.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed,,mitigation measures). z` 1 gyp, y�aee X', III. DETER R%1nATIgV, e q the basis of this initial eualWation: a^ � . I fire the propos ED on the ed' project COLD NOT have la'significant,effect environment", andi4, h'EGATI1'E DECL,aR,;�I ON will be prepared. S find that althoughythe proposed projflct,eou�d have a a'effect on thep�env ronment,,+ there will i` be a signif cerktne-€ ecnC `"v 3n this caste'be"cduse t1,�e�dLtiga;tine men Tres deshribed on an attache3 sheet have;been added to the project. A NM TI.V DECLARATIOX WIL BE'"PREPAREIT� �' .p project MAY have a s:r nifie -^� T find the ro osed " g j enuirnae t g ant effect qp the t , :and an,E2 /I Q.WT DIPACT ImpopT is.requ edt r e Dat f✓7 r % `:, � Title` • �`� • .ti 3 �^\,*���"' ,-��'}7Fka �''�`l4 .?,` .� •-i;....�ti ,mod�"� „_ ? r hAFENDUM TO INITIAL STODY PART I-I `'; FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 1299; 1. Soils and Geo10 cl r 6 The development of this project would cause excessive..utting and fi1Ting of the natural contours 'even though the cut and fill ire c sic yards are :ai balancedd .'-This proposed grading concept could create exce§s ive 2 to 1 ; slopes and excessive use of retaining'walls and the height of the-wall: A re-design'of the 6 dl. sion and master planning of the'ar_a could reduce* * ` the ex,essive use -uf =tying .walIs, reduce wall height and lesson ,the l amount of grading. 2. Nydrn'ogX.' b d wx The constructinhi of this project wi11 increase the amount '-of paved ' surfaced area which c600 result in"act increasing amount of surface water run off and a d,—rease of the absorptiein rates, Tile proposed drainage `s system for this protect wi11'not provide adequate drainage facAIities in e mitigating the su,tiCee rua of for, the fol lowing'reaons,• a} it,would be extemOy difficult -to gain' access to the systems for maintenance and '• reconstruction, b) a` secondary flow path is not availabie if tae,catch basins at the terminus of the cul-ale-sac were to be blocked'_by debris, c) Ank it did not provide a; eans of draining the adjacent property through. thLl. west. Further, the';�flood channel to the east side of *he property boundary, being unimproved, may expose people propac. to'�W t& related hazards such as flondi .< This could' be mitigated .through providing the necessary flood channel improvements as approved by San w Bernardino County'Flood Cofi rci Di,$tr'1 t. 5rr 4. Biota b The development of this project may resu It in af. ^ting the sur!-ival of s the Eucalyptus windrows along, the northern propt..ty boundary' ?and the easter property boundary. Should,:the develoo6r. ,feed -to remove those Eucalyptus windrows, it shodld be mitigated by planting new windrow ;ner City Standards (Eucalyptus Macalata aW 8 feet at center, 5-gallon need not he staked)® � 10. Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors (a, b) 3, A 44-foot wide abandoned' railroad property is located south of the project :' site. This strip of abandoned railroad :easement could` become.,a public . nuisance by being a fire .hazu4 Age,to weed growth and=the breeding ground for vermit. The uevelopiner sho6ld mitigate this by acquiring the abandoned railroad property and, integrate it t intn the development of"has project. r �k r "K/',�•Z1%7 e" ' Al yIj I. Land Use,and Pla n�na�Rcnsaderations., 6, ,9 1 d'e Although `' the pfsrlpo§ed � J'c;t wzth'�the subd�atsian desi n, site 9 p?an could comply �t�th he m� "mum. Bas7c :aeveiopmert,'Standards of the C7ty's Development Code' in 'area ;densr� y, t rze and setbac�(csr has tie potential to achieve shot t rin to the d advaitt?ge of T6ng germ goals of*' the General Plan, t er ;o ezng"that IN prdposedwprog6, � may iaue.a 6 I b 4 potential limatiyrg ef€ c pon the fIture�- derl� tleve.lopment of't'�e ar-ea !4 . bounded by Lemony Avenue to kn� north,' t� ,flood"channel ,to ,the east, Archibald,to the: OdsR,sand'the db"andoned,raz,,road easement to the so�t`� This could be mitijg�ate�.bye prove"d•ing a'master p7en of the area rela,066 to circulatich, "drainagE an access. V4 «_ s Ji T ZT _A Al t Y , �j ee 7 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THF, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF " RANCHIG CUCAMONGA DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, A REQUEST FOR THE APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. TT'12991 ' TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION FOR FORTY-NINE SIAGL FAMILY LOTS ON 8.9 ACRES'OF LAND WITHIN THE; LOW-MEDI(xi RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON THE SOJTH SIDE OF LEMON AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET_ EAST OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE, WITHIN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND ;+TAKING ! FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. f (i) SHEL80URNE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION has filed an applica'ion for the approval of a tentative tract map, No. TT 12991, descr7bed above in the ` title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject centative tract map requesi is referred to as "the:tentativeftrz•:t. Oil On October 9, 1985, the Planning Comnisscm of the City of r Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public heirin _.,. ' P g vn the subject matter cr the tentative tract and, at the request of the applicant, said hearing was continued. Thereafter, opt October 23, 1985• and December 11, 1985, the Planning Commnission again held public hearings on the matter of tha tract map and, on each such date, ,the ematter was continued:at the request of 'the applicant. At the continued meting of March-r26, 1986, the Manning Commissior c=.,ncluded the hearing on the subject matter Df the-bentati; e tract. (iii) All legal prerequisites, to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determ ;-ed and resolved by the Plann .;g ' Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as °�vllov;sz `. 1. This 'Commission hereby'specificu, y finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial ev idence presented to this Commission during the abcye-references October 9, 1985, October 23, 1985, December 11, 1985 and March 25, 1986 public hearings, incl;.ding written staff reports; this Commission he'ebv specifically finds as follows: ` a. The applica`siol applies to property located on the south side. of Lemon Avenue, approximately 500 f•+et east of Archibald Avenue, and 'is currently improved with a singe family residence, toge'.her with several accessory buildingsc The properties to the north of-the subject .ite are within the :,. ko,W Residential :lstrict and are improved with single family homes, .both xist ng and under construction The ro erties to the south,.of she sub '!ct ' p p r �, site+ Are within the 'Low Medium Residential District and improvements con st RESOLUTION NO. 7 . . . TT 12991 - SHELBOURNE April,9, 1986 r Page 2 of a line of abandoned railroad tracks and vacant prope:-ty pre ;ously -pproved' for sev�!nty-eight single family dwellings and fi,'rty-nine townhomes. The properties to the east of the subject site are within the Low Medium Residantial District and are improved with single'family homes am;, vacant i parcels. The properties to the west of the subject site are W tnin the .Low Residential a,strict and currently consist of vacant property, together with an unimproved flood control channel; c. The tentative tract contemplates the subdivision or the subject `. site ;into forty-nine single family iots., Such,a subdivisicn as contemplated is permitted within the Lew Medium Residential District and such a dwelling unit density is permitted under the Ease standards of the Development Code nef the City of.Rancho Cucamonga; d. The,subdivision request as specified 'in the tentative tract would contradict the= goals and ,objectives of both the General Plan and Development Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and would promote.- a detrimental condition to.tt.a persons and properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject site for the reasons as follows: (i) The proposed building design and site plan are inconsistent with the General Plan 7?esign Guidelines and the Development Code regarding house plotting to prbvi;de a streetscape varieiy, visual "interest and Am archite,ture' t�at provides distinguichable individual dwelling units (ii) The proposed subdivision design and site pl--i are in conflict with the intent and purpose of the General Plan regarding access and circulation in that the proposed subdivision could limit and' impact the orderly future development,of adjacent vacant properties; 's ('iii) The proposed subdivision design, site plan and building design are inconsistent with the "absolute policy" of the Development Code in regard to providing master planned drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface water runoff.or to alleviate grading;constraints;_and (iv) The proposE.: subdivision could heve a significant impact on the environment by exposing both pe:�.ons and properties immediately. adjacent j to the subject site to flooding hazards nd the subject tentative tract has I, not mitigated such significant impact with 'adequate drainage facilities and 7ecessary flood channel improvements; e. No evidence was presented by the applicant, or an behalf of the ' applicant, .o support the granting of the tentative tract. 3. Based upon the substantial evidenta presented to this Commission ., during the above-referenced public hearings and upon the specific findings of fact set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby.fjinds• and concludes astfollowst ; The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is. not ., consistent with, the 'General Plan; b. The site is not physically suitable for the type of developments% .+r, :, proposed; RESOLUTION NO. TT 12991 SHELBOURNE April 91 106 Page 3, C. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage; it d. The subdivision,,:and the type .of imprnvements proposed are likely to cause serious.pub?,c: health problems. itt 4. At the public hearing-.,of March 26, 3986, this Commission, on the advice of the City staff,,."was willing ,to. gt•ant !another continuance to'_the applicant; however, tin the date of sY.. aid hearing; rseither the applicant nor'_an authorized' representative of the applicant was itpresent'' to authorize such continuance. Absent suc = a continuance cnd becav's`e of mandatory time limits contained in the SubdWkion Map,Act for -approval of, map applirata ons, this Commission was required to take 'action on the subject tentative tract. Nevertheless, this Commission, with the .advice 'of City staff.,.,would support the ^immediate reapplication of the subject development, without Den-,'lty, to " allow the staff and the applicant the necessary time to mitigate the adverse findings mentioned above in this Resoluuion. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions `set.forth'in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission',;:i0eby deities, without prejudice to refile and without additional fees, the'tentative tract. 6. The Deputy Secretar.! to.-(is 'Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. , APPROVED AND ADOPTED^,HIS 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO .000AMONGA 4 ! BY. ^ Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: fi 'Brad Buller, Deputy Secreta7l;r 1 I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the! City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was. duyy and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of April, 1986, by the following vote-to-wit: ' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES:' CO'MISSIONERS: ` kBoENT: COMMISSIONERa: AI' 1&. ,x a� ' -- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA o 6i)ICA STAFF REPO Aft pI p` DATE: April 9, 1986 1977 TO: Chai—..''n and Members of the Planning Commission . FROM: Brad Buller, City P1an.7er f BY: Dino Aitrino, Assistant Planner, - SUBJECT: ENVIRONSMENFAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT .13114 MULTI - A ZI custom lot subdivision on 5.5 acres-of land s in the Low Residential District, located at the°southeast t corner of Vineyard Avenue and ,Calle. Del Prac of - APN: 208 r ' 921.-=03 and '04. I BACKGROUND: On March 26, 1986 the Planning Commission continued Tract 3 to the ,April 9., 1986 Planni:fig ,Commission meeting: The Commiss ran directs-d staff to work,with the app-licant 'gin developing � alternative 'grading methods to mininrzze-'- �� grading anc' avcid a padded appearance. II. ANALYSIS: Staff uhas discussed with the appl i -nt the following four .grading alternative me�?;,ds to the proposed grading plan for C Tentative Trait 13114, o4stom 'lot subdivision: 1) further reduce ioi, pad area, 2), .pad building footprint only, 3) combination of ' buildinq pad grading and custom foundation, 4) incorporate development with tract map proposal. Although staff was' not able to formalize a specific grading plan concept, discussion thoughts and ideas will be `presented to the Commission to encourage further" r: direction. i The applicant has expressed that they wish to explore the idea of grading building footprint pads only in addition to strPst grading. After several meetings with the Engineering and Bu4ldiny . and Safety Divisions, staff has attempted to develop criteria for �. the applicant to prepare a;grading concepts rue to the constricted time between PlannihotCommission meetings, it has been dif'Fic It to prepare and present to th-: Commiss,ian, a,.-comprehensive plan and report for tonights meeting. Thu app;`icant has consented to ` continue Tentative Tract 13114, 41lowing additional time to prepare the appropriate plans. r -fit^ i a .,, ITEM T y , ' PLANNING COMMISS ION=STAFF REPOP.T Tentative Tract 13114 - Schultz Apri l 9., 1986, s h ' Page } III. .',C$iMMENDATION: Staff, (recommends "' s , (With 'w�r� cosl5eny of the applicaant 'teat the;Planning Cerraniss-ion contiOue this-item Itethe , April 23, 1986, P9annang- Commission meeting, to ilo,4 srt,aff additional , time Rto` wa-41 - .with the applicant in r,"iparing the ' necessary infor6f°ivn neaaed for T4-,nit—ve Tract 131.14.' Respectfully submitted.i.,. i.rad Buller x C:ty Planner �. Attachments: Exhibit Avf j,�arch 26, 1986 *Staff �teport,rwi'th Exhibits i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA c ACA^10 STAFF REPORT o - o F Z DATE: March 26, 1986 0 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning 'Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Dino Puti-ino, Assistant Planner SU BJECT: CT. ENVIRONMENTAL ASS ESSMENT NT AND TE NTATIVE TRACT 13114 - SCHUl.TZ -;A 2 custom lot subdivision dwision on 5.5 ar _r.s of land in the Low Residential District, located at the southeast corner of Vineyard Avenue and Calle Del Prado - APN: 208 921-03 and 04. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTIONe A. Action h guested: Ap11 al of Tentative Tract '-3114 and issuance a (regative [•<claration. B. Project Densit : 3.8 drdac C. Surroundimj`Land Use ;;�d Zonna: North Single Family Residential , Low Residential South - Single Family Residential Low Residential East Single Family Residential Low Residential West Red Hill Basin Park (under constructinn), Open ,4,ace C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Low Residential North Low Residential South Low Residential East = Low Residential . .West - Parks Public Facilities �. E. Site Characteristics: The project, . site is ' vacant and surrounded by ing e-Tamily residential uses. The site slopes ' significantly to the southwest. At the southeast area of, the project si'a, the grade elevations are approximatel1. 20 its 30 feet hie%,., than the property to the adjacent south. Although the site is not located within the, Hillside Residential. Dis ract,At does contain some significant grade changes, 'which - effect the proposed development. The total north to south grc-de-change is on the order of 50 to 55 feet. Adjacent to 'the• ` ' north project boundary Ys a substandard ridth pubiic ;ftreet (Calle Del-Prado cul-de-sac). Sil"I r .x a •,.c ar `�e3 f�:� PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REI�1RT Tentative Tract 13114 - Schultz March 26, 1986 k Page 2 1 . II. ANALYSIS: A. General: The proposed 21 custom lot subdivision is designed , with an east/west public cul-de-sac street to serve only ,the k lots within this subdivision. The northern proposed lots are designed to back up to the semi-improved "Calle Del Prado" right-of-way (See Exhibit "A"). The proposed project is a custom lot subdivision situatedon a' steep hillside.where slopes and ggra ing are critical. Due to ^' the topography of the project siie, an individual lot-by-lot grading scheme is impractical since it could present obstacles that severely inhibit the ability to develop the project site with a feilsible and workable solution. This scheme wou;d create high 2 to 1 slopes and reduce-,buildable and useable areas on the lots. The proposed grading plan attempts to mitigate these potential problems by establishing a comprehensive grading program for the entire project site (see ' Exhibit ?'C"). l w 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 proposed street below the street.- grade, subsequently reducing the h4ight of rear;yard slopes and allowing drainage to the rear of the lots to be channeled alo:' the south boundary lisle. a The proposed project design and grading plan also raises the issue of minimal grading versus useable yard space.. The City's =jrading policy requires minimum grading, desigrring structures to fit the natural 'topography and avoid the use of retaining . walls. 'However, another City policy is the creation of Flat, 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 stafi,d/s opinion that the proposed grading plan reflects a,-comprehensive ' grading, program which mitigates grading impacts ,end implements' the Ci;ty's policy intentions. The 'Grading Committee fell that 'she project site is subject to special and unique' ircumstances• which warrant a reasonable :co, rehensive � grading and .design , solution 4s proposed. ' �'y}1�•S'/! M'I .�f...�t+#' .'A�aki•wPTr^ '� .,a.x s....vm , "A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tentative Tract 13114 - Schultz March 26, 1986 Pa4e 3 r 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 proposed subdivision design for the project site and a similar design treatment to the property location on the, adjacent east side (see Exhibit "E") Alternative rI indicates a similar proposed design for the subject proper}v; but, instead of a cul-de-sac the street continues through to,the ;jroperty` on tha east, then turns upward to form an "L" shaped pattern and spills out onto the existing Alder Street (see Exhibit "F"), According to the Planning and (;ngineering; Division, alternative U is the preferred concept master plan 'due to better grading and drainage design solutions. B', Desiqu Review Committee: The Committee a�'.d the applicant agreed to a redesijn of the proposed subdivision as an alternative due to the grading issues. The Committee suggested ` the possiblity of rrontinr, the northern tier of lots onto Calle Del Prado Street and sloping these lots to the rear (towards the proposed street), allowing drainage onto the proposed AOL street. This gives the abilit;i to distribute the high slopes alongi Calle Del Prado and tha 'Proposed ;street and reduce the. height of these slopes. After working with staff, the applicant prey fired' and submitted revised plans,.- It was determined. h-r:@ aff that the revised plans presented further problems 'and ,should be abandoned. After continu.x4' work with staff, the applicant prepared and submitted additionai revised plans which staff -fee%s is a workable solution, Although the revised_<lans differ from the Committee's discussion. with the a' lica,�t- the intent of the ' iscussion content, which was to minimiXe gr3d►ng, has been ' addressed upon compliance with code reouii^�ments and f, ,ether staff direction.. ""—"----~ C. Technical Review Committee: The Committee reviewed the project Tand determined that with the recommended Conditions t`f ' Approval, this project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. Overhead utilities exist :,;:ong Vineyard Avenue frontage. The Vineyard Avenue frontage has 12KV and telecommunication lines with a telephone service drop; on the north side of Calle Del Prado. Engineering recommends that the 12KV and telecommunication lines along Vineyard Avenue be undergrounded by the developer. The applicant . will be required •to install all off�aiie and on-site improvementi'per City Standards, plans, and specifications. Conditions of Approval" are .provided'. in the attached Resolution for, your 1 `review acid consideration. a PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT „ Tentative Tract 13114 - Schultz March 26, 1936 Page 4 r °`a D. Environmental Assessment: Upon review and completion of Part I and II of the Initiai Study, staff has found that the proposed project woula rave significant impacts with regard to soil disruption and displacement and topography and ground surface contour interval change. These findings have been mitigated by developing rear, vui•d cross lot draindge and shared use and maintenance of side yard slope banks and slope planting. ;These w' techniques would significantly reduce the grading,impacts. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The findings; listed on the attached resolution are based on the special and unique circumstances of the site in +' relation to custom;, ?ot subdivision grading impacts, to provide flexibility and allow compr3hensive grading of tfia site. a fi IV. CORRESPONDENCE: ':his item has been revio �p qs'y advertised for public hearing and environmental review, ini The baily Report newspaper, the property posted, and notices sent to all Property owners within 300 feet ,of the project site. To. dates na N correspondence has baen received. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends' that the yPlanning Commission ' approve Tentative 'tract 13114, ha5'ed on the_Facts for Findings, per the attached Resolution and Conditions of A,)proval. Respectfully submitted,' Brad Buller City Planner BB:DP:cv Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map I, t Exhibit "B" - site Plan Exhibit "C" - Grading Plan, Exhibit "D" -,Grading Siictions AA.thru GG Ext,ibit "E" - Master Plan, Alternative I, ° E Exhibit^. 'IF" - Master Plan;. Alternative 11 + ' _ . E.xhibif"G" - Parkway Detail Section, Calle-Del Prado ;a ' Environmental Assessment Rasdlution with Conditions of:ApproVal, ��� Standard Conditions oUApproval a °�. QZ WNW - 3x Ali" J � 11Y3■ t "u�3uss saNN�a " � w® s ti a 133ttt 31rs► i .� W anN�m—aaanx l � J LZI Z. xaw auurwwan �11 1�ia3a �y� alsoasoxa f! i r a �_rc 3 i � is � • i '7 ---- 3?== m t S p r _ #a n(1 •BRS zz-,3tL tr.Ct� 07fL'?!i? ,, r ( ?• /i,�; lf f 'ram � i-` �;r•�".E O� l i + I'�l f f•.l if �� .�'a ../ t '1 un I 4 J W� 1� � zz\ � �Os �f/ �" •� a /y y. 1 I ♦. s PA. I C SEC B-6 1`"=.to .Hegtiz 9 e NOM `. Cff y '` 3TE1�€ T 131.1 w RANCM,CUCAMONGA 1� ��f� � , ,µ:.�dP►I[I�'r.D►�i�CS' 1' �� �I D/2�� SECTion,1 " SCALE � r���4�a sd�.� eaw.;'-'� - atiif5,.•. xz" +u��t �,p°`^'� AWL s. � Phv t-•��1. t4to,a gt RAINAG td z Sfy a 1 � i u• M / 3 � / _.�I yt sax: ;t. SEC-, C-C q. NORT L it ;t CIr `Tim !3/1< RANVFD CU MYGA TnU: 2Q1�lil(G _ Pivi: v Fx"tBIT. �FLtvGT� �rr. tata.G 2 Ask SEC. D'—D / ,gip c 2C� 11olIII,a. lnfloe�ce' ' u� 4, 1 ;t yii G M. �. 0 v .-. • 25'. 25' a �� Y. �K/^ z1L'.LHOdSstta 4{f4lt. ' SEC. E- Cu VeWr C NORTH E Paa ELtdV. l414.8 w PLANNM DI%'1SICxY EXHUr. --t t /M fa ws i lds-,`2e.. R n - � *"�;,':.K� -- .krr�•7m FP+��•f•- ,,, C.�a.�y,•�^-•, ;ate.�?"� �� 4 d 04 a tl O Fad Vi. r La• l' 2. J r r t ii w a �., carats-rya _ a � �•� — c j �� 19 .t N p riu . _0 v Wow i P a � w aoo>hwln .► ., w S3 UI tl AMR i sit IX$ LLi Iz � t♦ � 6 < _ � 4 y4;ml C CL UJI ��, N Sim ]MR1�71W i 31t91� � {{ 7MI7A11- •M0�lIt 1 k L.{ x '`(`• lM1A2XIA 4 m' I " arir�a t d¢ W I • MYW [LIYII.MWO] � �77�103tl A3SWS6W `*_"� t m 4 I ' r 4' Xi S3 Y Alin WAS 9N��siz3 slwu 7xY3i ' V7 lf• � a "U'Im 5 13MM" t ............... O e/v/f`t// w 4 u t/ f, Sw .r ai 133U1i 31VSy m )1 3nx3AY— tAc2v Z W 4 W W } o' YYrd wwnrmm lls�oau aas OdSG}!d t s . �.A.p• 1.t.E{, timt VA, y �y • kAlst, Om 9wwt 3 niai.it: .-bkL Woo 8Utl ECY� ppb ERt.. S a TENT TIVE T ACT 19114 f Ld ' s MUSA -WALL " �LAi��SCAPiNc� rz ftf SLaP�- _ CITE' OF ;. IFE,1i /, i3if{tE -it CHO CLTCAIl�iO�'GA TITLE. 'kvJ ltIALL.SO ;=c£ DItrLSIO d' �• EXHIBIT, ,1— ��+, SCALE—5. in— ;k x r t 'e a , CITY OF. CUCAMONGA PART II - INITIAL STL*DY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: /9f3(o APPLICSLNT: " FILING DATE: 1ULY Z' LOG.NUt• E fc,�,rTATi�/E/ELT J. F PROJECT: PROJECT LOCATION• I. ENVIRO.M. NTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and. :-'maybe° answers are required, oil attached sheets). YES MAYBE NO 1. Soi3�ologv. Will the proposal have ` significant results in: i a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in o_eolo,gic relationships? b. Disruptions,;. displacements, .compaction or j burial of the soil?, �/ 4 c. .Change in topography or ground,,,Furface contour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? E e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either°on or off / site conditons?f JJJLLL ? f._ Cl' antes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g. Exposure of r � people or property to geologic, •,`. hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- 'ws slides, ground failure, or-similar hazards? h. An increase in the rate:of extraction and'/or use of any mineral .resouace? : . fj 2 HydroloQv.,Will .the proposal"have significant results in;•� � " >; o , Page > YES MAYBE 10 a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of flowin g streams.,-rivers, or ephemeral stream 'channels? --_ -- fn b• Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, " or the"rate and amount, of surface water � runoff? . C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood f waters?'. ti d• Change in the amount , of of "surface water in anv <. body`of water? .t ti e.. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? f• Alteration of gtbundwater characteristics? r S• Change nf.the, quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with— drawal s,*vr through interference with az ' aquifer,? Quality? Quantity? y h• The reduction• in the amount of eater other wise.available for public<4ater supplies? i. Exposure" of / .. 'people or property'to water related hazards-such as flo ding or seithes? Air 0ualit: Will the proposal have significant results in; a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile kf, or:indirect source I s.. rr J Stationary sources? , b Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or Interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? ' C. Alteration of local or regional climatic s conditicns, affecting air movement, moisture or temperatuure? , 4. Biota ,. Flora. Will the proposal have ysig'tificant results in: R a. Change,in the characteristics' of species, }4.° �^ including diversity. distribution, or numb. Of anyspecies of plants'- . 4 b." Rcdu an,�of the numbers of any unique, rare, cz or eadapger d species o£ 'Plants'? 'age 3 44 _ 4F J YES `L4YBE NO y, c: Introduction of new or disruptive zziacie> plants int fan areal d. Reduction in the . potential for agricultural ratproduction? Fauna. Will the proposal'have significant results. a. Change in the characteristics of species, inclu6ing diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? r <. L e / ' b. Reduction of thq numbers of any unique, rare SSLL , or endangered species of animals? / _ V 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 t / wildlife-habitat? S. Population. Will the proposal have significant ._ ' results In: a. Wi11 the p pro osal alter the location, distri- bu.ion, density, diversity, or growth rate of the 'n.uman population of an area? L �I b. Will the proposal affect-existinghousing, or create a demand for:additioaal housing? -1� 6. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in local or regional Socio-economic characteristics, including `'economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property .. .values? b. Will project costs be 'equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? / I 7. Land Use and Planning Considerations Will they . v proposal have significant results In, a. A substantial alteration of the present or s planned land use of an area? / b. A conflict with any de`signations, `objectives, ' policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities2i e. An impact upon the,quialty or quantity of ` ' exist4mg consumpptive or non-consumptive ,, .recreational oppyor'tunities•'?� * ._ z,� s�.+i3��04;� r ✓-Nii�FZ r, Page 4 , YES :L4YSE No AWk 8. Transportation. Will .the proposal have significant K, results ink 4 _ £' a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular ' movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand' for new street construction? C. Effects.,on existing,parking facilities, or demand. 1cr new parking? f d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- I f tion systems:? w e. Altesation `to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? f. Alterations to or effects on present and !r Potential water-borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? ✓ r g. 'increases in traffic hazards to motor vehiclea, 'bicyclists or pedestrians? 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and/or hisEorical resources? 10. Health, Safety and Nuisance Factors. Will the Proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? J -;f b• Exposure of people to potential health hazards? x c A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to sues organisms? e. Tncrease in existing noise levels? „H 4 Exposure of people to potentially,,dangerous noise levels?_ � , 8 The creation of objectionable odors? 3 y X�a �u 1{. i�Ll increase in light or glare? MEN IN MIN�M i Page Sty YES XAYBE NO a 11. Aesthetics: Will the_proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic, vista or view? / ! b. The creation of an aesthetically`Offensive site? _ v C. A conflict with the objective of designated / Y or potential scenic corridors? J 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a Eignificanr, need for new systems, or alterations to -the following: ' a. Electric power? ,' b. Natural.or packaged gas? C. Communications systems? 7 d. Water,supply? / e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control structures? g. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? 