Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/05/28 - Agenda Packet0701. -02 o 5- 28-86 P.C. Agenda Packet o Page -1 of 1 s P r� � !1 ro� w Oro xf- mw rt� a P) k4 N0 N_. ImOs ac CITY OF RANCHO CCC, ,N i0 \Gh PLANNING CO1NUMISSIO�T •AGEN'D< WEDNESDAY May 28, 1986 7:00 p.m. LIONS PARK. COMMUNITY (..''ENTER 9161 BAC,S LrKM RANCHO CUC,tllU G'NGA, CALIFORNIA I. Fledge of Allegiance IL Roll Call Commissioner Barker Commissioner. Rempel Commissioner Ghctiwl Commissioner Stout Commissioner McNie III. Announcements IV. Approval of Minutes April 23, 1986 V. Consent Calendar The foliowinq,! onsent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controuarsiai. They ,.vffL',s acted on by file Commission at one time without discwsion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. DESIGN REVIEW B, A TENTATIVE TRACT 11626 ALTA LO NIA ESTATES A review of building elevations comprising of 8 sin le - family detached homes within a custom lot residential subdivision of 82 lots on 86.53 acres in the Very Low Residential District, located on the north side of Almond at Beryl Street - APN ,1061- 411 -03, 1061- 451 -0, 1061- 171-01. B. TIME E1TENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12650 - DEER m CREEK - A residential development of 225 singl, family lots on 147.16 acres of land in the Very Low (VL) District, located on the. east side of Haven Avenue, south of Hillside Flood Channel and north of Hillside Road - APN 201 - 121 -16. C. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11606 - GLENFED - The Design Review of elevations and plot plan Tor a recorded tract of 88 lots on 16.68 acres in the Low Residential District (2 -4 du /ac), located south of 19th Street between Haven Avenue and Deer Creek Flood Channel - APN 202- 211 -21. DESIGN REVIEW FOR AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12952 - :. GLENFRD _ Design i:eview of new elevations replacing previously approved elevations for 172 single family lots on 34 acres of land in the Low- Medium Residential District (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) located at the end of 19th Street, south of Highland. D. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12237 AND 19,237 --2 - RANGEVIEW - The Design Review of building elevations and plot plans for 12 lots throughout the two recorded tracts (12237 & 12237 -2) in the Very Low Density Residential District, located on tlzz east side of Hermosa, north of Hillside. E. TIME EXTENSION TIME FOR PARCEL MAP 5780 - C /L,= INC. - A request.for extension of time for Parcel Map 5786, located at the south side of Base Line Road, east side of Carnelian Avenue - APX 207 - 031 -28. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT RhVIE 14 86 -08 - SAMPSON - The development of two 2 industrial buildings totaling 17,324 square feet on 1.01 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 4), located at the northwest corner of Cottage and Acacia Streets - APN { 209- 192 -19 & 20. G. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86 -05 — CALIFORNIA FINISHED METALS - A request to allow a 5,460 square foot metal canopy addition to an existing manufacturing building located at 9133 Center ' Street. H. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR ENNIROWMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13058 - WILLIAM LYON A residential tract subdivision of 28.51 acres m-16205 lots, located on the west side of Victoria Groves Loop Road, E south of Highland Avenue - APN 202.211 -13, 38. t ..2_ D' d L RESOLFUTION OF DENIAL - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12991 SHEU30URNE - .A total residential subdivision and Design Review of 49 single family lots on 8.9 acres of land in the Low- Medium Residential District, located at the south side of Lemon Avenue, 500 feet east of Archibald -APN 241 - 252 -21, 22. (Continued Jt,om May 14, 1986 meeting.) VL Publie Hearings The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your naive and address, ; All such opinions shall be Iimited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. J. ENVIR.ONMI P1 riL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMEN , 86 -02A - BARMAKT.AN A request to amend the Land Use Map of the General PIan from Lbw Medium Density Resic entit -! (4 -8 du /ae) to Neighborhood (loominercial for 5 acres of land "located at the northwest coi;,ior of Base Line andEbwdnda -APN 227 - 111 -10, 24, 25, and ; 6. j ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 86 -01 - BARMAKIAN - A request to amend the Etixanda Specific Plan Lond Use Map from "CS" (Community Service) and - "LM" (Low M?diur Density f •, Residential) to NC (Neighborhood Commercial) far 9.4 acres of land located at tho northwest corner. of Base Line and r, Etiwands, - APN 227-1,11 -10, 24, 25, 26. X. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEN,1 1ND TENTATIVE TRACT 13191: LE W16 HOMES - The total development of residential subdivision of 8.40 acres in the Medium Residential District (4 -14 dufac) within the Terra Vista Planned Community into 80 lots; located on the northwest corner of Terra Vista Parkway and Church Street - APN ! ' 1071- 091 -25. L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9916 - FINK - A dis -"-;on of .33 acres into 2 parcels in the Low 2 -4 du%ae) Deve)u,.,anent District, located on the west side of Dakota Avenue, norrh of Lemon Avenue - APN 201- 771 -35. ,a M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85 -21 - MASI The development of a Mas;.er, Plan � y for a 27.13 a27.13 acre Industrial Park and the first phase off, construc*CDn consisting �6£'a 58,000 square foot mini storage -..facility with a caretaker's residence on 2.95 acres of land Th 7 the Industrial Park District (Subares�, 7); ,''.ocatnd at ie southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Alte'nue - APN 229• -011- 10,19, 21, 26, 21, and 28. *} N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9998 - MASI - A division of 31.15 acres into 5 parcels for cond;minium purposes within Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN 229-011-10, 19, 21, 26, 27, 28. VII. Old Bus!nFw O. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT iAS49-1 -FLAIR - Design Review of footprints and . Iding eie-v-gilons &F an approved tract for res*dent-,al subdivision of 21 lots on 17.5 acres in a Very Low bMrict (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) of the ttimanda Specific Plan, located on the east side of Etiwanda, south of Summit - APN 225-181-20. P. REVISIONS TO AREA DEVEI%- )PMENT PLAN FOR VICTORIA MEADOWS SOUTH -,,A revasion to the approved Area Development Plan to reduce the number of single family lots and increase the acreage of the greenbelt trail system for the Victoria Vineyards South Village, a 117.4 acr:t-pokion of the Victoria Planned Community, located on the north side of Base Line Road, between Milliken and Rochester, south of the Southern Pacific Railroad - APN 227-081-6. VIE. New Business Q. DESIGN REVIEW 86-10 - MULLER - The development of one office building of 25,469 square 'feet and three industrial buildi,gns totaling 71,732 square feet within an approved Industrial Center on 18.42 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3), located at the northwest corner of 9th Street and Archibald Avenue - APN 209-021-05, 16, 17. R. DESIGN REVIEW FOR 5009 BRAMBLE - Proposal to construct a 7,600 square foot single family residence on a one-half acre lot in the Very Low. District located at the southeast corner of Ringstem Drive and Bramble Court - APN 201-484-02. S. APPEAL VIRGINIA DARE WINERY BUSINESS CENTER UNIFORM -SIGN T. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-48 - APPEAL - GOLDEN WEST - An appeal of a Condition of Approval ng. tmdergrounding of existing overhead utilities fronting the, project, located at the northeast corner of 7th Street arid, Hellman Avenue - APN 209-171-20, 36, 49, 50, 512 do 52. i A Lys U. DE3IGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRAM 10035 - WESTERN DEVELOPMENT - A request fc� review of site plan and building architecture for Lots- 3 37, & 38 in an approved residential subdivision of 15.7 acres in the Low Residential District (2 -4 du /ae1: located south and east of Red Hill Country Club Drive, south of Caile Corazon - APN 207 -631 -1 thru 23 and 207 -641 -1 thru 15. IX. Directoes Report V. , THE GATEWAY MASTER PLAN (DR 85 -31) - A request from the developer to review the conceptuel design for Phase II development. W. POLICY FOR UNDERGROUNDING OF EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES X. RAVEN AVENUE MEDIAN LANDSCAPE CONCEPTS X. Commission Business Y. TRAIL IMPLEMENTNTION Xl. Public Comments This is the time and place for the general pubii, to address the . Commission- Items to,be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. r,. } , MM A44ournment r The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Reguiatior;3 that set aft 11 p.m. adjournment time. Jf items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. i 4 CITE' Or RA "!Cun CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES [ Regular Meeting April 23, 1986 Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held at Lions Park Connunity Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stout then led in-the pledge of allegiance, ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Berman Rempel, Dennis Stout ABSENT: David Barker STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Senior Planner; Howard Fields, Assistant Planner; Nancy Fong, Associate Planner,, Ralph Hanson, Assistant City Engineer; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Dave Leonard, Park Projects Coordinator; Debra Meier, Assistant Planner; John Meyer, Assistant Planner; Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Alan Warren, Assistant Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced tentative schedule had been established for the May 17th field tour. He advised that this schedule would be available soon to the Commission. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ` Commissioner Rempel requested a modification to paragraph 9, page 13, of the February 12, 1986 Minutes to reflect that there are various drainage methods which could be used. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, carried, to approve the February 12, 1986 Minutes as amerde;� r r ,. r..+ti. - .nom '�•..�_ . , �. CONSENT CALENDAR . A. FINAL TIME EXTENSION FOR TRACT 9649 - LANDCO - A custom lot residential sup iva`sion on acres o an ovate on the southwest corner of Hermosa and Wilson Avenues in the Very Low (VL) District) - APN 201 -172- 14, 17. B. ;'?ME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 -04 - DAVIS (DALE) The eve anent of a 20,000 square foot medical ui ing on acres of land in the Industrial Park category (Subarea 6), located on the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Trademark Street - APN 201- 381 -01. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Consent Calendar. Motion carried b- the following voter AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, CHITIEA, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER - carried PUBLIC HEARINGS C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13114 - SCHULTZ - A custom lot subdivision on 5.5 acres of an in the LOW Residential District (2 -4 du /ac) located at the southeast corner of Vineyard and Calle Bel Prado - AFN 208 - 921 -03, 04. (Continued from April 9, 1986 m_eting.) Chairman Stout asked if the representative for Ws item was present. The representative was not in the audience at this time; therefore, the item was delayed until later in the agenda. D. REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84 -14 - VFW - A meeting hall serving alcoholic everages in an existing ut ing w1 h a lease space of 5000 square feet on 3.47 acres of land in the General Industrial (Subarea 3) Category, located at 8751 Industrial Lane - APN 209- 031 -74. Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Gene Barnes, representing VFW, stated they have tried many times to comply with the regulations based on verbal information. Mr. Barnes indicated that he had not received written information regarding regulations from the Fire District. He 'presented plans which were submitted to the Fire District two Planning Commission Minutes -2- i April 23, 1986 years ago and stated that smoke and fire alarms and exit lights had %nen installed, as well as crash bars on the doors. He stated that he had teen unable to make contact with the Fire D1 trict to determine what is regdired and advised that the VN would be willint to do whatever is necessar,;, snce the requirements are determined. Thm were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner CW tiea asked if staff had received written notice from the Fire District as to wnat is required. Mr. Putrino replied that a copy of the letter from the Fire District to the applicant was received by staff. One of the requirements is t^ present a plan. He indicated that Mr. Barnes' plan may not have been an electrical plan showing the wiring systep, for the fire alarm which is actually what was requested by the Fire District. He advised that this letter was dated approximately a month ago. Chairman Stout suggested that the Fire District be invited to present testimony witty espect to their contacts with the VFW since there seems to be some factual isputes between the two which need to be settled. He further suggested that the item be continued two weeks and asked the Fire District to provide a case file including all correspondence. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to continue the public hearing for the Revocation of Conditional Use Permit 84-14 to the May 14, 1986 meeting. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12902 - WOODLAND PACIFIC - A'. proposed residential subdivision of a s and one "remainder parcel" on 39.7 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 du /ac), located at the southwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Almond Avenue - APN 201- 071 -5, 6, 25, 26, 35, and 36. In addition, applicant has requested a Tree Removal Permit to remove select portirns of trees. Debra Meier, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff.report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Richard Scott, Woodland Pacific, gave an overview of the project. He asked for clarification of Standard Condition J -6(a) regarding surety aifd the posting and execution of an agreement guaranteeing completion of all on -site drainage facilites to the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. He suggested this be done prior to issuance of grading permits for each individual lot rather than prior to recordation of the map and be included in the CC &R's or some ty,-, of delineation on the final maps. �I r1 Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 23, 1986 i I Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Eng.neor, advised that these were conditions of the Building Official in the Building and Safety Division, therefore, he would .not have the authority to agree to an amendment to the condition. Mr. Scott asked if this tract were approved by the Commission tonight, would it be agreeable to add a notation tc, allow this to be worked out with staff. Mr. Hanson replied that the condition was made to the satisfication of the Building Official, which would grant some latitude. Mr. Scott asked for clarification of building setback line relative to the offer of dedication for drainage purposes. Mr. Hanson replied that this would be a 50 foot setback line from the edge of the 100 year water surface. He further explained that it would be an offer of dedication for the total 50 feet on either side of the water surface area. Mr. Scott asked it 'this would be to the edge of the creek? Mr. Hanson indicated that this was correct. Frank Williams, Associated Engineer, suggested that it might be better to word that dedication be within limits of the 100 year flow rather than saying building setback line: since there may not be any building setback lines on this side of the creek. He indicated that the problem with the condition as stated is that it may be in conflict on a couple of lots where the 50 foot setback cannot be obtained and alternate methods may have to be used. Mr. Hanson replied that he would l i kc to establish one on the west si d.: as well as the east side since staff doesn't know if structures could possibly he constructed there. He indicated that staff would like to make sure that tu,j;e, structures are not within 50 feet of the setback line. Mr. Scott addressed the Grading Committee's recommendation that grading of any additional equestrian trail required by the Commission be reviewed by the Committee prior to action on the map. His understanding was that this recommendation would be attached as a condition of approval on the tract that would be resubmitted while doing balance of processing. Mr. Hanson stated that he understood the recommendation to require the review of the type of grading done on that trail which would be taken care of prior to recordation. Mr. Scott was concerned that the staff report stateu that if an addition trail was required he would have to go back to the Grading Committee and submit plans prior to tentative map approval. He indicated that this was not his understanding when talking to Grading staff and his u0erstanding was that review could be done following approval of the tentative map and while doing everything else. Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 23," 1986 Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that if the trail is to be moved, staff would recommend that the Commission not take action on this tentative map until staff has a chance to look at -the final plans including grading and make a recommendation. Mr. Scott brought up the issue that trails would be a liability to, the City if trails bi- sected lots. He protested the undergrounding of utilities on the east side of Hermosa. Pam Henry, representing the Trails Advisory Committee, addressed the trail issue. Ms. Henry advised that the Committe4 had tried to give this developer as much consideration as possible and determined that it was reasonable to delete the trail alc.g Hermosa as a community trail and leave the trail along the channel and the creek. She advised that this is a unique trail in that it is one of the few aesthetic trails in the community. She explained that the reason the trail was placed in this location is because of geographic problems. The committee addressed the grading issue and suggested that the trail be left as close to natural state as possible following the creek and recommended as few trees as possible be removed to permit safe passage and that grading be kept to a minimum i" not eliminated all together to keep the natural terrain in tact. She emphasized the importance 0 the trail as a connection to the Almond trail to the north and the continuation on dawn to the Alta Loma Channel to the Alta Loma Basin. Frank Williams, Associated Engineers, advised the the applicant would like to keep the trail in as natural state as possible and not do exfi;isive grading and drainage controls; however, the City has adopted community trails standards wh;'ch require stringent design. He stated that if this recommendation was adopted, the applicant would need relief from that requirement. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chitiea state` that the Eucalyptus grove in this location is a very unique and special feature of the City which should be available to the entire Community. She adv4- .:'that should the trail be moved to Hermosa, it will be lost to the resi { -,ats of this City as a whole and she could see no reason to do that. She further stated that the alignment of the trail on the east side was discussed a year ago and it was agreed that this would not be the community trail. She advised that the trail mentioned further, to the west is unaccessible and is a jog on the Almond trail which goes north /south because of the terrain. She did not want to see this tract developed in any other way than with the trail along the creek bed. She stated the utilities should be undergrounded. Commissioner MCHiel agreed that the utilities should be undergrounded. He was not particularly concerned with the trails, but supported Commissioner Chitiea`s recommendation. _ p Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 23, 1986 F f� Commissioner Rempel was concerned with the maintenance of trails and stated that there may be some real problems eventually for the City. He advised that a considerable amount of water came down that channel in 1969 and the trail is ` going to be very costly io ma ntain. He stated that the utilities shoiid be undergrounded. Chairman Stout stated t'at the trail is essential along the creek bed and the standards should be moaified in this case. He agreed that the utilities should be undergrounded. Commissioner Chitiea advised that the Trails Committee did not want the trail constructed under community trails standards; this would be a special situation and treated as such. Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that if the Commission's direction is to recommend approval of the community trail along the creek bed but not to the current standards, he felt they could be worked out with the Trails Committee. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that this should go back to the Trails Committee. Chairman Stout asked if staff was satisfied with the engineering for the channel as far as flood control. Mr. Hanson replied that staff will look at it closer in final -the design phase, but was fairly satisfied at this point. Commissioner Rei .+el asked if staff knew the location of the minimum 50 foot setback from the'lu, year flood plan. Mr. Hanson replied that it was a best scientific guess. Commissioner Rempel stated that he really didn't like guesses and was not comfortable with 50 feet bac: from a guess line. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiei, to adopt the Resolution approvi :;a Tentative Tract 12902, with the requirement to underground the existing overhead electric lines less than 66 kv and the telecommunication lines on Hermosa, and language added to Planning Division condition 6 to require design of the community trial along the creek bed to be such that it preserves natural terrain as much as possible, subject to approval by the Equestrian Advisory Committee prior to recordation, and inclusion of Building Division conditions requiring drainage easements to be shown on the final map, and the requirement of either removal or bonding of the removal of the reservoir. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER - carried Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 29, .1986 f. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85 -33 CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE - Construction of Phase 2 for the Lhurch of e Nazarene consis ing o sanctuary, bible study, office, and vicar apartment on 2.04 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8 -14 du /ac) located on the north side of Arrow, 300' west of Fir Drive - APN 208- 321 -017. Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout stated that there was some discussion regarding a block wall at the time of the review of the first phase. Mr. Fields replied that the applicant originally proposed installation of a block wall on the west property line but per staff'. request: the block wall was waived because it was deemed obstructive to any future reciprocal access. He advised that staff's intent was to have a shared driveway on the southwest corner of site with adjacent property. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Howard Baumgarten, 332 Stanford Drive, Claremont, representing the applicant, responded to questions by the Commisiion. Chairman Stout asked if the church had changed its position on the block wall. Mr. Baumgarten replied that for financial reasons, the church would prefer that it remain it its present condition. He stated that the parcel orig-nally was considered for an office professional use, therefore, Engineering staff had suggested a shared driveway approach. Chairman Stout asked if the church would be opposed to the shared access at Some time in the future. Mr. Baumgarten replied that future treatment of the boundary would depend on the development to the west and what is developed there, and that the church was not in opposition to the shared access concept. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit. 85 -33. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPE'',, MCNIEL, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES; COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER carried Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 23, 1986 I 0 8:05 p.m. — Planning Commission Recessesd 8:20 p.m. - Planning Conn ssion Reconvened * * * ** G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ado DEVELOPMENT CODE iMENOVITNT 86 -01 - CITY OF Prop osa1 -t amen ection - a pertaining to grading of custom lot subdivisions, Section 17.08.040 -J pertaining to usable yard area, and Section 17.02.110 pertaining to definitions of the Developrrmt Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Ordinance fro. 211. Brad Buller, City Planner, reviewed the stiff report. Mr. Buller advised that the language in the Ordinance pertaining to usable yard area should be replaced with that which was specified in the staff report. Ralph Hanson, Assistant City Attorney, suggested the following amendment to Section 17.02.140: Subdivision, Tract: A &.1 division which creates five or more parcels to be developed as a wno a or in past by an owner or builder. A tract subdivision for the development of four or more residential swelling units shall be required to apply fur developnent /design review as a total development. Such application shall be required as a condition of tentative tract approval. Chairman Stcut opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore the public hearing wez closed. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the Ra;olution recommending approval to the City Council of Development Cade Amendment 86 -01, as amended. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER - carried * * * ** NEW BUSINESS H. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11549 -1 - BLAIR - Design Review of footprints and buildinT--elevations for a recor a ract of a residential subdivision of 21 lots on 17.5 acres in a Very Low Residential District (Less than 2 du /ac) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan located on the east side of Etiwanda, south of Summit - APH 225 - 1.81 -20. Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 23, 1986 John Meyer, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout-stated that there were-,several suggestions about the site plan at the Design Review Committee level and asked if there were any modifications as a result of that meeting Mr. Meyer replied that the applicant has met all the recommendations as far as the site plan. The only remaining issues are the architectural concerns. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Steve Falk, representing Blair Homes, referredd to a letter written to Lewis Homes which stated that their submittal had been approved and designed in accordance with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. One of the concerns at.the Design Review Committee meeting was that no ether project had been approved before the Etiwanda Specific Plan, wh °sh he tLlt were not va 'd based upon this letter. Another concern was that elevations should be car -ied around to all four corners of the houses, yet the approval of Lewis Home in 1984 did ti:at very thing except on corner lots. He advised that the floor plans had been upgraded from the Lewis submittal by increasing the square footage and this proposal was a higher end product with a variety of architectural tr atments which comply with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He referred to the detached garages suggested in the Etiwanda Specific Plan and statee that he had spoken to a representative of the Sherif•11's Department who indicated that there was a concern about the safety factor of detached garages. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the EV.wanda Specific Plan calls for Victorian, California,Bungelow fnd Caiifarnia Ranch types of architecture and asked the architect to characterize his submittals. Mr. Falk advised that '•h Victorian and Cafornia Ranch styles of architecture were used it project. Dan Colpman, Seiiior Planner, .ified that the Lewis project referred to by the applicant was processed coacurrently with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. This is the first time that the Commission would be approving aa. architectural product for single family homes w5hin Etiwanda. He advised that the letter was written at the request of Lewis Homes and that Lewis specifically wanted to know if they were consistent with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Chairman Stout recalled that prior approved tracts were not reviewed for their complete compliance with the Plan, but if they were in substantial compliance to the point where it would be unfair to deny them since they had been submitted eariie,. Commissioner Rw. +pei stated that ?s project originally was a .:ustom lot subdivision, not a development, t`o development of units came much later. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes -9- Apr i 23; 1986 �t F Chairman Stout advised that he was on the Design Review Committee when this project was reviewed acid the reason it was being presented to the entire Commission is that this type• of architecture will set the standard for everything that happens in Etiwanda. Biad Buller, City Plarner, stater' that iha reasons for bringing the project before the Commission was two -fold; to ICA at this project specifically and to look at the architectural language within the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He advised that staff looking for guidance from the Commission in regard to the Commission's: aretation of the architectural policies and guidelines specified in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Commissioner Chitiea stated that these designs were not c,.at unattractive but they did not meet the special needs of Etiwanda. She felt the designs were too comtemporary ;-nd did not seem innaaative or traditional. She suggested that they needed more work, possibly at a workshop level. Commissioner McNiel stated that they wer6' nice houses but with respect to Etiwanda, the time and style of design s,':ould be established now while the opportunity exists. i b Cou sinner Rempel wondered what we are looking for in Etiwanda: lie advised th- if ' ;he intent was to build a 1900 era street, we are going to fail >. ba• it can't be built and sold at a reasonable price to fit the _& .y. He pointed out that three of tha elevations presented are mgr- lictu,..in than 95% of the houses In Etiwanda right now; the other two may need a little work. He stated that there would be a lout of problems with copying a strictly Victcrian look. He felt the Commission should look at what is feasible as well ,s what we perceive for the picture of Etiwanda. Chairman Stout stai,ed that there are stylistic ways of building a Victorian style house which would be more in keeping with what the City had in mind for Etiwanda. He agreed that there are no good examples that e-Ast in Etiwanda now, but the issue was not emulating but creating a certain type of atmosphere which would even. *..,:ally be the style of the community. He further stated that the euestion with respect to this project is if there is sufficient detailing to sp", it apart to say this is the Etiwanda area; it is a matter of detailing, not k,anceptuai Change. Commissioner McNiel agreed that the designs could be altered to give them the character the City is looking for. Commissioner Chitiea stated she ;mould like to discuss what constitutes California bungelow and what the City is looking for in terms of .Victorian. She stated there is nothing I wrong with some the elevations presented except they lark a strong statement. She wanted to determine the concept of how Etiwanda is going to develop in terms of design and style, and felt it should be addressed now in a workshop. Commissioner Rempel stated that he couldn't see designing all the houses in Etiwanda in a workshop; each tract should be looked at as it is submitted. Further, he did not think a standard could be set with 20 houses. Commissioner McNiel agreed with the need for a workshop to come to a general consensus of opinion. Mr. Buller advised that a workshop has been scheduled for May 8, at which time staff could put together some additional information that might help clarity these categories. Chairman Stout sgggested that the Commission be provided with illustrations of examples. Motion: Moved by Chltiea, seconded by McNiei, carried, to resubmit the project back to the resign Review Committee for action and recommendation, back to the full �vann ag Commission. Commissioner Rempel stepped down from the podium due to possible conflict of interest. I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86 -05 - BARTON - The eve opmert df a v guar: foot rem .urant on 12.68 acres o and in the Industrial Park District: (Subarea 7), lcr.ated at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Spruce avenue - ON 208 -35 -5. Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout invited p0l is comment. Jim Barton, 8409 Utica, Rancho Cucamonga, gave an overview of the project. Chairman Stout asked if the applicant wa- able to raise the pad when the grading plan was conceptually finalized. Mr. Barton replied that the restaurant pad had been raised one and one -half feet, and would be bermed too shield cars from Foothill Boulevard. Chairman Stout asked how much of the building height would be seen fron Foothill Boulevard. Planning Commission Minutes -i1 April 23, 1986 't Steve Crowe, ar'hitect, replied that the building would extend approximately 20 feet above the berm!ing. There were no further comments. Commissioner Chitiea stated it would be nice to have a restaurant at this location. Chairman Stout agreed and stated it was a good idea to move the restaurant back a 14ttle from the intersection due to the considerable amount of landscaping on Spruce and Foothill. He liked the change and thought it appropriate. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental. Assessment and Development Review 85 -05. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONER: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER ABsSTAIN, COFR41SSIONERS: REMPEL - carried * Yr * '*' * Commissioner Rempel returned to the podium. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85 -53 - ANDERSON - The development of 3 -in-dnr trial- buildings —totaling 61;3 45 square feet on 4.47_ acres of land in the General Industrial /Rail Seated District (Subarea 5) located are the north side of 6th Street„ 300 feet west of Turner Avenue - APN 209- 211 -40. Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. She recommended a minor change to the Engineering Division conditions of approval to require the undergrounding of 12 k line in addition to the. existing telecommunication lines on the north side of 6th Street. Commissioner Chitiea asked if there was a condition relative to meandering sidewalks. Ms. Fong replied that meandering sidewalks were required in the Standard Conditions. Chairman Stout invited public comment. -12- April 23, 1986, Richard Avent, representing the applicant, gave an overview of project. He addressed the issue of the banding.and questioned if 'phis was essential given that the building is concealed to the west ;y existing property and potent ally concealed to the z_ct Iy proposeo development. He was concerned with the expense and questioned t;ic aesthetic value of undergrounding two of the lines on the existipg poles since the poles and 66 kv lines would remain. He was also concerned with disturbing the existing landscaping and irrigation and advised that the project contained an underground vaulted fire system. He additionally objected to the requirement of meandering sidewalks and advised that it would necessifiate the removal of existing landscaping and would not connect to any existing or proposed structures. He asked for clarification of the requirement Uf the reciprocal agreement for the driveway and asked how far and to what extent. Mr. Hanson replied that ,it would be to the normal building setback line; one u ive aisle. There were no further comments. Commissioner Rempel suggested an in -lieu fee for the utility undergounding. He felt the meandering sidewalk should be constructed as conditioned. Regarding the texture banding, he stated it is not essential to carrying it around to the back of each of the buildings, but there should be some color band on all the buildings. Chairman Stout stated that since those back buildings are essentially hidden from the street, he would agree and that some color banding would be acceptable. He advised that the existing landscaping- needs to be replaced where removed to canstruct improvements. Commissioner McNiel concurred with an in -lieu fee for utility,. undergrounding. He stated that texture banding is not essential on the back sides of the buildings. Commissioner Vhitiea considered the in -lieu fez appropriate. She suggested that when the sidewalk goes ;n, the applicant could possibly do some additional terming to the front of the building. She was in favor of continuing %exture around building, but would not hold up the project for that. Motion: Mrved by McNiel, seconded by Chitiea, to issue a hcgatiive De-Oaration and adopt,: the 'Resolution approving Environmental Assessmery ind Development Review 85.453 with an amendment to Engineering Division Condition 1 requiring the under!lrounding of 12 kv lines in addition to telecommunication lines on 6th Street, and amendment to Planning Division condition 3 changing the required texturized banding to a color band. Motion carried by the following. vote: Planning Commission Minutes -13- April 23, 1986 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, CHITIEA, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER carried K. PRELIMINARY REVIEW 86 -26 - CARLTON BRO'WNE COMPANY - A consistency determination between the Foothill Corridor IFEerim Policies and o commercial center concept located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Lion Street - APN 208- 632 -047. Debra Meier, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman :,tout invited public comment. Chuck Frye, representing she applicant, gave an overview of the project. There were no further comments. Commissioner Chitiea stated there were some problems with the site plan; however, the use was consistent and would be appropriate. She also stated there were some problems with the driveway at Pep Boys, and would be willing to give consideration to the applicant's proposal. Commissioner McNiel stated that it is not to this applicant's benefit to be dependent of the Pep Boys driveway, which was unfortunate. He was con°erned that the driveway might be too close to Lion street and there were too many drive cuts along Foothill. Regarding the site plan, he thought the applicant did a good job, but it still needed some work. Commissioner Rempel stated that if the original conditions of approval for Pep Boys stated that the drive was to be on the property line, it should be moved back to where it belongs. He was concerned that the proposed design works to the detriment of this piece of property. He stated that it was very linear and that something needs to be done to improve the parking. He thought these problems could be taken care of through Design Review and advised that the project should move forward. Chairman Stout thought the project was basically in conforirance with the Interim Guidelin%s ar-+ wit"' the proper amount of work and some adjustments it would be appropriate and consistent with the Foothill Corridor. He also had problems with the Pep Boys driveway and thought the project was underparked. He was concerned with the traffic stacking situation on Foothill Boulevard if this driveway serviced both projects. He agreed that staff should look at the Pep Boys drive to see if it was improperly constructed, but thought that some other point of access will be necessary to this parcel. Pe agreed that the project should move forward. Planning Commission Minutes -14- April 23, 1986 It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that Preliminary Review 86 -26, Carlton Browne Company, was consistent with the Interim Foothill Boulevard Policies and the project could continue through processing. 9 -,35 p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed 9:50 p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened Chairman Stout announced that item C would now be considered. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13114 - SCHULTZ Commissioner Rempel advised that he had made telephone contact with the applicant who consented to a two week continuance. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to continue the public hearing for Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 13114, Schultz, to the May 14, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. DIRECTOR'S REPORT L. REVISION TO SECTION 17.04.070(d) OF DEVELOPMENT CODE - MODEL HOMES SALES Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Jerry Linton, Citation Builders, gave an overview of his request for the Commission's consideration of this amendment. He advised that he would be wiping to work with staff to come up with something which works. There were no further comments. Commissioner Chitiea was concerned that the amount of traffic could be increased substantially through the existing neighborhood: Commissioner McNiel agreed there mfjht be some increased traffic but it would not be that substantial. He thoi.ght the Conditional Use Permit method was appropriate, and wanted to insure that trailers will not be permitted as a part of this request. Commissioner Rempel agreed and stated the Conditional Use Permit could take care of the traffic problem. He pointed out that model units are normally at the main entry of a development; therefore, traffic into the rest of development would be minimal. Planning Commission MinutLs Chairman Stout agreed with the Conditional Use Permit concept. He suggested that the Code language should be tightly drafted as to specifically where a Conditional Use Permit is appropriate and where it is not, address traffic impacts, and limitations. Commissioner Rempel stated that if the model homes are located on a collector street there would not be much of a prohlem, but on a small residential street where traffic would have to go a distance into a development, there could be a problem. k Commissioner Chitiea suggested that time limitations be established. Brad Buller, City Planner, advised that staff would try to expedite this A amendment; however, felt the criteria the Commissior, is looking for would take 4, some study and �=sideration. He suggested that staff 'bring proposed language before the residential Design Review Commit'.tee befor;,� it comes to the full Planning Commission. l It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that staff move forward with the amendment to the Development Code. M. VICTORIA GROVES PARK CONCEPT Bill Holley, Community Services Director, gave an introduction to the park concept. He explained that development of this park would necessitate the removal of trees on the site; therefore, the staff had prepared an extensive 4 presentation. Dave Leonard, Park Project Coordinator, gave an overview of the Conceptual.. Design Plan and presented slides of the site. Commissioner McNiel was concerned with parking. He stated that Windrows Park seems underparked and recent ballgames there have created congestion with the adjacent model homes. Mr. Holley explained that this situation is due to.the fact that the Comrmunity Paris are now under construction, which has displaced some programs. He stated that rather than cancel these programs, City staff had looked to some Neighborhood Parks. He advised that the Neighborhood Parks are not designed or intended for Community Park purposes and will return to their intended uses after July of this year. Commissioner McNiel asked how many parking spaces are being provided? Mr. Leonard advised that there are 26 parking spaces on the site, plus the use of additional par;:ing on the school site. Planning Commission Minutes -16 April 23, 1986 IR r Commissioner Rempel asked if there was a way to use the school property for temporary parking until the school is developed. Mr. Holley advised that staff would look into this suggestion. Steven Ford, William Lyon Company, advised that in areas where parks are located an additional 45 spaces of off- street parallel parking have been provided. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to approve the Victoria Park conceptual tiesign. OLD BUSINESS N. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85 -22 - QjWARDS CINEMA - A request to modify the approved building a evationi it a -p ex ►movie theater of 25,188 square feet, within an approv:d masS�r plan (Virginia Dare Center) located on the northwest corner of Fdothil'i ar,d Haven, in the General Commercial (GC; District - APN 1077 - 104 -01 a0i.03. Howard Fields, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Glen Gellatly, Bissell Architects, advised that when the final plans were in the Building Department for plan check, it was noted that a detail pertaining to the side and rear elevations showing a layered furring effect on the elevations had been omitted. He advised that the detailing was never part of any documents which had gone before thi Design Review Committee, Planning Commission or City Council. He i,divsed that what was shown was a color band treatment using three colors W.ih some layering of the stucce on the front fascade and returning it around the corners on th_ two sides. Mr. Gellatly presented a model of the building. Chairman Stout asked if the actual construction drawings with the detail on them had been submitted to the City and done in error. Mr. Gellatly replied that was correct. Chairman Stout stated that he had gotten cp ^.fused that Mr. Gellatly was talking about the front elevations and wfial he was actually saying was the furred out detail is to remain on the front elevation, with a step down effect as it returns on the two sides. Therefore, the only part of the construction drawing detail which was being requested for deletion is the side and rear elevations which the applicant intends to put some type of scored treatment in there. Mr. Gellatly concurred and stated that the itent was a long, clean reveal allowing for a clean color break line. Planning Commission Minutes -17- April 23, 1586 i Chairman Stout stated that the confusion came because he understood, the applicant wanted to remove the furred out detail from all elevations of the building. He recalled discussion.regarding the detail on.the front elevation, but did not recall if there was discussion relative to the sides crud did not velieve it had been made a condition of approval. He stated he had no objection to this request because there are two buildings on either side of it and there is some detail in the color band which is consistent with what has been required. Further, that from a distance the furred out detail would not be seen on the back anyway. Commissioner Rempel stated a concern tFat there was never an underst3Rding at Design Review that there was going to, be a change in the texture ��f the building. He advised that he had gon e to the site and the texture looks like an amateur had laid out the block rather than trying to accomplis?i the appearance of adobe. He stated that norhPre on the submittals does it show that the building texture will not be similar to what exists. Furcher, that it has been changed from rest of buildings and is not acceptable. He felt the texture should be dash, which was the approved texture for the center. Mr. Gei: --}ly minted out that this is 13 acre site with a number of buildings to be built, and did not see a problem with going to different types of texture as long as the color is consistent and compatible. He stw�.d that the use of the same texture could be monotonious on 13 acres. He advised that he was trying to get a texture variat;on with this type of finish, and it may not look like much now but once its p °inted the finish gives a rustic appearance. He explained that "sack wipe" is a t" in coat of plaster which is wiped onto the block to cover the joints. He advised that the colors, proportions and break up would satisfy all concerns. He pointed out that mission style architecture has all types of textures and that nothing was consistent in the old wineries. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the community trail runs behind this project. She pointed out that the project to the north was required to do considerable upgrading to the backsides and there are other places in the City which back up to the community trail that have been required to bring detailing around the back. She wanted to see this project give that same consideration to tna trail. Mr. Gellatly stated that stucco texture was never discussed at any of the meetings. Further, that during Design Review on all of the projects e-,eryone knew the finish was going to be stucco, but it could have been blown on, hand trowelled or some other type of stucco treatment. Therefore, the applicant could have gone to a cheap finish, but was providing a method which is unique. There were no further public comments. Commissioner McNiel concurred with the continuance of the color nand. He was concerned with the texture change and agreed that it should be consistent with the existing buildings. Planning Commission Minutes -18- April 23, 1986 Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, to delete the furred out detailing from the sides and rear elevations. The building texture is to match the finish on the existing completed buildings. Don Christeson, applicant, stated that the Commission was challenging the professionalism of Mr. Gellatly by stating that they know more about the design and what the finish is going to look like than he does. He suggested that the Commission allow the work to continue until enough of the wall h s been completed to judge it fairly. He pointed out that the wall'is nowhere near completed and is being judged too early. He felt that by the time it is all finished and painted the Commission would be happy with it, since it Mould look like a slurry wall with a lot of character. He stated that there are a number of buildings across the street in the Barton complex which are not consistent, and requested that he be given that flexibility. Chairman Stout asked if there was a motion for reconsideration. There was none, therefore the original motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS REMPEL, MCNIEL, CHITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER carried COMMISSION BUSINESS 0. TRAILS - Oral Report Brad Buller, City Planner, gakve an overview of the current status and review procedures for trails, Chairman Stout advised he had this item placed' on the agenda because the system doesn't seem to be working. He asked that staff prepare a re.,3ort on the status of trails with some analysis on staff time and budgetary needs. He believed there may be the need for the expenditure of funds for a consultant to put together not only;4 ,plan which indicates an inventory of trails ane their current condition along with a list of current problems associated with completing the system, but an implementation plan of how it will work. Ile suggested that the report include some type of scheduled time plan. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she wholeheartedly supported this direction. Mr. Buller stated that if it is determined that trails are a priority for next ,year's work program, this proposal might require a budget expenditure which would have to be approved by the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes -19- April 23, 1986 LdM ;Y ro . Chairman Stout stated that this kind of thing that would have been addressed if a Specific Plan had been done for Alta Loma. He stated that he was looking for more than a trail plan and suggested the scope address rural acnosphere and include those concepts and design elements to preserve the atmosphere and ambiance of the Alta Loma area. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by AcNiel, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adjourn to a workshop folTDWing this meeting for the purpose of discussing Industrial Specific Plan revisions. 10 :55 p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Deputy Secretary { I Planning Commission Minutes -20- April 23, 1986 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 28, 1986 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Howard Fields, Assistant Plannoi CSC A,J' a � � O O Z ��.> 1977 1 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11626 - ALTA LOMA ESTATES - A review of building elevations for 8 single- fam T detached homes wigllin a custom lot residential subdivision of 82 lots on 86.53 acres in the Very Low Residential District on the north side of Almond at Beryl Street - APN 1061 - 411 -03, 1061-451-0, 1061- 171 -01. I. BACKGROUND: At their regularly scheduled meeting on July 27, 1983, the anning Commission approved Tentative Tract 11626, a subdivision of 82 lots nn 86.53 acres and the accompanying E.I.R. The new applicant has submitted designs for 8 lots (Ex`iibif; AC ") for your approval of plotting, elevations, and grading crncept. II. ANALYSE.': A. General: The project features eiqht custom single- family detachei; homes that provide a wide variety in contemporary architectural styles and details (see Exhibit "Fo for tabulations). The split -level elevations incorporate stucco and masonite sidinq, flat and mission the roof materials, brick and masonary veneer, and Oecorative wcod plant -ons (see Exhibit "E") Most units will provide a staggered front yard setback ( ±5 feet) for visual Interest. All units are single - story with eight unique floor plans ranging from 3,432 square feet to 3,525 square feet and provisions for 3 to 5 car .garages. B. Design Review Committee: The Committee reviewed and approved the building elevations subject to additional fenestration-to all four (4) sides of the proposed homes, including corner elevations. In terms of grading, the Committee directed the applicant to explore ways of utilizing split -level architecture that would fit existing grade in order to minimize the amount of engineered slopes. Also, the Committee expressed concern over the 23% building coverage (25% maximum allowable) and indicated that there should be small building envelopes shown on the site plan to address horse stables, tack rooms, and accessory structures. Lastly, the Goni. ttee requested ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORt TENTATIVE TRACT 11626 - ALTA COMA ESTATES May 28, 1486 Page 2 reasonable access to the equestrian trail system for maintenap­� vehicles. The applicant has responded to Coaunittee concerns oy making revisions to address all Committee concerns. III. RECOMMENDATION: Staff - recommends that the Planning Commission aF ^rove the design elevations, plotting, and grading - concept through adoption of the attached resolution. R ctfull mit�, Bra Bui City Planner BB :NF:ko Attachments: Exhibit "A" Location Map Exhibit "B" - Approved Tract Map 11626 Exhibit "C" Site Plan Exhibit ':D"- Grading Plan Exhibit "El" - Elevation Plan 100 Exhibit 11E2" - Elevation Plan 200 Exhibit "E3" - Elevation Plan 300 Exhibit "E4" - Elevation Plan 400 Exhibit 11E5" - Elevation Plan 500 i Exhibit 11E6" - Elevation Pla►l 600 Ea1'Hbit "E7" - l levetion Plan 700 Exhibit 11E8" - Elevation Plan 860 Exh At "F" - Site & Floor Plan Tabulations Reso-lution with Conditions -- Previously Approu� Resolution 83 -45 with Conditions for Tentative Tract ,11526 i 1 I �r�tl► el�l;��� ril�i1111i11�i tip ��, Ih111° i1�Ip ■ �II!!l11111� �s eel�ll� s1 1t 11 111111 - !, CITY or ITEM: RANCI -10 CUC INJOINGA TITLE: PLANNING DIVLSIO`J EXHIBIT- f NORTH SCALE. 1 f w: I TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11626 :Iw TNf CtTY Oi pA CUO CUGMON A C UMTY OT D 1[pNAAU1Mb. ftAi/. OI CA...UPx1A ' 1�. Auauri. n .u...m. ........�.� •T.• T i,' r —r 7 /IMP .G' �i: •^•� }� \� -f �.` .r`: ..�.._ J . �„ .. .c"•'aor� iiLt utPtd �ti tl as i ib �v� 77.r-Yf T, T V. N. LOT n. � : '..L:..:.r._r.4. t r . �d:a a � , ' � � i � s. .��.... !i � ' • '' ;� t''r.� ,r L • �7.. v..:.'+_.� . I •.. -.. Imo.. �.t t, t. �� + ,7 RT �+ �+ w�]r' ✓ • I1 NORTH CITY rr�tit: 7."T_. Iva TITLE:hl'f -r PL.AMING I?NISK)N FXHIBIT. „ .` �] �� .iGp 'N..•y> Mw111PJ'Ngq •KT wrwV�'i.�Ii� L 3 w'> •> - °^•�•« 'ONI..'SNOS I ONVONVW j s on ♦r.aa y ww>so� . ^ " 3�_ts vomonvono ON�NrY YLDIi wN toms • S31V1SH VWOI t/1lV • ' r 1 , 1 r °I ioe L !: r i eec I car ' ......... ..... W. oea aes i e � i . CL r o W�l 2 • a' i° II; r Fi £ U 3 00& 1; 380 + i 100 r — — — — — — — �� .d.. — m Adlk Z L W P Ot • • to •• N W7 . , tit � W W wOn U�r J ZD..UT u +Q� m vnN On I... ® 2 U R o mh U EE. W >¢aun .11.71 cc O QrNGOhi Sn di m e m O �1NO� AL .� � . { Z22� =W ■k =WZ! £■Q }� \\ pi §[ °| k { 2 ©�! OMB` < f § \� \ §�! i ... iwnnq awao aNl 'SNOS p tIr p s neis.a •ONOWVOn O. ONONYN fl+3 +H :=EKI C7 rl li I V1 IV - P 3, — ' fM auuyy \I�a t ' °a.•••• •,•. 'ONI 'SNOB R ONt/JNVW .' 7MItaeYn t wanac • Y9NOWYOfi� OI[aNYH gas" 'nN 17rtl1 •.SSIVIS3 vwo� VI-IV • o0t Ntl"1 e .;, F. e J tl I Ir ' �r r LL LU i, 2 J O O 4 Y .l i ,. I J El. 1 I� j L_. yz Z l I I I I I ••OMIT /1Y0 7 MOIfiO • �. Y Aa�3n� ono OH�HYtl YL9tt ,N ", �S2, V1S3 VWO-1 Vt1V ••aarai� as •i •usae • YOman" A•3r.H .L_ r v 3 Z Q uj LU W. W X10 .I w +i i a ®1 .I it- ilk ��e u+ ea a �ea�a ONI 'SNOS 'i ONVEMW ^ s 3 d WHOP1110110. OHOPIYY YLOLt w • S;IiV1S3 VIN01 VIIV I� Ll z 0 f b �kk +.r......a AOCR ONVONVW SZILL VMIOHY1. i 6 O O p W F lam\ A yl 0 1 4 j} 1r rl a � Y a ra i� MNI 'SNOS T ONVONY VONORVOAO OHONVU OZ2 N 1OriiM- S31VIS3 vwol OOS NVId ..... . . . . . . - -JNt 'SNOS It ONVONVW* -ONO,,, A ta ;E;;Fnwzn;, 999Lk ' H.L*Vrj Xvisa vwol vi OOP- NVId 41-1—ULill i! I ol L I —L, i ,7- LU U-1 f �-�S • •• : •�•,�� ::'..c •DNI 'SNOS 4 ONVONVW rra twmt.a rOHOMr70DOH7HrY YLCK'oN 1DrY1 Am3 +N • S31V1S3 VWO'1 V19V �-�S 2 S of ,I 'v Y t 2 S e 'SNOS '$ C a• -VONOWYONO ONONYtlA s SaIVIS3 Imc J e a 1� E. 2 .:� • •w,•u o rry `,_ -- mer..r•raa r/ar •,amurra r xa sae • TJBOryr�nO CH:SNru 2L9ta 'ON 107X• n•3 +a S3ttltS3 tflNOl tlt'7d • O£ �1119'1� s ! ! . 1� i J r-.TCT 0 ti ONI 'SNOS T ONVONtlW LL A*- 2' IL • S31 .LS3 VWO'l VJ--IV 3 T-7 0 LL LL H4-H ti tz LL IL 3 ti tz +`a.. 'JNI `SNOS I ONV!JNVjN '9NI3� �t1 f Nbttza VDNOFAV*RO CHON" T MI, 929LL A *S *d a531V1S3 VWOI fi7V 1 a wi n 009'NVId A9 E f oq! _ -ONI 'SNOS @ DNtlONtlN s ld�.bu l aelis0., YEINOWY0t17 pNONYO A•3sy °7 • S31d1S3 Vwo-1 t/1' N ■ " I, F fit 111777 I �, } f o I LU O cn " I, F fit 111777 I �, } f •1D u.aas ho�saa�I '"ONI.'SNOS V ONVJNVW - -- VDNOnran ••••• A+ 3 f b a OXaNrtl D 9tt 'oN vivaL S3.Ltl.LSa VWO-1 tll itl � Z 4x 0 3 .... ..• .. ' � aMl ;/•Y011�9l9 {O• 'ONI 'SNOB 4 ONtl`JNVW Y YUNOW1f�(q DH"JNYY 9i 3s� .sacaisa vwo� vs, rf rM LNV'Id; iI I q 0 Is ' ` ..� •n »�av ••w•ro .. •.a t...•iu -ants E i " •� �•'•• •ONI 'SNOS 4 ONVDNVW ••:onattlat t Mo�tat • YONOa7vono ONONVU 9Li }t 'oy lOtlW. a = A +3 +tl • S31V1S3 VWO't ''VPIV • � 1 OO9 NV1a ! ! t I i r, r i • `r .a •.....D .. �i.. ...� IONI S;IOS `Y ONVONVW �y A Y`.IHOMYJno aNJNYI/ 9iQ11W'at! y']Yif( CQ n :� :a SSttl153 tlWQI tllltl • I 009 I9tl-ld v A*B*U 1911", U- k-1 "W ----43 1 "go 9L9/, **N LOVUI I 'IV . \i + 1 •'�• 4MIlI •a volsso e ryegNl.? .W.M .. �. •u� wv..MJ 7 •It1 �NI Sum T C.4yoNVW YJNOfgYORO ONON\ gash "eN 1JYY1 + S31tl L, 3 VWOl V.L-1 f i mi o 1 I�. I I iI.�I! 11 i1111� 'e I N tu IE v .S. !r. � y rwylpra gsrr.p. --'- rrw� A,•C, �,. 'o"* 'SNOB 4 ONVONtlW•rW a N J ON 11vYU f Mils» YONO•" No ONONIY 9Ltill 'oN l�ltll 1 «3 r a S31tl1S3 vtNO'1 bl'ld OOL N` -ld 3 = l ! , i 22 E .- J r � O � Q i •1� i � •� z c .—t ie g j`17 c Y O f M 6 I O C: IR M . 1 1. � ON19 °a ❑ € i P�- a9 - g 4 IirvYO \ M71YYY •� V9NONr00? ON�NVY scars roN tarns N OOL :�l V1'1v • NV'Id 13 i � i Y •, .n »un •.....a .. �. ...va otus i , "' °1'•..� �NI 'SNOS @ ONVnNVW •�an�ai.tt t waittt VONOtNono ONONVY 9i9.tW'nN jzv" £ ' A' a'° U • salyiS3 Moo tl11V I CnFs MV-1-1 i y ;tom_. � � —�Y • $ 4.1i 1 x i J t.�,• jf J i �taDagoD ooDOO 0 DODDDD DDDDOD .t �DDDDDD DD0DDD 0000 0 0 DOD i OOD C� 13CLI 13 1 01308M 0'7130110 DODGD0 ' t 1 I �. OCDJOd00 L= DDDp�D t�+ � a0uan I + D-DL1DD Y t UOD 0• i LIDDDL]D L:DDUDD� L000D0 l 01307.713 ji . Door °oa 013n DE 1 ODOC ^D � 00 €U0 Lila- . t F i+ .y,,,p: •.•a f �n ••• Yrrnn 'CHI 'Sl105'S �NU'tlJNVW V unto t N41t1C YOHOIri�M1II OHaNTtl - GL9tt 'oN 1]TYl � n.a.a S3)NISM yhti h't.'Stt 00a Nf/`Id iLIl } 1� �Y 1 _ .nwM �•.T••Y1 ,'•.T U•ra•va7 PuT •••'• ` .. '�Nl '$NOS. Y CNVDNVW j p "fY11aTYP T #PITT[ l co F ,• _ JH i9V7HJ OHJNVL YLBt ►. roN.iJTH�j (�,' ,y„' " ;3'�' • sacvcs� mwo-r °rlTn __ i oos Nr,�.•> f i 1 t 'a ' l i I HIM Fri rj Tc ` O 6 i XW�XIXX� ^YXWp YXY•X.X•Y.'X YII Sty': •' $NI 'SNos $ ONVJNVW IIYYQf NOI'1Y0, YOO/tV00] ONONVN 9L8tt '•N 1]11tl � ° 3 • � • 531b1S3 tlWOI tilltf • ; 008 NVId : 3': I" Ito, :iii "`� NZ t U u ALTA LOMA ESTATES Tract No. 1162.E PLAN LUT No. HOUSE AREA .GARAGE- PORCH -EAVES TOTAL AREA LOT .S17.E LOT COVERAGE 100 1 3432 sq ft 1690 sq ft 5122 sq ft 21,500 23,8% 200 49 3533 sq ft 1793 sq ft 5326 sq.,ft 22,400 23,8; 300 74 3501 sq ft 1391 sq ft 4892 sq ft 22,100 22.1 %, 400 73 3519 sq ft 1364 sq ft 4883 sq £t 20,700 2Z -6% 500 76 3520 sq ft 1846 sq ft 5366 sq ft 22,500 23.8% 600 75 3522 sq ft 1410 sq ft 4932 sq ft 22,800 21.69 700 48 3525 sq ft 2210 sq ft 5735 sq ft 24,000 23,9% 800 77 3466 sq ft 1984 sq ft 5450 sq ft 22,800 23.9% C NOM . ^ CITE' OF RANCHO (ITCPU.NIONGA PLANNM DIVISION EXHIF3T1': F Fi:� "---SCALE= L .64k� RESOLUTION NO. 83 -95 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMt�:GA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TE;r,CT MAP NO. 11626 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Mao Na. 11626, hereinafter "Mao submitted by R. L. Sievers & Sons, 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 custom lct residential subdivision of 86.53 acres of land into 82 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on July 27, 1983; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recomm ended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's reports;, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Division's reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, 111ERE ORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract Mo. 11626 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed general and specific .plans; (b) The design or improvements of the Tentative tract is. consistent with all applicable interim and proposed ganerai and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental - damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through ^r use of the property within the proposed subdivision. P- 3 Resolution No. 83 -95 Page 2 (g) That an Environmental Impact Repert has been prepared and certified for this project which contains mitigation measures that reduce impacts to an insignificant level. SECTION L: Tentative Tract Map No. 11626, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to al of the following conditions : and the attached Standard Conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1. Recommendations by geotechnic and soils engineers shall be strictly adhered to as contained in the EIR ana Addendum i !olagic and Fau n Investigation (Ar;ril 27, 1.983). 2. A r'5 root to 150 foot building setback line for habitable s' ,uctures shail be established from the Cucamonga Fault traces and shall be recorde& -on the final map. This requirement may be subj;st to adjustment based upon additional detailed geotechnical studies. 3. A 50 foot building setback, line for habitable structures shall be established from the Canyon ridge line on lots 27 through 43, 82, and "B", and • shall be I recorded on the final map. This requirement may be subject to adjustment based upon additional detailed - -'Mdies. I 4. Proposed structures shall be designed to resist ! seismic forces in accordance witii the criteria contained in the 1982 Uniform Building Code for Seismic zone 4. 5. A revised map shall be submitted' which indicates a f� minimum front yard setback of 30 feet. In addition, t lots 13, 14, 15, 20 and 21 shall be revised to meet the minimum lot w4dth of 90 feet at the front yard setback line. 6. A 15 `oot equestrian easement shall be provided an lot 23 to connect with the Easement at the rear of lot 24. 7. A 30 foot strip shall be aedicated for emergency vehicle and a community trail on the south side of lots 13 and 14 as shown on Exhibit °F Resoluti-3ii No. 83-95 Page 3 S. The developer shall be responsible to gradc and construct the Community Trail per city standard with each phase of developm(-nt, including vehicle barriers at the trail entrances on lots 1, 46 and 76. Individual lot owners will be responsible for installation of local feeder trail fencing at time of construction. 9. Existing trees (except citrus trees) shall be retained wherever possible. Proposed grading for individual lots shall take into account the need for tree preservation. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rls) shall contain an awareress statement that existing trees shall be retained wherever possible, and that removal requires review and approval of a Tree Removal Permit pursuant to the Tree Preservation Ordinance. ENGINEERING DIVISION 10. An access easement (minimum 401wide) shall be shown from "Ell Street through lot "All to lot "B". 11. "Ell Street right-of-way shall be 40 feet with 28 feet curb separation plus 9 foot equestrian dedication along easterly right-of-way line. 12. "C" Street shall be constructed as a collector h street with standard temporary cul-de-sac. Ie right-of-way shall extend to north tract boundary. 13. I'D" Street shall be constructed as a collector street from the intersection with Deryl Stree� to the intersection with IICII Street.- 14. Res-Ulential lots that are adjacent to lot "All shall have slope stabiliziuq devices installee, as recommp,nded in the EIR and suhject to Planning Commission review. 15. Lot "All shall have a blanket offer of ded4cation for dreinage easement. If,. Lots 13, 14, 15, 41,, 42, 43, 55, 56 and 57 shall hp-ve rolled entrances with a minimum of 2 foot ,elevation above the flow line. The front yards shall be graded to provide a positive barrier for the flood runoff juruling the ctrbs, EM a E C' F 4 Resolution No. 83 -95/ Page 4 t 17. A storm drain shall he installed in Beryl Street from "D" Street to Almond Street and in Imond Street from Beryl Street east to the natural drainage channel (':n energy disipator will* be needed for the outlet). The proposed storm drain in "D" Street shall be extended to lot 39 and the west line of lot 45, with adequate inlet structures. 18. Vacation proceedings shall be initiated to vacate Almond street. Upon recording, a merger shall be recorded combining lot 118" with the "Not a hart ". 19. All recommendations - made by the Geothechnical Engineering consultant v;ill be met. 20. All cuff -site drainage easements for storm drains shall be decicated to the City concurrent with the recordation of the map. 21, The natural drainage course along the vlest tract boundary shall be .cleaned of all r *4'icial fill and artificial drainage barriers to convey drainage runoff from the tract. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY JF JULY, 1983. 1G'�01M!MISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO'CUCAMONGA 3Y •. Ato I, :ACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and eegularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of kaucho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of July, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, REMPEL, BARKER, JUAREZ. STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS! NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE V i RESOLUTION No. 85 -83 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA .PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11626. WHEREAS, a request has been filed for a time extension for the above- described project pursuant to Section 17.02.100; arid, WNZREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the above described Tentative Tract. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following fin— digs: A. The previously approved Tentative Man is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, Specific Plans, Ordinances, Plans, Codes and Policies; and, B. The extension of the Tentative Map will not cause Plan,f Specific oPlans�nOrdinances,h Plans,e Codes sand Policies; and, C. The extension of the Tentative Map :!s not likely to cause public health and safety probl,;.!S; and, D. The extension is within the time "' "emits prescribed by state law and local ordinance. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby grants a time extension for: Tract Applicant Expiration' 11626 Ramona S & L July 27, 1986 APFROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 1985, PLAN ING C MMISSIGN OF E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY. Denni -y ut; Chairman r ATTEST • v�..:... »......: s Ri Gomez, Deputy Secretary s IN ,y I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the P1ann,ng Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the forEigoing Resolution was duly 41nd regularly introduced, per; Wit, and adopted by the :Planning Commission of i;he City of Rancho Cucamonga,,_ f -a regular ineeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day'of June, 1§85, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIE,• „, BARKER, CNITIEA, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE y L ,r7a r M Y (/ ,r7a r M RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT NO. 11625 LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ALMOND STREET Ar BERYL STREET IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 5th day of February, 1986, a complete application was filed by Ron Vergilio for review of the above- described projec *, and WHEREAS, oil the 28th day of May, 1986, the Rancho uL_monga Planning Comrission held a meeting to consider the above- described project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as SECTION 1: That the following can be met: 1. That -the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the Gene,.l" Plan; and 2. That the proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and 3. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Cie; and 4. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in t'ae j vicinity. SECTION 2: That Design «view Yor Lots 1., 48, 49,, and 73 -77 of Tract liG is approved subject to the following conditions and attached Standard Conditions: 1. All pertinent conditions of Tentative Tract 11626 as contained in Resolution 83 -95 shall apply. 2. Lots 1 and 49 shall provide 2 :1 slopea in order to provide more usable rear yard area. 3. Where equestrian trails cross sidewalks, provisions for non -skid surface shall be required. 4. Provide additional architectural fenestration to alY four' $des of all elevations. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION TT 116?,6 - ALTA LOMA ESTATES May 28, 1986 Page 2 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis 1-.-74Eout, chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Deputy ecretary 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 regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission ­7 the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meet 'ng of the IPlanning Com m missi held on the 28th day of May IP86, by the following vote-to--'%Iit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONEP,�,. a 0 1 OIL u S UY. tt° w y� C •O I A ^ C C ° te a N a O U OI -L N yp Y.wi G a YCQ wV !N'U Ld Cpp4p 4Y^ �t yOa y0y Q�u 4w AVU -u- `p nu4 nu u� +u yCyTY Y Y G N •pt'V Y C J !i N 5_•.Arr N Um n%f °c wu YS ccii� �S'f CCu Y N ~S.T w�Gp .aY °Y lr <T 1 Z.F. o U- Y. pV�du Ny NMUO wY y^ QW °«Y ^ W a ^ {a'r °pru '•'� �'�"'a° 3�vk9.a~I . C N Y= 0 y o p -;.t U 3E� w —CL¢YV _ ! " A"q i cA y.y °wLLAGU .e >J.Y 1151 A YV �.y� �y wO^ rs A^ 4 a A^■t� P^ Y ne A 3t uw q ^�Yy'L °yaiK Nr_ roALaN ALM a, q ,Ti O p u N ^ Y O r• a. p Y yM c- uss M LO 0.'yy ' L NW <p A�" CC TL ww VM� u�C. `A� �^ G u•C6 nt�p' p° C L TNi °ULa�0uy N X94 MVAOY{ O�•••� °�`I. �. °w u�= _ M.L. p L T `6yN•YN 692N.L A =.� =O�aN 6Yt {yt �., `ONO F.0 dL pU I i I I ci H T N U O t G O a '- S N O 'V 1 A N \ o � 4 w v 1+ y w w ig o w� L Q� �F m_Na W. �• 4 � ww �p Y. �V• � 69 ti Y O.£ v Lp N L =r S O J �y p s wy� NAM v � N �o c Q 'N ~Vary -- °L O L ^ ^...o n'� Awn L r r-11h • N cW �, LNN NL,AV^V Op L T uV i?O ��a=ioL O CY' ^emu u^ C 2 4A� a wa "6a O o i w cu i A L M N C n^ 6 EE v •� 0701 --02 a 5 -28 -$6 P.C. Agenda Packet o Pate 20 of PLANNING COMNISSION,,STAFF REPORT i May 28, 1986 The Gateway Master Plan Paqe 5 r. Staff - Comment Ue current Development Code allows parking facilities o be used jointly with parking facilities foci other uses when operations are not normally conducted in the same hours or when hours of peak use Mary. The s maximum percentage of parking spaces that could be shared s is subject to the approval of the City Planner based upon tr a Detailed parking study. Since this Phase II is in a conceptual stage, the developer has not utilized the net floor area to calculate the number of required parking spaces which may decrease the percentage of shared parking. A written agreement must be executed to assure the continued availability - of the number of stalls designated for joint use, IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff reeortmnends that the Planning Commission review afid ider all materials and elements of the project, and provide directions to Staff and developer. Resp tfully Br sullen City Planner 9BNF:das Attachments! Letter of Proposals from The Developer Exhibit "A" Appraved Master Plan Exhibit= "B" -- Approved Master Circulation Plan Exhibit "C" - Option A of Phase II Development Exhibit "D" - Option B of Phase II Development Exhibit "E" Phase II - i Building Plan �I 3 ' 4 A.H. REITER DEVELOPMENT May 13, 1986 Ms. Nancy Fong City of Rancho Cucamonga 9330 Baseline Road Q. echo ^,%ca;,,onga, CF. 91730 i SUBJECT: Director Review of Preliminazy Plan for Gateway Project = Phase II Dear Nancy: I haves included mateT:i7 l for Planning Commission review regarding the preliminary design of Phase II of the Gateway Project. As previously discussed, the intent of Phase IT is two fold: To provide support business to the office corridor area, including restaurants, food Servioa and other ancillary commercial uses, and to increase the potential oi' office use along Haven Avenue. I have attached two plans and included a summary of the Land Use and Building Design,. I have identified Plan IIB as requirinc a Larking structure should the office development increase along Haven ?avenue. Because: of the modification to potentially include a parking structure and some modification of'the overall configuration of the plan, we feel that it is beneficial for the Planning Commission to be able to unuerstand the plan as it is now evolving and provids us with their input, prior to our making a formal submittal for City consideration. The Alan changes require a few items to be considered by th6 Planning Commission as they take the matter up at their next meeting. These include the conceptual approval of both options subject to the normal design review process, and conceptual approval of the shared parking concept subject to a detailed traffic engineering study. Mailitrg Address; P.O.. Box 7250 Newport Beach, California 4';58 -7250 r (714) 7514594 Pulitpan at Redhill Ms. Nancy Pong City of Rancho Cucamonaa Page Two - MaX 13, 19$6 Should you have any questions or any further comments on this matter, feel free to give; ne a call. Sincerely, j r 14' J EDLE Vice- President of Planning and Design V H. REITER DEVELOPMENT TJS :mlc cc: A. H. Reiter Enclosures: Summary overview of Phase I1 Reductions of Area Plans Transparencies of Area Plans Five (S) sets of full-print copy of Area Plans Check for Submittal Fee - V'1.00 i A.H. REITER DEVELOPMENT Subject: Overview of Gateway Phase II concepts with Rancho Cucamonga City Staff Date: May 12, 1986 F A. Plan Concepts I 1. Maintain close conformity to approved Master Plan including - Building Placement Overall circulation pattern - Pedestrian conne,:tlon -% of open space j Consistant archi- ectural and landscape progzam 2. Provide a food court jod support business tc service immediate surrounding offices. 3. Enhance plaza areas to create more of a central focus. 4. Continue strong pedestrian connections to other parts of Gateway. 5. Plan for option to intensify office use along Haven Avenue. B. Adjustments I. Change phasing to include interior island as second phase. 2. Develop option to increase office space along Haven Avenue and provide structured parking. 3. Enlarge center glaz, areas within food court with only slight modification of building parking area positions, 4. Refine parking and circulation pattern for improved interior circulation. Mailing Address: P.O, Box 7250 • Newport Beach, California 9263847250 • (714) ;14594 ,.. Puffman at Redhill C. Issues I. Conceptual approval of both options subject to normal design review process. 2. Conceptual approval of shared parking concept subject to detailed traffic engineering study. AQNL F 5 R GATEWAY SITE .PLAN SUMMARY STATISiPiCS PHASE II Plan Plan Original II -A II -B _ Land /i Gross Land Area r' Net Land Area 12.41 ac. 10.65 12.41 ac. 12_41 ac. 10.65 10.65 Vi' Landscapina Gross Open Space (Including Landscaping' 4.07 4.26 9,11 median) a Net Open Space 3.78 (36 %)!: 3.,)8 j3�) 3.83 (36�) Building _ I Building Footprint 77,850 (17 %) 85,000 (IF{%) 85,00C t'. ) Gross Building Area 153.,000 153,794 253,794 Parkin4 Stalls Provided 612 601 920 ,i GATEWAY BUILDING SUMMARY STATISTICS PHASE II BUILDING ARE'; z Sq. Ft. Building 1 (one story) 12,929 Building 2 (one story) 12,929 Building 3 ground floor 13,379 second floor 14,557' Total 53,794 Building 4 and 5 "A" 100,000 Building 4 and 5 "B" 200,000 PARKING REQUIRED: Sq. Ft. Stalls Phase two "A" a�fice f 133,794 535 I 20% Shared parking restaurants (3) 20,000 200 (147) Total 588 Phase two "B" offic* 233,794 935 20% Shared parking restaurants (3) 20,000 200 (227) Total 908 PARKING TOTALS: Prase two "A" ;Fu21 size 420 co3.pact 181 Total 601 Phase two "B" structure (2 levels) full size 305 compact 248 surface full size 3,11 compact 96 Total 920 iRA0l�Y4 a TE TR - -- L � a sb I � ' fRfT MRY �� TR1'ptWRR I.RRRM�Y � ,I Iw 4. i s ��— iowiH sruai y i i �• NORTH CITY OF ITFrbI ! . RANCHO VUTCAMO GA PL.ANNING DNISiaN E3{HIBiT �, "� SCALE -__ i. L aI ' I [ ..."1`^ '�� '(Z.•9t?LS.:,CC!'Y1Ls'•���' '1 iii�'�'2 t 1: �,, a } :• ' "` 1�, `� .� , ` 5j,,r��- �—tjt� .� is .1651 j NnRTt I CITY OF ITEYI I Aj, PA Ll, ° PLANNING DIVISM EXH(BI't'-- t (f cip FOURTH STREET' t CITY OF RANCHO TCAMOi GA JPLANlV NG DrVUg011q f�lll�11111i��EIl- u s) W Kv +si Nom rMOMMA AW !�M& EXHIBIT- CAIV. y f�lll�11111i��EIl- u s) W Kv +si Nom rMOMMA AW !�M& EXHIBIT- CAIV. jr Ir F I NIORTI I CITY OF AKA RIWCHO CLTaM.ONGA PT 45 A A T-.T TITU: UN%j LA V J31%-kN 7 - i F-XHMfr.--P-- SCALE. V'd K71,J] BUIWln%3 Z- ;3 --.%" CITY CF IT-FANt" R_AN(,J-10 CLICAMONGA m.TLE- PLANNING DIVE101N E-XHIBTI'---P�—fSCAiE-- Paso r to U DATE; T0; FROM: SUBJECT; CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT May 28, 1986 z � � a c 1977 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commissior Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer POLICY FOR UNDERGROUNDING OF EXISTING OVERHEAC UTILITIES - !0PPLEMEk AAL REPORT T. BACKGROUND: On May 14, 1986, staff presented a report to the Commission contaii►ing a proposed utility undergrounding policy resolution. A copy of the report and resolution are attached for your reference. During the discussion of the resolution, the Commission expressed concern about the possible inequity of charging in -lieu fF-- to the cutter of adjacent streets for corner properties and directe�.. ; :aff to provide additional information. II. DISCUSSION- The portion of Sectiu,, 5.a. of the resolution in question. is s own to bold below: "In -lieu fees: The fee shall be based upon the length of the property being developed from property line to property line or the center of adjacent streets (alley, railroad or channel right -or -way, etc.) for corner properties." Specifically, the Commission expressed concern about the, case of narrow parcels adjacent to wide streets. The example given was a 150' wide ppaarcel adjacent to Foothill Blvd, which has a half width right of way of Factors to consider in the evaluation of this issue are as follows: 1. A general guideline is needed to establish conditions for proposed developments. The THEREFORE clause of the resolution allows the Commission to waive or modify the requirement when considered justifiable. There will be cases from time to time that merit special consideration. 2. The center of the street concept is consistent with the current City Policy requiring Developer's to improve all adjacent streets to the center with no exceptions for corner properties. 3. Corner parcels are generally considered to be more valuable than interior parcels, therefore they can support the additional cost of fees to the center of the street. ITEM W rnl�; PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT POLICY FOR UNC£RGROUN@ING OF EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT May 28> 1966 Page 2�) 4. Corner parcels are mare visible to the public than interior parcels, therefore it is more important to be aLle to underground related utility lines, especially along major streets like Foothill Blvd. S. City street half widths vary from 30 feet 'tor locals to 60 feet for major arterials, therefore the maximum length difference is 30 feet for different locations. Also, the in -lieu fees are calculated using a uniform unit amount, therefore extra charges will not be collected for unusual circumstanfces such as boring under streets. 6. If fee payments are not made to the center of adjacent streets, funds from some other source such as future Rule 20 allocations or Beautification fees will need to be expended to underground the lines that cross streets resulting in those funds not being available for other projects. Three possible alternatives to the proposed requirements are as follows; I. Do not require air corner properties to pay fees to the center of adjacent streets. OR 2. Establish a maximum length for fee calculations, such as 30' (the half width of a local street) OR 3. Establish a maximum length for fee calculations based upon a percentage of the parcc'r width, such as 2%. For the ex-mple, the width would be 0.20 X 160, = 321. Staff prefers the original requirement, because of its simplicity, it generates funds for future undergrounding of lines that cross streets, and it is understood that the Commission can grant waivers for extraordinary circumstances. Attached for your use r is a working copy of the resoiultion containing alternatives and indicating items that require a decision.. . 3 ti PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT POLICY FOR UNDERGROUNDING OF EW,TING OVERHEAD UTILITIES SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT May 28, 1986 Page 3 r III. RECOMMEND____ ATION: Staff recommends that the Dimmission approve the preEiOUSly submitted Resolution subject to Choosing an alternate for Sections 4 and 5.a., deciding on the applicability of the policy to allays„ etc., and making arq' other modifications as necessary. Respectfully submitted, /q'm r�)' Barrye P. Hanson Senior Civil Engineer . BH :dlw Attachments: 40rking Resolution" Previous Staff Report i I i i "1 i i i C %`��!!l car- j, C Or "'l RESOLUTION NO. .�.'• A RESOLUTION OF THE PLIMHG COY. MSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO COCAMIGA ESTABLISHING. A POLICY FOR THE UNDERGROMOING OF C © ,til/%il �iIT /:' S EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES. NNEREAS, the °tanning Cornlssion of the Llty of Rancho Cucamonga wishes to remove unsightly existing Overhead utility lines in order to Provate a a oars aesthetic and desirable -working and living environexul within the City; U3 and .. IDIEREIS.. it Is necessary to establish a policy to inforse property q/ owners and develtcers of the city goat. N'.e. THEREFORE, be it resolved ]nd established that Bi- d evelotlmmts, unless specifically waived by the Planning Comafssion, shall be resDOnsible far nndergrO.Ading 411 existils overhead utility lints including the removal of the related supporting poles adjacent to the limits of a development ..as follows: 1. Lines on the protect side of the ��� dcdl miller' t'lo. q dwriltfl. A. Said lines shall be undergrounded .t the developer's expense. b. It, those cirtueastmces where the Planning Crmntssiort decides that underground ac :ng -IS Impractical at present for such rea5Ms as a short length f undergroaMing (less then 300 feet and not undErgrounded adjacent), a heavy concentration of services to other, users, disrupt am to eaisting improvements, etc., the Developer shall pay an ` Infeu fee for the full aeaunt per Section S. c. The Oever Aer shall be - ligible for relwburumens of an.. halt th- cost of undergr welding fray future dereiapmerts AS they occur an the opposite side Of the street. 2. Lines on the avoaslta_t1N'1' the street fro the Pro eces ne OeretaDar sha{V pay a K to the ty Fria one. the amount per Section 6. 3. Lines m Dath stdez of the stress: The Developer shall eoaply wrtm ectron a ore a e e gt le For reteburcenent or pay additional fees so that he bear, a. total apense equivalent to one -half the total cost of ucdergrmnding the lines on both Sides of the street. 7. Pole lines containin 66XV or larger electrical lines: All Wes sea eon ,rgMn a ar :rt- eu ees pa n accordance with Sections 1, 2 or 3, except for: a. 65 t or larger electrical lines, and b. eta ..ricaI lines less than M. if no telecommunication lines exist On the poles. ,0 (Alternate t - Teleconmmicationss Only) U3 Only telecommunication lines are required to be undergrounded or •V in -lieu seas paid la accordance with sections i, 2 or 3 above. q/ OR (e. ill Lines) All lihe, he undergrounded car in -Ifeu fees paid is accordance With SeLtioni a, 2 or 3 above, except for MY or larger electrical 71x$. -- --- --- — __ --I 3, Limits cT Responsibillties: o for altern�fcs ire p0,9a r. a. In -lieu fees: The fee shall be based upon the length of i Q3�!2 the prop[ .y Deing uareloPed Mot property Itnc to qs U property line. or the center of adjacent streets (alley, Zv caliraad or channel right- y-way, etc.) for corner properties. f b. underyounding: Undergrounding shall extend to: (1) the first existing pole off -site tram the project boundaries., (2) a new pole crested at a project boundary o� across the street (alley, railroad, or channel'right• pay, etc.) for corner properties, or (3) an existing ole iiuin 8 feet of a project boundary (not at a - I.I.A. 6,. Fee Amount: The mount for In -lieu fees . shall equal the irngth er e_c 6m 6.a) times the matt amount as : stablished by th City Council bP;ed upon information supplied by the utility companies and as updated periodically ea deemed necessary.. C O J Y�.� "ti vl °X11 references to streets shall also mear. alleys. U raliroad rights -Of -way, etc. Z' Q j r s �Y Rr- �cGr• :r1c,�1 =.�rcri: r�1G �c�t�� C� c`�� X CCIM411 EIV 7 iteenates to Section 5.a. (Bold -portion) ' 1 - Fee to center of street, orflinal propoialj ` In- lieu geese The fee shall be based upon tLe length of the proparty bc'ng eeveloped from prop(Alt. .. -ty line to property line or the ceni:nr of adjacent streets (allby, railroad or channel riot-of-way. etc.) for corner properties. (Alt. 2 ^ No fee ^o center of street) In -lieu fees: Th ^_ fee shall be based upon the length of the property being developed from property line to property line. or Shp shx (Alt. 3 - Maximum fee length of 30 feet) ^� In -lieu fees, The fee shall be based upon the length of the propert being developed from property line to prorerty line or the center of adjacent streets, alley, railroad or channel right -of way, etc. (a maximum of 30 feet) for corner properties. (Alt. 4 -� Maximum fee length of 205) In -lieu fees: The fee Shall be based upon the length of the property- being developed from property line to property ling or the center of adjacent streets. alley, railroad ar chancel right-of-way, etc.. (a maximum of 205 of the project frontage) for corner properties, �Jestip# 4 t ,i }r g CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 14, 1986 Gucn. art �c9 { c 1 Q� Ul> 1977 i TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: 3arrye Hanson, .Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: POLICY FOR UNDERGROUNDINv Oi EXISTTNO OVERHEAD UTILITIES I. BACKGRrdND: On October 10, 1985, the Planning Commission held a workshop to formulate a policy on the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities. The general policy established at the worksho wts as follows: p 1. Ali types of streets should have utilities placed underground as a condition of land development. 2. Actual undergrounding may be deferred and an in -Lieu fee paid in those circumstances where the Planning Commission felt it was impractical to underground at the present time. 3. The obligation to place utilities underground should be shared equally by properties on both sides of a street in proportion to street frontage. Now that staff ha7z had time to gain experience in impieesenting the general policy, it has become applarent ;iat several general circumstances occur on a regular enough basis, to warrant their inclusion in a specific policy resolution. Those items will be discussed in the following section. II.. DISCUSSION: The attached Resolution contains what staff understands to be the general policy proposed by the Planning Commission with additional specific clarification items suggested by staff. Sections 1 and 2 contain the general policy as proposed by the Planning Commissionples of when staff feels it would be appropriate to defer undergrounding to a later date. Section 3 was included as an extention of the equal sharing of costs concept. Staff has encountered several cases in which utility lines are located on both sides of a street and Each contain different types of utility lines. When each is undergrounded by a development on its side of the street, an unequal cost will. be borne by each developer. Therefore, this section is an attempt to equalize the costs. KI PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Undergrounding Overhead Utilities May 14, 1986 Page 2 Section 4 was included to clarify the fairly common situations where pole lines contain 66KV or larger electrical lines. Exhibit A shows the location of these pole lines within the City. Exhibit B shows conceptually how the various different types of fines are arranged on the poles_ Subsection a. merely states that the MV or larger lines are not required to be undergrout,;ted or in -lieu fees paid; consequently, the lines and poles will remain. Subsection b. allows less than 66KV electrical mines to remain if there are no telecommunication lines an the poles. Where bot,,% less than 66KV electrical lines and telecommunication 'Lines are contained o„ the poles, they are botd requiriM to be undergrounded. Staff is concerned with this subsection. First, it is a fairly cumbersome and confusing concept. Secondly, it appears to be inconsistent in that in one case it is acceptable to allow smaller electrical lines to remain :And in the other it is not acceptable. Staff feels it would be less. confusing and more consistant to require in all cases that either (1) only telecommunication lines be undergrounded, or (2) all utilities less than 66KV electrical be undergrounded. Suggested wording for Section 4 is as followst (Alternate 1 - Telecommunications only) Only telecormnunication lines are required to he undergrounded or in -lieu fees paid in accordance with sections 1, 2 or 3 above. OR (Alternate 2 - All Lines) All lines shall be; undergrounded or in -lieu Tees paid in accordance with Sections 1, 2 or 3 above, except for 66KV or larger electrical nines. Secticn 5 was included to define the limits of undergrounding and fee payments. Subsection a. requires payment of fees to include the length of lines to the middle of adjacent streets etc., to -J eliminate the possibility of small gaps of non- undergrounded lines across those areas. Subsection b. defines ending points for when { undergrounding occurs. In general, number (1) is preferred, but could add significant additional cost when the next pole is a long distance offsite; therefore, number (2) was included. Staff included number (3) because it seemed reasonable to stop at a pole that is less than 6 feet from the project limits. The distinction for corner properties was included t6 eli,, ate lines crossing sleets where possible, because they are considered particularly 111 unsightly. A LA PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF P,FPORT Undergrounding Overhead Utilities May 14, 1985, Page 3 Section 6 poovide a method• for establishing uniform unit amounts for in -lieu 'fees. The utility companies have indicated that they are not intevested in designing individual projects just so that the Pity can determine fee amounts. They have, however, provided avert,e costs that well become the basis for the fee amounts. The curr.nt amounts on a per foot basis are as follows: $100 for electrical, $50 for telephone, and $10 for cable TV. 0;ie last item warrants clarification. The Commission has made it clear that utilities along streets are to be undergrounded,.but it has not been made clear whether existing utilities within alleys, - ailroad rights -of -way (for example along 8th Street), etc., should also be undergrounded by adjacent developments. It could' be argued that such facilities, in particular alleys, are not highly visible, therefore, they should be exempt from the policy. If the Commission were to decide that alleys, etc., should be exempted, than tna Resolution as presented is acceptable because it only makes reference to streets. However, if it is decided that they are not exempted,, it is suggested that the first reference to streets in Section I be footnoted as follows: ;*'All references to streets shall also mean alleys, railroad rights-of-way, etc. III. RECOMMENDATION. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the attached Resolution subject to choosing an alternate for Section 4, deciding on the applicability of the to policy alleys, etc.,, and making any other modifications as necessary. Respectfully submitted, &4x X21 Sarrye R., Hanson Senior Civil Engineer BH:cv Attachments: Resolution of Approval Exhibit "An Exhibit "8', j rr ,u W AN . to i ANIL t RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR THE UNDERGROUNDING OF EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga wishes to remove unsightly existing overhead utility lines in order to promote a more aesthetic and desirable working and living environment within the City; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to establish a policy to inform property owners and developers of the City Viral. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved and established that all developments, unless specifically waived by the Planning Commission, shall be responsible for undergrounding all Existing overhead utility lines including the re -,anal of the related supporting poles adjacent to the limits of a development as follows: 1. Lines on the project side of the street: a. Said lines shall be undPrgrounded at the developer's expense. b. In those circumstances where the °fanning Commission decides that undergrounding is impractical at present for such reasons as a short length of undergrounding (less than 300 feet and not undergrounded adjacent), a heavy concentration of services to other users, disruption to existing improvements, etc., the Developer shall pay an in -lieu fee for the full amount per Section 6. C. The Developer shall be eligible for reimbursement of one - half the cost of undergrounding from future developments as they occur on the opposite side of the street. 2. Lines an the opposite side of the street from the project• ' The Developer shall pay a fee to the City for one -half the amount per Section 6. 3. Lines on both sides of the street: The Developer shall comply with Section I above and be eligible for reimbursement or pay additional fees so that he bears a total expense equivalent to one -half the total cost of undergrounding the lines on both sides of the street. 4a Pole lines containing 66KV or larger electrical lines: All Ines shall be undergrounds or in =lieu fees paiTin accordance with Sections 1, 2 or 3, except for: W —C� a. 66 KV or larger electrical Tines, and i�. electrical lines less t'dn 'i;J, if no telecommunication - lines exist on the 1:,`ies. 5. Limits of Responsibilities:. a. In -lieu fees: The fee shall be based upon the length of the property being developed from property line to property, line or the center of adjacent streets (alley, railroad or channel right -or -way, etc.) for turner properties. b. Undergounding: Undergroundi,ag shall extend to: (1) the first existing ole off -site from the project boundaries, (2) a new pole erected at a project boundary or across the street (alley, railroad, or channel right - of -way, etc.) for corner properties, or (3) an existing pole within 5 feet of a project boundary (not at a corner). 6. Fee Amount: The amount for in -lieu fees shall equal the length Per Section 5.,,' times the un }t amount as established by the City Council : oased upon infflrtnation supplied by the utility companies and as updated periodically as deemed necessary. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY CF MAY, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCA14ONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary )f the Planning Commission of the CitT of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted bit the Planning Commission o' the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a reg!llar meeting of the Planning Commission held en the 28th day of May, 1986, by the following vote -to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: w -�o L-11 I" lc rT Le end lm"-66 KV ! Ines NSEN —side of street @ — substation LQC.4TxC`i OF b6 KV ELECTk?TCAL LI`{ES C ITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGDMMMG DIMON c"AF9tT OLL144 dry - 1 C M I N M. OVERHEAD U_h Z A T t ES THU-. LOCATION OF 6eKV ELECTRICAL LINES *[8.. 11 A El E VAAA VL Al.nivuilV %�UL,LUV.1VJNUA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 28, 1986 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROR Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Laura Pomas, Landscape Designer SUBJECT: HAVEN AVENUE MEDIAN LANDSCAPE CONCEPT I. AG S7 -RACT: The Haven Avenue Median Landscape Concept is being stf,iitted by the Engineering Division for review and acceptance of th,;- plans and requests the Planning Commission to give direction to pn)�eed to City Council. The scope of the Haven Median Improvements extends fry -m 4th Street north to Wilson Avenue. Existing medians will be recon,trAacted to match the new concept. II. DESIGN: The Haven Median Landscaping Concept represents approximately a 60/40 ratio of landscape to hardscape. Mounding curvilinear planters are framed by hand - placed cobblestone and spefimen rock. The, rock flattens at the median edges and at ypecitied vehicular access points to provide safer ci culation for maintenance crews, thus; reducing potential liability hazards. Median curbs will r'eature an exposed aggregate finish. These design elements will serve to identify with the predominantly rural character of Rancho Cucamonga. An emphasis on color°, inspired by the Chevron project in Ontario, will be evident in the use of brightly hued shrubs and groundcovers. Clusters of mutt -trunk Evergreen trees (Rusty Leaf Fig) will accent the areas of median approaching intersections, while tall, columnar deciduous trees (Sweet Gum) will take up the remainder cf the median. Selected plant materials should require generally little maintenance and have low water demands. By adhering to City policy which endorses the use of water and energy conserving landscape techniques, the City will be setting a good example for the community. Because of its thirsty and maintenance- intensive nature, the use of turf is not recommended. The Median Concept was favorably received by the Planning Commission at an informal workshop on February 24, 1986. The Concept was also forwarded to the Economic Development Committee of ITEM X • • a� 1977 _. _..,. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT HAVEN AVENUE MEDIAN LANDSCAPE CONCEPT May 28, 1486 Page 2 the Chamber of Commerce for comment. A sub- committee was created to specifically review this matter and a questionnaire prepared by staff was utilized to help clarify the sub - committee's direction. The results of the questionnaire are attached to this report. Some sub - committee members expressed a desire to see the use of lawn and central, median street lighting. The Havana Median Landscape tonstructiin will he funded by Bewt,tification Funds and Development Fe s. III. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the haven Avenue Median Lanu'scape Concept and the comments of tt,e Economic Development Committee and forward a recommendation to the City /Council. Re�spectfull subsaitte , L H: :Ko� Attachments: .91 0 Z w y � ) r s v z � a w d El 05i jjrT�V�1t Vii►' if 0 r �i vA� It 0, n l ,r!r 1 1 t r - Q� 3ai '•' � i � 4 0 0 �O e arm i w r d rte # +fir or 14EDIAN DESIGN QUESTIONNAIRE (CHECK PREFERENCE) 1. Percentage Landscaoe /Hardscape 2 Intial Concept 50150 _13 Alternate Concept 50/40 ._2_ Other , 70/3 2. Lighting 2 Median Lighting Parkway Lighting _-c- Parkway Lighting with Uplighting in the Median 3. Hardscape Materials Proposed 14 Rockscape i Concrete /Stamped Concrete 1 Mow - Strips 4. Plant Materials Proposed Colorful shrubs /groundcover with trees* l�r+ Colorful shrubs /groundcover plus turf with trees* Turf with trees* TreE Concept: Choose One 12 *Evergreen trees at intersections, remainder: de iduous I Deciduous trees at intersections, remainder: evergreen 1 All everg ~een 2 'All deciduous 5. Median Patterns __ No variation north to south one abstention g Variation north to south by sub -areas 6. Maintenance /Water & Energy Conservation 12 Need to be addressed k Design issues are more important 7. Ident'. ;�y Median concept is compatible with that of Ontario Median cane. t t Del` h . 'R _LW.- p es a is es a Rancho Cucamonga community identity (distinct from Ontaric) Name Company ,. Phan Number i ,.H. REITER DEVELOPMENT "tp-; 1; . May 1, 19$5 Ms, Laura Psomas Landscape Designer Engineering DFpartment CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOVGA P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Laura: _ I was sorry that we were unable to attend the meeting of Economic Development Committee on the design of the Haven Avenue Median. - While I think that the direction you are heading seems to make sense, I would add that the design should stress a richer landscape concept. We know that the cross section on Haven Avenue is going to be very wide with a considerable amount of pavement material.. Any additional hardscape within the median will add to the stark look which will be present under such a wide cross section. Moreover, as additional hardscape is placed within the 14` of median cross section it limits the attempt to berm and raise the elevation of the landscape within the median itself; thus, again removing the opportunity to get a rich landscai, feel from the median. If you were to look at. the existing landscaped median along Haven you will know exactly what I mean when I say that the hardscape tends to provide s. very dominant image quite contrary to providing a very rich landscape within the landscape median itself. I would stress that you consider these points and continue to refine the design by expanding the landscape area, limiting the rockscape to be accent features within the f landscaped areas themselves. As you know, we will now be. completing our landscape plans fr Ma'tihi; Addrrts: P.O. (ox '250 Nvwpgrf fii irh, Cihtornii 92658.7250 • (714) 7514594 Page 2 Ms. Laura Psomas s for the first phase of the Gateway project. i anticipate us to he in a position to see building perms.;: approval in the next few weeks Should you have any commento or question.,; we will need those now regarding the landscape theme along haven Avenue. Thank you for Your consideration of this matter. Sincerely i A. ii. RE PR D EI OP iE G0. mothy�3. Beedle Bice President Plannin g n & Design /fj cc: A.H. Reiter R.A. Clarke s — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ��cnnro STAFF REPORT 41 d i 0 77 �d 1} DATE: May 28. x986 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planned BY: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner SUBJECT: TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION G I. ABSTRACT: The Planning Commission, at their meeting of April 23, II 986,- requested this report on the status of trails and expressed concern with.the need to develop an active implementation program fo or the General Plan Trail System. Now that the basic framework has been laid, the City's efforts should be channeled toward the construction of new trails and upgrading existing trails. This report summarizes the City's efforts to date and identifies the basic components of a comprehensive Trail Implementation Program. It is staff's goal. to receive appropriate direction From the City Council to prepare a Trail Implementation Plan as part of the 1986/87 Work Program and Budget. II. BACKGROUND: Trails are planned to be an integral part of the parks - and recreation system of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The General Plan states that; A key element of the overall Open Space /Recreational network is the linkage between recreational facilities.: The primary means of achieving this linkage is through an x integrated City -wide trail system. Trails are intended to serve not only as linkaps, but as recreational { opportunities for riding, hiking, jogging, walking, and bicycling. The overall trail concept is based upon three components (see attahced excerpt from the General Plan): - Regional Multi - Purpose Trails - Community Trails - Local Feeder Trails Local feeder trails are private easements which are built by developers as a part of subdivisions. Community Trails, in undeveloped areas, are installed by developers as development occurs. Within existing developed areas, the City must go back and "retrofit" trail improvements. Regional Trails are located along flood control channels and 'utility corridors. The flood trail control channel improvements utilize existing ITEM Y PLANNING COMMISSIOM STAFF REPORT TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION May 28, 1986 Page 2 KI improvements installed by the Army rorps of Engineers. Extensive retr:sfitting tf flood channels woule be required to provide adequate street crossings for pedestrians.. bis,ycl.=sts, and hose riders. The City of Rancho Cucamonga world have -co provide trail improvements through utility corridors. Therefore, the primary need is to program for the implementation of the Community and Regional Trail System and a few vital local feeder trail linkages. The following important steps toward the goal of establishing a City -wide ra'iii�YStm. �4ve been completed: 1. The Trails Element of the General Plan was adopted in 1981 which defines the City policy regarding an interconnected trail system. 2. A large portion of the survey of existii.g easement dedications for Lo al Feeder Trails and Community Trails has been complete 3. The Equestr4an Advisory Committee was appointed and administrative regulations to govern same were adopted. 4. Equestrian Trail Guidelines were adopted to establish � design standards for the construction of all three trail types. It remains for the following elements to be completed: 1. A workable Trail Implementation Plan is needed to guide the development of the Community and Regional Trail System. 2. Agreements with San Bernardino County and utility companies for joint -use rights of flood channel and utility corridors designated as Regional Trails. 3. Allocate adequate resources to implement Trail System. III. MAJOR POLICY QUESTIONS: To establish the compreh-°nsive trail system ^ontained in the General Plan, an implementation plan must be developed. This detailed plan must address several basic policy questions: o What priority should be placed on implementation of a' trail system? o Now can implementation ':e Funded? s PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION May 28, 14x6 Page 3 o What levei'of improvement is desired /feasible for trails? Iv. BUDGET NEEDS Expenditures in the followirg categories are necessary; 1. Acquisition, through purchase, condemnation or dedication of land in developed areas for Communtiy Trails (and a few vital Local Feeder Trail linkages). 2. improvement of Coi nunity and Regional Trails per the a op- ted—gesign Standards. 3. Maintenance of all Community and Regional Trails, including; weed contral, trimming, grading, removing obstructions, and repair. Funding is the major barrier to trail system implementation. The basic steps involved in the construction: of trails are essentially the same as R a Capital Improvement project to widen a street. Staff roust negotiate to acquire the land, prepare construction drawings and bids and monitor the actual construction. The scope of the trail system envisioned by the General Plan would, therefore, require the coordinated efforts of many City departments. Following completion of the Trail Implementation ' ?lan, each affected department would have to budget resources in their annual work program according to the established priorities. The preparation of the Trail Implementation Plan would require 4 person weeks of staff time. Following completion and adoption of the Plan., consultants could be used for performing field surveys,, construction, plan preparation, cost estimates, etc. V. IMPLEMENTATION STEPS: A workable trail system can be achieved through the following steps: 1. Planning Commission review this report and foward with recommendations to City Council. 2. .Council take action in response to Commission's recommendation whether to direct to City staff to include trail implementation in the Fiscal 186/187 Budget and Work Program. 3. Priortitation for trail implementation. 4. Preparation of a comprehensive Trail Implementation Plan. 5. Detailed survey of existing conditions. 6. Acquisition of right -of -way and joint -use agreements. iY - PLANNING COMMISSION FTAFF REPORT ' TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION _ May 28, 1986' Page 4 7. Prepare plan.and contracts, 8. Construct txails. 9. Effect mairitenance program. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review this report, make any ne5essary changes, and forward it to the City Council for y consideration during development of 1986/87 Work program and Budget. ARes tful lybmitte , rauller City Planner BB:DC•ko s Aft i r. tl x.°•61c °c10 a. v >rno.� -M Oa+v Y °i3 ae` a1« C R c =io c L e I E L R n d O L. C° o LN � M.Or L o.q. > _< E ti u D M Y n e ! A � Y r� m asvai .• °a y_ SS aow.V pig ° ° ° R V c.Li9 u D. ao L yC O • d R E d C .0 q Yu .p t O y. N Aa Y.0 E O Y q `O- A L °N d l p y A 6M qC A. E a O �4. 6 N 0 A I N a L d .RC L d ° R n AR. • �s -O Er p 6NU �qYa NN i• L g U M ASHY V �TL ^OrWN y N N A W w �C p Q� '0 C� C �Ux YL =Oy^ " a g N �� ^Y° • _ N = 9O1 yy NA ay°CN 79 d2N x .L LEd -0C vy LQO C`- =T yy'°^ -'•cam A� GuN L iy aia ay^, CL NET• i OO vE°i v '° y MTN.°C WYM. Y .7;A . r Owyuu q°' dN- N° 6 xY ON tq Y r d a a x^ EGA T: RUa� S L.A CE6C p F L 01 agdu�A=o C 9 dl O g d L y Y. u 0 °�"'•AiN�Y�p Y Q C n C YO° gip. Yid ^ N L YA. m ANW 7,•° J RudAC Uy `�Y°.YNY���j U w ^ H N L� >> C r v Y.Q+NS�EEYLU >^.dr°+ r O W Y U N G • Y O p N° IN U TN of cMb R U YLq .... ip LS'�U a y Ct D.0 N:D'r•ex• y«R p ^EGUT tg: 6O TQ£ dSr: O1 aCY ;17.- t :i CRIY Ea N LELU 6>ISUVYI K. Y U � Uv d '--,s YM m .G-O O La ARE 6 "a Y� E.d � C U L �L a N L °G+• ^SAN° <EM6G ¢NU m•.- p 1.TL: Lt .Il x I N Z CC�NUpidM�L ti N U 17 <• h ca ' ^•°-uvu .°= 'o $ aiaR C°`d •t <,�c T.cY ' L oM «ya d... �� Ga by m` RR 3 d o a nm r�°1'M AyyiCCa A iy d ., =LN L �+ N S'a g EuL 'o Y° AS CC <U Y.o o- °` m STN �RE U o Y• _HxmwQ �U` pxL ^^•`^ E o 9�RCu C i^.l u dq •� Zr NU Lx L NgNr. pMT '"u �d� R.�c L^° V u p2 � ucrp :iE RO •G� •a°n dY. y{V � Hwy Vr-... OL din.O 6L LaU ad Y r L U d N C 'Oa M p O Olq rig C y v ° 1 6 x C Yx q L x i q2 o. '• ro p� O g v r r uLi O pyR V R n +L+S c d L A O�y U •� C .2 u.N CUVtl us 0.9 in `y <"..^. i'M U= ^; awe d� r ^^E R Y aa• dY..- 3q °wra c isG m� Nyja O�{j T G t� N d _ L p q •„• L y �. x >YD• G. OaT A G. R +`C n a u^ C R L N O •^ <=yWaa C r E r a O R O Y x R b N A La04. RL A �a pa ^U qG �- G a NU as L ri d Yo" r+.° q 60 'cN io a= a C t AE a U F r p y�tl od R•� °.` ,RL'yU R VOyb y� ^L xo L. N� �nU V U tJL Y. ° N Ex OoG .G. ° T a E ` Z. Y Y T1-0. • i L qC O.aO Ya mix... yew °� CY9 u.a°u °o a ° E a a Q'. p Y° TA i.:o.o a nfFCj... ° .2 a > C ua Y ° u aYa u nz dC'O uc+i y °E> <O6LQ •+wLi6 HtnO 6.ON Ylgp CU JY�dplgM p�w� fyy NCN 1 -�R <q6 1 b rz c; ti �•V Aft i r. KI acme co a O1u oOLLdC Na1A« OO�+�NdL �a Old °, E iLa z oo Ad p S S oL dr »G '0 a.V O I bd >1• d° E >o..L. N�4 c° wY N ro c. 6 N N ro,� qO�G. -.O V Gd O. n`O C7u UY C9 gOdu L Na rn� •� K o a d u dp. p'°e E o c O1y o d Nb 9 le �p qu 01 OOV N ^L O> d .� b 2 NFAm Qp Eo ..rr�.y ro �N Gb ^od � N� ro N Yb �ro.N q � K.VCEEi ° q N T." UUA i 0 vl FL• >r 4N dC1 yq 9 U d 6 N p C1 a -r r G a A C .^ ca'. a d •-mN °pL. c '^ Na &Z A .a C,o. Y.v e np as v1 dWa F dO�J a% �rop a N.°o'dn d TC t L.O ^OtC d -W daNC1.°n -°fL�L Ld.'"e anuCio L u qo pN C. dtlf a'r aL No. d ,c LOi E u d Z p N aw pOL •' EW n u Cp 10.1 N�� u^ MoN L nM dNd� N Au _ ON •+1.1A Cd ddN �0Nn.6N G rdi OTNO9 y N NS Cd. ap. E ur'a>d1 A`-4 'glo. IjtO uI� Nad A.ud d pb Na dO 547 dCq Lam_ OIY do. �E d A4t 3 ddLU d lv0 ° ^ul W ON YWY d N O. �W qW °Euu . 1. . T •an Hd O.GG Nub a o nr� yy kiAU L V1� -NAN cNd E dii 6Tn EE Gua NOym TbYOr E6 du N� { 2 Q'M 3NC I�Na 6N ter- 01 >O1q Np0 6A�06 •"� M�roLV 6V IiONLN L :• dC! O Or 0- cir. pE °a �U3 OaC +c d '••' ^o b GY .-L aid y ¢°a.N roc q' d.°. 1Oa �i� La � o ._+ _n �a3 NF y o'y � �rn N Lro ..°+cY` Nix qn dmau y ••- y aa' da. .z,° mo � n W duo �ocLA uaa9u d Via. as Lt'. V ^ _N A u C u L y NT 9�a' O O S d Ob �'. io LTdn N b�S C N d yLLL yoj Vd�Y r '� �' p1U N 6Y U�GV NCU�rn2 iO.°r .-..� •-mN °pL. c '^ Na q C G 7L YyOm "w t np as v1 dWa F dO�J d u N Wya TNbN c S d I d N b Z a > d ,c LOi E u m Ep Z p N aw pOL •' EW n u O y9 d 9� u u° d ^V1 00 Gd N °oN j�.r d � �� ...O4 G q E9 u TO6�Cj W. .Cy6 YO n dd U. 9i b Ab L ro C Y c _ ° vUgro br �'� dq d. .2 9, j 20— bN u a - qu Ol proW> Yrb U h of q.S 6 c0M O1LL AEp� d oO. u^ 0 �� 01 c u O w A Yi. ° b q A u1. d0 L :• dC! O Or 0- cir. pE °a �U3 S .-E oA u r L� N'.' �>� VSO° n GCd1 dr-aL I c. A ZEE 1Srt M I O Z 41 C1 •n S- 0- Lo.0 qLy. � C E q d 6 Y_Ta aVaui d�.d '_ °lam esy.- C aGp 2 . ea y u. >ta `EL c E _odG G ^ 2 CU ScN2 OaI ON i� L� On OI E9y_ GN LO 6 Lip LCy. .LL� yyLLC E C Y^ 0 'i y N o�q � ~a d O G z a'Gi�n yys °n a%c a E O N Y9 O•- w C S CON Y ci 1j: I y N L °n ^q� N_.°.1 It L d.ru• ^ c c lna� nY a=•6^CO. d e� 3 ma q r Sa► anon 3� c RL 6qq '0 nnu° LCd dG L�LO� LCSi q9a 1- 62+L+ S l.LL Vq1 0. iN O °a NI �ml ^I Lo.0 qLy. � C E q d 6 Y_Ta aVaui d�.d ml^ °a L y m^ d a•a L d C d �d w P6 m d lull Vb A 4u.T gadt� c E ^U ScN2 OaI ON i� L� On OI CY O' Cy Y. 6 Lip � m6 Lam^ yyLLC E C Y^ 0 'i y N o�q � ~a d O G z O�niOQ N u 9 4E �q ^q� N_.°.1 It nE a Y o u.co .'u m° �9 gCTj 3 ma q r Sa► AD °'6 n `� E 1° y al � C pa Oi ^. lirl L o dt a .G u m2t°j yE¢ 9��Od Y ° 0X1 E. 'G0 G •-TT .1� EuE � Vv'^On LLC L O y^nEdrn �:d d m n UO G ei.XY °D x� _ � q r l%+LLq ., qn;jd gcvon �� c� d E u G . OL C N y yd L �4N Ga.:� Fuq 1� jw M�q'^ YNS�E G y� T ma •� d y qq ME CCCy9 a uau Oaf G 01Egay N SL Lqw ° 01d -7E d d u.2 O' °dG is a°i qy TLL q Y dh E dawn -2y Ty u.°c .24S. u -qo 6 d O 1-0°JW L` 6.911{29 L�q�O yl Ya S w °s C A so szs t .• d C .ya =.T C... � =a vll OaI ON itt V° 7 L.Yn _ CEuCia i On A C =� q a ^ 4 Er_. EE• AD °'6 n `� E 1° y al � as ^ EG' %ui ~ N °na iN O °a •GC Yzi E u pu 6 4.d ad OH^ LOd >x N� LL 'i6 Ul��yE YO LqY L.n �a°"L al y elygq yNS.a L �G • r° C Coq^ LOUT y aL^2C .ai °d ge da.� Q y Oly O1CLL LN.O� HA��� G6C Ot°s ldil Y. WY°. WE7 oa O-u. L N Y rnEd. a pc co °Ye • t 0 0 ° O p C M t u� d d 6 y °d ° mM u° G �a dov '- d e% Io dA La G � N Od C • Ld +`^ FM^ udt�po Ni U d ^OE bA °d a � ^ _ dV d r ? C. � � ^ O. d y � P� LMY A y Tp ad C E y aAY d' _ a • N ° O `(` • Map ^ d �st.•u UtN p2 �,Y T OA NCNOf .6 T G Euc ^ d9N Ay S N 6 W Z iCq d=��pw ^SN Gy py M L� N9� ydWa � 0 b N d 6 d01 Oi T� CE h H'•',G qty 'Q� 6dEiay 6uV ^ d '^^ aV .0 p y d. QI i •O u t pw� Ly01 >dty`�� LA L wy ENA W N.L u W D y y O L A y Y d .- 0. V.^ G O o S o w° d• u p ^ E y C W t' y M K 1 of NNy Ot vOi wNq k,.NG ` d W ^ N N L d ^ M M °G �p qN dYf Od NY+ dNa _ G L M °^ ° G ° CNAN yOf'CV y' d a d Y NN� dv N d Y L p ^bM.L Su G G^ LO G t Boa a �arnu uo'NA d� N h od ^ N�ocV'EY L A.CL c ma 6�n ZO u b \ I C. OYO. wN V9 QA � ° 'aI N� MI Wl NoaC ^M ^9 WO C Gb N d d E aa' ui Lt d O dM.N L u Ly � ^00 01 cQ L a y d y O =qao EyvA d 9Eti. b uG wE c y2L ECE y 6� r ^ N p d 5 =.4 N `. Ub �y O. yy c yE ITT n N C N A L °eNO p u aA d A o u ^A a E cia Gl S -6d d Q GM 72 oc rnEd. a pc co °Ye y�T LMy A4 m o' •- ° mM u° G �a dov '- d e% s° b a y°aI n La G � N Od C �E u� Ld +`^ DMG a EadE ✓ai+ Lq AO E EC So aG U d ^OE bA °d �"tO tiO _ dV •°d^ '° Od '.°"y 4!- 9u�d7 q LMY A y Tp ad C E y aAY d' _ a • '^y r At. Q aq Lt QS h E 4.0 c Go Ady OI aal- NOU°r yM yb 6 OA NCNOf .6 T G Euc ^ d9N Ay -91 du ~A N G 1 d yW yE Ems. � _5 qL TN• L diL'16� 6 �E GO py M L� N9� ydWa � 0 �� 6 d01 Oi T� L o oats dG ^M y DYgd u 6dEiay 6uV ^ d '^^ aV .0 p y M6 O n0- a•. d 6'•G• 0 O N O aNi pYN Ki LO N.L u W D y y V Z y Y d .- 0. V.^ G y t Ny A ~ o-- y N...O�.^OU AC +dN.04 Nv 4°_ p LN to �V. E p° •A ON `Ot iL .V Ld CFS T^ TC C nO L+ Ou N dy dlO�y. +z G'm 'b CO Ed OI tl1E LN O Y y C AO N L Z..G.- ` :NN EA OOY N N dGYdN LO= N VIVVh�' dd°3 6'm �O >• EEQ on`r•Y v . WM`q. W4•Lpl �tL fLi�.gS 4M d0 @pI`U\ 1"`O 4 'N d N LO ^1 o Nm o d c �B L Y q N a N N o a o L 'nrga, � o a n s T nu "EE c y u q W Y 9 E 2 a acu c a a q u ° o o o c u L E 6 yai U u c s 2 IN e � coca mI q nu u'ao' �+ ° • ov- waE°.w al ba a r ooaaN a o c a N d �^ b C db� Qw NW cL N. pr1.NNO ° c lc qO nn �v�a c-C EFi > T Noo co Nq nn o� nn�° � ^L= ou E =Ya cb u za uar �aL•i s� «cN R'e a.. 2 a� c >o 'a GENE b n vly y° N L i o tN: u 2 t n� _ •q N E 9-1 p 2 N Lu W 2 cvbv UN d E.pl cE G L y^ -EY6 ,_4 — b Yc iq w - i v U e^ LN CU i Ly ° y� gCLC L SNC 6N Q�N. W.b �.CSCYC qi '^cW VIM L Y.� 7 cQan° u Ey dtlL N CL .1Lf. ^L '^ L T �+uLN d Y. u pppTgL9 a r \Qtl tl tl bcY Wq I O ^. 'J•tp p 4Y YL �� '0� • q � IIUaL•1 U ba q a r G E N R 0 N L q M U 6 pp q N� V Yqa u d^ _ b Ly+ iTL � >iO3n N ONE C C� COO`Lb G TL YE c u .tl« C Q6NM- t0 6WaLi T vt.t O� Wu N ^1 o Nm o d c �B L Y q N a N N o a o L 'nrga, � o a n s T nu "EE c y u q W Y 9 E 2 a acu c a a q u ° o o o c u L E 6 yai U u c s 2 IN e mI q ti • W U nE rn v Yi4v. ad '^ ,qaL a E ^. Ot q N O^ C lc qO nn �v�a c-C EFi > T Noo co Nq nn o� u �C cr ^L= ou E =Ya cb ��... 'u a - 6Mu L,t iu 9N E >o N'•• ' u .� E > a In u^cs dam Y a o w^ c. w L b C O q a N b^ K E d o tN: u 2 t N Y Y O Nq CN C Y^ E 9-1 i c �` P q 4Qt. N Lu W 2 cvbv UN d E.pl cE G L y^ ^1 o Nm o d c �B L Y q N a N N o a o L 'nrga, � o a n s T nu "EE c y u q W Y 9 E 2 a acu c a a q u ° o o o c u L E 6 yai U u c s 2 IN e mI q ti • f ^1 o Nm o d c �B L Y q N a N N o a o L 'nrga, � o a n s T nu "EE c y u q W Y 9 E 2 a acu c a a q u ° o o o c u L E 6 yai U u c s 2 IN e i u=. c ° °tam+ �a « rou �.�`•'. ' Tv T� a4 n "° o� 2 ^ cs c' NV ^L o � m N E LN N vZ L d LOw gyro G� L d is �.. y A _ ro9 d aui z A �+LU+o tN ql C 2 ti. xM �d EE Y ' QI w iv 9 L i Yy M c. ou Y EOE JM.L U Q^ ro u L s aY ba ^yam d aV,C C Yy N9 x L L N q. C EO^ L W V T. U ^ro O N ff i' V 2,y di Nu Yn u d tq .p d. dOEC Y L� rd L Y SO C NO =0 OYN Cr L �C sw �d� O�iO �AdY A= N d V L L N 4 q d V ^ d d d T tWY duTi� 6r'1 Oa+ ro AVM 6.. 6 O » OOt O.CN ~N ydW 4� EOE iC ^Y W ^ro qd dC LL6 QG !�� Yq ^d I L°CCO 1a 6J Va O n O ^ �t o N� C � Y Y {Y L� �U d d c a dd a N c _," q o . a� 5 ad LL d L d r m � C N q NI 1 0 «1 u # ao° uIon Lun u a' _ >> y L 'd - Tv n� v , vv row i pL 2 ^ LL .O S V dG N d� ^L o � m N E LN N NO L d LOw gyro G� L d is �.. zu AO L� EO W' Lc aui z A �+LU+o tN ql Y. O d u nc �u u ° co VN Gvv dd tom. Oi d ri I QI w iv 9 L i «1 u # ao° uIon Lun o y" v � y u A N p rnwd x A A V ^ u C A O 9ynj�A ^C yY � Na ^L o � N d a o " �o c rn is �.. zu t� 62 0 l0� ql «1 u # E H a ^ L Y o y" v � y u O 6 d M Oa+ Y. � ` � L V 9 N y' ,- W a> u v" &s ai d a o " a.1T �u is �.. zu t� 62 0 1 n 1 2 _ J � N O 2 � F V v H 6 O A. • C...- T.; " .+b °v... aM oO.° Yq. N ^o at.r .o -n ; nii �'« I CCq � y�.� q•'6 � 6p L.S d4 W ^ t"t GE.L O - ui yCG>•. NEb S b0 LP oy Via. � Gy as Oy U Yo� °u L N 2-5 ro� .ors SL'E G uC I Y yu, fro° ��^°CE 6 ...W= • RG O�J i�0 PNG L >L� O VY •� qCN OG ui. Fb.0 ^�N LFE Y6V ro adG Lro•a, gLAC � Nw bq nE A.L YyuO Obd V E.rnN >L p.•. `.0 dU qz� G � '^ten d A G t/ a{ YO YY Ci t Ot ♦• C Y �O yqT 2•• =:2 60gN� oMO 69 6..>..rC G OS •-• °N.N � t A.. �� m� Z p ro ti u 'CO 9 N 6 v� U; _ 9 y 9; O q� b C J G Y d ro o a C p� 2w. C u • t° r P yy b C b y G c E m i. O a. = - °y« y N5.5 � E pE N� N Y E' Tam q Y> aS C rnb 6L rS° L L J dC yt S Y NU Y.• C O = C C Y u q r v TN •°r � u• • !L i cCM9c 5. �9^ a P E i m do^ u�r. .^ Y YO o..� t Cyr- rnaN roY L r qt°.Y?• V 6Ya <gati `N6y 6OYL.m <Q 1=6 �.v6 ILL Nq. NA 6Y` 6W 4M01 14 A \JrC 2 _ J � N O 2 � F V v H 6 O A. N 060q ti L� 1�6L6 ^ O:Y <N+'OY i �esz, 1:1 I`/I` AI P >'C b NY aY NLY.L °�.b /- dC E. OVy Y� ° A V•Y„ 'a°+N Y �9.9 1= uv>i O ou qE MN _O GG qT Gqgg. Lp% °� w 7 E f' o Ed M a� V4 ES ro � ro"�N 7L Y.rj g9gy Oy:,q g i�4 _ O� � o � b 9 v c E � w u L t L •r q � ^6Z roY �N Gq YiY +- Ady YC- a°• 2-5 2 .,. C� o Sow y ` C Sow v q ro °� L V c N LFE G MM 61° -0 «N Obd V E.rnN O OE VCF• bib y V Y Y S G ° A G t/ a{ YO YY Ci t Ot ♦• C Y �O yqT 2•• =:2 60gN� N 060q ti L� 1�6L6 ^ O:Y <N+'OY i �esz, 1:1 I`/I` AI P >'C b NY aY NLY.L °�.b /- dC E. OVy Y� ° A V•Y„ 'a°+N Y �9.9 1= uv>i O ou qE MN _O GG qT Gqgg. Lp% °� w 7 E f' o Ed M a� V4 ES ro � ro"�N 7L Y.rj g9gy Oy:,q g i�4 _ O� � o � b 9 v c E � w u L t L •r q � ^6Z roY �N Gq YiY +- Ady YC- a°• IE 6 i' 6' .p a x ¢ u �_A a d�a A x E rn A u .oSU.c.. d rn; x v C Cv :Y Y L L = 'o °✓ ad o� r M yJAOy � A as «¢u vro Ac Im u � \ 'sj u 3I u tbi ay A 0 ^ «Y dO.0 N Ya.>ya CU 00 ° � j�Vj• L > ^wv�a° rn- O. .w ^ ° BE nV.y°. w��L U Or Nt A�P�6 d e qC v L T Z L Y' > °. '• O a+ C^ C c y c w Nv E O p b c �. yOE rOV n`�.0 dqy u, L c,y 9 ii,6w c o L ddpv.L•w. y uiy 2 °ode `Y"ida onn °u�^'""AU.- yco9 At u Cd ME ° fCfjj 2 En . d U�3 E L^ �Nn E N _ Z.- o��YC YTA�O VOy 4M9� LOON O o> > N. 5-2 =y�'V_rE W. a.y x U2�^ tYa °GdA w.C9 �a0 'NOC d E•L+.T O. S Oy M n :.ra '.L pl � ^� dN ^O.aL 2 ^C.q.MO a v`.SOUL nqp v � r Ac F..C. %.x t qw^ Ep vat° 9' v jY M 39 O ' dd ¢x rTLi n wadi C OC CNJ u q c a U TS • u . � O r ° O°i N O q d y> O•�• d C q ". d v Y GO�Ly yY^ 91 d 9 4� V b N q 2 s �O6w�N Ao°" �e -amc ° �O u adL.o ¢ 10T y L e°' aod. a N >�` ew nuy._ N @tom ... a cO.T uw aqd d u yur C� O.'L. L C�'��YC uC>9.a +dl� p Ny FY ;9�z+y+`o aa'i d•CV xLUO gnCV ^ Ai i:±Y = py O ` n -OY VYY LN ._ .." +�.! qa. y �. rwoi u L xay 0°Y S.N•YZGO FNL A2� H�udiL 7. r :24 KV h•L x�L tNaq WYNORZ o JI y �� ° NI N) ml Y� YII I`I � �C W N) .. • .p a x ¢ u �_A a d�a A x E rn A u .oSU.c.. d rn; x v C Cv :Y Y L L = 'o °✓ ad o� r M yJAOy � A as «¢u vro Ac Im u � \ 'sj u 3I u tbi ay A 0 ^ «Y dO.0 N Ya.>ya CU 00 u C N � yw. A u� c C O�EUye L > ^wv�a° BE nV.y°. w��L U Or Nt A�P�6 d e qC v L C dxEN OO.ZE3 �y yL °..d.�w.NrnA 6 _ L y uiy 2 °ode `Y"ida onn °u�^'""AU.- _ CF u Cd ME ° fCfjj 2 En . d U�3 E L^ �Nn E N _C Y°.'aA E Ou ^01 V °. YTA�O VOy 4M9� LOON O o> > N. 5-2 t^ c` }y9Q aE Aoou y V 79 a °CU- ^' � u Z d y M� C E ml - -=S-" .. 9 ,m l- 9' v jY M 39 O ' dd ¢x 0 wOVYY OC CNJ �. .°.�y....eatc u�OC ¢Ets .tc°noi oa a�iNwNt. r v w v Iz o p Pt -s3 ®. N V #S �F • A NdyY � NY •% � L MO.0 G O' z L9 v 40' •C c °y ^ ^c< K .'-.. D° N ddgO� 'OauL CV ^jam ->n e Y N.6 y•� OtN d u0 inv O yOc F. z+�q >.-. -ma d ^.o w'wYL _ + C�wuy N4 .°nN .YN dr. u 5 Ue •NA° M)t O .`G''^c'LNMO A O c L v Y c i Y OCEQ ^ AWC NO 6 O 4 cw VY ULM. iNEi N -E.G C �. C Vq n oilq Q• L q ° _d L-J ce1 . C ViN : OaLD >i a 'B t Y ^.. N .YO y dC j.pY is L Q L U Nj vY° iG • =.��• q.6 �o ,^ •V c 4wLCf ..LO..L Nw N.' ^ ~ q� Y 9N Z �z; jN6 �N O N d w L O t N is N. N �rnV m a yny rn N ° R O N ON Y C y dWW ... «�. O NT rnw N C LC90.• �r� � nLMS J O.p _- as n0 a U. 4 a.E' dclw °LC �� OQq �K �Y� NCd � N aNu ° O >.LL i•O.L+ _ u q �'Y^ 2� BBL. 4L OINC e.�Cq.Ne 6 rn oC w S V^ qq C.� CL O. tA.f OC.nas yL.iu N�NnN NO V.nQ V�+.c-. 2.-9 N9 O ^ L Li OIL y. eta o LY 96 4 ea L N6G6 a Y _ f 4�9II t?))111O piLpe F.O. w.. -) 6dN0. LG Ou K G 4 i �E � W__ E Z iY�� r4 1L-4 n•Li L. l�l A- 54 1 i l f"f aomo co qg c °y ^ ^c< K .'-.. D° N ddgO� 'OauL CV ^jam ->n e Y N.6 y•� OtN d u0 inv O yOc F. z+�q NL d ^.o w'wYL _ + C�wuy N4 .°nN .YN dr. u 5 Ue •NA° M)t O .`G''^c'LNMO A O c L v Y c i UO .Leo O >jY Co .L N L^Y� ^ZCU Y Nw q N ON �SuaCO Q• L q ° _d L-J ce1 . C ViN : OaLD >i a 'B t Y ^.. V5a N.5 j.pY O M.O . VNY L U Nj vY° OdoO =.��• L OD c cqU y � YLi ^^ _q Cali O N.f N� ^D jN6 �N VC w# V C >_. N vLniNN 4��p9 LOVy E Np �rnV m a yny AV aG 9 ��t4 q,- � c'I 'aI q r 4� rnw N � b w �r� � nLMS J O.p _- as n0 a U. 4 a.E' dclw °LC �� OQq ^ r p ^L N yE C'ld^ E u u LoL' D N�NnN KN ^. LtL 4DY Z;:7;,nZZ Kn+Ov .CY A Z 2 M.Yi. N�NN SN✓ 6^ 'J LQ"` A- 54 1 i l f"f d L C q^ q ✓` V c T C C N ✓ ✓ O— L Y E u C E 9 c '`£ a t 4 ^. �Ep ^ abq e�A.,•� � pdno w �c0 1 -4 ✓ _ ?OT�E ✓"• bLi S,J C wL aT= t L T ^U6 �✓ 1 b O' ✓qNO � L� O. — O •Y C QL TO q � ` ✓uYN ..c. �' E~ q✓ L✓ O 2 �O a,n `r W� W 2 NCN` 9C0 uo� b 0 w .ui y c2yd o owa a O p A ✓ Eq n .tea i U` dL d6 a✓ cY da°id OLM ✓L L.ON L Ny.-. N_NE u O�NC Lm CE y�y n✓ C WM .� Na° p9E �� L O.OG dTrq Nd L ✓ _ LOS M n0 cc � 6 u�b ^C ✓ L 5 CO o a ^yN �C � . °O• E'° ,� L� Lb dbb a dE ^O ub 6 r NO aL= bE b CO N. LOS qq Q -•buC d02 N qyE 4 L M y0 M aN nqC O T a✓LY cy? ou L,n emu. P� °y2` 1-1; ✓u aN ac` —v °°mow ao�n -i O4 11 C ^�N y`'C<ry S NN pOjO •>O•EC a0 U ¢� 4rnu N N VN 6Rgm 6u4.0 6 R a O��fi�l 4.ma.0 u o ^,°o•+`EaLi 60Y YO O.N d O 'b YT q Z � ad N a D o ? V W i Er o— IX lo a^ b =NIA m �E v ✓.c-od ji& �Y ycuc ✓� L C vN c =PC .. Ewa E2 ^ ^ ' —q',TU d 6 bm 4 L�J Kim • 2NN.LL� RyY✓ C V N V.r Yd MM L.• N60 _ >YO Gr cn T —dN ^ OdY a bO0 ✓n�Y q?ti�'O ml T° .-a Lbj } STS` v✓ dam°' n.n`E qo ✓ �+ a E,e Ob � Y r✓ '="aNa . � ✓_ ^a E... ^ >y N cgwy Lw�E m y a`�}w b 4 c ✓✓ 9 <inld Ud b✓ 'c^c Tb b O qL �tl nP {t -- Y L by c v Y �' ✓ Em i n •• c T N p T Y wpgC� ✓EYC >�! e qV Y n ow � _O ✓.�04 a cL�L Lo m ,u'^ d >wy�. -. q .LiuE mac_ ✓ yLp PV` aE• r L v c e e 3 • S V W N 6 6 3 O. n• O. � q •• D. h d Y .� W k 9 Y U m 6 t» 4] ' .•. N c4 C r � ' [f n u 'j a o oN I • ° u S N ^ � W � � O D� I a Vf¢u 40 ^ N J rte`=". �qy Y ceui „LNy,y 6 G < E� Y •� N SN 1 � S��c� d?.cc aV i000Ja n 6 N3 64� ._-. Cc`v! r�yy► q Yi Y L� u E '4 _C% Ya4 pi Fal.: Ma �._`S � ^_spy •i C X yn.Ni2 �J L7 i 'V VC° � �. r i•OO YL d q "oY `•u: oa Yoou �.L�. 'a'Y°� ma°iY W° J u t ^� a.'c+u NwW"no frt ono Ott 6C fuaL+Yia°.' v is Wv =xa nn i " A En • ° u S N ^ � W � q O D� � G a ^ Ya4 rte`=". �qy Y ceui „LNy,y E� Y •� N SN Cafe S��c� d?.cc aV i000Ja n rv� 64� ._-. Cc`v! r�yy► q Yi Y L� �` QoCO O• _C% Ya4 pi Fal.: Ma �._`S � ^_spy G YY 6Y.iiw yn.Ni2 �J L7 i 'V VC° � �. r i•OO YL q "oY `•u: oa Yoou �.L�. 'a'Y°� ma°iY -c u t ^� a.'c+u NwW"no frt ono Ott 6C fuaL+Yia°.' v is Wv =xa nn " A En • ° u S N ^ � W � q O D� � G a or. r E� Y •� N SN aAi V N _ � YON OL D Noa rnn O =L� cm� O.� w.0 �` QoCO O• GV Ya4 pi Fal.: Ma �._`S � ^_spy .�aiNO YL ecn o v.N a =xa nn ^ Yoq ea0 YC u0 26 � n4Oa as ^ w u M r ^ MEY 9 M 4 0.o 6z y , L4 n `• Y J L� YC 9.%g q L ... v g Y 4 V. e $ eE s 0 Z. d 0 `o �a r� xy � d A d •• o °d c .-a o 0 -- ^ G o V N �1 d w N d � 7. V No yA� Yy Y tc ^ac uA oY E "' d Y^ d4' i r L CN d. c mT v. w ".L.." -G. LV AQ «u a= L w ^o v L° � °oGi OaLiiO BL LA�ar A i o'O O9C3o 6G� CAN « Co pY J' tV6 66 &Zax 111 O. �y 0 Z. d 0 `o �a r� xy � d A d •• o °d c .-a o 0 Y EU t uo N d pp Av w Yy N L Y c 2� q EEr�i� L ai n w — G.GiV DC OaLiiO YOLK A i o'O v- no a ^ c �y Y 3Y A pG Uzi 'a aE iYe c L' N A oz� L N lo — 11pwo E a C T,C C V .�.. b.r <GN d e.V �Y K -s-7 $ o c Y L Y n u va o N YY n G A V O c - N Y Y r t G ��• r � .+. Y o uq °rn c Ge r. uu eo YL �' tii yY « nw 0 1 t i c. ►-I lu q DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: elTRi \T AT TS Vll i Vi' lYi].L\ V11V V V Vtl TIVINU11 STAFF REPORT May 28, 1986 Chairman and Members of the Planning 'Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Chris Westman, Assis':ant Planer G�CAMO,1,�' � f O C U U 1977 TIME EXTENSION FOR ';ENTATIVETRACT 12650 - DEER CREEK - A residential development of 225 single family lots on 147.16 acres of land in the (VL) Very Low District, located on the east side of Haven Avenue, south of Hillside Flood Channel and north of Hillside Road - APN 201- 121 -16. I. BACKGROUND: The applicant, the Deer Creek Company, is requesting for the maximum allowable " 'e extension of three years. The project was originally approved 3n May 23, 1984 with conditions. Both the applicant and a group of Deer Creek homeowners requested zn appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. The City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision of approval on July 18, 1984. Phase I has begun grading. II. AWC..YSIS: Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension and has compared. the proposal with the development criteria outlined in the City,s'Development Code. Based upon this review, the project meets the Basic Res dential Development Standards of the Development Code for the Very Low District. III. R:.COMMENDATION: Staff recommends an extension of t'•irty -six (36) months. t XRr ct fuy ad Buller ty Planner BB:C!i :ko Attachments: Letter from the., Applicant Exhibit "3" - M y 23, 1984 Staff Report Exhibit "B" - Location Map Exhibit "C" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "D" - Tract Map /Grading Plan Resolution of Approval No. 84 -45 Time Extension Resolution ITEM B 'iM •R Eccp vtcr` Cny OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PCANNINO 011"ION APA UY 21986 April 29, 1986 7!$191,9111112,1,2,3'4'5 A City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 SUBJECT: Expiratioxz of Tentative TR. 12650 Gentlemen: The Deer creek Company hereby request the maximum time extention allowable for tentative tract 12650. The first phase of the tract, which consists of 61 lots has been recorded. The balance of the map is currently being wormed on and will be recorded in phases over the next several years. We anticipate that we will be able to record the second phase sometime this year which will consist of an ad- ditional 50 to 60 lots. Because of the size and nature of this project, it will require more time to record all phases of the project. I respectfully request your favorable action on this request and will be available to answer any questions. Sincerley, Michael D. Vairin , Director of Administration and Planning MPV /jlp THE DEER CREEK COMPANY 8w UTICA AVENUE RANCHO CU MONG ALIFORN ➢A 900 04)989-3411 f as E r, DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAAIDNGA STAFF REPOT ?'jr I IZ May 23, 1984 :> Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission i Rick Gomez, City Planner Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12650 - DEER CREEK - A - esidential development of 225 single family lots on 147.16 acres of land in the Very Low District, located on the east side of Haver, Avenue, south of Hillside F'.000 .Channel, and north of Hillside Road - APN 201-121-7,i. I. PR01'.:T AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Actie Requested: Approval of Tentative Tract Map and issuance of Negative Deciaration. B. Purpose: Develooment of 225 single family custom lots C. Location:. South of Hillside Channel, east of Haven Avenue and north of Hillside Road. D. Parcel Size: 147.16 acres E. Proposed Density: 1.53 du /ac F. Existinq Zoninq: Very Low, (1 -2 du /ac) G. Existing Land Use: Vacant H. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning: Nort - Creek Channel; Vezant; Very Low Residential South - Single family homes; Very Low Residential,; Flood Control East - Creek Channel; Vacant; Very Low Residential; Flood Channel West - Single family homes; Vacant; Very Low Residential I. General Plan Designations: Project Site Very Low District, 1 -2 du /ac; Equestrian Overlay North Very Low ,District. _1 -2 du /ac; Flood Contro' 'Jtiiity Corridor - South - Very t+:w District, 1 -2 du /ac East - Very Low District, 1 -2 du /ac; Flood Control /Utility Corridor West .- Var., Low Pistrict, 1 -2 du /ac PLANNNO COMMISSIOI(� rAFF REPORT Tentative Tract 12650 /Deer Creek MaY 23, 1984 Page 7 D J. Site Characteristics: The subject site is vacant and siopes southward at approxirately an 8 percent grade. Vegetation consists of iridigenous shrubs and weeds with minor rock out- croppings. Small groups of olive trees are located at the northern and mid- portions of this parcel. K. Background: This project site is a part of a recorded tract Tract 5584), which received Planning Commission a ?pr,val on October 26, 1578, commonly known as the Deer Creek Development. The original development consisted of 293 single family lots wit, sizes rnnginq from 3/4 to 1 acre over 293.2 acres of, land and'.Nad an overall density of one dweliing unit per acre. At presynt, the lower portion of the development (Tracts 9582 and 9583) has developed approximately 146 lots of the total 149 in these two tracts. This project site is the remainder of the entire development consisting of 144 lots on 141.16 acres of larl. II. ANALYSIS• A. Ceneralt The developer, Deer Creek, is requesting approval to resubd -jvide the remaining 147.16 acres into 225 single family lots with a proposed density of 1.54 dwelling units per acre. The proposed lot sizes range from 20,000 square feet to 38,000 square feet. The following table shows the distribution of the nuO—r of lots in each lot ,size categories. Lot Size Number of Lots ;V00 sa, ft - .,001- 22,000 sq. ft. 102 &!,001- 25,000 sq. ft. 68 25,000 sq. ft + 49 zis The average lot size for this project meets the Development Code minimum of 22,500 square feet. This project has been submitted as a custom lot, /tract subdivision; therefore, precise i architectural design and site plans are not required au this time. Any proposed architectural designs and slue plan will require Design Review Committee and Planning Cnmrnission j apNrrval. The requirement to implement the General Plan goals and the uev.lopment Code to provide for similar land use, density ind quality of house products to the surrounding development is a necessary finding of the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission when reviewing any future architectural designs. rl , [ ~ PLANNING ' REPORT | Tentative _ Tract i2bh.,/Oeer Creek May 23, 1984 ^ Page 3 r� ^ �m� �^ B' ` - ` 8~ Circulatica: Str,-its "B" and 'IF" of this project provide access to Haven Avenue while Morning �tar Drive, Valinda Drive, and Canistel Avenue provide access to the south to Hillside Road. Staff originally was cnncerned with providing a secondary access for the vacant parcel to the east; however, -- applicant — has provided _and prepared easterly pattern for the —' which V_ acceptable circulatinn plan ( and meets — the intent of the access policy. Based on staff analysis, apprcximately 24 percent of the traffic generated b,,( this project will 'use Ca!0stel Avenue for access to the south to Hillside Road, whila 46 p,:rcent may use either Morning Stai, Drive or Valinda Drive to the south to Hillside Road. Streets "B" and 'IF" of this project will channel approximately 30 percent of the. traffic generated by this developmW to Haven Avenue, relieving some traffic impact on Hillside Road. Under the existing- circulation plan, Hillside Road is designated as a collector and is designed to accommodate this increase in traffic. Therefore, the increase in traffic generated by this project will have negligible impact in the project area. C. approval of The project su5i—ectto the following conditions: n The si-cn plan shall be revised to provide similar lot sizes for lots on the south side of this project abutting the existing Deer Creek Development to create e proper transition. n Curvilinear streets 1 be provided at the north end of the project site (Streets "A" and °B"). ' The applicant has incorporated all of the above conditions (Exhibits "n" and "["]. D. Development Review Conmittee: The Committee reviewed the project and determineti-TFa—twith the recommended conditions of approval, "his project is consistent jith all applicable standards and ordinai,.;e-. The applicant will be required to install all off-site and on-site improvements per City standard plans and specifications, and subject to all conditions of the custGm lot subdivision. Conditions of Approval are provided in the attached Resolution for your consideration. I PLANNING COMMISSIO' /- TAFF REPORT Tentative Tract 120,,u/Deer Creek May 23, 1984 Page 4 I E. Trails Committee: The Trails Committee has reviewed the j tentative subdivision and made the following recommendations: 1. Provide direct trail connections to the Haven Avenue community trail 2. Provide an additional 8 -foot dedication for the community trail on Haven Avenue to meet the required 2D -foot trail standards. 3. Cross - sections of the community train on Haven Avenue and interior street feeder trails shall be shown on the plans j per trail standards. In addition, a cross- section of the existing equestrian trails on Haven Avenue must be provided for comp1rison. i The applicant has incorporated all of the recommendations of I tl`,e Trails Committee (Exhibit "G"). However, final design of the trails and the transition. of existing trails to the new trail on Paver, Avenue shall be approved by the Trails Committee. F. Grad! ing Committee: The Grading Committee reviewed and approved the conceptual grading plan subject to all of the conditions of the custom lot subdivision. Final grading plans are required to be approved by the Grading Committee prior to issuance of j building permits, sire precise designs and plotting have not 1 been submitted for reviex at this time. G. Summar of Deer Creek Home owners Neighborhood Meetiryss The j app 1cant con ucte two separate neig or oo meetings with home owners in the existing portions of Deer Creek. The major concerns of the Deer Creek home owners are increased traffic, and higher density (i.e., smaller lot and house sizes). A group of home owners -Felt that the developer has adequately mitigated these concerns by the provision of similar, lot widths and sizes for those lots abutting the existing Deer Creek Development to creat, a buffer zone, the provision of twc points of access to Haven Avenue to channel traffic away from Hillside Avenue, and assurances from the developer that the product would be the same as the existing Deer Creek. However, another group of home owners had strong concerns over the issue of how this proposed subdivision will affect their„ property values and their investments. PLANNING COMMISSI0'V TAFF REPORT Tentative' Tract 12�r j /Deer Creek May 23, 1934 r3ge 5 Ink H. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed the Environmental Checklist and found no significant '/adverse environmental impacts related to the development of the proposed subdivision. If the Commission concurs with these findings, issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The findings listed on the attached Resolution are supported by the following facts: o The project Site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the developer and the proposed single fami'y uses are in accordance with the objectives of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. o The proposed site plan, in conjunction with the Conditions of Approval, is consistent with the current development standards of the City. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised for public hearing and environmental review in The Daily Report newspaper, the property posted, and notices sent to property owners within 300 feet of the project site and to all the home owners within the existing Deer Creek development. Correspondence has been received and is attached for your review. .f V. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed project based on the findings and Conditions of Approval as recommended in the attached Resolution. Al. Respet-#ful y' ufjmitted, Rik .. aa C ty Planner 3� G,,NF:jr tr Y S"-1 (4 rr t 0. �cq 2'i ®z FF NQ `a �F Ilk a0 k:' ! 'yyKr NIL 1 V i T P2 Ny a Ir PcF�t a0 k:' ! 'yyKr NIL 1 V i T P2 Ny a Ir 1 1 a saa —�1— -- M h �� 11 X - OU i 6 f1 i t; ; iss 5 . • C � G } a Ey�c ;:E E3j :e i= f:;i3� 4 a:i3c�: g L : g l � .1' -� 2 •C( M it • �' � � III e L • • Oo c spy,°, � =o fix. F s • „°may o a � � I'G 6e= . (y uo ZZO i wE• we °1JM E IF .q )J u d ° Q�7_ � • 1 V j��. RESOLUTION NO. 84 -45 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO 'CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT KkP NO. 12650, THE DEER CREEK COMPANY, 'LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HAVEN AVENUE, SOUTH OF HILLSIDE FLOOD CHANNEL AND NORTH OF HILLSIDE ROAD APN 201- 121 -16. i WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 12650, hereinafter "Map" submitted by The Deer Creek Company, applicant, fra "the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as a custom lot subdivision of 147.16 acres into 225 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on May 23, 1984; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's reports; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Division's reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. Ask NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: L ` SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract No. 12650 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and 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 i_ with any easement acquired by the public at large, +.. now of record, for acces, through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. '4 ', g ACLU IUb1U11 IV4. 4Y�4J/ -� Page 2 r` - (g) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 12650, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following condition_ and the attached 4*_ = =,Iard Conditions: PLANNING DIVI!�,ION 1. Prior to issuance of building permits precise designs, ar„hitecture and plot plans shall be submitted It ?jr design review and approval by the Planning 'Collimission in air-der to assure architectural com;atibi''rty with the existing Deer Creek homes (i.e., e.'.erior and roofing materials, and design theme). 2. The developer shall be responsible to install and maintain the perimeter landscape parkway on Haven Avenue prior to annexation into the City's landscape maintenance district. C 3. Each property owner within the existing Deer Creek Development shall be notified when this project is I sched�a- -led for design review before the Planning Commis :wn. i' _-0 :-_- �kla�- fertus^e- dsrt(.- i�- r-urr� =rrsi-rFroviztT a',tti,rnrGmf ', S. The applicant shall remove one (1) lot in each of the northern four (4) tiers of lots in order to expand the remaining lot widths to provide a random number of lots with a minimum tot width of 140 feet. ENGINEERING DIVISION 1. Proposed storm drain shall be extended to the intersection of "B" and "M" streets, to intercept all flows north of "B" street east of "H" street. Design of other proposed and existing storm drains shall conform to City standards. 2. Additional cross gutters shall be provided at Valinda & "B" streets. 3. Flood protection walls shall be provided along the t frontage of lots 56, 57, 33, 34, 43, 44, 114 and 115 to the the satisfaction of City Engineer. - `QL yJ x t NesolUtIon. No, 84 -4y Page 3 Cr 4. Hillside Drive Master Planned Storm Drain shall be extended to Deer Creek Channel from existing terminus at appropriate time as ceterr��mmfined by the City Engineer, Easements, if necesswry, ,shall be obtained by developer. Construction costs .:gill be credited to stw,,m drain fees. APPROVED AND ADOPTED iHIS 23RD DAY OF MAY, 1984. PLANNING COMHISSION OF THE CITY fW RANCHO CUCAMONGA Dennis L.�Sto t;' airman ATTEST: I, Rick !Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of May, 3984, by the following vote -to =wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, REMPEL, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT- !COMMISSIONERS: NONE * Section 2, Planning Division Condition ;i4, of Planning Commission Resolution 84 -45 .Was modified by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council in a duly ad,ertised public hearing on July 18, 1984 to read as follows: 4. All future residential units shall be 2500 squara'feRt except that no more than twenty (20) percent of the homes shall be permitted to have a square footage of less than 2500 square feet, but in no case shall the square footage be below 2356 square feet. 8 -t3 �i K ,a RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSIOM APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12650. P WHMAS, a request has been filed for a time extension for the above - described project pursuant to Section 17.02,090; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the above described Tentative Tract. w SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: s A. The previously approved Tentative Map is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, Specific Plans, Ordinances, Plans, Codes and Policies; and, B. The extension of the Tentative Map will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, Specific Plans, Ordinances, Plans, Codes and Policies; and, C. The extension of the Tentative Map is not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and, B D. The extension is within the time limits,.grescribed by state law and local ordinance. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby grants a time extension for: Tract Applicant Expiration 12650 Deer Creek Company May 28, 1989 APPROVED AND ADOPTED YNIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSI^uN OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: `` Brad Buller, Deputy ecretary i PLANNING COMMISSIOK STAFF REPORT TT 12650 - DEER CREEK° May 28, 1986 Page 2 I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commissian of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, du hereby certify that the foregoing Resilution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of May, 1986, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES; COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: t, — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAiONGA Cvcnnr� STAFF REPORT cG .t Y O O F Z u a ` DATE: May 28, 1986 1977 TO: Chairman and Members, of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: John R. Meyer, A5._istant Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 12952 - GLENFED - Des'�;n Review of new elevations rep aacirig previously approve;' elevations, for 172 single-family lo-ts on 34 acres of land, in the Low- Medium Residential District, (4 -8 dwelling units per acre), located at the end of 19th Street, south of Highland Avenue - APN� 202- 211 -36. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 11606 - GLENFED - Design Review of elevations and pot plan or a rec -or (ed tract of 88 lots on 16.68 acres in the Low Residential District, 2.4 dwelling units per acre, locates south of 19th StrP--t between Haven Avenue and Deer Creak Flood Channel - P: N: 202- 211 -21. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Design Review and approval of plot plans and building B. Project Deniit • Tract 11606, 3.9 dwellir.g units per acre; Tract 952�dwelling units per acre C. Surrounding Land Use and Zoninq: North - Vacant, Medium -Nigh and Medium Density Residential South - Vacant; Low Density Residential East - Vacant; Victoria Planned Community, Low Medium and Medium Density West - Single- Family Residential, Low Density Residential D. General Plan Gesignations: f Project Site - Tract 11606; Low Density, Tract 12952; Low Medium North - Medium High and Nediun .- South - Low Median East Low Medium and Medium West - Low Residential ITEt4 C a PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tentative Tract 11606 - Glenfed May 28, 1986 Page 2 E. Site Cnaracteristics: Both sites are vacant and slope approximately 2 to 3 towards the south. Vegetation consists of indigc'nous weeds; both tracts are within the special study zone )f the Redhill Fault. II. ANALYSIS• A. General: Both tracts, are being developed by Glenfed Development Corporation- Tract 12952 has received previous approval for elevatiois an= plot plans. Tract 11606 was originally approved on April 'l.5, 1961, as a custom lot subdivision of 277 lots. Phase I gee pr!_%'A nuCly recorded; whereas, Phase 2 thrv;gh 6 have recently recorded. Glenfed is proposing to develop Phases 5 and 6. B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee's discussion focused on three issues: Issue l: The pedestrian, connections_ between this phase and southern p ases betiween_ this phase and the Deer Creek'Channel. ' Comment: Instead of flarin5 out �"�e end of the pedestrian accesses, the Commi;tee agreed that the malls should step down as- the+ reach the k curb. The design of the pedestrian zonnection should ' include landscaping, accent trees, f texturized walkways, and adequate lighting. IMP,, 2: Should the wood siding on the chimneys be C anged to a different material e.g, brick•? Comment: The Committee directed the applicant to change the wood siding material on the chimneys to a brick veneer. Issue 3: Should all sidr_- and rear cievations be upgraded ` with additional architecture treatment? Comment: The Committee agreed that all side and rear elevations, especially second -story elements exposed to the Deer Creek Channel, should be upgraded with elements such as pop- out - Windows and wood trim around windows. P- -ITNG COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tentative Tract 11606 - Glenfed May 28, 1986 Page 3 In addition, the Committee expressed sc,,ie concern about the placement uf the house Lot 84. on However, to change the- Position Of house in order to gain access from Gala rather than Victoria, would result in 13 foot rear yard setback; 7 feet short of the code requirement. On May 9, 1986, staff received a, letter from Glenfed Development Corporation, formally requesting that the proposed elevations for Tract 11606 also be approved for Tentative Tra,�t 1852, the Planning at Commission hearing of May 28, 1986. The approval of the new elevations will not alter, the floor plaris or the R;Ot plans of Tract 12952. Design Review Committee recommenddd approval of using the Me elevations in both tracts. IM RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Ithat the Manning Commission -the elevations and plot plans through adoption of the attached Resolution and Conditions. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:JM:cv Attachments: Exhibit "All - Site Utilization Map Exhibit IIBII - Tract Map Exhibit IICII - Site Plan Exhibit I'D" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "Ell - Elevation Exhibit 'IF" - Pedestrian Access Connections Original Resolution of Approval with Conditions Resolutior of Approval.for TT11606 Resolution of Approval for 1`1712k2 ``- �j��'�$�'i fiAlj' � � �..t .� �, 1 x � _J � ( � -_. ICI f --/• ��� � ..� �l r �/ /+\ `��f .� r r =.Y { EI 7 - }_. 1. f T� �' `fir \y4c \ i 1 : —� _ _���_` 1 _�Y f nvei t1 iiti It jI I ttttt {t ��,: t 1 1 T P i ".LI f1 . i. a� �l i .`F. AYENK t Y �, l 1 �. _ nom, �� f 33 Ina i �_L_ T �+ i j I`t leaI lzrl E CITY OF 4 r,6.AN1'q(JIYV DI V %M A EXHfBI'T: SCAU; S.W z OF 5 smrrs TRACT NO. 11606 IN THE CITY Of RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. OVING A SMOMM OF A PORTION or THE WEST ONE -HALF CF $EcnON 36, TOWNSHIP I NORM PANM 7 WEST. UM BERNARDINO MERIDIAN. AND.AIRCEL -L 7 WORD 0.1 — 35- W'F3 52 AND 53 OF FAKM MAP% IN THE OPFajCErFRMmE COUNTY "13" R ED 10 COUNTY. TY RECORDER OC C. J. *JEyRV- L& ZM FEMIUM I9e8 ANACAL ENGWERM CO. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA ER g ry ucM 11 16 4 -4 2 TR 6 J/ tie 2% :1Z /d V it --M EXHWr:-- 1 SCALE- c-�5 MY CF RA iO CLU"ONNGA K ANNNG DIVISION TrEM: 'u1— T 11606 TI'T'LE: S1TZE, EXHW- S' SCALE: C�(.Q R I" f i z 0 Ia >o =a yLL G 'z Q 0 J U !ll � 0 1 U ' V Y z v J C�7 TrEM: 'u1— T 11606 TI'T'LE: S1TZE, EXHW- S' SCALE: C�(.Q R I" f i Y 1 F 1 R NORTH CITY OF rrsm: 'D l._ r'oP., RANCHO CJCAMOiiTGA TITLE: ay'32-1-212ff - PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT -., P -1 SCALE- g x i i F Ss ," rr y k ��"" • � �t :. R S � ��4 a �• _ iyY, � + /, �'Wl�_•„FF/ MtAiE .IR. E E§ � . ' T 7y � � !� C � , C f Zi7 / NORTH aTY OF R�TCM CUCAMONTGA } MAIrNIlNG DWOON Emiur. I - ; SCALE:. 'Y lu FIIIf L;- z 3 If, U tu lri 7 f y � 1; a 4 m 0 • 2 ia� 4 2 m W a - of @ E r� s^ 9 3 gars• r a ~ I,,� HI° �° a �" - ��• CITY OF rrEm: 'DQ-- SF-. 1�A1�ICHO CUCAMONGA : NG DNLcK)N EXHIBTI': — SCALE- _._, - L_�-� _ C 3x y3 •i � � d c�t�j � � .l � W r e c F� � a 3 : 6 •rte ._� z tu lri 7 f y � 1; a 4 m 0 • 2 ia� 4 2 m W a - of @ E r� s^ 9 3 gars• r a ~ I,,� HI° �° a �" - ��• CITY OF rrEm: 'DQ-- SF-. 1�A1�ICHO CUCAMONGA : NG DNLcK)N EXHIBTI': — SCALE- _._, - L_�-� _ RESOLUTION1 NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY AFPROVING DESIGN REVIEW AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12952 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 12952 hereinafter "Map" sv'umitzed by Glenfed Development Co., applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, descrjbed as a residential subdivision and des :gn review of about 34 acres of 1tnd, located at the end of 19th Street, south of Highlind- Avenue into 17V lots, regularly came betbre the Planning Commission for public hearing and 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 Engineering and Planning Division`s reports; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Division's reports and ha3 considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as rollows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings in regard to re—i tats ve Tract No. TT 12952 and 'Che Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; (L) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Flan, Development Code, and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easa.ient acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the propound subdivision. Adak �� a RESOLUTION NO. TT 12952 - GLENFED April 9, 1986 Page 2 (9) That this ;.roject with the added mitigation measures will not create adverse impacts on the environment and a Ner -tive Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 12952 and Design Review thereof, a copy of—w-ffic-F is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to the following conditions and all Standard Conditions and Conditions contained within Resolution 86 -38. Design Review: 1. Lot 87 shall be plotted with single -story home, while Lots 8G. and 154 shall be plotted with 2 -story ,,use. 2. To further the City's policy 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 tract. Revised elevations, as the result of a garage house plan, shall be submitted for the City Planner's review and approval. 3. Rear property lines backing up to 19th Street shall be adjusted to coincide with the variable landscaping setbacks for future City maintenance of the landscaping. Further, a decorative block 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 priar to the submitting for plan check. This same detailed design shall be included in the detailed landscaping and irrigation plan and shall be submitted to Planning• Division for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Lots along both sidas of Inyo Place shall be provided with the same decorative block wall treatment as along 19th Street. 5. Lots 1, 12, 84, 171, 171, 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 submitted for Planning Division review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 6. The proposed pedestrian connection between Lots 12 and 13, and ;Lots 37 and 38 shall be flaired out at the ends. Special landscaping treatment, pedestrian walkways and adequate lighting and other pedestrian facilities shall be provided within the pedestrian connection. Detailed plans shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to submitting for building plan check. 7. The proposed pedestrian connection at both ends of the proposed "V AOh Avenue shall be dedicated to the City for future City maintenance. Lk�:.� _, -' PLANNING COMMISSION' RESOLUTION Tentative Tract 12952 i 1 , _ I i APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 1986. i PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chair n ATTEST: Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary I I, Brad Buller, L buty Secretary of the Planning Commission of the Cfty of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foreruing Resolution was duly and j regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the i City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held r on the 28th day or May, 1986, by the following vote -to -Wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ql r d RESOLUTION NO 86 -38 •PLANNING A RESOLOTION OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 12952 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No, "12952 hereinafter "Map" submitted by Glenfed Development Co., applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the .real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as a residential subdivision and design review of about 34 acres of land, located at the end 19th of Street, south of Highland Avenue into172 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and 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 Engineering Planning reports; and and Division's WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Division's reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing NOW, THEREFORE, the Panning 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 the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; (c) The site is physically sui'iable for the type of developmer;t proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with + any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for recess through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. c, ad RESOLUTION NO a ". TT 12952 - GLiNFED April ?, 1986 Page 2 0 a (9) That this project with the added mitigation measures will not create adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued. SECTION -4� Tentative Tract Map No. 12952 and Design Review thereof, a copy of which is attached he- -reto, 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 policy for variety residential det,�elopment within this Low Medium Residential District, the developer stall work with staff in plotting side entry garage: on some lots within this tract. Revised elevations, as the result of a garage house plan, shall be submitted for the City Planner's review and approval. 3. Rear property Lines backing up to 19th Street shall be adjusted to coincide with the variable landscaping setbacks for future City maintenance of the landscaping. Further, a decorative bock 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 check. This same detailed design shall be included in the detailed landscaping and irrigation plan and shall be submitted to Planning !Division for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Lots along both sides of Inyo Place shall be provided with the same decorative block wall treatment 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 submitted for Planning Division review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 6. The proposed pedestrian connection between Lots 12 and 13, and.Lots 37 and 38 shall be flaired out at the ends. Special landscaping treatment, pedestrian walkw?y, and adequate lighting and other pedestrian facilities shall` be provided within the pedestrian connection. Detailed plank shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to submitting for building p "an check. 7. ` The proposed pedestrian connection at both ends of the proposed ?'E" Avenge shall be dedicated to the City for future Cite maintenance. i RESOLUTION No. TT 12952 - GLENFED: i April 9, 1986 Page 3 8. The corner side of all of the corner lots within the tract shall be ®® provided with the same decorative block wall material as along 19th Street. Typical details shall 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 additional 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 P.ese II. 10. The entire rear elevations for all lots that back up to 19th Street shall be ungraded with additional architectural treatments. Further, the ent•;re corner side elevations of corner lots and a portion of side elevations of the interim-, lots with public street view shall be upgraded Leith additional arshititctural treatments. The revised elevations shall be submitted ((, City Planner review an6 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. 12. A sound barrier with varying heights ranging from 8' to 10' shall be provided along the northern portion of 19th Street from the proposed "I" Avenue northeast to Highland Avenue. The sound barrier shall be Conditionallo a 3. mbAncombe ationvof bberminguandwwalls may be used to achieve required height. 13. A final accoustical report to provide mitigation measures for interior noise reduction complying with Title 25 Standards (45 CNEL) shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 14. Are awareness clause shall be included in the final subdivision report . frow 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 Spacial Study Zone. Z5. All lots shall be provided with 15' usable rear yard per City Grading Standard. 16. Perimeter masonry block wail shall be provided along the entire length of the eastern property boundary and the .southern property boundary. 17. Where the height of a combination retaining and block wall exceeds 6' to a maximum of S', a 3' minimum planter shall be provided to break .= up the hcight'of the block wall. RESOLUTION NO TT 12952 - GLENFED^ April 9, 1986 Page 4 ' 18. The temporary Mock wall at the end of the proposed "8" Place, "C" Place and "D" Court shall be submitted for Des•gn Review Committee review and approval prior to recordation of map ti;- prior to issuance of buildag permits which ever comes first. 19. A soils study that addresses the recommendations of the Geologic Report #2233 for 'T 1160617 12952 shall be prepared and submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Tract Map 1, With Phase I development, the developer shall construct a portion of Master Plan Storm Drain Liar 4 -N from the north side of 19th Street to the south at the north limit of Tract No. 12950. 2. The developer shall construct a. portion of Molter Plan Storm Drain Line 4 -P from the north side of 19th Street to!Oeer Creek'Channel for Phase II or sooner if required to protect. Phase I as ietermined by the City Engineer, 3. The developer shall construct interim drainage facilities to include but not limited tc training dikes, channels, and desisting basins as 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 tines 4 -N and 4 -P in accordance with the City, Ordinance 75. 5. Tentative Parcel Map 'No. R87 shall be .ecorded prior to', or concurrnt with the first tract final map. 6. Improvements of 19th Street shall be provided as follows't A. Phase I. 1. Portion along phase boundary. a. Construct south 1/2 street improvements.''. b. An additional 181 wide pavement north of--,., ` center line of 19th Street as shown in Exhibit 114 ". 2. Portion from east Phase I limit to meet existing , Highland Avenue; , a. Construct a 36' wide pavement centered on the street centerline. 6. Construct the pavement for the Highland Avenue connection to 19th Street. n RESOUiTI ^a4 m. T '12.952 - GLENFED Api 1.7, '9, 1986 Page >5 C. Construct portion of storm line 44 across :19th Street d. Construction pavement transitions as required by the City Engineer e. Remove excess portions of Highland Avenue pavements. B. Phase 1I. 1. Construct ful'I 1/2 street improvements along tract boundary. 2. Construct the full north 1/2 street improvements from the Highland Avenue connection to'Imme 'east boundary. E 3. Construct full street improvements for the Highland Avenue connecting from 19th Street to the end of curve meeting the exiS_ing Highland Avenue. 4. Construct landscaping within Parcel A of Parcel No. 2787 or pay in -lieu fee if said Parcel A is k required to be used as a interim desilting basin. C. The above requirements shall be consi dere.4 a minimum subject to the approval of Cal Trans. 7. Secondary access shall be provided for 4E" Street as required by the Fire Department. 8, The small portion of parcels at the easy end of "D" Cour: shall be removed from the tract and added to the property to the east by a lot line adjustment prior to recordation of Phase II or dedicated as street right -of -way on the final map. 9. The developer shall pay a fee in -lieu of underground existing overhead utilities along the north side of Highland Avenue from A Avenue to east trzst boundary prior to recordation of Phase 11. inz I t fees shall be 1/2 of t;ie front foot cost to be held for contributions towards to the future undergrounding c1 the lines within the project area. RESOLUTION N0. r, TT 12952 - 6LENFED 'I E' April 9, 1966 Page 6 i APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9th'DAY OF APRIL, 1966. PLANN,ii4G%COMMISSION 9F TyE CI T"! OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY. �Denm s .Stout, hairman ATTEST: BrAd "Busier, Deputy ecretary I, Brad. Buller, Deputy Secretrry of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, f3 hereby certify that the-foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passi,,i. and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cuciionga, at'z regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of April, 1986, by the following vote -to -Wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE V a < a°a4L4�Y OL.°�w�i� NQ O~ I�.0 b. NQIr `.G Y OF.A dS�g Yar «ds �O OoEY6 51 e`� Ai :m OlJi ou 2 .~•.p y FTu �CO G.. M y ^QL «6d�tdi9 V NCL Y •Q-.NT ~VL Y' O�Y C�4A u «EE =.°, uy.i ue MM g}N G.°i�Ny,a w.o ^r eeel,1 ^ K as pg 4 wlM u s40.Q 060 V Y Z, �pY ^� wp �t J1j GfwCOY yCZ g M Va'� OQ +r�r�y°i.. it ♦ #'yam ^LLw °�' A clwrZ •y0p �� ^rtiU /Q^, ! O w Lw� �pEac y ^� NOY•CVO6 O` Ny�ONaYO s Ny NNC O.�O�pY 4 yvK Cl.+ N•C. C y O s Y 6 O^ .°..a L N�Fu ��392�E .V•ONC $u� yLUM� yLwC f, A.E �O« °dtQ�Or Fp O �v.YC^ .N.96 NYwYU� °rte^ VNYU L.N LQOSr�V�IC b 0 r N�N !d S D H °d O G N • N tl u u � w K J F �e Q 4 C Y9.ay Pt o p � g�AKr i •4'a J. u N `Q o q4n o ^i' it °Ea -or u�p=Nc � QOM F CN C %e Q o6i F rsY ^ qL YaN >V 4aaapL t�6T+ and ¢ p QOe1 CO �N M.nYOa ^� p ^S 5y Cyr Y— O W um O p NNt ^ � C Oyw q40 2r ua 4 OQC Y F ~ qc 4 a�°ar�Natc Gv^.r s Nu l.UE VV Y•a YS4 w a.N- s ia'e A Nz ab..NN- ��i o s° G� E av l•. !t an � � E A "I O u -1 . Z2. Ix 1L. at V`E"i R ES I 2�2 u % 5.5 5 Fj� Ag m.4 U c - E V. X' m5n U. r t; IS. Ff - , t 9 2'Z r: " 't - e 7E R-k-4 N 1 .1 -2 G c cc .1 -- -'kL- .17 r,4 m -E -o -19 -JR 9=c E g� Xx c-z .42 c.-- 22- at., -,E '=-a -.Z9 W.4 M. —zz Ku 'f—TX t IZ-1 I X . "Z T; —o. S Z U QJ rO d aa�e� yc �GO-c O1u unona�,nm4'.oi �r c� � � *L° ro,me V Ce � ,na aCC � cu..T- owY.�w �F n �.<a« r c9vi u •�G� ♦N u UL. Ma O,p �iT CEO C L CC Lie B�Or L N a u• V O w y q .Ge C 43y.•r O ! R� . N�_N M L• 4� .Q VtlJ upr4 Lt T q. 0,�0 ^.s•NO C C 4 c S S V Y x a. a Y U.• y e L^ T A ^ J—Ai ; G.Le p9YSy N.x>• TAN ~ Y� C 7T p�� Vt�NC �rVC C, pSL aa.y a. NYY V�d H.O.V �L yd� WP gNtr ap e+n Or Y10 V.a UI A.V. .[ >� 1 • V pVOV 4K 6� IiL �N4` �``LNCe N� dL G C� wq4 YN b y .• � n a y 0 ,•' d � q V q� .n r � Y a �.., G a-1.5 CC ytG E.U. .-.NQ N4 pHaC�V Via. you Oawp �y4 MS Sr�OG l� tia G,pna NL4"G'LY yOURC yPy QN T� Z. N w ° O. Y c � V° y y x LY aT. at rte+- Win. x. LS"O Cy Yy «� L 4�Na 9 NVgv wun `aY^ wN `Qx Y4. YNYA L+. 'Ge .mew ". +,Q Cd Nu .y► CND` C >Q. °p �.:.M' ILA N N;,q qyY ..m.NY d��CNd o.°. I's 2 Vi Vy+ VO 1.s L 44 nSwgL... -•N YO K~ C tTLC ay.° CYnya �OI��rn Ya�4..N- �V �NmC ��... y F• 4 GN C O �` .. n C U U E L ~� $ n y t t Y C M Q 4 Y L 0 U n D q+ 4 C C •+ q n y'Y s^.e n�V xa:.. ^e '•max Y <N .�. L T- w. N p 0 A 4 0 6 L Y 1 V O N 4 M r 1 Y� Vea 6a tic r �O •. Qt •• 1 o.P $ a E.'cd N` .° r. d - •. a °.r. c c w i i `-. w .°• _ lig. _ eaYq 'E x° •5a2S CA. xi _y "cs Y`Rt jy° a -c' `YO1'°'s.YL.n I 4.,i N�o.a &� YYw 1 CwG„ '•G`Y .Vp L.e y ^CY. r• CLtw r � L o.rt•^ 5 ttq :^ vv �q ^> n� NeL <x,e.r s j.•p o.0'G? Vvy FQ L.T°Ldc p N 9 V p. U.L" Vp N Y V.yC e^ VrY- !y u Fly .^= OI D �y 4C •'.C�V4yYYL�. °up _L >V� � ~ •'� V ��g x499 ql '.-.J' d =.PAN. 6KC QYL^ MpN w xµ ` ■�tl �?V'. yL w }E� VVN neL, G n I.! f k b.Y6 Ca Vp � 9G LC V 9Q t:� aV OC�N OwLV9 N� jav V N^' <.E O �aY LN�L YL Da.CO J: Rya nn� I .i•. U^N� .0 �.G ry „• x� C`Ly �... y.S?a YdV OGpM w I.PT �eN N OU t�N xV V 4'° 6y Ol} `ypN c 4LC1 a .mea p Y.Ny y�¢N qu yyti . dy DL L� L ^ �qw Y V mTCaa �0 M�,>i, Nm c1N�x LL` a p�•.6y M .°.bC L v r^.M q R y�U Nco =y.•O ya n u. v n�v .d. ,` N.-° N`CP �+L•� a� e` 4 =,,. ea-. u n a^ oaJ+, tr :w ''ion � ace T tl °L uGO • au ° +. Pcm.+•. ,, u nN tt - ? V > L 6 L V � SON 1•• <V Ka ON�# 4. KN{Lw W��.PyN.•.M d D O Z U d •n. 0 C.. E •9^x y °q °O u u° j G EE y OEyp O^ _ 0 0 kL c yCd • SOS VU = �U tiro ��� Sysp .y. lu yL dLl yy E{UJ p0� W REO� ��� n1 b� u VQ xvNl`1 NMdt7 _ .V..� r0y, �N 1 Qy ^�d t y yLE q4 > G v == roEoo u6°u o .+°. N`L u 9C�• �.h c do m nW d EL v ED �ti dou. ~dd N �` — >d 6oW Ey tOO O aUCYy ODro J �61LE 6d AO— °�Yy ,� c C G d se C x A F`O n q.•°. xtD.luu Cro ayN c �q Y ^� y L 'JCyi N�� G�Aq _ tic. �DjCy ad V xyd pUd ^° C' G C yNYE Oy'y C. yq y x.5 Lro L y �7= � .roG��Y rdd yd dO aE dN y' ^9a A� ``y O^ Od<S d d _ Gl U > O++ d 1-• q7> tL - �cL t d' O E d LC�ud l'1 N O N M S� y,N 0 � ro y •��QYW. 6 >.4alL.N OL v.� n�rC V.G d N1 �I N( N C d c Md4. —Tyy d _ QL $ OZ P u L u C O q 9 O ro q d SUM ro r4 Y— 961 N L O G w d qq0 Njl Jt j. dN OVro E. OLn ^� O _ N�1 c t-7; o Ey°� oyN u C Yi]m d V q C d 4 q N' > a d C n a ° L A 7z 15:2 ^ _ d C^ d M u y C^ m ^ O d L N 0 61 y61 9O E T�S q Dyad 9 O•drn o r> C c x y y L 6Li y ro 9 y— '^ E° O t C9 c ELU d' ..�^QC ^ LC©^N �09 •' d2 qO d d.o �,C O Ct :A� 4 �.,F -.. `. 0.� L.y d g E. `.. d N > .' V LUL y N C �.,06Y O ^L DLO O a! •'•^ d ° q d CO y AI TOC> L VN OYd L,� �N A N >,6q WT NVN �w .r•. -. r aE v ut° vG" w v__ N �wav oui. ad, �a"> i a NO=i v ro lw >v 1 C•w q D N > C •* 6i ^ V xD^ C �.+D- mn jN -I �� 1pn aylxO dv d PViV ^ LCaOi tOC C >c�. LE= 390^ to S�� �aL E.,� 4 1-le •�u.� 4im ^u Eo EZ� La H 4 u G 4 C O 7 .`oo bG U2 y 04, G °� avd ^bc � E YD1L°, ° u ' 1 c i c 6° it E c d p Cr A • Z V d Y dxG �o °r ` N A :L •ew N A M N O u C � d .� LF L i A •y> > d L EA« y v OZ Oa L._c. + Y E. c NT O• pNNVN� 61H c gOraLe d° yd ry C O1 q.Y oq lLO.OY is CO VOOI u G 4 C O 7 aN YD1L°, d a a N A M N O u C � p EGA EE CE G 6 N ♦+ L A d 7 A •y> > d L EA« y v E W E N d d Y + O 6 L I ^ ry a q.Y oq CND Cm Ry pC Ly �a O W + t ? f G 4 C T i aN YD1L°, d a a Lb + ry b CND Ry pC Ly ` � gd �� .gip u_ � o .Oy 4y o '°' My C •� JTN C d a Y€iC qL y q ` v j R rn ��- WK_R KO 66�V .r"C oa c ^2 G L.a a d Th uo« r_w i C O A N O d 0 C a U 1 q o� u y O L J vA E r C ar x do � O J yax ryi d N ^ U T u x 6 L DA° d O O p O F 6 d M� 4 6 C U M b� AI qOL C« yLy LO Oy �� t?L y^ G y6v�u y G u�A °aAp y'•..pNC b',c q qq r^ 'app 9gmy ��vC°.1, C'a y Uw'y _ G ggNr" beQ.q d? Aor+ °� Qy c U H A~ c L • yL .OL wV E6u O.-. l A GZ& M° � � o u L a. •°. a° N` Y O i�G d L Yx • M., '1 ul Z fJ a t 1 o c m 7 Z a ° L V a�L id N O L pN� y O In .0 C •� p 9 2 ju N E�0 ' nL o ^ Tt Y c y c�O A ..rn L b O ° Q Oda C 0 ~ ua L G q .t p C V £ GuIU 9 Y I � ' n N u lr By F LW M A r y,✓EN Yq�E b ma ro '^VO • u L y . Y G L V O q. 0 0 e. ei qdn b vy E n�L SECE _ Il vv �W ao _co dq � E u O L d u Y p d L ^ •Ldi N.a. 6 a Y = r7 d 2 c b B TNLnS w °SL T dPC Op L.�T u V'=bu ..U- nr c A wcaE°.N,. oa •LN•� u'° qY v' m NC V v V 6 mac$ CV E °n c 0.00 ti cGQr' N r FS _ C _ > K-- d0 cwv my d6 O _Ab f� Yby. SVO > u ° 2 aACI c° O O] L n LpIL N c d n X � 6 a u d b q r 'UNO d .0 ~ GUn= GQ E n� L N C 1 �^ N > L C ` u 6 Y° mp L S� � c _C d �• 'b EaNUO id mu u. Gm Mn uu_uc tn N _ rq� °T Yd q °Z -- NU N W °^ C+ V N nN d^ u dN a4ii LON T r^ n "! C�Nr Y64 q NOUr Ny n4 6t1: xrNL L^ ... 5 o o c m 7 Z a ° L V a�L id N O L pN� y O In .0 C •� p 9 2 ju N E�0 ' nL o ^ Tt Y c y c�O A ..rn L b O ° Q Oda C 0 ~ ua L G q .t p C V £ GuIU 9 Y I � ' n N u u Y °c By F LW M A r y,✓EN Yq�E b ma ro '^VO • u L y . Y G L V O q. 0 0 e. ei qdn b vy E �v,wa SECE _ 42 . d ao _co dq o yb _b �F F. np Nb� Ta N n� 6 r7 d 2 c b B 1-8 mo 1 cy P ^ h tF u� O..N�c N` N ✓ad20 E2 5 O m NC V v V pf S� C vu mdEi FS Ei i1 � •I vl / j o c m 7 Z a ° L V a�L id N O L pN� y O In .0 C •� p 9 2 ju N E�0 ' nL o ^ Tt Y c y c�O A ..rn L b O ° Q Oda C 0 ~ ua L G q .t p C V £ GuIU 9 Y I � ' L 2 a iu to V c « Ot Y°. Oii L6E p aNL ad ....c c....« E —u. u "m c nt°n ca " a ac L Ot c dcL A VJ TId d LMU 1 a > �v° yq c 4 Odd � tw. G YC C V •a O -+moo T O u 0 E C a h o y Ix ci Y Y v e A °fu =u V N ° L i _I j t M as L Aa v � t.T � 9V ° 6� A I..• Y _N w r_Va n lo uYLi A O j Q4°aLa. a r W pp _ Nt ]y O6 N N«....L M2 4! py« p O V= coY u2o u C Opp V M1. OOtT « co 7 N 6 o C V OC W {. «L V roCD v yY oyc. E L V roL Q.EV 2W q °a Vw O as «E °t aW M Iz t j`i RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT NO. 11606 LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHLAND BETWEEN HAVEN AVENUE AND IJEER CREEK CHANNEL, IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DICTRICT WHEREAS, on the 16th day of April, ;!986, a complete application was filed by Glenfed. Development Corporation for review of the above- described . project; and WHEREAS, on the 28th day of May, 1985, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission helei a meeting to consider the abovi'- described project, follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as SECTION 1: That the following can be met: 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 objective of the Development Code and the purposes _ of the district in which the site Is located; and - 3. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Codo; and 4. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or 'improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: That Design Review for Tract 11606 is approved subject to the o owing conditions and all Conditions and Standard - Conditions contained within Resolution 81 -2!c�'; 1. connections wi1catedQ in the fddestriai access step down as they appt• ach the public sidewalk. E 2. The design of pedestrian access connections shall include landscaping, accent trees, texturized pa,ing and adequate lighting. 3. The wood siding materials on the chimney shall be ' replaced with brick veneer. 4. All `ide and rear elevations exposed to public view - shall be upgraded. with architectural elements such as pop -out windows and wood trim around windows. 5. An awareness clause, shall he included in the final' subdivisSon report from the department of real estate `for all lots within the Special Study Zune, for disclosure to the prospective purchaser ull these lots that the subject property is within the Special study Zone. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 1 986. PLANNING COMMIS.4ION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: . Dennis L. , Stout, Chai rman ATTEST:—, grad Buller, Deputy ecre ary 1, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning, Commission of the Cfty,of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duljl and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the planning Commission held on the 28th day of Mk; , 1986, by the following vote -to -wit^ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSION7P.S: ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: i . r RESOLUTION NO. 81 -26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY Ov RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 11006. WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 11606, here n,after "Map" submitted by Westend, applicant, for the purpose of s'ddividing the real pragerty situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, ^describ.d as a residential subdivision of 70 acres located on the north side of the _Southern Pacific,,RaiTroad and bordering the west side of Deer Creek into 277 lots; reguiarly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing end action on March 11, 1981; and 1,1HEREAS, ttie City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions yet forth in the Engineering and Planning Divisions reports; and - VINFREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering Planning Divisions reports and has considered other evidence ,: _rescnted at .1a public hearing, NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of ;the "City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the fallowing findings - in regard to Tentative Tract No. 11606 and the Map, thereof: (a) The tentative tracl-,is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed general and specific plans; (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed . general and specific plans (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision; is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable ,'njury to humans and wildlife or their, habitat; (e) The tentative tract is root likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design. of the tentative tract wiil not conflict with any easemen,; acquired by the public at large, nowof record, for iycess through or use of the property'witbin the proposed subdivisior. r s Ir iesciution No. 81-26 - Page 2, (g) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the (' environment and a, Negative Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Man No. 11606, a copy of which is attached hereto; is 'hereby approved subject to all of the follcwing conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: PLANNING DIVISION The developer shall install and construct that portion of the Deer Creek regional trail system adjacent to the yr project. Appropriate bonding shall be completed prior to final map approval. 2. Three 1.loints of pedestrian access shall be installed by ,i-14 mar �,� , the developer from the tract to the regional trail, Such pathways shall be a minimum of 10' wide and shall include a con,rete pathway, walls, landscaping and security lights. Detailed plans shall bp submitted and approved' U by the City Planner prior to final tmap approval. 3. A coricrete pedestrian pathway *hall be provided between the `two side -on cul -de -sacs on lots 108, 109, 190, and 211,,, Said gaih shall be separated frcm the adjacent lots by tow profile walls, ENGINEERING DIVISION 4. Installation of a portion of master planned storm drain from 19th Street to the Southern Pacific Railroad (Line NO. 4 -0) shall be required. The cost of construction of the =torn drain snall be credited to the storm drain fee for the project and a reimbursement agreement will be executed por Cit, Ordinance No, 75 to cover contributions which exceed the fee amount, 5 The proposed storm drain within the tract boundary as shown on the Tentative Map that; be extended to north tract boundary to accept ru;joff from the•tributory areas to the north. 6. No structure or building sh -11 be constructed nor any street dedication and improvement Shall be. accepted by the City within 300 feet of the centerline of Deer Creek Channel until such time as the 'Deer Creek Channei and its debris basin are constructed. The 300- foot,se0ack line shall be delineated and a certificate for building restricti the final map, on snail be noticed on ,i Resolution No. 81� Page 3 l , . t -r 7. The order of phasigg for development may be modified to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to maintain the required setback line. L. Construction of interior street improvements beyond a phase boundary along with the development of the phase for proper circulation ow traffic may be required at the discretion of the City Engineer. 9; Installation of flood protection wall along northerly tract ,boundary and easterly setback line to the satis- faction of the City Engineer shall be required, This condition shall remain in fora; until such time as the Deer Crsak Channel improvements are constructed 10. Dedication and improvements of the roadway (Palm Dr.) connecting to 19th Street shall be required at the time of development of phase IV improvements. 11. The required width of easement for storm drair purposes shall be per city standards.. 12. All existing easements lying within the futurs right -of- t way are to be quit claimed or de'Tneated as per the City Engineer's requirements, prior t. .ecordation of the w. tract map. s; 13. Final plans and profiles shall show the location of any existing utility facility tl,rt would affect construction. 14. Adequate pra�isions shall bt+ made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property front adjacent areas. 15, Letters of acceptance from downstream property owners f shall be required where runoff from the tract flows onto ! private properties, if such acceptance is deemed necessary by the City Engineer. BUILDING DIVISION 16. A revised conceptual grading plan shall be reviewed and approoed by the Grading Committee prior to final map j approval. I 17. Surety shall be posted and an agreement exdcuted, guaranteeing ; completion of all on -site drainage facilities necessary r: for deviatering all parcels, to the satisfaction of the Building and Sjfety Division. n r; s" C_� r. ! .k... .s.k'. . ,. . .... a :. /• ,fit_. P k t t L Resolution No. 811-- Page 4 18. Appropriate easements, ;;or safe disposal of drainage water that are conducted onto. or over adjacent parceln;= are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division. 19. On -site drainage improvements, necessary for dewaterinv or protecting the subdivided properties, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to, or contributes to, drainage flows entering, leaving or within a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested, 2C. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of building permits. (This may be an an incremental or composite basis.) APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: ATi I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing. Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of March, 1981 by the following vote to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: King, Rempei, Sceranka, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Tolstoy r " /,' `• ^ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY RE-VELOPMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS fe A. K] a T Subject: Applicant•('' Location:�(� Q S.i�,,�, i,t'►1�,� l.�ir►►l., a��d t�.���► /°,n. C. Those items checked are conditions of approval. APrLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING COi.JITIONS• Site Develcpment Site shall be developed in accordance with the approved site plans on file in the Planning Division and the conditions contained herein. 2. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all conditions of approval shah be submitted, to the Plincing nivision prior to issuance of building permits. Z3. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance witl all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City Ord,nances in effect—at " time of Building Permit; issuance. 4. The developer shall provide all lnts with adLquate sideyard area for Recreation Vehicle storage pursuant to City standards. 5. Mail boxes, in areas where sidewalks are required, shall be installed and located by the developer' subject to approval by the 'fanning Division. 6. Trash recertacie areas shall be enclosed by a 5 foot high masonry wall with view obstructing gates pursuant to City standards. Location shall.be sub e: .-t to approval by the Flanning Division. 7. If -dwellings are to be constructed, in an area desi.gnat -d by the Foothill Fire Districts as "hazaraous ", the roof materials 1must be approved b)� the Firs Chief .and Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. A sampl of the ro.►f material shall be -ubmitted to the Planning Division for- •re-.iew and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 9. All roof appurtenances, in-chiding a r - onditioners, shall be architecturally integrated, shielded from view ano the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by,,-th, Planning and Building Divisions. too. Prior to any use of the project site or business activ4ty being commence) hereon, all conditions of approval contained herein shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. .f _i 11. A d A. etailed lighting plan shall be subm Pl jtted to era approved by the anning Division prior to issuance of building permit's. Such plan shall indi -ate style, illumination, location, height and tnethud of shielding. No lighting shall adversely affect adjacent'propert e,. 12. All swimming pools installed at the time of inicial development shall be solar heated. Texturized pedestrian pathways across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect, dwellings with open spaces and recreational uses. 14. All trash pick up stall be for individual units with �'1,'recepticals kept ,gut of public view from private and public streets 1L, Standard patio cover plans shill be submitted to and approved by the City Planner and Building Official prior to occupancy of the first unit. 16. All t ?uildings numbers and individual units shall be identified in a cleat^ and concise manner, including proper illumination. V10"17. Solid core exterior doors, security dead bolts anri locks shall be installed on each unit in thi: project. 18. Security devices such as window locks shall be installed on each -unit. 19.. All units within this evelopment shall be preplumbed to he adapted fora solar water heating unit. 20. Energy conserving building materials and appliances are required to ue .i-ncorporated into this project to include such things as but not limited to reduced consumption shower heads, better grade of insulation, double paned windows, extended overhangs, pilotless appliances, etc, 21. This development . shall provide an option to home buyers t(, purchase a solar water heating unit. 020f2. Emergency secondary access shall be provided to this tract to the satisfaction of the Foothill H-e Protection District. 23. Local and Master Planned Equestrian Trails shall be provided throughout the tract in accordance with the Equestrian Trail Plan for Alta Loma. A detailed equestrian trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, phys-ical condition, fencing and weed control in accordance with City equestrian trail standards• hall be-submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to approval and recordation of the final m?;p, 24. This tract shall form or annex to a maintenance district for maintenance of equestrian- trails. 'r 7 25. This project shall provide . Percent of affordable housing and /or rents, in conformance with General Plan housing policies any' the housing criteria defined ir, the Growth Management Ordinarce. Affordability shall -be determined by current market rates- rents and median incore levels at the time of construction of the project. Proof of this provision — shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to f halizing building permits and occupancy of the units. R r B. Parkins and Vehicular Access t _ 1. All ;parking lot landscaped islands shall have a minimum inside dimension of 4' and shall contai7 a 12" walk adjacent to parking stall. 4 2. Parking lot trees shall be a minimum 15 gallon size. j° 3. All two -way aisle widths shall*be a minimum of 24 feet wide. F 4. Emergency access shall be provided, maintenahck free and clear, a';.'* - ,.,inimum of 24 feet wide at all times during ccnstru:aio`n in accordance with Foothill Fire District requirements:. S. All parking spaces shall be dolible striped. 6. All units shall be provided with automatic garage' door openers. i. Designated visitor parkin ^;areas shall tie'turf blocked. 8. The C.C. & lt's shall restrict the storage of recreational :vehicles on this site unless they are the princ4ple source of transportation for the o4vner. 9. No parking shall be permitted within the interior cirulation aisle other than in designated visitor ,larking areas. C.C. & R.'s shall be developed by the applicant and submitted to the,"ity K Ang Division prior to issuance of building permits. C. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the is.aance of building permits. 2. Existing trees shall be retained wherel+2r possible. A master"olan of existing trees showing the, ;; precise location, size and type shall be- completed by the developer. Said plan sk11 tike into account the proposed grading and shall be regn;red to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior. to adproval of the final grading plan e t a c -If P-, l 3. Existing Eucalyptr� trees shall be retai, trimmed and tappoa, a,t 301. Dead, decaying dorhpotentially�dangeroushtreebe shall be approved .fo: - removal at the descretion of the Plae!ning Oivis, during the review of the Haster Plan of Existing On-Site Trees. 'those trees which are approved for removal may be required to bt replaced on a -tree-for-tree basis as previdej by the Planning Division. 1 4. Street trees, a minimum of 15 gallon size or larger,'shail be installed in accordance with thu-,Master Plan of street trees for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and shall be planned at an average of every 30' on interior streets ;and 20' on exterior streets. S. A minimum of 50 trees per gross acre, comprised of the following sizes, shall be provide-,I within the development; 20% -24" box or larger, 70% -15 gallon, and 10 % -5 gallon. 6, All la-tdscaped areas shall be maintained :n a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris, 7. All slope banks in access of five (5) feet in vertical height shall a i are 5:1 or greater s7' be landscaped and irrigated in accordance w th Slope planting requirements of the pity of Rancho Cucamonga, Such slope planting shall include but not be limited to rooted ground cover and appropriate shrubs and trees- All'such planing and irrigation shall be continuously ;maintained in a healthy and thriving cc-idition.'— , he developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection of the slopes shall be completed by the Planning Staff to determine that it is in satisfactory condition, in the case of custom lot subdivisions, all such slopes shall be seeded with native grasses upon completic.l of grading or an alternative method. (xf erosion control satisfactory to the Building -Official. Irrigatiol:- on ;ustom lot subd ?visions shall be provided to germinate -the seed and t,; a point 6 month5.,after germination. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be sully Ta n',.athed by a homeowners association o other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of .naintenance.shall be submitted to the Cis;;,+ prior to issuance of building permits. .9. The front yard landscaping: and on appropriate irrigation sustem, shal be installed by the developer •'n accordance with submitted plans; l 7�? '),e final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping and ,idewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall hd U bject to approaral by the Planning Divisi :fin. f. A minimum of _ within the project. specimen sizL trees shl;;'( be plantecT 12. Special landscape features such as mounding. •illeivial rock, specimn.., size trees, and an abundance of Tane',caping is required along o,. 7o1 -02 o 5- 2.8 -85 P. C. Agenda Packet o Page . of D. sign` r l' Any ' ^nrn the Sign Ordi'— / 'en«,'e 'e«ien and approval by the p1m"^i"- Division ~ - --- ~ '^' to installation - of such signs. 2 ' A �"'"n, development \ the- Planning -- ~~ ~'p'~,= prior =v issuance cr �mil�fn --- � p' g penn ts' ' ' 3' The v� ��� " ca plans are riot approved with this approval __ and will se,un^ze .~,".' sign review a nd approval. ' E. Additional Aoprovals Required Director Review shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of a Building � 2' Director Review shall � ���� � � � ����� � �e final ' . ' � 3' ' Approval of Tentative Tract ' No ^ is grante— d s --~-~^ the approval of Ch ange Vari—ance/Conditional _and/nr Use ��ernlit 4. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for a period v' month(s) - ^ which time the nlannin�c^mmission may add or ue7�� therunn0itinnzl Use ponnit_ delete "qno`r�ons or revoke s. The developer is btaio the following nl�d'statement by .,~.`""=." of homes ^m`cn have 'ues�r{aptr a private orpubl9c �l or adjacent to thetrpropertx, �� m on - � In-purchasing the home located on Lot Tract - ----~~— ~~~ is subject to a mutual re- ciprocal re- tra��c easemen� for the �u�6se of allowing equestrian to gain access. Signed `^ Purchas Said statement is to be filed by the developer with the City ' #r to ' 6. niur to approval anu building permits, ' � whenrec«rza�u? of the final or t� ��gu�`«e �f ^~D�~~^ map �`"'"" �» is involved, written certification from all affected School ,uzr`ccs` shall be submitted to the � Department of COrmunitY Development which states that adequate school facilities will be are or capable of accoamodating students generated by this py'oject. Such letter of cE17­fication must have been is,&!:d by the Sch)ul District within prior to the final map app'rovil in the case of the OW subdivisi6p, mp or issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. 4 —/7. Prier to aopro`val and recordation of the final map, or prior to the is Of @wilding permits When no map is involved, written certification from tFe affected water district, that adequate sewer and %later facilities are or Will be available to serve the propo-ed project, shall be sub.nitted to t Department. of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued b the Water district Within sixty (60),i'4' prior to final map approval d the case of subdivision or issuance or permits in the case of alt`oth9r in r residential projects. For projects using septic tank facilities ; be tlloHiable by the Santa Ana Regional Water Control Board and the City„ writt11 c� ;tie fication Of acceptability, including all supportive information, sna ; " obtained and submitted to the, City. �?. This approval shall become null and vend if the tentative subdivision map zs not approved and recorded or building permits issued when no map is involved, within twelve (12) months from the approval of this project unless an extension has been granted by the Plaaning Commission. This subdivision was not submitted as a total development package and is required cu reapply for a point rating relative to the design section s of tho Growth Management Ordinance prior to final approval and recordation of the map if the subdivision is going to be developed as tract homes. APPLICANT S4ALL CONTACT -17,4E BUILOIt :C DIVISION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLL0WINL CONDITIONS: F. Site Development 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code ,18 Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes and ordinances in effect at the time of approval 'of this project. _Z2. Prior to issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to trcr's Foothill District Fire Chief that water supply for fire protection is av_ilable. i3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a new residential dwelling units) or major addition to an e- fisting unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but not be limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Systems Development Fee, Permit ar.d Plan Checking Fees, and School Fee. 4. Pri,Q,r to the issuance of a building permit for a new commercial or development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shallspayal development fees at the eseablished rate. Such fees may include, but not be limited to: Systems Development Fee, Drainage Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. S. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are nqt issued for this project within one year from the date of project approval. _ _.6. Street names and addresses shall be provided by the building official. r °' n _'t G. Dwelling units shall be constructed with fire retardant material and non - combustible roof material. All corner dwellings shall have the building elevation facing the street upgrade with additional -wood trim around windows and wood siding or plan -ons .where appropriate. Existin2 Structures 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for property line clearancE� considering use, area and fire- resistiveness of existing buildings, 2. Existing building(s) shall be made zo comply with current Building and Zoning regulations for the intended use or the building shall be demolished. 3. Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed, filled and /or capped to comply with appropriate grading practices and the Uniform Plumbing Code. H. Grading _ y_/1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and acct ld grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial nformance wi,h the j app -oved conceptual grading plan. !/ 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. _AZ4. -The final grading plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning, Engineering-and Building. Divisions and shall be completed prior to recordation of the final subdivision map or issuance of building permit whichever comes first. I. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS': Dedications and Vehicular Access _ 1. Dedications shall be made by final map of all interior street rights- of -way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be made of the following missing rights -of -way on the following streets: ! additional feet on f p additional i'eet on additional feet on— ,r N/ �3. Corner property line radius will be required per City standards. 4. All rights of vehicular ingress to and egress from shall be dedica fcl l o:tis 5• Reciprocal easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcel-- ov private roads, drives, cr parking areas. 6. Adequate provisions shall be made for the ingress, engress and internal _ circulation of any trucks which will be used for delivery of goods to the property or in the operation of the,.proposed business.' J. Street Improvements 'srf 1. Construct full street improvements'including, but not limited to, curb an gutter, A.C. pavement, sliawalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and stre� lights on alT interior stre_ts. 2. Construct the foll,;ving missing improvements including, but not limited t CURB & A.C. SILT DRIVE STREET A.C. STREET NAME GUTTER PVMT. WALY, APPR, BIGHTS OVERLAs CHAIR OTHE. • ��,.,, sue• v� � 3. Prior to an work be' I permit and any shall flLepobtained from ntheuCity Enghneer'saOffice, no3G n addition to any other permits required. 4. Street improvement plans ap;lroved by the City Engineer and prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be required, for all street improvements, prior to issuance of an encroachment permit. :! 5. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of thi City Engineer and the °ity=Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the ps�blic• improvements, prior to '.acording of the map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. we" 5. All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of —the ' Engineer, prior to occupancy. City �f 7. Pavement stri in g, ping, narking, traffic and street; name signing shall be per the requirements of the City Engineer. a 3 C``4_1 K. Drainage and Flcod Control Y 1. The applicant will be responsible fir construction of all onsite drainage facilities required by the City Engineer, 2. Intersection drains will be required at the following locations: 3. The proposed project falls within areas indicated as subject to flooding under the National Flood Insurance Program and is subject to the provisions 'of the program and City Ordinance No. 24. 4. A drainage channel and /or flood protection wall will be required to protect the structures by diverting sheet runoff to street. 5. The following north -south streets shall be dez gned as major water carrying streets requiring a combination of special curb heights, commercial type drive approaches, rolled street connections, flood protection walls, and /or landscaped earth berms and roll Ed driveways at property line. L. Utilities _ i. All proposed utilities within the project shall be installed underground including utilities along major arterials less than 12 V. — s/ e^.. Utility easements shall be provided to the specification of the serving utility companies and the City Engineer. 3. Developer shall be ' responsible for the relocation of existing public utilities, as.required. - 4. Developer shall be responsible for the installation of street lighting in accordance with Southern California Edison Company and City-standards. 5. Water and sewer system plans shall be designed and constructed to meet requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCIM), Foothill Fire District and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance form CCWD will be required prior to recordation. 6. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other Interested agencies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. M. Generil Recuirements and ADDro9a15 _ 0/1�1. permits from other agencies will be required as follows: .✓ A. Caltrans for:_ _ /�B. County Dust Abatement required prior to issuance or a grading permiti fa ' ../ C. San Bernardino Courty Flaod CQntr 1 Distri_ct '* 4' -;7-0. Other- •l It d ��0 ^s> A) _ 2. A copy of the-Covenants. of Incorporation of the Conditions and Rest in, (CCBR's) and Articles Homeowners Association, the City Attorney, shall the City, subject to the approval o- be recorded with this m ap and a cope provided to 3. _ Prior to recordation, a Districts shall be filed Notice of In form Landscape to fo Landscape and Li hti g involved in pistricts Formation with the City Council. The engineering costs shall be borne by tta developer. 4. i 1, Final parcel and tract maps shall confq'rm to City standards and procedures. w lr7 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT �ucnnr�NC Cho -� 0 o Q F Z U > DATE:. May 28, 1986 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: John R. Meyer, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 12237 AND 12237 -2 RANGEVIEW - Design review of building elevations and the plot plans for 12 lots throughout the two recorded tracts in the Very Low Density Residential District, located on the east side of Hermosa, north of Hillside. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. -,ction Requested: Design Review approval of elevations and plot plans. B. Project Density: Less than two dwelling units per acre. C. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North Vacant; County of San Bernardino South - Single - Family Residential Very Low District East - Single - Family Residential Very Low District { West Vacant; Very Low District i D. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Very Low Density Residential North - Very Low Density Residential South - Very Low Density Residential East - Very Low Density Residential West - Very Low Density Residential E. Site Characteristics: The twelve lots within this project are located within Tract 12237 and 12237 -2. All twelve lots have had some rough grading done to them, and the eight lots within the Eucalyptus groves have had preliminary clearing done. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tentative Tracts 12237 and 12237 -2 May 28, 1986 Page Z II. ANALYSIS A. General: These twelve (12) lots as shown in Exhibit "A" have received previous design review approval in 1984. Rangeview, the current owner, is proposing new floor plans and elevations in place of the previously approved elevations. The single- story floor plan is 3,100 square feet in size, while the 2 story floor plan is 3,300 square feet in size. Each plan has three elevations. These lots have had some grading and clearing done to them. B. Design Review Committee: The proposed residences have larger footprints than those previously approved, and there was concern with additional removal of trees. The Design Review Committee felt any additional removal of trees due to the larger footprints woula be insignificant compared to the amount of trees left on the lots. The Committee was satisfied that the two floor plans with 3 elevations each offered enough variety tier the 12 lots. The Committee asked for additional architectural details such as plant -ons and window trim on all side and sear elevatins. The Committee recommends this project be placed on the next Planning Commission agenda. III. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider a 1 material and input regarding this project. If the Commission concurs with the Design Review Committee's recommendations, approval of the elevations and floor plans, the adoption of the attached Resolution would be appropriate. Respectfully s itted, Brad Buller City Planner BB: JM:Cv Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Area Map Exhibit "B" - Detailed Site Plan and Grading,Plan Exhibit "C" - Elevations Original Resolution of Approval with Conditions Resolution of Approval `4 F . ���; ar .: ' P 1�' a � r �� ! V %� -. o k r' •�, :7 � utan nw ta.o NORTH R H �. C h OF ITEM: W- T 122-37 R1kN l n% CUCA ONGA TITLE: — E >Z-4/\J PLANNING DIVO N EXHIBIT= 5 SCALE: s r u:..... i •�, :7 � utan nw ta.o NORTH R H �. C h OF ITEM: W- T 122-37 R1kN l n% CUCA ONGA TITLE: — E >Z-4/\J PLANNING DIVO N EXHIBIT= 5 SCALE: Ll 1h R H CMf OF RANTCHO CLJCE� (DNGA. PL�AuNNU14GIJDIViSM EXHMrr: : - 5 ti REAR 5LEVATION II 9 A Iifll 9- T-A, Ll NORTH j, CITY CF rrEM- McT -7 ?-2AKYEo i e — o) RANCID CUCAMONTCA Trr-Lz... tv-4E-VA-VOA�L77 23A HAMM DIVISION EXHIBM--G:— SCALE-. FIVILIC NORM CITY OF R�UiO CUCAMCNCA PLANNM DWM4 C SCALE- { GCAO CI C-1-1 MEN LIM EA C_ � NORT l l jT1 Y CF r IMP �A►leTMO CUCAMONCA � ~�t - r-for� TTTiE: . PI.ANNPIG P[VISM EXHIBIT c- SCALE IE au FIEVEr 0.44p- ' NORTH CITY RANCHO CUCA.IVIONGA ` PUNNM DI ism EXMBIT. C : REAR ELEYATM .- E�B4tiT E_�,�lEV�TId! ►fr.�L�na +e�p• . `fit � + �--- ,, ra. • - \ i m = NORTH. CITY CF I RA,l�CM CI CAMMGA Triu —� PLA IViVIIVG L1IV MN SCALD; E `ALIU ATpN Z NK)2TH k CITY CF RANCHO CLTCAIVIC NGA TrME.19 -ig�/i -VptJ PLANNING Dp vism EXHIBM G SCALE: A RESOLUTION NO. 83 -08A A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AMENDING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR 'TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 12237 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission tentatively approved Tract Map No, 12237 on january 12, 1983, by Resolution No. 83 -08g and WHEREM, the Planning Commision has held a duly advertised public hearing for the above - described project; and NHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds no objections or overrides same to such Amendment. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: A. tae Tentative Trac`° flip No. 12237 is consistent with the adopted Gsaeral Piun. SECTION 2: : be Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby ;rants a revision V Reso'.dtien No. 83 -08 for the above - described project for the following items 10, 13 and 14 of Section 2 of the said resolution. SECTION 3• The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 'hereby amends Resolution No. -U8 to read as follows: ENGINEERING DIVISION 10. Developer shall be required to install concrete drainage structures along Alta Lima Channel from 550 feet south of Hillside Roan to 300 feet north of Hillside Road including Hillside Road crossing, adequate inlet and outlet structures and a training levee at the proposed basin location to channelize the flow to the proposed channel. The cost of this storm draieaje system shall be credited against the storm drainage fee for this project and a Reimburserr:nt Agreement per City Ordinance 75 will be executed to cover the contributions which exceed the fee amount. 13. Delete. 14. Delete. 15, Construction of the southerly perimeter street (Vista Grove Avenue) shall be secured by a surety bond or. it -lieu cash deposit shall be provided at the discretion of the City Engineer. 0 (O Resulution No. 89-08A Page 2 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS IOTH DAY OF AUGUST, 1983. PLAN COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA N COMM SSIIN I L BY: Dennis L u airma A ST. T TEST. Secretary of-the PI-a:6n—ing Commission 1, JACK LAM, Secretary nf the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the Cij�v lo? Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 10th day of August, 1983, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REVIEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, JUAREZ, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE .t�R�,rpLV7ro.v .Ud, �?3 -osA ' f � � 14MENOME�JTs , p' RESOLUTION) NO. 83 -08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COIWI S.3ION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,.,4CALIFORN;A, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TR, CT f -d10, 1221 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract. Map No. 12237, hereinafter "Map" submitted r by Woodland Pacific, applicant,' for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City ofIlRancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, k State of California, described— s'55.95 acres located on the east side of F Hermosa Avenue, ,north of Hills-de into 86 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public's aring and action on January 12, 1983; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommendad approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's reports; and WHEREAS, the Panning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Division's reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commmission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract No. 12237 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed general and specific glans; (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is Consistent with all applicable interim and proposed general and specific;,plans; (c); °The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; it (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to c..;!se substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife o's" their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with aru easement acquired by the public at large, now a,— 'record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. A ., '_.. �. Resolution No. 83 -08 Page 2 (g) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declzration is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map -No. 12237, a copy of which is attached hereto, is heveby approved subject to all of the following conditions •„ and the attached Standard Conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1.' CC &R's shall be prepared for the project to preserve existing trees, maintenance of trails, ar;,d minimize '. grading. The CC &R's shall be developed by the applicant and submitted to the City for review and approval pr"-t.-to approval rf the final map. 'l 2. Lot 86 has not been accepted for park and recreational uses. 3. The final design of the perimeter parkway =; malls and fences shall be completed by the applicant and approved by the City Planner prior to final map approval, 4. The Hermosa - parkway shall be designed and developed r' by the applicant as a trail. �s 5. All trails, .fences, drainage structures and site clean up shall be done in conjunction with street improvement installations. 6. The two trail crossings over Hermosa shall be texturized and appropriately signed by the applicant. 7. N„ str ^ttcres for human occupancy shall be built within 75 feet of the fault line or north of the fault line. 8. Ail structures in this project shall be designed to conform with all seismic requirements of the Uniform Building Code and City standards. , 9. If any evidence of cultural remains is found during the development of this project, work shall be stopped and a qualified archeologist shall be consulted for a proper evaluation of the remains. Resolution No. 83 -018 f Page 4 t 1, JACK LAM, Secretary of,,.the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby ce►*sfy that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, pasi4d 'and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Coilrission held on the 12th day of January,. 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNIEL, REMPEL, STOUT, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE r f._ E Resolution No, 83 -08 Page 3 ENGINEERING DIVISION 10. Developer shalt be requirsd to install a concrete drainage structure along Alta Loma Channel from its northerly tract boundary to the proposed channel at Wilson Avenue. The cost of this stormdrainage system shall be credited against the stormdrainage fee for this project and a Reimks.rsement Agreement per City Ordinance 75 will be executid to cover the contributions which exceed the fee amount. 11. The above condition shall be waived when and if the Alta Loma Assessment District is formed to complete the installation of an improved channel. 12, ;Developer shall submit a letter to the City Engineer brequesting the extension of the Alta Loma Channel oundary to include the portion of the tract as noted on the Tentative Tract Map. Execution of Payment Guarantee Agreement for participation in consulting cost relative to formation of Alta Loma Channel shall be required. 13. Developer shall be required to install a stormdrainage system along the southerly tract boundary from its easterly boundary to the proposed Alta Loma Channel. 14. The above condition shall be waived when and if the Alta Loma Assessment District is formed to complete the installation of an improved channel. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH :DAY OF JANUARY, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THF, CITY OF RANCHO CUCA14ONGA r del Irey Chaff man; ATTEST f J i Secretary of the F1ann Commission l i .. u NE i s t u a o _ h 0 _ n W O G. vqV E.0 .•.. A 00 O i q q d.� 'C A. O� � m_ G' p E uu t ytf 9 4n NTl L q.• �U� . •� q.`• y„ O 1n T.d.0 1 m :REP =- , N O c F^ O�y t Nr y UU ty Oc CJ �• -..OiT y nU. nd N a d qo _ .dam ^ i ... d.C. - � .r=.t Nom: LV qG a•+d'f - Y _ Lq 0 •� 6.0.0 C .O.e. 0 2 Nq _ UG L A j•_ 4` J: N L Y^ Q'C AaT W A ^ 0 0 4 °A' - °u •� e� N N >~ G q N r C... O d d A 0 � O O V LUO • CL . • G c � �2 NOy d gg G N� ��� C q'_ M D^ n•^ L d G 1 L S j N B C N ro G V O > d C a N L n UC 9C 6 E _ S ^^ CEO 96E ap �X .:s arlW.:. F -. •. C.a^ uuv ad Ao.Ta Wo 6 a 4AG.LG QNSa Q 0 Clt _6vni v.4 ILL no vf.uo.`e cu JwO °.d e•.rn • bl nI � P E y a• d i s t u a o _ h 0 LII . ai W O G. vqV E.0 .•.. A 00 O i q q d.� 'C A. O� � m_ G' p E uu t ytf 9 4n NTl L q.• �U� . •� q.`• 1n T.d.0 1 m :REP , A p Y � u�y w nd N a d >c yy iL°O nN vp'EL ^ i ... d.C. ° O gg G O C J _ O > d C a N L n d pq e S U ~ ' t 8 C d '4Ea C L. n > �o Ca EO a t �� °og ]V.e o � P E y a• d U L+G qn Z C60 A V Fet 1 V 6 r 0 O: YV QN•% =0a0i Q O N.O 4 iT L 61.1 �1� I \JII \il I N Y NI ' LII . ai n L V q „ d � ✓ O L d e d n° ogaTi q Eadi v o ✓d? ,z .L. �. n'a or°^•n u d' ° EtaO p ✓U«. p •�.0 G L"S V T ti ^ c,..a '^ uj G = O W N^ V y M u ' s E. ... L T'5 L A y oo q= «✓ u Ey V � G -o u ... ✓rE qLC � �°n 6CdN ^'�L� u «� 3 q ✓.r N ,cE �u GU w cA s \aL «d�EU air• ,�o vG °. cy ",U�.d'« .-.. t ✓qOG� '� T c AYG Cd�Nd � �« S b y L ✓ q C '^ � q \'' S. � \, p L u 0 y c n `• L u '. ♦L°iE utL x`o n¢q Eo:E o p oy '^M° ,� � tT. � i p � 6 d 1•.• q Y.. q •r q Y V� v o o ' L p q.. a q O ✓ � ✓TC G o OTC • � O q <Ld•r D L6 C= .197 Lea NcrA yL Jn nN dY°. C'O ✓d q ^Qy== m��•qA iiod qu ;;u as °up,., N✓ q�.n '" ^6".°a •- 'o a,� ^ ^v'i"'L L =� oys�. .°-.nom Lo ° _ .. ✓^ °' w °�.o v °nT�N ° 'd' �a� ✓o.m = 'L_� A = °'L' aNdiu�:cwu q °ow mod° L =YE s'r t0 ° nCV�C 6 >> uNadi �•n ✓ ^LD •✓i••✓i•g ✓oi 0i +�. ^i w°- u t' •BEN O ^ ^+ d L ✓V 9q d 7 mo %^ � s ugoV2r�AZ� +. H��°n,v } 49.N i+G -'• 6 Cv 1 =LN'rA o� 6NO.+ WmN O. n,i s GOB' a W N �' v «1� .a u o`o M. q v ^pd aeo ° .°.•v.�_cy,•o¢ li, k y� q oG � M q dy v��n ✓`n i ^..."'.can Ja n �✓ ey o•cN�� °qN f �?99 •^ d mn ° ✓ au« qms `oy ouv,°O'a V q0 Y C° �. Y E ✓ Vn�H�ti ••.H�dW0 j6 L. r CQ r M dq E • ^� Oyu .6��y,,. .°... -q Yp~� N. j E M d � < E dE td dLYa pO C.�O�U9 t y.NIm ' '� y =�n0 i NLa 4. G•cd', ✓. °y-d CN E.pL cz Sol L p d i.. vu NyNS {, VOC N✓ ; ' EO VU ♦-py dr LC �t Ly Y t d`E c . °�^Oa LEyE _ Ey^ c✓dy N N d Oq= L G uu L' ^u 7.N, v C�6q� TqT JO ✓a d.A q° L c c� dt G. d. �✓ L9 V .•A� O Si V a y 71 i V •�'L _ 4 t O C OL ^ 4 p ♦• ,• K•tw <I.i � h^ N�6�...V< ^A �.0 ��6 a.0 '. 'tt4 6rt 6 L .. u s • \Y enL C �.sL� D o � C O b E p oa x b `p „6y 4 ir• L6C C V nn. LaH.0 • ucp•- L ^G O u 4 rUAN Y VyPC1 C_ � r L d bcu` x q�N n •. N 4 b y C1 n t V L9 R �Ag �a ns - 5 �r•"1 db^ H uvLit^ pC c'i a'>, uoL>d� acnM`x nun ° Ns Xt.. O ��Vrn ENh �°4 YR tl�n LN me 9E 00 � C V L Nn � V C 6 N O +. 6 os. Bx sNSr n .. O > n _ 601 • R y 6' V Y•. NO Y N YM C ✓ O a - ry o y N ma � a cs � s •• m' s u n-� aL .a o� 'dV A.0 La Leta 6`C s >� ?-, QRN vy yri U ixgY �a6 -.N ma°i L + 'Y •C•ye. Q.. 4%S sx n A cb °ja yb aw ssc u. •• C~ xu ��,y Nd Vy • Vb Ku it �S u °° ayy d> nE 1Ynu Q C� 3,-S �d4 n and L° �G Ems. x NwL. qi a u ay' v1¢1d40 M..^.. °C^ a`L � b Rmy q4 ~y «w •yL.. N LO Y Lq. E9 qQ'-M Cy �Lpu N Y C ip0 uN� uvu L G.. °�N— NQ G O r •� Fay � C.� u.4 F'Y. E Ly 6y C>p y uu 4. C G.+Ln °x «max •. •� r � ^ate xd` .