3, Police protection? j. .Schools? k Parks.or other recreational facilities? 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities r m. Other governmental services? 13. Eneret and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal # have significant results in: a. Use of substantial �r excessise fuel or energy?' _ C be Substantial Increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? c. An increase in the demand for development. of � new sources of ener oy? 1 d. An incrgase or perpezuac- ion of the consumption " of non—renewable fo'rms", `energy, when feasible s�enevabie, outces of,ener,, are.available? A iof q Page 6 YES `!AYBE No e. Substantial.depletion of any nonrenewable or '- scarce natural rdsource? l(> Mandatord —�,�`tngs of S��;,ificance. a. Does the project have the Potential to degrade the quality"of,>the renvironnegt, substantidily reduce the habitat offish or wildlife -pecies, cause a fi;,l or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining level`s, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range lli a rare endangered plant or a or nimal or e-iminate important examples of the.major periods of California history or prehistory? f b. Docs the project have the potential VD achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the<-; environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long term impacts will endure well into the future). t c. Does the project have it Icts which are 7 individually limited, bLc cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an jr individual project are considerable when viewed In connection with the effects of and probable future projects). Past projects, d. Does the project have environmental effects W%.ich will cause substantial adverse effects ` �n human beings, either directly or indirectly? ZL DZSCUbuve ue tioZBp23?SEsa EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the nr above questions plus a discussion of proposed'mitirmat n measures). 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 may be mitigated to be acceptable by developing the following grading techniques: 1. Rear yard cross lit drainage, and 2. Shared use and maintenance of side yard slope hanks. These techniques would allow the lot pads to:be lowered, sbbsequently redue'ina the he.Sht of rear yard slopes and in turn, reduce the.,,overall amount��'6f'_ _ grading. t III, DETERAS tial,;evaltt >' On the basis �f this.in J I :tzz�d the ,proposed project COULD NOT have a sfgnificant effect �a on' the environment, and a :i11ATIYE AECL-%RATIO;I will be prepare3. T find that Although the pzoposed project cou,d have a significant effect on the enxi}zonment, there wiCl " t be in this case because e mitigation meas thee ures descrbedconLan £ect attached sh>5-'have been.a$jjed to the project. F NECATILy III iDECLARATIO:i SJIiX $E tREP.ARED. } (—� I find the d ,� e propos M project AX hav a s s envirnment. an atr ENAii2py;= &n ficanC eEfec on the ' `? CT RLi WRT X a ired;, '7 'v Date '=w sua" itle r w qw 4 r fv� Wi CITY OF RANCHO CIJCAiMT ON4A STAFF REPORT 9. O O I �G+ Z DATE: April 9:, 1936 1977 TO: Chairman, and Member:, of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad�Buller, City Planner BY: Bruce Cook, Associate Planner SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 12833 - _(THE M60OWS) - THE WILLIAM LYON COMPANY An amendment to modify- the conditions of approval to permit occupancy of homes prior to. construction of a permanent or, teoporary RV parking lot within Victoria. T. ABSTRACT: The William. Lyon Company is requesting r'L3 amend Resolution 85-15 appro�'Ag Tentative Tract 12833, to perigit occupancy of new units priii., to construction con, ?ction of a permanent RV storage facility:-.nd to also omit any requirement for a temporary RV parking facility. This change would permit occupancy of all lots within Tract 12833, except the model home complex (lots 17-28) as shown on Exhibit licit. II.- BACKGROUND A detained chronology is attached to explain the steps leading up to the 'applicant's request. Tentative Tract 12833 was approved by the ,Planning Commission',1 February 13, 1985 per Resolution 85-15, Planning Division Condition No. ,, of this Resolution states as foliows: "P-ior to recordation rT the subject map, a complete y application shall be submitted for development of an RV parking facility within the boundaries of the Planned Community. Construction of a temporary or permanent RV parking lot adequate in size to accommodate 25% of the lots within Tract 11934 and thn-subject- tract (Tract` 12833) shall be completed prior to occupancy of any;new units". Lots within Tentative Tract 12833 are already being offered for sale and units within the' first phase have already begun construction. Completion of 14he first units is scheduled for this spring, with the anticipation that the last of the units within w this tract will be ready for occupancy by this summer. The RV storage facility, i.e., CUP 85-26, was approved by the Planning Commission on January 8, 1986. Construction on the facility is scheduled to begin in August with an anticii,ated completion date of January or February of next year. It is:?-,parent that-units Within Tract 12833 will be ready for occupancy p y prior to the scheduled- ` x a 11 3. _' ITEM C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT '�. Tentative Tract 12833 - Wm. Lyon Company April 9, 1986 t Page 2 Aft completion date of the RV storage facility. Further, the remaining portion of The Meadows, Tract 12832 (see Exhibit "B") is also slated for occupancy in August. The William ;Lyon Company is now requesting an amendment to. the Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract 12833 to permit occupancy of new units within the tract prior to construction completion of the permanent RV facility, and. also to omit any requirement for a temporary RV parking facility. III. ARALYSIS: The Victoria Planned Community includes provisions requiring RV parking equivalent to 2K,of the units on lots within tie Low, Low-Medium, and Medi+am Rps;rential Districts.. The Comi^munity Plan permits the ' flexibility to provide these recreo±ionai vehicle spaces either on-site on the individual lots or massed in a =dingle storage facility. In their larger lot single-family detached tracts, i.e.,; the "Gardens" and the "Country', the William,�'iyon Company has been:providing. some RV parking spaces on the individual lots. Tract 12833, i.e., the "Meadows", on the other hand, is _a zero--lot-line, .atta hed product; space is not available for on-site recreational vehicle , storage. To provide the required RV parking for this track, the William Lyon Company is ,planning to build their approved RV storage facility located on Base Line; !just east of the Southern California Edison Utility Corridor. , The Williai.,,Lyon Company As requesting this condition to withhold occupancy of units prior to -onstuction completion cf an RV parking facility be omitted with:.1 - _`ject to dots 1-16 an4 29-117' (see attached letter;. Staff *),-e .opinon that there is sufficient justification to. supoort n,. lef to the William Lyon Company in regard to the questioned ccnG,,_ 1. Their application for the CUP to develop the RV- storage facility was originally submitted in August of last year. At that time, this appeared to provide for adequate lead time to complete the project prior. to-the need for occupancy of units in Tract 12833. However, over :the course of time, unforeseen delays in the planning process extended the review and ultimate` approval of this p,aject beyond the expected'time frame. The William Lyon Company has demonstrated a good faith effort and has been diligently working towards the successful completion of their RV facility. IV. FACTS FOR FINDING: In order for the Planning Commission to consider approval, the following findings must be made: = 1. That this project; as amended, is consistent with the General Plan and the Victoria Planned Community; 2., That this`��)-oject, as amended,,,will not be detrimental to ` adjacent proper. or cause significant 'environmental f° impacts= and ;, P \ u PLANNING.,COMMISSION•STAFF REPORT Tentative Tract,12833 - Wm, :Lyon Company , April 9, 1986 f ., Page 3 3. That the amended project remains {n substantial �{ conformance. with._ the original approval and 'that the }roject is i min compliance with the applicable provisionso ct___,� Victoria "Planned Community and other r'I City standard's. ti V -CORRESPONDENCE-,-Ts' item has�been advertised 'aa a public, hearing in The Dailw R,�art newspaper,. the property posted, and notices were sent to atl.property owners within 300 feet of the,project, r site VI. RECOMMENDATION. Staff,recommends that- the Plannin, Cc^p!!?_c 1bn consider ail material and input reganding this,. project. if.Ahe r� Comm_iss{on can'make the findings necessary ta'tsuppoit ,the proposed q Agent,-then adoption of the attacked Reso'Jution would then,,b �? i opriate. Rest !y By fitted es t� Brad Buller; City Planner BB:BCvns Attachments; Exhibit "All Vicinity Map EYtJb t."B" - Tentative Tract Map Exh*lu *- t: "C" -'Detziled-Sdte. Plan Exhibit „! - W Storage Chronoiogy Letter. from Willia,n Lyon Compapy - March 10 198E Letter from ki1iiam,Lyon Company - Apftr i 1,-1986 x Resolution.No. ,E5-15 Proposed ResolA on of Approval :` 'ry ' 'tft a��■Q1 3� 3num nm>,uw Jt�ml s 1�IIIU }Lrag 1 C yam: -g 0 �2 �2 M833 IRt THEE C gr, t7V C( RANCHO aau � GENERAL tI1. y '• ' ran.w�♦r sr�.••Ys 4! .' A V. A L. +h n n • TMOAL SECno ��♦� •°t a - ac Y• 9 F +•aoa<..o,.�4.,y CJIIB�QaLlQld1$ �:; uowol�s.sa�m.a NORTH` '' pk "�.1 .V tJ11t7.1V�o1 rT�st� TITLE � n PLANNING DIVLSIQi`d • ECI-IIBIT: Zv—SCALE- ✓ ,r r. a- �w. r x �. � �� ilk ■f fir,, �- ����lt���s`�►:. oc SON cl `a7���� �, lei"'�■,�` r,`� ,. t ■�Isif 'r„ 4 777- ;�. RV.STORAGE CHRONOLOGY DATE, EVENT-,', May 20, 1981 Vicfor'a�Comrumity Plan approved by City Council . i rsub"jec1rto the folltlivJngiondition;;� 4 5 Recreat'on vehicle storage sh11 be provided y vifi�n eachresi dent`al l;nd`use category of Low, Low_M�e�Lium , ed,��,um fbr 25% of the,lots,or ii'"��t� conta�i e`dAwi h1�nthos�anits w3ithin the qg r a ter Punned co anity RV,stwag sha l be` sprouide ' onthesi � of'each` develop Pet;or` . th'' � die. '*' ' '- w v1, �1! the oundar�es;rof e PlanneY o unun i_yl;* t as apri atere'reationr vehcles�torageE -M- PS ; '7 e' ,ee ri IFsha 4l be ievAis�ed oil an our al basi ' rt,and ayibeamoduiedbythe,Prlannmg ` @om�s o �(Reso utVion � Lyon�s b peas a�Cetcli�of>t�c nt�urary RV storage ` Oct. 27, 1981 -1- areas 4 t �, o « , at ` Nov.;10, 198I Tenth Tract 11�934�(The Windrows)'appr�'�oued by Plann�nng Commission. 7`e�mpor�ary RU*storage red' ro sub3ectt to Des�ggn�. ,,, 'Also,, a.MastaN P1 �i for,.A , permanent RV stoagye, equi^ed subject toDesagn { Re�t�b*Y,�,November i0, 198� asp fo>11ows N- �� 11 iRecreat`ional vehicle,-parking,sha)l,b.e provided'ham for 2"K of the 3,000' and 5,000 square foot . lts The�lcca�tn, s�tza; design, screemingand landso ng of the proposed .te,m�oeary p5h'gJ&j � areashall 'be 'sub3ect Ito Designer jz'ev'iew Committee j rQtlgW,,and approval 4 ' Also, a master...plan, the ermanent Pocation(s) of'R.V. .park1ng a eas`. shal l Abe.completed Ili hie 2"years and shall be jl sl4ojectMto Desi fi ilMiew ComdF-tee'rev7'ev� g . a�pr^vat_ (Resoionx 81 133 �4 Jan. 13, 1982 De, ,Reviewapproval granted for Tentative. Tract . J�34subjeii- t64(see attached EAf6,jts), A' - ; '. 1. A revised plan for the�. *tparkng�ar�eP`a must submIited>to and appoved by theme Pl�annnng ,r Division prier to gss8anie of.:bu�islding permits. The��evis Pupa a1,t s a1x1 proveifide r adequate;? — ki ar safe ingress and)egre'ss, turn R around, and backup, or large recreationadl' vehicles (aRe At KL � r � �S`-�",,�5�'. '#�',�, 'map. r � ',�r t °^�c'� � ^.��rz�2s.�s.�.,� �y.�"• Feb 10. 1982 pA proval of re*-,sions to unit designs for 3;000 s,-quarte.,foot lots (The,�Park) in,Tract,11934 � { .q April 1982 t'Plan check submittal, ' A ri1 1484 �. P Prep,se fftad ng plane delineatCd,to"mporary P.V�p46A _? 4 fi � lot •� , June 1984 VIcSo�ra grand o herring of nitTial bases. Tem or'ar ° R' paeI l" not�`cgnstructed P `P"°» y : Oct. 19, 1984 Tr 2833 �(.Th Meadgs) submitted,. Feb. 13, 1985 Tracts-;r28t33 (The� teado�s) apppovcxi.on same site as, �,* temporary RV�park�,ngllot suli3ect to �` �,�, -0 Z 4 P._rlorrlto ecor'datlyon of theey�"asub3ect.map, a w cnpi�etewappl(icati»n stral7besubmited forg dei to ine �f R V �p p,hg,f{ac��l�ayty_yithiA i Rthe bou dares of, Planned•Gom�t►ri ty� Construciot�ofaemporary o ermanent R V.+ paWnn"g Id,t ade*ate.,R s�z topaceonmtodate'25% tQf th�e�S, ots within Tract`1X934 and he sub ecti. ;tractsh.a11`b'e completed °nr to"uccuparic` 'f any new n.�tso- (Reso I&T.Jn•85A" ')x* ' Aug. 28, Z985 Co mplete�apptic4tion' submitted for permanent R parking(clot (C-00 85=26) a' Nov.,21, 1985 Pint',Map`Tract,- 2838 recorded - Jan. 8, 1986 CI)R 85-26 a roved: l Jan.�9, 1986 ,',tract 12833 (The Meadows),,grand opening. �4 k. i i if :s Ptt r',•� SEPARATE DESIGN REVIEW Wlz BE REQUIRED IN THESE AREAS Ri EM I� =•t.at3..',:"�Ss "'3 t..v' aj^.'t+',+[t1 v nt:.I ifl+E'�.1:•3+iY�!i;�33'S�t'.• .•w yit+i 1, a :,7ii13, _ ^ T•T i try e' },G 2.t NIFQ i•e � ix {� g 11'I�F!(, l?�� F PARK SITEr 7200 SQ. 'FT. I:OTS- }.—���+` SEE EXHIBIT `E' SEE'SHEET $ '!� S iayV 1 i f +3 jli R.V. PARKING SEE EXHIBIT 'D' s7y� '§fY 5000"ZO. FT. LOTS Y 7 SEE SHEET 4 Wo 3000 SO. FT. LOTS - SEE SHEET 2 - - I • '. • .. ' FORA BLOWUP x.' 'OF THIS AREA — >" . SEE:-SHEET 3 ;,. I_. _. 4 .\ l� I`T)RTH CITE' of ITEM: - !� a- J ,N TITLE=�'1" It�i-�T••1 �,iClr,`f" MAF: � PLAN IIi\v DI !IS10N EXHIBIT: tl"V. • �tnNil3:.,. 56CUAcl7-y F51%IC6 L V/ --- V/Ncs ON rE�iG SHRUGiS SIT t'E}2!P 1 TE/Z w Tg • I'ORTH CITY OF PLANNING DIVIRON EXHIBPT -�--SCALES i 6 f ll NO LONGER EXISTLit.'G lax \. B /4 i Nj / 5q 1 .011 ss ;J ' SEE SHEET /Us 3 Q corrsT;NorEs ~. ,� ,�. —OON,ST.3'AL.PAVEMENT OYER COM44 ou P,IC��•EL ,yes I R*4 �• .A�"`C'��. * N Al r" ZSZL .Yr 1i L1:0�`> 1 117-7 85d0 ARCHIBALD, SUITE B,-RANCHO CUCAMONGA.CA 91730 • (714) 980-22d4 ' f _March 10, 1986'; X Mr. Dennis Stout, Chairman ani Members City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 9320 Baseline Road, Suite C Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Subject: Tract 12833 , Dear Chairman Stout and Commissioners, On February 13, 1985, the-Planning CommiAsion tentatively approved Tract, 12833 (Victoria Meadows) subject to certain Conditions. Condition #4 in Section"'2 of Resoiution 85-15' required "Construction of a temporary or permanent R.V parking_ lot....prior to occupancy of any, new ' units." (See copy of resolution attached). At this time, The William Lyon P Company has submitted and received Planning Commission approval on an application for a permanent_R,,V, facility. The City Council has also approved the Victoria Community Plan amendment to permit development of the proposed �• R.V. facility at its March. 5, 1986 meeting, k � 6 {. With these approvals now received, we have begun final working drawings for this project. Anticipating 8 weeks to complete- these drawings and another weeks for the City's plan- check and permit process, we expect to begin ° construction in late-August of this year, Completion and opening of thE--R,V. " facility should occur in January or February of next year, ¢ _`^ We res eE tfully request the Planning Commission to amend Condition r4, Section €p L 2 of Resolution 85-15 to permit occupancy of new units prior to construction ' completion of the permanent R.V. f ac ltAy and to also omit any requirement for a a temporary R.Y. parking facility. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please contact Steven Ford ,.; or myself for any information we can provide for your review of our request. Sincerely, James F. Bailey Vice-president` ;J' J1181 1'mb ; Lw;ESTnlr OEVEkOPMENT SYIF..,M �•1•� y 711 #, 9 tV ILLLAm,LYQly ' 65d0 ARCHIBALD, SUITE B. RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA 91730 (71d) 980-2244 , April 1 1986 -l2 E G E FV E D' MY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNINO,'DIVISION Brad Buller - ,.APR ( City of Rancho Cucamonga AM PM 9320 Baseline Road, Suit C 718�9j�0111112t312131 ,1516 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 �. Project: Victoria Meadows Tract 12833 Subject: Resolution $5-15, Section 2, Item-4. Dear. Brad, i Jim and 1 would like to express our appreglation for th-;-opportunt`ty to,rteet with you and 3ack today to discuss the RV'-Parking requiren,•,kgt referenced'ahgve which affects occupangi ofthe project noted., Pursuant to bur meeting_ we,wouid like to request that the requirement for: "Construction of a temporary: or permanent RV park`ul -lot adequate in size' to accommodate 25%,of the lots within Tract 11934'and the subject Tract ` (12833) shall be completed prior to occupancy of'any new units." - 1 be omitted with respect to lets 1-16 anrt.29=117. On August 6, <1985 we submitted the application for the RV facility in compliance wit` -the requirement-that: "Prior to recordation of the subject map, a com,alete application shall be submitted for development of an RV parking facility w thAn the boundaries of the (Victoria) Planned Communit.l ." On March 5, 1186 the City Council approved the second reading of Resolution #85-15 amending the Victoria Community Plan to permit the Conditional` (Land.) Use for the proposed RV facitty. 4litlr receipt of that approval we have begun- working drawings for the project. -+ At this time, we anticipate 8-10 weeks to complete working drawings-for ;olaq check submittal and an additional 8-10 weeks after plan;* check'-submthal. for issuance of a building permit. This would indicate "a construction start . approximately 8-1-86. - ..'. s a Our first homes in Victoria Meadows wili be ready for occupancy-rain#earl,#y�May,. va ATE DV;* OPMENT r �., fir• _ Y . . ". nT LrA Tye LYON lAopv We feel that we are proceeding in good faith with development of the permanent RV storage fWlity that will meet the City'-s-requirements and be an'asset; to _ Victoria and the co��munity, ,., At this time we wou'id request q your consideration and, support in; amending 'Resolution 85-15 Section 2, 1,tem_4 to 'permit.occupa4ty won :the Tots noted - herein prior- to con,pTetion� of the permanent RV_TacilliI,y and withq'ut� a. % requirement for a temporary foci 1 Tty.: ,a ra. Please -contact me for additional information we consid ration. a fan -provide fpr,your . jt or your help. t Y ally, - I o ianager .s SF/lmb *71 gyp, � .tom t +R 17 itESOLUTION NO: 85-15 7-1 ' A 'RESCLUTION OF,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF'THE CITY OF: 'RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO: 12833 RWHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 12833, hereinafter "Kip" submitted by the William Lyon Company, applicant, for the purpose of.tubdividing the real .property situated,a n -the_'City'-of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of Cal.ifornia, described as 117 attached single family dwellings on. 14.7 acres of 1-and within the Victoria,''Piannod Cummunity, (Low- Medi um-'Category, 4-8 du/ac , located on the south-side of Victoria Park Lane, and west side of^Victoria,AWindrows L000' - A?N 227-371-14, 15 and 227-391-16 into-"117 lots,, regularly came 'before the,aPlanning Commrs�ion for public hearing andaction on February 13, 1985—and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommende&i,�'pproval of the Map subject to all conditions.,>set forth in the Engineering ,:and Planning Division's reports; and WHEREAS, the Planning ' Commission as read and considered the t Engineering and Planning Divzsion's reports and has considered.othet• evidence f. presented at the public hearing r NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the'; '?ty of Rancho , Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The`Planning Commission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract No. 12833 and the Map thereof: (a) The, tentative tract is consistent with the General Pian, Development Code, and specific plans; , (b) The deslg�-or improvements of the tentative tract is E consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; e (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; I (d) The design of the'subdivisicr. is not like'-y to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable` injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat;' (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; ,. } (f) The design of-the tentative tract will not conflict ter with an easement acquired b 'the #Y q y,r public at large, �•�.i noW of record, fer•- access tt;rough or use of..the property within the proposed sf bdivisi9r. . RZ.; :. �^ Ienzative Tract 1283-4 I Page'#2 AOL 1 (C) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment end a Negative Declaration is issued'. + SECTION 2: Tentative :Tract Map No. 12833, a co attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of w °f whit is and the attached the following conditions Standard Conditions; - •' Planning Division 3 1. Each Lot within the project shall have'a ininimum flat (2% sl('pe or less). rear yard area from building to—property line or ?' slope/retaining 'wall of fiteen•(15) feet. A final detailed site plan. that indicates slope and retaining wall locations and- unit plotting shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Corner side yard` fencing and/or retaining walls shall be set back • a minimum distance of five. (5) feet from the back of si:,ewalks. All interior street facing retaining walls shall be constructed of decorative block, and all wood fencing installed* by the developer,shall be treated.with water sealant or star. 3. Street facing side elevations and the.'rear of two-story units $�facing a street shall be upgraded with additional good trim,wood siding, or plant-ohs where appropriate. Construction details shall be indicated on the working drawings (including specific lot numbers). 4. ' Prior to recordation of the subject map, a complete application ?I shall be submitted #or development of an R.V. parking facility within the boundaries of the Planned Community. Construction of a temporary or permanent R.V. parking Tot adequate in size y to accommodate •25% of the lots within T"ac` 11934 and the subject tract shale be completed prior to occ units. upnncy, of any new i 5. Final landscape and trail improvement plans for Victoria Park + Lane shall be submitted for review and approval by the_Design #E Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. ; 6. A minimum 20% of the required trees within Victoria Park Lane shall be specimen size (24" box or larger).__ 7. Roof material within the project shall be wood shake or tile shake. Actual material samples shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and.approval prior to issuance of building permits. 8. /tibng the west boundary of the project, the r.�aximum wall height ` shall be iiPic iri) feet, b feet minimum,' where the wall hef ht 'Would otherwise e>vseed this standard. Graded slopes andfor { i Tentative Tract i98 Page #3 terraced retaining ,wad's--shall, be required with a manmum ram.. setback of f'i.ve (`5) feet from adjacent units. 9. The final gr'adnlg' plan shall be revised to accurately address grading along the,'west project boundary, Drainage water: shall ;not' be directed toward the flood wall or adjacent residences; and an as-built profile of the existing wall shall be submitted td assist in review of the final grading plan. . Engineering Division 1. A structural block wall for flood protection shall be provided , along the entire-.west boundary, of the tract including; across the terminus of-Victoria dark Lane, and-Sugar Gum Sttreet." The portion of the wall crossing the streets shall be,removed at the Developer's expense upon extensions of the streets to the 1 west. 2. In order to provide a means for vehicles 0= ng Victoria Parr ' Lane on the north.-,i roadbed to 'exit on -in,n.,outh `roadbed= a temporary connection across the,,median shalfbe provided at the westerly terminus; pret•erably Cry, the -Edison. property to the -west or an acceptable Vehic� barrier .shall he -constructed near the intersection'with Victoria.WindroBS Loop. 3'. The following improvements ` outside thef* immediate tract- boundaries_,shall be provided with the development of the Tract + or an agreement' with t�2. city shall be executed, to al1OW the deferment,until a;;later date: a. The east half of Day Creek Boulevard from Highland ; Avenue south to,the railroad. b. Master Plan Storm Drain Dine I from Highland Avenue south to the` railroad including sufficient off-site° y, y' improvements necessary to provide the proper. ; functioning of the facility, •c. Victoria Park Lane from the west tract boundary west, to Day Creek Boulevard.; d. Sugar Gum Street from +the: west tract bo.,,n�ary. west, to Day Creek Boulevard 7` 4, Improvement plans for Victoria Park'' L-ane from Day Creek Boulevard west to Rochester Avenue shall be. completed to 'thes satisfaction of the City Engineer',- dati'om:,of y 9 prior i o recor either tract. i .4 5. The dedicat on width of the —riot,Streets shall be inc as�ed, to provide 0.5' beyond the edge. of'sidewalk'within the right-of-way (46 feet vs. 44 feet as 'shown)... " e: s (A Tentative Tract 1283, page, #,4. 6• . The design of: the individual lot storm water drains within, the public right-of-vra be -subject° to the approval of the y shal t•.= i Gi-ty Engineer„ IX 7. Debris retention facilities shall be provided for the drains from the.Edi snn property to, the west to the s.ati-sfaction of,the City EnRi:neer, .`. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIa,13TH DAY OF Ft'BRUARY, 1g85 FLAN G OMMI5:aI0N''0 THE.CITY.OF RNN.CNOI.000AMONGA a Dennis S ou '` Ch Finan ATTEST: " Fr Ri ome , eputy Secretary- 1 I, Ri Gomez, Deputy Secretary of��thei` Pla nnng Commission' of the Crttj�'.ofi k Rancho Cucamonga, ib hereb ' certfyj that;.the orego�ng iesnlution was duly land regularly introduce3.,:passed, and adopted by' the P'lamm�g �ymm�ssi;on of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular ineet 'ef the P`lann�ngf Commis held .on the 13th pia y of February; `1985, by bhe'fol lowing votz=to-wy-C: sion AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL,`CKITIEA REMPEI; STOUTjl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE _ I =. &RIZENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER RESOLUTION NO. a A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 'CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,.,CALIFORNIA, AMENDING'THE !1,64DITIONS OF ' v APPROVAL -fOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP`'N0. 1E$33��' ` WHEREAS, Ter' dive Tract Map No. 12833,' hereinafter "Map�R� submitted � by The William Lyon Company,, applicant," for the,purpose`�of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga,_ County of wSan Bernardino, State of Cali.fornia,;. .described as' a residential subdrVision of I4.7 acres w thin-`,tle V.ictgria Planned Gommuriity Tocafed on the south sid „,of Victoria Park 'Lane and'wesf •side..of South Victoria Windrows Lo p.inta I17 lots, regularly came, bef&ee,,the Planning Commtss'ion for public -earing and action on February.12, ,1C855�and was approved and adopted per,,Resolution No. 85-15 and WHEREAS, `'an amendment to orthe Conditions of;Approval for sTentative Tract No. 12833 regularly came. before, the Pl„a`nning Commission for public b hearing and action ;fin April 9, 1986; and WHEREAS, the City Planner-has recommended approval of-,the,,Map,subject ns to all conditio set forth. in the Engineering•- and Plammng1 Davilsion's. reports; and WHEREAS, the ;Planning Commission has read .;:,and considered the Engineering and Plannin�-Divisi6b's reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW,. THEREFORE, the Planning—Commission of the City\ of Rancho ' Cucamonga does res6lve"1is -follows SECTION 1" The Planning Commission makes the following findings in regard to the proposed.=amendment to Tentative'Tract No. 12833: a. That, this project, as amended, is consistent with, the General Plan and the'Victoria Planned'Lomu,ninity; b. That this project, as amended } detrimental to adjacent _ ,.�wi�7 not be j properties or cause significant enVironmental impacts:; and s c. That the amended project remains in substa�tlal conformance with the original approval and-that the- project is still in_.compl�i'ance with the apPlfcable, provisions of the _Victoria Planned Community aq& f" other City standards '' � . d. The William Lyon 'Compahy, the project,applicant;^hhas•, taken all reasonabli effort to comply with all'-the �4 cond.it,ions.. of thelapproved tentative :map and is maintaining steady 'andAdil;igent progress towards tFie . successful conp]etion of an RU parking facility: i • ;;: "" ,' ' T79 ,. �, -,'7'�*—sue >",`` ..s .°y 3 "` `p" Resolution No TT 12833 The Wi'l1Tam Lyon Company . April 9, 1986 Page 2 ` t S S r SECTION 2: = They Conditions of Approval for 6ntati-4 Tract Ma'pb 12833, a copy.of whi,dW-1i,attached"her.'eto are,amende�'as folhows:,: 1 . Condition Plaklng 6Tvis4on stfdil:be amended to`=read : i' Consttouction A=of the -approVed� RV -parkin,g 4aciiity w (Reference `CUB 85°26} Shail +be ,compflretedpaor to occupancy of any units for 17=28. tE APPROVED ANDMDOPTED THIS`9TH DAY& APRIL, PLANNING i.OMMISSION tjF� THE CITY OEQANCHO CUGAMQNGA}` °qk ,4 BY. Dennis L. Stout, Chairman w� ATTEST:. Brad Bul I erg Deputy Secretary . .4 .. I, Brad Buller, Deputy. Secretary..of the,: Planning Commission of the City -of Ra.°•ho,Cucamonga, do, hereby certify that the foreg'oin ",kesolution wash duly pan regularly introduced, passed, and. adopted by the �°hanning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucam6nga-,tat a regular meetiing of the�P ann;ngt Commts'sion he3`dp a on the9th da of Aril,_I?86 b 'the fo y , P " : Y Tlowing'vote=to=wit.° AYES: ' COMMISSIONERS: , a. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS.,, y 4- PITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ouhrQ STAFF REPORT off . o Q3 DATE:, AprilA,( 198.E 19n TO: hairman,and Members of.�the Pl&,Ining Commission FROM: Brad Buil:er; City Planner BY: Nancy Fong;Associate Piann�er-` SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT.-12952 GLENFED ;A resadentiaV su•diVisi:on"and.design review for 73 2 single famlhy lots on`'32.7`'acres of land in the, Low Medium Resdentjal District (44 du/ae) located at`the end" of 19th Streets south-,of- Hight;,and Avenue - APN 202-2I1-36. I. PROJECT AND SITE,DESCRIPTION: A. Action 'Regu.ested: Approval of a subdivision, site plan, r x.' elevations, and issuance�•of a Negative Declaration. B. Project Oensit 5.4 •du/ac,N C. Surrounding Land.,.UGe^andiZon,ng: North - Vacant, iowljedium�:Residen"tia�lFD trict-(4-8 de/ac), South Vacant w�{th a recor••.ded Tract 11606; Low Reside tia1 D'iSArct du/ad) ; East Deer ,Creek ,Channeil,,*V}ictoria Planned,Community;.Flood. R. Co.trot District;d'Low Me"d:Tum arid 'Medium Residehtial District (4-14 d'u%ac) West Vacant, single ,family homes; Low Residential District (2-4 du/ac),-anKow Medium Restidenti?3 District (4-8 du/ac). , D. General Plan Designations: Project Site =tLow Nediuq Density Residential. North - Low MEd Density,Residential. ` t South Low Density'Res7dentiaMl. ; East Flood Control, •Vrctoria Planned Community; Low and _, r ' Low Mediumr.Density;Residenfii."a1: West Low Medium,DensitypResidentiai, Low Density .t 5 Residential. E. Site Characteristics,:' The site- is vacant and', slopes g• approximately .%t to- towards.the south Vegetatibn cons4i's` s of ind��genousr weeds. The southeasterly corner of, the situ within the Special Study Zone'or the Red Hill Fautht as shown Ink, Exhibits "B" I''C4 , and �D5 0 ,'r ITEM;D r 41 'p PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF ROPOR f TT 12952 - GLENFED t . April 9, 1986 ' Page 2 F F. Applicable Regulation:;: The Development Code perm" °single. family subdivisions at 5.4 du7ac undtr the Basic Devei�pment - Standards.< II. ANALYSIS: ct A. General: The pr.-oposed- development requires the_extenson of 9t�h St�.ree't to be connected to Highland Avenue which ultimately would become the proposed Foothill Freeway. The proposed lot sizes range4;from.5+'00 squarer feetsto. over 12;000 square feet fS= with an. avewage, loft siz6 of 6,:251 `square feet. The following is a breakdown �of the number of lots in each lot size category. Number of:lots, Lot Size (square footage) ' 96 -5,000 6,900 43 ` ' e`OOO 7,000_ 10 7,0,00 8,000 10 8,'000 10,000 410„000 '12.,000' The proposed elevation`s rohsist 3fa'four ;(4) floor plans with ' three (3j variations f4 each floor'plan. ,—d 1::ts of Single �k story and is 1,640 squarE feet -In slizelwhi , F any 2, 3, and 4 4� are of split Tevels and, rangesr O'bi 1,640 -to,*1;835 square; feet t, in size,.• All,elevations are:'provid`ed with the roofs and are 4 ' treated with`$a- var eiy ,of architectural featu&s :such as roof . line varitions;k ruingwalrls,: dorrrerss; .ar win ch dows, covered i walkways,to fra 064 °and,deep overhangs a" B. Desi n Review tammitteda' . 'The Deseign Review Committee',has �. reviswed`uathe prgoject-'ran has recommended' approval with .the following' improvements, be' made to the/project which. the developer agreed toy'. 1, Lots with higher., arade differential. than.thes*,ohes abutting those in thde•.rear should he plotted .with, i single stowynhouses.AtVshown''in Exhibit 2. Wherever-_feasible, side entry garages ol^ :reverse plotting should-fie ;provided to create streetscape;� visual 'interest. 3. Rear property ,lines',backing up to 19th_;Street x shall, coincide with varfab;lb landscaping setback- ' for future City,;mai lrtenance of the, landscaping a's:. 7 A_ shown,in EXh�b sat;�D3u-. 4. Lots 1, 12, 8,4j,, "171, 172, and 89 .should be providedwith pan entry theme, landscaping,' block; � € r.is ➢y� ' li.\1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF-REPORT TT 12952 - GLENFED a d Apri1711:, 198E Page ;r walls, and project identification. ` t 5. A decorative block wall with indentations for landscaa,ing should be provided along the entire k length of 19th Street. Detail designs should be i subject to Design Review Committee review and i approval. 6 Lots along both sides of Iryo- Place should "be r provided with t �same'consUtent,decorative block wall as-on 19th :sreet.; 7, The proposed pedestrian:.connection between Lots 12 and 13, ,and Lots 37 and 38 should be flaired out: at the ends (see Exhibits 1:D2 and 11D41%). 8. The proposed pedestrian connection at both,ends of the proposed ".r Avenue. shtiv��be dedicated to the 'City for future City maintenance (see Exhibits 11Q2" and 110411). 9. The .corner 'side of all corner lots should be. provided with -the same. decorative block wall material as used in the 19th Street perimeter wall. h .k = f 10. One, additional floor plan should be provided to create diversity of house plans and'subject'to the { Design Review process. f 11. The rear elevations for all lots thaV,back up to 19th, Street should be upgraded with additional architectural treatments. Further,''.the � entire corner 'side elevations .of corner lots and a y= portion of the side elevations of the interior dots with public street view sho6;id be upgraded with additional archit+ tural'treatrnents. f 12. Front yard landscaping be provided to Lots 12, 13,` 37, and 38 in order to be consistent'with the adjacent landscaping themes for the pedestrian connection. C. Undorgrounding Utilities: . Overhead utilities exist on the north"• 'side of Highland Avenue along the project frontagb,4i It. 'is recommended, that the devt�nper .Pay an` 1"�. r in liau :fee equivalent to"=one-half` of t��1; established= # cost for undergrounding be-lutili't es in i (e--future fors, the portion of the tract from "A Avenue to the east , tract boundary (600 linear feet).. p� J r. r 77 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT r TT 12952 - GLENFED April 9, 1986 } Page 4 'M D. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been complet@d by,��ne applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the "F Environmental Checkiist and has identified the following adverse environmental impauts. ,t 1 1. Noise. This project will be impacted by future highway noise from-the proposed Foothill :Freeway` i (i-210),north of this site. Mitigation. The, Noise Study recommends the `l +` followiftg'mfi't'igation measures.: a. A sound bar..rier,with'-varying heights of 8 feet; T to 10 feet and consisting'of ma .nry block wally' with. stucco.. over sha11 be required along the northern portion of 19th}Streetfrom proposed Avenue northeast to meet.Awith Highland ` Avenue;,ias shown in Exhibit l9C". b. A final accoustical`report.shall be required ai . i part of the final building ,plan check to ensure i compliance with the City and State interior noise level of 45.,CNEU 2. Red Hilt`, Fault',S e&ial Stud, Zone. Staff has identrf�ed' that. t .:,Wutheasterly corner' of the site ts*w,thzn.the-Speeii'T*,,I Study Lone:where 241ots (Lots..36, and 37)' avi actually tMs'zone as " shown in ^txhibit "D5". South of this project ;`r ' Tract- ,11606 ~*wh&e a geologic study has ,been _ completed, This geologic investigation'to' substantival eoverage, ',`with respect to actav f >' faaltingfor the portion of Tentative Tract 12952'' that 1AW"within ,the ` pecr`at`�Study Zone; This geologic!,-�_udy:-has beeil reviewed 'by' itsaGity_ " constr'ttant and figs been determined to,be;comp�l'ete and adequate which included that no e.V1debce for i active -Faultiriat on the site has been observed azarr recommends that an awarenessclayse be required in the final subdivis�ionrreport=irom the Department of °Real Estate °for & ;closure to prospective purithasers, of -Lots.36,,and, 37 that these 2 dots are withi.n'the-Special Study Zone. . . Based upon this review, s,,taff'has determined that the pr..000se project"` w.il1' not have a tignif;cant 'impact in this case because th—eL. ' a x ♦, ' b PLANNING COMMISSiON `STAFF EPORT ' TT 12952` -,,GLENOED S April 9, 1986 x � { Page 5 s mitigation measure described above has� e'l been added to-the project and the. Conditionsw.df Approval. Therefore, if the anning ICommission ? concurs with the findings issuance3of Negative Declaration would be aPProprate. k� R III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS:=; The project As consistent with the Gene r.-a��i� Plan and .. Development Code. The project, with the added ,mitigat;on measures, will not, a,be detrimental to the public health safety, cause nuisance Sir cause sigaificantr. r�+erse�e�i"r�ironmentdj impacts. . Id addition;.-'they pivoosed, use;•.::bui1dirrg F-desigh, ant site `plan, togethdr with the recommended' Conditions of Approv�1+ are in compliancewith the applicable' provisions of the Deveilopment God 4,jand Ci�t� Standards ,} IV. CORRESPONDENCE Th"ds item has l`beenadvertised'fin The 1)ai1_v Report ' newspaper `,pudic hearingnotices v`ere 'sent' to all the oroperty owners within 800" of the r dect°Viand a*U x:8"p p Public notif} ation sig�1 was �+ h Posted at the iMted f e deve�lopez• has•conducted .a serf '-A,6, neighborhood " meetings to inform the surrounding x iresidents erg the prop.�sed development. [he brief summary ,of,,the meet tner discussions,' and attendance sheet, is attached,for your revdew. f, V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recamm--nds that;the Planning 'Commiss4oh, issue a Negative Declaraffin and approval*-of Tentative Tract 12952 �th"rbugh the : adoption of the,:attached Resolution and Conditions of"A � "a Res ctfully submitted,' Brad Buller \ City Planner ' BB:NF:ko - Attachments: Exhibit "A" -Location Map Exhibit "B" Sitel.Utilization Map Exhibit "C" *TentatiV Tract Man. Exhibit+"U" - Detai 1 Site Plzn,, " x, Exhibit " "'- Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit "F" - Conceptual"Landscape Plar, Exhibit !'G!' - Drainage Plan Exhibit "H" Phas'ing Plan Including Street Improvements Exhibit "I" - Elevatia `s "J! - � 1 Exhibit ' - F]oor Plans f` , 'Exhibit -W! t- Ldcation of Sound Barrier AjK ' 4. � .,. Summary of Neighborhood Meetings Itit k-4tudy, Part 11 and Addend c um "�=: � Resolution ofr Appr Qal with Conditions. r ih'ra ■ 11 11 � .lrsrrr Nq / �r � `�1I%`�ii ♦ FC FC Cl r nirsss "jNll � ♦ •�. r r ziRon f .nip►: iri � Z=; � �i ♦ M1I ♦ ■rnni Woos ■inu ari�u i11u.e ■ / 16vA in Im ■ ■ t~ y tY n � v 71 f • '• .....r r '00: ON1833NION3•f'IVOVNVV. r ' CQ3 . CL zz liji LL I l a tip:. �• f l } t . _ Zp �" 0 Pi tq 77 ,p 5 ~r :1 •, 1'M .„11 )1AY •• - •••••« •••• '{� 9Xt833N1�N3,1YOYNr .J FT NI Lcoll ,.-,�' •,r' ,� may' I i �t All, fill D Il� ����� �b�} r,. ' ••'�, _ 77. IV '00 8NIH33NION3 270VNV { 14 NL CL cm I P Mn r >. "t. I ma wi. w 'OD ON NION3.'IV�7NV tj Ail tj Tj I N ' - to t= Q < cn a c /�\\ is `��r f ►Y FAM .. _� 1.- 'OD. UNI L'33NI9N3„"Ivo NY as• .... {py _ I i9 � `. 2�•• .yi� � •.- �., .... -... a� ��±sR+ 'rye k h Y tj in E:-a Who . �� -s+ ."` ate. •. �� `. .�.�Y'_ wo '03 'DN1833NI'VN3 -Jb3YNV. & 1 CM ,} Q lb S' �./ ...� .low, a N N ',: U,ui r. � Og Z s EL �. Z `o ' wE,, , N p Po r.. �— iP l h ti`' '••� - _. '. '00 ON]N33NI�N3`1tl9tlNY v .f 9 Allk r / - a LA s wNo W .�_OWN �. IIIN w d ••• ••• %_••• ,• 'O� '�Nl1133Nl�M3 'lYDt7HO - .. -. �,�� Syr' � — : 8 ���•y�. �`��.J V w � y �k� � Y y f• 'S Z z ._. ! N va»�'�• - F 3Qs!S t s _ F fi. r P r -� � ell � ( SSr �/• /�.i1;. k or f i 40 AMk 1 CITY OF MIND RANCHO 7OIrGA T rr Eg PLANNING DArSO et EXHIBIT � 'f M.; 1�.�di�vd��. d.'���.• .Yi 1l�. _ _ r ..I.b.mld'1�.e f. 5 r ^ '•^ •'••• ••' '•^ ' •.• •• '00 9NItl33N19N3• IVOtlNtl z� r�� \ ;; •li.. '�` j+, s`a ._,,._may.. - � •'- .. \\e.. fd _fit; { i�pp� •` g �lp ---. -.. �- 4 J Z ti N Z 3< +w ci 0 0 �,1 f— a ty I sr• ;` �. �"_ ��- Z ! Ill 1' -J4 ° ')L• � t � 't z ,W� ! � E_TI ,V . �1 ' �N12133N1�N3;,1EIRE A 1 W F k e { ( N C4`^ ly. > i ���www111 1 � ��\�� �, �� � � � .° I � i r 4•fit �� \ ' ` V- ! lL7aP� +L N r Nod �! LI IX _ N '03 rJIUMNION3I,-IVOVNV - to Vjf LO , t • 1 f , e • � v lccW k . oi� o Z �LIM'` � �'9' � 'MrZS '►�" �'it• i U P� e ti Q5 � Q \ E N 1 e v e ❑ .W_ IA < 3 < a ..� x, < d a r U6 ` I i t J(D 0 Q k 7, a -aa , V yy r Y „ 3 • {CI • � �''''EFS I �p is 00 AZ c � r�:_'�� ♦ � 'RRum�p' ' fur 100 a rt T..T •��rr lit i�i.i tyu M , d r—u� �}-=--�•-- •oa 9aja��w��wg �gvra�° � ,...i m ' r � �i� ? et , '• r� �bTd��` �1 _ i�ts-.+i ir 14 LM i .-+ "lit3 i j b r'. � �. _ iIIQ I.v.ssY �.'W .��qi�•�. 4.21 +3.� :�"� �>�.;, � �� �k—,,�' �� «: ` ?w».,."rat'ic'.tt.��•�Cs.}>'k ae"� _ 17 13NJU33NION3,iV77Nt MOM- Am if 31 S ' Ol, - - t L .' 6:I �: b '♦ a �_ --��.. ��35 yj Ji h i�" P , l°iSk� to v i�I r VAM z ' ° o '� Q .. \ �. C F t - 4 ° L er} evil ; " a s v au cs�- 4-3 IA b 4- r tn It, u 4 SJ G N O 041 ID i 4J 4j to �'4 y EM VJ C!, L--. O p s--.r, to le O r 4J C.) N- O U Ill �. • Q. ; ; - �,It 44.. C to to rou�xx.. ,k �c U�e cu M,cu. t { Sn�I i WIII�.•t �T A a=v c v m 67 p s.s ratl to c lu C Z4i tq H o ro t. ® !o 4w cn 41 ti n 1 = to Z 44 D CL^ 14 +da `rF > ]4pLLt11jK�1' ill�I > Q = o 44 , 41 O �F a-a ro� Ls4- p C) L ar ,�, rro�Ni •SJr U..A �- sro�s % roc _ t2 )) c ll LL 4 •LL� ., S Y�i 3 } y�T 3i� r aj•N CA tn 1 CL rodtn =r b S— _ ba �I ® S C L g 1 j � U3In �� . El' `` +'. Z Z_ cts Rt Q7 rr�'y•r r 55-Id 3- Os.1 N QSBN F, t vYtY, c` Y. •.� _"mow . \ O-Z�! lz IL '� �• a I, illl _: � .. J d I j �l'ljg"'T�l �1'Igi i.li 11 �ti•�h,t! 4J �•� to L� N�C:• �. h o > g CA e O41 E10 rtN,�Ei'.i Yto— Y H Ea :t2 'I"I O U � - •oy Z }7 N r L Vin rc � ti i ,r�, R•s. r3 r t`�t `�'Y• :.,�_,�a�C'N N ry :-fie` "�' � '" S� :;"5r .., -�.,-y�r. .r.- ,�•' °'a3 z r �. a t- F •■Or +a� O O Y� .P � y■y fl 2C ,� 0. � 2 LU ,4- P � " C3 O c� r� � a - l,tea� p +uu► � �.,1(` ��4 G • } � Rom,,. — — `;i =a L1 y c s _ t i 6q a �p s� � u two LW 10 Arjj �a • 1�1 IIM�i ra• ' • TT, _ ^•��.,_ 'QO flHJ1133NI�N� 1YOd ...I W st. l i Zin -� tom•=,. IQ`bTM :iikr x Y� ,a LAWRENCE a. BLISS *' PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT 6634 Carnelian Avenue i Rancho Cucamonga. "California 91701 s (714) 989-4012 June 28. 1985 MS. NANCY FLING CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION CS Q320 Baseline 'Road P-Ancho Cucamonga, California 91701 SUBJECT: Neighborhood homeowners meeting of Mango Street and, Gala Avenue concerning Tentative Tract #12952' (Glenfed Davelopim6nt) and Tentative Tract. #11606 (Barclay-Tae)'rvpproved for'277 lots (7.200 S.F.Lots) 'r Dear Nancy; Thanks to Mary and Geor"i'lodds, I ;;mr t,icipated;l in a very wolf attended homeownerf,_4rsetin% concerning t,4o proposed development of the Highland-Haven property b,r 04"nfed Development Coxlpany. This developnent' .ls Tentative Tract number 12952 and Vie pro3ect name is -Village Glen,". Also participating in ....the meeting were the following homeowners: (r. Mary & George Dodds (.5) Lore & Gary Gagnon 6709 Mango Street 6736 Mango Street °y Alta Lame, Ca. 91701 Alta Loma. Ceti. 91701 989-3752 98 =Oc95 (2) tie & John De Mario (6) David & Angela Lougheed 10699 Ga-la AV-snus 671g Mango Street Alta Loma. Ca. 91701 Alta Loma. Ca. 91701 980-6480- 9d7-8388 iL (3) Doug & T.C. BonC (71 Dave & Ale Eaton 6744 Mango Street 6759,11ango Street' '? Alta Loma. Ca. 91101 Alta Loma, Ca. 9i701 908-6189-:, 980-9477 (4) Lynda & Phil Giller (8) Dennis & 'ring Mairy 6716 Mango Street 6724 Mango Street �- A14a Lama, Ca. 91701 Etlta Lome, Ca. 91701 T. 980-3616 j_ 980-1096 ut t, w( 1 •-6�V ic r During the meeting we conducted a general discussion of the proposed "Village Glen" 0evolopment and I stated the AOL following facts tO the homeowners: U) The proposed project contains approximately 7 units per acre while the home development they live contains approx ,mmtely 4 uryits per acre. "Village Glen" is a bi-tic+er density development. {2) "Vill,age Glen" is a walled in private community with private streets, two recreational area and over 13% open space. (3) Storm drains would hopefully soon be installed approximately 125, from the aa�it wall of their development to further protect their homes. (4) Wa discussed the square footages of the proposed homes with the small unit being one story of e:pproximately 1100 aqu&re feet. We also discussed three other proposea homes elevations with the largest having a square fsotage of approximately 1.700 square feet. We bk:`efly examined the floor plans and the elevations of the proposed homes. I stated that the homes would have concr-3te the roofs and other quality construction features. I notified all attending that all of the above is just a proposal and that there will be a public hearing schedule presently for July 24th before the : Planning Commission. They were informed that. a notification w5uld be sent to their homes oC the meeting time Ina d-its and :.Ziat they could come to the meeting and voice „hei'r`'concerns about the proposed top.,eIoprent if they have any .� pointed out that: should the Pik-Aning Commission approve the projpwct and they have furth<i.: concerns, that they could appeal, to, the City Council. One of the homeowners pointed out that. -:Village Glen" is a private walled in community snd.that he felt 3t 4+ould cause no problems for their neighborhood, ?'.sod part of the meeting was take s :up with preset t problems s:itt. .'.air development such. e-a the storm drain that flows into their ttrect anra drainage ,and,insect problem at the and of 13ala Avenue gs it flow& into the open £iPld of "tract 11606. I gill d avuss, wi:.:h our City Enginean .Lloyd H?abbe, the p064:ibili.Ly of diverting thin storm waters, from the housing tract aurae 19th street (Lecss Holmes) I?y building a smull storm drain down Ring Aver-,us to the new rsN lIns to be built to tha east of their homes runn.'.g from H-ghland Avenue to Deer Creek channei. Then we could ' :lose tee, p_esent batly planned County appr.ved storm drain which .`lows into their. neighborhood.. I feel at ;I.,the time the new 4N line is constructed that ,perhaps I can also solve the drainage and insect. problem at the and oz 0*1a Aver.ue. L z� P� e h r f- A good part of the meeting concerned the approved Tentative Tract number 11606. The major concerns were: (1): The diffa;rence in pad elevations of the homes to be constructed (behind their homes) and the present elevations of their homes. "T,,ey do not want homes behind them up in the air looking down on them. I informed them that these pad elevations had not been established at this,time and that I as well as the planning staff would make sure that. we Flo not have a problem in this area. , (2) Thoy wera,concerned about the quality and the size. of the homes to be constructed behind them. I informed them that all the indications that I have " received from the developer, Barclay-Tae, these homes would be very ,similar. . to their homes in size and quality. (3) I pointed out to them that Barclay-Toe is approved as a custom lot subdivision and that only the land planning, (street.: lot sizes etc.) has been approved. The actual elevations of the homes to be constructed in Tract 11606 must be approved: by the City at a future date. I informed tFku that they have a right to comment to the City rI'll the design and actual lot Placement (sisals :�x,,ory or two sLorv) and Pad elevations of thesee homes prior to the start of construction.: (All such comments should be addresued City of Rauc,7ho 1,ucamonga,. Planning, Division, Nancy Fong, 'fanner. 9320 Baseline Road, Telephone number 989-1 51). I suggest that prior to the approval of the lot (pad) elevations and the hcme elevations on phase G or Tract 11606, that another neighborh od meeting be conducted between the City planning staff, the developer and these homeowners to inform the homeowners of exactly what will be built behind their homes on a lot to lot basis. I Celt the homeowners want to see their are developed and II finished with qualitity homes .to protect their present property values and the quality of the life styles they presently enjoy in their neighborhood. They are a very cooperative and willing group to work with and I feel we should keep them informed of any changes that take place in their area. I have made a commitment to do so. Sin ^ ely Yours, rry B 'as ` CC• o..ownerrs` ••Mr. Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer Mr. J.D. Ustic, V,P, Glenfed Development Company Mr. Men Patterson, V.P. Barclay-Tac ' , Mr, { T CITY OF MXHO CUCA-40116A FART 1I - INITIAL STLiDY E.'YIRONMIENTA-, CHECKLIST` DATE; APPLIMMTe FILING EDAM ;AFS 'LOG NUMBER: ,. PROJECT: /? iAl fi fid�/t!4{i, L rt PROJECT LOCATIQY: -A��i lft� I_ EQVIRONXZf NTAF IMPACTg (Explanation of a21 "yes" and "maybe"- answers are required on attached r' sheets). '} YES MAIHE NO 1. Soz] and Geology. Will the proposal have 3 Significant results in: a. 'Unstable ground conditions ol, 3n changes it geologic relationships? L b. Disruption,*;. disoiacements, compaction or burial of the coil?` C. _Change in topography or grounu surface contour intervals? w d. The destruction,`,covering or modification s,. f„ of any unique geologic or physical features? P a e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g. Exposure of people or property to,geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or•similar hazards? h. An increase in the rate of „traction and/or ` use of any mineral resource? N 2. Hydrology. Will the proposal"have significant resn`ts in: 4 - , Page 2, YES MAYBE \,0 a. Changes in,currents, or the course of direction Of flowing•streams,`rivers,, or ephemeral stream channels? b. Changes in absorption _rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water ' runoff? C. Alterations to the course or f]-o of flood waters? a• Change in-the amount of surface water in any body Of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? f. Alteration of groundwater;characteristics? g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, . either through direct additions .or with-- drae+als, or through interference with an - aquifer? Quality?' Quantity?h. The reduction in the amount of water other- f wise available for public water supplies? I� I. Exposure of people or property to water r o related hazards ,such as flooding or seiches? j.' 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 applicable air gvality standards? C. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? 4. Biota _ Flora. Will the proposal have significant results In. ., a, a. Change in the characteristi:;s of species, q including diversity, distribution, or number ' - of any species• of'plants? t Iry $ b . Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare 3 fo endangeraed r species of plants? kit' efkt0" 'age`3 t YES }r4Y E \0 c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of Plants into an area? d. Reduction in the potenti,,l for agricultural ` production? Fauna. Will the proposal-have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, s including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare-. or endangered specie% of animals? C. Introduction of Dew or disruptive species of animals into a" ..rea, or result in a barrier t s� to the migration or movement of Animals? ri d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 5• Povulation, Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the prorc,aj Ater the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of V the human Population of an area? b. Will the proposal affect existing hous:.ng, or create a demand for additional housing? 6. Socio-Economic Factors. . Will the proposal have significant results in: a• 4hange in local or regional socio-economic characteristics, including economic or fv commercial diversity, tax rate, anc' property values? b. Will project costs be Li tably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, .' tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and Plannine Considerations. Will the a proposal have signiit:.71E results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, Policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? V c< :An impact upon the gulaity or quantity a£ existing coi,!swaptive or'non�-consumptive rdcreational,r,onportGunities? �' •,atj« "'�,.:�, E.' "� r K, ,fixY� 'gage 4 YES :L4Y3r NO _8. Transportation. Will. the . + Tesults in:. proposal have significant a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular' movement? �• P b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for s _ _ . new street construction? v c. Zffects on existing parking facilities,_or r demand for new parking? ..33E r 1 d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta' tion systems? t e. Alterations to present patterns of circula— tion or movemene of people and/or' goods? ? f. Alterations to or effectson present and potential water—borne, rail, t:.ss, transit or air traffic? ,r g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,; r bicyclists or pedestrians? p 9. C:_=ral Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: t a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, 4 paleontological, and/or historical resources? 3.0. Health. Safety, and Nuisance Factors. Will the { proposal have significant-results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health Fhazard? ., b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? c. A risk of explosion or release ofhazardous substances in the event of an accidN.nt? d. An increaae in the number of _ndividuals- or species of vector or pathenogenic organism_ o% the exposure-of people to such } f organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? g. The creation of objectionable odors? i yak; q.� h,. An increaae in light or glare? Ie- YES MAYBE %,o ' e e.; Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable,or scarce natural resource? 14. Mand�tory Findings of Siificance. a. Does the project have the potential to dQc'rade the„qualitq of the environment, 'substaRtially +� reduce the habitat of fish or, wildlife species.; cause-a fist'., or wildlife populapion to, drop below self ' sustaining levels.; ffireaten`to e3iminate a plant or animal communitY, reduce < the number o; restrict the range of a rare ov - r endangered plant:ar anuaa�lx;ar el3minzte impo;,tart examp�les.1;of the major periods of California history qr.prehistory? k b.. Does he project have,the+potentiafl to,.achieve ,~ short.-term, zo'the.-disadvant`"age,of long-;tezpy, , environmental goal's? (A''.short;-.tern impact?on'.the environment, one which occurs in a reiativbly t brief, defin2•tive period of t-ime while.'long- t term mpact5'-wall endure Vell Into the future), Does the project,have impacts whicK apse individually limited, k)uC cumulatively ±� considerable?* (Cumulatively considP'rable ' means that the irciemental•effects of an individual pr,oject'!ere considerable when;viewed andcoee,tior_with�'Fhe effects of-past projects,i Probable'future�proleceil d Does the project havewcenvionm'An tat effects which will cause substau}�- l--a'-dverse'"effects on human beings, either directly or ,indirectly? `, E U. DISCUSSION of EMIRO... L..,-AL EVAZtJATTON the above.questions plug a.discussion of(proposed mitig�,ation me'asures). n hY Via x t+` xis: a .l * Page 5 YES uaYnE 24o 11. Aesthetics. Will tha'proposal have significant results in: ? a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? �{ b. . The creation of an aes site2 thetically offensive f' r _ V c. A conflict.with the objective of designated or potentleal:scenicI corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following; a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? c. Communications systems? d. Water supply? {[ 0. Wastewater facilities? V_ / f.; hood control structures? — g. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? i. Police protection? J. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? s 1.. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? m.. Other governmental services? 13. Enerev 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? �sr f c.- An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? d. Ait increase or perpetuation of the consumption . of non-renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? it •�r s T Fs • T7, ?I rpq Paged , ,. III. NIA-TION On the basis of this initial evaluation. M ClI find the proposed 'project COULD NOT have a significant; effect on,the environment, and a NEGX,TIVE DECLARATION will.be Prepared. 4: I find that although the Proposed project could have a significant o f effect on the'environment, there will not be a significant effect �'- -in this case because the nitigati0.4 measures described on,an attached sheet have been added to the' a , the DECLARAT L project_ A NEGATIVfiFj PRARED.- I find;the proposed project *LAY_ ha a: sign ^ican.t fzec on the envirnment; and a.ENVIRO?IMT I A X:.REPORt`-i's quit ,s t � a Date a >_ L r S''gnaturd '? • .` Title. a '' sf s , , i . �. � yr• l Y�� 'A 5' a. 3 X. . ADDENDUM TO INITIAL STUDY,, PART II TT 12952 1. Soils and Geology (q) The southern east corner of the site is within the Special Study Zone of V.,e Red Hill Fault where 2 lots (lots 36 'and 37) are actually within this zone as shown in Exhibit "W' South of this project is Tract 11606 where a geologic study has been completed recently. This geologic investigation for TT-11606 also provides subservice coverage with respect to active faulting for the portion of Tenative Tract 12952 that lies within the Special Study Zone. This geologic study has been reviewed by the City consultant and has been determined to be complete and adequate which included that no evidence for active faulting on the site has been observed. Attached is the conclusions and recommendations of the Geologic Study 'for TT 11606 'which covered TT. 12952. Staff recommends that an awareness clause-be required in the final subdivision report from the Department of Real Estate for disclosure to prospective purchasers of tots 36 and 37 that these 2 lots are within the Special Study Zone. Also, a soil study that addresses the recommendations of the Geologic Study 'For TT 11606/TT12952 shalfl be required and shall be submitted for rep and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Hydrology (g) The construction of this project will increase the amount of paved surface area which could result in an increase in the amount of surface water runoff and a decrease in the absorption rates. HoWaTe_r, the proposed drainage system for this project will handle this Increase (see attached Exhibit "Cl'9, 4. Biota (a), (b), LLCI The development of this project required the planting of new street trees at the rate of l tree per 20 linear feet of all street frontages. '(his will result in adding diversity of plant spaces to the site. 8. Transportation a The development of this project will cause an increase_ in vehicular traffic; however, 19th Street being a secondary street is designed to handle such increase. 