� awY a ••yE,.- do aUC C1 G O E C ' ! y` UCN N L O `- u �cnp R•- r vi 'u'a°�� r..-.. y yn^ co e� -- cE4 a 4CUG H C _ Y�R E �b L �a g �_ � ;;= e1O eyi , eC• . ¢ U f I I ou � G < a�t6 E2 GW.• 1=�e � <�: °• l •.. n.. -n+ do.m c I NI I 6 k V S enL C �.sL� D o � C O b E p oa x b `p „6y 4 ir• L6C C V nn. LaH.0 • ucp•- L ^G O u 4 rUAN Y VyPC1 C_ � r L d bcu` x q�N n •. N 4 b y C1 n t V L9 R �Ag �a ns - 5 �r•"1 db^ H uvLit^ pC c'i a'>, uoL>d� acnM`x nun ° Ns Xt.. O ��Vrn ENh �°4 YR tl�n LN me 9E 00 � C V L Nn � V C 6 N O +. 6 os. Bx sNSr 11 Ul n .. O > n _ 601 • R y 6' V Y•. NO Y N YM C ✓ O a - ry o y N ma � a cs � s •• m' s u n-� aL .a o� 'dV A.0 La Leta 6`C s >� ?-, QRN vy yri U ixgY �a6 -.N ma°i L + 'Y •C•ye. Q.. 4%S sx n A cb °ja yb aw ssc u. •• C~ xu ��,y Nd Vy • Vb Ku it �S u °° ayy d> nE 1Ynu Q C� 3,-S �d4 n and L° �G Ems. x NwL. qi a u ay' v1¢1d40 M..^.. °C^ a`L � b Rmy q4 ~y «w •yL.. N LO Y Lq. E9 qQ'-M b; F R y {°.y V fi =� Y C ip0 uN� uvu ULF. v�eo n - c a` 11 Ul •°" 2 c qp' V wE� amp SO `Y L � ZLOdaU L J U. Z .Y T6 A L 8 uqi ld.. d..p^ AL aal cq. Ud�O Mp0 OO U N C OE du pOE O wnN Co�r'L•` y'c� yq�O t_� wX LV dL dO.Y •ai Auyd h.p `�nu y.� dNE ° t`i o �N N^ 6 A N •�Oq.y °VO qua`= OV �N C�OTO t L�"� O '^a6 � ZC�Y 00 9n0?O.9 qn pLph = MA gumd5� o Tuyas"i .'. ou °O ''�" vas __ .-. `.0 cp• 'u "w vA cc6a= TC C•^� $ gu Z T N' ON Ou L�� A NOOVgi 6 40 OL.= 2. L LLmaO iOL YO C°�1w O YS NU aWd 2+'`a y c C iM 6ati 63 0 6 at. a V v Y a� � oa Pak lw p I W 0 u x J � E C O C C °. do. U w°.. C C �. S 9A S.OTO V O.0 LJ O� ,,OCpUI y r Cad a VN UU v� A u AA 0`L�s W ^dO YN•vw� ate. aNiN .O ti-n «« Lp VC ^NN ouc vg n� AL �.Et" `s-'2 av, x Eq. 20 yd •py '=^�•aA}� v =0 Lv mmn aV,.. .0 wUL 6 2 Vto n.a _d u 4 E N Y A Y v y� .N C C 7 4.. d v U a • N c O• q a o L ,} �SY C.•°i a�U VM dpy� n� �� r� + a G N C� r..; OM. aE4� ++'t� S"aak •' -Ul.l fiO. (��nal. •n WO y CUa NV •.AUV �a 4t0 (i= �a \ ��` � c yf� � � 1 W �i � �I `� " ♦ \\ ^+Jill `�� 4 2 O ^ u I I � O� - •f J Uti 40 cu NJ D CV 1 PC � � - ..� ,rt ✓: q C �. GJ N3 �L < II o NO uti o 0 .- w VI M ► N L. C ^ R•rib u 9 J ¢.•. ]�f�4�••RV. Y CMG 4a1 ^ u �t t i• � r - •f Z� +•01 Y n D CV L•°i • • uvNO� uq' My� � � - ..� ,rt ✓: q C �. YD.uo �L < N L R el o NO ++ a o 0 .- D M ► N L. C ^ R•rib u 9 J ¢.•. ]�f�4�••RV. Y CMG r n w ` G �i <�..0 - w M ' ✓J _W im .•Z + giz fVro uy �gquCCa � 4iC ¢N <L Awu� ..<. .,V. `.i T ••' LL>iofN L.� s 4N •'•J Lqq oi� O 4.V cy N.c ikm DS RvoY c�o.� ^� •'•Na qf' z`� fO �R� L3�o•' OE8y0 ° T MV �a Y DI O L U a Y 4'4 H ® � u g N♦q.. OC a �L tg< O C 6 D O C V ^ ♦j qqp t -�W DGL'!V L�O �R ♦q W L L`,y }S Y ° �6 R Y•Vi0 Y L� V YJ N ^ B `� < G- q nbn qa Lei. D^ i'-c'L YY A.0 U G •=^U ^9 M O• n JV _Nr pC C nq Of � VRw2£ O•-• 1.N tJr R °Ry y 6NU Z'T V6TN.0= NnWTNC T_Dp 7.3 -•-••i LY. L°..0 �^� �9 S D �q VD C ' Y t D i a 1NifOU o �•' O •.. Lo � v � a��` STN„ p Z� +•01 Y n 09 NON a A•Ti � YD.uo �L < N L R el o ++ a o 0 D M ► N L. C ` -I im .•Z + giz n o yo u. yy a •- �- R .`� Y J- OC a �L b tiN Oc q Ro Li V <F t -�W DGL'!V L�O �R ♦q W L L`,y }S Y ° �6 R Y•Vi0 N �u� L� V YJ N ^ B D OZ L Ou C O D L -• <s 6 eLi O -Z z 6�L WZ � VRw2£ 6L tJr 1i CA N ^ i:. R \,r A A 3 O 0.N y j Z O n 3•1;q 1A9 NSr N6 SGT �R _MM ' 1_ v O �n = O. R .C.O TIS \.� 3 >• y O 3 /e. �� i rO N nb 3 iN .n �^ � -d• Y 13u -61 \ a P a sN SC ._. POA '9 � •� '� - -t -� ro 0 3 n. .6. i a m. �.,z fi ..tea .�j.> > _ ".. - N P 5 xry = C 1 i:. R A 3 O 0.N y j Z O n 3•1;q 1A9 NSr N6 SGT �R _MM n 1_ v O �n = O. Tig 3 >• y O 3 /e. �� i rO T a � •C� O N't CCU I M P S C p N F T IF O IC A • A b O °a a n d A �cA 01 S6 u � 3 1 N S' v~ 4 Iw` I I� n IQt I� n o k- ..• S `tom N r • bbd pq � pC fpa N C N r ° S P Y - '9 As - I — n ° 1= ris P. °—o. va N �C F Nb 3 ^ 2 R'. -. -i" 'oa _ OS.3 SAN N ~ r 4 n u A a ° WZ S n3 N�Np L C �^ i 5 z LL • G r rvNn A d 9 [lam O n A n^ o r ° v~ 4 Iw` I I� n IQt I� n o � ..• S `tom N r • bbd pq � pC fpa N C N r ° S P _ �N M '9 — n O va OS.3 SAN N ~ r 4 n u A a ° S -~v KI RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT NO. 12237 -2 LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF 'HERMOSA, NORTH OF HILLSIDE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 30th day of April, 1986, a complete: application was filed by Rangeview for review of the above - described project ;,;and WHEREAS, on the 28th day of Nay, 1986, the Rancho Cuicamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above - described project. follows:. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as SECTION 1: That the following can be met: 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 objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and 3. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and 4. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: That Design Review for Tract 12237 -2 1. approved subject to the following conditions. 1. That all side and rear elevations shall be upgraded with architectural detaii.3 such as plant -ons and window trim.; 2. All pertinent conditions of Resolution 83 -08 and 80'-vdA shall be met. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 1986. ,- PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AEL BY_ Dennis L .Stout, Chairman -a.� Oi j PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TT 12237 -2 May 28, 1986 Page 2 ATTEST: rad duller, Deputy Secratary r, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of ., Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of May, 1985, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; r ` NOES; COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS - f , i RESOLUTION N0. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT NO. 12237 -2 LOCAT b ON THE EAST SIDE OF HE:.MOSA, NORTH OF HILLSIDE IN The VERY k LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 30th day of April, 1986, a complete application was k` filed by Rangeview for review of the above - described project; and WHEREAS, on the 23th day of May, 1986, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above - described: project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as ` SECTION 1: That the following can be met: t 1. That the proposed project is consistent with the r objectives of the General Plan; and 2. That the proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and 3. That the proposed 6s6 is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and 4. That the proposed use, together with the conditions r applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION.: That Design Review for Tract 12237 -2 is approved subject to the following conditions. 1. That all side and rear elevations shall be upgraded with architectural details such as plant -ons and window trim. 2. All pertinent conditions of Resolution 83 -08 and 83 -08A shall be met. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 8Y• •Dennis L. tout, Chairman :,. — -- CITY OF RAI`ICHO CUCAMONCA STAFF REPORT �����7 n O .n O DATE: May 28, 1986 F z TO: Chairman and }tubers o the Planning C %omission 19Tr FROM: Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engxn,Pe. BY: Barbara Krall, Assistant' Civil Engineer SUBJECT. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME PARCEL MAP 5786 - C7L INC. - Located on the southeast corner of Baseline Road, , and Carnelian Avenue (APN 207- 031 -28) Tentative Parcel Map 5786 was initially approved by the Planning" Commission on June 13, 1984 for an initial 2 year period. The applicant is now requesting an exten-- on of time; This will be the first one -year extension of a possYble three one -year extensions. His letter of request along with the vious staff report and conditions of approval are attached for your rc.,rence. The new expiration date will be June 13, 1987; RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attache rcreeso`lution approving a one: ;ar extension for Marcel Map 5786. Respe,.`fully submitted; Barrye Hanson Senior Civil Engineer !j BH:FK:diw ITEM E '4 I C /L, INC. April 29, 1986 City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road, Suite C Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91.730 Attention: Barrye R. Hanson Ref: P.M. No. 5786 Dear Barrye We are formally requesting an extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 5786. We have been marketing the land for an offer of purchase or lease. It was our intention to provide' a custom facility for the user of this parcel. As we hwoe not formalized any transaction in reference to this site, we have not completed the requirements for recordation. Currently there are a couple of possible uses being discussed. . We hope to be in a position to make a final decision and comp- lete the map process shortly. Included you will find our check for $62. With the check and this letter in hand, vie hope you have everything you'll need to grant the extension. If you need anything further; please contact me. I Sincerely, s C BUILDERS- DEVELOPERS, INC. 4irvLid: �ALZe�raAj Director of Project Planning DAC /dam Enclosures: Check No. 1332 Copy of letter dated April 21, 1986 BUILDERS - DEVELOPERS ., 521 No-Mountain Ave., Suite A • Upland, California 91786 • Telephone 1714) 981 -1041 -- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA uv0AX 9 STAFF REPORT o: s �a F Z. DATE: June 13, 1984 U a 1977 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, l,ity Engineer BY: Barbara Krall,,'7ngineering Technician SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 5786- CROW:LL BROTHERS - A ivision of 1.249 acres of land into f parcels in the Office Professional District, located at the southeast corner of Base Line and Carnelian Street - APN 207 - 031 -28 I I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: ' A. Action Requested: Approval of Parcel Map. B. Purpose: To divide 7.249 acres of land into 2 parcels in order to aci itate separate building ownerships. C. Location: The southeast corner of Base Line and Carnelian Street. D. Parcel Size: Parce 1 -.661 Parcel 2 5.588 j -47 acres E. Existing Zoning: Office Professional District. I r F. Existing Land Use: Parcel 1 - vacant Parcel 2 - Business Center (Exchange Building) G. Surrounding Land Use: oe - Commercial Center .South - Existing Single Family Homes -- , East - Flood Control Area and City Park West - Commercial Center P • H. Surrounding General Plan and Development Code Designations: North - Neighborhood Commercian NC South - Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac) East - Open Space (OS) t West - Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Site Characteristics: Parcel 1 of this site is vacant. Parcel 2 is the ry+ site of the existing Exchange Building. PLANNING �JMMISSION STArw REPORT - Environmental Assessment dnd Parcel Map 5786 June 13,1984 Page 2 I" II. ANALYSIS: Crowell Brothers, owners of this sine, have submitted this parcel map to divide the property to facilitate separate biii ping ownerships. Parcel 1, which it vacant at this tine, may be the site for a future restaurant. Parcel 2, containing the Exchange Building, is fully developed. Plans for the development of Parcel 1 will be submitted to Planning Commission for approval prior: to building permit issuance. Easements for reciprocal ingress., egress and parking will be r.uquired prior to the recordation of the map. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Also a,.."ached for"your review and consideration is Part I of the Initial Study as completed by- the,applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study, the environmental checklist, and has conducted a field investigation. Upon completion and review of the Initial Study and field investigation, Staff found no adverse impacts on the environment as a result of the proposed subdivision; IV. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Heari6�1-;�e been sent to surrouhti,.Ag property owners and placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. Posting at the site has also been completed.. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is ecommended that the Planning Commission consider all,inout an elements of the project. If, after such consideration, � the'Cormnissi0n- can support the recommended conditions of approval as written in the City Engineer's Report, then adoption of the attached resolution would be appropriate. It is also recommended that a Negative Declaration be issued. Respectfully submitt d, L H: :jaa Attachments: Map Tentative & Vicinity Resolution City Engineer's Report Initial Study S.{ �g 4, V • TENTATIVE P,ARCE-L MAP NO. 5786 KIM IIATE C—r (A.NOt A PARr % d4 r y T PC", L MB ASZ LEL 2 PA . al a SLRV.IVM•S Wis • cy V 1471 CITY OF RANCHO CUCA1.IONGA title; ~~ P RCEi ENGINEERING DIVISION VICINITY MAP 13 Al RESOLUTION NO. 84 -50 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 5786 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 5786) LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE AND CARNELIAN STREET WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 5786, submitted by Crowell Brothers and consisting of 2 parcels, located at the southeast corner of Base Line end Carnelian Street being a division of Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 4869, as recorded in Parcel Map Book 49, Pages 46 and 47, records of San Bernardino County, State of California; and WHEREAS, 'on May 4, 1984, a formal appl`;cation was submitted requesting review of t!ie above - described Tentative Map; and WHF.REAS, on June 1.3, 1984, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above- described map, FOLLOWS: NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS SECTION is That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. ` 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent .-,h the General Plan. °. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. •4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on June 13,_,1984. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 5786 is approved subject to the recommended Coneitions of Approval pertaining thereto, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 1984. PLAN NG OMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stou , C airman ATTEST:" Ri mez, epu`iy Secritary jti . Resolution No. �^ Page 2 I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of June, 1984, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, McNIEL, BARKER, STOUT NOES: C('NMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE 13 r rM L CITY OF RPt #CHO CUCAMONGA RECOMMENCED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. LOCATION: Southeast corner of Base Line TENTATIVE PARCEL:MAP NO: 5786 and Carnelian Street DATE FILED: May 4, 1984 LEGAI. DESCRIPTIONS Parcel ?'of Parcel Map NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 4869, as recorded in Parcel Map 49, Pages GROSS ACREAGE: 7,249 46 °� :�r, records of San Bernardino CountY. ASSESSOR PARCEL NO: 207 - 031 -28 _ r Late ,F Cat ornia k DEVELOPER OWNER ENGINEER /SURVEYOR Crowell Brothers same Associated Engineers 521 N. Mountain Ave. 316 East "El Street M' —A Upland, Ch ,9178_ 6 _ Ontario, CA 91764 Improvement and dedication requirement;; in accordance with Title 16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucamongc incl0e, but may not be limited to, the following: Dedications and Vehicular Access 1. Dedications shall be made of all interior street rights-of-way- and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights -of -way on the following streets: additional feet on additional feet on additional feet on _ 3. Corner property line radius will be required pe- City Standards. 4. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated as follows: X 5. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all common roads, drives or parking areas shall be prov4ded by C.C. &R.s and shall be recorded concurrent with the map. -1- t At - a X 6. All existing easements lying within future ri9";t -of -way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the map per City Engineer's requirements. 7. Easements for sidewalk for public use sha'1 be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. Surety 1. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Cit" Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public improver .> s prior to recording for and /or prior to building permit issuance for X 2. A lien agreement must be executed prior to recording of the map for Base Line Road. See condit'in #11 on Page 5._ 3. Surety shall be posted and a .greement executed, I guaranteeing completion of all on -site drainage facilites necessary for d�watering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Divison prior to recording for - and /or prior to issuance of building permit for Street Improvements Pursuant to the City of Rance Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 16, Section 16.36.120, the subdivider may r,Y.ter into an agreement and [post security with the City guaranteeing thr -- quirad construction prior to recordation of the map and /or building permit it Plce. I. Construct full street improvement,: including, but not limited }o, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, irive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all'interior streets. 2. A minimum of 25 -foot wide pavement within a 40 -foot wide dedicated right -of -way shall be constructed for all half - section streets. 3. Construct the following missing improvements: Prior to recordation for Prior to building permit Issuance for Street Name Gutter Pvmt. Walk Appre Trees Lights Overlay Island* Other *Inclurfac 1anr9er• 4n ..d -2- Ic 4. Prior to any work being performed in the public right -of -way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits required. 5. Street improvement plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approipd by the City Engineer _prior to issuance of an encroachment permit. 6. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation" of any power poles or other existing p" lic utilities as necessary. 7. Existing lines of 12KV or less fronting the property shall be undergrounded B. Install appropriate street name signs, traffic control signs, striping and markings with locations an,,l types approved by the City Engineer. 9. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the So;:thern California Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Lights shall be on decorative poles wiih underground service. 10. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and approval by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permit. 11. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Undersidewalk drains shall be installed to City �iandards. Drainage and Floor( Control 1. Private drainage easements for cross -lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. 2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 3. The following storm drain shall be installed -V: the sat4Sfaction of the City Epgineer 4. Prior to recordation of thF map, a hydroltigz and drainage study for the project shall ue submitted to the City Engineer for review. 5. A drainage detentia9 basin per City Standards shall be constructed to detain increased runoff f> -3- w � Grading x Grading of the subject ` h� ' -' '' ------ ^` Building 'Code, ndaccepted �Vnifnrm � grading practtces. The final grading plan shall he��N� substantial �mmm�� w1� t� ���� um��u� ��i�' plan' � X__. 2. A soils report shall by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work prior � to issuance of building permit. l A geological prepared by ,a qualified engineer or geologist and """°^"ed at the time of application or grading plan check. 4. The final grading plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Grading Committee and shall be completed prior to recordation of the final subdivision map or issuance of building permit whichever comes first. _li_ 5. Final grading l for each parcel are to —--' tteu to the Building and Safety Division approval pr°nr to issuance of building permit~ � � General Requirements and Approvals x l, Permits from other agencies will he required as follows: - CalTrans for X Cucamonga County Water District for sewer and water """ "=n.u,u/np County Dust Abatement (required prior to issuance of a grading permit) Other ' 2 . Aco °/ of the Covenants, und" i ons and � (C ~ C ^ &R ^ s) approv*d by the City Attorney is required prior to recordation uf the map. 3. Provide all utility servicLis to Pnch lot including sewerage, . water, electric powwr, gas and telephone. ` J 4. Sanitary and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga ' County Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. Easements to C.C'N.o. are required for sewer and � water, 5. This subdivision shall �e subject to conditions of approval from :alTrans/San Bernardino County Flood Control District. 8 6. ^' ` ApDrovals have not been secured from ul] - tili i ~ =~ "==' interested agencies involved. vnrnva] of final `�^~ ~ nn/ m«p'w�ll be subject to any requirem�n that maybe received' ecej -4- .. ' ` ~= — X 7. The filing of the tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time building permits are requested. When building permits are ,requested, the Cucamonga County Water District will' be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will not be issued unless said certification is received in writing. 8. Local and Master Planned Trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing and weed control, in accordance with City trail standards, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior- to recordation for and /or prior to building permit issuance or 9. Prior to recording, a deposit shall_, be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of ap�,'tioni,rg the assessments under Assessment District 82 -1 among the newly created parcels. X_ 10. At the time of final map submittal, the following shall be submitted: Title Report, traverse calculations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and/or showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. X 3.1. The condition requiring a lien agreement for future construction of a median island on Base Line may be waived pending resolution by the City Council of the median island policy. X 12. Access easements through the drive or parking areas designated by "Not A Part's on the map shall be provided by the f.C. &Rs. '.. X 13. Prior to recording, a six foot masonry wall shall be required `• along the property line between Parcel 2 and property to the south. The wall shall be compatable in appearance with the existing office building and residences. The landscaping on the south perimeter of Parcel 2 shall be augmented to provide a significant increase acceptable to the City Planner. X 14. Prior to recording, a six foot fence shall be provided from the southeast corner of Parcel 2 a sufficient distance to the north to discourage access to residential property to the south. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA i LLOYD 13. USBS, CITY ENGINEER by; �A. Fryer, X 7. The filing, of the tentative map or approval' of same does not guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will be available at Y the time building permits are requested. When building permits are requested, the Cucamonga - County Water District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity.. Permits will not be issued unless said certification is received in writing. 8. Local and Master Planned Trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, physical conuitions, fencing and, weed control, in accordance with City trail standards, shall be submitted to and approved,., by the City Planner prior to recordation for and /or prior to building permit issuance for B. Prior to recording, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District 82 -1 among the newly created parse, ;. X 10, At the time ,of final map submittal, the following shall be , submitted: = Title Repnrt, traverse calculations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and deeds used "as reference and /or showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. X 11. The condition requiring a lien agreement for future ,y. construction of a median island on Base Line may be waived pending resolution by the City Council of the median island policy.. X 12. Access easements through the drive or parking areas designated by "Not A Part" on the map shall be provided, by the C.C. &Rs. X 13. Prior tcrecording, a six foot- ma!;onry wall shall be required along the property line bei:ween Parcel 2 and property to the south. The wall shall be computable in appearance with the existing office building and residences. - The landscaping on the south primeter of Parcel 2 shall be augmented to provide a I significant increase acceptable to the City Planner. X 14. Prior to recording, a six foot fence shall be provided from the southeast corner of Parcel 2 a sufficient distance to the north - to discourage access to residential property to the south. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B. UBBS, CITIt ENGINEER 1by: %�N J", L} ,#._ 210 ' .m.. ;[N\ - . � v`ig'�Y s RRESOLUTION N0. F A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION, APPROVING THE TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 5786 WHEREAS, a request has been filed for a t-;-,e extension 1�or the above - described project, pursuant to Section 1..501.P.2 of Ordinance 23 -B, the Subdivision Ordinance; ana WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the above- described tentative parcel map on [ SECTION 1: The "Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made thy: following findings: r A. That current economic, marketing, and inventory conditions make it unreasonable to build at this time. B. That strict enforcement of the cond, tions of approval regarding expirations would not tz consistent with E the intent of the Development Code. C. That there has been no significant changes to the character of the area in which the project is located that would cause the project to become conforming or inconsistent with current standards. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby grants a time extension for Parcel Mao Applicant _Ex it -atlon 5786 , Inc. unJ Y 13, 1981 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY 1986: PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman Y ATTEST - �' Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary UA A , Resolution No, Pane 2 I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning cmmission of the City y of .Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that. the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed,_ and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of May, 1986 by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: s_ Sy CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, �vc�nro STAFF REPORT ���J � r n oI z U ? DATE: May 26, 1986 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Comraission FRO14: Brad Buller, City Planner BY:. Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner SUBJECT• ENVIRONMENTAL ASPESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. 86 -08 SAMPSON - fie reeve opmen of wo industrial bur ings anaTing 17,$24 ;square feet on 1 acre of land in the Genc_al Industrial District (Subarea 4), located at the northwest corner of, Cottage and Acacia Streets - APN: 209 - 192 -19 & 20. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested Approval of a Negative Declaration. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Single- family residence, General Industrial (Subarea 4) Y South - Vacant, General Industrial (Subarea 4) East - Manufacturing, General Industrial /Rail Served (Subarea BY West - Single -famil residential, General Industrial (Subarea 4) C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - General Industrial North General Industrial South - General Industrial East - General Industrial /Rail Served West - General Industrial D. Site - Characteristics: The project site consists of two a7ajacent vacant corner parcels surrounded by non- conforming residential uses to the north and west. In addition, an alley abuts..the west property line which provides rear access to the garages of the westerly residences. 111 ITEM F X PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 28, 1986 DR 86 -08 - Sampson Page 2 II. ANALYSIS° A. General: The proposed - roject is a small two phase mirror Tmag s to plan, which li.':its access to Pottage Avenue. The proposed use of the project is a small ;multi- tenant manufacturing use. Th4 site plan and architecture meets the minimum development standards and intent of the Industrial Specific Plan and Development Code, B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee recommen a at- 1. All free standing walls should be constructed of tilt -up concrete to match the proFoied building architecture; and 2. The screen walla at the entrance to the project should be scored a:} match the building architecture; and 3. The rain spouts should be removed from the exterior building elevations and re- routed inside the building walls, The Committee's final recommendation is approval of the project per the above recommendation, Should the Commission issue a Negative Declaration, the City Planner will approve the project with conditions. C. Technical RWiw Committee: The Technical Review Committee has ' reviewed the project , anB aetermined that with the recommended Conditions of Approval, the project is consistent with the applicable Standards and Ordinances. Engineering Note: There �! are no overhead utility lines fronting on Acacia Street or Cottage Avenue. However, overhead utility lines do exist within the alley right -of -way along the 'west side of-the project. These lines serve the single family residences ti west. Due to the difficulties associated with undergrouna, lines and poles that contain several individual services 1.__. i other users, Staff recommends that the developer pay an in-lieu- fee e:laivalent to one -half the cost of future undergrounding. D. Environmental Assessment: Upon review and completion of Part I and Part a t e nitial Study, Staff has found no significant adverse environmental impacts related to the development of the proposed project. i PLANNING ','OMMISSION STAFF REPORT ' May. -'.8, 1 �, =' " " DR.A -08 - '�ampson Pale 3 i; 3. - -_ 4e III. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission issue as sgative Declaration for the project. Res ectfullyf ted C Brad Buller City Planner DB :DP•das 4' Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization V:ip f.{. Exhibit "B" - Site Plan _ Exhibit "G" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "D" - Elevation Plans Initial Study Part II � ;i 1� � V i �Q ti MN - �I ❑O r. Q � III _► �1TI"_ y i F a s I •I g o I j eft Y� t I. ajj- :��� �- vim_ � � � j �♦ - �. � l7211S MLIIl9 { jI u, v' HE s ' r X: }D U, I ' o A G j ill U .� i 1 �y 1� a (pCC I a �Y L 1 i v � h fl• 40 A 01A-- ��IA6,ff j .a �J W n � G 1 9v) M-3�� H � - Qom. V O' �Q d U Z H -y z; `u Z 4 x �s* '11 e a _ PEI e • F -8 a N � m � 0 CITY OF -RA"CHO CUCAMONGA PART 11 — 1NITIAL STUD1, ENVIR0,1rgE*4T-'L CHECKLIST AI -77 (-Mlalz, - DATE: 'IT - -kP?LICAN-r: 'FILING DX. rN OG NIMMR. PROJECT: ek, ",fug 1 >P:OjECT LC %-7 )CAT7")N- 1 MI-10 —N`M � T�l � �A US (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers ire req�Lred on attached sheets). YES KUM NO S 0 *�k--�M —12e-0 10 Z1- Will the proposal ;Tia�-ticant results In: a. UPstable ground conditior�., or in changes In geologiz rel-arion,.hips? b. -Disruptions,, displacements, Compaction or butial of, -��ke soil? Change �,� "Pagrar�-:i nr ground surface Contcur interv;�-7--, d. destruction. Cove"jn� --r =dification' -f 'MY unique geologic o; Physical features? e- Any Paten' A lecrease in wind or water erosion 7.f soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? Cranges In erosion siltarfaTt, or dePos,tion? 'f PLO-,Ie or property to geologic -13*earthquakes, landslides, mud- 'failure, or*similar hazards2 h. An 41e rate of extraction and/or Use of any mineral resource? jbIE-0-10-21. Will �be Propose' I �bave significant resulv: in: Ct `Page 2 YES 3L4YBE ti8 a. Granges in currents, or the course of direction Of flowing streams, rivers, or r` channels? ephemeral stream ` b. Changes. iu absorption rates, drainage 'f patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? water C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount o' surfLco watE, in any body of wader? 7 (I e. Discharge into surface waters, or any IJ alteration f of surface water quality? f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g. Change in the quantity of @.roundwateTS, either through direct a„ditions or 1.ith- drac.als, or through interference with aquifer? any, Duality? Quantity? h. The reduction in the e amount of water ot::Pr= wise available for / public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water rebated hazards such 1// as £loodinv or seiches? 3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have siguific.:ut results in: ti a. Constant or periodic air. P-missions from mobile or indirect , scurces? Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? ! =• AltE °ation of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air -- t/ movement, moisture or temperature? / 4 4. Biota Y/ Fi:` ** -_a• Will the proposal have significant results in. a• Change in the cha-acteristiL -s of species, Including diversity, distr?bution, or number of any species of plants? b. Reduction of tie numbers of any unique, tarp or endangered speeaas of plantg?� �t Q C ?age 3 11 C. An Impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non - consumptive recreational opportunities? i` YES MAYBE 'i0 c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area? V d. Reduction '.tn the potential for agricultural _ production? Fauna. Will the proposal -have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any ;pecies of animals? b._ Reduction of the ziumbers of any unique, rare or endangered s•,ecies of animals? C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migratijn or movement of animals? / / d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlire habitat? 5. Pooulat3on. Will the proposal have sign3fi ant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the loc4tion, d:tri- bution, density, diversity, -t growth rate of the human copulation of an area? v � b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? / 6. Socio- Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significa�.t results in: a. iliange ±r local w. regional socio- economic characteristics, including economic or tomxerctal diversity, tax rate, and property values? b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and Plannine Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? a. A subsrintial alteration of the present or plannei land use of in area? b: A conflict with ary designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of, any gr'ternsental I entities? v __. C. An Impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non - consumptive recreational opportunities? i` Page 4 a 8. Transportat3in. Will the YES MMt NO proposal have significant results inn s. Generation of substantial additional vehicular cular / b. Fffects on existing streets, sir demand for ✓ neu street construction? - / C' Effects on existing parking fhcilit_es, or demand for ,/ new parking? 2 d. Substantial impact upon exist�mg transporta- tion tion systems; / e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and /or goods? f. Alterations to or effects on present and Potential t!ater- borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? S• Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in; % A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, /or J and historical resources? 10. Health, Safety and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? / b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards ?' J c. A risk of explos,,�n or release of hazardous / substances in the event of an acc$,! - --, d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? " f. Exposure of people to Potentially dangerous noise levels? 3� y / g. The creation of objectionable odors'i t h. Ar, increase in light cr glare? Page 5 YES XAYBZ NO 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. The obsc3oactiou or degradation of any scenic vista cr view? b. The creation of au aesthetically offensive site? c. A conflict with the objective o° designated or potential scenic corridors? L 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the Proposal _ have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Elect;!ic p,.)wer? ✓J b. Natural or packaged gas? s �! e. E ^mmunicattons s,,•s,Cems? d. Water supply? -- e. Wastewater facilities? J f_ Flood control str±=__tures? e_ ;g. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire prc.:ection? _ i. Police protection? J. Schools? !t !� k. Parks or other recreational facilities? 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? a. Other gooernmental services? I , s 13. Enerey and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in:' a. Use of substantial or excessive fwtel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon a.,isting sources of inergy? - c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? 5 d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non- renewable forts of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? the above questions plus a discussion of proposed. mitigation affirmative es) o o" .. .. ...4 .:. fit. .. .: it +�.•.. ... _ 6`#..�_ Page 6 YES N NO ' e e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce'pa;;ural resource? R, 14. Maadar a. Does the project have the potantial to degrade the quality of the e environment, substantia'Iy reduce the habitat of fish or wildilfe sp?cies, cause t fish or wildlife population to drop below self s c e sustaining levels, threaten to or animal community, reduce the number _or restrict -the range of a r rare or " important examples of the major periods of Califurnia history or prehistory?, b- .:Does the project have the Potential to achieve tahort- term., t to the disadvantage of long - tern, environmental goals? (A s short -term impact on-the invirOM -ent is ona wni.ch occurs r''a relatively t.rtef, definitive period of time while long- =°zu icap:ao^- ,'will endure well into t the future)., c- Does the project have imparts,which'Are " c individually, limited, but cumuldtvrly considerabl ^? (Cumulatit °ely considerable means that the incremental nffetts of an Ind ividual project are emnsidarable when viewed in c connection with the effects of past.projects, and probable future p projects). d. Does the project bane environmental effects which will cause sub:F,,antidk adverse effects f on human beings, either directly or in(faectly? fk ZI, DISCUSSION OF ENPIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Pagr. 7 III. DETEMMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluations I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE bkCLaRATION will be prepared. ` l- I find that although the prr,posed project could have a significant Li effect on the environment, there will be not a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed 'Project MAY have significant effect on thy, envirnmeim, and an WT IMP REgORT .ENVIRO` CT is re ed. Date G' ►�6 ('off! , f fr?�J x S�qg� c e gA LG7r 6G' n Tiele I E �t a xa r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM p Q E Z V > 177 j DATE: May 28, 1986 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FkOM: Brad Bulver, City Planner BY: Scott Murphy, Assistant Pianner SUBJECT: !MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86 -05 CALIFORNIA FINISHED METALS On May 14, 1986, the Planning Commission reviewed Minor Development Review 86 -05 as appealed by California Finist ` Metals. The appeal by California Finished Metals related to a Condi W;a of Approval requiring a - our foot high screen wall along 7th Street to visually screen the existi►ig - outdoor storage. At that meetitg, the Planning Commission received all input on the project and determined that the oleander bushes were adequate for screening pruposfj. RECOMMENDATIONS: Attached for your reIviewA s the Resolution of Approval for Minor Development Review 86 -05 with ;:he Conditions as regLtired 5y the Planning Commission. Resnectfully'vi fitted, BRAD BULLER City Planner BB:S~4:das Attachneents: Resol lrti on of Approval Y r RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 86 -05 LOCATED AT 9133 CENTER STREET IN THE GENERAL INDU' RIALIRAIL SERVED DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 18th day of March, 1986, a complete application was filed by California Finished Metals for review of the above- described project; and k WHEREAS, on the 14th day of May, 1986, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above - described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following can be met: 1. That the proposed project is consistent with the cbjectives of the Gene;.al Plan; and 2. That the proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Industrial Specific Plan and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and 3. Thdt the proposed use is in compliance with each of the'app;icable provisions of the 17.t;:tstrial Specific Plan; and 4. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not he detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or, improvements in the vicinity; and 5. Adequate screening of outdoor storage is provided i� through existing landscaping. t SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and is categorically exempt in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. E SECTION 3 That Minor Development Review No. 86 -05 is approved subject to-tFe-7-617owing conditions: ' PLANNING DIVISION 1. Street trees, a minimum of 15 gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City standard and shall be planted 20' on center along 7th Street,. n PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION May 28, 1986 MIR 86 -05 Page 2 2. Approval ShaFi ,ixpire, unless extended by the City Planner, if hNiidiag permits for the roof canopy are not issuad ! -lithin twenty -four (24) months of the date of approval. 3. Approval of this request shall not -waive compliance with all sectio;;!3 of the Industrial Specific Plan, Development Code, and all other applicable Standards and City Ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 4. The landscapini.7 along 7th Street shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition. In particular, the oleander shrubs shall be trained to grow into a dense hedgerow to screen outdoor storage. BUILDING DIVISION 1. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permit- from the Building & Safety Division for the metal roof canopy. 2. The applicatit small comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Cade, Uniform Mecnanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Na':ional Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of 'relative permits. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF 0NCH0 CUCAMONGA BY: ennis airman ATTEST: Brad Buller, epo y secretary I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Punning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resol,ition was duly and regui, 1y introduced, passed, and adopted by the Plannbq Coffwssion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regul.r meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of May, 1986, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: CO�IISSIONERS: �_ � L?. ri 6 U CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMO1r sA Cx_3CAA4 STAFF REPORT IL 0 y F U DATE: May 28, 1986 1977 TO: Chairman and Oembers of the;Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buile,,, City Planner BY: Bruce Cook. Associate Planner SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF ;APPROVAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND idubti - WILLIAM -LYON COMPANY- =_ TENTATIVE 'KA" I residential tract subdivision O , j_'acre_S-1_nTG_7M lots I. BACKUROUND At the Planning Commission meeting of May 14, 1986, the ommi� ssion gave conceptual approval to the decision of Tentative Tract 13058, and directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval for adoption. II. RECOMMEADATION: Staff recommends that the Planning COMIssion approve entat ve Tract No. 13058,, subject to the Conditions of Approval, through adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Aespectful,ly submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:BC :cv Attachments: Initial Study, Part II Resolution of Approval with Conditions ] 1�, i� ITEM H CITY OF RANCHO CUCA`1ONGA FART II - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECI.'i.IST IM DATE•_r`'ii4�( G�,l -fin APPLIC: %T: r1r� 6.a1Lt -LAM - °`L ©nl FILING DATE: PROJECT: C�ars�cs�l�yAt, ,$t��VLSt�..l er 2�i,��a'fe O PROJECT LOCATION:. wls I. ENVIRON'% NTAL IMPACT!; (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are :required on attached sheets). I. Soils and Geolo=v. 'Will the propot.il have significant re91alts "in: a. Unstable ground condition: or in changes in geologic relationships? b. -Disruptions,. displacements, compaction or burial of the so=?.? c. _Change in topography or ground surface ccntnur intervals? d. The - estruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical, features? e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting w—ter on or off site ccriitons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, o,: deposition? g• Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthqua''.es, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or` similar hazards? h. An increase in the rate of extraction and /or use OfAny mineral re ource? 2. 'dAESIOM- Will the proposal hors gigni£icant 'results in: YES MAYBE NO 7 Page 2 YES ^GYBE 10 a. - hanges in curseif" , or the course of direction Of flowing streams, rivers, or elheseral stream channels? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ware=atEerns, p .�. c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in body of water£ any e. Discharge into surface waters, or any slteratiaa of surface water quality? i— I f. Alteration of groundwater characteristic s? '. g. Change in the quantity of grourlswaters, either through direct additic:;.; or with - drawals, or through interference with aquifer? ac. Quality? Quantity? 7Z h. The reduction iii the amount of water other - wise available for public water swnlies? i. Exposure of petcle . ' property to wa;: ?r t related hazards suc; at anoding or a_iches? 3. Air_Quality. Will the proposal beve significant _ results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? r Stationary sources? Deterioration of ambient air ccality and /or Interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standgrds? �. Alteration of local or regional climati•. F� conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temp_rature? 4. Biota FIora. Will sine proposal have significant results xca i a. Change in the characteristics of specier) Including diversity, distribution, or imumber of any 4pecies of plants? , b, Reductiou of the numbers of any unique. rare or tsdangert -d species of plants ?�� 'age 3 YES "LA.YBE VO- c.. Introduction of new or fl- sruptive spec; --s of AWL planes into an area? o. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? Fauna. Will the proposal'have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of ap.mgls? r +� C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or ^,ovement of animals? d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 5. PODuiation. Will the proposal have s;<nifir_ant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, dtstri- hution, density, diversity, or g, -r.ath x.are of the human population of an area? b. Will the proposal affect existinZ housing, or create a demand for additional hcu&ing? b. Socio- Economic Factors. Will the proposal have = tgnixic nt results a. Change in local or regional socio- economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, taz rate, and property values? b. Will proje -t costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and Plannine Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? i I. a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? f� bm A conflict with any designazians, objectives, policies, Or adopted plans of any governmental, entities? C. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non - consumptive :. recreational Ipportunities? „�` S organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people tr potentially dangerous noise levels? 9. The creation of objectionable odors? hL An increase in light or glare: Page 4 YES ?L4Y3E No Transoartation. Will the proposai have sigaificasit results in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? -. b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street c ')nstruction? e c. Effects on existing Y�arking facilities, or demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? e. Alterations to present Patterns circula- � tion or movement of people and/or goods? f. Alterations to or effects on present and potential. water- bor-Ze, rail, mass transit or air trafr'ic? Z. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, N bicyclists or pedestrians? 9. Cultural Resources. 'gill the proposal have significant ' results in: a. A disturban(te to the integrity of archaeological, paleontologi:al, and/or historical resources? 10. Health, Safety. and Nuisance Factors. Will the Proposal -.lave significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people tr potentially dangerous noise levels? 9. The creation of objectionable odors? hL An increase in light or glare: 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? b. The creation of an .aesthetically offensive site? c. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Public cervices. Will the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Flectric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? c. Communications systems? d. Water supply? e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control structures? g. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? I- Police protection? J. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? 1• Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? m. Other govern, -- ntal services? 13. Enereir 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? Page 5 I YES XAYBE No 7� .Z e 7" x C. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption /. of non - renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of enneer97are available? ..�.. J2 Page 6 YES MAYBE NO e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural resource ?, 14. Mandatory Findings of Si �ificance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate n,nlant or animal community, reduce the number or restricz the range of 3 rare.Or endangered plant or animal or eliminate importrnt exav-,1es of the major periods of California history tr prehistory? b. K� Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A snort -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively . brief, detiritive period if time while long- term impars_will endure well into the future), r c. Does the Project have 3mracts which are individually l.:- .sited, but cumulatively consirttzab.7e? (Cumulatively considerable . means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, and probable future projects). 4 d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects I on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ZI. DISCUSSION OF EMRONM£NTAL P.VALUk —ON (i.e•, of affirmative the above answers to ! quiestions plus a discessxon of proposed mitigation measures). 7FA Q6ID4 -t%4w Q��rk -16tsa �er�►5�s.�rlZ-�'�(s �t,� '�a-t�rl,ccA:. �.i���i�1�a'�' c �. Caws 1..11Tr1 P►RWAL. oTC 'Ti-X��tl i`yi6'l * tai Oki Page 7 III. DET ?.i1l:;n ?IG:I On the basis cf this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect I XI cn the environment, and a NEGAT1VG DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION NILI. BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the envirnment, and an £NVIROM ENT IMPACT PrPORT is required. Date_,�Y Sa ature Tate ti { ;: a+i A RESOLUTION N0. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RAN ^HO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13058 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map loo. 13058 hereinaftEr "Map" submitted by The William Lyon Company, applicant, Yor the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as 28.51 acres within the Victoria Planned Community (Med'ium Residential, 4 -14 dwelling units per acre), locate3 on the west side of Victoria Groves Loop Road, south of HighlanO Avenue (APN: 202 - 211 -13, 38; into 201 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on May 28, 1986; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions -set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's reports; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Division's reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, tPD Planning Commission of the City of Rancno Aft Cucamonga does resolve as fdTlows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract;�No. 13058 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentativ•, tract it consistent with the General Plan, Development Cade, and specific plans; (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION Page 2 (gi That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 13058, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: Planning Division Prior to recordation of Tract 13058, all Conditions of Approval applicable to and imposed upon Tentative Tract 13022 shall be complied with Including, but not limited to, completion of off -site improvements. Additionally, the greenbelt trail areas, as well as Groves Park improvements, shall be completed prior to the occupancy of the first unit within this tract. 2. Prior to recordation of ,Tract 13058, the final map for Tract 13022 shall be recorded. 3. The greenbelt trail area located dlong the southerly boundary shall be indicated on the final map as Lots A of Tract 13058. 4. This map is being approved as a Tract Subdivision only. Any future proposals for the development of •five or more revidential units shall require Design Review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits for any units. 5. Landscape treatm9nts at the end of side -on cul-de- sacs shall be'd.= signed to provide an open view into the interior of the cul -de -sac. Design treatment shall include the use of decorative wrought iron fencing and sidewalk connections from the sidewalk to the perimeter street. 6. Five -foot high decor tive fen ' I. .`. �S2S a`fil � uc iequ7f=eu' along street side lot lines for all lots that either side -on or rear -on to Victoria Groves Loop Road. In rear -on conditions, wails will be of masonry block construction. In situations where street grade is below pad grade resulting in a sloped parkway, fence fines are to be coincident with the top of slope. Landscape maintenance easements will be required , where fences encroach onto private lots and are to be dedicated on the Final Map. Final platting of t all fences and locations of all easements are to be determined prior to recordation of the Final Map. i� LA ri PLANNING COMMISSION_ RESOLUTION Page 3 7. Any retaining walls used, other than those at the tract perimeter adjacent to the Deer Creek Channel, are to be a maximum of 4 foot high. A six foot high masonry screen wall shall be provided along the westerly tract boundary adjacent to the Deer Creek Channel. 8. All retaining walls visible to the general public, i.e., on the streetside of corner side yards and within the front yard, are to be constructed of a decoratve material to the satisfaction of the City Plannei -. 9. All back of lot grade differentials are to be a maximum of 121. 10. At the time of grading, all slopes 5' or greater and of 5:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped of a temporary nature natural shrubs /grasses for the purpose of erosion control. At the time of unit development, all slopes shall be landscaped in conformance with City S'.andards for slope planting. Engineering Division 1. Victoria Groves Loop Road shall be constructed full width to Highland Avenue with. the first phase of development. Sidewalks and parkway landscaping may be deffered until adjacent parcels are developed. 2. The entire width of Victoria ,P1rk Lane shall be constructed from the Loop Road. o Milliken Avenue with the first phase of development. 3. Milliken Avenue shall be constructed as follows with the first phase of development: A. Portion from Victoria Park Lane to Southern Pacific Railroad: l) Full improvements for west roadbed, (2) Full median with only one opening at the Loop Road, and (3) A minimum 18' wide pavement for the east roadbed: B. Portion from Southern Pacific Railroad to Base Line Road: m A PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION Page 4 (1) Full median, (2) A minimum 18' Wide pavement on both sides of the median, (3) Drainage control devices such as paved ditches, AC berms or curbs shall be installed as approved by the City Engineer. C. Railroad Crossing: (1) Construct fu 11 improvements for both roadbeds including medians (except for parkway sidewalks and landscaping) for at least 200' or both sides,of the railroad. (2) The developer shall coordinate wit she City to have 'the r,01road cro,sing :, gnat and arms installed prior to occupancy to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. D. The cost of the permanent improvements in excess of the sta °idard or,,e half street improvements adjacent' to the tract boundary shall be subject to =4!rbursement from the City for the adjarznt property owners upon development of their property. 4. Storm drain easements as required for cross lot drainage shall be dedicated on the Final Map, 5. The storm drain master plan for the area shall be completed and approved prior to recordation of the Final Map. 6.. Construct sufficient storm drain facilities to serve each phase of development as required by the City Engineer. TI facilities shall be designed to contain Q100 within the street or easement right -of -way. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: . hDennis L. Stout, Chairman . ATTEST: Braa Buller, Deputy Secretary PLANNING COMMIS;-�ION RESOLUTION Page 5 I, Brad. Buller,_ DE',puty Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, d,'1 hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introducek4, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cuc*.bnga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission field on the 28th day cf N.ay, 1986, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 90 =.- LSU "M U. -k 4J ;.bog ag -Qj A, ZZ. IsE LNLV 8-3 x Aw A .5 C4 u 1; ne Xw S., ze Z: t 2; 15 1! ZI✓ Of U V V 0 Z 41 U n d 5Z, a ye °u� o ^ E Y N C O o.LnLo u° Y� ^ YG oN - °N .A O L ° Y Y C c= «p .�N ie A 57 qY a a ' «A tiT � L s =o T 6`� O A L y°o u w J y N w— C � 026 y A C Na' Qo .c. c cA _ yr N^ G N• e e vu c.i u M V 7 Y s v� eOl . L� oO A MST q d LYn°, +aN °c na N y r i c e�NE .. eN u0 ^qY 6 B 6v , N' rr- ,w L L n Y^ Ar u X v� i � A eec w` L Y Y Y � Y q Y °cam^ c o.•.. o.i � aLi^ j T i y� o L E w. �Y C�pYE • u`.•. E. p aG�l A ° yYjC �M E uY «O N Y pw � O�• Y L.6 S L O�v Arn L A l N«L4 °M o >oJ: o.. O�i.Ny> pM.0 6Li T'.0 a. g3ju eL �_ LL C w E y N � r. pO E'« yew = N C Y• E a.w OC s n c NG> C A FN.p�u tC. A °T''• --a pw90w°• O YL94. aA, .y V. 4CC=� qOY AO Y4 Z—. `.YNT�,� VL 4� N ,• �.� Aa9 Y,•C•NX 3�L c _ 9C VM M° c YN~ • e � S N i Y' u> °o yNL•° Lr w °cNtl+ -' Ce ^u'.°.'c^ �M Lwc n C no �.et ^ gppp L P Cam N LXXwYU 0 Iz p 4 V,NMYr�a ^ u ^ WC ^2 �C .-. •� lLw2C ®® q A L' N6.p uy pl �°oqu A d � T qt^ iO •, N ri�a�N ° Y N � � «a ua�o " ° Y Niyu Nub O � M Y Nr A, C C L Y � U yNY•,Y° use dL ° Y ° N w Ygq�V 0 L�ya C ►•r MG a4! . Y� � A N � p rpY ye � Nco '• o c E..- uyq.°g aa8 .y.aYc e � M r-fr 01Y �oo^ uL� C O u A OeYY°f °,w Y L� F w o � r u � a « y � C O u� o� �c euZ^sa o' wu� s9 ub.. LgLL AL aYy E A O C M C C O • � •° Y C N A,q yu a� -wo o°cA w q�yNOc MYpi� r3' A L > WO'�N S^.O Np eq ea =ovti L' F9�wjp ++c- saga y L'G NdS p •O.. °uca ~cue AyA E-5 rY NoLL .E e> " \ to 6N =� u E N A C Y N Y_� N O14N Y. �YU. NN � C •pG6 'c r d[ G V: s.°ru uaa v o CrY N _ YY AN« CAL �E >�a caN =« r o h eL Elk NI Ic t saV a.�p p O. wO..q L OO,q pas 17; u��p O = EE o. <G SON N C NYO. p4 Y^ � Y ^ .' utNN Aa �Np E u u _ =.4 Y Y N y ♦+ O � O -C•�m v V L Y C C N E as n �np= aua �N,V+f OY ~C p C.♦� L�4w. b D dQ UY L X E.. x €€ CY porn a Y° oo N NY.10 ju u wi du' >? o °.°.'. .. N O Ly O aL y V O.Cr e E C rp N V W N C4 al 01 V IV.pC CV L L M aN O Y L O a y V W LTA wp A Y d C^ 7. N n N Ew x Om c � V L U U y^ ♦ YN .• .�i Q U ^ o�p.+ vui ' (C v d u° L� LL•• Lo °" > a� r r''v°r d•�. - ^ C 4, <'�' >L.oN VaN♦ ^OY v y9L ^` y �' V now .d >;u^ u°dn �c awe' pa t ^ a; °p'u ^yV aLi.Gl CA wN.6 6m. O ^N �tipOOx NN `VCU ^Qa yw Sa pHd. L. ,C2-" S- 4 L Q qt d h �u D O O.^ L vO d~ w N Y C N C VT N O Cd «.qA un Nom' W�¢N�.O �`.n... o�F:R �^ Op4.p L.'Ciq ut ZCC Yu -PL�L« -g ~ uCV C ��aNTa� o o YNN ,r_ xh� 0 y N 9VC y. Cy N �- U N V Lug UdO.N Ca0 u tki h� O� q..>•..�4 O�� N pa NX c`P~ y L V L .O"YY nL' YUps LL y C� V O^ ON y4y n •�N Oy .d..� C3 ErC.J �Ld NL O.p NVr.O ����� O.c cw 4p N Oi L N°' Ew Eu t �Y aiMN No�LLp}cL ��Of Q' °E'u : N'ceuc o ^O `V <<i t saV a.�p p O. wO..q L OO,q pas 17; u��p O = EE o. <G SON N C NYO. p4 Y^ � Y ^ .' utNN Aa �Np E u u _ =.4 Y Y N y ♦+ O � O -C•�m v V L Y C C N E as n �np= aua �N,V+f OY ~C p C.♦� L�4w. b D dQ UY L U E.. x €€ CY dnL Lo rY D a Y° oo N io nsp is.a% u NwQ N O Ly O aL y V O.Cr e E C rp i .t.t n i p. V � V • p L N of �! o PO.> y L Ota U p y V W LTA wp A Y d C^ 7. N n N Ew x Om w� J 4 c � V L U U y^ ♦ YN .• .�i Q U Q V N A f N VI U 01 C� c� >m i� 0 °mac A L « D Y� E.�. w O a i w^ 04 ate+ p y�Y QOp b 'u ♦ p W •NI Ki �rL w <uC ur ��uy �Y_• O 4 C O M r'�4� 4G= YN4 C �° •�hOL Y Yy wwva •.V Vy Y U y YSa • .°.�� �� °. LU Ur w Lam.. at .. ° yc ° Yca�. "NNgv = qa µ= u "UT °arV 4J .w. siN vq u° Y teN a U V Lv ° L r°Va i ONO Yd� L 4 ^O'T �{M`. O�CNfN .-I Q Y. V �.u„ C�°•YL Vb N Nq C n i gq L N w ud a &rs Y tLuvvm O I�t°sW V x.- W ut i�daN �4D N8^ 6�r=.K � u •r N r1 a.-.E.5 C^ w _•]•fjjh S YN�Y V Y ,� Y O1usa, V V ycL L °ca Cu E4 bz '°°o °r� °oug LnoL L V 4i Y � ?cL-• O U ... cw �.♦. ..� .Ow .NiViC � I 11 t�C L 0= V +._E� p C O 4 C O M r'�4� ^ V CV C LE.V+E y^ • • l V wwva •.V Vy eqN ... y YSa °N vu i i' aE o a at .. ° yc YMGO Yca�. "NNgv = qa µ= u "UT °arV » Y V vq u° Y teN a C V Lv ° L r°Va i ONO Yd� L 4 ^O'T �{M`. O�CNfN .-I Q Y. V �.u„ C�°•YL Vb O4S Nq a &rs Y tLuvvm O I�t°sW V x.- W ut i�daN °yD naw 1 y >o 'ot > N r1 a.-.E.5 C^ w _•]•fjjh S YN�Y D �' � I 11 wwva i» .UO� . ��Y �yYY Y► YL•i at .. ° yc YMGO Yca�. = qa o2.5 v. V re .» a z' . N Y V Y teN C V Lv ° L r°Va i ONO Yd� L 4 ^O'T �{M`. O�CNfN Y »' ZE VOw w L a &rs Y LY6 r U CVy > G N 4 p i°u a.-.E.5 C^ w u'o.n YN�Y D gOww O.^.c6C Q•: aqu E4 bz 7v E�.c �"VN Yip° uu °� L V L e vs ..� .Ow .NiViC NM °J. 60 ?a` • V iV Y 65�Y» �aCGU S V NONr . 1'`^ a� »u Yq =yo° 2.5 � «am �a °�. ° ^LCi L.V w u° Nu gwrU. L °96 s� .:. �° °NZ N �v�ws `•i°` .su +._°. a•u ^u•i. 27— ma a�� ,i,.�uu kg g p w.°.. it; .. Y °•'..� ^ N AN.r =G YC^ ^w' O p ..C. ky^ C ♦40w Gy IE �° YN V w> i5 w Yt)w� L•Z.♦ L Opc rlp H NQYY NNE Sir JLE�`` K Fo�.°•.°n ^ •(°� i L` ff7 =Q d Vu y 1 � I 11 q� NGN � qF Y • � � G V 'O N C q tT L r''L °° pb n c n °u a NN � a• .°gyp° p t db• � o�.anN AA 6r Qr ' u {P! { pY c 't ZEE °� a N C Ot C NN VOY� wcz L.'LL CO a at N V b ^^ > q b h �. a La NbL qy. � o b. •'J tr Oar O y ~ �Lq u N N NLYA N T • t+nC CNN T d �� ° n> O Its • •n � Y ° �." L b ay pN �e rT � y = a Y x N d. ► N� F. ° Y •, ma v "• u a. � �•.:e .ate c b u �' ° `" a+t, 9x Ot Ggir bdC q° € wC... V .-N L •^ t b qE C <^ O EE OG QOYVO ` � e a a G SOY r PA ^V O q yry L� _Cb a/ YO <O�Y Yd h0 9 d 7 OO�W O O GY°. 4.N IJ9 QA l 6L6 CVO f ••' • q V � � 2 N ' l7 r Vi I � I .DI n ' `{ q� NGN � qF Y • � � G V 'O N C q tT L r''L °° pb n c n °u a NN � a• .°gyp° p t db• � o�.anN AA 6r Qr ' u {P! { pY c ZEE °� a N C Ot Vm .p0 NbL 9= S gg K d9 CNN T d ° n> O •c� qL a CO �e u° � °1..1b O N d. ► N� 6 0 �� do c � ii •d• L .., 9x e �� pY.GU p PG yE _q O.9 a +rL N OYr. Olr d• o f °N P q SOY r WNb WYi Y' LGL� �� �p (7� °= 4r1 Kp <O�Y Yd h0 A A! r Ll•. l•/ � yj � q� NGN � qF Y • � � G V 'O N C q tT L r''L °° pb n c n °u a NN � a• .°gyp° p t db• � o�.anN AA 6r Qr ' u {P! { m C O � A N 9 � uAN vy -I- E s A LOLb oast. r ay OK u m °Lc C in ba an.L6E om U p N nn`L a •'• o b a �e O!9 ^' Y S Low ti u b iv ba bqc c� t n` N m A UTuuEE 9Q N L r^ �y oy ^9 V �L W. A O L L6r U N. O. o.-a ^Y °iqA qu wv y^ E�.a T u io, •yn °c v1 u ea w CL •D• 0.x. q_> uQG C L d4 qu Cd ^uY S 6U nb NEd 6A <VL p yyu O V ANOY' <L 6EUi new �q YwY m u,we any^ us o.6 m LNU iw `•- b9 �Y.o mm �`,�' cN N6W .Oe .� <GN NOr� N.O 64.r <U p.On W�lug �LU 36 V9 < 1 C O � A N 9 � uAN vy O U AW O M � ay c m °Lc C in ba °1� om U p °c a •'• o b a �e Low Lu Ev n` t9 Cp TY N N L r^ oy ^9 fi t ru ° 6A <VL WS yyu O V ANOY' <L y� C O N U p W `9 O O' 4 9 � uAN o n nN« co.EE+A ay c m °Lc C O V e t o Ab b. °c a •'• o b a �e r� I 11 �� lI YY t s 3 � a �� o� � b •-°.� N h ^U nOQ E kL 4 y0 i :n va L .L^ cLi� ob Lw� N° ... 2k� VG ^ L ytL YOG E �C dV 6 Oo ^ c oSY u tq C to. >� Cq GF_u `Y^ NJ • iL .- e L V.4 t6 r... GJLOf� �I O � m • NNE Ip `_x{ � t 1i y v yM �A � 9 NY •- T °H � � a �on r L T lw E + L ' yOU. bL N C�Lt O V E 6 Y D V L — b E G a L G U F o IMd v o� of n9 o n C. 15 a i bL. U 0U 'O en �26r.BN i x .: 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMI ONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 28, 1986 GuC'MO^,c9 < t a� r z U TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF DENIAL - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 1299 - SHELBOURNE - A total residential subdivision .nd Uesign Review of -49 single family lots on 8.9 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District, located at the south side of Lemon Avenue 500 feet east of Arch:aalc t APN 201- 252 -21, 22. (Continued from May 14, 1986 meeting.) 1977 1 1 I. BACKGROUND: At the regular meeting of May 14, 1986, the Planning Commission was willing to grant another continuance to the applicant based on the fact that the applicant has progressed in developing plans and submitted for Technical Review Committee and Design Review Committee review. However, at this meeting, the attorney representing the legal property owners, Diane Holloway Harvey, and Ccnstance Holloway Elliott, have submitted evidence indicating ,hat they have cancglled all rights, of the applicant to buy the subject property and that there is no contract or any other relationship between them and the applicant and the applica ^t kas no authority to continue processing any application on the,sub;ect property. Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, authorization i'rom the legal property owner is required to process any application for any proposed development on a subject property, therefore, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial without prejudice to be adopted at this regular meeting. Further, the City Attorne,` was directed to review the property owner's letter. The applicant claims that they still have the right to process this tract map. The City Attorney has advised that the City should deny the map. II. RECOMMENDATION: A Resolution of Denial without prejudice has been attached for your review. If the Commission concurs with the findings, adoption of this Resolution will be in order. Denial without prejudice would permit a project to be refiled on this site. ITEM I E PLANN?NG COMMISRION STAFF REPORT RESOLUTION OF GENIAL - TT 12991 - SHEL80URNE May 28, 1986 Page 2 ARe ectfully fitted Bra Buller City Planner BB:NF :ko Attachments: Letter From Attorney Representing the Legal Property k Owners May 14, 1986 Planning Commission Staff Report April 9, 1986 Planning Commission Staff Report March 26, 1986 Planning Commission Staff Report December 11, 1.985 Planning Commission Staff Report October 23, 1985 Planning Commission Staff Report . October 9, 1985 Planning Commission Staff Report Resolution of Denial J" i HILL, BETTS & ITASH (FORSTER, OEMMILL & Fli.RMER) A PARTNERSHIP INCLU014G PROFESSION^'. CORPORATIONS NEW TOR, WASHINGTON ON-RLO TRADE CENTER SMTE 140r✓ 1818 N ST. N. W sWTE 521 ROO WILSHIRE BOULEVARD SUITE 700 N!W YORK, N Y 10046 WASHINGTON, O.C. 200:76 °. 4 839.1 00 L IS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017 TEL. (202) 452 -0586 TELEi ITT 4262? B4 TELEX: ITT 440083 (213) S26.0291 TELE %: 183071 FACSIMILE (213) 623.0095 C -DRr ..... NDVEIL_. May 14, 1986 PLANNING D VIS pbMIOryG�{ Aff MAY 2 1986 City City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department �16wjll�2lg�q� s PM City Planner 9320 Baseline. Road Rancho Cucamonga, California 91701 Attention: Brad Bueller Re: Tentative Tract #12991 Gentlemen: We are the attorneys for the original owners of the above described parcel of real property, Harry R. Holloway and his Estate, following his death, and for the present owners thereof who are the distributees from his Estate, Dian Holloway Harvey, and Constance Holloway Elliott. As such attorneys we represented the owners in their efforts to sell the property to Allen W. Parrin and his nominee, Shelburne Development Corpora- tion. By reason of the persis± -int and continual defaults by said buyer,a in the terns of the purchase escrow, the present owners have cancelled, all rights of said buyers to buy the property and there is now no contractual or other relationship between the owners and said buyers. This is to advise you that neitli-:r said A21en W. Parrin nc,r Shelburne Development Comoration has an, ^.authority to con - t.inue with the project relating to the develo -ment of this property r or to process an- application relating thereto. Your trul , IK 7 Robert L. F rmer 1, For HILL, BETTS & NASH I,. RLF:smk cc: ids. Dian H. Harvey Pas. Constance H. Elliott .sfo CITY OF RANCH(1 CUCA.A�IOIvGA STAFF REPORT UAft: May 14, 19$6 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PID TENTATIVE TRACT 12991 - HEL OURNE - A residentia `subdivision and Design Review of single family lots. 8.9 acves of Land in the Low Medium Residential District, located, at the south side of Lemon Avenue, 500± east of Archibald Avenue - APN 201-252 -21, 22. (Continued from April 23, 1986 meeting.) I. BACKGROUND: At its April 23, 1986 meetina,; --cue Planning Commission continued this project to this regular meeting as requested by the applicant. The developer is again 'requesting a c=tinuation. Revised development plans have been submitted and are scheduled for May 20th and May 22nd Technical Review Committee and Design Review Committee review, respectively. Attached for you review is a copy of the letter of request from the applicant. II. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this item be continued to t erne 25th regular Planning Commission meeting. gctfu7l hm' d, m �Bu ler City PlanrGer BBsNFcd P,,:tachments: Letter of Continuance fro,;, App i scant M RNA April 22, 1986 Chairman of the Planning Commission and Planning Commission Members City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road Suite C Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Res Request for Continuation of Planning Commission Hearing' Gentlemen: We have made substantial revisions -tv our plans for Tract 12991 on Lemon Street east of Archibald to accomodate suggestions made by the Planning and Engineering Divisions of tha City. These plans are now being reviewed by approp-�iate committees and we anticipate no problem, in resolving any "minor technical issues which may arise. Accordingly, we would appreciate'a continuation of the Planning Commission hearing until such time that the hearing is rescheduled 1- the Planning Division. Thank you for your consideration and continuing interest. Yours very '.ealy, Allen W. Parrin RECEIVED CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION AM AY 81986 PM 713191MIU11Z111213141516 a, Bhebu7'f'1e 1DwJe.I )pmePit Cor1X) ''8eK:)ri µ8660 Alearendro Boutev®rd Fiivnreicta, t.fc ra 92806 9 C' 714) 760 -3836 DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT I. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT April 9, 1980 Chairman and Members of the Planning. Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Nancy Fong, Associate Planner RESOLUTION OF DENIAL - 1:14VIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 2991 SHE_BOURNE - A total residential subdivision and design review of 49 single family lots on 8.9 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District, 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) 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 revised 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 are as follows: a) Unimproved Flood Channel Along the East Property Line: The applicant has not accomplished this requirement but agreed to contact 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. b) Master Plan: The revised site plan that staff reviewed `on_M5_rc_h_U, 1986 indicates master planning of the site with 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. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 12991 - SHELBOORNE April 9, 1986 Page .2 C� c) Abandoned Railroad Property to the South: The applicant claimed he has acquired the 44 foot abandoned railroad easement and has incorporated it into his project. However, staff has not received any docu -a�,,tion, such as recorded deed, to prove such acquisition. II. RECOMMENDATION: Staff rE'ro"ends that the project be continued to the May X986 agenda. Hoviever, if the Commission feels that inadequate progress has been'ynade, then a Resolution of Denial without prejudice has been provided. -denial without prejudice would permit a project to be refiled on this Fite. Res ctfully s itt!"dl Brad Buller City Planner BB:NF:ko Attachments: Letter of Continuance from Applicant .March% 26, 1986, Planning Commission Staff Report Ci,,wnology of Processing Time for Tentative Tract 12991 . - December ii, 1985 PlanA ng Commission Staff Report October 23, 1985 Planning Commission Staff Report October 9, 1985 Planning Commission Staff Report Resolution of Denial �4 March 27, 1986 City of Rancho Cucamonga Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attention; Planning Commis sion Re: Request for Extens`itin Dear Chairman E Member of Plapning Commission, We are still in the Process of completing the substantial revisions to our plans which you have previausly requested. Please grant us an extension to complete our maaterials to your satisfaction. Thank you for your continuing patience. Director of Forward Planning SHK/shk *1 i MAR 2. I :_ 713�Sti li11]211� 1�1 A6 ME CHRONOLOGY OF PROCESSING TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12991 DATES REVIEW PROCESS 4 -10 -85 First submittal 8 -1 -85 Completeness Notice 8 -6 -85 Technical Review Committee 8 -8 -85 Design Review Committee Review 10 -9 -85 Planning Commission review as requested by applicant. Continued public hearing to 10 -23 -85 meeting 10-23 -85 Planning Commission review. As requested by applicant, continued public hearing to 12- I1 -85. 12 -11 -85 Planning Commission review as requested by applicant. COMMENTS No approval, recom aided revisions No approval, recommended revisions Staff recommended denial, applicant delivered request for continuation at the meeting. Applicant requested for continuation so that he could work with staff to resolve issues and revised development plans. Applicant requested for continuation. Continued public hearing to 3/12/86 meeting. 12 -16 -85 Received applicant's request for an extension of processing time for 90 days 1 -29 -86 2nd submittal, revised development plans. 2 -10 -86 Staff determined revised plans incomplete. 2 -11 -86 w 3 -12 -86 Planning Commission meeting cancelled. 3 -21 -86 r Met with applicant to discuss the incompleteness of the development plans. A letter was handu!d out to the applicant. Met with applicant to discuss lack . ,of progress since last rmeating. Reviewed issues an8 revisions necessary to complet processing. 4 3 -26 -86 Planning Commission conducted Applicant did not attend meeting nor submit letter of continuance. Commission.- denied without prejudice and directed staff to prepa,:e a Resolution of Denial to be adopted o-s April 9, 1986 regular meeting. 3 -27 -86 Met with applicant. Informed him of project status. Submitted revised planr, for staff review which addressed m: ryr corrections. Major issuer: still unresolved by applicant. i\ =^ a CITY OF RANCHO CUCAITWONGA STAFF REPORT 7 DATE: March 26, 1986 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Associate Plarner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR. TENTATIVE TRACT 12991 - aNELBOURNE - A tots. .esiden * >ial sub ivision and .i;sign review for 49 single. iamiiy lots on 8.9 acres of l:nd in the Low- Medium Residential District, located at the sots' h aide of Lemon Avenue, 500 feet t east of Archibald Avenue - APN: 201 - 252 -21, 22. Continued from December 11, 1985, meeting. I. BACKGROUND: The proposed project Was originally reviewed by the Planning omnission on October 9, 1985. As requested by the developer, the Planning Commission has continued the public hearing for this project on three prior occasions. The purpose of the continuations was to work with staff in revising the development plans to comply with the City codes and policies. On January 29, 1936, the developer submitted revised development plans to the City for review. Based on staff review, the revised developisient plans failed to address the issues identified at the October 9, 1985, meeting. Staff met with the applicant on February 11, 1986, to discuss the inadequacy of the revised plans (see attached letter dated February 10, 1986). Based upon this meeting, the applicant is preparing revised plans. II. OPTIONS: The following options may be considered by the Planning Commission: 1. Continue the public hearing with the developer's consent for this project to May 28, 1986, Planning Com=ission regular meeting. This option requires Cie applicant to request for a second extension of processing time as required by State p'annl -og laws. The of time would allow developer suffi6ent time to revise development plans for completing Development Review process. • PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REP.,',PT Tentative Tract 12991 March 26, 1986 Page 2 2. Deny this project. This option would require,. the Commission to direct staff to prepare a,.Resolutirin of Denial to be-adopted at the next maeting.` III. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Piar ;sung Commission_ continue this item to the May 28 1986 agenda. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:NF:cv Attachments: Letter of Continuanco from Applicaiht Chronology of processing time for 1*1*124.:,` December 11, 1985, Planning Commi$:aon Staff Report October 23, 1985, Planning i>ommissi >:;,i, Staff P,eport October 9, 1985, Planning Commission`#aff Report 4,1:a >C'� t CITE' OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA O �J v,, Jon D,)<iikels C) 1917 I > i Charles J.Buquet II i Jeffrey Ring Richard M. Dahl Pamela J. Wright February 10, 1986 Don MacClean II Shelbourne Development 6660 Alessandro Boulevard Riverside, California 92506 SUBJECT: TRXT 12991 Dear Mr. MacClean: Your application for the above referenced project has been reviewed for comp' - teness and accuracy of filing. As a result of the review, the project application has been found to be incomplete for processing. Attached please find a list outlining the additional information needed prior to finding the application complete. Further processing of your- project cannot begin until this additional information is submitted and the application accepted as complete. To _ avoid unnecessary delays in processing, please submit the information as soon as possible. Should you have any questions regarding the review process, o. if we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact the project planner, Nancy Fong, of this office. Senior Planer DC:ns Attachment: List of Required Additional Information Engineering Comments cc: Barrye Hanson r 4 4 9320 BASFLIN(4 ROAD, SUITE C • POST OFFICE 130%,807 RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA 91730 � (714).980 -11351 f s' LIST CF REQUIRED ADDTTIOMAL IR-FORMATION FOR TRACT 12991 r- The following items must�be corrected in order for the application to be complete: 1. Master Planning of the area bounded by Lemon Avenue, Archibald Avenue, proposed Street A and the railroad easement'should be shown on the site utilization map. 2. Obtain written comments from Sap Bernardino County Flood Control District and submit a copy;to the City regarding the requirements for the Flood Chanj,iel improvements. The subdivision design must •ncorpoi;.ite these minimum required improvements such as a structural block wall, a building setback fron the channel, and a dedication of - right -of -way for an access road along the channel. All of these requirements would affect the lot size, the lot dimensio,is, and the plotting of ti.e ho -ses for this project. 3. The southern tier of lots must have a -.ot depth of 134 feet (90 feet minimum from City Code, and 44 foot extra land from the abandoned railroad easement). The purpose is to allow the extension t-,-.,a future street aligned with the proposed Street B through the parcels to the west. 4. Site Plan. a. Driveway depth or, all lots shall have a minimum of ?9 feet. b. Corner lots should. be wider in order to accommodate the required sideyard setback. c. A perimdter decorative block wail shall be provided along lemon Avenue, the easterly property boundary, and the south property boundary, as well as between lots. The design, elevation -,, and devaiis of all block walls and fencing shal, be included with this t development package. d. Slope area should be shown on the site plan. A e minimum of 15' feet rear yard +nest be provided + exclusive of any sTope area. i 5. Gradn4 Plan. a. Detailed cross- sections drawn to scale should- be 11 provided at the southerly site boundaries for Lot and lot X18. b. Maxi;num height of any retaining wall is 4 feet high.. " C. More spot elevations, street elevations should be provided on the grading plan. - 6. Comments from Engineering Division have been included for your review. It is recommended that the following issue be addressed prior to Technical Review. Even though the project scheduling for Design and the minimum required side yard, the width of the floor plans meets appears out of proportion to the lots; thus creating a congested feeling for streetscape. Setbacks should provide an element of openness ana human scale. Please revise the entire development package and resubmit four (4) sets by February 19, 1986, for review of completeness. I i If lea s CITY OF 'HO CJCAMONGA wCAn1d MEMORANDUM n:..� O' O W > 1977 DATE:. D.c2mber 11, 1985 TG: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND -TENTATIVE TRACT 12991 SHELBOURNE - A total residential subdivision and design review for 49 single family lots on 8.9 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District located at south side of Lemon Avenue, 500 t feet east of Archibald Avenue - APN 201 - 252 -21, 22., (Continued from October 9th meeting.) BACKGROUND: At its October 23, 1985 meeting, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing for this project to this regular meeting as requested by the -applicant. The developer is again requesting a continuation to revise the entire development plans to comply with the City's Codes and Policies. Attached for your review is a copy of the letter of request from the applicant. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this item be continued to the March 12, 1986 regular meeting so that the applicant has sufficient time to complete the Development Review process prior to Planning Commission review. BB: NF, das Attachment: Applicantts Letter of Request 1�, RNF 'M / tz`� ��✓'�iii�l�jll(.ij.'r;c3j�� jrji(j 4 .e 4,yu c. I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA C MEMORANDUM �W V DATE: October 2.3, 1985 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission) FROM- Jack Lam, AICP, Community Development DirectorL BY: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12991 SHELBOURNE — A total residential subdivision and design review —for 49 single family lots on 8.9 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District located at south side of Lemon Avenue, 500 ± feet east of Archibald Avenue - APM 201, 252-21, 22. (Continued from October 9th meeting.) 'At its October 9, 1985 meeting, the Planning Commission continued the Public Hearing for this project to this regular meeting as requested by the Applicant. The developer again is requesting for a continuation of time so that he could work with Staff in resolving those identified 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 days to the December 11, 1985 regular meeting JL:NF:das Attachment: Applicant's letter of request N . C CO- a. s RNc'yY 'lac = 12291. �J ' c-2` Y-s aj-' s In Shelburne Development Corporation 86e0. Al"Sw4m BaAe —d RvG—k$.% V ff-yia 92:: AB (774] 7BQ -3636 �H�LIiU�a�I Don MacLean, II s E DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA- STAFF REPORT October 9, 1985 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Jack Lam, AICP, Community Development Director Nancy Fong, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL .ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRAC'i 12991 - H LBOE� —` 'residential i e— nli tiahsubdivision and design review Tor 49 single Sainily lots`dn 8'.9 acres of land in the Low. Medium Residential District located at south side of Lemon, 500± east of Archibald Avenue - APN 201 - 252 -21 & 22. I. ABSTRACT: This project has not received approval from the "-,ign Review, Technical Review and Gradr:.y- Committees because of-, Agn ;ssues 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 provided. The 4plicant, however, has insisted upon full Planning Commission review of the proposed subdivision. Therefore, the.' tentative tract map is now before the Planning Commission but with a recommendation for for denial without prejudice: II. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Denial without prejudice. B. Project Density: 5.8 dwelling units per ages. C. Surrounding Lan4 Use and Zoning__ Nort - Singl, . W ly homes, new single family homes under construction; Low Residential District (2 -4 du /ac). 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, vacant; Low Medium Residential District (4 -8 du /ac). West - Unimproved flood channel, vacant; tow Residential District (2 -4 du /ac). • A"' PLANKING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT _ TT 12991 - SHEUOURNE October 9, 1985 Page 2 F D. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Low Medium Density Residential. North '_.w Density Residential. C South Low Density Residential. East - Low-Density Residential. ' West - Low Medium Density Residential. i E. Site Characteristics: The site currently; contains one t residence, two garages, and a large storage building. The site slopes southeasterly from Lemon Avenue at approximately 6% grade to the south property boundary at approximately 3% grade. Existing trees consist of approximately 40 Lemon trees and large Eucalyptus windrows located south of Lemon Avenue and along eastern property boundary. F. Applicable Regulations: The Galelopment Code permits subdivision of single family lots in a low Medium Residential District at 5.8 du /ac under the base Development Stai +dards. III. ANALYSIS• A. General: The developer initially submitted this project last 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 elected not to address or resolve. Such issues as; repetitive elevations, roof materials, circulation, drainage /grading, abandoned rai;road easement, and flood control. e_ B. Issues for Plannin g-Comm Consideration: 1. Design Issues:. The det Viper has proposed four, loot• plans and two variations to ch fioor plan (see Exhibit "K"). The inr,' In 'Review Cott alltte3 reviewed the project and determ .:2 that the elevations for the four floor pans are very similar in design, and that there is no proportionate mix or distribution of the lour floor plans. Both Plan 1150 and Plan 1250 have been placed on 17 lots and 18 lots respectively, of the totzl 49 single family lots (see Exhibit "G"). The Design Review Committee determined that the proposed project conflicts with the General Design Guidelines (Section 17.08.0900) of the Development Code in the following provisions: a) Resign Theme: A project must provide a recognizable design theme With variations to create visual interest. ( PLANKING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 12991 - SHELBOURNE October 9, 1985 Page 3 0 b) Architecture: The architecture should consider compatibility with surrounding character, including harmonious building styles, form, size, color, material and roof line. Individual dwelling units should be distin uish6le from one another. In articular Low Medium Residential developement should a designed with up graded architecture through increased delineation of service treatment and architectural details_ The architectural concept should also compliment the gr`!ing :,nd topography of the site. C) House Plotting: A project should provide for streetstl.ape variety and visual interest particularly in the Low Medium District through angling houses to the street, side entry garages or reverse plotting. The Design Review Committee recommended that tie - developer revise the rroject and the elevations to comp' . -with those identified General Design Guidelines of Vie Development Code. 2. Technical Issues :. Both the Technical Rw.iew SUmittee and Grading Committee were concerned with the proposed tentative tract design as it Z;y 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 nest and abandoned railroad property 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} Draina e: Both the orig.tal and revised drainage plans, uti ize a system that goes through rear yards and side yards of single family lots (see Exhibit "D -"). This type of drainage system is unacceptable for the following reasons: It would be extremely difficult to gain access to the system for ma.°stenance and reconstructions; secondary flaw-path is not avaiiabe if the catch basin of the terminus of the cul -de -sac were to be plugged by debris. Further, it did not provide a means of the draining of the adjacent property to the west. The Committee felt that a street connection between the two cul -de -sacs extending to the property to the west - would provide the best solution to these problems. aVw PLANNIING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 12991 - SHELBOURNE October 9, 1985 Page 4 b) Grading; The proposed tract design necessitates the extensive use of retaining wails as shown in Exhibit 111-111. 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 this tentative tract as shown in Exhibit "E" would lessen the requirements fo- retaining walls and its height, and it will be more sensitive to the natural contours of the area. c) Unimproved Flood Channel Along the East Property Line: Staff has instructed the developer to contact San ' Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) to determine the required improvements for the flood channel. It is usual practice that the *.leveloper obtain written comments from the District, 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 approved tracts that abutt the flood channel, the minimum requirements include a structural i)lock wall, a huilding 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 Propert j to the South of the roject: ine Committee is concerned with the -foot wide abandoned railroad property located south of the project site. Exhibit "C" shows the relationship of this strip of railroad easement to the, site of the t, adjacent projects. The strip of abandoned railroad easement could become a public nuisance by being a fire j� hazard due to weed growth and a breeding ground for r- vermin. The project site is the last portion of the• 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 11928), required the developer's cooperat:3n to acquire this abandoned railroad " easement. According to the developer of this Tract 11928, he had contacted the railroad company who has verbally agreed to sell the railroad easement. In -' J '' PLANNIING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 12991 - SHiLBOURNE October 9, 1985 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 44 -foot abandoned railroad easement prior to the project being considered by the Planning Commission. The reason is that the Subdivision Map Fact states that the City cannot delay recordation of a final map if the developer cannot fultill a condition requiring improvements on property which he does not control. e) Circulation: The Committee we,s concerned with the orderly development of this area as shown in Exhibit "8" as well as providing a seconda.y access to the westerly vacant parcels. Both the Eire District and the Sheriff's Department, members of the Technical Review Committee, have stated that they prefer t" cul -de -sacs to he connected providing a looped street pattern. As discussed under the drainage issue, the loop street system and its extension to the westerly property will resolve t',e, drainage and grading concerns. Staff Recommendations: In order to find the best so dtion to the problems associated with this proposed tentative tract design, staff has developed ail area master plan showing the general street patterns at;i lot tiering configuratiLas as shown in Exhibit "E". Master planning of this area would provide an efficient overall circulation sys'.,em, would resolve drainage and Grading problems associated with this tract, and would eliminate lots fronting on collector streets such as LemL— Avenue. C. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has beet completed y the app scant. Staff has completed Part II of the Evironmental Checklist, and determined that the development of the subject site could expose people and property to water- - rQlated hazards, such as flooding. However, this could be ^litigated through the construction of the storm drain Tacilities and completion of flood channel improvements per the requirements of San Bernardino County flood Control District. Since the developer, at this time, is unable to provide an acceptable drainage system as well as incorporating improvements designs for the flood channel, staff has determined that adverse environmental impact could occur as a result of this project. r Cl 11 PLANNIING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 12991 - SHELBOURNE October 9, 1985 Page 6 IV. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: In considering a residential project, the '—iinv "Commission must make the findings listed in the attached resolution. Further, t!B Development Code establishes absolute policies and design guidelines which all residential projects must comply with before approval. However, it is the recommendation of the Design Review Cimmittee and staff that the proposed project does not meet these findings. Therefore, the findings listed in the attached Resolution of Denial was supported by the following facts: 1. The proposed building design, site plan is inconsistent with the General Plan Design Guidelines of the Development Code regarding house plotting to provide streetscape variety and �Isual interest and architecture that provides distinguishe.ble 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 if 1Uiting and impacting the orderly future development of adjacent vacant properties. 3. The proposed subdivision design site, plan and building design is inconsistent with the Absolute Policies of the Development Code in regards to providing master planned drainage facilities so as to adequately dispose of surface grater 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 potential hazard is not mitigated with adequate drainage facilities and necessary flood channel improvements. V. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in a Doi a ort newspaper, notices were sent to property owners within eet, of the project site and a large 4 x 8 sign was posted at the site. VI. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial without predudice through adoption of the attached Resolution. Respe tfully submitted, Jack Lam Community Development Director JL :NF:ko n PLANNIING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tr 12991 - SHELBOURNE October 9, 1985 Page 7 Attachments: Letter ;rom ` Applicant 'Responding to Design Review, Grading and Technical Review Commiti'ees Recommendations Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhib,t "B" - Site .tilization Map Exhibit "C" - Railroad Easement Map Exhibit "D" •• P-plicant's Proposed Drainage Plan Exhibit "E" - Area Master Plan. Exhibit "}F.�" - Tentative Tract''' P Exhibit "U" = Detailed Site Sian Exhibit "H" - Grading Plan Exhibit "I" - Cross Sections (2) Exhibit "J" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "K"' '- Elevations Initial Study; Part II and Adu ndum Resolutia,.�f Denial. p' v!f y y- K.W.C. ENGINEERS, INC. !'F! � CIVIL ENGINEERS, PEANNERS. ANO CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS J.N. 365 September 9, 1985 Cammmnity Development Department Planning Division City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road Suite C Rancho Cacammonga, California 91730 Re: Tentative Tract 12991 - Grading Review Committee Attention: Loyd Goolsby Gentlemen: Submit-tea heLewith are four copies of a revised grading plan for Tentative Tract 12991. The revisions have been macae based on the comments which were received during the technical revie, meeting held August 6, 1985 and a.discussion with Inyd Goolsby on September 5, 1985, As a result of the above, and a meetimar with City Engineer Lloyd Hubbs, an underground storm drain pipe has been propose fran the end of the most westerly street easterly to the east street and then by easement to the Alta Loma Wash. This has eliminated the eals`anent and surface drainage on the most southerly lots. These lot., a.0 drain to the street. During the meeting with Loyd Goolsby on September 5, 1985, it was agreed that any development plan would involve limited cross lot drainage for lots facing onto Larson Avenue and the plan as ro-a shown meets the cri- teria of the City. An area has been reserved for a futu :e storm drain easement to serve the undeveloped property to the west of Te fu. tive Tract 12991, if that property developes in such a way as to require an easterly stolzmm drain l outlet. Your early review and approva of this revised plan is requested. Sincerely, K.W.C. ENGIPffi ?S„ III. L. C. Bevington RCE 8420 LCB:sp Enclosure.< ' ;;LD 720 SOUTH RAMONAAVENUE, SUM 104 a CORONA, CALIFORNIA91719 0 7141 —ZM1b0 J.N, 365 August 26; 1985 a K. .C. ENGINEERS, INC. CIVIL ENGINECRS, PLANNLRS AND CONSTRUCTION CONS VLTANTS. e Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer 27 City N 7 City of Rancho CucarrDnga 9320 Baseline Road CITY OF RANCHO CUCA ION0 Suite C cT ?GINEERING GtYISiOtf Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 . Attention: Mr. Barzy Hansen Re: Tentative Tract 12991 Dear Mr. Han en: It is the opinion of the Shelbourne Develognent Corpo_ati -m, the pro- posed developer of the property, that the proposed basic 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 Cucamonga and is the most productive and livable arrange- ment which can be used. The developer and K.W.C. Engineers have reviewed the cannents of the Technical ^d Design Committees regarding Tentative Tract 12991, There were seven concerns raised. Each of these concerns has been considered and is canrented on in the following r iterial. TechnicU Review Camtittee 1. Storm drains, including drainage of the cal de sacs and the property to the west. By realigning the lot line between lots 13 and ":4 and by an ease- ment between lots 42 and 43 to the west property line, an underground storm drain system cai. be achieved with the longest portion of the storm drain which will be in an easement being less than 250 feet. This is certainly an acceptable length, particularly tm-th the man- holes to be placed in the public streets. The total length of storm drains in easements will be reduced by approximately 250 feet and th-a number of storm drain manholes in tract easements would be reduced to zero. 2, Alta Loma channel The future development and the construction required in the Alta Lana channel was reviewed with the San Bernardino Envi.romnental Public Works Agency -Flood Control Division. Included in this review 720 SOUTH RAMONA AVENUE, SUITE 104 a CORONA,CAUFORNIA91719 • 714/73V2130 Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga. August 26, 1985 Page -2- i was an examination of ccamients and requirements on land subdivisions adjacent to or affected by the Alta Lama channel. The basic outflow from the retention basins north of the proposed development will be east into a major drain in the Haven Area. At this time, the County of San Bernardino does not have design plan or requirements for the Alta Icm3 channel. They stated that they would approve a plan which `ncludect payment of the drainage fee by the developer and the conseruction of a structurally designed perimeter wall on that portion of the tract which is adjacent to the channel. This is an acceptable arrangement to the developer and would appear to be fair and equitable to the developer, City and County. 3. Contact AT & SF Railroad The developer has started the process toward acquiring the AT & SF right of way and will, do so if the AT & SF Railroad is cooperative as to time and cost. Ayparen +_ly, the old AT & SF right of way has been sold to developers in other cases in the vicinity at a reason- able per- square -foot price. Adding the additional area to the tract would cause minor changes but could allow wider lots and thereby more of the larger units. 4. Sewer line and water lines /easement needs The Cucamonga County Water District has stated: a. They will require a six -inch (6 ") ' main in each street but the lines will not need to be interconnected. b. Sewer line outlets can be achieved in three different manners: ,i) If the condo development-to the south proceeds, sewers can go directly to the south, through the condo easements to Highland and east in W.Shiand. (ii) If the single-family y develo ptnnt to the southwest proceeds, sewers can be though easements and streets to Highland and west to Archibald?. (iii) If neither project proceeds prior to Tract 12991, sewer lines would be built to Highland and east to existing sewer line, with a reimbursement established T 9 r Lloyd Hubbs, city Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga August 26, 1985 Page -3- for any development using the sewer line. The Water District has agreed to help in obtaining necessary easainients. Des Review rZnmtittee 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 requirement of a 35' building set back on Lamm Avenue. Where the set back is afront -yard s €:h back, nn material change occurs; however, the 35' side -yard set back as apposed to the normal 23' side -yard set back had a sl stan- tial effect on the corner lots and several of the lots in the same tier. The developer is also very interested in achieving as many is possible Of the larger (plan 1350 and 1450) housing units. Particu1 -ly if the AT & SF right of way can be obtained, the lot tiers on the north/ south portions of the streets can be widened and an increase nade in plans 1350 and 1450. 6. Tile roof /asphalt roofs The developer uses a high -grade asphalt zeofing material which is as exPensive as tile roofing ar,d bas a canparable appearance. Several Of tna ct!- -ently accepted tile roofing materials are of questionable appearance and have maintenance problems. The developer would there- fore request that this item L-- 7.eft open with the burden of proof of acceptability incumbent on the developer. 7. Contact with AT & SF Railroad See Item 3 above. Shelburne Development Corporation and their engineer have spent considerable time and expense in developing the current plan. tentative Tract 12991 as submitted meets the zoning and development cnYz of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and will be a very salable and livable developiwnt. It is there- fore requested that with the minor changes discussed above that Tentative Tract 12991 be set for a hearing befc,re the planning camtission at the earli- est pccsible date. Sincerely, L. C, i3evinE�C7` i� .: i� 8420 TZB.sp . zr' �o'x�;� ��: 'A ,a .;a mss+ � i ��+, •`j �;1, -�(� k ; i � - ,�.��Y' 'a P•: 14� 'lr " is '°(i •#°y' , ' »� *Y ,9� 7•.Cl .. u��, j $ . �° .-a,� l�`�i c �t t•V% � a '-- �1�' -$--s .T�,'y�','c • ,...y yr, ,'.�, -+-.= ? �,� a «}: � ..� � y_ •. �, P' ' � • ILI � .iA�' � 'j�: ' '�' • r ref_;— +r :,� � � F � � -- MEN t 4AC i62 Par. P404. 3 05, 2 " Ao.j 25 +522 . <.3AG, S yJ13 �50 w r it 5 1 Pnr 1 Par. 4 /�'�as�eV' 1016?14 ' •LEMONAs °. Ain 'Par1; C?3). Par.2 ° ar. I a 11 VOCSIA ` O 21 © a v C 2 4CE C. b 8. AG 0 Q Par `S, ! !8. Par 4 4.61AC. 9AG i MA 8 1604Z&GH J P .PA NO 2 MRO Par, I {�L65AC 1 j!\ AP PAR. NO.26 39 9 5.61G MA u 14 J Q rely % 5.80 AC 1 I l a 25 i4pprovrd HIGHLAND- - • _ _ . c : _ .. _ - - -—r-(26th -ST),- NORTH CITY OF . .ITEM:. TCHo cucoNGA Trj.E= _ PIANN r DW SION EXHIBiT' SCALE: r` � iN- 'MiSiFi.13y � ... -vZ•.� .tt5t�.+Att.' S"j CITY OF PROJECT"`" 12991 RANCHO CUCAMONGA : TITLE: D �r �a r No RIM" ENGINEERING DIVISION EXHIBIT..--'? -34 f .• Ili C6aurel tl�diea�ioy r7 �G„ Sir I zl • j • • �I `B`rSir Q : I • I e ` p'rofoseci ( Lofilept4 — e�.�is • I� �., fjRCHIBALI� 4 vF l F 1 T F w �7 8 MQ wO A I. 'o- At 'VAr WAY LAW CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ..YIANNlr\r, DIVIRCW i NORTH 7TrLE: EXH It F F Lf ff a-, -4 i NORTH 7TrLE: EXH f' I� a :z ti vpz msmv 'ON AVENUE 25 A24 kz, ®r 1R7Z)W4w.l I- I- .1mvpK-$rc�01 ESE L"OkS ^,*C* #X-Afl? LANO, rte; NORTH C.ry OF lt-�ICHO CUCAMONGA Tnu: 9. TRZ� PLANNwr, DivisoN, EXHIBIT: —q—SCALE-- 1 t. r is t i I t •. I• I ., y l� Il J � 1 W442 WALL$ NURTH CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. ` ,a. PLANNI NE DIVIRON EXHIBIT': _SCALE =�.. -• r 49 , TENTATIVE TRACT ,MAP NO. 12991 'r47 i 2Y 4 r CHIMNEY PEA I r an coa0e3 of Sineardlaaa ass ... . �� • RANCfIa,CUC1IMONGA• CA. I T. i ALL LARGE TREES .. "•" ."". .. ARE EUCAI,YF -; `S. TRLWK DIAMETERS 15'.TO35'•. �r•, :. az /yLL SMALL • EES f c. ` K ra ARE IFJMTREES. TRUNK DIAMETERS 5' To 10' .•�.ti •i ., j 'r 1 t. r is t i I t •. I• I ., y l� Il J � 1 W442 WALL$ NURTH CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. ` ,a. PLANNI NE DIVIRON EXHIBIT': _SCALE =�.. -• 0 .6ECTION A -A ( WEST It) s ER 6 GmN0.5CR,015 i RRF_q a' � vCv'nrrr,H �I I Rr�' w�cc p S' MRX. Hlsiit �� rsrG. ?+/�4ruR�t.i SECTION 8 -8 SCnfc PR $ ,.x (NORTH E) /ryx�.u. :arnya•n'ar'7ix* � L07 C 1 Q h, INITORTH C`TY OF '?'"1, t2- di di if � i TI'EM= y N RACLIO CFICA.MONGA TME: - /� /L71i °.� • s� PLAI`INING 1?IxnAOIV EXFUw —_. SCALE-.,- .�_ `5. f°7,9X. H/G q W.'C L oR F£NCE ' SoAO / 7c?J J /2 z LOT 3 /?ET. WALE Q C F_ C/) X SECTION C -C w (EASE' IE) LOT II A ?A/NAGE �j SJ ��,T,YA, —TO �S7ry'EET Gi:o'utu/,Oq(y � Dec t�`TG J"rl SEMON iJ -,O (SOUTH It' E�! NORTH CITY, i\1'l.INCHO CUQA MONTl. A 1°LA.1VN ING L3 1fSI �t E RIBIT _SALE , t .____a,� .r'[___!_• — L£VO.Y L _ 'VL7Vlrc —� — - ' �' III i � r 41 I yv {@ 2 7 • •25- 24 t � � � .- t ' {a -- - BOVA.IE t00TlO[. M0@8E n S 2 - � l 1 3 1 `'1 1 IttE SOWE FOOT W INCL. { r• I�t ` , 0!RlOE •MD CY OYERMlMC VV I 4 i uu R _ I 17 18 1 ' II. M '.l' "I "• I d + S{ .N� f D , �a; :. R • _ 2t ,1 �D t E00lRE FwGTADE MDOEE M 00lRE OppYE0e tM01.. __z, A. AYR on._I is �,�.r1 /.yJ�' ,.r 1 - r� I�E3'10p_F FOOTw_e M000E �c'�11 /`Y• ttF ` `1 ' `{i r f1t7108MEFOGTADEtlE (II� S 36 ��9 (\ If d p \ C •t- - - - - -ti OMlpl. EYE T_� J@ = — iY\ GVCRM1Mm P rol rDtepl roatwEa A�Ytruetl 1� - t .• TOfiBeir�i`� eAM I l..l +' R GOMC1m .ra s= n.Fra ¢o .a•`. lwi_ TREKS t *, AIOCR /Ae Z +K.Itf[arveeu• I UGOIOIOBER 4W C/C It'WHp � ,u,.�, AlLL6 •AEtKlll4TnY M.Q[I(.>m>/ TTPCAL o xR It YlRI[E k WCAI GOVK A � YAOMi� 1�W0 EL_ tOR A..L MnOMTA T aETlpDRO .:....B ARR A000fp [AA _H NOIXTH r �' ITEttii:►,y' UNGA - :_- PLtNyINr, DIMS QN E7LHtBIT AV -Lit .1 PLA44 1260B I PLAN* 1.2-50A MRTH CITY OF ITEM* RANCHO CUCAMONTGA PLANNING DIVISION EkHIBIT-.-J(Z SCALE.___., ZEN CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART II — I'1IITIAL SY:JDY ENVIRONM -Nj' L CHECKLIST DATE:D��h APPLICA2,-r d � riR�, I ,sJ� T Ec �- e) r LING �I3:;rE:_ LOG NUMBER: art /Zg PROJECT: L,t`4 /„1 E ICSi?✓J /L{! P.+Te r, ^-,!1.TECT LOCAi'ION: I. ELIVIRONNENTAL IMPACTS (Exa?,anarion of all "Yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached shear. �„ t YES MAYBE NO tt 1. Soils and Gecloev. Will proposal hate Am t .. the sgnificant results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? r b. -Disruptions, displacements, compaction or burial ) of tbp soil? ' C. .Change in topography or ground strface f contour intervals ?. - • 1 d. The destruction, covering or modification Of I any unique Ieologic or physical features? V ,e. Any potential increase in wind, or water ` erosion of soils, affecting either on or off % � site cond; tons? o• fit.. e f. Changes la erosion silsatisn, or caposition? .� g• Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mad - slides,'ground failure, or'similar hazards? h. An increase in th^ rate of extraction and /or use of any m4neral resource? Alft 2. Hydrolorty. Will the proposal have Iiguificant results ia: t Page YES_ 'AAYBE No a. Changes in currents, or the course of di.tection Of flowing str-eams,%rivers, or ephemeral channels? stream / b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and :,mount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? '✓ f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? t g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additi .j ^.s or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? l Quantity? h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public I water supplies? 1 i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such flooding _ i as or seiches ". 3. Air ualt . Will the proposal h<ve significant .. _ results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mcbile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or Interference with the attainment of applicable air / quality standards? c. Alteration of local or regional cl'.matic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? k. Biota Florae Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, Including diversity, distribution, fr number any { of species of Plants?� b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, or endangered species of plants? q r rare / k i `/ : J i 'age 3 i Y1:S MAYBE NO c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area? d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural / production.? 1 Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results j in: C' a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? V b. Reduction of the numbers.of any unique, rare s or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier _o the migration or movement of animals? ✓ ` d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 4' 5- Population. Will the proposal have significant results in; a- Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, r !I Y growth rate of the human population of an area? b. Will the proposal afftct existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 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? v b. Will project costs be equitably distributed r among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. land Use and Flannin¢ Consilerztions, Wi1i. he _ proposal ig have snificant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned isnd use of an area? b. A conf'ict with any desig;yations, objectives, policies, ¢ or adopted plans of aiiy governmental entities? 2. An impact upon the qulaityy, or quantity of Y existing consumptive or nog - consumptive 1 recreational opportunities? Page 4 YES MYBE NO 8. Transportation. Will the proposal have significan, results inc a. Generation of substanti' addiwional vehicular / movement? V b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? _ c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for c new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? / e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and /or goods? f. Alterations to or effects on present and potential water- borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists w or pedestrians? 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant ' results in: a. A disturbance to the intsa,ty of archaeological, paleontological, and /or hiztorical resources? 10: Health, Safety and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. CrZation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? / F VVV t b„ Exposure of people to potential health hazards? ✓ c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous ' substances in the event of an accident? J d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or tha exposure of people to such organisms? f e. Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous jt : noise levels? g• The .creation of objectionable odors? w - h. An increase in light or glare? ' �z Page 3 YES :L41nW NO 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in: . a. The obstruction or degradEtion of any scenic `TisLa / of view? f b- -he creation of an aesthetically offensive site? C. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? ' / V 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a significant need for new systems, 'or alterations to the following: a. El:ctric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? f c. Coma,— ications systems? t/ d. Water supply? ✓ e. Wastewater facilities? �/✓ f. Flood control .tructures? g. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection ?" i. Police protection? J. Schools? j k. Parks or other recreational facilities? 1. Haintenance of public facilities, including roads / and flood control facilities? l/ m. Other governmental services? / v 13. Energy a` Scarce Re_our "s. Will the proposal have significant results inc a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? b. 5_bstantial increase in demand upon existing sources of €.tergy? +' c. An increase in the demand for development of /" -; new sources of energy? �+ AV- d. An increase or F2rpetuation of the consumption -� of non - renewable forms of energy. When feasible renewable � !j sour sources of energy a gy .re available? ' =3 V� r � 1 Page 6 YES `L4Y9E NO scarce AD e- Substantial depletion o any nonrenewable av- natural resource? 14. Mandatory Findinss of Sianificanc:e. i a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the gq;tlity of the envi.onme:,t, substantially reduce the habitat Of fish or wildlife species, -- cause a fish or wildlife population to atop below self sustaining levels, threatet, �'b eliminate a plant or animal community, ';educe the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plbnt or animal or eliminate Important examples of the major periods of f California history or prehistory? V b. Does the project have the potential to achieve (; short - tern, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short -te %m impact on the environment i' one which occurs �n a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into t-he futurt). C. Does the project have impacts which are Individually limited„ but cumnilatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of air individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, and probable future projects), d. Does the project have environmental effec *,s k which will cause substantial adverse efft"�ts on human beings, either directly or indirectly? II. DISCUSSION OF EMrIRO2Z`^ =NTpy gE *AyUATION (i -e -, of affirmative the above answers questions to q plus discussion of proposed mitigation measures). =3 V� Page 7 M. DETERMINATION MI`I_ , ATION On the basis of this initial evaluatiot: I find the proposed project C6M NOT havi< a significant eM,-t D on the environments and a NEGA {ICE DECLARATION drill be prepared. L( I find that although the proposed project could have.a s,'- ,gnificant I effect on the environments there will rot be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PRE?ARED. j--� I find the proposed project 1MY have a significant effect on the El envirnment, and an ENVIRONA --NT, Z11PACT Rrn0,21` Is required. Date Sign aru- e Title S • ADDENDUM TO INITIAL STUDY PART II FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12991 1, Soils and Geology (c) The development of this project would cause excessive cutting and filling of the natural cantors even though the cut and fill in cubic yards are balanced. This pro tiosed grading concept could create excessive 2 to 1 slopes and excessive use of retaining walls and the height of the w. "_ A re- design of the subdivision aid master planninq of the area could reduce the excessive usx. of retaining wells, reduce wall height and lessen the amount of grading. 2, Hydrology (b d) The construction of this project sill increase the amount of paved surfaced area which could result in an increasing amount of surface water run off and a decrease of "',he absorption rates. The proposed drainage system for this project will not provide adequate drainage facilities in mitigating the surface run of for the following reaons; a) it would be eitemely difficult to gain access to the systems for maintenance and reconstruction, b) a secondary fljw path is not available if the. ^atch basins at the terminus of the cul -de -sac were to be blocked by debris, c) it did not provide a means of draining the adjacent property through the west. Further, the flood channel to the east si:;e of the property boundary, bF4ng ;nimproved, may expose people and property to water related hazards .ucvl as flood =s,_). This could be mitigated through providing the n( - essary flood channel improvements as apptoved by San Bernardino County Flood Control District. 4. Riots b The development of this project may result in aff— ting the survival of the Eucalyptus windrows along the northern property boundary and the easter property boundary. Should the developer :need to remove those Eucalyptus hind= ^o4s, it sh�)uld be mitigated by planting new windrows per City Standards (Eucalyptus 4acalata at 8 feet at center, 5- gal'on size anti need not be staked). 10. Health, Safety, and t.�,isance t'-actors a b A 44 -foot wide abandoned railroad property is J;uated south of the project site. This strip of uuandoned r�;lroad ?csement could becomes a public nuisance by being a fire hazard due }p weed growth and the breeding ground for vermit. The devci�+nmer shou,•d mitigate this by acquiring the abandc>id railroad property a,nd integrate it into the development of his project. �'ueN$E° 0701 -02 o 5 -28 -86 P.G. Agenda 'Packet a' Page 5 of i; 7. Land Use and Planning Considerations Although, t►_- proposed - project with the subdivision design, -site-plan could comply with the minimum Basic Development Standards of the City's Development Code in areas of density;; lot size and setbacks, it has the potential to achieve short tern to the disadvantage of long term goals of the General Plan. The reason being that the proposed project may have a potential limiting effect upon the future orderly development of the area bounded by Lemon Avenue to the north, the flood channel to the east, Archibald to the west, and the abandoned railroad easement to the south.. This could be mitigated by providing a master plan of the area relating to circulation, drainage and access. 0 AOL F. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNINr COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, A REOLIEST FOR THE APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12991, TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION FOR FORTY -NINE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS JN 8.9 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE LOW- MEDIUM 't RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LEMON AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET EAST OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE, WITHIN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. (i) SHELBOURNE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION has filed an application for the approval of a tentative tract map, No. TT 12991, described above in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject tentative tract map request is referred to as "the tentative tract ". (ii) On October 9, 1985, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing cn the subject matter of the tentative tract and, at the request of the applicant, said hearing was continued. Tiereafter, on October 23, 1985 and December 11, 1985, the Planning Commission again meld public hearings an the matter of the tract map and, on each such date, -`,he matter was continued at the request of the f applicant. At the continued meeting of March 26, 1986, the Planning Commission concluded the hearing on the subject matter of the tentative tract and directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial for their review on the April 9, 1986 regular Planning Commission meeting under a consent calendar' item. Thereafter, on April 9`, 1986, the Planning Commission continued the matter to May 14, 1986 regular meeting at the request of the applicant. At the regular meeting of May 14, 1986, 'his Commission, on the advice of the City staff, was willing to grant another continuance to the applicant; however, on the date of said meeting, the present legal owners, Dian Holloway Harvey and Constance Holloway Elliot, submitted evidence indicating that they have cancelled all rights of th, applicant to buy the subject property, and that there is no contractual or other relationship between them and the applicant and that the applicant has no authority to continue with the project relating to the development of this property or to process any application L relating thereto. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucam,­ga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. . L ` � 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0. TT 12991 - SHELBOURNE May 28, 1986 Page 2 F 2. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth above, this Commission hereby denies, without prejudice to refile and without additional fees, the tentative tract. 3. The Deputy Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPkOVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 1986. + PLANNING COMM.fSSION OF THE CITY OF ;.+NCNO CUCAMONGA A i BY: Dennis L. Stout, 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 t, going Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by LAe Planning jommission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held 4 on the 28th day of May, 1986, by the following vote -to -wit: r . AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ii I i sj a i r ��.r Vll STAFF iLI11�Vi1V VV VI11Y1V1V 1.711 N 1AFF REPPORT DATE: may 28, 1986 T0: Chairman and Nembers of the Planning Commission FROM Brad Bul?e -, amity Planner BY: Lisa Win•inger, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86 -02A BARMAKIAN - A request to amend the Land Use Map of the General Plan from Low Medium Density Residential (4 -8 du /ac) to ;Neighborhood Commercial for approximately five acres of land, located at the northwest corner of Base Line and Etiwanda APN: 227- 111-24, 25, and 26. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDiI SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 86'-0 - BARMAKIAN - A requ +,st to amend the Etiwanda itic Plan from CS ( Community Service) and LM (Low Medium Density Residential) to NC (Neighborhood Commercial) for 9.4 acres of land locater, at the northwest corner of Base Line and Etiwanda - APN: 227-111 -10, 24, 25, and 26. L. ABSTRACT: T`he General Plan Amendment and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment are requested from Low Medium Density Residential /Community Service to Neighborhood Commercial for a 9.4 acre site located on the northwest corner of Base Line and :tiwanda Avenue, The applicant hF' stated that it is his intent to develop a neighb,rhood shopping center. At this meeting, after public input, the Commission will determine if any additional environmental analysis will be required or make a determination regarding the amendment, II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested a General. Plan Amendment and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment for a 9.4 acre site located on the northwest corner of Base Line and Etiwanda. Under the current General Plan , approximately half of the site is Low- Medium Density ^,tsidential with the remainder Neighborhood Commercial. Under the Etiwanda Specific Plan (ESP), the site is designated Community Services with the twu small lots in the northeast corner designated as Low Medium Density Residential (see Exhibits "A" and "B "), ITEM u l_ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GNA 86 -02A and;SPA 86 -01 May 28, 1986 Page 2 The Community Services designation in the Etiwanda Plan was created to provide opportunities for limited or specialized low impact commercial and quasi - commercial services in a residential setting, with commercial development not to exceed 40,000 square feet. Site development requires a Conditional Use Permit and master olan, with condtionally approved uses listed as community uses (schools, parks, churches, etc.), Low Medium Density Residential and limited Commercial. The request under consi,iration isror 1. An amendment of the General Plan to expand the Neighborhood Commercial designation to the entire site; and 2. An amendment pf t'ie Etiwanda Specific Plan to eliminate the Community Services and Low Medium designation and designate the entire site as Neighborhood Commercial. III. GENERAL PLAN /ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT ANALYSIS: In order to evaluate this application, it is necessary to consider the background of the project site, the Etiwanda Specific Plan adoption process, and consistency with the policies of the ESP and General Plan. A. Background: Prior to the adoption of the Etiwanda Specific Plan in 1983, numerous hearings were held to receive public input on the content of the plan. The Etiwanda Specific Plan was developed to provide more detailed and site specific guidelines for future development of Etiwanda with the goal of preserving the character of the area, while requiring new development to incorporate the architectural character consistent with the community. The Specific Plan provides detailed implementation measuMes in order to carry the goals and policies of the General Plan. The project site was i'entified through the public hearing process as particularly sensitive from a planning perspective due to its location on Etiwanda Avenue. The Community Service designation was conceived for this site in order to provide a means for site specific contro'is. The property owner (who is also the applicant for this project) initiated the original proposal. His stated intent at the time the Etiwanda Specific Plan was prepared was to develop a small commercial project, possibly with a specialty market and other limited office /commercial space. The remaining portion of the site J -a r] 4 PLANNING COMMISSION S'iAFF REPORT GPA 86 -02A and ESPA 86 -01 May 28, 1986 Page 3 would be developed with Loo Medium, density residential. The design of this mixed use project was to reinforce the character of Etiwanda by: r` a) Providing a com. unity focal point b) Reinforcing a sense of community, c) Reinforcing Etiwanda's heritage. . The designation of Community - Services was approved by the Planning Commission with this express intent and with very specific limitations on the scope of permitted commercial uses. As a practical result of the ESP process, the General Plan was amended prior to final adoption of the ESP. Since no Community Services land use district existed in the General Plan, the closest designations were deemed to be the Low - Medium Residential and NC districts. - However, since it is the specific plan wh.ch is the implementation vehicle for site development, the stringent Community Service district requirements should receive extensive review in this process. The applicant, has requested a General Plan Amendment and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment in order to develop the entire 9.4 acre site as, a shopping center of approximately 94,000 square feet, incorporating a supermarket, drug store, tenant spaces, and free standing office, fast food, and gas station structures (see Exhibit "C'; Site Plan), The Jk applicant has submitted a letter of justification (attached, Exhibit "D "), stating that the existing Low Medium Density residential designation is less acceptable to area residents than a change from Community Service to Neighborhood Commercial. Staff has not as yet received any comments from the Etiwanda community regarding this issue. B. Land Use Compatibility: The project is bounded on the north and west by the Victoria Planned Community. The areas adjacent to the site are designated as Low Density w Residential. Across Etiwanda Avenue to the east and south across Base Line Road, the designation under the Etiwanda Specific Plan is Low Medium Density Residential. The ESP and General Plan state that the City should encourage - opportunities to mix different, but compatible, land uses while organizing land uses to avoid creating nuisances among adjacent uses. While the proposed commercial use would not create severe incompatibilities with adjacent single- famil,,i 'w. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 86 -02A and ESPA 86 -01 May 28, 1986 Page 4 L W1 residential development, the impact of the expanded commercial area would undoubtedly be more significant than with the existing designation in which a small commercial center would be buffered from the Victoria Development by ring of Low Medium Density residences. The intensity of the proposed land use is less compatible with adjacent uses than the existing designation. C. Consistency with Adopted Goals and Objectives: The Etiwanda Specific Plan objectives for commercial development can be summarized as an effort to prevent commercial activity and associated traffic from impacting community character, particularly in the core area on Etiwanda and Victoria Avenues, while providing necessary commercial opportunities to area residents. The Community Services District was established as a residential district whicit also allows limited or specialized low impact commercial services. Neighborhood Commercial is Oefined as "provided to meet the retail and service needs of !, cluster of neighborhoods, with a total leasable area from 30,000 to in0,000 square feet" The plan notes that neighborhood commercial centers should be located no closer than one mile from one another and should not encourage vehicular traffic ire established residential areas or on Etiwanda Avenue. The nearest neighborhood commercial designation to the project site is located approximately one- qoarter mile west on Base Line Road in the Victoria Planned Community. Approval of this request would allow two comparable commercial centers within a quarter mile of each other. Another objective 'C` the ESP relates to community identity. One of the main reasons why the plan was developed was to provide a means to preserve the unique characteristics of the area, including the rural environment and cultural /historical links to the past. The project site has been designated as particularly sensitive to these concerns due to its critical location in the heart oti Etiwanda. Development of any project requires special landscape and design treatments of a scale which blends with the surrounding community. The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan and elevations of the proposed shopping center. Renderings of the proposed project will be available for review at the hearing. Although s e'd is desi n cannot be conditioned a on a land use Chan e, staff has Reviewed this information to gain a etter understanding of the applicants proposal. While the elevations indicate an intent on the architect's part to employ a style appropriate to the area, the scale of the structure, particularly the supermarket at 60+ feet tall, appears to be somewhat disproportionate with its surroundings. 3-1A m PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 86 -02A and ESPA 86 -01 May 28, 1986 Page 5 D. Conclusions: The proposed land use change represents a significant departure from the existing land use designation of Community Services, in terms of land use compatibility and consistency with goals and objectives of the ESP and General Plan. In general, the application appears inappropriate for the following reasons: 1. The proposed land use does not meet the intent of the Etiwanda Specific Plan regarding limitations on the type of commercial uses and associated traffic on Etiwanda Avenue, and particularly, of the project site. 2. The proposed neighborhood commercial center will be located tus close to a neighborhood center already designated on the General Plan and Victoria Community Plan as one quarter mile west of the project site. 3. Land uses would be less compatible with adjacent properties iC the land use change were approved, since the development intensity of the site would be substantially greater. 4. The conceptual site plan and elevations do not meet the intent of the Etiwanda Specific Plan regarding architectual and design elements, especially relating to scale and pedestrian orientation. Based on the considerations listed above, the General Plan /Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment application as submitted does not provide a adequate justff' cation for amending the Etiwanda Specific Plan and General IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The Initial Study prepared by staff identifies five a,^eas of concern for potential environmental impact. They are: land use and planning considerations; circulation; cultural resources; health, safety and nuisance factors; and esthetics, as discussed below: A. Land US.� 7nd Planning Consideration: The project area is current y- designated as Low Medium Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial under the General Plan, and zoned Community Services under the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Planned land uses surrounding this site are residential in nature. A change from residential and limited office /commercial to neighborhood commercial represents a significant land use impact upon the area. b PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 86 -02A and ESPA 86.01 May 28, 1986 Page 6 B. Circulation: The site is located at the intersection of Base Line and Etiwanda Avenue. The City Traffic engineer has reviewed the proposed land use change and stated that additional information will be required of the applicant to fully evaluate traffic impacts generated by the project. C. Cultural Resources: Development of the site as a 9 acre commercial center could impact cultural resources in two ways. A direct impact could be the disturbance or elimination of the rock curbs on Etiwanda Avenue. Indirectly, the project could impact the adjacent Chaffey- Garcia House and Etiwanda Congregational Church with additional traffic and noise. D. Health, Sarety and Nuisance Factors: Vsvelopment of the si:e as a neighborhood commercial center could create , increase and potential noise levels and light and glare. E. Aesthetics: The portion of this project site along Etiwanda Avenue lies in the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District. The intent of this district is to protect and enhance the visual and historical charcter of Etiwanda Avenue. The proposed project could represent a conflict with the objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Analysis: Staff feels that ;,.,dd•itional information on the five areas listed above may be necessary prior to final consideration of the General. Plan Amendment. If the Commission so desires, the applicant may be required to submit supplemental information such as traffic and noise studies in order to provide more i0ormation on potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures prior to further consideration of the amendments. V. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Should the Commission, upon examination of the General Plan Amendment and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment, decide that the change from Low- Medium Density Residential and Community Services to Neighborhood Commercial would promote the land use goals and policies of the General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plai and would not be materially detrimental to the adjacent properties, or would not cause significant adverse environmental impacts, the following are the findings necessary on approval. A. The amendment does not conflict with the land use policies of the General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan, and 3. The amendment does promote goals of the land use element, and J C. The amendment would not be materially injurious ; 10%rimental to the adjacent properties. __ 3 -o PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 86 -02A and ESPA 86 -01 May 28, 1986 Page 7 VI. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing item in The Dail Report newspaper and notices were sent to all property owners within 0 feet of the boundary of the proposed project. In addition, a 4 foot by 8 foot supplemental notification sign has been erected on site. VII. RECOMMENDATION_ Based on the above analysis, the Commission has sever 'A alternatives regarding the General Plan Amendment /Etiwanda Specific Plan amendment application. The alternatives are: 1. Deny the amendments with no further study. 2. Request the applicant to submit additional environmental information either in the form of detailed studies or a focused environmental impact report with a scope to ha. determined by the Commission at this meeting. 3. Approve the amendment as submitted. This would require,the issuance of a Negative Declaration. Staff recommendation is for denial of this application. SEou1d the Commission wish to act upon the request tonight, a Resolution recommending denial of the Generai Plan Amendment to the City Council and a Resolution denying the Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendmeet, and Resolutions recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment and Etiwanda Specific Amendment, and issuance of a Negative Declaration are attached. Respectfully submitted, )aleze_z_�� Brad Buller City Planner BB:LW:cv Attachments: Exhibit "All - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" - Land Use Designations Exhibit "C" - Site Plan Exhibit "D" - Letter of Justification Initial Study Part II Resolution'recommending Approval Resolution recommending Approval Resolution recommending Denial Resolution of Denial J -� i all, j •�' ��� �� I r;l �rqr LO I � s. a CjP.Li1 I --Dev. tUtrict . % ltoVg$ LOW Metlnm Resldeniiai:l 16 ) - - - --� E F-- i I Cl. I( Dev. DIstti�e I 1 t..W McGlalrResklanlial l i Rxo- its cl � fey a — L ' _--- — _I °�'� RASE LINE -- —_.__� C, Dev. District: LM.1r ;� r. (tai FLOW MetlGrnResWult:ei �ti �S` +a•� 1 tU f a WxW: 1 E2 CITY OF, 1°TCII�t= .a �3�• c�'z. , R A l\C H CLTCAMONGA TITLE= --� PLANtVIN DNISM uettt.__ --A ��t.t Q rr 1'r VJ �t i � •D 14. . f � +71 �. 2 ! - ` �, l•►� V 1S � 1. I ` IA- IL CL 1 I� N inuet '. - 1- tavxua '—Y cyil ! r1 7'gEY��V� Is •,,., is S,ARMJA,16-iK-AM A J March 14, 1986 Planning. Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road, Ste. C Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attention: Planning Staff Gentlemen: I am writing this letter to justify the reasons for an amendment to the General Plan adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This zone change request is being made because of concerns that residents of the Etiwanda area have regarding our corner, Mr. Banks has contacted me about the apartments that we had si.heduled to build the on property adjacent to our shopping center corner at Etiwanda and Baseline. It is his feeling and those of the Etiwanda residents that a larger commercial designation at that corner would be acceptable to the residents of the Etiwanda .. area providing the apartments can be eliminated, The Etiwanda Group has several concerns. First, they would like to be sure that we have only specific approval for the specific development that we are proposing and we give them an opportunity to comment and approve our proposed project before the planning commission approves it. Secondly, the center would aesthetically conform to the requirements of the Etiwanda Specific Plan io every way, particularly with regard to its rural appearance. Third, the center must be the first on Baseline west of the one proposed at Haven. This extends to Fontana. They want the center to be successful so that it will remain clean and safe. If our center is not first, they fear that Victoria or Fontana will steal s our vitality. I EXR -BIT "D" 937SARCHIBALDAVENUE + SUITE 101 RANCHO CUCAMONGA • CALIFORNI.' 81730 714 9aT -3044 Development • Brokerage • Property management + Architecture • Engineering f' Planning Department Staff March 1.4, 1986 page 2 Fourth, they are expecting us to take reasonable steps, by lease provisions or selectivity or other acepetable means, to see that.` neither the center nor any part of it becomes a "hang -out" for any l particular group. Th-e stores will be run by reputable firms, be well lit, have wide :,,isles, be well maintained and otherwise, be good citizens of the community: Fifth, the center wi?I`ye other wise committed to preserving the rural atmosphere of "Etiwl.inda in i - all respects, including k. ;. ,_nn the vast majority of tralrfic on Baseline and cff Etiwanda Avenue which is to remain unchanged with ',,',s rock curbs and gutters r restore,.. I believe that the concerns of the Etiwanda Croup are justification enough for the shopping center that we would like to construct at the northwest corner of Etiwanda and Baseline. We believe that if we meet the requirements of the Etiwanda Groups we will have a ver), fine center and ore that is custom built, Sincerely, TH MAKI.9 C04 ANY i Andrew Barmakian President AB:sm w cITY or RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART IT - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRON:IENTAL CHECKLIST APPLICANT �iy /�y 17,C 1 c 4 FILING DATE: ' UU^ LOG NMMER: Al, -,694 1170 2ROJECT- ,� # PROJECT LOCATION: f fYv �o�'iz�r / /ALL I4it%l I, E: i/ YES wAYBE :�0 a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction Of flowing streams, rivers, channels? or ephemeral stream b• Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the ri:e and amount of runoff? surface water c• Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? , d. Change in the amount of :._trface water in an body of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface Water qual•'ty? f. Alteration of groundwater charact,istics? g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or rit'n-- drawals, or through interfere : =e with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? h. The reduction in she amount of water other - wise available for public water supplies? i• Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? _ 3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant results in. a• Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or interference with the attainment of anplicable air quality 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. Change in the characteristics of species, Including diversity, distribution, or member ' of any spacies of plants? b. Redurtian of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? Page 2 Page 3 YES uaF3E S0 c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area? d. Redaction in the potential for agricultural production.? Fauna. Will the proposal'have significant results i in. A. Change in the characteristics of species, including d1'versity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? J! b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare k or endangered species of animals? c,. Introdlction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier r> T`^ migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration or removal of cxisting fish or _ _ ' wildlife habitat? 5. PODulation. Will the proposal have significant results in: g AL a. Will the proposal alter the .location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? t?. [•'ill the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand %r additional housing? ! _ .r ` 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 sate, and property values? f b. Will project c..6ts be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, 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 planned la,ad use of an area? *� b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, _ Policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? g c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of ' _ •`` existing consumptive or non - consumptive recreational opport4nities? 'l n.ge y yr :'_aY3� NQ $. " ansoor•2tion. .Will the proposal have significant results_'. 1 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 for new narking? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion system --? e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and /or loads? f. Alterations to or effects on present and - potential water - borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles bicyc!, is or pedestrians? ` 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: t a- A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and /or historical resources? _ 10- Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health .hazard? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? C- A risk of explosion or release of hazardous. substances in the event of an accident? _ r d- AP increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? , e- Increase in existing noise levels? .r f.. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise "levels? / 8 The creation of objectionable odors? h. An increase In light or glare? — -Ir- -- r"� Pase 5 ,t Y3S 44Y3E No 11, Aesthetics. Will the propoPil have significant ANN results a; r a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or .,view? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive F site? a c. A conflict with the objective of designated or p)tential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Services_ Will the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric 7ouer? b. Natural or packaged gas? C. Communications systems? d. Water supply? — r F � e. Wastewater facilities? i — f. Flood control structures? g. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? I . Police protection? �. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? . 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood. control facilities? M. Other governmental services? 13. Ene I and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal' have significant results in: a. Use of substanrcial or excessive fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? Ip c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? d. An increase or e r p of the consumption .._ forms of non - renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? Page 6 Y, °S MAYBE No e, Substantial depletion of aay nonrenewable or scarce natural resource? i 14. Mandatory Findinzs cf Sienificance. a. Does the project have the potential to ,degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the.hajor periods of California history or pre',4story? r 5. Does the project have the p��tential to achieve short -term, to the disadvaw:age 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). R c. Daes -the � � project have impacts wb„ch are individually limited, but cuu _:".Avely considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, and probable future projects). d. -Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on 'human beings, either directly or indirectly? !" IT. DISCUSSTON;OF ENL*IRO*.i4� -tTAi, EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers the above questions plus a discussion of to p proposed mitigation measures). Page 7 III. DET:� : dTic27 On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed ro ecL o" an the en�•ironmen- p � � "`� NGT I +.ave a significant effect -. and a SEGATIVE DECURATIO:I will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measuras described an an attached sheet °have been added to the project. A NEGaTIIE DECLdRA,TION WILL BE PREFARrD, Project efind the proposed'pro'ect a4Y have a significant of envirn:yent and an � feet on the IMPACT RE,?ORT 'required. is Date Signature T_n. t I e ,A INITIAL STUDY - PART II E Land Use and Planning Considerations The application for a t3eneral Plan Amendment from a residential use to a commercial use represents a significant alteration of the planned land use of the Etiwanda area. Should the General Plan Amendment be approved, an amendment of tht. Etiwanda Specific Plan would also be requried so that the two plzns. are in conformance. Transportation The proposed land use change from residential to commercial use could result in, significant additional traffic, especially on Etiwanda Avenue which has been identified in the General Plan as sensitive to any increase in vehicular movement. Potential impacts inlcude widening of Etiwanda Avenue, alterations in traffic patterns and increased hazard to bicyclists, pedestrians, and other traffic. Although some of t!fe impact could possibly be mitigated, it is unknown if all of the impacts could be mitigated at this level of review. Cultural Resources Development of the 10 acre site as a rei'ghborhood commercial could disturb un -site resources such as the rock curb face on Etiwanda Avenue and indirectly impact off site resources such as the Chaffey- Garcia house and Etiwanda Congregatonal Church located directly north of the project site. Health, Safety and Nuisance Factors The proposed land use change could create an increase in existing noise levels and light and glare from additional traffic and parking lot lighting. Aesthetics Portions of the site which front Baseline Road and Etiwanda Avenue are subject to special regulation as a designated Community Entry & Special Boulevard. In addition, Etiwanda Avenue is subject to special aesthetic considerations as under the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District and the Community Service Overlay District. The land us_-- change from residential to commercial could conflict with the special mti�''_Ztions pertainirg to aesthetic character of the Etiwanda Community. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85 -02A, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN FROM LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DU /AC) TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL FOR 5 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND ETIWANDA AVENUE - APN: 227- 1z1. -24, 25, 26. WHEREAS, the P.anfiing Commission has held a duly advertised public hearing to consider all comments on the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 86 -02A. SECT 0'A 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Thy;, Amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Poli.ies of the General Plan. B. The Amendment promotes goals of the Land Use Element. C. The Amendment would not be materially injurious or . detrimental to the adjacent properties. SECTION 2: The General Plan Land Use Map shall be amended as follows: Assessor's Parcel Numb,�rs 227- 111 -24, 25, 26 shall be changed from Low Medium Density Residential (4 -8 du /ac) to Neighborhood Commerical. SECTION 3: A Negative Declaration is hereby recommended for adoption by the City Council for this General Plan Amendment, based upon the completion and findings of the Initial Study. " NOW, THEREFORC,_ Sd IT RESOLVED, that the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 86 -02A to the City Council. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, 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 regularly introduced, Passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamorga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of May, 1986, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSTON;rRS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: EN E RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 86 -01 REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION FROM COMMUNITY SERVICES AND LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 OU /AC) TO NEIGHBORHOOD CC,1MERCIAL FOR 9.4 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ETIWANDA AND BASE LINE - APN 227 - 111 -10, 24, 25, 26. WHEREAS, on the 1st day of May, 1986, an application was filed and accepted on the above- described project; and WHEREAS, on the 28th day of May, 1986, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the California Government Code. SECTION is The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission makes the following findings: I. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and 2. That the proposed district change: would not have significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and 3. That the proposed district change is in conformance with the General Plan. NOW, tHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government Code, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends denial on the 28th day of May, 1986, No. 86 -01. 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council deny No. 86 -01. 3. That a Certified Copy of t+)is Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council. J -a3 �4' any APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH CAY OF MAY, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: rad 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 regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of May, 1986, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:. Ailk RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION uF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, .CALIFORNIA, RECOMP "- UENIAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 86 -02A. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a duly adiertised public hearing to consider all comments on the proposed General Plen Amendment No. 86 -02A. SECTION 1. The Ranc'• -, Cucamonga Planning Commission cannot make the following findings: A. The Amendment 1ries Pt)t conflict with the 1,:4 «d Use Policies of the General Plzn. B. The Amendment promotes goals of the Land Use Element. C. The Amendment would not he materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Rancho Cucamonga Panning Commission does hereby recommend denial of General Plan Amendment No. to the City Council. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, 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 regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of May, 1986, by the following vote -to -wit :. t AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ;� ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: t a P RESOLUTION N0. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANN!f�G COMMISSION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT,: NO. 86 -01 REQtESTING A CHANGE iN THE DESIGNATION FROM ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT COMMUNITY SERVICES TO P NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL FOR 9.4 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE NORTHYEST CORNER OF ETIWANHA AND RASE LINE ROAD - APN: 2'7- 111 -10, 24, 25, 26. r WHEREAS, on the 1st day, ,f May, 1986, an application was filed and accepted on the above- described prr�ject; and WHEREAS, on the 28th d"a; of :May, 1986, the Planning Commission held a r duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section-65854 of the California Government Code. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga ;Tanning Commission cannot make the following findings: t 1. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the propos.�3 district in terms of access; size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area: and l 2. That the proposed district change wo.'d not have significant impact on the en.1 ronment nor the surrounding properties; and 3. That the proposed district change is 'in cnnformance with the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. Tha' pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government Code, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends denial on the 28th day of May, 1986, No. \ 86 -01. 2. The Planning Commission hereby�fecommends that the City Council deny No. 86 -01. 3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council. " APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 1986. CANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, 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 regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of 'Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular mEet1ng of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of May, 1986, by the follow�ng vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERSc NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: r4 ;, 7 r 1 U ur � DATE: TO: FROM: BY SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT May 28, 1986 Chairman and Members Of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Bruce Cook, Associate P'1inner Goo ��cn ►,o10 r C/ y O p v >- 1977 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13191 LEWIS HOMES - The total development e a residential subdivi sicn- of 8.40 acres in the Medium Residential District (4 -14 du /ac) within the Terra Vist- Planned Community into 80 lots, located on the norms' st corner of Terra Vista Parkway and Church Street 4: 1077 - 091 -25. 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of subdivision map for 80 lots, approval of precise plot plan and building elevations for the development of 80 attached and detached singia- family homes and issuance of a Negative Declaration. R. Pro ect Dens ity: 9.52 dwelling units per acre C. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning- North - Single- Family homes (Tract 12319, under construction); Medium Residential (4 -14 du /ac) within the Terra Vista Planned Community. South Vacant, previously maintained as vineyards; Office Park within Terr, Vista Planned Community East 393 apartment units (Tract 12673, under construction); Medium Residential (4 -14 du /ac) within the Terra Vista Planned Community West - Vacant, previously maintained as vineyards (future 3500 .series, single- family homes, Tentative Tract 12318); Low - Medium Residential (4 -8 du /ac) within the Terra Vista Plajjned Community D. General Plan Desi nations• Project Site - Medium Residential (4 -14 du /ac) North - Medium Residential (4 -14 du /ac) South - High - 0-- fential (24 -30 du /ac) East - Medium Residential (4 -14 du /ac) West - Flood Control Channel; Medium Residential (4 -14 du /ac) ITEM K PLANNING COMMISSIOU STAFF REPORT ENV. ASSESS. & TT 13191 May 28, 1986 Page 2 A2L- E. Site Characteristics The site was previously maintained as a vineyard, but has since been cleared, and now contains neither any vegetation or structures. The site is bord-red to the north and south by single - family homes (Tract 12319) and Church Street, resoectively, and to the east and west by Terra Vista Parkway and the Deer Creek Flood Control Channel, respectively. The property within this area slopes southward at approximately a 2% grade, F. Applicable Regulations: The Terra Vista Planned Community permits one dwelling per 3,000 square foot minimum lot size, to approximately a 7,200 maximum lot size, in a conventional subdivision in the Low - Medium and Medium Residential designations. II. ANALYSIS• A. Ceneral: -This tract i4 located within the :Medium Residential T4--!T—du/ac) land use designation within the Terra Vista Planned Crimmunity. The proposed mi.;imum lot size is 3,000 square feet, with the largest lot being U,436 squar6 feet; the average lot size is approximately 3,500 square feet. Lewis Homes is proposing development of this. tract with their "Village Series "; a combination of detached and attached single- family homes. Arc(.itecture is of a Span i sh/Meditteranean style, combining a flat stucco finish with a barrel - style the roofing. All units are two - story and have their own two -car garage. Three footprints, each with a variety of elevations, are shown. Provided with each product type are two alternative floor plans: one with a front -on garage, and one with a side -on garage. Product types are designed to be sited as either detached or attached units. Church Street is to be developed as a type "E" trail (see attached). B. Design Review Committee:' The Design Review Committee reviewed the project and was concerned about providing as large 'a street -side sideyard as possible for corner lots, maximizing the use of attached units with side -entry garages for more space between buildings, reducing a number and /or ticrease the spacing of drive approaches, and providing a higher quality �and a more pleasinn streetscape. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPO,P-' ENV. ASSESS. & TT 13191 May 28, 1986 , Page 3 , In response to the Committee`s concern, the applicant plotted '91 corner lots with an attached unit to create as large a street -side side yard as possible, redesigned the unit mix and Plotting to maximize the use of attached units with side - entry garage buildings, redesigned the configuration of the lots at' the knuckle in the northwest corner of the project from front- on units to f1Rfg , lots to reduce the mass of the drive approaches, and revised the architecture per the d:rection of the Design Review Committee to improve the overall quality of the streetscape. The Design Review Committee has recommended approval of the project as revised, and with the Conditions of Approval as indicated on the 4ttached Resolution. C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee reviewed the project and determined that, with the recommended Conditions of Approval, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances, D. Gradincc Committee: The Grading Committee has reviewed the eoriceptual grading as revised, and has found this plarr to be consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. E. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and found no significant impacts on the environment es a result of this prnject. A copy of Part II of the Environmental Checklist is attached for your review and consideration, III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: In order for this project to be approved, the Planning Commission must find this project to be consistent with the Terra Vista Planned Community and the General Plan, and that this project will not be detrimental to adjacent property or cause significant adverse impacts. It must also be determined that the proposed use, building designs, and" subdivision, "together with the recommended Conditions of Approval; are in compliance with all applicable regulations in the Development Code and the Terra .Vista Community Plan. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The Daily Report newspaper, the property posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. -3 I , PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ENV, ASSESS. & TT 13191 May 28, 1986 Page 4 V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends,�'that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Tract 13191,- `'subject to the Conditions of Approva', through .adoption of tJ-i attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration, Respectfully submitted,' Brad Buller City Planner BB :BC:cv Attachments: Exiriuit "A" - Location /Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Area Development Plan Exhibit "C" - Subdivision Map Exhibit, "0" - Site Plan Exhibi--' "E" - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit "F" Conceptual landscape Plan _ Exhibit "G" - Building Elevations Exhibit "N" - Type "E" Trail Part II,, Initial Study Resolution of Approval with Conditions i i 'i of v -_o A I [fir, ri - .r a w A z °> < > Eli[ ; Pl =� � Q Z II Nom` J /�J� NN;`Ile- SKIN ,' \( i N ( J t 1 �y[. it r � � - r %•' J.�.:c�� - � " NORTH .g. CITY CF T tTFr�t• ��( w �► RANCM CUCATMo \GA ---- r TTI'LE: PL.ANNM DR%)ON EYHIEWr: �it,rmn � �11ii •1 /i��n♦ rte, �, � 11,E rr son RUN WIN b • � fi, AREA DEVELOP.GENF PLAN TENTATIVE TRACT Nn- ixicl CITYnv a RANCHO CUCAMONGA K ANNL'\r, DiV)SF x r :tea v , NORTH TITi.: E`fHIEfI'- ALE ------.__ -11-AT ZRT -Kft NAP TENTATIVE I TRACT NO. 15191 ea "M k3w to SAMMO I cm, Wcv"*"aft"Dwa 0 . o"Va"c"Amm" . i. B.sommao ^ is la" I , 'a Le" W a lw NURTH't ti Trrm, EXHIBrr.--%,, _- a � .ice muaCN STOELT pi7[aaA rM� %tnro�RVAY Trr �u�iioloX �. i 1 i • • 1123[1[' S[CTtON� ♦ N[Y MAF ' 1 r TENTATIVE TRACT NQ. 13191 0/ TX£ CITY OF RAXCNO COCAMONOA :pux[r OF EAN 6[RNAap1A0 i STAT£ Of uuFORMA JANSAIY. ISaL� 49ACRIS M� so LO me a. LOTS a `S` 111 DETAILED SITE PLATT NOR771 CITY OF HEM. I ti 1. � RANCH r CUCA1VIO\CiA TITLE= EXHIBIT: '; 7- Cxvm Cl 9ZT - *o �C�.. FI \ W STRUT 't" —.. i- MI, �-"m stenos- A, 11ZL TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15191 A Tur CITY Of Nw o CI)CkNo" or a" samm"."No -0 RIATR of c4urolum g.4*ACXU i-seloTs a are *A* a w PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN INURTH, CITY CF RANCHO 71 T CLCAMONGA TrrLE.- '-2AK>hjz E.KHtBiT:_ SCALE. i 5 • « t PLANT LEGD* Q °s:..Nw.•t�:°.e• _ • w Q w•n •M.MM YNW MMi1N tW0YMC0Yti • .Nwtn•N• y fitly \itn. I.Nl i•ti r g A . f. MRTT T `A CITY CF ANCHO CLC AMOiNG A TITLE; -1� ,► . - P�� L.ANNIrIG E\'HBTr• SCALE =_____ V CITY of RANCHO Ci (A- M0TXGA Tom S rrr. �i3��I PLANN11% EW IL t . c i NORTH CITY -- PLANNING DIVISION ,r _ ••`c` • • EXHIBIT =. it E f _ CITY CF ITEM. V : PLANNu -,u � TTiZE i EXHIBIT': 'U, 270 &IL NORTH, CrFY OF RANCHO CUCAMoiNGA PLAMiNu DrvmaN FXHIMT- -1(�SCALE-- ? ° LJ 7' Me Cl"Pf CF RANCHO T ITEki =I CLCAMO t GA 'tT u: PLAN' LKV75iON • EXHIMT.- -�--�- � ��� �i`�1�`�" r f Ln1 s Ul D WMAt SIDI / MAN / LEFT SSCC EMATIMIS i NORTH CITY_ nLvl _ .RA1\ CUCAMONGA Tom: � s. PLANNING. IaR%IO N EXHtBrr= SCALE ------- --_.. C . Alm ID 8 ` 00000 Ei La i00 � o �toNt �)b� t'AEA��r groE �vetfons, . r . 4 / l, k MR'TH CITY CF RANCHO P.[.riN1VINN DRrLSiON EEL , EXHIBIT: SCALE:_�_� is • .w. E 000000 ' 8 _ 110 oar�oo I - . fig c o �naHr s"! RFAw i tSF7 .'asp OMIT M - i . NORTH CITY OF RANCHO CI,CAMONGA E 1� � �I1�IG TITLE; I✓H�VLSI�N - -� ' EXHIBIT:_ SC.rILE._____�_ c x =- e m 0 1 ! El e � 0 HIGHtSltlsiaEwv LE rWoe►MAnaas _ . NORTH; CITY OF .. RANCHO C CAMO\tt ` L�S 'x j(E: ?G PIANNNT ON E ST�� — L2 _SCALE:` � _ W 085 1114a 9 [LU " DI.- FRONT ELEVATION FRONT OF nTtut,l * Q, r,0.3 FRONT ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION N0R'Qi CITY OF RANCED CUCAMONGA Tnu: PLANM9G DIVZM E.KfjjMT. SCALE: ---- -- QL �t lip M` ii \ p G I 1 j ,. �0aoo ar.c 0°00=0 RIGHT SIDE I [TEAR / L ;FT SIDE ELEVATIONS NORTH I CITY OF �`C CLTC:f1V�Ch�TGA iTE=bl =�--- �► --____ I'L A'VNING DMSION EYHIBiT: -_$5 ; v! +Lr,� i�fl II C RIGHT SIDE E Vi ATIGq RIGHT SIDE El EV 7A tn�- i !AEAF ELEVATION y t Q Q W Z Q 4evew.ew.wer. �) i � U Fez O REA9 ELEVATION W J W O r 2 Q ul nrneonenrar q+rarw�SUq� RIGHT SIDI= ELEVATION SEAR ELEVA'.'oN u,ee. en .... •• eu� w - -.r.. IITT ICUCAMUNGA k ' v V NrRTU nm- -1 v a . E1HIB:T� y' Open fence typical Solid fence typical Fenres optional for side -on condition for tear -on condition 'Trail tree" "Trail tree" or neighborhood itt tree" Single Single rivatei I rivate —� family 6, family setbaa etbac S — 6' min. 15Setbark optional� Ce for sid!!•On; Building Sepai ation 10' fos rear -on B�ildinq Se aration 25 for side-on condition 25' for 1 -2 story 35' for rear -on condition 35' for 3 story Trail Type „G,. Trai! Type "D" S:ngie family both sides Multifamily Adjacent to One or flag S.-des of Trail i S. ric enlarged Wft I 14,1 ! r 1L ��, # FIGURE IV43 Trail Types "C " "D," and "[•` — Secondb. Tiaf Sections -- E Road nray Riufit of Wa 8' 3ombired lsicycle and Pedestrian Paths Trail Typc "E Adjacent to Roadway r ` 1-24 f PTO ' C1,1Y - ~ . r RAN CM ,� �,. Pi.P�Tldjjj+,� D>�J7�SK)N � 'i'IiL.E��_ , m r • \;V ' CITY OF RANCHO CUMA -MONGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY ENVI£OPI;,MNTAL CHEC_:LIST " DATE: ���: �f a• 1980 APPLICANT. �. FILI:;G DAM �st, PROJECT: AD PRO, ECT LOCATION:�� I. ENI'l- toniElITAL IMPACT5 v,.'.:SEI y:at:ion of all "yes" and "maybe" snscers are required sheets). cn attached YES MAYBE NG Ank 1. Soils and Geolo¢v; Wilk the proposal b�,ve significant results ia: i ' a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships ?' b. Disruptions,_ displacements, compaction or burial oaf the soil? ....� *� 7" C. •Change in topography or ground surface contour interval_? ' d. The destruction, coveving or modificztion I` of any unique geologic or physical feaLurPs? e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting _ithe; on or off site conditons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? I g. Exposure of people or troperty to geologic hazards such as ea::thquakes, landslides, mud- s] {;des, ground failure, or'similar hazards? h. kn increase in the rat,. ' extraction anOor ~> use of any mineral resource? '7 2. iiydrploQV. Will the proposal have significant results in: i Page 2 YES, XAYBE No a. Changes in cu- rents, or the course of direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? - b. Changes in 4lbsorprion rates, drainage or the rate :and amount of surface wateratterns, runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of £load waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in anv body of water? e. Discharge intc surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality - f. :Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, 7 either through direct additions or with - drawvls, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? Quautity? h• The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water svpplics? 1. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards _ such as flooding or seiches? 3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant _ results in: a. Constant or periodic air -_missions from mobile or iudixect sources? Stationary sources? b,. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or Interference with the at•%inment of applicable air quality standards? c. Alteration of local or reg_cnal climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? 4. Biota rlora. Will the proposal have significant results in: -a . a. Change in. the characteristics of species, including diversity, distributio,*.., or r.1imber Of any species of plants? b. Reduction of the numbers Gf any unique, ^rare or endangered species of plants? X i ?aee 3 YES `L�YB� �6 c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area? d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? Fauna. Will the proposal'haq'e significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including, diversity, distribution, 6r numbers of any species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unilue, rarfa or ei.dangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 4 S. Ponularion. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of t '-e human populatian of an area? b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or .create a demand for additional housing? 6. .SOciO- Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change is local or reg,,oral socio- economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax _ate, and property values? b Will ?roject costs be equitably ,cistri,:" among project beneficiaries, 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 planned land use of an area? b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? C. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non - consumptive recreational opportunities? ,• Page G YES . "AF9E PIO 8. zesul tat -on- 'Will, the proposal have signifitani a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for 7' new street construction? c. Effects or, existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon exis ting transports -' tion syst°_ms? �t e. Alteraticns to present patterns or circula- tion or movement of people and /or goods? £. Altavatio:s to or effects on present and potential water - borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehi,9les, bicyclists or pedestrians? .9. Cultural resources. Will the proposal have significant results a: Aft a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and /or historical resources? 10. Health, Safet and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results a. Creation of any health hazard of potential health bazar,'? b Exposure of people to potential health hazards? c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? d. An increase it' the ;cumber of indivMc?uals or species of vector or pathenogen #z organisms of the exposure of people to such organisms? ` e. Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerot•, noise, levels? g. The creaticu of objectionable odors? S 11.1 increase is light or glare? i Page 5 YES !!AY3E No 11. Aesthetics, Will the proposal have significant results in: 1. r a. The Obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? c. A conflict with the objective of design,,ted C or potential scenic corridors? „ 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal alt have a significant need far new systems, or alterations to the followiug: a. E1ec xic power? b. Natural: or packaged gas? C. Commuccati.Irs systems? t d. Watch st;ply? P a. Wastewate-z facilities? f. Flood control structures? - g. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? i. rolice protection? J. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? I. Maintenance of public facilities, including y s roads and flood control facilities? i M. Other governmental services? 13. E_ re} and Scarce Resources. :Till the proposal have significant results In: u— Use of substantial or e.7cessivt� fuel or energy? r b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumptim of non - renewably forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are— tvailable? kg�- 3,� v_ ?age 6 YES MAYBE NO e. Substantial depletion of any nontenewable or scarce natural resource? 14 Mandatory Findin s of SiQaif canca. a• Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range Of ; -rare or endangered „plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? j b. Does the proect have the Potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of -long- term, environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the :7htute). C. Does�'the project have impacts which are` _/Y_ individually limited, but cumulatively r considerable? means that the incrementalleffects dofaane dft individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, "r and probable future projects) d. Does the project have environmental effects E which will cause substanti-'.'1 adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indi%:ectly? II. DISCUSSION OF ENC2RONtgNT, EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to F the above questiocas plus a discussion pr proposed mitigat'!= -measures). ALL— .`llas -fax, -04M IZ4,jtp_t4M Uwv i- � el��a�•t r���v...e-- n�ae -ti r•a�sc- t{ss�„ , �1�� - l 4 '3,A . T �D ` Paee 7 IIi. DETEE^ 1fI_ yATION j s" On the basis of this initia3 evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DE CLARATZOy will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have l significant ' I effect on the environment, there Will not be a significant effect +--� in this case because the mitigati ^n measures " described on an attached sheet have been ;added to the project, A NEGATIVE DECLAULTION WILL BE PREPARED. ' I find the Proposed project WXY have a significant effect on the envirnment, and an MIRON'—'= DIPACT REPORT is required. Late �Si�'na Lore N 1 i a Ehq. i i V r � V it kL RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13191 AND DESIGN RrVIEW THEREOF r WHE 'AS, Tentative Tract Map No. 13191, hereinafter "Map" submitted ° by Lewis Homes, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property 6 situ ?ted in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as 8.40 acres in the Medium Residential District (4 -14 du /ac) within the Terra- Vista Planned Community, located on the northwest corner of Terra Vista Psrkw3y and Church Street (APH: 1077 - 091 -25), into 80 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing (Ind action on May 28, 1986; and i WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's reports; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the t Engineering and Planning Division's rei;orts and has considered other evidence presented at the public hnar:ng. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission. makes the following findings in regard to Tentative�,Tract No. 13191 and the Map thereof: . (a) The tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans, t (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; F (c) The site is physically suitab?ea for the type of development proposed; (d) The design cf the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; Y. (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; x (f) The design of the tentative tract will riot 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. PLAN',ING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. T1' 13131 LEWIS HOMES May 28, 1586 Page 2 (g) That this project will not crenate au, erse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued. - I SECTIUU 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 13191 a copy of which is attached hereto and Design Review thereof, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: Design Review• 1. Each Tot within the project shall have a minimum flat (2% slope or Bess), rear !-ard opei area from building to property line, o• slopelretnning wall of 15 feet. A final detailed site Man which indicates the slope, and retaining wall location in unit plotting shall be s`u'bmitted prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Each lot within the project will be provided with front yard irrigation and landscaping, including, street trees and seeped lawn. Details shalt be provided on the landscape and irrigation plans submitted to the Planning Division "or review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Street facing side elevations on all corner lots, ';nand the Aft street facing elevatim for all units facing Terra Vista Parkway and Church Street, shay be upgrad ,,d with additional architectural embellishments. Details of the architectural upgrading shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance cf building permits. 4. Corner side yard fencing and /or retaining walls ,hall be set back a minim +im distance of 5 feet from the bt.k of sidewalks. S. For all corner lots, the side yard between the sidewalk and the side yard fencing shall be landscaped and irrigated by the developer. 6. All reta',tiny walls visible to the general publ,:, i.e., on the street ilde of uoraer side yards and within the front yard, are to be instructed of a decorative material to the satisfaction of the City Planner.. All wood fencing installed by the developer shall be treated w4th water -ealant or staining. 7. Landscape treatments at the end of side -on cul -de -sacs shall be designed to provide an open view into the interior of the cul- de-sacs. Design treatment shall include the use of decorative vought iron fencing and sidetii-lk connections from the sidewalk to the perimeter street. 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESCLUT73U N0. TT 13191 LEWIS HOMES May 28, 1986 Page 3 Ask 8. !+ six -foot high masonary wall shall be the tract perimeter adjacent to Terra Vista Parkway, Churr pjStreet, and the Deer Creek Flood Control Channel. The wall treatment along both Terra Vista Parkway and Church Street shall be consistent with the existing design along Terra Vista Parkway and shall be submitted for review anal approval to the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. The wails on Terra Vista Parkway and Church Street shall be staggered and off -set to incrrase visual interest. Landscape maintenance eas, gents will be required where perimeter walls encroach onto pr irate dots, and are to be dedicated on the final map. Final platting of all fences and locations of all easements are to be determined prior to recordation of the final map. Tentative Tract. I. Church Street shall be constructed from Haven Avenue to Terra G Vista Parkway as follows prior to occupancy: A. Full street improvements for the north roadbed'., kB. Full median island with one opening at "A" Street. i' 2. Terra Vista Parkway street improvements for the west roadbed shall be constructed from Church Street to the tract's northerly property line prior to occupancy. 3. The applicant shall provide intersection drains at Church Street and "A" Street. "A" and "C" Streets shall drain into th'es •intersection drain. 4. Lots "A ", "B ", and "C" shall be placed in the City's Landsc -ape District. i APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF ',AY, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Connission of the City Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly ar "a regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commissior rsr the City n;f Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Ce.%n ssiun held on the 28th A-y, of Kay, 1986, by the following vote -to -wit: k � 34 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 13191 - LEWIS HOMES May 28, 1986 Page 4 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: CONIMI.,SIONERS: 5 1. P i J It M OCiLYU Yti LN d a2L A CCOq AL ° .2� L= ��V d6. Yr Nn Oti rEgC �cn �E p�u � a'° °sTO C6ac °au bns °<c °n ae« IT Fyn Eb �^ to ~O IT q � 6 F Q ndro CM �EL O »E U d � Y V °7q Oyu On ddO L �"nO �bO O �p^qc aN y a 41 •O O yq E +'oy dy-- u3at'n ° UY YD �n b�n d €L NC 9 � Cm .- pb «,o aEyU e oo pro NmS°al..~6aotq ro uo°' tea^ dx _a^ �_ z co a odro c..a »uo 4-. E 4 LLCOU >N�Y pLL N.�yN N drN ^q� Nero NroC d a^ p 5 d gN.er O. ^Q -E C.O. v D.NL E.C� Y °dy.� �vL OLWro a6 dvL n6j � w NNeCe yOC . . yo T roO.Y.. y ^ -O Aa YT .YOUEG Yu GE dy, �O E a N Eq aq EE u y Z E . O �.YL EE `'. ^ Y uLa E- LO 3 w> O E -.50S., O Q^ q C q C q OnVY «2N R p y -2 ". =V2 Sr ro R.2O � d . rOOaN G.YM 4N.�WU3 40gm b N m � ' 9- r H Z b O p gl1Y.L. 0. -tt O 9. p y N p > B L °Y.� EoEa oY N ro E~ A _ Ll Y . L. uYi u Yp N p VyUm try LO. sF iE = N o L d q 6n- ---- -- HEN2 °uy�' a J b O p qq W >t O VY Ia t` W W p O C� p ° O 3 r « t ° t Q 9C J 6 N�' N O tgy�Gy%.a �Y~ lo .4uv .y ^oL� ea m� °•>°a`o� o++a 2 tvav o�"to 0 1p Y uc ° o d 20 p r L « MN A« '•'�' y «a 61 EOE �L+ a4 3M Y O �1R « s-C'^m bU Yaad O OpE o a+= Vn v YYEY Ox Ua Ou Y E y. E wz,. aY ivr c 1 Aa iL.r a C«�C' Ed^ OU� LCY sTiC« AC U `«°' �Nq >uN « u 2E. ^= r L ^�° c. d. C y L) uo oucd 6 v °o .'.=oJ E $�5wL ?' :h vd �r_c ia.�°e °� ^L'".c Np�on NC V NM.p L co '7C n a� M2. v aaQ C�•l Lty +y�N w N `�a Sot C C•a d W t Y U C fm nN sou M �'«e dc= n n v y c e 'Bea, °C ^ ° a' Y �c u A 4ia s A.W �c.nt } u c > ^ ^.� E. y' 1. uuu K V o me ci rna o4a �curn C Y ,,,=La•°.0 qOn �°A`ca EE U 3 ¢N dNU T9 uU EE> A A E 4 yD 6 N L c 0 Y d Y a ^ _ y u na.° L i '^c 9 Q�°EM60 CNUY+- SSNdn � 4W �+4 Wrr3 CC KLAyd N6 p. - Lti c °cc U o cam~ otic op qiN L. LEA a w �d C C O. �JJ 1. cli .y k.- 43 9 N u A N u y ° o d 20 p r L « MN A« '•'�' n C 61 EOE �L+ a4 3M Y O �1R « s-C'^m bU Yaad O OpE o a+= Vn v LuppAS «O ^yE.`LpGgy L^ Ox N�op WN,Cd iL ^,.E„ uK `«°' �Nq >uN « u L ^�° v °o " •°.•� �r_c ia.�°e °� ^L'".c Np�on NC V d.. c.OLL '7C n a� M2. v u y.. N C�•l A +y�N N `�a Sot C C•a d W t �c.nt A 4t„ jc LOLL L me ci rna o4a o�c cL= s M °L y u na.° L i '^c 9 c0 �� < «C o N`a:, .., L.yu u ° p s W .'c, a L uOY as a Lti c °cc euv' o cam~ c 9 otic op qiN L. LEA a w �d C C O. �JJ q .Ca NC.01cN Ty 04 q > >soV a4LYL p DLL Ca` Q4 RC 6- V-' MR agi�G ft960. °O K ^Md ua'r1V u'14.9 6u �p6daU6. J a.4d N«Ol «� 6a YNYGVE� tt t gKW4.. cz k.- 43 - jY.Yt O..CO Y L CO. d ^C p1Y O.TOOq���i qu Cu Y � S E L C u � O • 6 V C q a O 1.�... Zkg t a� cM p16 �YL Y b N °°— Ot- c �^ Y GG r Y' + L Na 0 ^L y 1 O N O C LL Y V U L u a 0 p0n q 0 y.Y V ^ W O L t cu -5, O E a -E O ^.N �.Na gLLO O kca�".0 O�a NN. d � • C �YNa d1 U CqN 7 oUO dOI `pN. 1 2L a. L•as �� «j' q^ A .¢ .c. �^ do 61„. N• n «9 �C 6IT ^ nq OO�N�CL1Lq daC a•+acT ^.tea'^'•" aL c9 yM� Q y Nyd-x n^ vC V.Yr. YY.gLN y.r yC gc$aa �uVLLp L o Evy- m Lr• C p 3 79 o „C A dy q nygj l7w L° •+ o^ 69 C a•�. -� cT EE tqi G•Yil�y,• L9- a O. a0 d Nu qT °° B «wd .eV d .1°-• HN Id Y q d Gy« 6q9 N�Gy °1 to �dLe VYY Nt' O dndd N� N OD• d mp L G cLN L c n °�Ou E.G pON Y d� d .G ^ d nT'LLw C tY G a N °L C n po •-i0 c..G. Nov �uA �qn�� Ew 5 .1fq 0. `u u v' tnI ul ^I � � 1• f� C. u ae o YyY •q- 6 Eq O q N G a Y« L ¢¢ qvc Q�C U�Qd L V.4q. 6Q�� qE c •°y`N C ,Y4Y N °a NqN EY q U q Y U O.�iO uq t aW C q 6�nN Y C u p p N O O Ya C ^ ^u V) a d U T V yl y N nn t alr 4. t Y � S V � C �o n QtY •^ y N G Z u N O O V u a i+• C y An c iOr d �a a� cM p16 �YL Y b N °°— �•�;ai • �^ Y GG r Y' + Vn 6p6N dd.pgp =. .-u L N9 L. •� o G � t Y CG. aY E N O x T Y T 41 O E a ^ �° tv Gi C° adiMV C� EE vNQ�Ey JMN p. 9 Vic• E YG 5 ?E a•T . as °^ �N p q c YU cL qE y.c0 U pL~ C qLp. -1A LA nC qq.� 6 � CLm..�°ILn W• 6w ♦+ Y H N � °• a� cM p16 �YL Y b N °°— �•�;ai N' X �^ Y GG aka. °v c � Vn 6p6N dd.pgp =. n f q'c^� �� iggn «+ aNO ay.N r M O E a ^ �° tv Gi C° adiMV C� EE vNQ�Ey JMN p. 9 Vic• E YG 5 ?E a•T . as °^ �N p q c YU cL qE y.c0 U pL~ C qLp. Y Q is �. c Q'N6A KYLL•e09 WI?. pYNdp. b Y • W .Y os_5a °a cV O N u O vT y0� E cc •� tvE 00 -0 E d^ V Ldlai u� j E . O ' n a 9���N �dW e LH LL dayE •p• uY ao yQO,�E° d¢ 6 L A L d N d d N ._ o'm uyn o J do � ..• y 4 d Nz u u G. U d c QYC tqi. 10 N bVNE6F) �VQ N. SH�y°d•q -S NN WN y .V.� 7" • 4 an d ..• °�dO �. `. d WY C�q tYUN ! n d d c n °^ U naa •O '^'� e E i Q. y. E> q N E p O a L a q E D T V O N dOV VOq =UGuY ao m CT •_d V d�ai t —A �L o "0. 2 a -j o QvC q E c u � '� � w V N O O '� _ C u " �• A Z O q �yE dm pCV. dnn u 3i ~ Y 02- d O N'i« V y DO. •~.. °. ppC yL.cu uu =,q u 2T c bd u .T m Lo+ V �. EEy EN °N° Ea LE6 ° uv i fnbN IL-66d 3L4�C 1�N6 q u E -,.W 4 6O6dL�V] N L•C nW.O L N N 6 Yy Y4 W �1 d a t e V 9 C W c . V u q nc d u O U q Nbt m Yt q�.uNY bym A Y -0i YYp sN 9 a YN.°`. d. p C %E i C ra a iMV M-1 N g c � Tv > t d a Y d L a g c C L ° c n ° d u -0% d LO1C cT O dd y CyV ;yV . _, ,o ga °d N E. dyV nL ELUN OOyy ���N n Cu y yLdC E LY r T A y Cb O uYO.by N u wed O��W C V T G T° q n9 T n i ad 7d y dO.N wy da€ •°w.°L .•.E^ °aN � YV•V LdaE N� tnC LF y�rG 2G N O N4L -0ncT TA L V Y .".• .°.NSam Cp y °N n 9N SL A -0iacY C t'Kc G .rnY �. t °^n+c i Y` W --^ N 0 L L^ rn Y 6 c d c a q E O C A C V .. . V V� C d H Ur. NUMi JLE:•r f,p V Y hq�q..c. G^ °vT M, u q- N,Vp .� 5�`^ 1 Co. 00 O C WX Wax 0%tz u N NI � 11 N A! ` .AC OO v cc��r .L U d< .D � V I P ro U �• O p A ^ d U N L t N d ro C U+.... •�.�+> rA N -T �'r LY Y o uF N Q ^. 3 'o u2°Nc°- 'O2 ^ ra ° cd � — NL .12'9 is „� AnE „= r ac r N do U cu ro N a !° L O z` I a Ap � >�L ""O nNL E - °. C d L ° P V uYW C ...qa L •' wo.'"o �O6 G °pd C. d' ^• m 3 d.✓ ad. A A r. N > .=1 EpLC aL' Y2vi q`C CL uYe • � yrojQU E� ay°+ I V 1 L °�u N V 4 Lin N ° u a •"' °p � Na WO EE o u y �r LY O A O CA T aE 6q a. O AL 2 ° • Y d 4 VOO N uo A L� Lu 9 d' > O GOnW G� U9 6q Y.N 6Lp �. 6V•+ 2 AMP t L O 9 OU G � U A .. nom q d � O.a•L CT N ^ = La q E OI d V �C� yN :S : TEp 'Z.Sb =Otc Es L M - �YA°9 gg m6 2t `°0 2 L s o 'vim ,:; 1e.;' c� �^ ° •d'S «.q ° o u Ep u A ^� A p �n a ro ro ` da O1 E��w ^U N p09. AYVVa Y� A N� aA y6E yV OILC NC. AY O aN C L° W� 1� 2 �C. Cry U9• tiCpp YVy'•c Cd L. �y �r U- _ N A C t N C L s d rn >'r c^ 6•'''^OA E y d ` CY W a. M 4 o U- ON C Y.o y V 4 y EL L LC Nz ^^ U ..0 °ro L L NL N GA —5 9 _ �Y ^G Cp 'N AQ 9 G°'a . OA om NA G� ^_ P U ° = 01 ` L. ..- O d y+°. - rqt yN CEU« yp ; Y YO. LV N y '�+.p •Nn. C E 6 A 4l u O U p y� t N �• < eJ G O G+� E �'A' y i' WN9 WV4 �p (»�2 ar <O 6010 �O 6 9 d �j x - it 0 2 i-1 U Cl) -n fl L CL lu S Z Y b o c:i i mom AL y N ° ' R2 L d N T a S G €M < y b6m N ECk o ibbC a Lu r ° c Y � cdw o a dcp c ° YcN E D u 2 q Aw L � c c ° � Oap L W� a t c Y u ^� n °3 — L '• V'L N^ Y oW ^ 9bp b 2 L p x M1^ 2 t ecw syi. v Y 6 y Y c Q a S mE bra y YOm Cu G 4u u q 'va d fN E V '. m N b• '_ S 4 w 4 y M y 6M N �o dy u `o ib • M� s° as 5 t; �wTa �d N d` wb vC ryEj i y '° E b q day y. 0 4 a tw yUy_li^ rG dNNa LL LOw R YN c y..°U. NU yd mcY� a d AW 6 ° Yy 22u w. timcq uYia y4� N n k„b„ �bqd NL,nN 6� q� a EEL EL EEd d °i i. 3 G K�60x1 VEG3 dLN Cfd..- Y+ dY d Y 4 aC M n dd Y 0 Ea `^FO d u�TL Y'T A�W y Vgo�mG ¢bi^ 2 L w�U ° ''TaN ^w T =3R 3E Ex a..c.• xU au NM c c`uw9� r� yE `� i `� v�16w N^ e4i3 66NM NOON dam. N'O e d 6waLi Ea �� YN L p <t'i .^ �+xL i, C�J SG t� < M Y b o c:i i mom AL y N ° ' R2 L d N T a S G €M < y b6m N ECk o ibbC a Lu r ° c Y � cdw o a dcp c ° YcN E D u 2 q Aw L � c c ° � Oap L W� a t c Y u '' oW 15 y b 2 L p x ecw syi. v Y 6 y Y N d Q a L mE bra y YOm Cu G 4u to y Y �pu0 d fN E V '. m •` b w. 4w w�. 4 w 4 oa w wo w r N �o dy u `o ib g M� s° as 5 t; �wTa �d N 4 wb vC ryEj `•"� Emu C b''• tw N« N L s� E.s 'O 1�wQ a d —o-az 6 ZE VZ W x °'.. timcq uYia QY ti^ Y b o c:i i mom AL y N ° ' R2 L d N T a S G €M < y b6m N ECk o ibbC a Lu r ° c Y � cdw o a dcp c ° YcN E D u 2 q Aw L � c c ° � Oap L W� Y G a Y a« wd � N = LQ Vu ' d a q �s dp A V 2 xt p K 61 c n EL .OY H Npu ` E O O OG EE Q Im Oyy Z ani ^o a u q W d> .- W �ccT U^� N9 LY L Nq pqL C V ivM�U ^NS c« n cN L NL V ^N C d �W Oy nV N W. dG t N •N„ G9 E dYu ZDY _Y Y T qU M Y3 u y EE >I C Oy • NG L N. UaT 9 N tT0 �a dL _u Oar qsN 4 NE uu Nq Lin L N La .. q Ld 9� 6 EL 2� y gip~ 9�Y o uT d v nt�'ity u' M ^ Y Lu VL O n MY u q O d0 Cq Oy p M .• r u4 M O N y �U L N O Lyud L Y.O 0 6 L u u O ^ O q9N yu 9q GL qa0 L 3MOT dN IS ap1W ^S' N L o O V C d N dp =�yq Y vF u+ Lu N 9 q V ^ 9 u u Y M v V�U q ND q O U �u �1N ttiY py- Lnp b q G N UU 9 aM L 44U. X99 O Q y.N EL `d G uN T 9 Nd C a juE a i u. y L c oa n L = Oq LL W9L EO CY a`` u Na N9 a L..L- CO Gy �p W Y y N NCLd y p NY[L i u`s d U.d A 9 C ^N L cr NN Lu qL 'qS o u YZN CQN tGpi Y y G y C 0 U 4C "-5 C. tr E n Dy C ` y L. C W O N O Gt` n96. q £ Elt� c 6 Y�� Y v W vN a 40i ti 01ty �' bLi _ N F�V' aGa r4. 6nN Qn J2.0 a.G- i� i q • N �I Yf 4G n m Q ty Ar t_ vtt i vt titltYVL :V VU( iLitY1V1YCri G�3CAMO STAFF REPORT o c F U mew � DATE: May,28, 1986 TO: Planning Commission FROM; Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Assistant Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 9916 - FINK - A division of acres into Z parcels in the Low u /ac Development District located on the west side of Dakota Avenue, north of Lemon Avenue (APW 201 - 771 -35) I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested'. Approvdl of Parcel Map B. Purpose: To divide 0.33 acres into 2 parcels for the future construction of single family homes C. location: West side of Dakota Avenue, north of Lemon Avenue D� Parcel Size: Parcel T 0,17 acres - 7,203 SF_ Parcel 2 - 0.17 acres 7,204 SE E. Existing Zoning: Low (2 -4 du /ac) Development District F. Existing Land Use: Vacant G. Surrounean, Land Use: North- single family (Tract 12873) under construction South — existing single family East - single family (Tract 12873) under construction West - existing apartments eZ� f:a r;a F AA ITEM L PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PARCEL MAP 9916 - FINK May 28, 1986 Page 2 H. Surroundinq General Plan and Development Code Designations: North,- Low Medium 4 -8 du /ac South - Low (24 du /ac) East - Low Medium (4 -8 du /ac) West - Medium (8 -14 du /ac) 1. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and slopes in a southeasterly " direction. II. ANALYSIS: This Parcel Map (Exhibit B) will subdivide Parcel 1 of previously approved Parcel Map No. 576.7. A single family residence has been constructed on Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 5767. Each parcel will contain 7,200 square feat and will complete the existing tract pattern. Planning staff has indicated that this mee' - the intent of the Basic Development Standards. Parcel 1 of this map contains an emergency access easement located on the northerly 26 feet. This easement can now be vacated because Dakota Avenue is being constructed to the north with Tract 19873 and will provide additional access to this property (refer to exhibit "C "). Street improvements with the exception of sidewalk on Dakota Avenue have been constructed dnd all utilities have been undergrounded. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Also attached for your review and consideration is Part I of the Initial Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study, the environmental checklist, and has conducted afield investigation. Upon completion and review of the Initial Study and field investigation, Staff found no adverse Impacts on the environment as a result of the proposed subdivision. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. Posting at the site has also been completed. Y 4 1 r a r` �2 .nr PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PARCEL MAP 9916 - FINK May 28, 1986 -; . Page 3 (� h. RECOMNENDATIGN: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of Tentative Parcel Map 9916. If after such r' consiaeration, the Commission can recommend approval, then the adoption r< of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. a _- Respectfully submitted, - BRH:BK :dlw At' - bments: Vicinity Map Tentative Map Tract 12873 Resolution Recommended Conditions of Approval Initial Study r a r` �2 .nr i i i Site z a 4 18 t1 I !7 12 s ` 21 . `:} tfi 13 r x t 2i s 16 13 t l • H � ' ��.y' it:� � �22 s4• J q f4 � v � 15 14 _ r 22 t 5 +'a} 7f RiNGSTON STREET -• — o a P3 a. 3 r23 ,f ? -+:•ate _. to i' + 4 a - 24 24 25 26`26` 2' 27 28 28 f r %ti• 1i 4t: tef.� • +rt•G+� :sd vn Lti � -'C �• '��%,• . 34 34 33.33 i32 32 3t' 31 30 29 23 :.S 2 3. ! } .S•4.• !i '�. C- -0-0 ..4 %4•t" '4._ �Ei AVENUE r CITY OF PARCEL MAP 9916 RANCHO CUCAMONGA �: VICINITY HAP ENGD MMUNG DIM ON FAIT; " A " .•. -- ... TENTATIVE C �J I PAR�,tL MAP (V0. 9916 SRI[T I OF I 2M[2Tl IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AS2puATw tHMMIJIS 0.114M R 0.1NS10R ]F IfACCt 1 ARC[t. A Al At7 4747, AS A[CaA]C0. IM 1A[[EL MAI 0.]OK ii, IAaC b, It[W' .b! W yµ p(R4MW COUNTY,. iLAT[ dRAIq, CALIIOAKIA ,T UcWKYN • m01CtT[S m44NtmT $*N* As WED ' MOT. 2CYNM R -1 'TRACT ND. 12422 Want CLH9TNYTou [AS[MFNT IN FAY?T CF' CITY IF RAMW0. tUEAMJ". FJR MIA•wAY 1 RW FLFlYA4 I[R ]it 42LS/,1]4 70 'E VA1412p HYL F TfU L 4 S62. N TV 7< [Y[0. 011 1'IUJFLTIl1 CF 09E UT 12 Ylljl IN TT Y IVtI W IRP M 2' If CTAb L.1. 2/K RR tAC RR TRALT NJ 1r14,Y0. 117 /tI,11 JFC7tW Cf !9i TSY[6 Hit 1tuT tt 441t. Nl, iNCiLN� SCALE 1"= 40' jf /• -FCWD MM C } 7]02 TAU W w7r MLrrrR'[ M." FFR ri .4 TR •1474 I I( -H RR 7ANi Mi.4r11 ( �--�— —f^^1 ' In• L` V WE NN. 1 Nn nvtl,t4 "tT AA Ne le4/n ^t IT n lo- z 2I S1 T WNW 4R UTILITA C CRAWIS[ I!R :411 42N 71 I PARCE...I PARCEL 2 77,204 1F) EE. iS.x If 4T PF•nCEL 2 ::4 5787 Ir.E. !IA 21 22 23 19 �J _ -- NOTES - 18 OF p1i0TA AYLYiIC ) DFARVUsr IER TR/GT N0. 447ti,Mp. 41 /1) ^T'I • m01CtT[S m44NtmT $*N* As WED leR.lpJ avE. '�. NO &MLFUY "TYNE, KE&MCD 12 Ylljl IN TT Y IVtI W IRP E3cwA cuzac JFC7tW Cf !9i TSY[6 Hit Z Y z IFFpI Al£.— Muw Ali^ MN ST AT AI.TR !.OMA . VfEINTPY MASR r. x4o• I PARCE...I PARCEL 2 77,204 1F) EE. iS.x If 4T PF•nCEL 2 ::4 5787 Ir.E. !IA 21 22 23 19 I _ -- NOTES 0.TAAIN4! ARE BASE" dN U 1vEST WE N'N 18 OF p1i0TA AYLYiIC ) DFARVUsr IER TR/GT N0. 447ti,Mp. 41 /1) ^T'I • m01CtT[S m44NtmT $*N* As WED ERIST. z A01w R•1 O IN'ACATIS MOIJ1MM SET AS "TEO NO &MLFUY "TYNE, KE&MCD 12 Ylljl IN TT Y IVtI W IRP EX11TV& P;) %arE JFC7tW Cf !9i TSY[6 Hit 17 CITY CI ri= OF JMM. PARCEL MAP 9916` � tr R CHC CUC"ONGA TrffX, TENATIVE MAP _ EKGn4Bm=G DrmoN a•+saaiii in 2L B 11 L- 5 • • f n t GENEP.AL ENVIRONkENTAL REVIEW APPLICATION INITIAL STUDY - PART-1--- For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Planning Division staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study and_make recommendations to Planning Commission. The Planning Commission w{11 make one of three determinations: (1) The project will have no significant environmental impact and a Negative Jeclaration will be filed, (2) 1;c project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or (3) An additional information report'' should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. Date Filed: i Project. Title: Parcel Map No. 9916 Applicant -s Name, Address, Telephone. Frank J. Fink _~ k 6145 N. Chanticleer Dr. Maumee. obio 43557 (419) 865 -7385 Name, Address, Telephone of Person To Be Contacted Concerning this Project: Werner Wald 5957 76th St. Las Angeles, Calif 9 U4 (213) 649 -6374 Location of Project: West side of Da!'Ot4 Street between Kingston Street Assessor's Parcel No.: 201- 771 -35 Fist other permits necessary from local, regional, stats and federal agencies v and the agency issuing such permits: None r . CIT9 G� it�SSlCtI(1 ,�iC�g1k�NQd �arry��iklA'g R':l!.ril0:t .$ -1 ` I I i I PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed use or proposed project It is-proposed �ao divide existing parcel into two parcels.. - --� Acreage of project area and square footage of existing and proposed buildings, if any: Parcel to be divided contains 14,907Sg.rt. Uascribe the environmental setting of the.oroject sate including information on topography, soil stability, plants lEreeS), land animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects, land use of surrounding properties, and the description, of any existing structures and their use (attach necessary sheets): Parcel contai.ns two building pads that were constructed by TR No, 9475, whiG.d were never built upon. Single family residences are to the sorth and east. A single family Tract is under construction to the north. There are no historical or cultural aspects involved. Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact No t .. ... y HILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO _ L Create a substantial change in ground contours? x 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise of produce ` vibration or glare? x 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? x t 4. Create changes in the existing Zoning or General Plan designations? x S. Remove any existing trees? Hnw manv? 6. Create the need for use or disposal of ,iotentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or �_xplosives? x Explanation of any.YES answers above (attach additional sheets if necesq,ary): i -- 7. Estimate the amount of sewage, and solid waste materials this project will generate daily: None 8. Estimate the :number of and truck trips.gener,�ted daily by this k project: None f 9. Estimate the amount of gr-e.,_ (cutting and filling) required for this projeet,.in cubic yards: None 10. If the project involves the cons ruction of residential units, complete �- r the form on the next page. , CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, that the and facts, statements, and information pr —ented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understa;d that additional information may be required to be submitted be;.,re an adequate evauation can be made by the Planning Division. —� Date: li`— t,,_s�� Sgnatuur'- Title I -3 a RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION the following information should be irovid•-j to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division in order to aid the school district in assessing their ability to accommodate the proposed residential development. DeJelopers are . require.i to secure 1 "—ars from the school district for accommodating the increased number C `,nts prior to issuance of building permits. Name of Developer and Tentative Trace No.: N --k- Specific; Locai.:ion of Project- LM I� SE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE a MMAL 1. jer of single .ilk: units: Z r of multiple _ f,- 'y units: 3. Date proposes to begin construction: 4. Earliest date of :cupancy: idelff id of Tentative _dro _Om s Price Rance z I °4', � sT RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMLSSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 9915 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 9916 LOCATED ON THE WEST ' SIDE OF DAKOTA AVENUE, NORTH OF LEMON AVENUE) s:- '., WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map :Number 9916, submitted by Frank Fink and consisting of 2 parcels, located on the west side of Dakota Avenue, north of Lemon Avenue, being a division of parcel 1 of Parcel Map 5767, as recorded ' in P.M.B. 66, P. 6, records of San Bertardino County, California; and WHEREAS, on April 21 1986 a f,•rmai application was submitted requesting review of the above-described. T %ntative Map; and WHEREAS, on May 28, 1986 the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public ;searing for the ar -,E!e- described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTIGn 1: That the following findings have been made: t 1. That the map is consistent With the General Plan. I" 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems o.- have adverse affects. on abutting property. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on May 28 1986 SECTION 3: That Tentative. Parcel Map :,o. 9916 is approved subject to —lcn the recomme ea Conditions of Approval pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED TH:S 28TH DAY OF NAY 1986 E PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman _ r ATTEST: ` Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary t. { 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 -I regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of May 1936 b;,✓ th.z following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: i NOES: C(;MMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Y i 1 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAt NSA RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LOCATION: West side of Dakota Avenue TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO: 9916 North of Lemon Avenue DI FE FILED- April 21 1986 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 1, Parcel Map hUMBER.OF LOTS: 2 5767 is recorded in P.M.B. 66 P.6 recor(Is GROSS ACREAGE: 0.33 of San Bernardino, Stake of California ASSESSOR PARCEL NO: 201- 771 -35 * �l'###&# it## Y; F# iC# �e##' h: Hr#* iEihk# i- kF#*: Fkk###': kt^kYk #t#*####7k##�le #icicik# irk #Y;#fr#itk49rkytp^k:! ###k DEVELOPER OWNER ENGINEER /SURVEYOR Jack J. Fink Werrar Wald Associated Engineers 6145 W. Chanti-;leer Dr. 5957 76th Street 316 East "Ell Street Maumee, Ohio 43557 Los Rneles, Cl" 90045 Ontario, CA 51764 Improvement and dedication requirements in accordance with Title 16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga include, but may not be limiteo to, the following: A. Dedications and Vehicular Access 1. Dedications shall be made of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. 2. Dedication shall' be made of the Following rights -of -way on the following streets: additiot,al feet on additional feet on' additional feet on 3. Corner property line radius will be reiquired per Cly standards, x 4. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated as follows: on Haven Avenue, 5,, Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all common .;a roads, drives or parking ?yeas shall be provided by C.C. &R.s and shall be recorded concurrent with the map. 6. All ^Misting easements lying within future right -of -way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the map per City Engineer's requirements. 7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shali`be dedicated to thy, City where sidewalks meander 'through private property. B. Street improvements Pursuant to the City of Ranch Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 16, Section ' 16.36.120, the subdivides, may enter into an agreement and past security with the City guaranteeing the required construction prior to-7'ecordation of the map ; and /or buileing permit issuance. 1. Construct foil street improvements includillg, but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway treer-,and street lights on all interior streets. 2. A minimum of 126 -foot wide pavement within a 40- ,foot wide dedicated right -of -way shall be constructed for all half- section streets. X 3. Construct the following missing improvements` prior to building permit issuance for each parcel. Cur A.C. Side- Drive Street Street A.C. hie- an _Street Name Gutter Pvmt. Walk Appr. Trees Lights Overlay Island* tither Dakota Street X X X Haven Avenue X X *Includes landscaping and irrigation on meter X 4. Prior to any work being performed in the public right -of`. -way, fees sha'be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City „Engineer's Office, in addition to any other perml.ts req .red. X 5. S;-reet improvement plans shall be revised by a Registei,ed Civil En;lineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of an encroachment permit. 6. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary. _2_ -3- 1--is 'rt 7. Existing lines of 12KV or less fronting the property shall be ` E undergrounded. X 8. install appropriate street name signs, traf`;c intrul signs, striping and markings with locations and types approved by the City Engineer. X 9. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern Ca?ifornia Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Lights shall be on decorative poles with underground service. 10. ,Landscape _ and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permit. 11. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. f ' Undersidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards. r C. Sure X 1. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City engineer and City Attorney, guaranteeing. , completion of the 'public improvements prior to building permit issuance for euch parcel. 2. A lien agreement must be executed prior to recording of the map for the,'',following; 3. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed, guaranteeing completion of all on -site drainage facilites necessary for rlewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and 'Safety Oivison prior to recording for and/or prior to issuance of building permit or 1 D. Drainage and Flood Control 1. Private drainage easements for cross -lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. 2. Adequate provisions sh ll be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage en ering the property from adjacent areas. 3. The following storm drain shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer -3- 1--is 'rt 4- Prior to recordation of the map, a hydrologic and drainagenk study for the project shal.T be submitted to the City Engineerw for Review. .5. A drainage detention b&sin per City Standards s)iall be E_ grLdinl Constructed to detain increesed runoff ------- I -------------------- x 1. Grading e. the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standk%rds and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shdll be in substantial conformance with the appr,.�yed conceptual grading plaq. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by -the State of California to perform such work orior to issuance of building permit. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application or gr,,�Nr,g plan check. 4. The final grading plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Grading Committee and shall be completed prior to recordation of the final subdivision map or issuance of building permit whichever comes first. x S. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of building permit. F. General Requirements and Approvals x 1. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: CalTrans for _x San Bernardino Co inty Fl�vu WrItrol District Cucamonga County Water District for sewer and water San Bernardino County Dust Abatement (required prior to issuance of a grading permit) Other 2. A COPY of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C.&R.$) approved by the City Attorney is required prior to recordation of the map. x 3. Providt-. all utility services to each lot including sewerage, water, electric power, gas and telephone prior to street cristruction. -4- .Q, I �i X 4. SaniOry sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga Counter Water District. standards. A letter of acceptance is required. S. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from CalTrans /San Bernardino County Flood Control District. 6. Approveiis have not been secured from all utilititis and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. X 7. The filing of the tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee that sewer, treatment capacity will be available at the time building permits'. are requested. When building permits are requested, the tucamonga County Water District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will not be issued unless sal, certification is received in writing. 8. Local and Master Plangea-Trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail nian :A detailed trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, physi;al conditions, fencing and weed control, in accordance with Ci {•y- 'trail standards, shall be submitted to and approved by tii�!`' City Planner prior to recordation for _and /or prior to building permit' ___ issuance a r g. Prior to recording, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District 82 -1 among the newly created parcels. X _ Id. At the time of final, map submittal, the following s►iall be submitted; Ti ip_.-A4port, traverse calculations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and /or showing original land, d? vision, tie notes and bench marks referenced. Notice of intent to join the proposed Median Island Landscape District shall be filed with the City Council prior to recordation, of the Final Map, G. Special Conditions 1. A 6 toot block wall to match the existing wall will be constructed at the rear property line of Parcel 1 at the time of building permit issuance for this parcel. 2. A request and appropriate fee to vacate the access easement on Parcel l shall be submitted prior to recordation of the parcel map. b 3. Prior to recordation, a Notice of Intention to Join the City l\ Wide landscape District shall be filed with the City Council. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B. HUBBS, CITY ENGINEER by; -6 } 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPOR1 n C U DATE; May 28, 1986 TO: Chairman and- Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY. Bruce Cook, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85 -21 p - MA 1 - Tha development of a Master Plan for a 27.13 acre Industrial Park and the first phase of construction consisting of a 58,000 square foot mini- storage facility with a caretaker's residence, on 2.95 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 229 - 011 -10, 19, 21, 26, 27 and 28. Related File: Parcel Map 9998 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Re uested- Approval of Master Plan, Conditional Use Permit for careta er's residence, Phase I site plan, and phase I elevations, and issuance of Negative Declaration. B. Surrounding Land Use and Toning- North - Vacant land; Terra Vista Planned Community South - Vineyard; Industrial Specific Plat! Subarea 8 East - Single Family R °.sidences, Vineyard; Industrial Specific Plan Subarea 7 West Vineyard; Industrial _ Specific Plan Subarea 7 C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Industrial Park North - Medium Residential (4 -14 du /ac) South - General Industrial East - Industrial Park West - Industrial Park D. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant land with the exception of two structures, a church and the Cowgirl theatre, G located at the intersection of Foothill and Rochester. The site slopes gradually southward at an average gradient of 2%. The site is abutted to the east, west, and south by vacant ITEM M PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 85 -21 - MASI May 28, 1986 Page 2 land, designated as Subarea 7 /Industrial Park per the Industrial Specific Plan. Across foothill to the north is vacant land within the Foothill Commercial Corridor of the Terra Vista Planned Community. A recently adopted area development plan for the southeast quadrant of Terra Vista has designated this area as Office /Medical /Auto /Commercrdl. Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue are classified as "Special Boulevards ". II. ANALYSIS: A. General: Master Plan: The intent of this Master Plan is to coordinate at the initial stages of development a total, integrated design concept over the entire planning area tr maximize future opportunities and to disctiwnage piecemeal development which would preclude future development of adjacen" parcels in the best wa- feasihle. T.ie Master Plan is a concept that will serve as a guide for future phases of development through the establishment pf criteria and standards in the areas of site planning, circulation, drainage, architectural design, landscaping, and public works laiptovemuits. Each phase of development would require separate discretionary approval by the Planning Commission through the appropriate review procedure. The developer has submitted a parcel map with this Master Plan which is al' -'a being considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting. A separate staff report has been included for your review. The elements of the master plan are as follows: 1. Land Use: The project site is located within the InustiaT Park catE -pry (Subarea 7) within the Industrial Specific Plan. The objective of the Industrial Park designation is to develop a distinctive, attractive, and pleasant office park atmosphere in a campus-like setting, with a high prestige identity. Further, per the Industrial Specific Plan, this site is "an important land use edge between the City's Industrial area and community oriented non- industrial area and is a gateway to the City ". Fcothill Boulevard, which abuts the project site to the north, is classified as a Special Boulevard, and i. is the intent of the Industrial Specific Plan to create; streetscape environment employing multi -stoK buildings that reflect a „scale and proportion consistent with the importance of foothill as the City's major eas {.,nest arterial. rr U`' PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 85 -21 - MASI May 28, 1986 Page 3 The Master Plan has been developed along a three - tiered hierarchical strategy. The first tier is a semi- eivcular band of multiple -story buildings at the project perimeter adjacent to both Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. These buildings are reflective of the high -rise, intensive, urban form desired along foothill Boulevard, and serve as the gateway into the project. Next, the land -use plan transitions into series of smaller pad, single -story structures. Projscted here are eating /drinking establishmenr,s, financial institutions, cultural /social uses, and otht:r such services that would function as ancillary uses to the high- rise, office complexes at the project perimeter. Finally, as the site transitions away from the intensive urban cGre of the Foothill Corridor, and towards thr general industrial nature of Subarea 8, the third t:2r of land uses at the southern perimeter Gf the site is designed to accommodate uses such as light manufacturing, research and development and mini - storage. 2. Site Plan /Building Orientation: Buildings have been arranged to achieve the followirg parameters: a., Buildings have been clustered to create opportunities _ for courtyardsand plazas. 'b. Buildings and landscaping have been located adjacent to Foothill Boulevard and the interior loop as opposed to parking areas and circulation aisles, to enhance the campus -like setting. ' 3. Open space network /pedestrian circulation: An integrated _ open space network is an integral elemant in the creation of the campus -like setting, and to create a sense of place, The Master Plan has estabiished guidelines to achieve the following: a. Create an internal private open space netwtirk through the use of plazas and courtyards. b. The private open areas shall be connected with the public open space along Foothill L'oulevard to provide a gateway entry into the project. Landscaped open spaces will be significantly expanded to provide a campus -like setting. _ �, 3 E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 85 -21 - MASI May 28, 1986 Page 4 C. A strong pedestrian circulation system will be' provided to interconnect the open space network, linking places of work with eating and drinking establishments, and other service uses, and minimize ve"icularlpedestrian conflicts. d. Pedestrian structures and furnitures, such as loggias, colonades, gazebos, benches, light standards, kiosks, trash receptacles, etc., will be included into the open space network to create a sense of place, -ani to enhance the appearance and function of the system. 4. Architecture: The intent of the industrial park ,zlh:area is the creation of a sophisticated, intense, and high prestige environment. The architectural concept illustrated indicates multiple -story Luildings along Foothill and Rochester, that reflect the scale and proportion consistent with the intensive, urban style. Building styles are contemporary in nature employing a variety of complimentary .forms, materials, colors and textures. Design elements such as accent treatments, embellishments, and articalated building -faces are included that contribute to the quality of design. The developer has submitted an "Architectural Statement" (see Exhibit "I ") to serve as a guideline for future .development. 5. Circulation /Parking: The proposed circulation system is a closed loop sytem providng internal site access only (see Exhibit "Al' for area street master plan), Three access points to the site interior are provided: two on Foothill and one on Rochester. Foothill is to have a median island; a median break will be provided only for the westerly street access, and the easterly street access point will be a right turn only. Based on the projected building floor area proposed with the Master Plan, surface level parking provided is about 250 t;%.