10. Health, Safety, and Nuisance?actors (f) Noise: This project will be impacted by future highway noise from the proposed Foothill Freeway (I-210) north of the site. A noise study had been done per the requirement of the General Pla, and has provided the following mitigation measures: a) A sound barrier with varying heights of 8 feet to 10 feet shall ba required along the northern portion of 19th Street from "k' Avenue to a Highland Avenue. �a b) A final acoustical report to provide mitigation measures YUr interior . noise reduction (45 CNEL) in compliance with Title 25 Standards shall be required, _yk s °" Lawrence O. Bliss Tract no. 1606 , February 10, 1986rM �` Pro ect No- 2233 No large water ttorage reservoirs are located topographically higher than the site in the immediate area, therefore, seismically induced flooding is not considered to be a potential hazard to the proposed development at this time. CONCLUSIONS No evidence for active faulting on the site was observed during the geologic field reconnaissance, aerial photograph review or subsurface investigation. • Therefore, ground y+ , ruptur due to surface faulting through the site is :not expected during the lifetime of the proposed structures (next 160 years) A Tentative Tract 12952 is located immediately north of Tentative Tract 11606. The southern boundary of Tentative Tract 12952 is coincident with the, northern boundary of v Tentative Tract 11606. This ` investigation provide �� subsurface coverage with respect to active faulting for that . portion of Tentative 'Tract 12952 that lies within the special studies zone associated with the Red Hill fault. This investigation is intended to. satisfy the requirements of the City of Ra,.cho Cucamonga with respect to evaluating seismic hazards on the site and the southern adjacent portion of Tentative Tract 12952. Moderate to severe seismic shakiml of the site can be 'expected within the,next 100 years. ' Liquefaction and other shallow ground-water related hazards are not expected, as the ground-water table is estimated to be greater than 50 feet bel-w the surface. The extreme eastern portion of the site lies within a Potential flood zone as shown on the San Bernardino County Hazard Management Map of the San Bernardino County General Plan (1974). Evidence Ror relatively recent flooding (wI.-thin . the past several hundred years) was observed during olthe geologic field reconnaissance and on the aerial photographs reviewed. Earthquake induced' flooding of the site does not appear likely` because no above ground reservoirs that could ' catastrophically fail as the result of a large earthquake p . ;¢ GARY B RA$DGUB$�N do ABSOC:ZLTFCt 7 ' ;Lawrence O. Bliss _Tract,,No. 11E06 Project No. 2233 February 10.- 1986 j G ,r y i 7 are in the immediate vicinity. Surficial materials on the site are considered to be Aw, moderately susceptible to'erosion;'by water. x RECOMMENDATIONS + A Richter magnitude 6..5 earthquake is expected along the Cucamonga kiult, approximately 2 1/2 miles 'north of the site, therefore, we recommend human occupancy ,structures be designed accordingly. Positive drainage of the site should be provided, and runoff, should not be allowed �o flow over cut or 'fill slopes in such a way as to cause-.erosion. % The potential for flooding within the major drainages and the adequacy of the existing flood control measures in the area should be evaluated by the project engineer.The maximum inclin;-elion or ahl cut 'slopes should be-- horizontal to 1 vertical. ry' The trench backfill- was` flooded and wheel-rolled. The`-- adequacy of the backfill with, respect to foundation loads and zossible future settlement should be evaluated by the soils engineer. Bill may also occur on the site associated with the removed structures, previous agricultural use of +fie the property, abandoned dump sites, and construction. 'of the tj flood control channel. All on-site fill* should be addressed by the soils engineer. Respectfully submitted, ?? GARY S. RASMU SEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Wessly A. Reeder Project °Geologist Gary}8' Rasmussen R °� Enga 4ering Geologist, EG-:925 Y4 , '" �,�. '.s`af z ° �Ci,lARY 3�EtJA9'X2IJflS�fi7 ds-A980CZATE9 ,�,�' '", VV INDEX MAP ` 11.E Gary S.-Rasmussen 6•Aasoclateaa Inc: ��`�� �•� ` Larry Bliss - Tentative Tract 11606 �\ r w�tL S.� Rancho Cucamonga, California �•�t Base map:- USES 1"=2000' scale —� t3 A BERNARDINO v y li Cucamonga Peak 7.5 minute Quadrangle r1 `` TIN RaW Sec. 6 ' Oft � ~ �- 0 2000 4000ie. .�,.� s Project No. 2233 t ZCMII kit jaw 1400 MIN Yt ral cn.tt.TT '•�`—•''� n C11 AMR 3 . CITY OF 0AMCHO CUCAMONGA r SPECK' ,�: _ �i'UDY ZONE •� Q OaQlny, . .. ^r+2'Y•!n�~ — N ". �SA 7Al jr 1. 36} SITE LOCATION RN 'Grape) n � _ ir...s•...rl...u. .�t Gary S. Rasmussen 6 Associa, t. Inc. 1,•> r -IA- ' � t5-- AIR> LOt(.NES GEOLOGIC S9,VICES ` �rr The Arboretum V ,t8002 Shy Park Circle 651 S.Hudson avenue I"ne,CA,927-14 Pasadena,CA-37105 4714) 250-0358 %,, (818) 449:6082 FEB c)Y l08 i City of Rancho Cucamonga !"-- F�liruary, �7, 1986 9320 Baseli.ne Road, Suite C �[ l�a?;ls; [lt`4'f�[`1lFkair ary, 1169 P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attention: Nancy, F6gg Associate Planner SOBJECI- Geologic Review of Subsurface Engineering Geologic Investigation of for Tefative Tract No. 11606 by Gary S. Rasumussen & Associates =+ REFERENCE; Subsurface Engineering Geology Investigation of Tentative Tract No. 11606, Southeast of The Intersection of Highl'and Avenue And Haven Avenue, Immediately West of The'Deer Creek Flood Control channel, Rancho Cucamonga, CA; Report ,by Ga7y S. Rasmussen. & Associates, dated February 10, 19,'s (Project No. 2233).., Gentlemen: Lownes Geologic Services, (LGS)- has completed at your request, a review of the € subject geologic report (Reference 1). The report, prepared by Gary Rasmussen & Associates was prepared, to satisfy the requirements of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (The City)-Public Health and Safety Super-Element provisions related to the Red Hill fat-it Special Studies Zone. In addition, the report was reviewed for compliance with the State of California Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone to determine if the;conclusions and recommendations set forth in the report are consistant with these -equirements. Further, the repdrt outl'i;nes potential flood hazards relative to the site. It must be understood that per,-jnnel from LGS were not present du►Vig the investigation or the trench excavations nor were stereo-pair aerial photographs 'available for this review. Therefore, the conclusions of LGS ace bases onfamiliarity with the site, a visit to the site, discussions with Rasmussen, and City planning staff, review of pertinent literature and review of the subject report. " It is the opinion of LGS that the 1report meets the standards set forth in the 'City General Plan documents (relating to seismicity as well as that of :,,he State sc of California Alquist-Prialo Special Studies Zone Act of 1972 (Calif. Div. Mines& Geology Special Publication, 42. revised March 1980). a It is recommended that the City accept iiie report. x t3_ 19 111--W...y.'r^.. ;_ r71.'^"?.+r�+* 5�+;;:: .` .`"Tai y M City of Rancho Cucamonga February 27, 1986, Page Two t � If LGS may be of any further assistance in this matter please do not hesitate do call. Respectfully submitted, t4 LOWNES GEOLOGIC SERVICES :v By: Richard E. Lownes E.G. 106 6 f REL:jd' k a 10 J x a RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION�OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO 0XAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12952 r ; WHEREAS, Tentative"Tact Map No. 12952', hereinaftd'�i "Map" submitted by Glenfed Development Co., aVp'lfc'ant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of CAT, described-as a residential subdivision and design review _- .- of abcut 3.4 acres of =land; -located--at the end of 19th -Street,= south or" Highland Avenue into 172 lots, regularly came before he Planning Commission public hearing an for p g d action on April 9, 1986 and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map and subject to all conditions set'forth. in the Engineer°ng and Planning Division's u reports; and - WHEREAS, the Planning. Commission' has read; and considewed the Engineering and Plannini,DiVision's reports and has. coni,_dered other .evidence presented at the publi&_earing NOW, THEREFORE, , th' Planning. Commission of the City of Rancho ! Cucamonga does resolve as follows: _ SECTION 1: The Planning .Commission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative, Tract No. TT.12952 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with thu General Plan, Development Code, `-d specific plans; (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the, General Plan, Development Code, k.l and specific'-Tans; (c) Tha site is physically suitable for the type of + 4 development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is .not likely to 'cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health )iroblems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large; now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision; , f IU RESOLUTION NO. 71 TT 12952 GLENFEO April"51, 1986 a Page 2 i is tg) That this'project with the added mitigation measures will not creaW adverse impacts on the Environment and a Negative Declaration is-issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 12952 and Design Review thereof, a copy of wh—ich is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions` Design Review: 1.. Lot 87 shall be 'plotted with single-story home, while Lots 86'.and 164 shall be plotted with 2-story house. 2. To further the City's.,.policjr.for variety residential development within this Low Medium Residential District,, the developer_shall, work with staff in plotting side entry garages on some lots within 'this' tact. Revised elevations, as the .result of a garage house plan, shal. 5e submitted for the City Planner's review and approval. # 3. Rear property lines backing up to' 19th Street shall be adjusted to d coincide with the variable landscaping setbacF; fop future City maintenance of the landscaping, Further,-a decorative 'Mock wall with indentations for landscaping shall be provided along the entire length of 19th Street, Detailed designs shall be subject to Design, Review Committee review and approval prior to the submitting for plan chick. This same detailed design shall be included in the detailed landscaping and irrigation plan and shall be submitted to Planning D ,,ision for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Lots along both ; -f Inyo`Placi_ shall be provided with the same decorative block w ,,,atment-as along 19th Street. 5. Lots 1, 12 84, 171, 172, and 89 shall be provided with an entry theme, landscaping, block walls, and project • identification. Detailed plans shall be submitted for City Planner review- and approval prior to submitting for plan check. Such detailed plans shall also be included in the detailed landscaping and irrigation plan and shall be submitte-` for Planning Division review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 6. The prop^sed pedestrian connection between Lots 12 and 13, and Lots 4i 37 and 38 shall be flaired out at the ends. Spectral landscaping l treatment, pedestrian walkway, and adequate lighting and other pedestrian facilities shall be provided within the pedestrian connection. Detailed plays shall be submitted for City, Planner.+ i review and approval prior to submitting for building plan check. 7. The proposed pedestrian connection at both ends of the proposed "0' ' Avenue.,shall be dedicated :to the City for future City waintenance. fi � $ .Y RESOLUTION NO. TT 12952 - GLENFED April 9, 1986 Page 3 8. The cirncr side of all of the corner lots within the tract shall be provided with the same decorative i'S"k wall: material as along 19th Street. Typical details sh,il be included in the detailed landscaping and irrigation plan, and shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 9. One a&, Z' floor plan shall be provided to create a diversity of house plans and shall be, subject to the Design Review Committee review and approval -prior 'to issuance of 'building permits for Phase II. K 10. The rear elevations for all lots that backup to 19th Street shall be upgraded, with additional architectural treatments. Further, the entire corner side elevations of, corner lots and a portion of side elevations of the interior lots, with public streete view shall be upgraded viith additional architectural treatments. T�ae revised elevations shali be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to submitting plan check. 11. Front yard landscaping shall be provided to Lots 12 13, 37, and 38 in order to be consistent with the adjacent landscaping theme for the , pedestrian connection. Detailed plans shall be included in the detail landscaping and irrigation plan and shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval. prior to issuance of building permits. 1". A sound barrier with varying heights ranging from 81 to 10' shall be provided along the northern portion of 19th Street from the proposed ^1" Avenue' northeast to Highland Avenue. The sound barrier shall be designed as a combined decorative block/sound wall, consistent with Condition No. 3. A combination of berming and walls may be used to r'. achieve required height. 13. A final accousticai report to provide' mitigation measures for interior noise reduction complying with Title 25 Standards (45 CNEL) shall be submitted far 'review and approval prior to issuance, of building permits. 14. An awareness clause shall' Se included in the final subdivision report from the Department of Real Estate for Lots 36 and-37 for disclosure to the prospective purchaser of these lots that the subject property is located within the Special Study Zone. 15. All lots shall be provided vith 15' usable rear yard per City Grading Standard. 16. Perimeter masonry block wall shall be provided along the entire length of the eastern property boundary and the southern property t boundary. 17. Where the height of a combination retaining and block wall exceeds' 6' '_ . to a maximum of 91, a 3' minimum planter shall be provided to,break up`he height of the block wall'. F p cs3 w , - RESOLUTION NO TT 12952 - GLENFED April 9, 1986. Page • , 18. The temporary block wall at the end ,of proposed B Place, a, Piace and "D" Court shall be, submitted for Design;Review Committee review and approval prior to recordation of map or prior to issuance of buildng permits which ever comes first. 19. A soils study,.that addresses the recommendations of the Geologic e Report #2233 for TT 11606ITT 12952 shall be prepared and submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of budding permits. F 1: With Phase I develo�4nent, the developer shall construct a portion of a�. Master Plan Storm Drain Line 4. i from the north side of 19th Street to the south at the north licat of Tract No. 12950, Z. The developer shall cor5-truct a portion of Master Plan Storm Drain Line 4-P from the north side of 19th Street to Deer Creek Channel for Phase II or sooner, if required to protec_ Phase I as determined by the City Engines. 3. The levelsper shall construct interim drainage facilities to include but not limited to training. dikes, channels, and desilting basins as AOL required to protect the project by Phase from off-site floors as determined by the City Engineer. 4. The developer shall be eligible for reimbursement for the cost, of Master Plan Storm Drain Lines 4-N-and 4-P in accordance with the City Ordinance 75. 5. Tentative Parcel Map No. 8787 shall. be recorded prior to or concurrent with the first tract final map. 6._ Improvements of 19th Street shall be provided as follows: A. Phase 1., 1. Portion along phase boundary. a. Construct south 1/2 strrft-improvements. b. An additional 181 hide pavement north of center line of, 19th Street as -shown in Exhibit 114". .y 2. P,prtion from east Phase I limit to meet existing ;w Highland Avenue. , a. Construct a 36' wide pavement centered on the street centerline. b Construct the pavement for the Highland t Avenue connection to 19th Street.. r RESDLU'�`IDN a +"ND;. _ TT 12952 - GLENFED, April 9, 1986` Page 5 C. Construct portion of storm line '4-P across %Pth Stteet , .k d.'`'Construction.pavpmen '.transitions•:ds required by the C- $y Eng:i•rreer t-rr SR move Xcess portions of Higiir�� pavert�ents�• . .. � � � 3. Phasf: LI - = - 'r( h qr 1. Construct fuT 1/2 street improvemeists along ° tract boundr."y. ; 2. Construct.tfiefull `ntir'tl , /2 street improvements , from the Hidghffand Avenue connection to the east x ' boundary 3., Construct.` full- street M impr-_ovements far "ths: Highland ;Avenue aonnee + from 19th Street to the end of Curve meeting the exist;n Highland= Avenue.. 4 4. Construc�:. landscap1*- i h-, Parce] A of Parcel :1. No 8787"or_J y in-'lieu fee if sai"�i.'Parcel:A is'. required: tot.be used as a interim desil i'I " :basin. ' C. The above .requirements steall be consids-red_a minimum. subject to the approval.-af Caltrans: 7. Secondary access -shall be provided •for °E" Street as requilred. by the- Fire Department. 8. The small portion .parcel's at the eastend of "D". Court"sha•11 be removed F,s yfram the tract;and added to the property to the east by a 'lot line adjustment phior to; recordation 6f Phase I:I Or 46d' ted,-as �• street right-of-way on the fir'al map. 9. The developer shall P'e pay a °-fee in-lieu of underground,; ex7sti6 overhead utilities along the .north side of Highland Avenue iram, om uA "? Avenue to east tract boundarye'prior to recordation of Phafe`IY 4' The fees shall be 1/2 of the front foot cost to be held-for contributions towards to the future undergroundinq of the lines within the project Area. ; d sn .* 1 `� RESOLUTION NO, TT 12952 - 6LENFED April 9, 1986 Page 6 'APPROVED -AND ADOPTED•,THIS 9th O,Y OF APRI:,, 1986. PLANNING*'6 *iSSI�'ON;OF THE CITY OF'RAL!^,HO. CuL'ni�IONGA R BY• ,f ✓,� E} Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Brad u., er, eputy,Secretary ° ;s I; Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary: of the Planning Commission .of the City ,of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby; cert�fyk.that the foregoing Resolution was,:'dull>y and regularly introduced, passed, andi ad ,fed by the, F1anni ing Comm�ssiol of the ;�• City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning`Commission Held ' on the 9th day of April, `1986, by Ahe followjng vote-to=wit; ' AYES: _ COMMISSIOMERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS:. ABSENT: COMMLSSIONERS: a , rt wu 4. , y tb s �0 day COA _ �nqo 'Q)Of w c dO CL'N i`. c.I•.d.a ^ D.Ao talc U V:d >- du pL E W OL AM q O A^ w =O GO d h C d A O 4 O O.O q x.d q O A per. d 6 M E n CU q 3 `> E � 2 qa ^ v1 Qj o' Sa0y4 q.N qr:L aE C. «2 A2 d G= q u r0 h V Y E€b q x .243 +-a > O n^^ Ea E ^ E E � E. A y o. ^ • ^5 ^^LO ^d du Y� A.' q Ofu •. L u y.-� f Od N....L Od..� aEp^.9 Td 66} EECa UY" �S5 YOn€N LM LL I q NHL 4xr alti Q.O 92 LM i✓/ u nca m 3Ask1 V O.p� EEiq d8 L>t q EM. - .1 u =m w o= x E:isYSxY.T�« n n 6. = oE. s ` w d �L d yddvt oEl'i o � � • L. q r u ( � o.o m,.Y Is L r EEE 1 Z N 4 > Vy u p2 c o o -o-w L eeo, A C d yEi � r > I . EY pGG p p Lr L uxi.L�dq>~� l � � G 8 �0 E .:•Za2 C. 4 w 1'•9 p+.S:xq Nt..o..x. �5. 9 1. M1 .� '.: :✓w.LraF4-r5...;t y"`"�d11. .`M�e z. ..� .,._ .. �,°1... y pY 71 ti '^y'•u°r'c cc�a c 'I�w>. -.,. L^ a, db. au b :o�e� a sodJyO r.d - a„ba FoF Qr,a �* € ^•np t � .- .b.."b .9va c >+"' �' 6 u0. V 000. O4 V dpd y.0 E �end Z^Z dN d n4^�• dP.IOV v6�Ou ^E dqv. aNN E .� O ~d • _ L o C= ?.y E b C Z y.C� n O G ^EO G Q 4a.6Oj gip^ pp t+ C Y nG CN NL ^ .V C.4 t E d Z U ✓ � COA d6 C(:^gTTL 7n yLg .u� E L U L 4J O VN -OLQ OC^dd�N %C CI Y9 G yL CON UL GYYO .L OSd •� w'"�2 ORgr NO Q,. CVC^p L N ^dyV J C Oa46E1'r. Vq� bCyE CON. L>6� L� ^ L .. 0..` O♦ N E T .-G C.b. y e µ Tr d y ^. L L�C y C.P• y Q. G L �O: ' aop t ONO' OI O.E>Ldi`0... ^Yb• V6G dQ�. O 3N C� µG d OL+I 9Cq L NC HNgH �9YL mA.C,. b YL .dcr'O N^ nO.G. OpC SdC00 o'LO NOaLyY9^ 6N Cy DY .YC� qO AW�O4 OTi C.yC .w `G w U 6 L9 a.Ord r GIGO.N.LbY. +� d�.0 ^ya OU^ O WCb� YC EE „�,� d.G^ ^N q ..G..0 N O ^ O O >y:, d^ $ Fy rµ •b yHH YN. O .^.. SC Ate. V '6 YL O. .Od L'Q YLO.0 G9. T09Tpp Y OT LOC;i G[] p yEE Rdt.EEV 'tl Cd2 c 'OT ^G d g L 4 d E C L W L ^O y .-q F 6�C L Y. E y W CG d q C q y zz 6EM6.6 b:O'Yd OMNNL2 F.Idea gXltl � 6WMan.VaOSY g, Ww.r3 6l\�rC N0.Q ti A G �w r'd cy N �A w 'n�sa�^M aw sy� niY,an e L L a.,u L.q E .y,NEu q .Nia cAa =a d Ydq-m � «L a NV.t O NGO .' Oa^df .0 ^= I�Q Mz bN.�0.A1 ub Lys FAO' 3i E .p '•G' Z Y C yNW M.� >� Gw E O L.L C C^O rU y N 3 aO-t,. d 1r A 1otL 9.L q YgOIC c4.. Np =EO�ih 'J0.n AE O Ratio O9 y^�N O.pN c MG \: GOLb OGE CdN tn�tC bL �.A dO d�6 C ^�O Cd d L. �nTOA 9d ^Q:p: C O`NMY UJ Lq pp ea E .+wz pC. Ey v -2^y Crp _.L G • .� w: o= ': d b C d • S! C Edo CV }.�' GA ON O Y-.Lw "1�'� Qp4dL v-.t�OI� jai n AV.�E YR t0 is L OC'L Udn O. UpO L.n... 0 4t y Gd NM ONr... p4 O W.Y.N L AC d. CY .DO O A O c,LV„ Q;O,O L�fl eN.lTAr YC�: �y 49 7 W O _O b a• A s t O O W�1--.9 r. O W d P. E i O :9mb `o n,• « up ., o �Nc oNm a,Lvua .c - bT� py`OR w Ly '•� y LL. DA vy9. �. N2 N 4 D..y • hx1A G\\ W » YNya TqN y,•c � V,M � Q �jYC V .p N N L � ,p .j,.) cEN '^,N =k W •n VC 9! WpNV�^ W O 'Y L W QI. Db>0 O.t +6 tT pm < DO NC d¢ T N b wdg •n. OU W.x q n Q 6L N..d Y N V aWw V aLpN w(y W y++. p'.L tc 0900 nF L r^�. Wd Or ti�NQ.A lTY DUO C LW d q W.G N Lr C •-^ C Casa 9C0 u^ +U.]O .C.O .n Aa.r dWy W . NON Y�YWgT 6 Cy L •r du^ CNUV yTA Ct �e~0. -d yd. � O.N6GN T>�>O. FE Cy O•FL.' ryuy 6� YEN vLd n W d o aS QRq'O NL Cy. q'GN Wap. di5 Uu^U NLY.v_ llll eeOOii 1 lT tT- C, N L y N =_G,�y O� 'b .. L y bCC in C C O MAK �.M G1p YG A C E o•.� i .172 O q `'6d T O n p•^ Y X..•. W .d db W y 1� � p.'".'. Y. ^ V N L L CIF'.` Cut. ANLppy � 0 u SN tL•Nr .4N V•q"•O •- OL C :`6 T Od L aTY 01WNp.0 <A•+-Dd QU Ii O.AGN O 1 M 1 Ah u N b N .o4+c we c^ y w �.ra R M it q 6 �E q" y NF R 4 W 6YL 4a R�"z WL 45Y ^Wppu =dR dN N. Oy YY R^ y0 CG L�W qud �E.T NN C Cu a OF U Y� aW R^s. 1 q63-. yNC O.W Yr E Y bb., yiCi > G NroL 'C L 2 Lq a'a' ^ Aq CY WN NgLy dN aTR^ d0>CN O VY L A OtJ N Lp GNt1C -0� •.C-W y d O N rrL.: ^ 3W4. rW �y O� ;au9N 4pp CEO ' NCUCang W = UL NN Wia M o�c `>o•b a �� Lo m ua c aL NN .c �wd� 16 C T OON G O .t•N EE OC�W.. CL gDE.p YDN 4L A Wom pnn.N. D .D> a LOq �9 My Nq 'LY d L Va.• WY .c 0^Qd.+p NTd ^ � GC VC V L4' LNW �� •O a SC p' W in SC ��L =� bE. CappO NN W C V S u • C C u �� E > Windy q V N. W. ti N'•• O tT C � .p • N L d '� 6 G>E ClJ ti 9A W O R O� DCW bV'd,EE Y' O u W.qb> � L• >R^.no .n p c v W u WLL u� 5 9 �tS pN a2 V L W O�n N^•Y WR �. T ^�y.4 Y c V Ga bb q G N L W Ora L D 4:.'.y.c1 6e N h=dN <V' 60. /=A --•d 60 R. 4M6w K 00 � q 414 L e ca•d y,`uv i p.c y E G 9>. �qE ut2a.!! � O Y O EdO. EO • LO •p..E£ UZ LY ^ Lu Z L U.j• j A n._ .. CO.S Vti _. 9 Cb:NC OLN inE q y Rt d EyW Svyi ai +' Tu>i 6E —O.N.Uo = C1 ofE N=. �. _ :c y g qy4• M mu •O N CNa to d �O`I CWl Nam. N arE [:'• C 9 � EO dU� aO uO � O �W. qO 4•..E Yi 9' 0. .�• m O 9r> J wY d m C^y^t. 9 ^q U O q 0 0 G 2 U.« :Ly C V N iY y L r'{... O q A O C 9 O. S y Ai"• O OS C W V qy En G.C9 ^ of _ u u d N UQ L u >• ? U.0 E Ey E N.b.c aj .d fy. Rt d6 < p�C L O. LS. Lq L .pq O E 9 d>d .N->•O:d iYiCp _LLN 1 �. E 11r.i �vOA 1� S.LiLyG 1-R n .Jw L Cq.p tLN. 0.�nW.O dY I 1 III w �f a 10 D r= Y q� qY e.L uVc. Epo' Y - iq o.+.0 I q qr hd y rA • +y+u N'o A L.i'•' O.G G O LNN3-0 N U. It yd..•� CL �C.N 9 y9 9 NC C Cq pQj..•m E O S a.N c �L me E.t N y C E C E .� Ln b.t �Gc O uyl r Yd U �^ aN. N va E mn. qa N �Ndi^ dE y.N�a q�av o. `v¢.p'.o •+ �o^a. •y'w. �� C.q..� M 90 OOt p O EaC LCdu ULL UC�,OFL OON� k. V Cy u 9 u a 1, Opt a1'Ed O^ U^OUC LZ C WNO. E3 6Ywy � i,' .GOO G C R O r C t E d d Cq U d o N Is dN bS C1N N v Q� �6 N c3 LC L.._ H �^. 29 ,p n^ay qkf ��A W' da»� Cdo V `q ...r O. O m ...d Q •.p C U 6 [� pMY Fp �� E� j� CQ G C C Ly d. 4 O Lr•+ Y A O p` 1.0.L1.6 %o q0'6� 01 y.N N. .ip�l u spi � b U j �. L EO•+> C��... o a N V C �Lb y u. E Nlal Fd. A y 9 � LJ�A f.•. •Gi>Y aW b.� d d�dG d Ud r•. y .x r`. CV Pq G.0 ropCO o— o A �d d GC UL N qL Nid. 0U Y L u NY O d .ram Gp CN U£ O ».• du.�. CM M1' _ G• •^�9 E0 nN ^.E« t ��T•�. rC Ad N L� Ap-b2 Y ln1 rM O EO•W..� Z' ? yN bi. y= pii iC L^. Or,C•IYY 90 Y.mLV KauuC 9�A r0.. .vaZ» lQi•o >.^ �O 6Z,; it�E O•Y'0.. :. yy Ld 9 U 00•�.W pW LN U9 2N p•C:6Yd. �G,dM O Aft l J • Cd OC C dCadCCi a C O19 «bY OyY G~ � SN dm L rOW. V Q�Q G� Q a N q'M � VIM q 4uG V-� d^ O t b OT G L c ! d N U GL� - TC q G.r•C F CCN 'r �. d ud ld L .-I L.O Qdb N Ol O. ♦�' d FF pg, LG � €} C d O q[T d adf�06. YO. .al 9L. dp. EO Gb C. W .ram C� �'gyti e�.Uu 9. L '•'9r V cs M .a<' •d+a crn�� nnov °N'L4yY. C yY C aptp u E V5 _ NL CY ypdOCi .LO q. ? b C .O F a g a 9 9 G O pY U N. •+ H C C y - E..� d�6L i0 V d a' L. .- NN»O '. +'.L. d U d Ol y r 0ni C U y y p ~. 'Y- •i c aHEl o b E q u � U �� u�Y GM �q No. �C •y.C.. Off? Lb LO i. 4Y_pp r dL NLdy� �y6 G Ni Ey r0 d�Y ....i tads q6 > G ib GO•+r bGOM 9Y d OL �1.OiCY. �L 4O1 y flp ? .d04'^C�. goys �7SYY Otp p a. N OlW� .-. U••G• 6-' .0 r O C N p. Y�bL <r.0 aui... Ferri o e Z u orn SL a2.. is p,ydu 4:Gg. ow ^,9 Ln ac L d t d9 » GE pmNa' up it. Yq Oly Uo. M d mM U QppI. 01 O Gp N A 9 wC Cv • �N CEtIy �`pp 1• a wy LE3ud.N:. L4q U9<C> Fo N6U 9aUL _HN \�CU.w.. O�.Y L d. YI U•ONr 4Ah -%=qw W N9 WY4i 06 t}jdS' 6M QO QOIV ISO K. A /p,. y N AI r T M N f1 'Vf W mua.' .'F. Mt � O L 9 � V d.Q O. N N'N.= O j C - •_ YI F. y R MHO P N N4 d .� n..N C C UY a N S W Y.' t LL •� Y..> �' Y 4 u.0� Y dCQU LF aat � Fd Z'Ya>:d V ye1:d G2 L •_ ^ �' a^VUyu qbu 0. a.PO 0 O GN40w �_ M V � � dF a F g � pPO qr p1g dp Aq Oo a NV LO y�M 44 y C;3 P R^U c ii I-:- Q - '^ �^A^y Org4 A hd� yh.r- EY:A. O.Y q0. Ld`g0 Cl ^�. Lt i uL V Y .c..0 pu-•... Lv}�.. b via s.Y F" R .� y.c �. ''c^�. �" ay yam. aLiR., Va R PAN. y LNy�F h �a.-cam q � anir a iRu. po.n' p>r " as a BB L� ta A E'p MtO a �'V ah�L ^ arW iF Np• U'A�.+O'= a.- ~a 6a a J'pL4T. qha NLa?n 'N +prLy LC. C� CY Ub.YC 1M LN E'N F n.� � N ayA.y a. i� od..u. Ny �w ra.a•.o..� .,xa. vA a h nxFi..:e..•'- a �s i as ^ c x Y '``... r. L A� L a n o c T a EnK� 4Y C C j 4Cy yu U L L G i oe�a. Cp �p u o_n Yd NJ � CyC S Yy = w CC .OS L.O' Ea N iC y ~9 Ly W y Q E w Or LO it n aL t'N m c .,. c aLd 1 1'a rC ECs V 0 =j ^ 'O Ya VG 3a L0.y Pm pa ^ N3�� v L d •py U q9 dL NN.. uPCm �N V US T O Lip qa C�r 1 Oq. aQ^^.= Oh- r 454 _L a O d 2aN a E. Yt59 CV d4ca KC s VV9N R Y p o ¢S V C u E w'NL! Ar O i Ca IR Cam..G,=,. C � Nby 6p. Ass. Ot. Lr i d ..4ir. AN �FQ t "aC = ME 4 0 t V98- p++V V C h N M O q d t. U 3 Ml CT� .F.9M 6w R.O O Oz 6FN. 3 1V6 15.. HT 6i.1 U.O. cAo« Pillill o l- V L I . a w. q 1 4 N p Y py� N 9 Rz El a F.w M ~ i GYq " sit « N F w. ty u u d V W p. C _ O�., M� ,6 LM Y w� Qi q aso U in if i S s b a ~p Vq Na L M Ny pY 6 Cci C C � C h Lv.. V U �� AUL p O.0 Y 9 COf A- d ViG P L ^Y 4. 4 �pO UdE Y4. Y1Ynr r db.; 3y ibtl L.� j:V. 1=w^.0 Q 4N i N ��� G N�+F... F•r �� K� `'x �J i• w N n!" O l0 ID n a � � O� . CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �Lcanfp STAFF REPOT f P' O t ' y DATE: April 9, 1986 1971 TO: Chairman and Members of the Plafnigg Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy;fong, Associate R."ganer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT J6-03 - A - he development of 'one'offire building 5:14- Ing ��C square feet and fear 1-story multi-tenant Industrial buildings totaling 70,076 square feet on 7.09 acres of land in the Industrial Park 'District (Subarea 6) and the Haven Overlay District located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue aml, Acacia Street -APH 209-401-01 (Continued from March 26, 1986 meeting) Previously submitted as Development Review 35-46 r I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. P.ction Requested: Approval of site plan,* elevations and '# issuance of a .Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit for Research & 06elopment/Office use for Buildings B and C. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zonina: ;a North - Vacant, AT-4 SF Railroad tracks; Industrial Park r, District (Subarea 6), Haven Avenue Overlay District. South - Office building under construction; Industrial Park District (Subarea 6), Haven Avenue Overlay District. East - Warehouseldistribution buildings; Industrial Park District (Subarea 6). !Vest - Vacant; Industrial Park District (Subarea 6), Haven ' Avenue Overlay District. C. General Plan Designations: roses 'ect Site --Industrial park, Haven Avenue Overlay District. North - Industrial p-irk, Haven Avenue,2verlay District, South Industrial park, Haven Avenue Overlay District. East - Industrial park,, ! West - Industrial park, Haven Avent�=Overlay District.. D. Site Characteristics The site is'�vacant and relatively, eye Metrofq itan Water District easement exists wittdo. { the landscape setback area along Acacia,-Street. A landscape :. FIT PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 9~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-03 - AJA :'. April 9, 1986 L ; Page 2 i easement and a construction easement exist - within the z landscaping and building setback area to the west and an 8th Street easemei,. exists within the pa►•king area to the north (8th Street has been vacated by the City). Although the grade is substantially below Haven Avenue, the ultimate plan to buik'. an underpass, under the railroad tracks which would reverse the grapes. E. A piicable Regulations: The Haven Avenue Overlay District J1 cavers the westerly 300 feet of the project site (includes Building A, B, and C). The Haven•"Avenue Overlay District: gave special consideration to the site and would allow Rcsearcr and Developm6tit uses within Buildings B & C" subject to a Conditional Use Permit.. The office use of Building A is permitted. The multi-tenant industrial use of Buildings D & E is permitted by Subarea 6. II. ANALYSIS• A. General: The Punning Commission, at it's regular March 26, 1986 meeting, -continued this item in order to advertise a public hearing for the Conditional Use Permit for,the proposed ` Research & Development/Office-use for Buildings Bind C. The. proposed project consists of Office, Research & Development/Office and multi-tenant: industrial buildings: The overall site_ ,plan with this building placement, dispersed parking areas in the plaza, complies' with the development policies for aaven Avenue. The elevations reflect a r sophisticated style of architecture that consists of painted Concrete panels with reveals, painted accent bands and spandrel E glass (see Exhibit "F"). The proposed land use for Buildings B & C is "Research and Development/Office. .At the time of the Design Review Committee process, the Planning Commission ,had recommended to the City _ Council an amendment to the Haven Avenue Overlay District to add Research & Development/Office as„a permitted use. However, after two peblic hearings, .the proposed amendment failed tc • raceive City. Council approval: The Haven Avenue Overlay, District, hovever, gives special consideration to parcels directly adjacent to the railroad which" is the case for this project site. The Planning' Commission may consider additional uses permitted in Subarea 6 subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use. Permit and a finding that such use will be "r w a consistent with the stated design goals -for Haven-Avenue. To ensure that the uses meet the City's definition of Research & Development/Office, staff recommends a condition ,'be imposed ; r r PLANNING COMMISSI64 'l,FF REPORT F; C01.1ATIONAL USE PERMIT,86-03 - AJA x April" 9, 1986 . Page 3 �1 requiring that prospective tenants be notified in writina of such limitation. ' Further, prospective tenants shall` be p., required-to .submit a detailed.description of their business operation prior to occupancy and prior to approval of business license. .Y B. Design Review Committee: The Committee has reviewed 'the project -and has -recommended approval with the following conditions which the developer agreed to:, 1. Gross sections Should be provided for the northwest portion: of the site showingproposed the ' • site de,)sign without the "detour" and one w-th the dctaiW incorporated. 2. Buildings n & E should be identified as multi tenant Industrial buildings with 1 per 400''square`' foot parking ratio. 1 3. A combined monument/project identification sign. should be provided at the northeast corner of ' Haven Avenue and Acacia Street. The design of, such sign should be 'consistent with the southerly approved project (OR 84-51). 4. Special_landscapiw-treatment should be provided along Acacia Street.,and within parking` area -including canopy shade trees,`to mitigate the loss of tree 'planting within the Metropolitan Water District easement. S. Any proposed roof mounted equipment should be' screened and the design be armhitecturall integrated with the elevations. Y The applicant's revised plans address Items 1 and 2 as shown in Exhibits,,"C"and "G". Items 3, 4, 5 would be included in the Conditions of Approval for the CUP. C. UtilitJi y Undergroundinas Overh?�d utilities exist on thp-opposing Haven Avenue and the project side side of of Eighth Street easement. It is recommended that the applicant pp pay an in 'lieu fee equivalent to one-half of the established cost of :undergrounaing the' telecommunication lines along the street frontage of Haven`ATVenue;l and' require the applicant to underground the eiectrltw*l .:Find ; ; telecommunication lines along the Eighth Street frontageMit; the:,i , ?' expense. 4 PLANNING ti�OMh1ISSION'STAFF`REPORT CONDITIONAL USOPERD1IT 86'- 93 AdA ,:. April 9, 1986: le Page 4 D. Environmental,Assessment: . Staff has .completed the Environmental Checklist and found no,significant adverse environmental impact as a ` result of this project. If the Commission concurs with, these n findings,: issuance of a, Negative Declaration would be in order following the CUP hearing. IV. FACTS FOR FINDINGS' The project is consistent with the General Plan, the {° Indostria . Specific: Plan, _.and- the Haven•.•Avenue=Overlay District; 'In 4' addition, the proposed Research & Development{Office use is consistent £n• with th" esi ni oal for. the Naven Avenue Overlay District. The project will not cause signiftcant adverserenvironmental impacts. The proposed V. use, building design, and site plan, together with ..the: recommended conditions of approval, are rnt,-:gmplianee with the Industrial Specific Plan and the haven Avenue Over°lay district and all 'other app ible provisions of the'City. standards. • , ; ' V. CORRESPONDENCES�. '`This item has, been advertised in T_he Oai lw ;Report newspaper as ,a puh ic: hearing and notices were sent.to all property owners withi.T 306 feet of the p-roject site, .f VI. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that tithe Planning;CommUsion approve Conditional Use Permit 86=03 and issue a Ne ative Declarat ion.. Re ctfully s "tt f Brad Buller ;;. City Planner BB:NF:ko t Attaclt :nts: Exhibit "A" - Location'fiap, Exhibit "B" -:Site Utilization lap F Exhibit ."C" -.Detail Site Plan Exhibit "D' - Conceptual Grading Plan *ti Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Landscape Plan - Exhibit "F" - Elevations Exhibit "G" - Parking Calculations .Initial Study, Part II' Resolution of Approval' A T. ` CIRCULATIONIIIIIIIIIIINI s i20' RAW. ARRCr. 100'R.O.Vl. bar or less R.Q.W. c RAIL SERVICE 'Existing _; &lbarea 9 v, +t +t• Proposed Tersey' TRAILS/ROUTES l s 0000 Pedestrian . 00,90 Bicycle rs�s A 1cjM Regional Multi-Use Special Streetecape/ Landscaping • A ' .�..... b.s ..acberea`!9 t Power Liry;E,!/ Utility Easement r, Creeks& Channels subarea§ i Bridge r� o oars et ®m '.c o �"�n'®� 'e.6#h Accc.s Points ` 'Park r' area 11 " Fire Station Ad eA a oAIREQ t Q77 t m 12, Liz 0 400'800 1&00' w > all _a CITE'' OF TITLE= .� �� '�`.s:,�• PL1 �INi� L71IT M - EXHIBIT.: SCAI.IE,=�� z �F „7k =,,"4t'•'�` �ga +e !kv .�c�j,y4vb i�.2 aatt '4: t �pA r�nr��,w.�Y4�.a+�.�G•!`—"_i6S'JOiMa•aie���•L \ Ilk e r �lAt4SY7ACPAF% y v � r ix •. - .: � asinalcualwAL Ai CITY OF 04, i> RANCHO IXTC"O GA. Tom: : 2 + P ICI C D1I�/�+iO�I EXHWrr- SCALE ` -� ) x i - -o [ [ Cdi 1 OFfIeE u ' S u and [ u° ' • *e&A'ZA all PAD nd ndm 1 4 2 i - I I .� f[ 1 •w.d [ ,�f Ij k+�TEyi' • ,. [b ACkCIA STREET a oaa five ur.[csResr°twecte s raWrs ,/'— [We�00 _ IOe.ip f[t.R.[T.9[yq.lO.�M;/p W tR/W.r°r�.11►.5®K R. ' `*, [9GatS a°Y 7EY.ma Bp.R• a-!i �:.«�f.�,- 'a ' �`� m, e 'A; • '•. T�I[Q4i Yr ilf.Ul A.A... Mfl c tf W M.W.:. nJ/ TITLE,•:f! Cf./ SCALD �+�p� a irax[R71d ouK'le new[o: . ta:1 f fir. EXtfn S':.�,��-_.a7O.14LG. ,' ,y I _ice-$ - � A •�, i_ Sfd_�it(.eaw!!_ ` �, _,'� cu ern"'r^ _ � •• IL z.-• 'l.s :-' .i- R•, �' `�/ •+- ?' �"a- Ott.i...,... ^t PC— { - { '..I jar (• � r ;s., r '�� � � +•1��, ' — '� ' i:'G�.'1 E � i) ♦ r C��T7 irk f �.: _ r3 � � S�. • a•^ tC=i I= J I r I I t tl 11"N PAR '� ' I M�1 • r 1 +. f �• � _ 1 '�`�+� v d�u>�-t �• 4 1:; r r' y�. s'°. �. � � ��� (. � 4xi� { ( V n9, i NOR�'H { CITY OF. ITFr�t• s 1 RANCHO CLTCAMONTGA ING LIB'L7l T ]EXHIBTI' $CAI.E�r } ice '. .$x ' �,✓ti. t 'L ! ! t 14 , Or LEGEND `. .. .. • } �t. ORfJlIOIIf 101EllRyf , .t� T11EYE.1nEE9nttu CCt,4 t[t[ut �tM R111tp ermae W mesa mwlaomom ntutri-e{uwu.au : i� NORTH CITY Of yRANTaOtcucAMONGA TrIu ,» ;' pL� TC DIVISION EXHIBIT. i . 'r , .� ; t ( Ii1 $t.� 1� 1 r 4i a1 a pit m,W4 - in M' ;f CO v IR x �1 Y 1 i �ytt 3 � w...v srr ,. ,,,�.�,.. 777,7i 17 f � ca 71 NJ ell } m c� a�,f<,• tR I j. '' Mom` l z �T-4J f 4 1� co * to 3 #, LU s e YY W C!' • LJ I En E �~ 1' 7 .yCc gillo H--i 551 Eli It ez r, i � tip- ,, �• u -�L - e i S gym . `t \I . - � # k � �� ■i ■. � \ . 2 v, �� ` ■■, ..��_ : Rini � « e . » 6 Hill �«© \d ` �2 : .>y , `z**- �llf Slv-1U3 s PARKING CALCULATI;NS Building/Use Area Parking Ratio Required Parking (Sq. Ft A/Office 22835 1/250 91.34 B/P-&0 20,092 ,:1/350 57.40 C/R&D 18,848 1/350 53.85 D/Multi-Tenant 142388 1/400 35.97 EiMulti-Tenant 23,840 1/400 59.60 �r Total Required 298.16 Total Provided 299 NK) TH CITY OF n EM: ,RANCM CUCA1 aNGTrIU.-_,P�f�%Q K t gLANNIIU DIVTSM EXHIBIT= _ P dam'` a m € CITY-OF RANCHO CUUAMONGA ' PART II - INITIAL STUDY , `t ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST , DATE; i 9� 1 +,. FILING DATE:- � �$ rF.ao,,a , 'LOG NUMBER:_ 85 ' PROJECT:�i1.� �;'.•�5 Taii1`uo • 77,o7b-S�,F - ` PROJECT LOCATION: v I. -WIRON ENTAL IMPACTS sheets). of all "yes" and "maybe"answers are required on attached YES MAYBE NO r I. Soils and Geolosv. Will the proposal have si nific g ant re.salts in: 6 r a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic reliationships? 3 b. Disruptions„ displacements, compaction or . burial or' tile soil?' ) C. ,Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? d• The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features.' e- Any Potertial increase in,wind or water ~ � erosion of sails, affecting e;,ther on or off site conditons? f• Changes in erosion s:iltation, or dep. sition? V g• Exposure of people or,,tYoperey to geologic hazards such as earthgJakesf landslides, mud- f slides, ground failure, orfAmilar.hazards? x h. An increase in the rate of extraction and/or a, use of any mineral resource? - 2. Hydrolog (Will the Y-t pr_�posal have significant Al IV W-A&SUL IFW YES x AYBE fi0 a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction # of £.'owing streams ' rivers r` r 'channels? ' °r-eghem=ral stream g` b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage or the rate and amount o£ surface wateratterns, runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood f't waters? d• Change in the amount of surface water in anv ' i body of water? _. Discharge into surface waters, or any a alteration of surface wat;ar quality? f. Alteration of =1 groundwater char"aceeristics? g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, a either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interfersence with an # aquifer? Quality? Quantity? i, h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Air Qualtiv. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constaat or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? j Stationary sources? �✓ !}r b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? c• Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air'movement, moisture or temperature? 4. Biota Flora. Will the propos in al have significant results 4k ,. a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution,:.or number , fe^' V ` of any spedies of plants? b. 'Reduction of the numbers dos`-any unique r x or endangered,Species of plants? q tare --7- Paste 3 Aj4YES ''L4YBE NO g: - c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of 4 T- plants into an areal f d. Reduction.in the potenti�' for agricultural / production?' V Fauna, .Will the proposal•have signifi in: cant results P a. Chauge,in the=characteristics of species, including diversity; distribution, or numbers f of any-species of,-animals? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, ,rLve or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction.of new or disruptive species of / animals into an a'cea, or result in a barrier K to the migration: or movement of>animals? _ d. Deterioration orremoval of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 5. I'Qiulatian. Will the proposal have:significant results ant r a- Will the proposal alter the location distri- bution, dens the ity, diversity, or growth rate of e the huaan population.of an area? V b. Will the, proposal affect"existing housing, or ,r create a demand for additional housing? J Cz. Socio-Econonic Factors.,Will the proposal have significant ,results ins i4 a. Change in _local or regional socio-economidr �. characteristics, including economic or property commercial d 'vez_,*_ values? y., tax rate, and proR y / e� b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project benefic cries, i.e., buyers, .� ' tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and Plannine Considerations. Will the ` proposal have significant results in? ' a. , A substantial alteration of the present or V: planned land-use of an area? b. A conflict with any designations, objectives policies, ov' adopted plans of any govetnmental J 4 .k entities? .4 r -� 1 e. An*im act"n on the ulait or y p p„ q y quanti`t of „;IP& existing consumptive or non-consum�;C-ive ' { # < re zeca' haf rip ortunities? erg„•,, � Y r. € YES "MAYBE 8. Transuortation. Will the results'in: Proposal have significant: , a. Generation of substantia movement? 1'additYona2 vehicular b, Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? c Effects on-existin c j?parking facilities, or 6 < demand for new Barking? d. Substantial Impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? ' V/ e. ` Alterations td _ Present patterns of circula- tio n or movement v people and/or "goods?. If f Alterations to or effects on present"ond Potential water-borne,- rail, mass transit,, air traffic? or g. Increases in traffic hazards; to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedevtriansll 9. Cultural Resourr_es. Will the significant results in Proposal have. a. rA disturbance, to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and/or historical ressrces? 10. Health, Safety and"Nuisa`-e Factors.:.Will the Proposal have significant results, a.; Creation of any b!?alth hazard or potential health hazard? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? _ e. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an.accident? d, An increase 3n the number of individuals ��~I or species of vector or g ' patheno enc �( organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? J A*. e. _Increase is,-'aisting noise levels? !+ Exposure of people to potentdally dangerous noise levels? J g. The creation of objectionable odors? h. ,An .increase in light or glare? ' xV, '�/ 0 Page 5 a YES `LaYBE: N0 11. Aesthetics. Will th result e proposal`have significant s s in: a.' The obstruction or degradation of an e 4 vista or viewl; Y se nic b.; The creation of anaesthetically y ofEensi:e site? -/� A c. A conflect with fie objective of designated v or potential scenic corridors? f 12. Utilities and F,ubl a Services. Will the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations.to the following: a. . Electric'power? b. Natural or packaged gas?, f c. Commusiications.systems? s.. d. Water supply? a .r e. Wastewater facilities? # f. Flood control structures? f r g. Solid waste facilities? V j h. Fire protection? i. Police protection? — f e t 3• schools? 'k. Parks or other recreational facilities? Maintenance of public facilities, including f roads and flood control facilitie,�.? J M. Other governmental services? " i� 13. Enerev and Scarce Resources. " Will the proposal have significant results a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy?' '. b. Substantial increase indemand upon existing sources of energy? f C. An increase in the demand for development of nec; sources of energy,? 'y' d. An increase.or perpetuation;of the consumption t aa'non=reneyabale forms of energyp when fey;iblr; 'of`aoureesI�.ne�rgy..ar e available?, •�W # t e Substantial--,depletion of any n0ftenewabie scarce natural •esQurce? ' 14. Mandatorv^FyindfnQsof Significance. a. goes thepFoject Rave the potential to degrade #fit the quality,Pof fi`be`-environnent yw. .'^substantally, ' reduce the habitat-ofPfish",o wildlife specles;` > .cause_a fish or wildlife opulation.to drop " R . V below,seli sustaining levels, threaten to' , , eliminate aPlent or animal communit reduce F - the-number or`restrct theran eof y endangered grant= or animarlr:o eliminate important examples of,the,major'periods_of p • California h est-ory'or�prehistory? ` b. Does•the project Ave the,potential to a'chbeve short-term, to the disi3vantage o£lbng�-ter - environmental`.goals? (A short-tezmpimpact on the Y; environmeno'is'arie Which occurs m a ie3atively, brief,, definitive period of-time while long-, y term impacts;,will .endure.well into the,futgire) - c. ` Does the pro tect have &Pacts whichaare ' individually limited, but•cumulatvely t, cons. erable? (Cumulatively considdtable rt _means that the incremental.�eftects. o£ am 3ndivadual project are considerable whey. vaewedi!;_ in ,-onnectior. with the effects oe-Vitst pro�ects�' �. ar_d probable fdiure`pro�ects) o " ry ' d. Does:chi project have invironmentai effects which xrill cause substantial adverse effects, v on human'beings, eithersdirectly or indirectly?' f"tF , .DISCUSSION OF ENPIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 401 ( .e., on -affirmative'answers to the above question`s'=plfis adiscussion of proposed mitigation measures) 11 at r . w s a �T y Qn the basiSA f th s inixial evalumaon: } , _ s," c _ 2 find the p oposea ro ect COULD NOT have a_si nificant effect on the env ronm i c, and a NEGaTI1lfi DEGI.�IRAT.ION'vill be, re aced, I;find that4a�lythough the proposed project could Have a significant"^ 'effect own�the�ew'#_onment, there willEknot be a signi+fkicacite es�ecc in thiscase ecause the,mitigation�measures desarfied on an aitached„°sh{a YhaV14- a 'added Yto th grojecr A"NEGVTI�',` M.. DECL.,PATIQ:I WIL7. 3E:PREPARED k z Ifind �he?br os: d .envirnmen't dan ENITIp'�vL MAY have�a-signifcantkefsect on the' - `s ANT L`iPACo .EBORTf'ise qli�ired. 'r Date ! �! b'. "r e Y 4 .fix i"e+� Vzv � b M� 6 yy �Yi� rye. k.ti " F" 1.7 4�. !P a . r k 7 7 7-,-n;7 e m RESOLUTION NO. ' A RESOLUTION, OF THE RANCt'J CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION C's APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-03 FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING, 2..RESE'ARCH.&-DEV8LOPMENT/OFFICE BUILDINGS AND 2 " MULTI-TENANT. INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS LOCATED AT ` THE NORTHEAST COhNER CF HAVEN AVENUE, AND ACACIA STREET IN THE ;: INOSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT AND . HAVEN AVENUE OVERLAY s., DISTRICT `. i, WHEREAS, or •th"lst day-of 'March, 1986, a complete'application was filed by Aja& Asscci`ates for theiabove-described project; and ? WHEREAS, -on the, "26th day of March, 1986, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission he a meeting to consider:,the above-described project and continued to the April 9„' 1986regular7meeting and WHEREAS, on the_9th day of April, 1986, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above described 'project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho^^Cuc among a Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the fol•;'bwing, can,_be,mat: 1. - That the proposed project is consistent:.wit6 the objectives of the General Plan; and 2. That the proposed use is in accord with. the objective of the .Industrial Specific Plan and the �.; purposes of the district ir. ,.which the site is located; and 3. That the proposed use is in compliance with e%ch of , the applicable provisions of'the'Industrial Specifies Plan and Haven Avenue Overlay District; and 4. That the proposed Research & Development/Office use -is consistent with the stated design. goals .of the Haven Avenue Overlay District. 5. That the proposed use, together with the condition�t appl icaole thereto,::will snot be detrimental to tM public. health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to ,properties, or improvements in the r' vicinity. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on, the ia. environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued an April 9; 1986tol SECTION 3i That Conditional Use-Permit 96-03.,!�s 'apprgvedt�sub0eC1t^to y' S attached Standard Conditions the followin cono,rions and 17 d . IF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION CUP 86-03 AJA _ April 9,1 1986 Page 2 Planning Division: 1. Any proposed roof mounted equipment shall be icreened and the design shall be architecturally integrated with the elevztions. Detail plans shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 2. A combiv, d monument/project identification sign shall be provided at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Acacia Street. The design goof- such sign shall be consistent with the southerlyapproved project (DR 84-51) and the Haven Avenue. Overlay District requirements. Sign permit applicationL shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building perm its. 3. Special landscaping treatment shall be provided along Acacia Street and within the parking area adjacent to Acacia Street to mitigate the loss of tree planting within the Metropolitan Water District easement.. Therefore, extensive tree planting shall be provided between the easement and Buildings "A", "B", and JID11. J The easement itself shall be planted with shallow rooted trees, shrubs, and groundcover. A continuous hedgerow _ shall be planted, to screen the parking areas from Have�i Avenue and Acacia Street. Berming shall be provided along Haver Avenue and Acacia ,Street with an average, heigl..t of three feet and a maximum slope not to exceed 3 3/2 feet within the Metropolitan Water District easement. Approval from the Metropolitan Water District s=' of the detail landscape and irrigation plans shall be subritted to the .Planning 8ivision prior to City's approval of the landscape and irrigation plans and prior is issuance of building permits, 4. Additional pedestrian oriented facilities such as shaded ' seat!nH, areas with attractive landscaping, fountains, kiosk, benches, trash receptacles, and other street furniture-`shall be provided within the centralized ;plaza area. Detail plans shall bi;' included in the landscape and irrigation plans and to .be submitted for Planning Division review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. S. The texturized materia. :wiu.,in`the plaza area shall be of brick pavers or stamped concrete. Full material samples shall be submitted for Planning 'Division review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 8. Detailed cross sections for the northwest portion of the,,' site fhow?Jng the proposed site design withoct the ^ _ "del".. and cne with the "detour" incorporated shall be �» sut:_ �"ed for Planning Division review any: approval prior .. ,... . r 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION CUP 06-03 AJA - April 9, 1986 `- Page 3 to issuance of building permits. 7. The applicant and their leasing agent shall disclose to any prospective `tenant, in`a written formal: to the s t sfaction of the City Planner, the following limitations of this permit: a A) Building "A" is intended for Office use and parking provided accordingly at a ratio of 1 "space per_250 square feet. Further, no use in "3cilding "A" will be permitted which requires parking at a more intensive ratio than that'�:provided. 4 B) Buildings "BP and "C" are intended for Research & Development/off"ice � use and parking; provided accordingly at ,a ratio of 1 space per 350 square ; feet.: Further, to use in Buildings "B" and "C" will be permitted .which requires parking at a more intensive rates-`han that provided. C) Buildings I'D" and "E" are intended for multi-tenant industrial use and parking provided accordingly at a ration of,1 space per 400 square feet. ,Further, no use in Buildings "D" and "E" will be permitted whic,:V,' requires parking. at a more intensive ration than that provided. D) No use will be permitted unless allowed by the Haven Avenue Overlay "District or Subarea 6, whichever applies. , Prospective ic;ant—_- shall provide 'a detailed written ~description of their 'proposed business use ed operation prior to occupancy and prior to issuance of business license. E) That 1:14 City of Rancho C6e?m!nnga `will s` Ccnstruc+ing a grade separation between Haven Avenue and `the railroad tracks. - 'During construction, ``a detour road and grading will necessitate temporary elimination of a portion. of the parking area in the northwest corner of the site within the temporary construction easement. i 8. Any revi:;�on or modification to this Conditional Use Permit shall require application for said change' and f review and: approval by the Planning Commission as E prescribed by the City's Jevoopment Code. Engineering t , 1. The dri'VWay locations along ,Acacia-Street shall a7irYq '`• % with the development to the south: e d Ir PLANNING CCMMISSIO� RESOLUTION CUP 86-03 - AAA April 9, 1986 Page 4 - f 2• Underground Utilities: A)~? Haven Avenue - The opposing side of }raven, Avenue,. exist 66 KV electrical, less than 66 KV electrica'` .j and telecommunication, lines.. The applicaiat shal'i pay, prior to bui Wing.permit issuance, a fees; in- lieu .of undergrounding- the telecommunication lines, Said"fee shall be one-half of the front root � .: cost of undergroupdinr-, as esta5lished by City ,z. Council. B} Eighth• Street Easement Existing, telecommunication ' and electrical lines less than 66 KV adjacent to the parcel fronting, Eighth Street Easement shall be 4;+. placed Underground from-Haven Avenue to, the- first pole east of the easterly property line prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. 3. Notice of Intention 'i:o join the proposed Median lsla-J ,. Landscape Maintenance District shall be filed with {.te City Council prior to issuance of building permits. F APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9174,tiAY OF;APRIL, 1986, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF^ANCHOrCUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. tout, Chairman ' — ATTEST: Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and ' regu'iarly introduc,,%,passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held ` on the 9th day of April, 2986, by the following vote-to-wit: ;* AYES: - COMMISSIONERS- NOES: COMMISSIONERS. ABSENT: COMMISSI!?NERS: NOS. YG L A A q o`qp y W-Z U VO z;- 0. c n�o LG �Yv v w� I °5y�. I k VY • y y� I2as:E ,, aq. r Y y C E =„9 o ^ - o yT !q dC CC q@ y O. O qO Y E aN Y .e E6N N Is 9V Ra..'� y V n L'o4 O L�tl n. N " y.w L«u 0' V u'.O aF 6Qq'uq e'o4.c �.a. _..2L M O.N O id, q G O V S L P p N n N y G 9 q N q C Y T�G4 t V A O Y O N>C O don C SSE LN g 'Snow '.. �?e 5, GO.9 a�� �,a� pY�q anYTy p qgvg CTC��w. LGG rY he Y�. N a A gNy oy.,i.'y.0 Nua`fE O Oq.V VT C G�.!aV N CC � p OL OCa�aL �YT `�qiY i U Y aW. • G a9RV Y BYO Ya iG «^Uq> 4y4T Lp�y^ �<po OO 5614 �'OM 'J{t N>..Y . �CCP hyq OV OM�� nC' Vu nL. Lo` a4�LC E ,,YGG GY�t dOL ^LNULL plr 6� N OOYL� C,e�.po R'M v; -a O Y90a.N. .0 u« sN+.S«a' .FOgb FGL.O.L nti m N a $ v Y,o,rNvgcn : yygg q Y wTgi--+Vg 4 Owe V ^g. 111 .� u. w c _Ns. `. s: Y` �Nqa Ati.g'c N• � 4 EE€«vkHg �Y, Bpi:V OY - N q• LNL3o«:NON vRN cq'a.7e o ¢ ANr«•.. . ii s.t. AJCI OI co qm ai.� A mA�de b. Es+♦, mq :.� .! c a c •_ .m+¢ d a N c u o a c Ey gn a o..• A u �a n a-' E � ECS.Ln AL 6 W e a., L e0 Zq d.• p0 E ad E .mil 6`O O OQ L E.o Lt•^ V = p^ w N • ` L Tda Y Z;Y Tf Lp S•-. C+O- a V:b e�0 SSE •w E fib€ ON N A G-- Ca NbE 1C Cl� DNS Lp:'.gs 6yYm dE.. pyp m CE "q cyy y2C1 T L.tmF,au .Ac` °qn. IOT'L •�N W. E d m O u�+j M m S E.5 L qa b a`s'' L cp aF7 a+ tia b E.E. c a+i y'.«.Ta �_ �. a L•u-a.eF1t z FE:.eI L a.aro mro m9 .N. q€ r'�N tl A _l p" w mow cc u�y p @ w .N L. V i III bCC C c 6� p'TNm A. .¢.=Yb4.b �.>r mTL yl 4.OU C-:; OA b Y� Or. 6C5 _.e i .AL. L ys tl d^ c Z Z E w n LO •V LN aNyN » c aA ..0 yGA2 C 5'L 6Vb�Vy t y A A CL. • amMq n, u�AN OAFS �O 9 HK.C[Ir Ly uC .��; �'bV .y $j M m O Ga m ~d O U 3 Z ~ E Y nd+ A 0 E» U n 0 L m r A y L Y,y A d Q a d p ' E S m6. mp1i C1 C cm. i J• . G IV • Gpbc I NaLo 4 qo n«. aro u Nc i Gd �= roy W N E� cz 4 Lt..-.. L L O Y �E,y O ^N.. S•� ��if! p—A 2.3 c YO LS SSAY C bAY� ;pC m G ;C:O Lys =bN �V 6 N mm ' O'L S C m + U LWe N 0g.. roNl~ ^ Wb d 0 p.T.t S ^C w. C9�Gdgmyl'S Aeg4 c. L d A ` U h m V. 1.c y:; (�.. pS QO be .-.2 byl.. roa°» add c'c • Rm A E' cEE' _Nd'M' G. LN o oN..n F N S ba eai. L = YA �,...b V Hm'O QY » PO AI_Ac� G Cpc AT Y YaU Y EV OObC Jb O d<:La LC CGO V L1�AO� 1 U. O t 6 t o O T d(L y t A A In C LL L'L t x V KFE 9 6L P •�+N A t�C N C Y. Q N a N q d L R 6 Y 4 C E i G Ct d •._.1 �N9Pd Ay p1^..r. hyY'NGA I�r.A6A6 Y rx D O N L �O � n� tT� O!O O V.C >.A O C 'E iu d • f y -H T Gti S Ad N R C A N Y•. L dtlY d y R L.�p. ]C d Nam' �d Ci O urn C N U A �.0 4 y d D O �• y OUSi rp a dY O a Y V roO .�+ d u o � dIe E C � O . SL -.p gOCNI � 9>,�N �•d LNtx ro L p^C L N V d C S 1N C L d COyy y O: L •a S .�� 'r.,�vgiY A C O~G�� i O L 5 d� N do. WTis ILVf 'd Lu ,� 5ty4 d d 1111,CCCn 6 ~ c •s'' A Y L N Atn. y a• E 4..L'tl G W.Y OP tb DS�uC O T• O ro >Ci C GE MOOL S CCE .�'.�C A.N ro . ;11A M.A N EdD1 c SNx Vr ^ Ou CGY S>YA ^ a. L `\\\� N < <v� S.N.O fNtCN Vr• <ro�.Od <Y. 1LOA n T C � 1D�\ f] lrn •Oi v� OCClL •ar0.W. C L ' Dqr� M tT N 6 K q u A SSOq. O.O.. 25 O Nw6 V�6 �3 iTA C C1 R • f C N.r• 9 A O � L �• V V L n a ���. ..�6' '•O� Oin E.�' lyt w�0u wC Oc 2aroyS ei o r ro C M 63 eK O y G q 0 S V O d y C t O M1 V a L u-Q M.T O- E G Y C Nq Ny < Ty qN- �L OpLO, O. ,fit RN aro 2 06 L N O Aa^4 S r� d 1• •CCO 9 y S.i. A « 9 O c S N p, ¢ V. pi -EO � c n.d C l.•x i+ Lqa 9n ( 9 Sr au a �O. C L v ro JR; L L D i Ea tq t.� St ..:r , �ouo. �adcc co n.., o G N 'Ot... a�.G roCy :.t DYL Yq dM vp^dC, TTT d Y� p CC •,.A y�Y L �N O q . + nd L alai. L y d 51 >nd:� >.>g Ogrq O^aL f <a+ln0 <rotr+6ii <•G�vl 1•`6�n QY 69 1-ON.a yl r. i a _go Iu ` Od �.. Cb pqq U-u f2q i e-. cs,u LLVL •SS � ..- u � T L E o n E O o C V d LLT � bj �N E^y• . .... r, �L o ` M. +, cO 6L NUT_ W Od p k6 L�yN �;M .0 L s f y d N d C p p q L }l. .N V Y b = m is G b n V O O q a00 Cl' G O E O 3 A V w W AUC O��^w. q �'Z �. U •g^gN NjE G d •••C•' Lq s. �E> CJna d by0 pO q- ^ rK�gd W=� V B` .d CT. US"SS L+CVp2� 'O. > J .QlL 4d N�6 ..� V b •od N EhC O.d S b M O ti i Od Od ^C dr. vn d aaA m R L`i'.. nLaz+C� V•T.N. u �.0 y Vy' U^. d ETa'�. _ E+ p y TN.Y y.a S A.o—, bC CC L� A� C NEE wOZU c W :�. tiu=.a aC i'�.w a'a '.m �+I'' a m. ..F•y °� �:u Ed o ,dCv T r p 6a� d �U L'�.nGI�VI YT TO L..Yd AWL m S - ��0� 9Cib ��y Tr�-Y Nr dy. dam_ �6i�C_ L. Iid Cut di d U d ` �LLS Edw S L9 •.�y•~O nb C n tl qd GC p� �b N6 �u� piR C L'20 p01 Y �`' Ntll V Y. c� b y p pd C V �qA C.H Cj L60 T ( by Cb d L- NL 1 A N CE db•b m ST .�'A V MLA dbC Md n04 9 d U�O£ .p 2 g v' U p d •G A N C n O N L W � U Od-S Lb �M� 4q Wl1.dN n A 7 n'1 nb ow Et 's � ..a � t y s.� ♦f - ��. u - �. abce v e uy�c .. dE 1' m .e3 S 'N+ FFJGy Ca CRq Ry TSEL w f L CL^ J 6 :O L b~ d 0 40 awn U..O a G N Y. d q L d.YG L n Cb O O 6 A �� .O.` • d gag yW � JV1^ LT Oci.y NN diO byO y� �Z U b ti C q. Y L d G Rr l OS ML b Y C A L -mE �] M O EE♦+ C.d 9T dN a�W ITd NA a' Y q dJL IQ _ SaQ�+9 ♦ p^i(g LL CµLL , A Y c 4d� R O $1tl r � EED I,� EAO LL�•. M �Y#. F dNvt- �` Na1 ''oT rAa AJ.gb OiTc TcdY. U ,a O:u�' f LLdH 4i OU�Y yM {d. p> T 7C� O�.LA C YLL '�41t dp d9 C92 Vy d L C=02rc Npy^ w pM G'�UO GM �..d. E #2¢s •' L C C p r..•d o.c n c ._ x•' t ,doo c oN• �d� Y qe d v w Oyu L .- o n a L a coo . .: EOY e d J ` th q `:• . Y MT5 O 2 w.+>:, tom', 42 Z tl> S ''y _e'oi oli✓ a 0 1^ N unN N LPL 1N G� L c y OU...p 5._G Y a ^ ♦ � Je e CL LO O O LC q tlF m a WL Edv.. a2.n N d r c.E ^ qZ. to w.G p.. ono ^:C dN gd •aq.J u R " ice. L a �`^'.. C L dTie • E n.W E e n. L q b Od..� Y:O QNe • WLaU r d dV E pq Y Y yy C YC^y C My OJN 9�C 4 CC y Y O Z LCE Oq' q Cladn tl00^n N.d� ^I Nm.�.L Od Y. UyNVtl >O� lu eo Y m JiJ rn i u as n e tl 9 'C.O�.W OwO.. .:N tie CA �•nL.fd'J. 6Y� Q O t7 u V N Iq O J1f. JO \ f� vY o^ a �cu a tl oa `oe:d +Je a, oo e.� me u n. aJ a ew L cqn.0 dcm .€ YV a:-- m G _ �a Ye �y C ^ hn CCEc O-��gtlt.� OCO�a �1 �yO ae a,y~ x 4 qp. O y Cw Jam. C'++9 01 tl 9= oe N'g dd tld �q T�nC L�¢M .¢.. �. qe eLJ 6tlpm L O tl� N.D C L nat'i O .e oyc w m Eli !j. '°• N =^ u a O_< i€ wc.: L n oo a9 0«�N �'>coa • J"v.. �� Oa aowo i'- 'a qas > au'�'R �'o'a tl e'J_c x.� .,�{ a id Off. �FO i..^L y � OC•>.,'O V'� 9CJOaL ':S } r�Ot qtl Q4 eOC u ' ��'' OJGL � LN C�v� LL COY ►.Jp Y_ tlE02v.OY nyL C� CO A�CJY �J.. .�F..