*ces short of that required. The developer has propoSLd to make up this shortfall by requiring underground parking structures for Parcels 2 and 3. However, as development of the Master Plan proceeds, it will be necessary to maintain a tight accounting of the amount of building area in relation to parking provided 6. Grading /Drainage: The master grading /drainage plan has been prepared to establish, a coordinated, integrated grading concept to ensure the provision of adequate facilities to properiy drain !:he site. �_,'.,..:,flG COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 85 -21 - MASI May 28, 1986 Page 5 7. Landscaping: Landscaping is the design element to be used to create a consistent design theme and to unify the entire project. A master landscape plan would be used to establish a consistent unifying design element throughout the project. This could be accomplished by specifying a pallet of plant materials to be used. A Condition of Approval has been added to the resolution requiring that a master plan for landscaping be submitted for review and approval of the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building permits for the Phase I construction. 8. Phase 1 /Conditional Use Permit: Phase Z of the Master Plan is the development rf —a68,000 square foot mini - storage facility with a caretaLer's residence on 2.9 acres in the southeasterly portion of the site (Parcel 1). Building orientation has all perimeter buildings being 2- story, with the interior buildings being single- story. This has the effect of restricting off -site lines of site into the site interior from adjacent multi -story buildings. Street level views into the site interior ace restricted by the continuous perimeter building except at the Rochester Street entrance. Views into the site off of Rochester are mitigated through the orientation of the building end directly in line with the access drive to inhibit views into the site, and the provision of a landscape element at the building end to soften its visual impact. The architectsre proposed shows a style consistent with the intended sophisticated, high prestige, urban form style of architecture presented with the Master Plan. Materials include sandbiass�d concrete combined with mirrored glass. Articulation of yuilding surfaces is achieved through building recesses and embellishments are provided through the use of terraced planters, B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee has reviewed the project and -has found that the Master Plan, CUP, and Phase 1 of the development comply with the Industrial Specific Plaa and are consistent with the design intent of the Foothill Corridor in regard to site planning, architectural design, any circulation. Ti-.,e Committee has recommended approval of the Master Plan, CUP, and Phase I of development. C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee reviewed the project ?nd determined that, with the recommended Conditions of Approval, the project is consistent with <t]l applicable standards and ordinances. D. Grading. Committee: The nd determined that.. Approval, the project standards and ordinances, Grading Committee reviewed the project with the recommended Conditions of is consistent with all appiicable ",5 PLANNING COMMISSIC4 STAH REPORT CUP 85-21 - MASI May 28, 1986 Page 6 E. undergrounding of Existing Overhead Utilities: Overhead utilities exist along both sides of Rochester Avenue -1--lonting the project. Staff recommends that. t1he lines on the project side of the street be undergrounded an6 that additional fees be paid toward the future undergroundtig of the lines on the opposite side of the street. F. Environmental Assessment: Part I of th,i Initial Study has been completed by t�e applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and found no significant impacts on the environment as a result of th4s project. A copy of Part Il of the Env'ronmental Checklist is attac;,ed for your review and consideration. To ensure that the noi, levels for tne caretaker's residence conform to City sta, is, a Condition of Approval has been included, requiring tc_ 3n acoustical study be completed and recommended mitigation measures be incorporated prior to the issuance of any building permits. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: This project is ccnsistent with the General Plan and the Industrial Specific Plan. The project, with the added mitigation measures, will not cuase significant advarse environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed use, building design and site plan for Phase I and Master Plan, together with recommended Conditions of Approval, are in compliance with the Industrial Specific Plan and all other applicable provisions of the City S�aqdards. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The Report. newspaper, the property posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends thL t he Planning Commission considir -all material and input regarding this project. If the Commission concurs with the findings, issuance of a Negative Declaration and approval of Conditional Use Permilt 85-21, including the Master Plan, through the adoption of tha attached Resolution and Conditions of Approval, would be In order. Brad Buller City Planner 38:BC:cv 1A_ 6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFr REPORT CUP 85 -21 - MASI May 28, 1986 Page 7 Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map /Area Street Master Plan Exhibit 113" - Site Utilization Plan Exhibit "C" - Natural Features Map Exhibit "D" - Master Plan Exhibit "E" - Parcel Map No. 9998 Exhibit "F" - [faster Site Plan Exhibit "G" - Master Phasing Plan s, Exhibit 911 - Master Grading Plan Exhibit "I" - Architectural Statement Exhibit "J" - Architectural Design Standards Exhibit "K" - Phase I Site Plan Exhibit "L" - Phase I Gradtng Plan Exhibit "M" - Phase I Landscape Plan Exhibit "N" - Phase I Architectural Standards Exhibit "0" - Phase I Natural Features Map Initial Study, Part II Resolution of Approva ' with Conditions 0 IF A TPDTMLL Ji� �Olil11 to v _ i AWA 57REErr M&STER R!H MY OF 71iTAANETIDN D1TAA. ` .r r P'I..AMM DIVISM EXHIBIT= -r- IN 1 2rso r • e� _ r,: m JL • a 1Y 1~ " pA K ate,' mo1`n n _J••I 1. C� .� � =. `. • � YS' ]�� �y�.���11 _ i��' . �, 1 �_=.J / lti.�� � `l�. ^'S��� • • 1 �� �{,r..'Y+^ Per �� � . .1 •t,� 't. acv• a^ r.'� .�<.^. 1 rn'r '1.��cLi:.'r'i..•}.f6' -t�ii ��'�[,..N ..� •.J!° CITY OF ITE�bi: of � RANCHO CLTCAMONGA TrME: PLANNAVG DIVLI N EXHIBIT: saaut `,. Y�Nrw i WfCIIV m M m .q 2 a J w U 4K LL �stt� J? NORTH H .. RANTCH CLCA1V C GA TrrLE. 11 MANNING DnqSUN EXHIBIT � SCAr � og PJLAr` 1 L l'� rA ._ ..... �...... _.. ...... -• sue._. • 1 NORM CITY T t T RACM CC.MONGA PLANNwG DIVLSKSN EXXHtBM� SALE`- ,';� -� ----fir a. _ A �� ■auunia�u� nt�w z � U i 4 } 0 -ilmll t7 i l NORTH CITY CF RAC C rAMON-A Tnu- P'Lrgvnv ExHiBn.= M -!3 - W z W ' U W w,u q U � a CITY OF RANTCI O CLCAMCNCA TrrLt= EXHIBIT: �IL�c � wM1 NORTH 1�acri i 6 CITY CF rri:��t: _ iiiNTCHO CLTCAMONGA rr ELNI.- PLANNM I?ralSioiv =f EXHIBIT: M- \5 SCALE =_ P� m� a o= 2 0 t a, a J o w< U L [C CL it 1` 7 NORTH Elm McDowell WheelerA.(.A.Architects 129 1N. Indiar. Hill Blvd, Claremont, Galilornia91711 •(714)624 -3525 MAST COMMERCE CENTER Job 11376.01 ARCEtIYE4'[tiM STATE3S W This thirty five acre mixed use industrial park is master planned. There will be five building types with unifying, architectural features. 1Ulti- st9ry Offices - The office buildings will make prieary architectural statements along Foothill Blvd. Stepped scultpured huildings will have trailing, vertical landscaping, which will, hang from the building. Restaurants Two restaurants are initially planned for the Center Court of this projei;t. Modifications will be made to standard restaurant »lans to be compatible with the surrounding Center. The buildings will have concrete wing walls and bermed landscaping. Two -story Offices - Will be intended to be aided in Wood, some will be clustered to form courtyards.. Heavy landscaping will surround these buildings. ilne ^seo� "Mixed Use" - Rill be of tilt -up, sandblasted concrete heavy wood beams and vine covered trellis Gill denote entries. Some walls will be vine covered. Storage Facility - WIIy be constructed of tilt -up concrete walls and reflective glass insets, mirroring the scale and architectural intent of the surrounding offices. landscaping will be herued up to eight feet above grade to the building walls. Cascading vines will spill down s '.pped planters at the ends and midpoint of tuIv complex while vines will climb some walls. Two-story perimeter buildings will _ screen any views into the interior. tUOJ 41 Fred W. McDowell A.I.A. Paul S.WheelerA.t.A. ` +CITY tom' RANCHO CLTCAMONTGA ;•. PL ANNm I3IVSM EXHIBIT= V, -- \ b - xt� uWnag i :� R11ilyi li Q� r AA ,.��l�u 11. T�y��p�y''�" '��'•� }4.+� .c..L= �4S�.� c� l�. _ I 71i � � �A, �� �j r 11 c iRm 1i J_�►.� {�� Pigi • v � . Ibc 0 LJLq . Q pina r e.- �C�G�J1Zs 'TL U CCr5 �f Of Y � U ■ 1 2 r i a � e x a i ED NORTH r' CIS OF 1TEE\i. I- AIVNII`IG EXHIBIT. A- A�7_ SCALE. L ;I �i r m; m „ m Y m � i Y Z ' 4 � f NORTH c -y c RANT,., CLV "ONGA TI Eti1= l.Q TrrLE -, . Pt. rrtttvc EXHiBrr. Li_3 c-� - tcj _ 1 RILA r: TTTTTTX-INTTTTT ' hT �IIIIILI(LIIILIf�� pr ;, . I Y� •. n ..,1�w` - •.�,�wti i.'i xpr3+t f5si.cv+a CTT' OF rrr�vt: g'I.ANNM DRfEM EXHIBIT- NOM �,. 1 t, r -. ' Y.v �t tMR: `_ J`•`�/ \ \a".f�rc \��1%. `.'7- ILA- � ?�- ° '�. �� i. z _ 190 �w� ='1- . cabwo,n,w ' .wman.fwaRw cm m .z �a i cc a 11111 MORTH CITY CAF+ ��'? RANCHO CLTCAMOTTGAi. TITLE. � - �_��- EXHIBiI' =., SCALE. M -Q. r- YMt tM6 RLVtTOM tptiM ` lit aon�nrL, .:o,�L RI�,Ltid1 � 4tT '••—.• 'i � tWiN NGit]NRtYLTplI: yf1, IILLI . •r•.M V 1 • tmnr.`mnwnwL�..xe 7 '6 e�l N T z_ euowtt.m ta.as•r �i NORTH i aW OF r= RAN CHO C V- AMONGA Tr ru` Is-z � �.--- �'� -•�-� i - • nn n�nnn 1 I co R V QI Of c T e ,L 1 i .3. 1, /B6•B /B)•� //D9'�� / /BB•B 118! 5 '! 1 0 F � 1 k, NORTH Clrrf OF f R�rM CI. CAMONGA iTE�yi T TfTI.E c PLANNM' RIVES EXHIBtT: � SCALE- a C<ly OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART lI - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: M Z8, lC1 APPLICX, -r: A4 FIVENG DATE: JILA �. � � g°Q.� LOG NUMBER: GU P -- � -Zt PROJECT: !A F,. GTS, F�.►�L,,, E. �_...�p f�ati �4rr-r'1 ..� �F�LF} . PROJECT LOCATION: I. ENVIRONENTAL IMPACTS r (Explanation of all "ycs,, and "maybe" answers are required sheets)_ on Attached 1 YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and GenloRX. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Uctstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? ` - b. Disruptions,, displactaents, compaction or burial of the soil? s. .Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or modification Of 1 any unique geologic or physical features? e• Any Potential increase in Wind or water erosion of soils, affecting, either on or off site conditons? f• Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? 7"1- g. Exposure of psnple or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or'similar hazards? h. An increase in the rate of extraction and /or use of any mineral resource? ys. 2. Hydroio y. Wi'�I the proposal have significant results in: s- Page ? YES MYBE No a. Changes in currents, or the couz_r of direction Of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? b. Changtq in absorption rates drainage atterns, or the rate and .'mount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood v r waters? 4 d. ' Change,in the amount of surface water in any body Of water? e. D +scharge 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 - drawals, or through int�'rference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? h. The reduction 'in the amount of water other- wise —� available for public water supplies? I. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Ai_ qualj, ress ults in: Will the proposal have significant a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? —_ T b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or interference with the T attainment of applicable air quality standards? a. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, Including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? b. iteduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? M — x:10 J, ?ace 3 Y, 3 `-ME SO c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area? d. Reduction in ';he potential for agricultural production ?' Fau•,a. Will the proposal'have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, ..istribution, or numbers of any species of animals ?` — - Ii. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare et endangered species of animals? e c. ^, troduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? —r 5. Population. Will the proposal have significan_ results in: 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 housl,iIg, or create a demand for additional housing? _ 6. Socio- Econottic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in local or regional socio- economic ' ebaracterlrtics, 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? 7. Land Use and Pl.annine Considerations. Will the propccdi have significant results in? -" a. A substa;tial alteration of the present or �3 planned land use of an area? b. A Conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? e. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive ar non-consumprive k: opportunities? recreation ^l opportun `A -ate Page G 1 YES nkyas $0 &. Tranrnortation. Will the prop 'Jsal have significant cant ' results -in: 1 a. Generation of ubstartial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? c. Effects on existing facilities, g parking facilities, or demand for new parkirg? d. Substantial impact upon existing trans orta — _ tion systems? e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or ma,ement of people and/or goods? I f. Alterations to or effects on present and potential water —borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? 7S g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or Pedestrians? 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, ar]o-%or historical resources? 10. Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: i a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? _... _ c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? e. Increase x:. - existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to potentially da,gerous noise levels? S. The creation of objectionable odors? r. --.. h. An increase in light or glare? Page 5 YES X4TB'c AIQ 11. aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in; a. The obstruction or degradation of vista or view? any scenic b. The creation of an aesthetically Offensive site? c• A conflict with the abjettive of designated or potential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Seri,ices. Will the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? ., C. Communications systems? d. Water supply? e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control structures? g. Solid waste facV.ities? h. Fire protection? i. Police prat.= .on" J• ;?chools? Fa:*s or other recreational facili.•ies? 1+ Maintenance of prblic facilities, i,4cludiug ____.__ _ roads and flood control facilities? m. Other governmental services? 13. Fnere- and Scarce Resources. WiL, the proposal have significant results in: ~ a. Use * f substantial or excessive fuel or energy? b. Substntial increase in demand upon existing sm•rces of energy? C. An increase in the demand for ig,,elopmeat of new sources of energy? d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption Of ~� ton- renewable forms Of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? A. Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effect;' on human beings, either d`aQtly or indirectly? __. DISCUSS ION OF EN rno%M NTAL EVALUATION the above questions plus a discussion of (proposed Mitigation measures). �ts TzozlMC_-r 14 C °e is°sT T t rr4 Tom 1r4VL*-JT%A'&L L 'V_Le-"4 • A�'_ T'f�-11419 -aA 's vw-� ,1LvtP., w:FiG- esLf,�ss�C M,1'C1Cc,�-['1c7p.t fi�t5. 1�8t�C'a ��ti.l (�- 't.lU.�( �l.o[LraCD E' s Page 6 e —YES "=BE NO e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural resource? 14. Mandatory Findings o cance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a ra-^e or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory ", b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, T to the disadvantage of longiterm, environmental goals? (A short-term imps ;t on the environment is one which occurs in a ro stively brief, definitive period of time while long - term impacts will endure well into the future). 7 c• D —s the project have impacts which are individupLly JIM,toa - but cumulatively consider L:ce (Cumulatively considerable means that the incretn mtal effects of an individual nroie�:L are considerable when viewed In connection with the effects of past projects, and probable future projects) A. Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effect;' on human beings, either d`aQtly or indirectly? __. DISCUSS ION OF EN rno%M NTAL EVALUATION the above questions plus a discussion of (proposed Mitigation measures). �ts TzozlMC_-r 14 C °e is°sT T t rr4 Tom 1r4VL*-JT%A'&L L 'V_Le-"4 • A�'_ T'f�-11419 -aA 's vw-� ,1LvtP., w:FiG- esLf,�ss�C M,1'C1Cc,�-['1c7p.t fi�t5. 1�8t�C'a ��ti.l (�- 't.lU.�( �l.o[LraCD E' s e 4, r =30 Fage 7 IIZ. bETER4Y _ On the basis of this initial evaluation. I find the proposed project COM NOT have a significant effect an the envlvO=ent, and a NEGATIVE pECLA�ITIOM vill be prepared. LJI find that although-, the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there vial not ae a significant effect In this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.. I find the P:aPased project MAY have a si;gnif4cant effect on the 1... _i envirnmen, , and an MlR0.""WT x:fPACT REFORT is required. Bate MI.4-w+ � ignature Utle - j-zk Ir V- s:. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85 -21 FOR APPROVAL OF A MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT ON 27.13 TOTAL ACRES FOR THE FIRST PHASE OF THE MASTER °LAN DEVELOPMENT FOR A 58,000 SQJARE FOOT MINI- STORAGE FACILITY WIT4 A CARETAKER'S RESIDENCE ON 2.98 ACRES, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FCIOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ROCHESTER AVENUE IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT CATEGORY (SUBAREA 7) - AP4; 229- 011 -10, 19, 21, 26, 27 and 28. WHEREMS, on the 28th day of April, 1986, a complete application was -filed by Jack M. Masi for review of the above- desi.;bed proj -. '"; and WdEREAS, on the 28th day of May, 1986, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission he'a a public hearing to consider the above- described project. follows: NOW, i-HEREFORF,, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission• resolved as . SECTION 1: That fiche following findings can be met., 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan; the obJectiies of the Development Code, ana �he purposes of the dis`rict in which the site is i;cated. 4. -Phat the proposed use, together with the conditions app`icabie the-eto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. or materially irjurious to promxties ur imprczements in the vicinity„ 3. That the r- oposed use complies with each at the applicable provisions of the Development Code. SECTION 2 That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a negative Declaration is issued on ht. 28, 1986. SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. .5 -21 is ap.':wed subject to the following conditions and attached standard conditions: Planning Division• Master Plan: 1. The Master Plan is approved in concept only. For future development, the subsequent phases shall be subject to discretionary approval by f)e Planning Commission per the appropriate review pr,)cedure prier to the issuance of any building permits. Modifications to the Master Plan ,hall be subject to Pla►ming Commission approval. 3: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 85 -21 - MASI May 28, 1586 Page 2 2. A Master Landscape Plan for the entire project area shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of building permits for the first phase of the development. 3. Public transit facilities sucfi as Los stops for the projec'. shall be provided. detailed plans for street f:rniture, such as the bus stop, shall be submitted for Design Review Committee review and approval prior to issuance of building permits before the first ph'tse of construction. Phase I• I. The final acoustical repor'; to reduce the interior noise per the City requirements for the :aretaker's residence on Rochester Avenue shall be submitted for review and approval prior tv issuanc:; of Lailding :permits for Phase I. 2. A means of secondary acclass shall be provided to the satisfaction of the foothill Eire District. 3. All driveways are to be a minimum 35 feet in width. 4. The necessary easements for the drainage ditch sh, •'ong the southerly property line shall be provided to th- ,, isfaction of the 8uilein. Official. 5. Ail site drainage shall exit through approved drainage devices to the satisfaction of the Building Official and City Engine -r. E.2 ine rin—q 1. Notice of Intention kv join the proposed median island landscape p*aintena,,,e 3i!trict shall be filed with the City Council prior t-i the dice of `';gilding permit:;. 2. An easement for d- ainage from the area to the west shall be provided prior , t the issuance of build-ing permits. & If a project is to be constructed prior to the completion of the Day Creek Channel i,.,provement Project, the project shall be provided wit:, flood projection measures based upon an approved final flood report. 4. Parca! ",p 9998 shall be regarded prier to the issuance of buila,iq, -ts- 5. Existing Wive `s along Rochester Avenue: A. The lines arc. side of the street (project site) shall be pi— underground from the first pple south of the project limits, to the first pole north of "A" Street at the time of street construction. 13 PLANNING COMMISSION' RESOLUTION NOS CUP 85 -21 - MASI M ?„ ?8, 1986 Page 3 k F B. A fee shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of buiidi�,g permits equivalent to one -half the cost of undergroonding lines on both sides of the street, except E6KV or larger electrical, less the cost of undergrnuading the lines on the project side of the street. The limits for the fee shall b�, frem the r9nth property lira to the center of „A„ Street. L , APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH 9AY OF MAY, X986. P PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMCNCA 1 BY: ' Oernis L `1' fit, Chairman PITTFST- Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary or the Planning Cbmmi.'osion :•f the City of Rancho Cucamr:ar - -a, do hereby certify that the foregoing:aresolution was dul and regularly i,trncuced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Cer.1otss. n of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commisssisn held on the 28th day of May, 1986, by the following vote -to-wit: E fit AYES: COMMISSIONEM: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: i i i i N N L 9 T Y O L 6. � T. t0 ' ... T 9 D �< . w•D t � C i U 0 E bvY LD 6 ?q. O rOCge. C� LI Z. C I- D: GYL d RgwTr GnOG O 6.^y H cuq at r. nqL +� S-� Aa..Li A J °cvu° �Q,�gQ�gY OIC VY rP�g1l L^ N`¢00 TAG ADONL dE m V n r °a tern uq.� �y n r E T+Y°. 39N yY rq SyE�O. Ytuov u4 C O aW SMNa 6 _ V Da ii E.00'ON E °. N� O L +p A all LR d E n d W� oaga GQ� b GN.� N nY w 9 COI° - uG Gam. VYAC .-.R� O d d - aTiEG� -�G .bQa�, NV�a. 'O gdAa GiTis� 6�90.L F��N nWd 4w L.�° N~L °F L d1dT 4.q >i E T�SL Qn UL T rOV }d oGt qa o -.SEE- N4��O6 "NaiW C..y LC FrY Up. 1L6C�J w>V .ZE6�... rC VEG A o du_Odd NGri�dr ctdd gODU Oyu n.3 It c Nk dG a_N oLUr o�n� eau WW N'V br .c 0.rYgL93vOiLn3� D 1a^OAa5 KTi{S U H3 G.O qm F-L a >ta aj r. WT F M, V W N, G e-A N O D 1.2lz t Is.. � usiw ,n m y N pn N =�„YV9.q S [. NO .6N"z Eq °C L y� �b.o V b r Y.7z OYU�YL C YZ t�s• L9 t "d ° G d X: Vim: N d . a ° °� da Dom.- °pr 9 C v'9_1 NNF ^ Z ry ca O d O. �.q Gb -- O O L drG Y E N�y y . L M F 2` e 1 Y C` v L d n } G • C p u 2 d O M } V V - L � t H T Ay D C �. n �FUO CO O C n OI M...Yd w"u h R e-A Ii 1� O Z U ai •n O i L1. F 4_ �u Y q daub G° O a A6 g d T O � • � uugg'' ^ L d° d Q G �� y ^. � °a a. NOY L DE • ^+q ^O L y u n E p. •'NT u+r V wpd t Pvi+ e a`NdCONn �iri d w ° c •' Y•r d S V E a N tin L C YNw L °LN °Gb � L ��y • u °a a" arss A wi.Ly� N9 Ci4 Aw pub C m 2 i o cOC°' A NA. G YYN C N d r b a s v. 6 Y •" P I Vi c. A Lz y N ABC NdQ oL T G N Ls C 61 C 6 q t b n ^ L. c A 3p A 6 vdi. Y C?� • L� N A r°m a`ob. i F C ° � CE6Y 4@C °+Af &� 'Sp a� AyIY mid � N LL Y^ y1q YG N ^u"`,i L.y T Via. diM UZ- E•°- =L °tea+ cv 6 Ny�+Ni uOAiY�G� L�Nyu v2utn wasp •-•� 4G ^ AY uuL AUO AC 4 Eua6 C YN N «NNL S2N dfl 4,2 w N V ° q n O r u N j L My� 4 ^16 yuju ^A C N OG n A 60� a q � vl C N► J^ GN Y Y. wdi n 6' NJ Nu dw O� yDj E b b g CY 6 n Q y O L G S I- Y L C �N cM uMCi a Y� A d E 00 Y°.. f..TCO q^ BYO Ou L�LnO nd ,pj � Y 4 Ou d • d w ° c •' Y•r d S a.°. d a D FS N ��y • u H C a LE K y L. pp io2 � . 1� T. Cp` A wi.Ly� N9 Ci4 Aw pub C m 2 i Lb Y 4 q T b n K L b n c V 1 * ay: NL=AU N ABC NdQ oL T 3 4 G ca dd°q. r u Y d9. �� L C N p6 r�L N. fI N.� C ul p 2dC y N U r:.; 5 Y u uMCi a Y� A A 9QV� »CD CNd Yz.G.YN t��Y Y°.. f..TCO � n d Yb N a.°. d a D FS N Jt +sy Y � � c Ell �.D a LE K y L. pp io2 � . 1� T. Cp` C' o' N �E•.•�"L y Eb c�'y rd CAALD n ay: NL=AU N ABC NdQ C Y gi Y C u U LN C b E Y N y 9AN iwwJ N. fI N.� C ul p d U r:.; 5 Y u u •- ~r.V °ate Y. ~CCL- pry Y NT � CrC L u Y o N� y'u - S 4 A a d O Z 6 u U C fi Lp Q �- L d Y : u u3bd L }C N n O d uN F C O W 9r v S Y O.M m G N d V C 1 L C LL L C �G Y Q .�.S,obN mad au G u AG Y E °L- ..,♦J.•.` LO Yi•J N atn ODU 91Q cu° a ¢° �w • �. t�q.�o rea€ von• L c •.-N Vy:b1b. °}off to'C� }N�. u hJC NON 4.°-Na L.AA QY j=VC dAM q. i`Z-Z +an °rN N A F H 11 i .uuu do�'e_ OL ao .o �d m� O� L <uc wr�e« OOOOq f duo er au TPCr c Lv E�oY a 3 R � ° V.r O U.L ..G. Older r CVO �Vw Ld z Y 1HC c _ c d <b 0.00 acT < q� b• TCL °.� 0.C. !4. a L C9 O ^L pL,�TN o-x G• r fir_ TV ary a,°,,.N> � IT! LNG P� b � «� vP YbUO aONYtc'aV O.� �+ L yLr �r CA � LN Nyga. LY•. q. G ^OL�aL C9 :'0W S >.Tp • NgCI Sl• w.. �� rq�NNCxIq ^f�b ayaNN T � C.cEH ^ <v„o, OuiT 81 N aOr n d f q^ ON c a° °' p u� q'L° t c e o A NO Y � a w6 RG6� ye -a >a3 p q 3 � LA o O^ q O d� CfE _cEE L � w.cv qY ECL U • +rte y O yb L.G H' ALL`r fi..sca�pl r O •i'fiy C• NL '^ L..0 °qOA NOpi"� �'� 9L • 6.N ,~cp.N ^q ..CN F- oqI E «y} w yw qy a c ^W Ldb N -06� N� E dYL LbA O.�A� L +(a y a aL� L YLNf�ieN N Oc V LL V a+u od a4 � ^M� O� O•� Yofi TNa " qL 'ar L ddq T 6 OAT W •-OCC� N �, °p uoc .L. E.N EN dt. TaP dOt Ya a sau �gifQ ° C EE LgCO 0a1 i�� u a L t E w e E a q w a< < pt G N V T e� 'er T a 7 6 0 a u 4 q� 0 4 6 Y Lw a. L. O uyi F- O N .^ q • C 4CL 0 i .uuu uw' rn c as a � uuaT rnu a�.q. e.L -°fin Lq �i.. A6- Ny �+ � Rwq �Vw y.a °6 ° vjM ��' f" c • «Gio ad 0.C. may c.db uT ♦a ^L _ LNG P� b q•" 'pb yip. O4 A L N r 3 >.Tp • V 2L, O R4 � L A 9 NC yC d P l wNgy Gqo q'L° OT �6. i`.F LO Or c e `N� N Ne/ Y A NO Y � aCa ub.Y UTOq w6 RG6� ye -a >a3 o co�'aNi G � w.cv qY ��A,r « ,.,. °�fu dt= H' �° m +� u� -0T '^ L..0 °qOA '� ^Q•bm`•" Lq LOEd �� y 9L • LL ^q oqI �4.fn T w ijb a; Ct OrO. N� d 2w ►q N. LbA O.�A� rfOQ A.` V d o u V «NV nt. Y od �, °p uoc .L. y -... ° L•<e n aa° YPaO �� dNN �q• Y.p 'G• pG q qLp i�� S.•�O L. St1 y. b 06 1 O` �aa °Sf. a o F- O N .^ q • C 4CL 0 r� Ci 1 s x a 6 u_om r� cm do du C 9 W. E � x L O y O p 6 �i• oU O p O � LLU.d U = y u 1-. o O •E V N m y E A •E.. 06. d A a q O Gd r G • c T L E dF �•: � ++U d V� -79 d¢E l uy T iJ d ILL �d�° •A AN �` u c ``y7y11 Zg� c am h. O• a wp °p N c Ci yH Z .- a'. m -- •^ m d o o L ..- i {. J U NdN a YKO a mt d Lb m O dr L�LA yA~od d fit. v d da nV CUd v j Udgaa.- cY q EO.A V V Gy C dy.d. :24, +p O �A d L. ��U L Cd•Y. LL 6 y � r� ' ►a> Nai o.y...<� y.,-o= i�y� °d o Nor dET y =� pp i EE 66 q d aLEdG AL C 9 4 O= O dgyW p'y Ems N C q Ga@ Cq` L v ( N- H a'4 ILG L.V 2Li.NG HA.q � 1i-UWL O 0.7. 6�HV.N 6^�'NwV.O VI H 6 d ' �b v 1 � a1 Yia ady dO .`y. t qd yO u d c LM LL d O Od �`� ya d u0 & t Na % ya C D gdvd duO dN d^ Uu y COY LY L qAM LO r�O cU L L ol tY 4�a3 A No mo V y-dG]A yVj q V S �^V �A°6N dC3 N y C.dR a O• G \+ •' .� aya ;z 2 N = _ qi ry T V E N q q .. f n Q G a dL C M O N � r To T. F1d C� � tT. ya V da C V d A y G °O6 ` ON W V Cqq Ol LL.COY O. TOq cVfOY � QwY Ca d2, Eu VOdEL.. 4 a Y ` dN V 6' ^N C V `� N A` V Mw y y� Laa=+ 0 O 4 rO A C N VEu 6y �r•Le u yqU J d^Y r CT w0 Od�l hdV LL d��Y . dN VdN ,CECU t N.�.i. wt O• °.O.E y42 dut •4• 4 N O' a� k.a 6 Cd O `JE °q q 6 a W N G4 M p a °L O� V °E •AY _ a r•• S a L ° 00. OC i n C M = q^ $G V d O O V N 9's G.L q a r r�N C Nyq >G EEL•J.A d b N.Cgp t yY a+ SaA Y F d9�. G uU w " A L DC RTr at GOn. U tl c Oft O• W LCt LWpV Hwa u�+ N.T �. y 6N 2�•^ ALE.- i 1L Or mn�•• ba.� �� 60.6 AY U EO Ems— L +d WW Wg= 6 da+'J •7 ;�1� 1� /+ {jam 7y1ry ++ /7N�L� f+f a ' • �: too q.6c o'.°.c "dq o cE o•E� � � yiLL p d rY w v � �� cP q 9 cD py aN Cr O Q 9 GA °• "•^i• i NLA u E Ga y � > C 0• G ++T O!� d aT+ % L Y. CIyaM N•.O. U O L N °1 au1 u Zm c', �. yd, ✓.`o.• r. pE 01 �p Y °e a� �NL 01 _ u O L Oy o. A:Y �..d L r � +� d q c C T ^1r .r qaa. uio a =••� U t++H Lp� Ta.+ C •C. ow. n E 0 O co G r,Cy « Y �' o c cd ao+ N Wi E.d wE• Oho wroN S- L ^ ' G C. �� p ••' m w V" �d sG+d 4 T C L >� _5 m •Or06 rnEo.q C L'Y d. E.N y 6 L N �". r d N B C G N y e • Ntl, N � d W W d E O�y C TC G q� ' N q .G y p N r d d G V pyg N y O1'GJ NN a• ON pq0 ^gyp G qLy a Npa E V : C'rd ^y C q NV a Nq�L N\ 0 1 N Z-: w qyN C i O �T Od d O.. LVUL 6`L pq. o uaA s dqd E O C Y G q y 6pY ^ V C Y �T bin P ^ N O A.�6 CC+ dy �� p a Oa f'.pr L� .Gr�Y LL NOau 60 VOmA S d N rW 04. O •. 1'1 CI W E ^I 2 V, W J I i rn C A� a dm .n LL 3 �v •G N Rd Q•apr ^•'•' 09 ^ M A v d y E n 6 E Y 01 r M r v V ti 9 i C .Or Ur N ayM qY. oN T G O\ 1L 9 V A N lfl b M YV� Oa•Z py aN Cr O Q Lq r CO b.0 C .. M yrsw La+�y Y w. N O pfd tGU ~mE N N L N `^° C p 01�r O E dTC a. �TVgiY@ G6dyg 0• d `m'rL +' ^'OG d.. a d f A tLJT ivy 6 M a W Y Tp 2.pp r M dad+ U L O'p drn N T b •� G N C V r i9 v � L '�.• q � {O ° as aC Oy n�� N C O � L 9'r V MG. p�y9 CC O •� S uO V � Ar q yt L d•^,• 00 Oy1dS Tyr i� �N,N ~ oe'r 'r'Y" � tDr as G L GYA-�w AL ua � aaggo o�.crn N4?n0 Nd �N^'rer qt. C NG EY 1S+'C.Li1 G L� O W pY. U N W �y N ANO d c 1. E�y.UN �•N q0 � � a.Nn z ro yL� d��l a+ LL r 069 ` p y C d 6 py D G fY 01 O qr N N y r .d.1 O L OM r OL N O D M.re GEEO O.O a T� C A .OM GA U.r9 •s 8601 b C O R i a i..,v d -I d90 ^C •j C V L T n,d J.y L C y O� O y Y d t o EL G O Ot O N uo N '.p LV r L� Of bCm G p,J O A L r 'G O C � PU E lL t'01d.N T Y�G C °y Va O mEENp y0 u =L 01 01 v nu O>'N r ErL iY!..O y FA O EEpU.OwgNN 6Q dT G� l�rV �? ^Nr4M N 4 . w NOu W L do N i ,L41G. O O ENm. 0 lfl b M D •°LU uNr p °op ow N ^G4 LC .�+ a N toaau Aus w... ^ _ O � a'a c qo VN N� C G u .G o 9 F�MV qi.V E a EV xN � i NOO N= H dy ayL.U.pu � qCA Cam' 6gO.gr - q 6Q0 ddvVE. O� GAQO.L 90 t6a°+. V Nu uCF N<j uup G pO y'n 1 .n O. Nu.E d qC °~u N .rU -as+ v u�^ ty,yyC j gC�IgL �O d pq x 0. j�� ^� T qA l U Y qv �r u^ Y U V EuA dV W' N fy C q 0 yQy a Y p U ru EE d i u T L T KV v i L a Ay y1r 61°r. 6 FN. O1L OY q ^ C d dedi EO P Y yCau 9E••,y N pco� cPP 4. ..oM i f. >f. Cd 4"y y C�� Y. � Cc S p Ea A O V N y C <uyO wN �^W uG N� U _M Q.F xq x ^ULyO ggLa Tin..°. uNy •+W C� C «UOq.. C. W T� L Z c.0 i.rsC a �.axi�+ Ntq u E Lj dN a-Ut1 '^y du d ^ w. �iL 1`L O ^ YV V16W 9.- 6pvLiM ti10�i NO 6+`+�+ GU Gr Wu Ny Li.i pob 3G VV 4 w D � Q 1I1 L d mW � O a� 00 �.Y V.CY G d O pp 2 a r M dY Y q 0 d � • 4 ` ✓ O Q _L gg qU 414 d6 •4 w.c !Fj 1;� N L. nsagiC u c t° > >. .'�-• c a °„ U 9 `t J N • vyP 0 21'c CcC �a N ?K Y V y OE•r. VC C� P.L Y _ Qi 6 E J-1 u i.F O. N. ^v Gy O ^� �¢ 9N —1 E ^ y•A a c° F 9.3 yo C R O -1 Y= Eo Ernc <q CcL WZ i L°agq m6' CL 2 �w 719 �I� J(� �•7M�J��O Piz y)L� 1�0 4 D t n t "V ye a N C A q ! Y \Yn+ _ n N Nc 1. N wc" d �au c rz .Q UO �W gOY'i L O�C }yq i4J..l _c' E W � ,Y, ». iu .+� .ins, •- •^� ni o i Ia. W uL N N ac OY Y q W G C Q AN »� Y C I�+y S Y N a CIC t N . C Y YN E OY O UY �L� Q Y NL ,u U n C Y Lv 4h CE N LC wi k c d � d.� c W a M p^ L Y ^O` w d... di BA9 s +a u0a � 3 Yv OY 001 EEC �y Y a d w N A #L M y p .Yu !id a�LtO �Y �•' LYU ELi L LSO O V F as G dC ag" d Y 4Y G � Y V j i GY � d u ^ C Y «y L L d24 EL » L Y Q » r Nd�rbt5 Nd"' CL L.NV. A p ^SVp d q�oT rd fleL. oo °a °fu YO « v i O 4 '` q «= SL v M'�L N O d S.L. .4 L na4 Via \� C N 4c o0 L C O W w pC LL E v t L Nt2i t� A L C ^ L 2 A.- A' Ny d T b D1. Z u :54 L W L N OYi A p ° nq N VO du 4 L9 4 OW �-i OY Ygg� 4C4 LLti 1 T D .C+ww 6.4 Y t n t r j. t� CITY OF RAN�CHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT �VCANto'. � O DATE: May 28, 1986 UL 197 TO: Planning Commiss on. FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, S!.SJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE�SN -ENT AND PARCEL MAP 9998 - MASI - A division of 31.15 acres of land into 5 parcels for condominium purposes within S,, area 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located in the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avanue - APN 229 - 011 -10, 19, 21;, 26, 27, 28. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested A,,- peoval of Parcel Map. B. Purpose: To divide 31.15 acres of land into 5 parc_ls for* the construction of industrial condominium buildings. C. Location: Southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. D. Parcel Size. Parcel 1 - 2.98 acres, Parcel 2 - 7.15 acres. Parcei 3 - 11.21 acres. Parcel 4 - 4.84 acres. Parcel 5 - 4.97 acres. Total .31.15 acres. E. Existing. Zoning: Industrial Park, Subarea 7, Industrial Area 5%iecific Plan. l F. Existir.. Land Use: General Commercial ar!: Institutional with major' 4,a of -1 inc being vacant. G. Ssrrounding Land Use: Korth Vacant. South - Vacant. East - Single Family Residence. Wrist - Vacant. (J ITEM N F ,ANNIKS COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PARCEL MAP 9998 - MASI May 28, 1986 Page 2 E h. _Su"ounding General Plan and Development Code Designations: Nor erra Vista Plannea Community. South - Industrial Park, Subarea 7. East - Industrial Park, Subarea 7. , West - Industrial Park, Subarea 7. I. Site characteristics: A portion of the site i retains a bar (Cbwgir an a c urc_ with the remainder of the sitb teing vacant. II. ANALYSIS: The basic purpose for the Parcel Map (see Exhibit "8 ") is to create Parcel 1 for the proposed mini - storage project which is on tonight's agenda as Conditional Use Permit 85 -21. Staff required the developer to Master Plan the total area under the control of the develop,�r as a part of the mini - storage project review. The Master Plan will be discussed with Conditional Use Permit 85 -21. The developer had originally req; -isted that a phases' subdivision program be permitted for the project. however, staff persuaded him to submit a total Parcel Map covering the entire Master Plan area to be recorded as a unit for the following reasons: 1. It will provide the dedication of the proposed internal street rights -of -way assuring their eventual alignment; 2. It will prevent the possible creation of small residual parcels created by the subdivision of the existing underlying parcels; and 3. It demonstrates a commitment on the part of the developer to the Master Plan. Improvement of the streets is required to be completed as each parcel is developed. The recordation of the entire Parcel Map at one time does present a conflict with the City Subdivision Ordinance. Parcel 2 will contain two existing buildings, each Currently being used as a church and.a bar. The City Ordinance requires that all off -site improvements shall be constructed within a specified time period for all streets adjacent to a parcel containing existing buildings. Staff feels it has resolved this conflict by requiring, with consent of the developer, that the buildings within Parcel 2 be removed. The date for removal specified in Condition G.11. is May 31, 1988, which allows approximately sixty (60) days for removal after the termination date of the current leases between the property owner and the tenants using the buildings. Staff felt that it was more appropriate to require removal of buildings than i.:, improve ggthe streets because; 1, it was the developer's curb rwith'in)3 tob5lfeet)�,5eitawoulda notumeetq therstandardsbuilding r � PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PARCEL, MAP 9998 - MASI May 28, 1936 Page 3 setback of 45 feet and it would be within the street right -of- :way, and 3) the building used as a church is located within the right -of -way for street 11511. Staff has 'included a Condition (G.12.) requiring that Parce's 4 and ­5 be combirs;d into one parcel. It is felt that it would be premature to separate the parcel as shown because of the inexactnzss of the Master Plan and the parcel wot:ld not have paved access up -in recordation of the Final Parcel Map, III. EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES: There are existing ovetr4i6d ,utilities on ' both sides of the Rochester Avenue frontage, telephone only on the Project site (west side) and less than 66KV electrical on poles containing 66KV electrical on the opposite Side of the street "'Jeast side). Staff 'reconMitends that the line, oiz, the project sk° be undergrounded upon -development of the individual parcels, and an additional fee be paid to contribute to the futurt undergrounding across the street. IV. ENVIRGNMENTA! REVIEW: Also aitached for your review and•consideratior. s };a'rt I of the Initial Study as complet °.d by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the;'nitial Study, ` ~.'he Enviipnmental Checklist, and has conducted a field investigation. Upon completion and review of the Initial Study and field investigation, Staff found no adverse impacts on the envircnment as a result of the proposed subdivision. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing 5jave bean sent to surrounding property owne­ ; and placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. Posting at the site has also been comptetrl, V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all tnplrt and elements of Tentative Parcel Map 9998, If after such co,�sideratiorL the Commission can recommend approval, then the adoption ,z. of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be apprt triate. Respectfully submitted, BiiH cko Atachments: Vicinity Map Tentative Map Resolution. Reroamended Conditions of Approval Initial' -Study ty r3 � eP� is �'C-�t:t. w."�t -•.� _ '° !L���`w.yy„'yL^rw+i'�l �-'Lw� L:; J.1 ., } .. 0701 -02 o 5- 2.8 --86 P.C. Agenda Packet o Pa 2e* 7 of I E CITY OF RANCHO ti :ucAmONGA, ` ETGi BMUxG i.Drvisio V PARCEL H,,w 9996 ' 'T"Mrt TENATIVE PARCEL MAP R • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY EWIRONbENTAT,CHECKLIST DATE: 90 AFPLICA;NT: / A s "J FIT.ING DATE:_ ��/ /s, % LOG NUMBER: PROJECT: PROJECT LGrATION: S GLj e --922 mil-e- 131.VI) .fib cCffES j�f%v. I. MIROMIENTAL LMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "majbe" answers are required on attachea- shee,.$). 1. Soils and Geology. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable Lround conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? b. Disruptions,. displacEaents, compaction or burial of the soil? C. Change in topography or ground -urface contour internals? d. The destruction,, covering or modification Of any unique geologic k._ physical features? 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 ev- action and /or use of any mineral resource? 2. H drology Will the proposal have significant results in: YES MAYBE NO v v L111 YES %AYBE `0 a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? z L�- b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the sate and amount of surface water runoff? V c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood C waters? — d. Change in the a.Tount of surface water in any body of water? v e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? !� f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? P g. Change in the quantity.of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with - drawals, ar through interference with an aquifer? Quality ?' Quantity? ✓ h. The reduction in the amount of water on. �- wise available for public water supplies? — v I. Exposure of people or property to water i related hazards such as flooding or seiches? — 3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? v Stationary sources? _ b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? v 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. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? v b. ? reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? N -$ 1 YES NO •L,YSE c. Introduction of new of disruptive species of plants into an area? d. Reduction in the potential for of ;ricuitural production? Vauna. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? V b. Reduction of the numbers of ;iny unique, raze or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of nets or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? v d. Deterioration or removal of existing fi„h or wildlife habitat? 1/ $. Population. Will the prop'.ral have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the "ocation, distri- bution, density, di:;-rsity, or growth rate of t the human population of an azea? E b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing ?" 6. Socio- Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in local or regional socio- economic characteristics, including economic or. commercial diversity, tar rate, and prop --ty values? b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, I.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? v 7. land Use and Planning Considerations. Will the i proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteratiae. of the present or V 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 qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non - consumptive ✓' recreational opportunities? 4 . YES %UYSE , 0 8. Transportation. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of substantial addltionai vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for "r new street construction? v c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or r demand for new parking? .1 d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- i tion systems v e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- r tion or movement of people ar,Vor goods ?: v f. Alterations to or affects on present and potential water- borneb rail, mass transit or air traffic? ✓ g, licreases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, I bicyclists or pedestrians? f 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have _ p significant results in: G a. A disturbance to the .integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and /or historical resources? ✓ 10. Health. Safety, and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? ✓ d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? ,f e. Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? .% 9. The creation of objectionable odors? `✓ h. An increase in light or glare? sa YES 11. - Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant result's­-1'—XT; a. The obstructi-,it or degradation of any scenic vista or 'view; b, The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? ha c. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas." �.✓ c. Communications systems? d. Water supply? 1 7 �r e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control. structures? ✓ Solid g. waste facilities? "h. Fire protection? i. Police protection? cr J. Schools? { k. Parks or other recreational facil--;'ties? 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? ems' - m. Other governmental services? 13. Energy and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy. d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non — renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? L''' r ' �s naya: "o e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce 'natural resource? L/ 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the ,roject have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of -the major periods of California history or prehistory? t� b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short -term impact an the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long - term impacts will endure well into the future). c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively Considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when vier >_d in connection with the effects of past projects, and probable future projects). d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Cf t II. DISCUSSION OF EMRONTKMNTAL EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measure;). x IZ2. DET-2� ;Zi lTIOi• On the basis of this initial evaluation. F; j I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the envi,rQomentti and a XEGATIVE DECLAR,,TION will be prepared, LiI find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attacl-ed sheet have been added to the projn_ct. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. (` e find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the nvixnment, and an E^WIROYM= MPACT REPORT is required. Data` Signature i Sot C t Ut �L.,.�J Title RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING 0 N COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 9998 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 9998), LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ROCHESTER AVENUE WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 9998, submitted by Masi and consisting of 5 parcels, looted at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue, being a division of Parcels 1, 2 and ,3 of Parcel Map No. 4485, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, as per plat recorded in Book 40 of Parcel Maps, Pages 65 and 66, official records of said County, and the east 412 feet of Lot 17 of the Map of Rochester, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, as per plat recorded in Book 9 of Parcel Maps, Page 20, official records of said County; and WHEREAS, on May 15, 1986, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above- described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on May 28, 1986, the Planning Commission hod a it 7dvertised p0lic hearing for the above- described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have'' been made: r 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public - health problems or have adverse affects on abutting Property. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on May 28, 1986. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 9998 is approved subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval pertaining thereto. n2 4 I eLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION PARCzL MAP 9998 - MASI May 'L8, 1986 Page 2 i APPROVE1 AND ADOPTED THI5;28TH LAW OF MAY, 1986. FLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennii L. Stout, 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 regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of 'ncho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the ' wh day of May, 1986, by the following vote -to -Wit:: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: l`1- ttp UA CITY OF RANCH€ CUCAMONGA RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LOCATION: Southwest corner of Foothill'BlVd,. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO: 6998 and Rochester Avenue. DATE FILED May 15, 2986 LEGAL DESGRIPTION:Parcels 1,2,&3 of PM 4485, NUMBER OF LOTS: a in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Co. of San GROSS ACREAGE: 31.25 Bern. St. of Calif as per Elatrecorded ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 229 - 021 -10 19 in Book 44 of Parcel Maps, P s & ,26,2, 8 Official records of said Ca. an the Jast 412 feet of L t : of the Ma of Rochester in the City of Rancho C4camon a Co, of an ern. t of Calif. as ,�„ . plat recorded in oo!c 9 of Parcel Maos, Pa4e 20r official records of said County DEVELOPER OWNER ENGINEER /SURVEYOR Jack M. Masi SAME Ultra Consulting Services P.O. Box 14 P.O Box 5631 Rancho Cuca, CA 91730 San Bernardino, CA Improvement and dedication requirements in accordance with Title 16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga include, but may not bf >limited to, the following: A. Dedications and Vehicular Access X I. bedications shall be made of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. X 2. dedication shalt be made of the fallowing rights -of- -way for the following streets (measured from street centerline): 6j feet on Foothill Blvd. I feet on Rochester Ave. feet on i K.. 3. Corner property line radius will be required per City Standards.. X 4. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated as follows: Foothill Blvd. and Rochester Ave, except for approved access points, �2� j ^� 5. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all common roads, drives or -parking areas shall be provided by C.C. &R.s and shall be recorded concurrent with the map. X 6. All existing easements lying within future right -of -way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the map per City Engineer's requirements, X 7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. B. 5treet,3mprovements Pursuant to the City of Ranch Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 16, section 16.36,120, the subdivider may enter into an agreement and post security with the City guaranteeing the required construction prior to recordation of the map and/or building permit issuance. X 1. Constru :� full street improvements including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, tidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior streets. X 2. A minimum of 26 -foot wide pavement within a 40 -f -.t wide dedicated right -of -way shall be constructed for all half section streets. X 3. Construct the following missing improvements; Prior to building permit issuance for each parcel. Curb & A.C, ide- Drive treet treet A.C. Median - Street Name Gutter Pvmt. Walk Appr. Trees tiohts Overlay Island* Other Foothill Blvd. X X ** X X X Rochester Ave. X X ** X X X X *includes landscaping and irrigation on meter Meandering. X 4. Prior to any work being performed in the public right -of -way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits required. X 5. Street improvement plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and apprcved by the City Engineer prior to;; issuance of an encroachment permit. X 6. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power poles or , other existing public utilities as necessary, ; -2- to -1$ 7. Existing lines of 12KV or less fronting the property shall be undergrounded. X 8. Install appropriate street name signs, traffic control signs, steiping and markings with locations and types approved by the City Engineer. X 9. Stre1 light locations, as required, are to be appra,!ed by the Sout3tern California Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. tights shall be on decorative poles with underground service. X 30, Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permit. X lI, Concentrated drainage flows shall ntt cross sidewa?ks. Undersidewaik drains shall be installed to Cit;, Standards. - C. Suret X 1. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public improvements prior to building permit issuance for each parcel. 2. A lien agreement must be execute' prior to recording of the map for the following. X 3. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed, guaranteeing completion of all on -site drainage facilites necessary for dewatering all parcels, to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Divison prior to issuance of building permits for each parcel. D. Drairzge and Flood Contro' X 1. Private drainage easements for cross -lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. X 2. Adequate pr.)visions shalt be made for acceptance an- disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacec' areas. 3. The following storm drain shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer X 4. Prior to recordation of the map, a hydrologic and drainage study for the ,project shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review. _ -3 S. A drainage detention basin per City Standards shall be Grading constructed to detain increased .runoff . _ — X 1, Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual grading plan. X 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work prior to issuance of building permit. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time- of application or grading plan check. 4. The final grading plan shalt be subject to revieo and approval by the Gracing Committee and shall be completed ;prior to recordation of the final subdivision map or issuance of building permit whichever comes first. X 5. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of building permit. F. General Requirements and Approvals X 1. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: X CalTrans for Foothill Blvd. San Bernardino County Flood Control Qistrict —" X Cucamonga County Water District for sewer and water X San Bernardino County Dust Abatement (required prior to issuance of a grading permit) Other 2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C. &R.$) approved by the City Attorney is required prior to recordation of the map. X 3. Provide all utility services to each lot including sewerage, water, electric power, gas and telephone prior to street constriacton. X 4. Sanitary sewer amd water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. X 5. This subdivision shalt be subject to conditions of approval from CalTrans. -4- -ate X 6. i l Approvals have`nrt been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Ar;proval of the final map wi►l j be subject to any requirements tit-at may be received from them. X� 7. The filing of the tentative Wrap or approval of same does not guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time building permits are requested. `ihen building permits are requested, the Cucamonga County !dater District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits wilt not be issued unlesp said certification is received in writing. S. Local and Master Planned Trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing and weed cr.trol, in accordance with City-trail standards, shall be.subm.cted to anr` approved by the City Planner prior to recordation for and /or prior to building permit i issuance for 9. Prior `.o recording, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estir,ated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District 82 -2 amryng the newly crea`e parcels. X 20, At the time of fina, map submittal, the roliowing shall be submitted: Tiwle Report, traverae ca?c-slations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference arid/or showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. X 11. Notice of intent °a join the proposed Median Island Landscape District shall be fi' -d with the City Council prior tg recordation of the Final &. Special donditions 1, 1. Any structure to be constructed wi- "hln 3001 of the centerliv+ry of Rochester Avenue prior* to the completion of the Day Creek Channel Improvement Pr iject shall be provided with flood protection measures based r+pon an approved Final flood Report. X 2. Any development to occur .iitnin the area west of Street 911 prior to completion of Master Storm Drain Plan Line 6 of the Terra Vista Planned Community shall be provided with drainage protection measures based upon an approved Drainage Report. X ` 3. If the on -site storm drain system is to be designed with a sump condition as proposed, the systems shall he designed for Q100 with 1.5 Q100 catch basin capacity. X 4. Two means of . ,cess shall be provided to each phase of the development and shall have a minimum paved width of 26' within T minimum dedicated width of 401. X 5. The limits of street and storm drain improvements for each r k Phase shall be as required by the C,ty Engineer. X 6. Plans for the internal streets and storm _drains shall be sufficiently completed to verify the*feasibAity of the design as approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map. X 7. The proposed most westerly driveway on Foothill Boulevard shall be designed for emergency vehicles only. X U. Easements for cross lot drainage shall be shown on the Final Parcel Map. X __ 9. Right turn pockets shall -bti provided at both entrances on Foothill Boulevard and Street "A" wi Rochester Avenue. X 10. 1 existing buildings within Parcel 2 shall be removed by May 32; 1988 and shall be guaranteed by an agreement and appropriate security pricr to Final' jai -cel. Map approval. X 11. Parcels 4 and 5 shall be combined into one parcel resulting in a four parcel Final Parcel; Map X 12. The only opening 4n the future median island within Foothill Boulevard will be at Street "C °. X 13. An in -lieu fee for one half of the cost for the construction of the future median island including landscaping within Foothill Boulevard shall be paid on a front foot bas•13 upon development of each }parcel adjacent to Foothill Boulevard. 14. The building located within Street "C" shall be removed upon development 'if any parcel requiring the improvement of Street etCu. , X 15. Existing overhead utilities: a. The existing overhead utilities on the west sida of Rochester Avenue from the first pole south of the project limits to the first pole off -site from the north project limits shall be placed underground at the time of street construction. b. Prior to the issuance of building permits on each parcel, a fea shall be paid to the City equivalent to one half of the cost of undergrounding all lines on both sides of the street, except 66KV or larger electrical, less the cost of undergrounding the lines otl_.the project side of the street. CITY OF RANCHO CUChhbNGA � 4' LLOYD d, HUBBS, CITY ENGINEER by ?`` , CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF F7-PORT a t Q FOATE, 66 May 28. 19 � Chairman and Members of t`e Planning Commission ROM: Brad Buller, City :Tanner BY: 4ohn R. Meyer, Assistant Planner SUBJECT DESIGN PEVIEW FOR TR!,�. 1,1549.1 - BLAIR - Design review of cotprints ana building ONvatio�ar' recorded tract for residential subdivigl -,n of 21 lots on 17.5 acres in the Very Low Residential District Mess than 2 du /ac) of the Etiwarda Specifir Plan, located on the east side of Etiwanda, south of Sutmtit - APN 225- SB1 -23. F' 1. BACKGROUND:: This project was originally heard by the Planning o mt ssi on April 23, 1986, The discussion of this tract focused around whether the proposed elevations met the intent :)f the architectural design guidelines stated in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. After much discussion, the applicant was then directed to take staff's comments into consideration and go back before the Design Rei=iew Committee on May 8, 1986, A. Design Review :Committee: At the Design Review Meeting of May 8 -, 1086, the applicant stated that he is willing to comply with the City's conditions granted that future development will have similar conditions attached to their projects. The Committee reassured the applicant that all development within the Etiwanda Specific Plan would have to comply with these types of conditions and that This project will establish a benchmark by which future projects are compared. Staff then recommended some alternatives that would allow the p1•oject to better comply with the guidelines set forth in the Specific Plan, They were: 1. The use of siding (vs. Stuccr) on all 1Jur elevations of the horse, 2. Switching the rock and brick veneer trim from the vertical plane to the horizontal plane, 3. A 9,.neral upgrading of the architecture through the ctse of additional detailing, such as decorative moldings and lathed wood posts. 4. The introduction of hor;.:ontal slumpstone trim on Man 24523. ITEM 0 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 11549 -1 - BLAIR May 28, 1986 Page 2 The applicant has submitted revised elevations, since the Design Review Committee meeting. Upon review, staff has determined that the revisions have taken many of the ORC comments into consideration, but should be carried out futher, specifically: o Plan 2288A; Additional horizontal rock trim is recommended ,along right side of front elevation. a Plan 2288D; Additional horizontal rock trim is recommended along right side of front elevation and ?long walls into main entry. P Plan 2332A; Additional horizontal rock trim is recommended on left elevation, near entry. o Plan. 2332b; Additional horizonal rock trim is recommended on left elevation and front elevation on garage. o Plan 2452C; Additional horizontal rock trim is recommended along entire front elevation. These recommendations are incorporated into the Resolution of Approval for your consideration.. II. RECOMMENDAT10f3• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review all efe,ents and input of this project and apreove this project by adopting the attached Resolution and Conditions of Approval. Res fully sub ted f Brad Buller City Planner BB:OM:ns Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "D" - Revised Elevations Resolution of Approval with Conditions f t a1 Z O PIANNING orvb N NUR`�'H MIND EXHIBTP.,,, �SCtLE:._1 -- �..,,,_„ ' On oT NTi C- ` z Y i " ` ` ✓. Lu TI I d d ••r tti , � 14'IiwYnuY 14prY.1Y�R � -_ . - pp TRACT NO. 11549-1 _`Q Ql AND GRADING PLAN NORTH �. ,CITY b RANCHO � TTFr1�1= � iTC V tJTCAMONGA THU; PLANNM DRqWN EXHIBTI': � -- SCr1LE: �-a-- �TRt <.S...TR! 1 to 9 esiwrrto - csGA+...c w"m axcxwfi •,M a:,iLi I R w s u � � r' e KAM NOV. -T NK)R rtI crry CF rrEM RANUiO CLr ONUk TME: 7 AA A- P ANNM DIVISION EXHIBIT'- _ SCAM fltlf'i !`it"��^if i�`�f1 �'`� �I `�'n -' ern•, eEPrELEVA7 i °rte WAVE vVaov SI ptN Punw -boon Fvw CITY C ti RANCH CJC.M4NGA - MANNM DIVISION NORTH rFEM: - —I flS4`j -% T u. 22 EXHIBM. scALE. a -8 L R Wff ELEVATION' -- \-1 CITY CF RANVMrIJCAMONGA PNM DMISM, Jet r,,cq- t & 040 . .NORTH Tnu 232 /� _cam J lwf- A I .,2 t -,ft Tica•1 WILL— jpc -uoe7 woc o SlAgiAQr G� NQRTH CITY CF el& -j ti: / RANCID CUCAMONGA T rLE: eS32 C A n ANNII+iG DIVbSM ExHisrr: _. scP LE: � rl I'm PARTIAL FLOOR PLAN MY OF RANCW CUCAMCNGA PLANNM DIMUN NORTH rmm.. Dr , 1 1. - TM.E. EXHIRM �DSCAL(z:-. FROM ELEVATE" CITY OF nEm: -012- 4�e 77Z rr7 �- RAINUD Cy'UCAMONCA R ANlN M MINION EXHiT - Q SCALE- - ,____,,.._._ c>--ta, - RESOLUTION NO. 85 -118 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVA, FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 11549 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 11549 hereinafter "Map" submitted by Lewis Somes of California, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as a residential subdivision of 52 acres located on the southwest corner cf Summit & East. Avenues into 90 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission fc- pub "ic hearing and action on May 6, 1981; and WHEREAS, the Director of Community Development has recommended approval of an amendement to thq Conditions of Approval of the Map subject; to all conditions set forth in the Fngineering and Planning Division's reports; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and cor Adered the Engineering and Planning Division's reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing, NOW, THEREFORE, the Plannning 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. 11549 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consiste'at with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; (b) The design or imorovements of the tentative tract is consistent with °'e General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the typ> f 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 healt-1 problems; (f) The design of the Tentative tract will not 'conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. PLANNING COMMISSION'S OLUTION August 14, 1985 Page 2 SECTION 2: The Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tact Map No. 11549, a copy of which is attached hereto, are hereby amended as follows 1. Conditions "E -9" of the Standard Conditions of Resolution 81 -64 and "Section 3 -6" of Resolution 81 -'7A requiring Development /Design Review approval prior to recordation of the map shall•be doteted. 2. A new Conditionil'of Approval shall be added as follows: Any future plans for_;;ract development shall require an application . for Development /Design Review approval prior to issuance 'of- building permits. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1985, PLANg ISSION OF THE CITY 0'' XHO CUCAMONGA BY: Stout,,C'�rman E ATTEST: e auren M Wasserman`,t ActingSe etary s, I, Lauren M. Wasserman, Acting Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho•Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular, meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of August, 1985, by the following vote -to -wit `t AYES:, COMMISSIONERS: REMFFL, CHITIEA BARKER, MCiNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NCME r. C RESOLUTION NO. 81 -64 A RESOLUTION OF THE CIT! COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY • APPRO1•ING TENTATIVE TRACT HAP No. 11549. WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Nap No. 11549, hereinafter "Map" submitted by Lewis Homes, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, Scate of California, de3cribed as a residential subdivision of 52 acres located on the southwest corner of Summit and East Avenues s` into 90 lots,: came before the City Council on appeal of Planning, Commission .approval of said Tentative Nap; and WHEREAS, -the City Council set aside the Planning Commission approval at its meeting of April 1, 1481; and WHEREAS* tha applicant has revised: the Tentative Map as requested. NOWs THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamor,ga does hereby resolve as :ollows: SECTION "1: Findings: (a) The tentative tract is c,—istent with all aplAicable Interim and proposed gen`:al ani specific plans; (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is • - consistent wish a_.`. applicable Interim and propoaed general and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to caune substantial environmental darage and .Voidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is net likely to cause seriqus "public'. helath problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property �?Irhiu the proposed subdivision. (g) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and the Negative Declaration issued is upheld by the Planning. Commisston, . SECTION 2: CO'MITIONS OF APPROVAL: Tentat£v:i Tract Nap No. 11549, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached StandG.d Conditions:. PLANNING DIVISION 1. The Garcia House shall be preservedby relocation to another site at the expense of the develAper.The developer shall work with the Director of Community Services and the City Histroic Commission to find an appropriate location. a •, ___ a I, Xz a .iv C tesolution Yo. $1 -64 {- 'age 2 2. A. detailed planind;eacing which trees are needed to be removed and wheee..;iew windrows shall be planted, shall be submitted to and approved by the city Planner Prior to final approval of map. The developer shall . be responsible for planting new windrows where deemed appropriate by the City Planner. 3. The palm trees near the Garcia Hourie shall be relocated to the Etiwanda Avenue frontage by the developer. This shall be shown on the detailed tree plan. 4. Combined driveways shall be required for lots with vehicular access to Summit and East Avenues. S. The Map sha11 be revised in substantial compliance with Exhibit "C" end revised Exhibit "D10. b. Front yard aetbaCEA along Summit and East Avenues shall be no less than 401. 7. Front yard setbacks on interior cul-de+sac streets shall average 35•. S. Side yard setbacks on carnet Icts shall be no. less than 15' and all other setbacks shall meet the requirements of the R-1-20 Zone. 9. Phasing of the subdivision shall provide for construction to occur from Etiwanda Avenue toward East Avenue to allow, for the ultimate determination of East Avenue. Street width and improvements through. the Etiwanda specific. Plan. 10. All Street Names shall reflect a Historical perspective. Prior to recordation of the ?inal Tract trap the applicant shall apbmit and receive approval of a sane :change to R 1 -20 by the Planning Commission. Street trees along .Etiwanda, Sundt and East Avenues shall be of specimen size. A variety of 1- gallon eucalyptus trees, 15` o.n. shall be planted along the interior streets of the subdivision. Appropriate tree wells to Protect ' such trees shall also be installed by the Developer. A temporary cul- de-sac shall be constructed within proposed street R.O.W. at the north boundary of the tract.: All cul -de -saes shall be` 4 -foot right- ofway, with 36, foot pavement, containing concrete railed curbs, but no sidewalks. The major east -west "S" street hall be 60- foot right -of -way,. 36 -foot pavement and have a standard curb and sidewalk (the sidewalk to use brushed colored concrete); the north side having a concrete rolled curb and no sidewalk. MERA {C DIVISIO`t Ultimate width of East Avenue shall be dete -mined by Etiwanda Specific Plan and required right -of -way per the specific plan shall be dedicated to the City. 8I , \� Resolution \o, 8I -6; page 3 ; 16. Existing dP,%a%ed rock curb and gutter on Etlwanda_Avenue. s be �- epaircd with similar type materials dhall to satisfaroa of the City Engineer. the - Ii. WidOJOf storm drain aasenents andrequsremenco. shall be per City standards �. IB Street improvements shall be `parcels which are "not a required contiguous to thrse part" as shown on tentative. map. - - 19. Thestubend - street shall haven temporary aul- de-ss bulb as City c per standard. - - BDILAIR� G DMSION 20. Surety shall be posted and an agreement execated, guaranteeing compie Clem of ail on -site d�aiaage facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels, Building and Safety Division. to to the satisfaction of the 21• Appropriate easements, for safe diapooal o£:drainage pater that are conducted unto or over ad are acent jed parcels, to ,d delineated a j record to the satisfaction of the Building and S Safety Division. 22. On-site drainage improvements, necessary for dewateang or protecting the subdivided properties, are Cc be installed prior co issuance of :building permits For .. construction upon any parcel that may he spblect toy contributes or c to, drainage flows entering, leaving a uitcon a parcel relative to which a building g p rmit is requested. 23. Final grading plans for each parcel are to baaubmitted to' the Building and g Division for apprd�al prior to issuance of building " permits. -(This may .lie ou,o..incremen[al or composite basis,) PASSED, APPROVED,.. and ADOPTED tbisbth day of Hay, 1981. AYES: Frost, Hikels, Falomba, Bridge, Schlosser Nu::S: Hone f ABSERTe Hone - P lli D. Schlosser, Flayor AIIP.ST: - Lauren H Hasserman, City Clerk ' o o a � u. r' A L � a ° Cz rs ° o o J tl- •°. vuc Y rn ii tj di =.moo NX' OY N c� i4� = LT d L� 6N UO Cw,. N O d Of G p C+L eJ p N NO -bt =t y <' n " u'a cy 2 oT °c = c' � ... a' Y s•. ^cam c'u o 'x c :, d^> gA ars`� c c vu Zd O N Ld A rs6 °y n S.A YL z 3 p u a N OVO si. L�r� OYW ON C NC I.. L d p. d O FF ?°•YY q 0 ` Y '00 Y ow AW >Ut V VC nL yn rET OG �n �q 'C- C.. �V r CC? _ Y O �OFF P4C L 6> GC E d LY V 001- G a� EL. L —.� LM C Cd Ct 2 E Cti LA° F o c uz CE Ua x 05 M s .` "'G Ya G wL c n " -o ., n '_ a .Ge U O Ln •: . a �. o o L" v = C u `_ � t N O m i MV u 60 L L NC 7� ° L =N d LOw = 9 O L Gp 3 U G n AL 3 L L Caw p b c LA p rn cd 6Y V nc at crs Nr 9Y.a «42 Lq ra V LG LL _ >_ .�oU V y . y T S V d YL= . d� To do > YLL G = tg tyE C. >UL O� u°•.O j_Y fuI . C C�NL CO NONKh. W.c-LS J Hx WOY aL �.,, aY•ix.+ ^Cpl ti .b-•4 • � rY N � N o .Y^ 9 vuc Y rn ii tj di =.moo NX' OY N c� i4� = LT d L� 6N UO Cw,. N O d Of G p C+L eJ p N NO -bt =t y a. �d c°i A o 'x c :, d^> gA ars`� c c vu Zd O N Ld A rs6 °y n S.A YL z 3 p u a N OVO si. L�r� OYW ON C NC I.. L d p. d O FF ?°•YY q 0 ` Y '00 Y Yc V AW >Ut V VC nL yn rET OG �n �q 'C- C.. �V r CC? _ Y O �OFF P4C L 6> GC E d LY V 001- G a� EL. L —.� LM C Cd Ct 2 E Cti LA° F o c uz M s .` "'G Ya G wL c n " -o O • ^� �o u G.+J+ c �v _o H} HYN Gv C^'A 6r� nL.V tYj c:yqq CO.N Vri a u H ^I r N ` ut £•� Y �P N 0 v u0 ✓OL � �iJ 7` Q� v wZ \� 6. � �� ,n u q u L S N a u _'' 2 a G H . t C9 b u 4. C °tea s c� > ° y >�o. Su C^ P « E N U u O.q a _ v oGtt O tf C. Go Cc�GnE =oa c =`a n. � ='•"c• q C .+.°- L`aa <'1 Gao' �o I .3J a a o W g ��°..� «C Y O U9 ✓° ° wqC a�C q y=ya N 1'1 ° � °io n H io `cam_ er Ve �i o u Lw� ' co .� nVna° i�"U i uz au °c...w, 001 qw q— u6 LCD °« E E 6 V , o nY y4v n ^COQ ✓ E oo i C i TJ �. Div n q O�`�OC .4. •4� U 6U � D� Ld °..C.m° —� TLN�vO nd «. >o == c.=> u c ;c «r c Y v^ 1. Y 7'. � O d K G1aY >f '.V n > C U •.- ^ O � Y N . .y • N c � y Y � tiN Y C3 Mw '�, 4 .Ll 60 ^� vUU N ;; C V 5 b wG1 Kii. WYUO:.Li«q .uM �... ^OtI " I� 1 N K-z tz pz� Z E I yUa G^> �4LJG �.