` tJQ 6T, b—I }" ' � 6 .fie C)r 1. � C • U � r � 21, OO.O_ OL d OOC dL U 6 O y U S S OI d Ua L yt as O• O A C ^� C V _C N A � y a D ED1r y OAL O w NLO O a n per- N cps. tc urt A N s U x u A } a)!)E.N+...ap .D na T,.y'o4. a I�Da c m ny O. y nOt L E a i L. O.. fI y 0 C W p p. E C C E D• A v C n U p L N A •_ i v a uma. €L9 O.. a y . AAL OpNN - - O EU yUY. :60 6 G Nam. CE y^ a A Y ..C. A `q a U Cc•�.. Y Y SS d0 na p^ L A 6 C E y E' .ffy C uga� p N 1 W EC N L t NA C•' .OLL.O dCL^ E a na Dp p n E L dopp e. Qo W A� W E L Tq L A:L 9a ^ O a swYL.. n W D N aLOC Laa N. wL)^�4 E OA.w Lc C AVa ` A LN yBB yd Cy^N W. E u W .3N CiC r U y N U N N-� N 'n r a r N O' C\ NO.Wq 4.6N . NQ�M- Na 6Y�u CL. h+� Wy.N L.LU Sa c rn w�N u � o dF W fr «�. ` A U a.Q N0.. may:. r L 4� LO C L.o lyMU .. iC u.E apuyi C,.. Ati C W C y�... •C.t: E V W L• � N p yt y U N N 16 ! =.y u sL F6m t yE ayD C c a s E•ada ay Y. L c.. nL •^'� '� 'a a' nj V. GG E N U Y y E E S Y Oa •� y= CO .O U C U A 4�^ U� Ny .a.6 tll..y ^ y0- y y.0•� ryL w U O bL t_ ... . 0.. N Vj SA '•� 11 Ja`F.X L•r••6C _ EE a • A d CF N CE • aW ya .- N. caavn pxif CE u C !• - LR 6:c 1. WE O VARN C` RL V� •li � p' o OM x a c KKK J H �.w'Ct ^ T�p iir. r u`u` r �caN b a r O rnd., O fl. pTi O }p cu orb oNc. A:, Yw Nd m •r•W Ott.. E: 6 N Vu� _ CL r q- L •r N.. ' •I N U N owl.- v� N L V Y C 2-4 azi. V .^ N� cdw• .:6 �'O:. azzi,q 6+- .O. aC i ti.lVG C . o { Y 22 2to q ^p w Tuuo n d � ^ .'Wm' na. •..p - p i= b u yl o p y ' E o•b tt �. + UW d db �J E �• bb,CO r• i r et, Dy Y q0 VW pd N O�'..Yq - C `•-_ A Py t T a` a yJp T d g m 6 A A c =1LE off. Y L T',ar Z L d N II•q 9:n ^ Irn S m c Oyu m d qi q q.0 C O b UIt ` L Q C.OI UC 6L � p �q L �C6 bMb: �d OV� C LL >I pT veila mod •moo d^ q "Cd1 ' Ta c { tt € --- CI1^V•CF RANCHGCUCA!A0NGA TAFF REPORT . i. r'� _0 Ia DATE: Apr ,9, 1.S,3fia t977 TO: Chairman and14cmber,, of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad.Bul1er,'Ci.ty Planner BY: - Howard,FieTds, Astistant Planner ' SUBJECT: DESIGN 'REVIEW- FOR TENTATI.4E TRACT ,11793' - PENNFIELD b esaagn ev:•ew comprise o sing a aami y omes e.ached)< 'on 17.6 acres' of l and i n. the Low kesidentIi04 District '(2-4 'du/ac); located :at.,the , northeast c6rh4i. of'�.Ii'ghland Ave;ate and 'Am et!hyst Street. ,r APN: 1062-561-04, 1062-57,1-01.. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Aft A. Action .Requested' �!jP1�oval 'of auiI ding el evati_ans and plot p ans. B. Project Llensity: c,G`(dutac)� C. Surroundli;ag,�Gand Use and 2oni19: Norti� Exitting single family residence, Low Residential (2=4 du/ac.) South - •.Existfng productive oran9e grove, Low Residential..,• (2-4�du/.ac) ; .. East „ Existing single family residence, 'Low R24i4enti:al, (2-4 ou/ac) West Existing single family residence, Low Residenti"al (2-4 du/ac) µ 0. General Plan Desrgnations:"' Project-Site - Low Residential (2-4 du/ac) North Low.Residential., (2-4 du/ac) �* South Low:Resi,ddhti al (2-4 du Jac) y East - Low ReslObhtial (2-'4 du/ac) :lest Lo�'esi&d ntiar (2-4 du/ac) MZ A- F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 9, '1986 TT 11793 Pennfield Page 2 E. Site Characteristics: The site is currently a declining citrus . ' grovern�c •is: slated for removal and slopes generally from' #> north to south, at approximately 'Al. , The, site hus single-'family:, fi residential dames to.the.n9rth,, 'west- and east, properties to the south -remain in, agri•culiura production Corange'j�lemorr; groves). Approximately 83 mature.Eucal�ptus trees ,presently. remain on tfie' site. These trees, have been properly, t0ppe&and trimmed- as -.re red by Ti ee_ Rewdval ,Permit .•85=24. '-(Exhibit ==G==) ". II. BACKGROUND: 0& April 22, =+1981, the Planning-Commission.approved � en a Sve tact k11793, .a subdyvisian -of `#7°`lots on 17.6 acres, :. During consideration of a tam �:�xtension request 0n'March 8, 1984, ai 4 the tract was}revi^owed.and foUr',d to be in substantial conformance with the adopted Development Code. The overall' design of the Tract 11797'-was--consistent with provisions of the Low Density' Residential Standards. Presently, the applicant is re:,iesting review and 'approval of built di ng elevations fdr-46 singl w family homes, Ill. ANALYSIS: l A. General: The* proposed rlevations feature spanish lace stucco: } exteriors •and various J:ol ors of._mission and fl at tile roof materials. Added details ' include masonary and river ,,rock' veneer,, optional- chimney feature:"and stained wood plant, oils.' Twenty-nine..units are slated-as sfoaje story with the remaining seventeen units prop0sed as two--A5ry. A1l ilkits w,ilI h�, attached 3 car garages and'fl0or pl!,kp consisting"cf: 4., " Plan 1 (4- bedrooms—-.bpti anal den, r bathrnbMs) House- 1900 square feet 3 car garage = 588 square feet " + Pian 2 (3 bedroom;,, 2 baths) - House= Z404 square -feet- 3 care garage = 721 square feet �. Plan 3 (3 bedroom (optioral ra bdrms ), 3,:oaths) T-Wory) House - 2,58Z:square feet 3 car garage = 6N square feet aw ,• All proposeti.units 'trill have staggered t b feet front yard setbecks_ to create visual i'rterest. The project offers ,5 : r one-stark,elevations,and.3 two-sta.ry elevations with; 3 floor. plans _for a.total of 27 4iiffe:7ent product types. ;r ' A. � .. �aU� iAW - PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 9, 1986 TT 11793 - Pennfield Page 3 71dL 0esign Review Committee* The Committee 'rwiewed the design:` elevations and recommended approval subject to; modifying the upper story windows on„the rear elevation of the proposed two-story units (Phan '3). The, Committee felt this was necessary to mitigate views into rear yards both within the project interior and existing lots adjacent to the project's boundary. (See Exhibit "E-W' . Additionally, all sideyard ` setbacks' -should- be a minimum of 10' feet of flat "and unobstructed area along the driveway side of the units, and retaining walls be utilized along portions of the project interiory along Lot`6 an Lemon Street, Lot 1 and' 20 on Amethyst Street, and along interior penninsula Lots 14 and 42, Lots 21 and 41. The Committee discussed the application of a 6' high block wall or wood'fence on the eastern tract boundary which repr9sents the pnaject perimeter,, The Committee ciear'ly stated that resolution of this issue should be 'by by the applicant prior to this item being heard the Planning i Commisslon. However, if the item. was unable to be resolved, the Committee recommended that this item be brought before the full Commission for discussion. Staff believes the applicant ' has successfully addressed this ,issue. "necifics on, this matter are further clarified under Grading iummittee comments and the attached letters and exhibits submitted ,by the applicant. Lastly, the Committee requested that the driveway configuration on Cot'29 be revised. The applicant responded by relocating the driveway 10• feet to ;the north, which the Committee deemed acceptable. The applicant has made all of the appropriate changes andrevisions to the development package. * ` Colored drawings and. a. material sample board will be provided n for your review at the meeting. C. Grading Committee: •O.r, several occasions during the development ' review process, the Grading Committee offered unfavorable . rt:commendations of "No Approval based, on the reoecuring 'w. problem of resolution of perimeter problems along the eastern. project boundary. The applicant had proposed no perimeter 'treatments (i.e. .block wall or fencing) as separation between 13 { abutting properties but instead offered to let adjoining ' property owners (existing and proposed) :resolve this,problem. The Committee advised the applicant that resolution, of the ` perimeter problems will entail rights of .entryy .grading easements, maintenance easements and other private agreements' with abutting owners. At the request of Staff, the applicant has secured written commitments from abutting owner: along the x, east perimeter (see attached lattEf's from adjacent property, 3 a owners). Based upon thesi`letters of conperation,'Staff' feels: �. that the developer can realistically resolve' this;.eastern_; ' oermeter problem by proposing to place a 6 foot high wooden e�a'�' �. `�tt+ 1 .€�"51.�^s ... r• _: .. _ .>ss a.r _sb ti.� `.,`.. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ` April 9, 1986 TT 11793 - Pennfield 1. Pane 4 h ' fence along lots 6 through 11 per the attz:6ed agreements with ' abutting property owners. Along Lots 44 and 45, the ,developer is proposing to put a 6, foot high block-wall for cor.,',�:indjty' a` purpo 3s (see,*Condit on- 46). ' IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Comzrssion approve the hui ding elevations and.plot plans ' hr©ugh,the adopt>?n 4 of the attached Re,aluti�n Res ectfully subin' tea, Brad 'Buller City Planner i BB:HF:das Attachments: Letters-of Agheemerit between e`asterly adjacent property owners and',applican"t Exhibit 'lA" = Location Map Exhibit 'B". - Vicinity,. Map t, Exhibit "C",- Tentative•Tract Map Exhibit "D" Landscaping° a Exhibit "E" = Elevations; and Floor P'e • Exhi4*t."F" - Grading-Phan Exhibit,"G" 1pp'oved Tree Removal Relta t,8544 Resolution with Conditions M Previously approved Staff'Report and Resolution with Conditions fur Tentative Tract 11795 es- I t / El \ F'ENAIFIELG C� Y„ (� a oEVEt_opl+nEw>r y He at 1/C� lJ p�. '. Inc pGCq t�1 170 E 17ch St met Nd.110.Costa Mcsq Ca92627 "7 �? 4 11 714 645-3366 March 20, 1986 16 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAI.IONCA 9320 Baseline Road, suite C' Post Office Box 807 Ranci,o Cucamonga, CA., 91730 Attention: Howard Fields, Planning Department Re: Tract 11793 East boundr Dear Howard: With regards to the situation on our east boundry we ha-e contacted the homeowners to the east which we feel are impacted by the cities request to avoid a double wall situtation and have reached the following con."lusions: 1 1. The three southerly most homes/on Malachite apurtenant to our lots 4 32 and # 33.. These homeowners have constructed their block walls on our property anywhere from on property line to as much as .80' on our sideLof the line_ We feel this is not a problem as we can work it out with these homeowners as we do not need tih.a r. consent for any it work to be performed on our property. ' 2. The next two homeowners north on Malachite apurtenant to our lots # 46 and # 47 hive constructed their block walls i on their side ,of the property 1£ne anywhere from 1.15, to t 1.551. Please see attachment. i r,r These tw , nomeowners did not w nt anything done to th it walls a.d have`offered to seli.`2s this dead space behind their <,alls for $1.00, providing Pennfield Homes-Alta Loma ' pays for the minor lot line adjustment. 3. The sixth homeowner north on Malachite has constructed his block wall on his property from .95"to 1.401 }b',1 This homeowner did not want anvthi.ng done with this small strip of land or his wall and has signed an agreement to allow our future buyer of lot # 45 and # 44 to use and maintain this strip. See; attachment. 4. The seventh homeowner on•Malachite has no wall and or fence stated they were wait-1ng for the new homes to be built. -so. they could work it Dut with the.,new owners. 4.1 ", -- There is na' ,double wall situtation here as there is no wall or fence at all. 5. The next five lots north on Klusman eithe= have temporary fencing or no fencing at all with no grading or drainage problems. With regards to items 1-� Pennfield Homes-Alta Loma is taking the position that the initial fear of double walls which could be construed as hazards and or debris trapshas been mitigated. t While Pennfield Homes-Alta soma does not feel the. East boundry of our tract is a. perimeter by the usual definitions of most Cities it is our position that lots # 6-7-8-9-10-11 and 44-45- 46-47 are backyards and the fencing should decided upon and installed by the adjoining homeowners and lots, # 32-33 are side yard,,,,, and again should be left up to the homeowners. We will in the interest of good faith toward the City of Rancho Cucamonga and to avoid any further, delays and or-disputes agree, at our cost and no cost `.o-the adljoining',r'homeowners install wood fencing on the property line for taaose homes who do not rave any fencing or have temporary fencing. 6. The most nothern lot on Klusman apurte,_snt to our lot - 6, and the first house south of Lamon Avenue. This homeow ar has installed his block wall 7' on his propertyat the north end and 121 on his property. *It should be noted here that this homeowners lot was apl)roveci by the City of Rancho Cucamonga and graded improperly by the builder and inspected by the City, all in violation of proper grading standards. Firstly the homeowners lot drains onto our pru,,erty, that portion being the strip heh ' d his wall. No drainage or slope agreements were aver obtained nor were they, apparantly required by the City. Secondly when. I asked the homeowner why he built his wall the way he did he stated the tract superintendent told him k that our property was a drainage path and he could not put a wall on the property sine. E. After speaking with the homeowner at some length, it is my opinion that he himself did nothing wrong, but was let astray bl his builder and not informed of proper drainage ,requirements by the City. Again in the interest of goodwill, Pennfleld Homes-Alta Loma has made an agreemant with this homeowner to xegrade his slope properly so that it will: drain either onto Leta= Ave. ' or we will accept his water onto our lots # 6 or fi71 depe�idinq on the building departments requirements. The actual area to r. e be dewatezed is very small. #+trier.. a;.,,.•w,. ,: W a. �:b:: ....,..ter►, •J�_n, _ k _ .?�e.3...� With this area being as large as it is, Penn;Eield Homes-,Alta' Loma has agreed to install a gate for the homeowner and connect our north wall of lot # 6 to his ex t=ng north wall at our expense. The homeowner wishes to use this space as storage. Being 71 on one end al 121 on the other, there is no hazaru for small children a: then might be if the space were 11to 18". In addition when our buyer instal-Is his fen'uing the area rill be totally secure. 7. The next homeowner south of Lemon Ave. on Kusman has installed a wood fence five feet on his property. We have a verbal agreement with this owner to Farf,�ri,k one of the following. ( a written agreement is forth-coming, not available at the time of this letter). Pennfield Homes-Alta Loma has agreed to grade the lot .F'� proper standards and either move his existing wood fen•;:e on property line or contribute the cost of moving the fence toward a block wall at the homeowners expense. 8. The third home on Klusmiih south of Lemon ;Ave. has his fence 41 on his property. We have made several attempts to contact this owner both day and night with negative results. There is no drainage p�c,olem or gVading problem on this lot and w, iael that a 41 separati.on is,not a hazard. Ili" i We will, of course, continue to make contwt with this person to see if they wish*a gate or the like for access to the area or will allow the future homeowner to maintain the area. a In coriclusi.on the City of l.ancho Cuo-'Amonga placed man; conditions on our Tract 11793, to which we complied without quest Lon as long as they were in our power to comply with. Tho condition to which we had to correct the fault of others by requir•;, ng Pennfield to 01stain agreements and construct fencing not normally required,' we feel was unreasonable. Every 1 one of those fences or walls should '-ave required a building a_ permit and the i Properly graded lots should have been corrected by City Inspectors, yet they were not and we were delayed, aW. put thru considerable time and expense incorrecting someone elses mistakes. it is for these reasons we feel w= have substanially cOmp .ied with all conditions and would request to be placed on t1e PlanningComm3asio -,ndv g with a favorablereccmendat' ` i f m the s aff. oar, Adh V ry tr y ames L. Golfos, President Y J:IG/tms y_ .y„ r . t� 4 PENNFIELD HumESi-ALTS LaMH 170 East 17th Street, Ses 'ce Costa Mesa, Calirornls 92627 l . (714) 645v366 T 1 �I March 19, 1986 Mr. and Mrs. _ 6312 Klusman Sven,je,. Alta Loma¢CR ,9170l w s , :near Mr. and.,Mrs. Pennfield Homes-►Zta Loma, the DerVu�laper of the property to the west of your h9me,j 'req ass our perm ssicn for temporary ingress and aag�res4 of yo{tr PVIOPErty boundry, rCo2Ured• in L� rrvd an the attachedfd exhitiit) for the urpose of-g ading that Portion of your Property, to comply with current - standards of', grading ;-the City of Rancho Cucamon a. In exchange for your approval, Pennfield Homes-Alta Loma will ' �W.r�nect our north stall of our lot #a ;a¢ your existing north Mail and insvalll a gate: in your-rrc l for, you to have et-wall -,< access to youi^ �px"oparty. 9i1 In addition, Penrfield' HomaI=(;lta Lb"ma will assure you &'.oper drainage cf said property, by eithor su. Faces dra'sn*ng ' Lemon Street or acceptinq t Teal^ f ru our Tr et 31793 on lots 6 at►d 71_depo on"City. aApr V ry trul v re ,y d tw I JJarsk Golfo*, Agreet7: N j�+•:;,�, leant �— date i � FIF ' ,. LEMOiV "STREET REET` tMQ +NstRS• hRu'r f t x � µ4 .�VV � q ff :�, PFM4FE EM I•ff]mAm wmh - j 1"IOA�East"Vth Street, suite 110' Costa Mesa;,C3lifornia"92627 ' (714) 645-3366 March 19, 1986 ; Mr. and Mrs. Van Allen 6324 Klusnan Avenue s Alta Lana, CA.,,1 91701 Dear Mr. and Mars. Van Allen Pennfi.eld Hanes—Ala lam, the developer of the property tc, the west of your hom=,.d requests your permission for ingress aria egress (temporary) of your-west property,bo`undry, (colored in red on the attached exhibit) for the purpose of grading that portion of your ,r= property to comply-with current grading standards of the City of Rancho Ctcaanon-3a. In exchange for your approval, 'Pennfield Hanes Alta Lana will, 'at '�wr expense perform one of the following--- 1. Move your existing%m d fence to your west property line. 2. Contribute said fence tl cost of a block,wall-'to be installed`at field H(me Alta Loma will assist obtaining contractors p . cold l j YOU,choose option. JJ 3. Ovzva a 2Y' as aces o iN �f k° P / v¢ S,0ive/5etc -/-o daeG� IFZnc¢ 164 14rt 2nal -7-6 la�e $d w r� a� v y tivly s, a�A k date A ed, C- games L. lfos, , President 01 1 1 +fie A LEM��! STREET th fir" - •i. >, I r _f L d 'FL y ��" (� DEVELOPMENT , 0� `~ i.0 E th Street Nix 110,Costa Mesa,Ca 42627 14 645•3366 'a March 20, 1986 Mr. and Mrs. McGrath 6338 Xlusman Avenue Alta Lrm, CA., 91701 (714) 989-3770 ` Dear Mr. and Mrs. Mc Grath: Pennfield Hams-Alta Loma, the dev-loper to the west of your home, requests your permission far temporary ingress and egress of ycu west property boundary. (area colored in red an the-attadment) for the purpose of grading that'pxotion of your'Pro^arb;�to ccuply with current grading standards of the City of Rancho Cti,�,6cnga. At this titter ;,m are not sure that any grading"is necessaxy, holtiN,-ver, if it is it xmld be limited to that portion west of your west rear property wall. In exchange Pennfield Hares-Alta Lana,will install a sate in your rear wall so that you`may have access to the area to the rear of 1. your wall. Please he advised that the property corners will be properly marked and there be no question as to your ownership.of-the four foot stripto we p rear of your %mll. Wit' p� t Very truly Y:v,2Y`-; date 7,T= President _ y s" s 1 t, 3LG/tms w `4a, t L� -.•._ ��i.n1 i' 2.e^n�lC�.4 ""tt::. lo•=�� a LEi�ON, t�°RE T ' 4 • k 4Ee �•• q. -j4 Y. • �N._, ey ,J " 6338 ��i(Srirs�nq' gyE mob. x, IT a a R • . March 9, 1986 Penn Field homes /Alta.Loma' Attn: James L iEGolfosr x ' Ai 170 East 17th S'�reet "StQ Costa 17esa, ,Gaa.1 9r262.71 " ; 2 _ Fe: Rear. kence/Westerly Side. s. Gentlemen: ti 7,. r Goncerning ypur prop$sal >fer,Qus to 1 et the:new others main: - tain our"str ip a'f ,proFerty on:tha' wet s�aeoi aui wall we uio' not agree ribmber I Lo th s arrangement Itor a ' ' ore,,�sons: However.' we:: will any ee t�o se71'l.you air str"g ofpr�opei ty R3 x for $1.(10 each (M,,cl3ride and Cook) on.,t aondi�taorl tha'y you.; absorb ail Ti costs ofchapgi,ng ropert�yh 1 ine (�urvey "fee \ new deeds etc ).. ., Your ,trul� /Brucye Mct3ride 6448 Marla chide ~RYta Loma; Goa. 9170 ` f'714j' 87-4223 Mr.&Mrs. Terry Cook $ 6430 Malachite 'r ,. Alta Loma, Ca. 91701 (714) 987-2013 Y {�' rr� ° February 25, 1986. c xxli r, CITY OF'RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY'DEVELOPMENT'.DEPAW9MENT. w PLANNING DIVISPN i� PENNFIELD HOMES ALTO LOMA ` Attention,:-, James L, Golf'os `< 170 East 17th_Street, •110 ` Costa Mesa 7 ' E Yd ), Re: Rear Fence I;a'ne/Westeraly Side - .' ' Access and"�1KaiiLenance , Gentlemen: We understand that the fenceconstruc;;ted or' our rear property line was not constructed onthe property, b t betFeen . 95 - I,55 sat. f n. feet, arisidek ours property 1(a ne p If the* homeowners Hof the ]:ots to be constructed peat o£;-,our, rear fent'O A Ere to-construe% a f fence, in a.siirilar�fashxo•n, •the, result woul?d'4 be n unsightly; double fence_,aleng,'yth� adjoinir%g property,, T'irie. u 1.4 in order .to gVoidvira situatioj wherein t1i6rdwouldI be a dulble � fence:' slang 'the rear propery 3 {�e� ;we agree to allow the' owner/ owners of the lots anjoiYn ngo ol xf real property line. (westerly) to,-have access (irig=ess ,and regress) to the_Qtrip,'of property on the west side of'�bur>>exa t'znge block wally (varying in width < from .95 - 1. 5 feet) fo ,the purpose of ma•�ntaiing ;a�d strip of property, and, for the purpose=of provsda,n4 proper drainage i of said strip of 'p,�opert5r: Access to said"stripto€ property R shall be only, from the-wester.Cy .property owners' lots (•from the westerly side of. our existsng.tbinck wa11) You- truly /f i N Mr. & Mrs. Jon Dineen 5418 Malachite Avenue Alta Loma,,,CA 91.701 Tel. No: 9&i-84171 JLG:bhs 4 b f ab T k" Y � y t a , w 4LN :q A<. Owe tom' *^. �/.S$ �.�':.ys:'" 'r:..• +,s', ��. �� z f _ i g 7 i Iva 1 � ME- t. �•.....- w�urfH.� ,, Ml I mum 17 1 =Pig,..1 H..uw . _WOWNEW , III iiiiiiiiiiiij I< d I F t age s f i —`-Ih I+ - - L.� ��_-.J 11PRICOT WEWYe � 7 1L_TL .- .L_ LEHdR. Lr� t ILA 7 I —.3. I i7 I CRbVCE STREET I.• o .�• OR-MG o ,l �L�- � _ t� I F •1-.�1 ' �I. 1 fr f�_ f� II ..j�.,. 0Lem air' 1 r 1 Tr1 pi ` —"— �-l-- PP.riv SPACE T !!! FORTH CITY -�-- Or = ]TEN IT__._ (( 1/ 44; � RATNgl-C} CUCANI®NGA TITLE_ Q�IG/FfqA .PLANNI\G DIN.IS'rU�1 EXHIBIT.— `$" SG1[.L F _1 k 1, •. ❑4 "`t LESION STFEET AD Z. STREET. oll j `I ` Y• yam- f ��' ••` '�'�\• -�.' eb 94D ' y Ali �0 QD ED -- ' =-- - axa COMA I� 9—'- �! a A7L•mw DRNE a. mm RTH CITE.or ATE:,(- Fyn RA\'CIAO CLCAMONG TIT i : PL. NNI\ C DIVISION I ,�EV 31T. w�, 5G1LE. •"S 9 CY i� f i STREET •——„ �' _J f _-- Iz F '� K TENTATWE TRACT .N0.4 I1793 r " IN THE CITY.Ok.RANCHO CUCANONOA , CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN ' AM LOW!. r• -'"•'°"a `uTA LOW' • �fF •DRIVE'. f It I li +•� HIGHLAND-AVENUE.. Lva.RTH -d CITY OF rmm: RATCI�O CLTCA1I01\`GA T rrt E: .CANBsc,A�sd�PLANNING DRgSK)N EXHIBIT:--:D" _SCALE; tltt L.o k BilO... uui Has ■��<folown t■ r 1 ...........r,n,... .1M.nl.,,.n..1:::i..,:�I*'"'��•... i .,fir is ...............S..Si.,...,"� S :�� uaiin::+.•o:::":'a:'�iis::S="::"i:aa:::"S"I7p'��`,�9Sf �ES.�:SSSE....... ya �:iu■=n.�u.uuuiiia • n�o " • J i.E... ■..■ __�..a.aaaayA; ma ��®?p� FiA!■s1! y ATIM A� T..y � A = {.] - MIMI FhQHT -- - 1 L�: o LltFT t ,t q L �! , �ll -RL RMAa Tract•11793 Plan i-A Blevaticns-Front,Rear, Left; Right OF AIM i k RIGHT L � . ClO�OrGI] ❑I�❑ , =' r7L7C1L7❑ _. 000 ^ , t FRONT � xn ' I LEA REAR I :Fact 11793 Plan 1 B- - Blevat ms F:'cnt, F1R':!ar, Left, Right �,� u �� DPtnSM t RIGHT FR®k' P F a r • Lam. LU :i!t { RE{�R Tract 11793 Plan 1-C Elevations F.ror_t,Pear, .Left,`Right CITY OF ri`Etbd:'_ ILTGHO CL.;CAI ONGA TrrLE. g�.�5`-1' NG DiV1SK.X�T FXd IdBrd': ' .. . `, . E 1 � , G T X'i d !<!11TER BATH 1 HIE Rai? eeoBM.a eeoRM.4OEM A.x 61w11HG 3—CAR GARAGE t�r ` Traat 117"3 Plai, 1 Floor Plan x � IN CITY CITY OF Fi.AP�IIoTIYa'C DIMS ITLE'-.- e,�,�:, EXHIBIT: B�°._Q,-A.E_�``^�- - �.a P nntnantassYaBu ge�e°an..� ',�•. APOi.aAAe��a p •elev.4 c. T..Y4 „j �laeagA O\4C1aAgADYAaA tl0004�a®pA.��yne q AA4s i../4s.ryn}•' 4.a aAenH$ISS�S�SO•fS tl�eaevY fen;,/y JB yaatftaer f_ °Oil.lqH Rai pp ppAaAe•CA 6�A 4AYAiAegB Ci�iOtly���lyygtvA ..............° S3 PN46t4�0�Ygfaa p etl.00RYDa�Aigleaj0�d� ������• LOO W ■tn8 f f He qea A fa 9 � •HO osoo7.lC4.Bana4g94.aese •• p9 la.' I � _ .Za aeBaS$ iS 'y��P���,9_ YaOAaAs�iaiivaA°i�i�A°A°4a4iwiyy�lfly�'ej� I -- = ." P RRst OtlAH taAPORIYaa tAMY t � � p , - s e 16 x y Rd ]RIGHT .* l�FdGHT r' RHAR Tract 11793 Plim 2 A , xlevati=- E'ront, Rear left, Right CrrY OF RA NCI �,CVCAIV ONGA Trnz-. DPV1g"fCI EXHIBIT: .�..._.SCALE y as"Y' Rw R[ONTV r ,r L1L1L LL�j LJLl L HI I tr-n =71 f IFm om, ^FRONT f' LP. , .•1. REAR Tract 1793 Plan 2-P Elevations- Fsont, Rear, Right, Left t CI'] Y OF r: :' RA T ID CLCAM® TriA 7^1I'i E: �t PLAIVNn',fG p7PV j E�CHIBIT: �. SCALE t jak F. -3 .� 'REAR Tract 11793 Plan 2--C Elevations- Front, Pear,J eft, Rig It CITY OIL'RANCM r�AMONGA PLANNM DID EX � 1 Na7IIq uvlN® dllY R(o rCrYC e•,. � r� oeass•a ' / d W��A��R��D BC a..t2 " BEORNf.3 ERTA ;. = •,, - - •3-CAR.GARAGE - y,V. _. a g Tract 11793 Plan 2_ Floor Plan C'Ty OF RANC IIHO CUC MONGA Ti-rLE: PLANNINGbIRTNON EXHIBM---A M& �x � "' '� yyam��++ . ;�•.p � � '�{— \e i :' �.:�'��ur.•inrnru • Jn .. �.P•,,. •e::sle.:a::9i9l�es�:�:.l.e°����s:o�=�:i.si�is 7 og•. � ngo" Bari - �s 1t.ttt - mom _..�1� y � � OtI■1 Ila __ _ ��i-ur. M—Za Itn t= ct� t� llnr a � ! � IOttr .rttt SO --r�s - ® UrtL� !tt■ H jf Ittn■+ 'naa , III Eta "��tXt��ftuuuunuuaummuT°°i°.a°'auuw wmunuuuuw 1171.�.�n�-i1�-�r�-r�--���On 1 dl'"itr:Tity"'-' +t � t c� OWS t REAR - v rl L _ PLAN 3' CITY OF RANCHO C;TCAMCNGA TITLE=' PL•A.NNIl\'G DIVMN EXHIBIT SCALE; u `Igo �aeaHr i PUN 3-A LXF4 �ttt�a CITY ��yO—�F�p ry ��pp� L� ITEm: T.T`/,/ n ANNB 'G DP4' SIOIV Tom' _ rr. SCAM t � t w-WPows MOh/oiE;,a f f _ t EI(F REAR I. � LJ1.Ll�..J � •� noes PLAN 3 BLSVAYIOIi RANCHO Cl.i�CWvNGA .� PL.ANNINr, DTtraIc E'�CEtIE3[T:E- 3�' ` __ALE Lit J NIGHT LISFT u PLAN 3-H, MA-yixo3 u CITY OF ._q 9.3 RANCM CLTCA.MONGA PLA.NN6G, Di TEM EXHIB(r:"�'-3" lea r .,L` f REAR it -,` FRONT 1 PLAN 3 ELEVATION +C., TTM-11tH3 RANCHO CLCA-MOI�GA , -- TITLE: _ U�`I lewx PT�.t�MINU DPV SIGN EXHIBIT:`° _SCALE IY kia r t ix UPT �I PLAN 2-C i ; CITY OFRANCHO;CUCAMONGA lTE�tik�y-� P r'r Tll\{s 63P�L5ION EXIJ113IT: 5 L>r= - & 19 a e 4 f .r k: FRONT - t NORTE i CITY C}F �} TG J � CM CLTCAI�IO +, �� iTL b Pd rdNM'�KV1S 1 F.XHIBrr-E`-VJt SGaLE . " �., 1&164- •' ��ir: t7,1�.,�, - ,ant -', ° _' Gt1ds��{rst� lQ��eTi?RP 4, PAM LEFT PLAATr CUCAMMTGA 504 TrME-. CIA 4 °.•• mart.n'...t. - �I �sATM x LOFT Of N O KI°TCHE- FAMILY s y `MASTER i11t - A,O ., a eeow�a.z elswM a wZex LIVING it 0—CAR OAS r.Q£ X. 11 ,f s m _ r Pen nraeld: 46 es ALTA L,•;r1A Tract 11793 Plan 3 Floor Plans ;. I , e CITY OF ITEM. . RAN CL'C:I�MI��'�iLl TITLE; 1T• E?CFIIB SCALE. _ A IEWN STREET . f li � I � e III I' 1 ),� •_1. •�' +s��l -�i�.-. L9 k a at ling '�� •I �.. ^fit- i ..�fll �{� t i •. �(Y 1�� +t - ' � ��..` �mr •l ,• �' a f i t � if. -t reCIF ,. .• � 41 y t � r FL7-0 LONG I •. $ asertryA .. r '.4,TA LOW tltNE �t° �`' _ �"-�-ice' ��- '� i r• r f j ..Ii 1 Z : �_M ��;[>. I 1 l.�..Win.✓ a..y�,.(.l \ • Q \ mowavrt' 7HGH`IANO—AVENUE - •t d: CITY OF •+q.r`fro - 'T s - ECHO CL�CA1Oi�GATrME. 9� F-Xfi! IT: " P'� SCAt a y .srr i 4. MRIACwtE RdENIE:. I 771 E%ISTB . FENCE t.00LTION$ ION 0.0 SECTION E-E SECT ION a-C SECTION C-C SECT �x15�N6qq SECTION F-F '..SECTION 0-0 SECTION N•N SECTION 1-1 CITY OF RANCHO A TITLE ( h P.LANNI\ DNISIC�N EXHIBIT SGALE�� h � - �-q3 4 , /r' i/rrr rr/� ri f/Tl/r _r_• t �� , ' I Qi�`J 'n� }•I �'' �'VI'•c. t��.ail l r ••,., I - M. I. 4-1 �'`~ ' b,~•. >y"( lei `��� Vf AML 1 t.. 111 rhri ?sF � --•_ .I� a f� +t� ? � ��� i t . CJ,acs I (;,hir!'at • ! tr - i '� A�• —�Al a c 4 rL C174 iob ~ceK s. UPoE W.velD a..„� t 5C-t.P-,V//VC— Xft bY/✓ :NORTH C OF ITEM: �.'�' RA .�� : 1 /®79z NC ���AlVIOI�TGA TII'LE:'9.I I11, �;° �i�tEE �tr�oadc el►r- '` PLANNING DIVISKI EXFi[B1T:---- '�_SCr#IE: � '8 • "VIV 3 ' ~RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT NO. 11793 LOCATED AT }, THE NORTHEAST CORNER `OF. AMETHYST STREET WAND HIGHLAND ^' AVENUE', IN THE LOW'RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT' WHEREAS, on the 16th day of January, 1986, a complete application was filed by Pennfield Dev. for review of the 'above-described project; and j k � WEREAS, on the 9th day of-April, 1Q86, the Rancho`Cucamonga Planning p Cmirtission held a meeting to consider the ab described project. NOW, THEREFORE, th0Rancho Cucamonga Planning Comnisston resolved as follows. f SECTION 1: That the folldWing can be mete 1. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives `of the General Plan; and — 2. That the,>proposed use, is in accord .with the objectivd`zof the``Develdpment Code and the purposes of the district in which',"the site is iocated•; and 3. That the proposed use is an compliance,with each of the applicable provisions of the Dev,i elop and ment`Cade; � . 4. That the proposed use, together with the conditions appli'cabl•e thereto, will ,not be detrimental to the public health, safety, °or welfare,' or materiail'y injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: That Design Review for Tract 11793 is approved subject to the fo owll wing conditions and attached Standard Condittions: c 1. All pertinent conditions.of Tentative:-tract 11793 as contained in Resolutidn 81-43 shall apply. 2. All retaining walls as shown in the conceptual grading shall be provided for as 'indicated. .4 3. A dense planting of Is gallon, size Evergreen trees 30 on-center shall be 'planted along the west side of the'property line at the rear of Lots 6-11. . } 4 . •�.s K � SS. � J '..•Y j't'•rt"�h� y.n ' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION w''i April 9, 1986 + ' TT" 11793 Pennfield y Page 2 ? 4• Provide additional 'architectural fenestration on Orange Street to all ,,corner units and construct " corner - sideyard rr:=41ning walls with consistent masonry materials, along north side of Lot 6,- Lot'14, Lot 42, and Lot 41 5. Provide 6' block wall along Lots 44 and 45. Block wail will tie,into existing 2' retaining wall onthe south side of Lot 12. F 6. Provide 61 high wooden fence (1x6 Dog-ear Cedar, ~ alternate each side) along. east property line of Lots 6-11, subject to review and approval by the City Planner, prior to issuance of building permits. - 7. Provide access by means of a gate to areas created" between Lots 6-8 and easterly abutting property owners. ` APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis ou , Chairman ATTEST: cBrad Buller, Deputy Secretary r =" y:. I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify t��>,'r,the foregoi'nl Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and,(adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a re441ar meeting of the Planning Commission 'held on the 9th day of April, 1986, by the following vote-to-wit: r AYES: COMMISSIONERS: I NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: f' � �YIT7. p CA," -- -— — CITY OF RANCHO CL'�v1U\GA o c�"' 's STAFF FORT TJ Z i 1977 ' DATE: April 22, 1981 TO: Members of'the Planning Commission FROM: Barry K, Hogan, City Planner BY: Otto Kt o4*i l,-Associate �n anner SUBJECT': ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 11793.= _ MUl11N/BLISS A custom lot subdivision of 47 I;ots on= �. 15.9 acres ir.;the R'--1-10 and R-1-12 zo,^,ns, located on. the east side of.Amethyst, between Highland and Lemon - APN 1062-561-04, 1062-57144. t ABSTRACT: The applicant is requesting approval of a custom lot -subdivision of 47 lots in the'R-1-10 and R-1-]2;_zones,, Since w the proposed subdivision meets all applicable fEquirem�n s, and appears to be a logical extension of existing development, the , Staff is recommending approval, with appropriate conditions•. BACKGROUND: The application entails a request for-the approval of the Tentative Tract Map for a custom lot subdivision'of 47 lots on 15.9 acres in the R-1-10 and R-1-12 zones. The subdivision is located on the east side of Amethyst, between Highland and.Lemon (Exhibit "A"). The project site is occupied by a lemon gf;.;ve, and two Cucamonga County Water District well sites. The site slopes southeasterly at.5%, and is bordered on the north and"'a'e east by spi existing Bluegum Eucalyptus windrows. Another windrow traverses the site approximately half4way between Highland and Lemon Street. ;* jThe proposal has been submitted and reviewed as a custom lot sub- ; division and has been reviewed in accordance with the Growth (iap._,ne- ment Ordinance. The proposal received a rating in excess of,'the required threshold of 43 points, and is therefore eligible for con- i. sideration by the Planning Commission. The Conceptual Grading Plan, submitted in conjunction with the Tentative Map, has also been re- viewed by the Grading Committee, and received approval in concept only, (Exhibit "B"). , . - . Tentative Tract-11793-Mullin/Bliss . -s .. April 22, 1981 Page 2 r= ANALYSIS: The project, as, proposed, is shown on attached Exhibit "C" and is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use designation' of Low Density, 2-4 du/ac. The project also meets current Inning Ordinance requirements. The surrounding land uses and zorinp are rt described as follows: Land Use Zonina a, Site Citrus Grove, CCWD Water Well R-1-12, R-1-10 North Single Faynily Residential R-1-15 East Single Family Residential R-1-12, R-1-10 South Single Family Residence, R-1-8500 Citrus'Grove West Single Family Residential R-1-12, R-1-10 The Subdivision Map has been prepared in accordance with.the State Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision ordinance. `To a degree, the street pattern has been predetermined by an adjacent ' residential subdivision on the east of the'project site.' The pro posed grading utilizes conventional grading techniques, resulting' _y in all lots being graded in their entirety. 41 As noted, two well sites are located within the project boundaries. CCWD well site #14 is located in the southwest corner of the map, south of Highland Avenue. The applicant and the Water District are working out an agreement to trade superfluous pieces of land to accommodate the proposed street improvements (Exhibit "0"). A similar agreement is being worked out for well site #15, which is to be located within lot 23. The Water District will retain control of lot 23 until such time the well site is abandoned, at which point lotI 23 could be developed and a single family residence constructed. However, the district indicates that there are no plans for abandonment of either .s of the two sites in the foreseeable future. As a result, Staff would recommend that appropriate screening walls and landscaping 'be provided along the well site boundaries. in addition to visual screening and W Tentative Tract 11793-Mullin/Bliss ¢ April 22, 1981 Page 3 i security considerations, these walls will also provide much needed noise attenuation to reduce the impact of the pumps and related well equipment on the surrounding residential areas. Appropriate Conditions to this effect are inciuded in the Conditions of Approval, attached to this report, for your consideration. It may be possible ;to preserve select Citrus and Eucalyptus trees located on the site, and a Condition requiring the developer to submit a Master Plan of existing trees for possible preservation has been included in the att:cned Conditi�ns.of Approval for your consideration. However, it should be noted that the northerly wf.ndrow is located within the future pavement area of. Lemon"Avenue and cainot be preserved. Also attached for-your;review is Part I of tiie Initial Study, as completed by the applicant. The`Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study, the Environmental Checklist, and hay completed a field investigation. As a recult of the investigation and completion of the study, Staff found inn significant adverse impact: on the environment that could result from this subdivision. Should the Corivnis:.sion conc(�with the Staff recommendations, the issuance of 'a Negative Declaration woa4;d be appropriate. CORRESPONDENCE: The Tentative Map has been advertised as a public hearing. item in the. Daily Report Newspaper. In addition, over 30 public hearing notices were mailed to property owners located within 300' radius of the tract. To date, no correspondence has been receiv(4. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Co 'ision conduct a public hearing to receive all public comments. If, after such hearing',: ' the Commission concurs with the findings and conditions as recomrended m w by Staff, the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval, wfch Con- ditions, would be appropriate, ' Re /GAN y bmitted, R Cr KH Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit "C" - Tract Map ' Exhibit "D" - 1Je11,Site f14 " Initial Study Part Resolution of Approval Conditions of Approval RESOLUTION N0. 81-43 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFO,RNIA, CONDITIONALLY ? APPROVING TENTATIVE.J ACT MAP N0. 11.793 ' WHEREAS, tentative Tract Map No. 11793, hereinafter "Map" :1 submitted by Mullin/Bliss, applicant, for the purpose of-subdividing the real property situated in the,City of Rancho Cucamonga,-County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as, a custa;nllot subdivision i of 47 loty �,, 1 5,9 acres in the R-1-10 & R-1.-12 ',,cnes, located on the `1 east side of #unethyst, between Highland and Lemon. 1062 561-04, ' 1062-571-04) into 4,:- lots, regularly came before the Planning Coirehissi.on for public hearing at:d"_action on April 22,:,1:9,81; a„d' WHEREAS,* the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map 9 subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning ►` Divisions reports, and== WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has"read and considered the Engineering and Planning Divisions reports and has considered other 1 evidence pr.Bsented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE,`>>the Planning Commission of the City of rancho Cucamonga does resolve asol'ows: SECTION 1: ,The Planning Commission rakes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract..No. 11793 and the Map thgreof x,r 1 e (a) `The tentative tract is consistent with all :applicable interim and proposed general' and specific plans; (b) , The design or improvements oft the centatdve tract is consistent y with ali applicable°`interim and proposed ► general and specific_plans, (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; . ."' (d) The design of the subdivision is, not iikely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to a humans and wildlife or their habitat;, m (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public >°. health problems;, (f) the design of the tentative,tr•hct will not conflict any easement acquired,by the public at large,,.naw o record, for access through"or use of the prope;ty, �ri"thin ' the proposed subdivisions., _ i � ;.ram •.:'7°�f"""' ,fir �[ '�' �� ,_..� r.. - � "TM^'sF'^'+%��,�.' ^ - Page 2 , Ila .(9) That: this_ project t-rill not create ,;i lverse impacts on the enV i ronmept and a Negative Dec]'ara "pn is;issued. SECTION 2: Tentative TractMap. No. 11793, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby .approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions, PLANNING DIVISION C, 1• ` 6' high, decorative block wall shall be Por�:,°>>ucted aiong _ the north and west sides of CCWD Well site r14. on the west cider, such wall Shall be set back to minimum of 15' from Elie R ,W, Iine`,and 'the setback and parkway areas shall be appropriately Iagdscaped and'automati cal Iy; irrigated: •A detailed•p14 vindicating locat,ton and design of,such walls; v4 lip,Af aping and irrigation, shall ` 6e suhmii ed for appro ,-to the City Planner prior.to final map recordation. ' + 2. A 6' high block wall shall be;congtructed'al:ong the north, east and south property lines of lot 23. On the west, a decorative wall'or, fenciog, set back an average of 26' from the R.O.W. shall ,be erected, and the setback are+ ryppropri ate]y,.,landscaped and automatically irrigate..,-A,detailed plan indicating precise location and desi ff such walls, land,scaping', and irrigation shall 'be';.,5mitted for approW to the City Planner prior to final mLn reco'rdation. 3. The City shall Work with the developer tor seek financial assistance from the CCWD for the improvements to •the well sites. ENGINFERING-DIVISION t � . 4. Improvement of Highland Avenue shall also include that Portion oi' the street contiguous to the CCtJD's well site n_ #14. 5. The cost of readjusting the Highland Avenue right-of-way and the reconstruction and relocation work for well site n:4 as required by County Water District shall be borne by the developer. 6• A refundable deposit coverin Avenue shall be required. g reconstruction of Highland APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF A`r3IL, 1981. PLANNING COMM_SSIO� ,OF THE CITY &'RANCho CUCAMONGA ��17 ' P.esoTu� n;i�`�o1a ^� ;3 Page 3 t R i chat d Va lF� ,;Ctia i t n Secretary of the P7apning Commiss�an;,wa Vi JACK LAFt, Secretary of the Planning CO1M'Ssioll of the y of Rancho 4 . Cucamonga. do hereby certify that-the'foregaing Re oluti0M%'ia5 dul and regularly introduced, passed, and �daptei# b ,the,panning <Gorpissian of ` the City of Rancho Cucamanga_ ,at a regular meeting;of the,Pianning �';nmis5ion'held on the, 220d ddy of Apt^tl,'s 9.81 bj+ the following vote to rtit: AYES: COMMISSIONER$, P,empel, Sceranka, King, Dahl � iiuES- COMMISSIPgERS:. None 48SENT: CDMMISSIONERS: iolstoy yy e . N O O N p J N u - Nu m �p •- � 'Cd a " o.G^�ap. y uo rc O 4 - F-C L �i•U-. Y C O L 7 ,p aL V - a.u` 2� L rdi u " y nc p O b i.L Y >•G 7 rpc 4 C 5! U ol I ^ C•� CY p 0 m Y N O o� 2a W y10 L n 'O `S 4.c IK< q d ..„o O' I u,; G 4 zv g F I d �L - p co o Jv _ va o u ❑ L. Nc p: p za n E 4^ L N:tui L N Y L T � • L .R, It���� d MOC OhtO C vp y L N _ C L _ 72 !v V Y •.. d V N O • 1•y`.�.� Q ali �p W O� .C-• 4 s d � V E v I F bKH Z' 17J CG qv E.A —S� C. =i r0O GL— tl �l-1; SC .:>i �Vy d �=N C tp n op -91 Ks 2 G W 5 c$ L� ^ Re u -o CC— '^ uo C 9y P C 01� w q > L T Y U a a d a E � i•L p N^ o c i [@Ge Id pC -.Ca O b d ^ ! ( C L d L . EL Vsi tiE V GGi. b �� a0 O dG-r -L-N O�•O YU ' b NCO 'd L `` y�9,.~- qp O`I E�yr � Ha, b Y c n n c r_ mom. u �f•.,.u.i'`.,a y cc .a uoW a ^ �i .>;cxi G�-i, a � Ga uct c,:,t..` r. Leuz.� `�.f dr b � n.o C 6 A W d u P�..Oi'..0. y g U w •��` I N b A p Or Al � { {lµ I 1 . �- � { � i bj ^� t�I �, �C •�SY< x � n ,_ y a �7i f. q a v p 3Y IJi O p `rn 3p p� G J -V u d W �-v l,r U V n G _ a. 741 r `C Eo. Cp C a 2 q o C n 2 0• a F �I op p - c 5-.0 VE - - y�I 0-.- ` 4 n -� 75 � 1 O71 - N 21 ruJ �O IQ 21 c Y, =C1 LL s n 1 L '— J� < O L� a 1 c+I C I E `oc I d u O O uG L � I Y Ld�l GC OL Lu < 2C... Y G G O 1 L - Sr aJ 4 d ~U pC.t=u C0.1 OC n a OV' L u k A per •I L O D. 3 u C E yn p < I Y p N O o �PO1: Y •v'u C •,, p r C IO 4. u O J s.2 - r 0 0 0 1 �` ou S la 1 22 L 9 y^a x u p M as]� a o t�'ci � ..� V�j! N W • P !' �l XT li . 1 _ - - F - - IJ. 9, f o \\ L = r ir. t ��• C L ' o " vIt fII �c Gov G y � o 9, a 2. — _ u p CO - G a ♦` \ E +j a0 y -Nt CN TL..r T N LG 152� •'�_—ems`- f\Y� C Vr-.I ? Oi JJ QI � - vOiDo. Gu L u r C O.O u -U^ Z.,�l O 7C 7p..• OV O L N T C N = ,yr..• ii � O u u T T Y 4 au sr L,_y =>� u.. q:o it `SW�4 w �-'• �c ll'' G 2 ? u M4�i r W iC 4 VV f o -p .•S T u E :^ to°. ^�D �n.� c c•v .c.. o-c o D a a a np a w, '� V to 6� •� -~ •'. t t .... � >L xGC4 OX� C� r.,: 4 i.LG'y L 3 6' <.' n, cOc11 •_ `VI 9 �'.• ' Y _.- a 4:0 �M � 1 U G N G.'p✓ �L L C ' rt_ emu. &JUSIM sa.�al.ilL ��,.. 4ea.�. ... _..�._�� 11 .x..._. I X• W. `' `M �.ts: k" y� O ? Iy p dJ G r u <u V Ub L �-.-.0 U �•Ti 6 ^O q� N Lq S. ' L d� y L a ; G Y V E j G - v a c fil. 4 uU rp n n� O A a� O y O p p d N CO UC !hL U G It L � of o. L o c '6 c o a r a d o o ti, - 3H 3 3i T ..yl. E4`da L u - ,1 .. .2 q E Z G tj G T_U y E V a x e a 1..v V o e L rd p« = at q o aI L ✓ o L. p� L G' y G c " t. i � V C+ C aY'J G a � rry �1, ! Ir1 G 4 1 C C �n tied �G 4 -U L1V ,d 1 G G E Ilf-2J jaw<T.,1tl0 G p4 ► Yxyr• tV t^I A N Hogan,-stat2d thar.''he knew there is concern but it is no relevance r to i�ect, 'P There bGin o:furthez comments the public hear' g was closed, Commissioner Kin . tate1 that keyis stil• opposed to the densit " this location tut.grg en the €act that e y an done an.excellenE:job. project is"here,,, they haue Motion; Moved by Rempelz se ded. by Sceranka,Acarried unanimously, to adopt Resolution �Io.51 231-41 'han , gthe zoning from R-I=$500 to x �p,D, and Resolution 1io. -4 , conditio lly approving the Tentative Tia%t 3 7 50 P Te Pl;�nnin&,Fommiss on recessed. P111 The P1an_:ing Commission recon:s'cpd. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT'"1ND TENTATIVE TRACT'140.' 11793 - MULLINIBLISS A custom lot, subdivision of 41;Lotz on,15:,9 acres 2r the R<1'-3U R:1-12 zones, located on the east side oCkmethyst� between Highland Y, sand Lemon - APN'1082-561-04 and�APH 10b'2=5?1-04. ° Senior flanner, Michaek Vairin, reviewed the staff report.,_ Commissioner King.stated that relative td well site No, 14 at Highland and Amethyst, the condition recommending enclosure on the north, and east side would.!tie appropriate if it were extended to the west and south sides as well. Mr. Vairin replied that inasmuch as here-vili bs a gate on the,west side the east side would probably need fe.Ycing•as well. c Chairman Dahl asked about the abandonment of this well site referred to in the Initial Study. Mr. Vairin replied that this was written by-.the applicant and not by l` staff. Mr. Hogan stated that if the well site is abandoned prior to- the construction of the tract, the condition will have been mdt, if it is"mot abandaiied. prior to construction of the homes on that ite it would then have to be abandoned, Chairman Dahl stated that he'would be hard put to requic --a wall at [hi " well site if it is to be abandoned. `r. Lam stated that the wall gill be one.of the last thinp4 built: P1aaning;Oommission Minutia -3- Agril,22, 1k981 ,. CamnisSibner Sceranka stated that it is not the _-Atent of. the Water District to abattirion anything for 5-10 years at the earliest."He-.<sked why standard condition No. 17'was checked. , Mr. Vairin replied because the applicant will provide this in addition.' Commissioner Sceranka'asked if this is a requirement of a custom lot, �4 subdivision. Commissioner Sceranka asked if' they will be working with solar and other "facets of good planning, c, • Mr. Hogan stated-that the Commission could require that, all or'some of ' the homes to have solar but this was the Commissiori's-perogative. ' Commissioner Sceranka stated ,that he tranted to see ;taese'pre-plumbed .and did not know if this was the right time to request 0-at this be,done. Mr.'Hogan replied that the Commission would have `getter control at this s time. Mr. Larry Bliss,`7333 Hellman,'>Rancho biicamonga,ssitated, that rhe would have no objections to pre-plumbing.' lie indicated that this would-be a good sales tool and would be no problem., Mr. Bliss sta.ted,tbar this shone of the la>t lemon and grapefru ,,t groves in. the tcommunity which was ti'anded, down from the Nolan family, who presently-live elsewhere. Mr,. Nolan - had a request that as many trees be .raved as pds'sible and it'the 'Commission•S was! in agreement, they would try Lo lay out-the tract to10reserve as many trees as they can. He indicated that .they,*will provide more,land to the Cucamonga County,Water District but" sO-much fhat it would be t� a park. He indicated 7 that a decorative block wal7: with trees and; ground cover would look nice and that'th y'.aweie pre"tty happy with`iahat they have 6 come up with. He :Q dicated that i't.would be; the"responsibility of•[dater District to come(up:with tire;wall and,landscaping•and their maintenance and felt thatIt was about time that the Water Piatrict started cleaning up their act. Mr. Hogan,stated that the landscaping that Mr. Blisssr-was talking about is the same as what he talked about ,and would consist of a i pproxiivately 5-10, 15-gallon trees, shrubs and"•groundcover. 'f There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. 1 Commissioner King stated that tfiere would be a tendency to agree with. the applicant relative to the well on the south side of Highland ,re]a6tvet 1" to the enclosure as it is not his property.''However, this:is ari'extremely noisy well and for the sanity of the.four homeowners to the south:end • of the tract an attenuation wall would'be proper. :He faelt;th�c,perFiaps ;- the entire thing should be enclosed. _ Planning Commission Minutes• -8- { r April 22, 1981 Commissioner Rempel stated that he did not think the wafar company would do ,this, although he felt that a noise attenuation wall is 11 further statedthat he did not-feel that it should be done ofcethea ou'thHe " side. $e felt that the .-developer on the,south side of thin land should do it. Mr. Hogan stated that to .the south is the freeway right-of-+ay. Commissionec Sceranka-asked if the well would be able to be heard across the street. Mr. Hogan replied that it would witblaut the fencing. f . Commissioner Sceranka asked if the Gtity could ask the water company to put up tLe wall., 11 3 Mr. Hogan replird that the City can ask. He stated that the primary concern is wheiier it must go the entire di.;tancelto surround the well. If there was concern for the_northern area, the wall is definitely.-necessary and some should also go around the-south. Commissioner Sceranka stated that,this could be worked out withµthe applicant. Commissioner Rempel suggested that the wall not be extended thfIt far and that trees be planted round U t between the well and the street., `Chairman Dahl stated that the residents to the south are existing residents who have lived there a long time. He further stated that he did not think i this developer sh„ould solve t ' f his problem for them. He indicated that the north side should have a wall and landscaping and the rest is the responsi- bility of the water .company. ,fie did to be fenced in.. that think that the west side needed Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Scersnka, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution no. $1-43, with- the 4ddit3on of pre-plumbing for solar .P and a request that the Water District be.ssked to pxovid`(f imprc�ements 1 + - to this well site. Commissioner Rempel,ask=d that the water company work with, the applicant to offset some of the cost of the noise attenuation wall and improvements. G. CON L USE PERMIT NO. 31-07 A._H.. RESTER - A re r establishment n adult day health cents r chronicallydisabled or a a'ilitation of - ns, within-the M-1 zone and to be located in the C nga Bus Park on be soutwest-corner of Archibald an • ro•a - APN 209-021-39,. ' Senior P ner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -9- t. s . rr April 22, Y 381 3 :a - 4 0 « V� : • �U9 d� d3 dYY L 6.L.LE 5� ,` a Zit T Y N k0.'+ q.Y o e T Y O• Ie,01 L P ' d'�y" Y a« t�4v .� Z U E a�«6 y C V'd. Y O A `O 9 c Y L+A •"� M E� 39� V M.:� rVYGred O D. q�L N.Gp Cal uL. (U O d L CrO.Y S a CUM C.. C COt�+ Alt V C m a0ou•'_ a.N bd:L o 3F S.LW 'E`.y �^ � C� b��d. AC6. W � LU,• G.06 COL yruEC. . yp t_@ y= U 4 L u c C O • .O a w V E. d y '� Wry `Lm C EEyP QUA « A ^ tV .Y., }OY .O A.G 6 u^ N "a A4 A dOR� x `qY OO� • O d -o.4 E�q�.o a c w M ao+ o� r.1 1n 2' V rrr�0. `OY:d Ad C mJie Ydto .. �N b SV� L N b 0 a E O.^YA69 S. O} A x Li SY C. 6 �.tt•C O Y 4L pti h �v yd G G NE .M O.OA N'oEOO dE« n 44 L ^ ^ A ^ L j. N , O Y I u o P.Y a' •c u d.d k iiA■ . ` 2 N L f6 w G O N Y gg O' O O.. tyg-M�Sy tL O O I C a'L O.t Y •Y d1 Lyy:5 `*93 � �. N 1� •r'- 6 drdoL C d LO• q=6��4.0 d 13 by�.. W jr q Ab 4O pa aN+ p; �. p� Y F V C' N OOWL E'g ` •k .,. �r 11�} .� ; 'R }� �_�T� g o s o. r� �,,,A y�,s y }'Y« «'7` a��q.,�a .�s '�•.. gyp_ rC4i CY O�iC� OYC y^d`9 n ^� «¢r Ya i �Lwv r� •.E O d y'Y p . o p L AL pNN NA e ^ d•3 •N �� L � nub O..' VO + O p•q..y O U dg .yi L..L � C L.u�q �^�Y }�- daa yV = ,..0 O ]bd Oy•. O.oa YAO C.NN d�La dy u eG d a � G\�_.. NL.o� a � M '^Y iO� �TE�... M •L. ry L N.�dg' �� OL N.L � L9�p ndN 6v=i�NgN•� N p�Y2C MQ. ^.�c �� 9 O ^ Gy ^3 q.n uCN ^N' Ur GY aii LC. d4N WL.CLI S. O L. b.0 C� Y Ud:N 9M..O YmE,aI L.^ iwYyq cMg cyi d. LL 64.1. .,aw. OC E L t wl L Y 0 o= •�Q A q E>> o CC A d7 Nand AUN �.1.� d�+Gn p, L G at qG aOE> La gwp• �! CY pp Gaa�iT� Nc ^'d c N E 4' y m^ n n y W d p^ q C L. .O N-1 M 3 g 4�Z c��b S•N ^A An V V �A. 6m u E QC. p i Y� O p d~4 Y. M O. c r d g a d a o ^ G y,,,0 A♦ Q G q. W EL-2! 0 R d GG _ r.. 5 N V o 1 V c i5 c E s a V. y q O C V.c� Y ¢^ �myr Va! t Ap �O aO�L - yL4.C9 9C� ^ 60 W� OLG>�drii YO C.vhM pCL u.TY G oC_ Y. :. 6 E—z K &N..Y. N Y.N �1 f 1 i A v� " �a.cd ad' i is m� �" Yv -00 5 es u' -� o St NL. e e ��'yg L:OCy M„ C't LA.o 4+0+ d..90i'u Or'^ Ora O~E ^!-tl Q L%C O.d6 O� CRO pr ,^acEv •� �i G i y N` Y g Aw•� Vu dated LCyq. ~V = �i�T`YLI M( fo O% �M AAq .� UV d d� OL O ij.Y 06 AWL 6Q9CCY �� f.i Gp O.R N'O— Y r t:.d C 10.'O A^A�.: ~C V. c 6 0. N. ,p N E.:.; g:y� - NO 4 Y * t byS 0. '�i 9NL. a Y C.O L` L<aL'•' s G dY C y d Z'�np L u x C C Cwpa . Cis. L^ FK^ �. Ya•O EiI b A C .YZ '.O.y`9 AGi dyu EgVY r N ^>al C L,p WC G 6}L= d.l.E Cy.M i O G Y`C.tlgS pYN Ll p0 qqxM 0 .. i> LyVcd • N ON OgNbd Vi T OVN G9 C09 N.CO bTbg7d G�w6 G 'rf n0,0�� O~nM Y d 6 EE r bGgA u c b �.6 f: d �Jd >O AYE YLL .pv 'u..0 �d LWb=gipp V,a G> y u ipn' O U C ti..Y S T µC L U E Y a{ L� d O•..E O'A:o 6Ln �Nn I�r NQA K•-Ny N O`A KU ..J e•V nYa+.a��. NYY NJ''A fweiq�g6 J..� k i M L L V C ••1( n o „'_ c p a.. a d cr o_ o tii.m n v.r <r��.. �'m� cum. Zg2 w a a d p Y qo a.NNp pv d ap. 44a� • L °1 � 'Y A � V O q � L L- L u V q� IV.Ixqu y uu �.a..p ouq Nam . � N T_ �w► R„YN 9^ _ Nlyr�N..O t�.rN C .� Md U A ip111 it � c 4n op ^`"a Tp. aa,� oN Haa •L Pqt°i Ndu� n%. d o n red L.aeit. Cic XOv p� q ��'p�'.sCE a.. G.. „1^.T c a a p :Nv a:°Aceda'c`i. p c« LA°ly dy A d ,y V oQ np O'y a 01 y„ G~ Lea Lt C V �n�`-' i�iY VOQd .4L 4-as t` Oa 00 axq rt. r�rA- p G^ Gra Ol aNc �doy. C wl"1 ON N.A WO d aaY�(NrY ATN L. md c aN y c h V.p. EE q•+aL. { A V O V 4an~ O A= o„ na O O y G x N pyID dA n tu0 `.„ a d aMV= oZ �^ N G O` � e.`. odm .gcLa $a gwn�u yAou� aCCa' T.�yMM I-W L �.E. r N NOp LLL� pg Q. 4C 9p C� T` N N q N E d^ E (1 f'M r . r iae m dm wm 4 oraoc �c a�i� ^«a'e`o$ d N � o yv `o tTng.. U> U.D AN yU NO N LKh��d 0= y s •O..L O. C (y q Ca Na A q O. ♦ Ar Yw O . n nnn �`O an 6 �� c�< oC 4 L.M.d� �.� C•+ Z 6yq .N Td `O A n c ra. Nr V y Ca . a LLB c.N9N „.. aU ty • W �� O NQ `__ G�{i t N u, ! 1.. •V -J y6 ...ac C�1 cp aL Y O E d 7,01 O d p day CE .J�I L N . U i �L aL Ny ua�V :�bN dutyy Ip pl w. Y .tea ° d v u nRL"o i`o ll n o�ec A q0 ?gi �` A �'c " a► a cadL.uq- G EL ~E�e� V nc y pM x tJ LVL N^N y LO L do nd:bL .O V Or r Em i aL+NO ,4 eY:m- ? 4a.N Id Ln.N to 40 o.pn�A '606. c 6N6M Wd O�"24 � w 1 v'•E yag �V GY� C:OQC cn 4.�. Y � O•ul uSY �9 LOU eW� ca Xt '., S p a v Y Q.,.N LV�N f� O l: L V w V VO..Oc r • � �� �. O C.. Ip.. Ol�r u.E V.0 3 q0st ? OQ Mp« Y v `ry .c a. u-Tx 4. ai c 7EQ �u� Y'JybO. 'ya} O CxbrN 1 OdBu v. 'y O nJ ym �NCL £O' pON C.V„ gsC G40N `qL 9.M YCpA 4.� AaGGGs9ilp ^ gmc t 9 6 N L•" 6i ai 4� V �N. t` U C VE V f yV a �Oa' L«Yl .aViVS f �V.l.. � y.:�Y OD. � wC a��0 V� zs O CC Y.b JJ .Mgc>�O L.us o < L o �4.. c�"- c A.- em . N sm- B6aL$nal. Y.Vf 0.•.•94.G VI n.Yp P x1 \1p I� D N Nt 42 J 81 uEZ � r �N 1..pp 5 Np^ at— i Yc NK yG=O Pp mCc Y� NV. i T9>G E•. �q C l y A u g �Y u�0 B N OV - 1p' p01P 2 �O a pb ud q d,yO n 4y0.y,M 1 tr_Y C G E C tT N L M u Y Q�y •q O a C N S R CE +•Nqi Y C . Ala •�M.. u.�S E`•a` to � �•-a�i �000 a �v.c�a «� v� L ?^v ,a i .. �;' a w v t O=J�� Id.0 Y CZ ` Ce „ OGL w. , 0 as F�cc001 inµ KYO ON�L a1 O V,.q ` t.,G«q �. S G C • GOL^ O Nb4 OpN� uL `rP�C ^.O Sr �� ,� Y.7V NO.!•j C OC1LL4G. O /N( SZ. ►a a v:s naeY Q r €cr oee.°1.0 Ch CU G L.�' Y .Y� iV. NOYuy `C� bLS. 4 V. lL GLY 4 N �Q la- Ell Y� V O '9yC0 G V tJN; L G G �, H MO ow hx 7c 1^ JL6"G` K ro�•Ilk wca q. u .. .N..oac cp t•Amok, O N o C r E L L A n� U i p �.A p — Yt. t C b N N no Cy q C= ' o c o C a E c � n d q d C L *iNn� u' Np ST u Ld O.yv atlyTy Jv Y�O L.O ti�C �qC EE O N L M. 4 o.:iT do O N dl. A N qF. u -01 1gCL vC N. E V EN .1 Y C aS O m2 tlE tl p maU 40 UO r4 �1.9 S r C2 LW n,n>C€ �6 _ L tli 9 \ b 00 W04 I tO v] ¢q 606L3 CVN O Wa ! tcadi a u ocu .:c rniv� Via.. oo CEO. b N LC q E N�1Gd L �M Ct Obl* m as mcm da ate. ; 'e Lqu _C G V_� dg LLn '� U. - vnYm'a• od��q dUN� L. � 5-6 M u Oft-fi a u m ' agn'4t' o. Sao eY..d u eq Lar VJ U gdYL NO NO 2- S. C d� d O W � per• a q C..O. T d= jlR. a•vC NV cE wF-. pJ Y.a/�U9 Py c F. O N tl� .Y sJpo. p 0' f u'C^O fdlQ C H tl4 4Y rn �4. Nu9N'^ gocgo on.N-'E:=b i..�I ..r n0 w S qL l Otdi q ' a L6 tt« C O r o 000 �d BE z .. � .- n NOq T C G n L A d A an a"Qu aia o cy r c x. .i a, p' i is. uc v'+:x x x A 6c y ^ CTE bn b W o N D noo o� 2 V. O aW n u n 3p.... E.� V. N. L tJ dy u cTei- .Ft O ade C A-�Y OL 7 E N u O d'v O 4.1 N--- _ UG k�ia �y oq 3 Q nNM 'NO"+r v1..9 L1.O:u QU G.� WMN'L.Lw 2 G._...0 .O 1� pz. a ticj M rN-1 ti al - o E es. OL a =u A ✓Y V.. L aou q D r ='O ME xbN "t 69 6Q4-!y E. uAA NC' CL u.-. w U i. '•t o a is `� � ,n t b c = d O • d: N O d L 2`.� '' V� U y 6 L O b N i,� •b L .w N N Y b W q � ^ 0. cliGA Oy L t> 1- n„o di N kU t L 4 t y go u a TT 9 .O Y u wy L �. d q c Cd:. uP-5 �90- CT �7 0. G 9 r o o. G QC aN n LN. boo. ( ,o.• q d,d CC N •� .0 L L 9 N T 4 c n1=d u & A 2UN -EO �L N b = R• � q L t��. f:� d L N � 6 a6q „�i ry d w,"�' U G LcQ. IJ7 yd OL�. n 'q �� O?• �@+� L b O A. FV L• Z [� ¢ '•`..s. (LN JY� NMA ISM . I iY <S CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA gCAASTAFF REPORT � Ah O O DATE: April 9, 1986 U > 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner By: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner ' SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-46. MODIFICATION - JONES - A request to modify a Con:fitior► of Approval requiring aim elimination of a driveway access` on 4th Street for an :approved industrial.,project, located at'tlle northeast corner of 4th Street and Santa'Anita Avenue - APN 229-283-41, 42. I. ABSTRACT: The developer is requesting for Planning Commission approval to -delete a Condition of Approval that ,requires the elimination of a driveway access off• of 4th Street. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission uphold the Conditions 'Sf Approval. II. BACKGROUND: , The Planning Commission,`at their January 22, 1986 meeting, conditionally appi:oved this project subject to elimination of driveway:access on 4th''Street. This decision was bused upon the fact that said access with the Lity's Access Policy, which states: Non access to al' arterials shall be dedicated to. the City wherever suitaile alternative access may be developed from local or collector streets. The Planning`Commissiaa. also r�.Ade determinations that such driveway access off major boulevards would crepe potential traffic hazards both for autos and trucks, and would create a pre,:?dent for- cumulative impacts if tht'corner'parcels were,granted such drive:.ay access. III. ANALYSIS• 1. city Access Policies: ;This project has raised the issue of the :I implementation of the access policy at corner properties. The policy states that where a project is at the corner of a major street and a minor street access should be from the minor street. This is based 'an a'need to minimize the number of ; conflicts presented to the drivers on the major street and thus increased Safety, as well as. safeguard the streets ability;-to carry as ,much traffic, as possible and efficiently. Simply ' ' stated, any turning movement onto or off of 4th Street disrupts ' the safe flow of traffic. ' This is particularly true where_ .,E large truck trailers are involved,as pr..iosed by the applicant. .14 ITEM. G PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 85-46 Modification - Jones l April 9, 1,986 .� Page 2 A AM A sur,,ey of an area bounded by`Arrow Highway, Haven Avenue,"4th Street, and Interstat(j, is, =shows that .the Planning Commission has in the past yEar approved approxi,�,nately 12 projects that are corner,,,parcPis,. Ali.-)of. these I projects were approved with no access onto the major street. , Therefore, the approval of this modificAt, fallow access off of 4th Street would set a precedeit for .allI other applticati.ons of,development projects on corner.. parcels', well a�j being incensistent with past projects,where developers have 'jcompIie with the City's access policy: 2. The traffic study submitted bvithe ag-Acant stated-that there is no traffic .problem.,. The "applicant has prepared and submitted a traffic study' with the initiaY project application. The studyconcluded that the proposed' driveway onto 4th Street would 'operate at a satisfactory level of service, that is,"Mthout traffic congestion, even=-t, the City's buildout,for the,year 2010. Staff Comments: The Engineering Division has reviewed the traffic study and •concl'uded that the. stud, "did net take into consideration the.-Ontario Cshter development.,from the City of � { Ontario, which is across from tha'.projeet.is'ite. Therefore, the traffic study has not':�fully analyzed the effect of the peak traffic load, both frpm- ,.ne City buildout and the City of Ont€r!io buildout gl�r'-¢tfi Street. Further, the City has the responsibility toc make the best use possible of public street intersections where there is the potential for traffic signal control and is essential., to the efficiency, cf our .major streets,`especially where long, slower trucks are involved: Therefore., the adopted City Access Policy,•reflected these ' goals. 3. Better on-site to off-site circulation for truck traftic fcr this project. The applicant has stated that.the,'4th 3treei ccess will provide abetter flow of truck traffic rlhere trucks could enter the site from Santa Anita Avenue and 6^ it onto 4th Street. Staff Comments: If it is convenient for'trucks to accessthe, k site from Santa Anita, as acknowledged by the applicant, then it would be just as easy for trucks to exit using Santa Anita. The reason for this is that acrucks have to back into the loading dock to unlAad the trailer; therefore trucks leaving the dock area are ,already facing forward and can easily exit toward ,Santa Anita: The amount of truck trips into and,. out of the,site would not be so great as to present conflicts be#jeen trucks coming and- going. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 85-46 Modification - Jones ". April 9, 1986 Page 3 4. The proposed riqht tern .only'de'signed driveway access :on 4th Street- The applicant is-proposing an enclosed right-turn only driveway;so that -no ;truck ;traffic will cross. over to h Street; yet still main'fain access to the Levore Freeway. Staff Comments. Staff appreciates the appi-icant's desire to mtnimi�a traffic conflict by proposing a right-turn only driveway>,access`on 4th`Si reet.` This'-proposed design could work if there is aV.1anns.ape med ;an=with-no..median break along 4th Street for, this'` site: Past experienne with right tarn only driaewayy without medi4an Jsland dertpn5trated that the 'design. will,not"prevent au`tosftrucksw�from'°riat`zX-9 left turns, (Miller's Outpost pt ojectj 4 Theme&ity'si c-trcu"lation -,plan does show the landscape median ultimately designed'for;�i h Street: Aga'h,,;'if f the applicants :concern; is.,easy access to the Devore Freeway, then Santa Adita .�providesadequate access for ingress `and egress._ .A III. THF.'.IMPACTS OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION -f4R THE MODIFICATION REQUEST r; A. The approval .of this modification allowing a driveway,access off a maJor streefl'for a c6r&lr parcel wat°ld set'a Nrecedent, and create a, cumul,atYve impact of `traffic conflict when all Aukother corner parcels are granted such dri�away access. D. The denial of a driveway access off` a major street or-corner parcel would implement and adhere to,the My's adopted, access policies:; W. RCCO MENDATIDN: ,'Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny; • the request: for modification. and uphold theConditions of App"val for Development Review 85-46. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner r BB•NF•cv Attachments:. Letter of request from applicant for the proposed driveway ' January 22, 1986,.PC Staff Report and 14inutes Exhibit "A" - Location Map h, Exhibit "8".- Site Utilization flap exhibit "C" - Retailed Site Plan Exhibit "L`" - Right-Turn Orly`Designed Driveway on 4th 5tree# .nd potential traffic problems (2) _ -Traffic Flow Exhibit "E" - Teuck ` � R F ZR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION _ .. 1200 0uail'S'veet.Su(1F'160 Newpo"Beach,califom1b 92660 714 965.9131. March 2o, lS•S6 ���9' Nancy Fong �0. f ,.► City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 803 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 f ,•;ip, RE: Submittal. # DR8546 at 4th and Santa Anita Dear Nancy: This letter. is to specify,,,our reas©ns for resubmitting the application for a driveway on 4th sweet on the subject property. At our fir,t submittal the planning, commission agreed �,ith the DIfS traffic study that the Ara'ffic` would bg ¢gh qua to P.ermit the drive�tag;.z ale :aonc_rns thay voiced however were that cars or rucks pu11.3 rly across 4th street might cause certain problems and one of',the commissioners mentioned that they wolild like additional lar,•dccaping at,the driveway. We have thereforeredesigned , our dXiYewa therefore would preelude•.any raEfic from• crossin n and would si13 accomplish our major aoai of allowing�trucksredt but eaving the project to rear .the Devore Freeway. We hare. also increased the amours of Landscaping at tbat poira to give more identity-and a focal point at the driveway. We have reapplied' because we believe that it is very important to our project both functionally and with regard to the identity of the future tesian•t in building C. The reasons for this are: 1. To' make the distrLbUtior. building, which is our largest building, more functional. Distribution companies need good traffic circulation so that their trucks can move easily in and c:�min This driveway wj.11 permit traffic to enter on Santa Anita, g primarily frog the Devore Freeway, Cars from building B an*i C as well as trucks from the south half of building wcu3.d likekly exit on 4th street which is a more _direct route. TY.d s wAl reduce the number of trucks passing by the trucking areas of the two smaller btildings on Santa Anita. in laying ';out this project we attempted to make the traffic circulatibn easier thr')ugh other design, huwever, the distribution buildings _ocation was dictated by the location of the rail, which runs on ` the eastern boundary of the property, f' G _q a. •.s,a: 11 Ms.. Nancy.Fong March 20,. 1966 _ Page-2 �. 4� _4" " H 2. Thss dr,;veway�,�.air the' 'enhanced landscaping gvesrmore r identity to this bii'11 d�ingF" a hope to`attract .a major �ompan7 to, + our site,.-as we arr on tea• .h gH�jdentity streetk' The,. ivP'wa, on w 4th striad� 'mak s more oSlan ideat, statement and:allows a cEss ou hwith v� rough-°the trucking die�as+� f the'two- smaller bpuildlzgs gad F seem lree u minor aoiisiderat"ioai. x+ut 4 is: -imp, s -important .ta. a large co upai�y'iil-, e 'Pic 4,pi Save,;osr ne gbbgr to �r the.east. + - , ,.:. J 3. The 4tl r stre�Bty, d1veway wou=l&' alao6-',e�nYance the3 =traffic " circulation for the cars i' 3A3 d nq1 B� �{,The ca�s�woiiid ape ante to enter F on Santa Afiita sand leave oat 4j: rather ,than'34aviny to cross rtine truck trafk1dn fi, the�tZbrst dratveway on-San taxAn%,:U ,. The City of Raricha 3Cueamonga has none}=to great engtlas� .to �s " tP or a c offer a ' vsZity �v;i=roj=6h .for aueinPss Iand - nc'ust3 anft3 we °believe, that maia3�ng #h ,se, ZA11dings more flan xon 1 matter R trucking ciitculatjone an`#1g M nc better -idea i�ty'to �the�u]tiivate user of the�,build ng� be fwil�l :be ali].e,, to, attract +Y_e hi l sst qua_ity user; which i: ito�the acities bens,jt as well as our own. We woulri ver1tt much �7 k} to'�a',ttract a'high et�de'rtity tenant toy.°xour project which 3s a' gay eway' to the City;of echo Cucamori{�{gga. ' 'k'LL k Martin Jc?nes V ".y MJ MT/ama _ 1 ; kA x 4u Motion: Moved by Mc;iiel, seconded,by Stout, carried to recommend issuance of a Negative eclaration and adoption of the Resolution approving Environmental _ Assessment,an General: Plan Amendment 66-01A; Hawkins, to the City Council. Motion carried t lie following vote: AYES: commnsI r RS: MCNI;EL, STOUT, BARKER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, REMPEL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: UE -carried Chairman Stoat announced that Item R was .re ed to the following item and x would be heard concurrently. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SMELT AND PARCEL MAP 9687 TU R-JOKES - A division OT K23 acres. into �$ parce z in a enera n us rT rea '(Subarea 14) located at the northeast corner of Santa Anita and 4th et = APN 229- 283-41 & 42. ,:Wta'ted File: DR 85-46} R. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-46 - JONES - The eve opment of a square sot warenouse istri ution ur. ing and two light., i ndustri al: ,bui 1 di ngs total i ng, 4i,100 square feet on 9A3 acres a{ of lard in'the General Industrial District (Subarea 14) located at the northeast corner of 4th(Related File: PM 9587) Street and Santa Anita - APN 229-283-41 and 4i',. Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, reviewed the.staff report. ` Dan Coleman, Senior i?lanner, suggesta.d that condition 2 of the _project k ~ Resolution- be added to the Parcel Map Resolution so that there v oul d be no confusion that there is a requirement for reciprocal use of the plaza area to ' be recorded In the CC&R`s for the iparcel map,: Chain;an Stout opened the public hearin . 9 Rusty TurnE.•, Turner Develiopmert Corporation, addressed the access issue 'oil 4•111 Street and explained that the access was necessary to accommodate truck traffic. He indicated that the site would be marketeei for a large distriLution building and felt that it would be of benefit to have access of " of 4th Street, Mr. Turner also addressed the issue, of undergrounding . utilities on 4th Street. He pointed out that the poles will remain it plac$i since the 66 kv lines cannot be undergrounded. He rc,quested that it not be required to underground 12 KV lines where 66 Kv lines exist. Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, Rancho Cucamonga, suggested that special consideration of addivioial access be given to larpr parcels. He stated that driveways � . in fatal is not a>maj,or amount when dlsaling with large parcels such as thas: Planning Commission Minutes =10- January 22, 19$64 max: A, 4 x. Greg Lansing, 985 !1 pine Drive, BeverlyHills, supported the parcel map and i stated.that one drive an 4th Street is-an undue hardship on the .developer. R There here. no further comments, therefore the p0lic haaring was dosed. s' Commissioner Barker asked for discussion regarding the utility undergrounding., Chairma+, Stout stated that it really,d9esn't make much sense in this case to cndergruund the.,12 kv and lave the 66 kv lines on the poles. Commissioner Rempel suggested a Iient agreement to provide -for the removal of ` V the 12 kv lines at such time that, something is done-With the 6F,kv's. .ti James Markman, U ty Attorney, advised,that a lien agreement would notAbe'the answer since the then-owner of ,the property would tihr the cost of m undergrounding when the time comes. Further, that this woo td more;thanAikely be arrcompl.ished through a utility underground'" district. ' Commissioner Barker was, concerned with telecommunication: lives on utility poles. x r k Chairman Stout agreed that tfie"polIuti,ca of 'telecommunication lines, is a problem; however, in this instan a only 66 kv and 12 kv Ilip es exist on'these!. poles and felt that tiey could;remaic' until such time as t"iie 66 kv lines are removed, s� Commission Chitiea agreed, . Stie stated that jthw.' direction to underground utilities in the industrial-area: is done for aesthetic reasons and should be done wherever possible. Chairman Stout asked for discussion of the w�iga�ray issue. Commissioner Rein supported the concept of -the drive onto 41;h street and felt it was essential to this piece of properly. " Commissioner McNi'el stated that he could"`fin} support. the applicant's <i rk indi4ition that a traffic study revealed that nth Street it not going to be ` heavily traveled.: He was concerned with a'true:, pulling-out`'if a driveway +} onto a major street and suggested that the driveway be !liminated. Chairman Stout advised that, secondary,streets in the industrial DArea;were $ intended for use by truck traffic. Further, this one-.drive-Way may4ot,cause an impact, but the cumulative impact of every other. applicant whq wants,onef i starts to add up. Therefore, he could not support the d`rivewayraecexss on``4th ' F` Street, _1 ,z Planning Commission Minutes -11 #Jan arwy 22a�1F986 ", �.7� ` Commissinner Barker stated that he could underst and the applicants a driveway, uv:;gyQr, Was s desire for concerned with trucks crossing traffic. He coul d ,,,<; support the concept if the driveway ,auld be arranged so that left turns in op " out of the driveway -were- prohibited and if a deceleration lane could be provided; however, in this instance it r6uld not be accomplished and he opposed the driveway, on 4th Street.!, Commissioner Chitiea stated` that making left turns onto 4th Street could be CIF hazardous,'and did not support the driveway t ` a.Y onto that street. ' Motion: ,Moved by Chitiea, seconded (,y McNi;..il, to issue a Negativp Declaration k `- and adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 9687 with amendments to Speq•i i Conditions 6-2 to strike reference to underground overhead utilities on �4th Street, additional condition-to reflect that reciprocal use of the plaza �!rea: ?so be provided and t recorded in the CC&R`s prior to the. ssuance''of bull ding j permits. Motion carried by the following vote: ;« k AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHLTIEA, MCNIELr BARKER, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL 4 . ` ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS. NONE -car�l ad ' ? Commissioner Rempel advised that the driveway onto 4th Street should have !,een allowed. Motion: Moved bj McNiei., seconded byithitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration -19 and adopt the Resolution spproving.0e4elopment Review 85-46., with-thl� removal co reference to undergrounding u4ilities on 4th Street in F i condition 1, ano reference to the drive approach on 4th Street n gSt3ndard Conditions I-5 and M-3. ;Motion carriod by the following vote: ' AYES: COMLMISSYONERS: MCNIEL, CH1T1EA, BARKER, REMPEL, STOUT !NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE V ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carri ed $:35 p.;n. -- Planning Commission Reces;,ed F , 8;50 p.m. • Planning Commission Reconvened with all nzmbers present' W *:x * Chairman Stout announced. that the following items wvre related and e,�ould , heard concurrently by the Cor-.nission. be Planning Commission Minutes ,_1E_ �" Januarry 22 1,98' i - ---Y--- CITY OF RANCHO I CUCA-HONGA� LL,L.��rq, STAFF REPORT l ,y f DATE- January 22, 1986 1977 i` T�: Chairman a,4 members of the Planning Cp;,nnission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner : BY: Nancy-Fong, Associate Plattner ` SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL .ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOfMENi REVIEW $5-46 - NE -^ The development of a S..O 0 square foot E warehouse/distribotion building,, and 2 light industrial buildings; totaling 41,100 square felt, on 9.23 'acres of land, in the General ,Industrial District, Subarea 14, located at the'"northeast«corner of 40 Street and Santa Anita Avenue - APNt 229=283=44 42, I .a Related File: PM 9687 j I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action-aMafttedl Approvat df detailed site plan,,, file/ �tion, l and issuance of a Negative Declaration. �. B. Surrnundina Land Use`and 2oning: North Vacant, vineyards;eGeneral Industrial b strict Subarea 14 South City of,Ontario East - .Vacant, Eeneral Industrial District, Subare4 14 x West Vacant, General Irdustrial`District,;Subarea 14 C. General Plan Designations• Protect Site -,General Industrial North - General Industrial : South City of Ontario East General Industrial 'nest - General Industrial D. Site Characteristics," The site is vacant and vegetation coirsists-of abandoned vineyards. Street improvements are`fully, completed except for driveway entrances. K r _ f _ hM Y C 1, ^ ITEM R �i � + PLANNING COMMISSION� N ri'"°F REPORT r' x Development Review 8-k .j (- January 22, 1986 Pa9e 2 , . II. ANALYSIS: A. General: The proposed development consist: of a large ware on5e distribution building located at the east side of'-the s:te, with two smal3er multi-tanant industrial buildings that front, on Santa Anita Avenue. An open landscape area is provided at the middle at this site and would serve as a central,plaza area. The proposed elevation -.onsists of tilt-up concrete panels with reveals, colt,�red and texturized squares in grayish tgne, dark anodized frame 'and glass, -�' :; ted-accent stripe. A related parcel, map,7. also -being ccaisidered by the ' :'Manning Commission at this meF_ing. B. Design Review Committee: The Comm' itte6 reviewed the site "'.`an and elevations and has recommended aop"roval with the following conditiors vhith the developer agreed to: 1. Colored and. texturized treatment in square shapes added to tsie west elevation and soutf- elevation of Buildings,-A, B and.,C; and the southern p'67rtion of the east elevation of Building C,_' The color, palette be of grayish to'� with accenr ^olor for the building entrance rr�*yin's-. ��� 2. Reciprocal use of plaza area be provided.'! 3. Special landscape treatment be provided to the corner of 4th Street and Santa Anita Avenue, as well as the two project"entrKnces, on Santa Anita Avenue. The developer has revised the'- site plan and elevations to incorporate most of the above conditions as shown in Exhibit "C" and 's€<". In reviewing this s to plan, the Comnittee note' that the proposed driveway'access from 4th Street does not rInform with City access policies and should be eliminated. ';1e 'Committee recommended for full Planning Cosxnissibn discussion regarding t4js issue, which will bu further analyzed in the following sectiol!. C. Access Issue: The applicant has prepared and submitted a traffic dy ic stu whic�.conciudes that the proposed driveway anti J 4th Street would operate at a -atisfactory „IPVel of ser0ce r (i.e., without traffic congestion):: The Engineering. Division r,( x; has reviewed the traffic stety and concluded that eves 'though there may nat be traffic congestion, experiences with existing driveways on arterials elsewhere n the City show tha�� =;,ch a" driveways may slow dCwn traffic. The applicant also s�;.;ed , that a 4th Street ?cces,(: would provide a better flow of truck' e PLANNING COWJISSION z, F REPORT Development Review 85-.,j 140 January i22,, 1986 Page 3 traffic-where trucks could enter on Santa Anita Avenue and exit off 4th S%reet:, However, :cost trucks have to back into the loading dory — �,nload the trailer; theref re, making a right turn to ex? f Santa .Anita is as easy. ' Based on the above conclusions, Enganeering-shaf;' is recommending that the access ? policy be adhered to and the 4th Street access be'eliminated.' D. Utility Undergt undine� Overhead utilities exist along Santa ri Anita Avenu 7 frontage„ and the 4th 'Street frontage of the 1 project. On,the Santa Anita frantege;' since no services are connected to Atiie`` existing overhead utilities, staff recommends-.• that the utilities be underground. :; Property to the north and the property across from the project along Santa Anita Avenue are undeveloped presently; therefore, the developer may request for a reimbursement agreement for 1/2 the cost of the undergrounding ,�rop_ortionate to the frontage.- On 4th Street:, . frontage, -t,e,e_,ist;ing overhe W utility poles contain 66 kv with 12 nv ^fine,' on the , lower portion of the poles. Engineering Divi}�ion is recdiiinending undergrounding the 12 kv lines. J, E. Environmental Assessment: Staff has completed the Environmental Checklist and has determined that°'there will not be a significant impact as a result of this project. If the Corgission" concurs with` th& findings, issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order-, III. FACTS FOR�,7INDINdt: 1';is project, is taansistent with the General Plan and the Industriai Spec-fic Man. 'The project will not cauce' a significant adverse impact and in addition, Zie propose use, building design, site plan, °together with the recommended conditions of approval, including the elimination of the driveway access on 4th Street are in compliance with the Industrial Specific Plan and all other applicrble provisions of the City Standards. 1!°- RECOMMENDATION: Staff' recommen1s that the Planning :_1 mmission issue—a Negative Declaratyon ai ` approve Development,Revipw b5-46 through the adoption of the att.te�Zed Resolution and Conditions t9 Approval. ResFActfully submitted, f� Brad Buller City Planner a BC".NF:cv x, : X 4 ! � � � er w v,.z.. »-.'- „*,:ar--r.. c,k u.. .r�7w.,.w: .mas,, `*�,,,r:aa�« re.�we.��» .� •t -i+:. r:, ' 're:'w., :. _ - F PLANNING COMMIS a Oevelcpment Review-85�:.ax January 22, 1§86 Page. 4" ? # Attachments Exhibit Y"All Location Map-- Map' Exhibit "8" SiteUtili,zatioD'.Map` Exhi'bigt`!'C" Detai Ted Site an. Exhibit "D" Conceptual Gra;i,ng ExhiaE'"t EN: CgW6POtual,Lan. s"ba'pe Exhibit` ;11F" ETeaticrts ' Resotuti'on of Approval with Co46,tions 'A 1 } Y v � r itl �IriW riv. ��s 5vY WR L_ F 1• .t en'•n•..+ CI. TAK t •..�Lam_ I ClTT •'•' __' I _ I' • 'L �. (. O=.C60lgEN/l _ th. •.. . MY OF alTom �' • 4 (SAt'1 BERN_AOINO) STREEY' CITY OF TEM: -'v � /�D�/�/(�7'• I I t IO C7�MOl G-A f . >- PLANNING DIVI'ION EXHIBIT= •5 ;E= ` _ - � - -�f'. IP l.li` illlll;11111t111•Illl�f� : � •� � :twee - :�. AOL 71. v sS?-` Nj t NORTH-' Cl"n7 OF`RANTC''�-ICE CUCA�V ONGA 7�� flT % F"LANIVhI\'G DIVLSION EXHIBM _SC AIr,: 6 CL %t �zot �� 3t 0 - � C^i4Fiai 4 .. 02, o® ® as YO ik w� -Cce t v IR t . - xx co IL ZQ r 6 -O 7 -� cgeaeaeir�uaa. ' �r,oaoie$aa tj NORTI�!4 CITY OFHO T rz�tit: IG �p /ors PLViWil\GIV�SIQIV EXHIBfT ram ' ; 3'_ � it! *ARjA W T.E- . .t I �� Pid --------, A..-,�. •;� _ `fit olff 4 t+r M.inr P.MD ;D�R8Q=9B {'i �tlAC:.u72���v- 68/4hdt •' ,.P' .tt 7 .lff i2 - `T704 I .t ru.n,:us .� DR"TBO .,,.«._.4 •a y A PA, + total` 4 - P' M rr•v+ - _ �r r DR84. PMB 1q' GS/ q'4J s:.. 6 H ST -RN4 24 + t*— r DRBS- a \ '•1 ' •�J ^ t � 2 a DR84-29 ST CITY OFRAN CM CtTC MGM Trru. is w� 7" NANNING DIVISION �• •• � F3CHdIid1'T SCAM r + CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA uc�nr STAFF REPORT G��o G 0ti�9 Z C) t �x O �z DATE: April 9, 1986 U asr, �> TO: Chairman and Membersof the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Bruce Cook. Associa te r SUBJECT: REVISION TO SECTION 17 .04 070(d) OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE MODEL HOMES SALES OFFICE I. ABSTRACT: The purpose of this report is to receive direction from The Planning Commission regarding the desirability of processing a Development Code/"Amendment to amend the section of the Development Code pertaining,to th? location of model home sales offices within residential tracts. Although the request was initiated by a developer for a specific circumstance- the ;proposed amendment must be analyzed from a City wide perspective An amendment to the Aft Uevel I!,lament Code regulatlons govern ng model home sales offices ma be initiates by consensus of th y e Commission or Council II. BACKGROUND Citation ,Builders of Tustin, California, is the developer of the "Hilig0t2" Community (Tracts 12238 and 12530), located on the northwest'; corner of Church Streit and Hellman Avenue. Citation is als�`� ready to begin construction of Tract 12830 located on the west side of Beryl Street, 'north of Base Line. The product limo being developed in this tract 'is ' essentially the same as 1 hat ,being built within the Hillgate Community. Citation Builders would like to sell their homes in Tract 12830 from their'exis'_"ing model:home sales complex located in Tract 12238. However, Section 17.04.070-7(d) of the Development Code requires that the sales'office for a tract subdivision must be located within the tract for which the lots are being sold, or from a contiguous tract. In response to this restriction, F.G. Linton, of Citation Builders, has submitted a letter to the City requesting consideration of a text amendment to this particular section of the 'Development Code. III. ANALYSIS: Model hontes complexes typically result in increased vehicular traffic into the area, 'along with its associated impacts of increased people, noise, litter, etc. The intent of the Development Code's prohibition of off-site model home`sales office is to protect established neighborhoods from the "nuisance" factor' associated with model home sales offices. If the homes offered for " sale are not located within the neighborhood, then the residents shouid not be expected to be exposed to the impacts resulting from the operation of model home sales,affice. ` r % „ ITEM H gas PLANNING COMiiISSION STAFF REPORTt` DEVELOPMENT.CODE REVISION MODEL'HOME SALES OFFICE April , 3.986 Page 2 *� Mr. Linton, of Citation Builders is re+pji5cing a Text Amendrent to 44 waive the restriction against off-s4te model home complexes "under circumstances where the resultant tr0fic impacts W-thin the tract' 4i where the sales office is located a minimal or' non-existent.." i Staff believes -e current Deveiopmeit`Code Standard is consistent:. .1 with and provides the most effective means of implementation of the accepted City policy that new development is to be designed to e result in minimal impact to existing .surrounding development; The purpose of the prohibition of off=site model home complexes it, to' protect established neighborhoods from being imposed .upon with impacts resulting from new development. For`this reason, staff - would not be in support of a Text Amendment to the Development Code. However, if the iirection of %he Commission is to consider alternatives to the existing standards, there are her available possibilities. One would be to simply eliminate ,,he restriction and permit off-site model home complexes. The mi.dle ground would: be to allow some flexibility with location of off-site, model .home complexes, as opposed to an out-right prohibition as presently r exists. One possible method would be to permit off-site model home complexes subject to the granting of a Condtional Use Permit. In this way, the appropriateness of the complex would be determined on ` a case-by-case basis, If this was to be done, however, criteria should be established as to what would constitute the minimal findings necessary to enable grunting of the permit. IV. RECOiy:MENDATION: The Planning Commission should consider al material ;nd input presented in.regards to this proposal. If the Commission determines to uphold the existing Development Code regulations; then no further action is Necessary. ' If,"on the other hand, the Commission would like to consider alternative methods of regulation,, then they should direct staff as to their desired course of action and have staff initiate a future Text Amendment 3 for their review and consideration. ke pectfully submitted Brad Buller City Planner x BB:BC:ko i Attachments: Section 17.04.070-7(d) of the Development Code Letter from F.G. Linton of Citation Builders of February 28, 1986. x "^^911i4 Q. -eecioa i T. Model Homes. Mo,',j homes may be used as offices solely for the first sale of homes within a recorded tract.sebjectto the following conditions: l (a) The sales cffice may belocated in a garage,trailer or dwelling. (b) ,Approvll shall be for a two-year,period, at which time the sales office use shall be tern:4116 ted and the structure iestored back to its .rig)naf condition. Extensions may be granted by the City Planner in ant y*ar increments up to a maximum of four(4),years or until ninety (90)percent of the development is sold;which ever is less. (a) A cash deposit, letter of 'credit, or any security determined satisfactory to the City.shall be submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga,in an amount to be set by Council Resolution,to ensure the restoration or removal of the structure. (d) The sales office is to be used only for transactions involving;he sale, rent or lease of lots and/or structures within the tract in which the sales office is located,or pnt(guous tracts. (a) Failure to terminate sales office and restore structure or failure to apply for an extension on or before the expiration date will result in torfeiture of the cash deposit, a halt in further construction or inspection activity on the project site, and enforcement'action to ensure restoration of structure. (f) Street improvements and temporary off-street parking at a rate of two(2)spaces per model shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Planner prior to,commencement of sales activities or the display of model homes. r (g) All fences proposed in conjunction with the model homes and sales office shall be located eutside of the public,right-of--way. h9 Flags, pennants, or other•on-site advertising shall be regulated pursuant to the Sign Regulations of the Municipal Code. (1) Use of signs shall require submission of a sign permit application for review and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation. 8. Trailer coaches or mobile homes on active construction sites for' use ss a temporary living quarters or security personnel,or temporary resience of the subject property owner..The following restrictions shall apply: (a) The City Planner may approve a temporary trailer for the duration of the cor^rruction project or for a specified period,but in no event for more, ';two(.)years. If exceptionlil circumstances exist,a one(1) i year—tension may be granted,provided that the building permit for the first permanent dwelling or structure on the same site has also C been extended._ a (b) Installation of trailer coaches may occur only after a valid building pei mit has been issued by the City Building and Safety Division. y -53- CIS' OF rMVi: c�cra PLANNING DIVISM EXHIBIT.-- SCALE! I �flTRM17731 IRVINE BLVD..Suite No.201,TUSTIN,CA 92680 1714)731.0141 r .: ! Sp February 28, 1986 • 9 Planning Commission �6+� City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 C Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Gentlemen: -a We herewith request anAdmendment to the text of the City's Development Code and Specifically, Secti.rva 17.04.070 sub- section 7(D) Model Homes_ We are requesting that the prohibition against a sales office serving a noncontigious tract be waived under circumstances where the resultant traffic impacts within the tract where the sales office is located are minimal or nonexistant.. This determination could be made at a staff level by the City Engineer. ' ` In our specific case, we have models and a sales office located in the garage of one of our models located on Whitney Court in tract 12238. We would like to sell the 103 homes in tract 12830 (located approximately one mile from tract 12238) from the sales office in tract 12238. From the enclosed exhibit, • you can see that traffic circulation on Whitney Court poseQ no impact at all on the homes we have sold within tract 12238,,, as the traffic will exit onto Hellman from Church and move North to tract 12830. The homes across the street from th-i models on Whitney Court will not be started until the 103 homes in tract 12830 have been sold. Additionally a provision could be made in the Text Admendment to limit the "off-site" sales office permission for a specificed period of time, and I would suggest twenty-four months. If there is a more formal manner which is required, to initate this action, we of course would be please to comply, Sincerely, Citation Build A Partnership - �a F. G' on, Jr, Develop Ent Manager .; FGLjrjsf . �¢Y