� ,C� `..0 _�� j Zip `C yC 75, - 4 2 ac �z 2-: 7E F, F B .2 -We 17 -z—.n t-- L!.2 T -5:5 a -.2 Uf -a R: F Cz • r � o a 1 +C. • tQ�. u " y4 a °. ��Y.i ?C VpjG pu b�YCln u t.` dV w^ ✓Cf.N � 0.....� '�� w y`n � •- E C` b' D b SF � cmc C• 4 i L �� S ! b �� yA ���7.. c 4•LO.4 .JV yju �i� o V ... •n > V L � Vj� � lad, ��• oox G C• d Guess a v YLF♦ V� � T .in' i' c � W O< npDL' nCl rD.. KO'd L s• tG 4 lVZ `G <�c�� V^ 0 �N V ^ •0 d NN W DA •.O�n=d ?• LG p`N'u ti K .�.0 }...b e C.. < .p^ J UL G � b. ..�. <U.G M« c fi GFa H Z Y w < 5 �,r 6 Z » N. d cV.^.. O a r 55b Cb D u O O O _.' s Na4 ,p? 4b'° O 'ri u 'E'r M u q � E G4.+ U.i... 9 l M L ! E! N" p G M N N L U •p N y� C G. C•O. ° w �` N L.oL3 _t _ 'N i � C ..'4 eo �L » r i Db a O» V 4 N e c _ p y �» Vim„ u. D' L n C .•'. .p � O•..N ° CMU" C C}O. G� n 4r :5 �� b Y v t•. ' .� V u •I• O • Y C 7 wS� h Ci' o " y4 a °. ��Y.i ?C VpjG pu b�YCln dV w^ ✓Cf.N � 0.....� '�� .,.�J C16� b CR 4..n.� cmc ua La°tm '� c ' stn ❑mob z�u^ �Gr. -Fo ~ � + N� L V L tl YLF♦ V� L� S Duo. bbic > G C+Yr W O< nCl _° 4. 2 u�•G. 00•.C- tic. -.;^_ o •'^.° <�c�� � ^ •0 d NN W »� •.O�n=d ?• LG p`N'u ti K .�.0 }...b e C.. < .p^ n q1. OLSG Cp OL ` <U.G M« c fi GFa H Z Y w < ��,: Z b L LD cV.^.. O a r G 6 C ••.. <+•T V 4 L^ ° D u O O O _.' O r ON Na4 ,p? sss Sf O ° S W A�A •.V•'a1" <O Sir N4 C U.i... <+r ••. C �,p `� 6q C G. C•O. ° w C O w N Ct V 4 D t V � � C O G 6 Grp• Db a O» �C ;Cii La>s•.0 •4� .`h �» Vim„ u. D' L n C .•'. .p � O•..N ° CMU" C C}O. G� n 4r :5 �� b Y v t•. ' .� •ten i y.a. _ ° 6 �y i i G Sl^ C CSw ° J. y... • V y ny 5 NON � V yv� •-_. .-. gg CSC T!- Lie b � � � CS Y L � ` a a iCLCR � C' = -^U. 3 � _ ^ • C C qu »O .~�. HE O. r� tJ M y C'C'.r � O q.'y C a C ~ '^ � \• +ti O U �.0 .� N •n O_ tt ` 4• �I .� ^ y N� u n •. �� u >n Oa<i C u -'Dq C u :, � 6 Cbµ � a r. •- ..��U'G C.n u Yb i11� r �' b Y. _ G d r'! Ci' O �C N •- °` •f. � °. r y L u uc- Ste. 9 49 = L 0 7E G 4 ` 7 G V • ~ L G G \d C C x V c t " cL L G G j 0 � C )•:' *I Ln i dO L C _NL U G S9L G�iz� 9 Ly 'Q VTY . 9 =i • LGO.. a �f: Cu •' 1 'L,{� Ny. L U 3 .y J �JN•L Y•Oi L r • f � O G 2 x u ^` _ �G d -q0 �u0} u YL � vC� 9 =q �4 V SO CV G • N i Q•C�i•>y ; OrL - `C y My +a•.0 4LmW -�o n5 r Ls°O wP LO ze -u C9 O 00 u°c U nn t j au� `9 bN c O eu4d '--'EE L. G o 9 . y 5:5 z f LiV K u �. +- = maGG 4 0µ C G� } 9u 4L44u 24 V' Cu a G + Z fV = �! u ° 4A U` V €j •- _ yo �. fir' r 4tp R 9Z r4.%. yi c _ .xU.1n 'UaG c O' .a ` ✓y.� •.. u O� S` �!; �L �•~ NL r2 sPp90 Q�' 9 p ^- i.CG.L U9 C� LLY Yv •uj J� NC NuiL` LTA 5 �N � .. c Y �u� N t•O•V _ LZ ,\2 mc r 3 .}iC •- q �a0.. � L N �t ..� L a — C u N �_ � � V .. C L O it e m M as c �I �I O �C N •- °` •f. � °. r y L u uc- Ste. 9 49 = L 0 7E G 4 ` 7 G V • ~ L G G \d C C x V c t " cL L G G j 0 � C )•:' *I Ln dO L C _NL U G S9L G�iz� 9 Ly 'Q VTY . 9 =i • LGO.. u L 5 ELi QO� Y n Lv9 G n L N u ^` N W �G d -q0 �u0} u YL u L �OT�L O G vC� y q =q �4 V SO CV G • N i Q•C�i•>y ; OrL - `C y My +a•.0 4LmW -�o n5 r Ls°O wP LO ze -u C9 O 00 u°c U Na° C nu t j 9 . y 5:5 z f LiV K u �. +- = maGG 4 0µ C G� } 9u 4L44u 24 V' Cu a G + Z fV = �! O �C N •- °` •f. � °. r y L u uc- Ste. 9 49 = L 0 7E G 4 ` 7 G V • ~ L G G \d C C x V c t " cL L G G j 0 � C )•:' *I Ln )- � \ # et \� / /\ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT NO. 11549 -1 LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ETIWANDA, SOUTH OF SUMMIT IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS, on the Sth day of March, 1986, a complete application etas file(! by Blair Homes for review of the above- described project; and WHEREAS, on the 28th day of May, 1986, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above - described project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as SECTION 1: That the following can be met: 1. That the proposed prcject is consistent with the objectives of the Gcneral Plan; and 2. That the proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and 3. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of tie applicable provisions of the Development Code; al: 4 4. That the proposed use, together with the condition..: applicable thereto, will not be detrimeotal to the public health, safety, or weifare, or .`laterially Injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: That Design Review for Tract 11549 -1 is approved scti -.ct to the fo owivng conditions and attached Standard Conditions: 1. Siding Material shall be used on all four e1avations of the residence. 2. The rock and brick veneer trim shall be used as a horizontal element. 3. The project will use additional detailing such as decorative moldings and lathed wood posts to upgrade the architecture. 4. Plan 24528 shall be upgraded through the ­e of a horizontal slumpstone veneer trim. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, BLAIR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 11549 -1 - t4ay 28, 1986 Page 2 +\ , Review committee prior to 5, Final elevations the hall cot orate the following revisions for review issuance of building P ermits: is A. Plaa 2288A; Additional horizontal rock trim recommended along right side of front elevation. ^288D; Additional horizontal rock trim is p elevation and B. Plan right side of front e .recommended ale��9 along walls into main entry. hor trim is C. Plan 2332A; Additional ion, near t rock enrY recommended on left elevat D, Plan 2332D; rock Additional horizontal t elevation o trim is recommend °•d on left elevation anc fron garage. trim is E, Plan 2452C; Adentireafr ntrelevation* recommended along with the Etiwanda Avenue g, 27 shall comply includes a 10 equestrian 6. Lots 1, 2° Guidelines, which trail and tpspec�cl landscape treatment - APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28th DAY OF MAY, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: rad u er, OePutY ecretary Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of and 1, Brad Buller, Deputy certify that the foregoing Resolution CiMMis otauof the do hereby and adopted by the Planning r tssion held Rancho Cucamonga, passed, of the Planning regularly introduced, P - City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a� a beafollowing vote -to -wit: on the 28th day of May, 1986, Y AYES: CGMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSICNERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: s`. nrm r nr r _­1 va' 1C31vvsili lJV V.C11T1VlYlSC1 G�GAh1Q'Y 13TAFF REPORT 0 s F� U I� DATE: May 28, 1986 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of tiie Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, 'City Plan.,er BY: Bruce Cook, Associate Planner SUBJECT: REVISION TO AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR VICTORIA VINEYARDS revis on to the approved Araa Development Plan fo reduce the number of single family lots and increase the acreage of the reenbelt trail s item for the Victoria Vineyards South Village, a 117.4 acre portion of the Victuria Planned Community, located on the north side or Base Lire Road, between. Milliken and Rochester, south cf the Southern Pacific Railroad - AP11: 227- 081 -6. I. BACKGROUND: On October 23, 1985, the Planning Commission approved TFie— Area "",aveiopment Plan for the Victoria Vineyards South Village. leis Area Plan establishes the future land use patterns and irculation system for the Vineyards South Village. The appl ,nt, The William 1,yz^ Company, is now requesting a revision to the approved Area Development Plan. 1I. ANALYSIS: The revision is to the 4,000 series lots within the ow- a ium !.istrict located in the center of the prniect site north of Base Line Road and south of the Loop Road. The basic dimension of the lots has been altered from 40' x 100' to 45' x 91'. The Lyon Company prefers this wider, less deep lot because it produces a more imorkable site area on which it is easier to .ite houses, and it also opens up the streetscape by allowing for more room between buildings. The result of replotting this area with the redimensioned lots is that fewer lots are obtained; 149 lots with the revised plan versus the 154 lots achieved with the approved plan. Also, with the less deep lots, less area is taken up by then in the East -west direction. This "leftover" land area has been incorporated into; the Greenbelt Passeo Trail; 5.8 acres of land are devoted to trails with the revised plan versus 5.4 acres with the approved plan. Besides fewer lots and more trail area, the only other major alteration to the Area Plan is that the Greenbelt Passeo Trail is now internal between two tier of lots as opposed to abutting the street on its easterly perimeter as shown on rho: approved plan. ITEM P PLANNING- •COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 28, 1986 } Revision Area Development Plan - Victoria Page 2 Otherwise, the revised plan is essentially the same as the approved plan. III. RECOMMENDATION: Staff t &ommerds that the Planning Comnissior approve the revised Area Development Plan through adoption of the attached Resolution: . Respqctfully s ted Brad Bull ?r City Planner BB:BC•das F Attachments, Exhibit "A" - Area Development Plan (Revised) Exhibit "B" - Area Development Plan (Approved) Staff Report, October 23, 1985 Resoituion No. ft -I;.2 Resolution of Approval . I4 0.. t' F, 'f CI Z CF RANCLTCAMOTN d A H C. PLANNI -IINC DfVL90N U i t y. lit Q # ILI t?, u> z <E EL r� V C < < G ¢ q T K T a e- q ■ W d �J T#%!J• s O r- ��w = V o o °a to 15 z LU T .4� • t6 �. 3O 0 v Vo zU N 0 ZS t6J.c�s ac < mom �, Cd Ol .r..� a ca Cd #ni. <, NN Nb 6 a x .4 a P ZLU s tu; NCRTH .wr CITY CF rrEIVI. RAMEY, D CLTCALMONGA PLANNING UVMDN le ~-�- > - ---------- LL LU Oj z cr w < CL LU ul uj J 6 cc S LU 0 co) co m < cl) < cc z LU g < 16, n-,- O DE • LU oi o 1E > N 0 D LOCO C', w Lu C/) 4 n I I I'lIORTH CITY CF rrEIVI. RAMEY, D CLTCALMONGA PLANNING UVMDN le ~-�- > - ---------- lu 0 ifi CITY OF RCHO CUCAI IONGA STAFF REPORT Cj q III z HATE: October 23, 1985 L977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Community Development Director BY: Bruce Cook, Associate Pldnner SUBJECT: AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAk FO V R ICTORIIA VINEYARDS SOUTH - A conceptual development plan !' or South Victoria Vineyards Village, a 117,4 acre portion of the Vittoria Plan Community, located on the north side of Base Line Road, bet,-teen Milliken and Rochester, south. of the Southern Pacific Railroad - APN 227 -081 -6 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Reauestedt Approval of an area development plan for the South Victoria Vineyards Village. B. Pur uses To establish the future land use pattern for S.yuth Victoria Vineyards Village. C. Surroundin Land Use and Zanina• North Vacant property, Victoria Planned Community, the North Victoria Vineyards Village. Sauzr - Vacant property, Terra Vista Planned Community. East - Existing lu :.,ber yard, Medium Residential (8 -14 (lulac). West - Vacant property, Terra Vista Planned Community, designated future 49 acre park. C. general Plan Designations, Project bite - Low Medium Residential (4 -8 du /ac). North -- Low Medium Residential (4 -8 du /ac); proposed school /park site. South - Neighborhood Commercial on southeast corner of Milliken /Base Line; Medium Residenital around Neighborhood Commercial (4 -14 du /ac); Low Medium Residential (4 -8 du /ac) beyond. East - Medium Residential (4 -14 du /ac). West - Proposed park s -te. E,. Site Characteristics: The Southern Pacific Railroad boroars the are4 on the north. The site is vacant and contains i :o structures or significant vegetation. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VICTORIA. VINEYARDS SOUTH October 23, 1985 Page 2 Im II. ANALYSIS: A. Design Review: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on June 5, 1985. The Cr,,mittee recommended significant changes to the Area Development Plan over the original s0mittal including size and location of the park, trail design and alignment and land use. To address these issues, the following revisions we•!.e made: 1. The park site has been increased from 3 to 5 acres in size and was relocated southerly from abutting the railroad tracks to the northeast corner of "Loop Road" and "Loop Entry Road ". 2. A trail focal point was provided on the south side of "Loop Road" and its alignment was revised to provide direct access. to the east side of "Loop Entry Road ". 3. Land use designations were revised to show Medium High Residential (14 -24 du/ac) at the northeast corner of Base Line and Milliken. B. Planning Commission WorkshW. Planning Commission reviewed the revised Area Plan for the Victoria Vineyards South at the workshop on July 1, 1985. The Commission was generally satisfied with the re- worked plan, with the only comment being; 1. Per the input, from the Community Services Department, the park site should be redesigned with a rectangular or square shape. Rear yards abutting the park should be avoided. The use of a loop ro�xd around the park's perimeter or of side - on cul -de -sacs should be considered. The Area Plan has been redrafted to show a rectangular park site. 'The park is bounded on the north by a trail and on the east by Medium Residenital. The Community Services Department has reviewed the lastest plan and has no objection to the revised park configuration. C. General: At the Planning Commission workshop for the Vineyards Area Plan, there was a general consensus in regards to the land use designation and dwelling unit distribution (see Exhibits "U" & "E" and July 1, 1985 Planning Commission workshop staff report and minutes for complete brew: down and listing of land use and unit totals). The currently proposed Area Plan does exhibit some revisions to the land use designations and dwelling unit total € r- distributions from the plan reviewed by the Commission at the workshop. However, the revisions are relatively minor in nature and involve only the area abutting the park site to both the north and east. The previous plan showed 5.3 acres of Low Medium Residen ?�Al directly abutting the park site to both north and east, with If /.2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VICTORIA VINEYARDS SOUTH October 23, !985 Page 3 acres of Medium Residential beyond. The new plan eliminates the Low Medium designation altogether and now shows 28.5 acres of Medium. Residential to the north and east a;' the park site. Correspondingly, 15 more dwelling units are shown with this plan than with the previous one. The reasons for these revisions are two -fold; 1. The changes are to address the concern of the Commission to avoid rear yards of single family lots abutting the park; and 2. At the Planning Commission workshop, the Commission suggested that areas of land be set aside for future community facilities. Two 2 -acre sites have been designated for future community facilities with the revised Area Development Plan within Victoria Vineyards North. The additional 15 dwelling units have been transferred to the Victoria Vineyards South to offset the loss of units from the north that were eliminated to provide the land for the community facility sites. IV. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The subject property is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed land uses. The Area Development Plan in conjunction with the Conditions of Approval is consistent with the Victoria Plan Community and General Plan. In addition, the proposal will f' not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially { injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4 V. RECOMMENDATIONt It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all material and elements of this project. If after such consideration, the Commission can concur with the Facts for Finding, then adoption of the attache Resolution would be appropriate. Resp`ectfu ly ub tted Jack Lam, AIC Community Development Director JL:BC:ko kttachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicz.nria Planned Community Exhibit "B" - Vt;:toria Vineyards Land use Plan Exhibit "C" , Victoria Vineyards Density Distribution Flan Exhibit "D" - Prior Area Development Plan Exhibit "E" - Proposed Area Development Plan July 1, 1985 Planning Commission Workshop Staff Report and Minutes Resolution of Approval P- VICTORIA VINEYARDS NORTH i V l t j 1 �:�- " `�\ � • � - � � 'A •. i[ � 1� *� � Fes. c� ` .% y L7S��w�j1 S � ice— c` — +• --r- -. t�� .Jxa+rr Iti{gCi _ 71-- p ice' OUT P RC C VICTORIA VINEYARDS SOUTH � � J �, [ � , 1: � {rte i( i } t If • ici. �, •.ba -., tm `v t j COMMItrp7Y PLAH. ,J! A Victoria VV NORTH CITY OF � 1t RANCHO CUCA.ljvl0j'GA ITEM: � � TITLE =..>���'�'•��, �^�a•14'�T1 trM PUNNING DIVISI0,N EXHIBIT- SCALE'___— _ —___ -, Ml lAho AVENUE - — Ai L � L �• /� LM LM LM - LM_._�_.,�."�^�,� `� �. ^�� W may•- •�'yC*.;y S E M H rabE`L LM M LM 41 LM '� °^^' -y - �`•�''r •" _ �'_ LAND USE )LEGEND r LIA p i M H +' z eaiE1J.E Ryp � ��-.�. aR �� 7 F��.1 N�.N r•]P awl COMME `ZAL • - ... -. wt. -C • '�` •EaitNaE AE, }t[o trot[ toruuwE. !rla4! tool. Wall, ClNttR OTHER USES ' Ds attu.lrnE USt'��wt.t row ..n yaw CtYK VSlf.11.l R4NUE sLTwr oMMilitM��lls VICTORIA VINEYARDS 'MUNt'r Y PLAN Victoria tinned Community in lh, ncho Cucamonq.- . the swa group _ land planners CITY OF ITEN Iz RANCHO CUCAj-vj0,-.\GA TITLE- PLANNING DiVIM -4 EYHIBtT. " it 1d .77r, 176 d� 70 s414 FMH 230c{w. I i %Sdu• i `�. 125dss n5dsi LM 11Tall r r�CAst VICTORIA i--- -• '' ;� }/ M ' M j GROVES :'M ` i MH LM LM 1 LM 165d14I 315c i/ICTORI:. .,. /.. 6ods4 , 90 d«. .I ►ssrtu. O S L uw 7'—n;{ L 55...1 --`i L yY*+ �smas�s.+. a+ i* i:. i:: ni :::a3ira;,:.'.°......an::::w".� . «'�....: t ---� .—w.- fx MA LM 220 du. :: • : ` 100 z"r"".. ".': +.�..: »�`.�..r a.:::::::':: � "� •::�i;issisx°�zy�.- .— �'-i:: _ .i DENSITY DISTRIBUTION PLAN CITY Or RANCHO CUCAijvIOjrGA °w PLANNhNG DIVISM NORTH ina� I / 1t9LY�s1 s TITLE: LAba EXHIBIT " � SCALE-,_ i la ..) M / Sr— r W t. fO • � t CL I moo v < ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a SS? ax4 !Wll ( ■�� Z Ut T d Ld C N a . V O ud m Q _4 O _j W ¢ < 4 3 z. q �� uj L-. Q in Nm N� ! r y z Q Lu 3i o Q G L � AWC !fit CITY Or. RANCHO CU-aNI0NG i PL M`INI'NG DIVISICXN 4 D N O N c O a O a 0 b D M C3 r r D %w fF z% z to LU _ c cis r �m C3 TITi.Ils.E3�.d. ►� EYHIGtT. ` to SCALE- ____- __,_____. __ H Z WN 1� ` <tWZ ii 1 iii {i;' g � �•� ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a SS? ax4 !Wll ( ■�� Z Ut T d Ld C N a . V O ud m Q _4 O _j W ¢ < 4 3 z. q �� uj L-. Q in Nm N� ! r y z Q Lu 3i o Q G L � AWC !fit CITY Or. RANCHO CU-aNI0NG i PL M`INI'NG DIVISICXN 4 D N O N c O a O a 0 b D M C3 r r D %w fF z% z to LU _ c cis r �m C3 TITi.Ils.E3�.d. ►� EYHIGtT. ` to SCALE- ____- __,_____. __ �f t k THE V;NEYAROS L AVEtkk I RMH M . I JJ w:.c R •C.[s - co.rpovrrs +as cu _ attaGrto • ± LM j $000 So It to'] t 17 - A[S •.r�'t•'.. ' f\ 3t,GlE eAu , .*TAGM[o SCHOOL. . a.s •c■[s PARK Jr.\\ t AG'ta 'l M to •crts � ,r� n, .. � ._ 20 iv .ttaG.Rn L. e. 1�n - -- 21 AC.fS Ohl l'+ aa. w.ac. R 3 as w.•e 0—c /�- "'�S woo so rr fora: lOOe so [pr3 Sw4E lAU1r a LME] Ssw..G l tJ) w .300 SO rT rpn sa.cft r.wfr REGIONAL PARK J/ I- .— t AGt[3 12 C."c } �I ' :CHC -t faowG R 3 •cats. � � � VSVSVS L Jed! so Tr ion aw4f na.a. q..cft, u .u[s w • t. w.at.. t� rif w ATT1C.(p }� t7oosdrrwts 1' !.M Itt �yGlf f.WIY R 3 •GO[3 �+ Z� { 7l OUt•G � y� IL so OT E I M ttp j12 �;a k j10A0 '`� �¢ .. �]�p /• }e��-• �' [ ![i;'MO IWtQ TEND K.[ LM ' [dH EY DSQiI �H'J �. 2s o{ 265 C 54 Oti ,... fa.2 Ac � f---• a,�' -� l ='-- _ . _� =a, =- _ -•� •.... • . sac„_, t � i i �f "}lE1GH80RH0p0 BROAD AAH ,i !+1 ) LM M —+ -i- L .�►�N Y IL'��• V, NORTH CI 'Ty or, r ►��. -, Ui1 TITLE= PLAN 4NING DI `rISION �---.. EYHIGlT: [t r� SCALE- LM J/ I- .— t AGt[3 12 C."c } �I ' :CHC -t faowG R 3 •cats. � � � VSVSVS L Jed! so Tr ion aw4f na.a. q..cft, u .u[s w • t. w.at.. t� rif w ATT1C.(p }� t7oosdrrwts 1' !.M Itt �yGlf f.WIY R 3 •GO[3 �+ Z� { 7l OUt•G � y� IL so OT E I M ttp j12 �;a k j10A0 '`� �¢ .. �]�p /• }e��-• �' [ ![i;'MO IWtQ TEND K.[ LM ' [dH EY DSQiI �H'J �. 2s o{ 265 C 54 Oti ,... fa.2 Ac � f---• a,�' -� l ='-- _ . _� =a, =- _ -•� •.... • . sac„_, t � i i �f "}lE1GH80RH0p0 BROAD AAH ,i !+1 ) LM M —+ -i- L .�►�N Y IL'��• V, NORTH CI 'Ty or, r ►��. -, Ui1 TITLE= PLAN 4NING DI `rISION �---.. EYHIGlT: [t r� SCALE- No I LL Par Z @ W V) 01 LUZ Lul < <acr i:u te Ic tu LU w LU TA CL lay ts < 100 QWMIW z < 0 CC z 1 0 L7 j[G * z VE 0 BE I NN 4-0 BEE BE r cam. UM to cr. Lu cp z a, nit N! L CITY or RANCHO C.,'XA,&j0, TITM PUNNING DIVLSIaN E Y CITY OF RANCHO C L(,AMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 1, 1965 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Pick Gomez, City Planner BY: Bruce Cook, Associate Planner SUBJECT: VICTORIA VINEYARDS AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN LYON Cons #deration of an aria development plan- fur ►a Vineyards Village within the Victoria Planned Community, locat;-i south of Highland, w(st of Day Creek, north of Base L ,;s, and east of Millike,,. I. _BSTRACT: This v.orkshc; -'s scheduled to facilitate Commission review of the proposed area development plan, to discuss pe, °tinent issues and consider alternatives, and to provide Colrailssion policy direction, II. BACKGROUND: A central planning concept of Victoria is the creation of series of smaller villages, each village to function as its own unique rei hborhood, complete with its own central open spa,:e (parks) and community facilities (schools /churches) as - fo.us. As a result, Victoria has been further divided into c .r sub - planning areas or "villages ". The "Vineyards` I ilagR the largest of the four villages in terms of numbil— of dwelling units and park acr_age. The Planned Community Text projects for this area a design theme character that focuses on a central active use park with combined school and- community facility (see Exhibit "B "). A largi flood control retention basin operated by the San Bernardino Flood Contrdl District occupies an area in th<._ northeast portion of the site. The Souther�i Pacific Railroad bisects the southerly third of the area. The railroad tracks function to divide the Vineyards into two distinctive sub- areas,, and in consideration of this physical characteristic, planning areas fir this village have been further defined as Vineyards Borth and Vineyards South. III. VINEYARDS NORTH: A. Project Description: This area encompasses the Vineyards north of the railroad tracks. Victoria Park Lane, the central comb ncd parklschool /community facilities, and the San Bernardino Flood Control District retention basin are all. wi. -nin this sub -area. Of major concern is the ,stue of ?— I4 Circulation and street pattereng has also been Significantly revised as a tInult Of the Area Flan reshaping. The original plan showed a trouble -loop street system. The western portion of the Village has accessed via a half -bop that aligned with a corresponding half -'loop system s�,rvjpq the Victoria Droves. The remainder of the Vineyard^ forth was served by a full -loop system. The revised circt- lotion system shows an expanded half oop aligning with the l "toria Groves L;sap to forr„ a single loop system serving bdcn the Grovc, and the Vineyards (see Exhibit "D" ). Table 1 provides a numerical breakdown of land arse ,,terns and dwelling counts and offers a comparative analysi oetween that of t::? existing plan and the proposad plan. Lei Planning Victoria comm,, sion Workshop Vineyards Area Development July 1, 1985 Plan Page 2 Privately owned land not under ownership to the William Lyon Comr3ny. Since the approval cf Victoria it k�s been dI; covered that an additional 40 ages in the northeast corner is not under the ownership of the Will;am Lyon Company, (see Exhibit %")'. This icss of 40 acres re „lted in a major .'eshaping of the Land Use Plan for Vineyards liorth. B. Com arative Anal sis: As per the Planned Community Text, the dominant thematic character and primary focus of neighborhood identity for the Vineyards is tc be an active _ use park with combined school and community facility. The approved Community Plan, as an expression of t;,is concept, shows the park sites wM combined school /community facilities in center r:` `he Village r'anping area o� he either side of Vli: ta, % Parkway. ftwever, it portions of this cer;tral open spanc s weQ-e located within thL- 40 acres nct actually -under i the land -like pl«n To single parklschool lcommunity reshaping a facility is proposed on the south side of the Victoria Parkway in the eastern hall' of the Village, and the second combined facility has been 'elocated noicherly and served y the Loon Road feeding '-O Victoria Parkway (See Exhibit "cl, Circulation and street pattereng has also been Significantly revised as a tInult Of the Area Flan reshaping. The original plan showed a trouble -loop street system. The western portion of the Village has accessed via a half -bop that aligned with a corresponding half -'loop system s�,rvjpq the Victoria Droves. The remainder of the Vineyard^ forth was served by a full -loop system. The revised circt- lotion system shows an expanded half oop aligning with the l "toria Groves L;sap to forr„ a single loop system serving bdcn the Grovc, and the Vineyards (see Exhibit "D" ). Table 1 provides a numerical breakdown of land arse ,,terns and dwelling counts and offers a comparative analysi oetween that of t::? existing plan and the proposad plan. Lei P1anni,rg Commission, Workshop Victoria Vineyards Area Oeveli inert Plan July 1, 1985 Page 3 EI STATISTICAL SUMMARYRIAWILLIAMRLYONOCOMPANY OWNERSHIP PROPOSED COMMUNITY PLAN acres nacres LAND USE Residential 241.5 a Schools 10.0 22. . 5 Public Open Space 38.5 10.0 Parks 40.5 13*u 17.0 Vi�:toria 'Park Lane 18.0 Traits 5.5 5.5 Major Public Streets 18.0 28 a3.D TOTAL 308c0 308.0 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OU /% 3J /% L 175/ 9.0 185/ 9.0 LM ?60/ 37,5 590/ 29.0 MH 765/ 37.5 925/ 46.0 3201 16.0 315d 1-0 TOTAL 2,020!100.0 21015/100.0 Notest 1. 29% increase <. ,• ngle °',.,rily detached ornduct. 2. Overall drnsity decrease of nearly ,5 du /ac. 3. Commu,;ity plan included park area for 400 ± acres �f residential development of which 90 ± acres is not owned by the William Lyon Ct-,pa7,y. As indica ed in the table, the Planning Area remains the same, but tN are? of land designated as residential has -eas2d,t This -,narease in residential acreage has bees nrresoonding reduction in acreage for both major hat wed parks. Even though residential acreage 'Ital dwelling count remains essenti,.riy unchaP.s" is due to a sig►*ifcant increase in the proportion oi( _ .+ling units within the "Low-Medium ne tensity . (4 -8 du /ac) and a corresponding rediction in the prop Iortion r of dwelling units within the "Medium'" dlensity (8- 14pdu /ac). to Planning Commission Workshop Victoria Vineyards Area Development Plan duly 11 1983 Page 4 C. 1. Issue: HOW Should out parcels not ovined by 1,ne !.Iilliam Lyon Company relate tr- the Victoria Planned Community? 9p ons a. Develop Out parcels aitI indtpenden, Of Victoria, subject to requirements Of the Devel;pme-tt Code. b. Develop out parcels per Development Code StandarO designations to but include Master Plan Overlay s, ensure harmonious development beteeen the out parcels., c. Annex the out parcels as part of the Victoria Planned Community . for planning pirpos-s in conjunction wit',1 area development ! plan fo- Virz,yd'rds Nort4 Future development )f the out parcels would then be subject to the design quidpllne3 and development stand�Hs he Planned Community to ;t. 2- Issue: Circilation The adopted land use plan shows B0fh t.onnections from the Vineyards to 'the (Imt parcels west of Rochester. The proposed plan retains the trail connection, but nu :street connections are s,jown. Should or should not the Area Plan show. street connections from the Vineyards to the out Parcels? a. Develop street system to include an east-west Connection north 'of Victoria Park Lane between planning area and out parcels to the west. b. Street system as proposed is satisfactory, 3. issue: Land Use Are the Proposed density 71�stributfa_r,V%5i�Opriafe both in terms of lard use relationships (j,e., de4si ty transition) and numbers of dweiling units per densvL,- category? dptions: a. Revise land (i.- 113 relat'lonships, transitions). {i.e.} density Planning !° Victoria Comvissior Workshop Vineyards Area Development Plan July 1, 1985 Page 5 b. Revise lard use distribution (i.e., acreage and number of dwelling units within each land use category). c. Revise both land use relationshps and land use distribution. d. Proposed plan is satisfactory. 4. Issue: Parks /Schools /Communit F �lities As stated in the Planned fommunity text the Parks/schools/community facilities 'they are primary focal point aril will establish the thematic character for Victoria Vineyards. With the approved pl, pa,'ks /schools /community facilities are a major element along Victoria Parkway, but with the amended resulting from t' a reduced land area, the relatiopGbip of these faci +ities to the connunity and their impact the on image of Victoria Park Lane has been changed. Does the current parks /schools /community , facilittes network as proposed for amendment achieve %ihe desi• ad objectives as expressed by the Comr.- „;ion, or are revisions necessary? 0 tCns' 'i a. Emphasize a strong centralized open space focal point by concentrating primary open space along the Victoria Park Lane p,!r original concept. b. Disperse open space throughout the Vineyards to _ create sub - neighborhoods with the intent of having the community °acilities equally accessible from all part:; of the viilale. IV. VINEYARD- SpUTN A. Protect Descri tior,t This area consists of that portion of the ictoria Vineyards South of the Southern Pacific Railway to Base Line Road. Contained within these boundaries are the major intersections of both Base Line /Milliken and Base Line /Rochester, the Base Line froitage and the interface along Base Line of Victoria with the Terri Vista Planed Community. B. History: The Area Plan for Vineyards South was submitted for development review th` week of June 3, P t�, Planning Commission Workshop Victoria Vineyards Area Development Plan July 1, 1985 Page 6 1985. The Design Review Committee reviewed the Area Plan for Vineyards South on June 6,� 1985. The Design Review fammittee recoimwinded significant changes as reflected in Exhibit "H" and descri,'oed below: C. Issues /Actions-­ from Design Revievl Committee review of June 6, 91 Sa, the following issues /actions have resulted: 1, Issue: The size and location iif the park. Actionz The park per input from the Commurity erg' vices Department has increased from 3 to 5 acres in size and was relocated southerly from abutting the railroad tracks " to the northeast corner of Loop Road" and "Loop Entry Road ". r 2. issue: Trail design and alignment. Action. Provide trail facai point on the south side of "Loop Road" and revised alignment to provide direct access to the east side of "Loop Entry Road ". 3. Issue: Land Use a) Density transitions at the northeast corner of Base Line and Milliken. _ i b) Alternative land uses shou ?d be explored as to the alternative land uses appropriate to "wrap around" the park site's north and east perimeter. 4. Actions• a) Medium High Residential (14 -24 ditjac), has been provided at the noi theafi: and Milliken. of 3ase line b) Low- Medium Residential (4 -8 du /ac) has been proposed as the lan&use designation adjacent to the park site's north and east: perimeter. *vomment has been received from Community services regarding the new park design. They find the configuration of the park unacceptable and'question the choice of "Low-Medium" adjacent to the park (see Exhibit P ict Planning Commission Workshop Victoria Vineyards Area Development Plan July 1, 1985 Page 7 Aft V. OTHER ISSUES; 1. Trails. Issue: The Planned Community Text shows a trail along Victoria Park Lane along its entire route from Deer Greek easterly and southeriy to its terminus at the Regioral Shopping Center. The design of this trail has been modified and the Commission has opted to rove the trail from within the median to the north and east sides of the street, respectively. when Tract"'12044 was developed, dedications for trail rights -of -Way were never required. As a result, there is no trai. from North Victoria Windrows Loop south of the park site southerly to the railroad tracks (see Exhibit 'gyp °), A cc- nunitE trail is proposed along the railroad bed. Should she trail system be completed along Victoria Park Lane between North Victoria Windrows Lnop an3 the railroad tracks to connect ;he westerly villages with Victoria Lakes and with the community trail along the track bed, a �ions- u. Complete the trail system, b. The existing situation is satisfactor,7 and the trail need, not be put in. 2. Highland Avenue WaIL & Parkwa Desi n Issue: The Lyon Company is proposing a new perimeter walltreatmeht along Highland Avenue. The concept is an uneven layer of whitewashing to achieve a mottled appearance, The intent is a coarse adobe look reminiscen- Of the Spanish,Mission style of architecture. Lyon has never tvied this design before and would 'like to have the flexibility to try the design on just a section of the wall and then, once completed, make a final determination as to the acceptability of this design. Q tions- a, Design :dust a action of the wall anti once completed and available for visual inspection,''make ion. a final determination. '�„ �M� J Planning Commission Workshop Victoria Vineyards Area Development Plan July 1, 1985 Page 8 b„ Nei*., architecture is needed but the prest.t proposal is unacceptable. C. The existing architecture is satisfactory, VI. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should provir±e specific direction to Staff and the Will,am Lyun Company relative to*., A. Resolution- of stated issues with preferred options for the Vineyards North. B. Thy appropriateness of proposed ac`,ions to previously stttted; issues for thn Vineyards South. C. Othrr specit',c issues and concerns as determined by the Planning Commission. With policy direction determined, the William Lyon Company can then refine the Area Plans it preparation for submittal before the Planning Commission. as amendments to the Victoria Planned Community at an advertised public hearing. With the proposed amendments to the Victoria Plan, the Commission may de -ire to direct the William Lyon Company to prepare new graphics for general distribution ,,eflective of the neti amendments, Re pectfu ; ubmitted, ?it tPh r tRC:B C :cv Attachments: Exhibit bictoria Planned Community Exhibit "B" - Planning Concept " Exhibit "C" - Parks looetion 0 Exhibit "D" - Street System Exhibit "Ell Park Comments Community Services Exhibit 'IF" Victoria Park Lane Trails Exhibit ' "u" -Land Ownership Erhibit "H" - Proposed Area Plan VICTORIA VINEYARDS SOUTH A wan �ICt�J! [� _ _ HAaxho C.:r KORTIJ CITY Or V, fill PLANNING DIVISIO EXHIBIT - -- „SCALE =; t Area 1 will be a residential village called Victoria Groves and ,•ill contain a multi -use open space which will use the existing pepper tree grove on the old farm as its theme. Area 2 will be a residential village called Victoria i-- � Vineyards y ds and its thematic character will be generated by a active use park in its center with combined school and community facility. L� Area 3 will become a residential village called Victoria Windrows. Its central open space will be a more passive park with a small, lake as its focus,. The design of this park will extend and reflect tt° existing Etiwanda character with a planting design that ut -izes the existing windrows and palm trees. . Area 4, Victoria Lakes, will be a unique multi -use tommunity) including a series of lakes, each surrounded by a succession• f cf land y E uses from residental_t o office to commercial, culminating in a Regional Shopping Center at Foothill and the Devore Freeway. NORTH CITY OF - IM I: RANCffo CUCANNIU GA TIT LE: C PLr�INItiG DIVISION EYI?II3t�': , SCALE - ----- "GILMo ^MNUE Ll la NORTH CITY O.F. IM I G, RANCHo C TITLE DIVLSIQN EX: 113IT; --- SCALE- t =YARDS MU4 b ♦v[.a{ . AW Uj LM eaeULUry nom° i . .u, rit raW'�` � LM a LM LM >' PAW :c,"L anI LM k FORTH Ca s OT ITE�11:, RANCHO CUc _-i- v • A Nj joNG�. TITLE ANNINO ])IVISloN IrYH1i3IT: --- SCALE- ----------- F � Pas �--s ..•wwYNV ' 1 LM it LU lY t = x s a1 rc'°"Y uwa 3 :�- 1 tY i rri ri.��• � �i e r �i C —• oa tz-, tY LM �. a' cr. 3 .}i.T. •.f•L""�Y~ -Y �`~— �T f 1. LPA tu LU LU .�•��,, aui♦. ••Ir• (N rai.— 1 �_ I- �i r I. }.� Y.l �,. g '. ail ..., 1+ �,,,wG. LJA; COWAAM PAW nr NORTH • CITY ®r ITEM: _�:r•"� �C��Cf"' t��t+ RANCHO 1� *CHO UCA ivlONGA TITLE- PLAMMING. hIVigcXN -- EXHIB17f-r _SCAL.E- TECH141CAL REII[Ett Col., T. qw PROJECT -Lbol�—, N/"A *'[)!� C' n. IT1.1 — A C=ric) DAM U Nt (W COMPLETED SITE DATE- -- L DE'ELOPMF';IT COMMERTS., 0.0 L C5 t 2 F te -A RG/ BRA IMAGE Coll•jEfiTS: — ----------- U sit PA�.V- < < Lc) CN �'O CIO --- L—r� LIT '� 0701 --Q2 o .5_- 2,8 -86, P.G. Agenda. Packet o Pale 8 of 1 lu IT, J, F a 3 L z AIL' gM ,I W! ti NORTH CITXT x or RATXC JQ CUCAI-VIO UE\ 1: ,NGA TITLE-; PLANNuNG DIVISION ST ���w / VICTORIA GROVE$ / !/ VICTORIA WINDROWS i 1 cis 1150 ci >c,4, VINEYARDS VFNEYARDS 1740 �iu- panic: DISTRIBUTION #0F VICTORIA RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS LAKES G" hiss wnv itGyt by I!i�lSia� I 1155 cl:. j '• %i� P=eW* PZMl;ti)VAruu. nar cL pare of toe Pla:useeu' C01YLiHi:LLity i ®-� plasrscissg rsrecri bttcstdarsJ � - � i� "I NORTH CITY OF �,I'l, F� ITFr1I- � CHJ C�r c�lXGA , ` TITLE- �1 ; ... PLANNING )IVLSIQ�I E.XH1131T---------- R so LOoo CONTROL sto SCHOOL L C.H0.cFEY THE VINEYARDS. REGIONAL PARK � - WLNp AVEHF• MH M t ac Lm LM GROVES 2 17 SCHOOL !� ....fit ee.wf.un ,r.crs j t •. f }�` ..obi f LM M LM LM i v e• LM 7 d lILM r\rr.,.�� � ii . (Ci,�y� a.RL i t.M ' \• '': 4 ^js. oo. GROVES .` ?u'DOL 4r dM \ . _ . — _.__saun�ra, p�csic n�LRDao _.. l • - -oe,_ r�:° ..:°:. 5 – -- :iti °'�- -r � •� taro,- --�) _ .. .. S RANCHO CUCAMONGA • ?i ,.Dal COSVdUNRY PARKr•l ,aAC ��. I aaa our`' �• .r. / ,` �W LffTfy fwcc .w. LM `.' EYA D SOU I xu w . u4 ___ �..._ —._ .���. to AC - --- - -.�� ' �•' � • t— – OTCERAN( FFWeaINOOO MH m LM M � LEGEND .. 't © LOW x -f OW4f_ —- I L:M I low -W-DW re DWAC t 0 MEDIW D•IL OWAC 1 MH Q "Of 24-30 oWiLE•7 L DWO REfpt CENTER R 1 MGIDNAL RELATED OF'REICOULERCV;• YLLAGE COA RCVLL CENTER AL TW USE,. j NORTH j t CITY or, ITEM: RANCHO CUCAIN,10,NGA TITLE -_� PLA 1�INI1� DIwISI :�I EXHIBIT: SALE. _ ;r 'Al PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES JULY 1, 1955 VICTORIA VINEY)ADS AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN A. Victoria Vineyards North 1. Issue How should outparcels not owned by the William Lyon Company relate to the Victoria Planned Community? Action; Annex the outparcels as part of the Victoria Planned Community for planning purposes. Future development of the outparcels would V..in be subject to the design guidelines and development standards of the Victoria Planned Community text. 2. Issue: Circulation - should the Area Plan show street connections to the outparcels? Action: Streets shall he used as a means of physical connection to relate the outowczls to the Vineyards and to divert traffic away from the Victor , :i Park Lane. A traffic analysis of the study area shall be completed to address the outparcels and the chafige in the circulation concept. 3. Issue: Land, Use - Are the proposed density distti butions appropriate both in terms of land use relationships and density distributions? Action: Proposed Plan is satisfactory. 4. Issue: Parks /Schools /Community Facilities Are the proposed parks /schools /community facilities satisfactory, or are revisions necessary? Action: a. The proposed - onfiguration & location of parks with combined facilities is satisfactory. b. A 2 -acre parcel adjacent to -each park /school area should be designated as a cc�munity facility and withheld from development for future use as a community facility, i.e. daycare center, church, etc. F. Victoria Vineyards South Issue: Park size & location Comments: Park site should be redesigned with a rectangular or square shape. Rear yards abutting park should_be avoided. Consider a loop road around park or side -on cul -de- sacs. u. Victoria Vineyards Area Development Flan Works . -hop Min'ute5 July :, 1985 Page 2 C. Trails Issue: Should equestrian trail be completed on the east side of victoria Park Lane from North Victoira Windrows Loop south to the tracks? Comments: Since conditions of approval for Victoria include this requirement for an equestrian trail to the tracks, this issue must be addressed. Various engineering solutions should be explored by the applicasit for the trait along Victoria Park Lane. However, this would not preclude the consideration of alwernative routes. D. Perimeter Wall Desi n Issues Is a new design strategy i,ecessary c=` appropriate? Comments: The Lyon Company may apply their new proposed design to a single small section of the existing gall on Highland Avenue on an Jxpa°imental basis for City review. In designing future perimeter wails, careful attention is needed to ;;void creating a long, monotonous structure. Strategies such as °kagggaring, variation of colors, style, or form and landscaping should be incorporated to break up the wallscape. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -162 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR VICTORIA VINEYARDS SOUTH VILLAGE LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BASE LINE READ, BETWEEN MILLIKEN AND ROCHESTER, SOUTH OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD IN THE ViC'ORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY WHEREAS, on the 19th day of April, 1985, a complete application was filed by The William Lyon Company for review of the above - described project; and WHEREAS, on the 23rd day of October, 1985, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission had a meeting to consider the above- desc ;-ibed project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as SECTION 1: That the following can be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Victoria Planned Community Text and the purposes of the distriot in which the use is Proposed; and 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the Public health,, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 3. That the proposed tise is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Victoria Pianned Community Text and Development Code. 4. That the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. SECTION 2: That Area Development Plan for Victoria Vineyards South Village is approved subject to the following conditions. PLANNING DIVISION: 1. Landscape treatment at the end of cul -de -sacs along "Loop Road" shall be designed to provide open views into the cul -de -sacs. 2. Decorative masonry walls shall be provided along Base Line Road, Milliken and Rochester Avenues, the "Loop (load% and "Loop Entry Road ". Details shall be submitted with corresponding tentative tract map applications. 7-M L M 1 U E PLANNING COMMISSI07 ;OLUTIOP2 AREA DEVELOPMENT PLA., FOR VICTORIA VINEYARDS SOUTH October 23, 1985 Page 2 3. A minimum eight ,foot. wide improved surface will be provided along the interior /paseo trails to provide for safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle traffic. ENGINEERING DIVISION. A. Streets I. Two means of access shall be provided for each individual project as it develops. The access shall have a minimum 26' AC paved width within 40' wide dedicated right -of -way. 2. For Milliken Avenue, Base tine Road and Rochester Avenue, construct full improvements for the roadbed adjacent to the project area, full mediae, and a minimum 18' AC paved width within the roadbed on the other side of the median for opposing traffic. The length of roadway to be constructed with individual projects will be determined on a projert by project basis and will be dependent upon the establisTuvent Of logical roadway limits considering lane transitions to meet 3xist;ng pavement, median opening, etc. B. Dra, 'Wane 1. A revised storm drain master plan for the entire ,area shall be completed by the developer's engineer and approved by the City Engineer and the Flood Control Distri ^t prior to scheduling of the first project for Planning Commission approval. 2. A drainage report identifying required storm drain facilities for each project when submitted shall be required and shall be approved by the City Engineer prior pproval. Each project shall provides er ao1005sear � storm overflow. 3. Interim drainage protection measures for flows from the area to the north shall he designed and approved prior to scheduling of the first project for Planning Commission approval. 4. If development proceeds prior to the improvement of Day Creek Channel, a retention basin be may required to reduce the peak runoff from the development. PLANNING COMMISSION i� 1LUTIOW ; AREA DEVELOPMENT 'PLAY rOP VICTORIA VINEYARDS SOUTH Oci fiber 23, 1985 Page 3 C. Grading 1• Approval from Southern Pacific Railroad Company shall be required for any grading within their right -of -way. Approval shall be obtained prior to submittal of the first project, adjacent to the railroad right -of -way, to the Planning Commission for approval. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THiS 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 1985, PLAN NG MMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: At' n Dennis L. Stout, C i an i EST: a cur, Secretary I, Jack Lam, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certif�f that the foregoing Resolution was dviy and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Punning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of October, 1985, by the following vote -to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, STOUT, MCNIEL, REMPEL NOES: 'COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER °s RESOLUTION .NO. low F RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A REVISION TO THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SINGLE FP14ILY LOTS AND INCREASE THE ACREAGE OF THE GREENBELT TRAIL SYSTEM FOR VICTORIA VINEYARDS SOUTH VILLAGE LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIRE OF BASE LINE ROAD, BETWEEN MILLIKEN XID ROCHESTER, SOUTH OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD IN THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY WHEREAS, on the 15th day of May, 1986, a complete application was filed by The William Lyon Company for review of the above- described project: and WHERIiAS, on the 28th day of day, 1986, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning commission had a meeting to consider the above - described project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as SECTION 1: That the following can be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Victoria Planned Community Text f and the purposes of the district in which the use is proposed; and 2. That the proposed use, together t,ith the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially Injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 3. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the .Victoria Planned Community Text and Development Code. 4. That the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, SECTION 2: That Area Development Alan for Victoria Vineyards South Village as revised is approved st:oject to all Conditions of Resolution No. 85 -162 snail remain applicable with the approval of this revised Area Plan. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 1986. PLANNING C014MISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: enms L. Stout, unairman F. ` RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF T, RANCHO CUCAMOiCA PLANNING, COMMISSION 0PROVING A REVWON TO THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY LOTS PND INCREASE THE ACREAGE OF THE GREENBELT TRAIL SYSTEM FOR VICTORIA r, V %EYARDS SOUTH VILLAGE LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BASE �z LINE ROAD, BETWEEN MILLIKEN AND ROCHESTER, SOUTH OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD IN TIE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY WHEREAS, on the 16th day of May, 1986, a complete application was filed by The William Lyon Company for review of the above- described project: 6 and WHEREAS, on the 28th day o, May, 1986, the .Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission had a meeting to consider the above - described project. h NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as , i ows: SECTION 1: That the following can be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Victoria Planned Community Text and the purposes of the district in which the use is it proposed; and 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 3. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Victoria Planned Community Text and Developmerc Code. ' 4„ That the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. SECTION 2: That Area Development Plan for Victoria Vineyards South Village as revised is approved subject to ail Conditions of Resolution No. 85 -162 shall remain applicable with the approval of this revised Area Plan. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 9Y: enms stout, chairman PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION May 28, 1986 Revision Areu Development P?n Victoria Page 2 ATTEST: Brad Buller, epu y 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 regularly introduced, p3sstd, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of May, 1986, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: r: El 11 DATE: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �vc�nro STAFF REP:�RT a a h Z u, a May 28, 1956 1977 E TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Debra Meier, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86 -10 - MULLER - The development of one office tuilding ofTO,4 9�' s� quare feet and three industrial buildings totaling 71,732 square feet within an approved Industrial Center on 18.42 acres of land in the Genei7al Industrial District (Subarea 3), located at- the northwest corner of 9th Street and Archibald Avenue - APN: 209 -201- 6, 1E, 17. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of Phase II site plan and elevations for Buildings B, C, D and G. B. SurroundiniLand Use and Zoning- North - Industrial and Business Park; General. Industrial South Single- Family Residence, new industrial construction; General Industrial East - School, Residential, Low Residential District 2.4 du /ac, Medium Residential District 8 -14 dulac West _ Industrial; General Industrial C. ELI= aI Plan Designations• Project Site General Industrial .North - General Industrial South General Industrial East - Low and Medium density Residential West General Industrial D. Site Characteristics: The site contains the existing Inspiron manufacturing and warehouse industrial building, and Phase I of this project (building; A, E and E) is presently under construction. ITEM Q i PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Dev6lopment Review 86 -10 — Muller May 28, 1986 Page 2 II. ANALYSIS: A. General: Phase TI will complete the project with an additional office building Ln Archibald (building 0) and three industrial buildings in the interior of the site ( buildings B, C, 0). Plaza areas with pedestrian linkages are continuad into Phase IL. Building elevations feature concrete panels, color accents, dark bronze anodizCd Windo,;;, and enhanced entrance statements. Ttie existing Inspiron facility shall be repainted to compliment the new color. scheme. 8. Design Review Committee_ The Design Review Committee has reviewed the project and found the site plan to be consistent with the approved Master Plan, and the building elevations compatible with Phase I of Rancho Technology Center. The Design Review Committee recommended approval of Phase II subject to the following comments: 1. The Committee was concerned with the appearance of the silos adjacent to the Inspiron facility. However, tf Committee agreed that the silos could remain as is until the expiration of the current Inspiron lease in June, 1987. At that time the silos shall either be removed or adequately screened. 2. Any interior or exterior revisions to the existing Inspiron building should be subject to review and approval of the Design Review Committee. 3. Color palettes for Phases I and II development should be provided at the Planning Commission meetings to assure that the project will be properly coordinated with building color ant accLot color banding. 4. The roll -up doors should be integrated into the building face and not highlighted with the accent colors. 5. During the discussion, the architect, indicated that they do not intend to roof mount any equipment on the newly constructed buildings; therefore, screening of such equipment Will not be an issue,. F-_J .e 11< PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Development Review 86 -10 - Buller May 28, I986 Page 3 C. Grading Committee: The Grading Committee reviewed Phase II and gave conceptual approval with the condition that final site and grading plans reflect that major drainage run -off is toward the southwest as previously approved, III, FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The project is consistent with the General Plan and the Industrial Specific Plan. The proposed use, building design and site plan, together with the recommended Conditions of Approval, are in compliance with the Industrial Specific Plan and All applicable provisions of the City Standards, IV. RECOMMENDATION, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Revelopment Review 86 -I0 , "iOunh the adoption 0 the attached Resolution and Conditions of Approval. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner 88:DM :cv Attachments: Exhibit "All - Location Map Exhibit "81 - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "C" - Phasing Plan Exhibit "D" - Detailed Site Piar Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "F" - Plaza Details Exhibit "G" - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit "N" - Elevations Resolution, of Approval of CUp 85 -I4 with Conditions Resolution of Approval of OR 86 -I0 with Conditions i SITE UTIZIZA&I N MAP RANCHO TECN�7% 08Y CENTER f v° o A) 11 ii ma l NOR CUT OF rc��i =_rte �v• � PLANNi14r, , amS` okN x"ilpITA .... ...... ........ .... .... ....... ..... ........ • tj!; Ff Ft . . ...... 11 Oy > ,0 P�4 �..l `• �- `.3JL of �°_ �� � �• •1'(' 1 I{ TTY fj� s tyi niL lF u i i ,ITI;SJ F oo 21, ' �t ,^ •Wt 1 a L I { {`� "'�[" ,'�^.. (fd��i 1��1lltM f?�.'� r. � 1... `• ..,"�. � �. 4,... M w O J in 11. a S' I T V F L • A PF D ; .t,w H'A S.e T W O _. .... ...a:...e� - s R• x•a•.. messy. .er � r . �...,r >.ac. s. e Air— F/-/, k 4:5 NORTH CITY1TEdi= /r' M NNiNG I R%-,,E N EXt ttBT ': 'Y -- L ;,--- `i t 4 i � —rqa oaw n¢Crn. PHASE A i i I•' – .- .wmca�naem. E-1 �S � i• I t PHASEI TREES NKM ST. SHRUBS 6RfAR/0 COYµER�, NOTES v �«1If�'Vtfloq� ...� Minn ert�YD•. rt�wo. �`~ .� �M�. �r � .. , ' �q.e� 4rp+oc w ` i n '/ IeaM+RRte rtwran+y irI• v�ianweR•� - D LMP*CAM PLMI .. _ NORTH CITY OF T T rrzm: . /49 RiI`rCM C;CaCE1MO GA TITLE: PLANNM Ill 1I$M. EXIIIur:... :_-------- ii f ' 1 �Awft� CORM ,r�_ ..M� w nm accim nee ess.c.o..v+n -- �".T.Au iuwm mww' . —� flu e nca anaft'St► -. - i `t .•11 'fit c.wxrmeatm 1 / / *.ee m: WAOArM I MT- r NORTH r ;. CITY G RANCHO CLTCNMONTCA P ANNM DI4'ISICXN ExHi T .- a, SCALE:. -- F 1 4 r i5 qm 8 `y NORTH CII Y CF RANCHO CLYCAyjLoNGA TrrLE PLANNING D[V1SIpN 3: EXHIBIT- SCALE- F-c ... . ....... 14 ti on ---------- CITY OF RANCHO CLVAMONGA TITLE: 'PLANNM DRqSION SCALE- iii tmrx sva � L r ne >xu+s ' � - � �� iaan - cos �.' •� � _.__�,� nan - i t FX /5t /MP _ fM31'/NGA ACe'LGA@ .'• l9 ' � - @��J ' `` ��• ! 4 � . rma rr ruav � _ I • `iW � 3 q�v� "a IR a V t� • {� r ozg f - _- F' AMA, V ion an ^rte �"'�".�------ -_--•_ . •_-: ^•� y r — NORTH C'I'TY OF RXHCBlT: 5CALF- I- WESTti- �AT10N ad.s�e.II ='ter i� .. CITY C RANCHO CU q MOA GA tAjrryDyvISK)N NORTH TITLE= •'a ►ice SOUTH ELEVATION BLDG. 0 ! SOUTH ELEVATION SWG. 0 OPPOSITE WW-D WEST ELEVATON BLDG. C EAST ELEVATION BLDG..O OPPOSITE HAND NORTH El ZZYAMON SLD% C NORTH ELEVXPON_SLDG. D__-OPPOSITE BAND LN NORTH MY' T T TTF�yI: fi'3e �O RANCHO CMCOI�GA Tnu. PLANNM DWISICN EXM8rr Z _ _.. SCALE a ...ik tie -k a NORTH ELEVATION BWkG EAST ELEVATION., ELM G WEST ELEVATION SLM 0 NORTH CrrY CF ' RANCM CUQW0i'sZGtk Trmrr'LF PIANMNC; DWMN EXHIBIT- RESOLUTION NO. 85 -131 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85 -14 F)R A MASTER PLAN AND PHASE I OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF 3 OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 53,226 SQUARE FEET AND 4 INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TOTALING 159,704 SQUARE FEET, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 9TH STREET AND ARCHI3ALD AVENUE IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 21st day of June, 1985, a complete application was filed by the Muller Company for review of the above - described project; and WHEREAS, an the 11th day of September, 1985, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above - described project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as SECTION 1; That the followU' findings can be met: I. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Industrial Specific Plan, and the purposes of the district in which the site is locatod 2. That the proposed use, together with the conaitions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the publi' health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable *provisions of the Industrial Specific Plan and City Standards. SECTION 2,. That this project will not create adverse impacts an the environment as upon the mitigation measures required for flood protection and that a Negative Declaration is issued on September 11, 1985. SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 85 -14 is approved subject to the following conditions: PLANNING DIVISION - 1. The Master Plan is approved in concept only and future development of subsequent phases shall be subject to development Review process for Planning "omission approval. Modifications; o the Master Plan shall be subject to Plagniri, Commission approval. Resolution NO { CUP 85 -14 •- Muller °+ \ September 11, 1985 Page 2 2. The parking area and circulation south of Building b shall be redesigned as shown in Exhibit "r", 3. The projects landscaping shall have a unifying theme, including special landscaping treatment at the corner of 9th Street and Archibald Avenue, the driveway entrance on 9th Street, and along Archibald Avenue. The. special landscape treatment shall be designed to accentuate architecture of the project. 4. Undulating mounding Ver Industrial Specific Plan standards shall be provided along Archibald Xtenue to soften the look of ttie required 2 foot flood wall. Details of }ne mc+anJing shall be reflecte' in the grading plan and detailed landscape plan. 5, Landscaping islands with a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet shall be provided every seven stalls for shading of pavement areas. 6. The existing manufacturing /warehouse building -- Inspiron Facility, shall be repainted to compliment the new color scheme, and screening for the roof mounted equipment shall be provided. 7. The development shall provide additional screening for all existing tanks. Detailed plans shall be submitted for review and approval with Phase I1 De!.elopment Review process. 8. The plaza area shall be provided with pedestrian amenities such as shaded seating areas, - kiosks, benches, trash receptacles, and other street furniture. 9 Existing trees shall be preserved in place wherever possible or shall be relocated elsewhere o"-site for ` preservation. A written report from a qualified landscape architect or tree arborist shall verify the details of preservation or relocation. Any trees that cannot be transplanted snail be replaced in kind with mature specimens. The written report shall be submitted together with a Tree Removal Permit pursuant to Ordnance 37 and a detailed plan showing existing trees and relocatio„ /replacement. 10 All trees to be saved shall be enclosed by a chain link fence prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit and priori to carmncement of work. Fer :es are to remain in place during all phases of construction and cannot be removed without the written consent of the City Planner until construction is complete. Resolution No CUP 85 -14 - Muller l September 11, 1985 Pa;c 3 ENGINEERINr DIVISION 1. One driveway will be allowed an Archibald Avenue. It shall be designed with the existing school driveway as shown on the revised site plan. L. A lot merger to combine the existing parcels on the site into one parcel shall be completed prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. Notice of intent to join the proposed median island landscax- district shall be filed with City Council prior to building permit; issuance. 4. The existingg drive approach on Archibal4 Avenue shall be removed. 5. Flood protection measures stall be provided along Archibald Avenue generally as shown on the revised grading plan. The actual design shall be based on final flooding report as approved by the City Engineer. 6. A hydrology st dy on 9th Street -d Archibald Avenue shall be provided and submitted to EngineeH g Division for review and approval prior to issuance of Building permits. 7. Meandering sidewall. shall be pruvf4ed within the right -of -way *along Archibald 'Avenue. Landscaping shall be provided between th_ meandering si,!--•talk and the required flood wall. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1985. 'LANKG ISSlON OF /7- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: r 1 Resolution Ito. CUP 85 -14 - Muller C September 11, 1985 Page 4 I, Jack Lam, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby cer��ify that the foregoing Resolution vas duly and regularly introduced, passed, —1nd adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular maeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of September, 1985, by the following vote -to -;pit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS:- NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MC NIEL P i p O Z f 4J U Gl "7 O L 1, a C LO. .us.d,nio d ._ t 1).d uv NL OYip n 6TUgV. 06 E IF ... .- Y= A � •E d. C a c b O ETiON L uu.p da m XS.0 cqu. NI_ p ^q u!c To^ - '• Nn d 00 CT GA .2 42,5- T. L� QG y �- + 4 X^ C d b O S O o L y a 'Y C U d 0 N-'EE� U L d L •� Emu 4 yy L 4 q •It 2 L Y. E r y^ R t Y p 0 d N QN S�uL nOIY CG V. V.^ r-'Li con C�a. C4• L•E+ NTy V �. r aaY c... N E oc N E O L u LE Ea04, .CCe�q 4 >N. uE ^N A V ^v V Y a d Y 6 O +. "} Q A d n V G Q C= y N d V J N p C 0 d C G ^ n Ol q€ 0•� N O° myn ^YE` ia�.T.� ° LTN n4T.0 any CT ~ON E bq}r0. 6 CA Ny06r ...pG +� u�p N`FdY LdE� q olio q 6� V m69 X N LA i'E F+000 l�CI .biN V 6.� LN Cy .ocL6L 4U �YO. N .. I I I F W L O Y 1-� o u° 0 v V O � H f 2 N 0 �v M Y s a Y ..du Ofu LOL. da Y o ►x' 6c � cdn ° c ru o�°1 GNo J 7 +• V T O Qm0 N �cU,y^ Vy�O • W ... C m °oT0 O. p ..' s r e _. Y �•' s y.Y pq H E x O•.c.. PZA �. C� ! 00 46�EUMOa°.0 Y L dv ! q L O w q c n^ O� L &.2 " n. ua q.9- OG4.pL p Y Y � u. V u y C �.. L X -• ay •' .o �- p i E C YV 3~^ NpY -C OO A C 00. dO V�YQr cn CC o D. p. C 44q.n y } n.0 �s Cyu �d:Y O�YEQQ pry S.•O 14 v N E iYp�L cea - yyO ,�` .n'f r t-muse zz C G 6 cm�uY np . _m N . o «y_ ry . c opa ' - y aTN V y O T N.K I) �.s EE O.N 'igC0 NCC `bY M 4 au u qLU C � qC mLm Cudu l`u N o LYU n^ —u�V yaY L ^ nW H npy �TrCNL �Cp+,G �LnNC °N ML NC +'L ^upq yM — ug66 O —� C 4w y0'%i` CEO mS6 iy D. _ ip.CLY o4�y Ow�w v. N N '^y Gam. N n y2nr+ v'tn .aq ii uoy_ u .V. N N u w� + d U- x a y r 9 0.pwc uw `. >.pq ap� .yN4 wt oN� Uxa..°�,dpV Q�W9 L6nA�.n Rq °n O L y9V. OrC N"V' •- i N ^ -� u �p as C V.- 'pY 'O> �ye� A''�iyM SC L 4i' A.a.. .� N O W L q'�qui boy u ERL C aR P, bC _3..=p-9.L. 6uiaiV a9tL n- CCq�b E °c9 ..CAS V1•LLt �w _LbL L uD. 9 bw0 �E do qT.o Or CVn �q CuO. -ON OYN� l` gYJF cC� N.ra G NY NyL qdY C V`SygL L Lu- �' ua.^ `NO.Cd W. r�Vyt.. ^re VY �yw F^am.= C. 01 NON OrrN 3..� ItG > � CR.0 l CE Zm�m N U V RuE d F' R u M, -17 LA °etl Cw L N^ V ° L a0 UiC E C Nn V'R -.- V•YdN :gegy ma's+ °Y nz- 9YU CY ° ii- N y —o° E° i�V PNq C n w +6..°i O aV NEN NL a... pQi. UYYpL R °qY 3t q.N spy GC1Y Oi4 Vpj Eoy Vrb.art al > LL� e� L y LO QQ 'O .ROw 9N q� O �D ... ... .° pp '.' oE.�TT V AZL ` nup }1 HC yNHL VL ^LN 6Nw V�G^D L �E 2= YO •O i M �M yy01Yq iY V„' V uq��.➢ a t° °a L. 01'O� ,�Mr°nryaw G L i F n o'r w..>'. j-� AEp a°i ^ �2p NT.„V WUy'N Na VOf�YC vc � �Ot r^.O °ZU uNwe- a nD6^ aR, N' CNO Y� N9dLS'RCe .nay Y _ZZ C .c u. Op OF cL�°;• .°,mac, OH V a� '^ ^Qp �'^ =.'r uzi r3 Y 3W ro r� q� ... � :.ay`, Lw Vw� uO°i uu.ym >"� uCr�:l q U ��.F��•ar�d _qr°i �_^ >�yo V Lu vtgi L N° CrybC ^ '°q.Nq. „► . �cTa iu nw mu CV uY.vYO °ta oT u .ism .`- " i °°. N .m•..+ °�,,, ey c yOHAL a r°rw > 60fJ ^ q enlUa;p� BYU Lu EL YuN G �. .^...°.WTVOU >.nU` �� iYFwC LAN — w N N b r ~ M Y iYp�L cea - yyO ,�` .n'f r t-muse zz C G 6 cm�uY np . _m N . o «y_ ry . c opa ' - y aTN V y O T N.K I) �.s EE O.N 'igC0 NCC `bY M 4 au u qLU C � qC mLm Cudu l`u N o LYU n^ —u�V yaY L ^ nW H npy �TrCNL �Cp+,G �LnNC °N ML NC +'L ^upq yM — ug66 O —� C 4w y0'%i` CEO mS6 iy D. _ ip.CLY o4�y Ow�w v. N N '^y Gam. N n y2nr+ v'tn .aq ii uoy_ u .V. N N u w� + d U- x a y r 9 0.pwc uw `. >.pq ap� .yN4 wt oN� Uxa..°�,dpV Q�W9 L6nA�.n Rq °n O L y9V. OrC N"V' •- i N ^ -� u �p as C V.- 'pY 'O> �ye� A''�iyM SC L 4i' A.a.. .� N O W L q'�qui boy u ERL C aR P, bC _3..=p-9.L. 6uiaiV a9tL n- CCq�b E °c9 ..CAS V1•LLt �w _LbL L uD. 9 bw0 �E do qT.o Or CVn �q CuO. -ON OYN� l` gYJF cC� N.ra G NY NyL qdY C V`SygL L Lu- �' ua.^ `NO.Cd W. r�Vyt.. ^re VY �yw F^am.= C. 01 NON OrrN 3..� ItG > � CR.0 l CE Zm�m N U V RuE d F' R u M, -17 LA IC lu qp D s q L Y u °IL .�nbu CX Al .°•.t 4Y M � FL Nnyy Inm OC 9uF ^G at L py LL owa Y •AN E u- YA Z ot` Q..^ �N y9 FOO 6yY N,•,i�Ny a ^A A +aN... 41 °t4 C`ln < CL RuC C� I.. 60 iii dA L��4AyA .NnC �� +Cy q d X L to ° ai Wd HniV �y a +.Lq. EN iClu� q u L L C` L M ` D O p ... L L C L Y. b C Y ar v� M"- LO ^N ynRG LY. b}' E q�'•�'f bQ L^ �� �. aN „.L,4y.D-'Ld u. +u NE Nq�L uU L� uN L N LOlbuu �N. EyyV Yca uN Tq Rv VY LLVO~ a< L.q �b �Y �� A L N N n q b+ d C E q u L wyGY. 61 O L QLN L<4 as Y +Y. _<Nd C� ?n u.OaL Cio y cC T.°! rN L E °� gv. �dH d T [h 010 irN alE.Y N 6C ° u.:•.A u 40 49 6u ILO�`opN C.. a ,b OD u VqN w. Ol L o q a q N= c 6 > N O b A a Y rggggN C wi'C^ b > u > y b u k.c ZZ q O ^ —" .5 AOj �b NC yLNw b w L wa Nb N n E u m Rr �D tt�p y a G:w Vq O u*•. Ca .CO � Q _ + a o+ N Oy M Y Ly E u �..� t u ♦+ Lab+ 4q C'20 aN Y L OuMO C L R� un _ yN �R +a na- L�Npp6/ +gg+ FS d uj1 R44. �g9M1. 01 °I- a°. SpA pYR pr C C O C NO � 6 wN�L n� C uo N _Y9 bYd°. p^ T A ba ^ w Y n°- 10+ n A u z u b � L ° u _ °, > o. YN buq tC N u � GV _ Yt� y. d + u li A 1lVgLy _ 1^EU Y.V liVL �� 4NpA W60�N�1r. b� W _ + p Y C QQ ti� p q u a D y > cn^ d« qc Y 4 L OuMO C L R� un _ yN �R +a na- L�Npp6/ 6g6.Di Y .DRax uj1 R44. �g9M1. 01 °I- a°. SpA pYR pr q c o Ob<.m mo YN A N.e%y �C ^jF�ZU Yb C do V C _ u L 311 d + u li A 1lVgLy _ 1^EU Y.V liVL �� 4NpA W60�N�1r. b� W C� « a aCV Nr. N � ��p . �w0 _ N1� •may O._ � O` ` u N y y q• N b d.6p UVara �. J O.7E. dGLLq�- O' q 00 Y bG> v.� " u •+ u° m Tb ^lam ,�. `e v. soa uyu'Is uabb o - O N CV« b�^qY °OG u�. Oho �hdy qu Yy ' �p` q0 O' N Ad YO Gu Ld .Nw Y -N b ^• O O• r V Y G ^ OI L L N� �ua aµ= a a ?q� b� YG •+ mb p_ E' Ya a'ii v G d FOn� N u Tuuu. `4 `yN .,.G. U00`. C >• SO^ Tum G{jW dO p.LLW y GAq 'C O��g may. C6 L.O =.Gi*. u wq..,•GdV Ly " >_ z zz �" Y k31 -v c StE YusT vcigi. °co Jm °.uN : Eny `N +•oM Cei °• L' p q Y aGi A L .:: L y d q A 6 Lb ° •o O p b d TAM g y T m V H u O• r � O N E b au. 06uN Y A �Ab Q6 S L1Lhp 1-•q I�YWi 6�6q C°. Cii 6.c-,a YV.0 v1 ` 6YL c Eq U .c0 ELM « qV uq. c•^ Y�C Q U NrQ�, v �q c gQg�b Q >v v�oGq dA • u _ .0 u � E T C u ytqN• v N T C « w �^ YOv•t ^ a� iy q Y p N � • i Vv.,:.G Gp G^= . . ..0 _ u '•YqNc YqJ _ _. b a cY 4 Y qC q � r y � " G Y v t Zvu2 aqnA Nba .t ub N Cb G -:LQ q6 i' kia, I - qO b V L L VY LT y A V D q G O O Zu m-Y LiY C 21-4! --w: v noO > uzG u i 6 ip _ u Y ay- y g •y° w d 1 Eq _-2!! -3 "Ei' 4-2 N v 0 M n v -o « Z u Q NU G aT � L � N N p y _. Y yA �N A Ny V C ° M� •"•N Ny R �•O _ Y -' I i s ' v b a`i C Env t 6N q L u v n A y N N N q � u° Y « .�np C pN� bG y UE'R ••°.tea N? G y YG `. wS C Aa ' 4J °n 7L q 6 gT _ v'� yr. eagga t '•Vir^ A �n _ «E r p• u n q b o q W�YL q o b o q�G' 0 O 4N u T b .y °r �AV.A9•A " aQa`e•• _ u CT p y_ o ^ C L d L NYZom2O oyN�s ti 4 !• C. a p lL •. V W b N b ^ t q � N 'b N C =u. N06 =6Y. NL qN... NN =O •_ u� �L o p E AO r c�+Vy � Nu Z ° q O! L_GOY. t„ -j 4 F y --1 s C y q p T' o fE C.. u p O V L .� ° 4 b V Y .^ °• O° 5 l N G t 0 Y °'^ Z �. T T L b g G y ^ n Y u q •� Y b g O �« q' Y• � V O r HN °YN G ,� Lc�Y t +p, a.•. qLE+ ` 't...w n.G. tGNro C4N^ 1uW E'G-- E wE2 as «y yoo Od 9� qc9 � C N W q iUb1 4Y YN `iYtl V g'z—, Ask r Ey.0 ^m trg0 2 V V '4iN CP D Yy b �"c� z ro A > pp co d uEC ^L Ovtw iu Nib °Cp U d �.LO.. C d O G �' ogAd uNy T c SLY y i i E ET.- aVab Yaa �yb yi V qcE AN w4 ° v C 3u qS cu u °a b 4 rn Qp. e°.d C d �O� N atl Q L w 4q,L 6 N V qN.^ CO-�6R U Q =.a ,ry � 6M UyirL; O� C w y =�' Oy,N Ui�c. dm, v0,0 NAa VAC pE4a N Y.A. tlauN0°z o i=� ii E -�, aq x°. p �V >Nq v' ° '^ 80wq. 4,c •c- #y n p u b GAgN c c� +d V.,. C EN�� M .°. 'VO4 L A FU tO U�. N. qyo �QCw opONq�t p qq L NL OL iN. �C �V.p ti o R u,wct °A ^4.90 C= A, LL.O-0V ^t^ Y�L w H4 ��� V E QOV OuA Q' } ,GC A �; q.T�u o.0 as U � E a a. iC N w.� �^ ,Est q On V L nc� D °4 4 tl d C� L4 Vgypi C O Oq�W Oti N COJO Kb C dlU..h pVO'LU '.i VM Q^ 9b C �bqq C °r Vb'2 BUY ^ u rp C I U� Y E mC ^O O tlwY M 9 4 r L N�Jp. ;,82 E yb inn gE HR CO C+ by 4 MyEE A v c pc ca a'Y°e t ap m i+t o tlo O �OV +SK b p� �� R yq +� ANtlq ifNr p» y.6 qKr^ pL O ph C O V d> .OU Y^ �4 D dw gg .VOa ^O muMy� yiwyE4uci L =Q� L mow. Gw S.a 'a Y C N� w c Z:8 qD 6 � 6 pa4wA U.Nr p14 V gquM Q O ^bYc 1 V O C E G m • p 01 E V V x q ^ p y pOI O V OL Ei Q U Zw% �UUr 4 O'OLN V a a.. V u �.•� N b %ou .� u E Mao �C 4tl %.°e 9b vp Gi.~ �` Ntl nq b� qbv 'N w` V Oy'Aywj a NVb,na L 4UbTO 2'n'ceC NY Abb Ga E�� • Wtib WVU �A vaaT Qa�i `p K0y t6 DDD _z u 1 jj 11J� ia4_ o. 4 a Y N it N u ^OY uLEE YY �� u A L 2 pn v n� L �' -r . H a M « Y x P p`A lu <ia n°. z.-. i;o z^ qui,_ Lr iu, a�T c Ac do a Cd 9 ^u6 4 40. i0 GCEi Y o-+ L O� C LiT. Y c A d°at W Q Y.p Yom. SS 2 V O. N ` y� a ° H n a O C �v.00 L ^o CdL N 6�. a iO L Wm� N Sp 6w ^dY _q A LnN Y i^ b. °i O. d E VO AL4 A�'L 1O�W .n O'4.vo�od u� $ L 'LLG L�dM yVdp EN FLU O. d u��C Mp AN Y Of w Y yx'SrA Z.c aE N6W A.� 66NM N° `�d.S 9 C4 Q. N O�, v. .-.V O. IY AML LU Sd U9 cL V m a � • . ! � wrl � �� I I E Y � O L Y D � r y� O L 6 9 z 'u E O u O L G E O o L o A c u O1 G L C ^ 1 � M u. c m Q u ^ v a In i L x O Ci L L O^ E ua 6 p ^ L L p„� O �wC S dy - ° c E G+O- � p E� o iuo°a O O\C^ cy O �q0 � N L °c O L ^W B 4hU \11�41 i 1` 11 !..I ago` v 2.r N d u �pC C FN i.l C6. Tp O GOr�ip v'y .. 9L.G. Y E L A W V O G Taw GL N N~ GO LO ^9 Q4 ^ SA E O ^ .+ Ad :is do =A dAO to A O. V L M.N OU qd® b q °^ KE Y. NO N yYaw$D ES 6 A ^Cl W S 0 C9.OTH V GM2 % is 4E -CL U m a � • . ! � wrl � �� I I E Y � O L Y D � r y� O L 6 9 z 'u E O u O L G E O o L o A c u O1 G L C ^ 1 � M u. c m Q u ^ v a In i L x O Ci L L O^ E ua 6 p ^ L L p„� O �wC S dy - ° c E G+O- � p E� o iuo°a O O\C^ cy O �q0 � N L °c O L ^W B 4hU \11�41 i 1` 11 !..I O Z u Q) i d vIns > dN ° L Y A A C � ^ y I• ^ � a✓ ww N a c ✓qg y do C g 7.;7§ F Ua ai � y •`i M ?. Oi Y Y �p °� E C i+ ✓ 9 ✓ C a✓ � i�A � d� ° °.r d C y y > C M E O Y N ^ q q YI Lr �Y r d ^ d o Cie u u c a y E d2. M. y c°d y 0• ✓� ^^' U O ° ✓ ri 6✓ ` E KV G E✓ V LN�YN L y q t W9 pe'�OSLM q,wLq A C G yu V nol u °C V.uYE A L 9 w �F ✓ 6 6 l ' � E E Y°. d V O^ L G N � w " C N Y o• C d dq M A Iti a o° .0 ca° c > d 6J Va o ar •`YM V_ L C L V A d V T- N wa v Y ✓ u c V 6 O T C A u q ✓ M L a u ` d > T d � C w Eo C L .c•L OE v we u `o N� 9 � j✓ y L w � COI aW �W O T ✓y T tio ^ N a JvA ou yc M u. sd v ✓_ t c E A ^� rM 6✓ AIT l 01 T a c t d c C r o Z L c S E a d ✓ N u� A E E 'N � •O O OV w3 U 6 � �t YjC N. ^IY. w. p d � • jl up o � ✓sue- d6 E 1>„D Yy 9LU M d aau. s N q9 yr Vd � L d Yi F-L CI.E O.V c =. oG 6 u d ✓ dV �..c. d a d L v N 7.1"1 ✓ N N A Yt> e V G yd qY d aQ a,t O• G A N O ry .r N �� ^ ^ Z A d^ E t-• N 1 n° 2i Cz` `> N� � V .• � u• E Y �^ N i CI V ^ Y c dal w� a o.d •� a Ld1U °� d d N K r tC L o. t 0 Al vIns > dN ° L Y A A C � ^ y I• ^ � a✓ ww N a c ✓qg y do C g 7.;7§ F Ua ai � y •`i M ?. Oi Y Y �p °� E C i+ ✓ 9 ✓ C a✓ � i�A � d� ° °.r d C y y > C M E O Y N ^ q q YI Lr �Y r d ^ d o Cie u u c a y E d2. M. y c°d y 0• ✓� ^^' U O ° ✓ ri 6✓ ` E KV G E✓ V LN�YN L y q t W9 pe'�OSLM q,wLq A C G yu V nol u °C V.uYE A L 9 w �F ✓ 6 6 l ' � E E Y°. d V O^ L G N � w " C N Y o• C d dq M A Iti a o° .0 ca° c > d 6J Va o ar •`YM V_ L C L V A d V T- N wa v Y ✓ u c V 6 O T C A u q ✓ M L a u ` d > T d � C w Eo C L .c•L OE v we u `o N� 9 � j✓ y L w � COI aW �W O T ✓y T tio ^ N a JvA ou yc M u. sd v ✓_ t c E A ^� rM 6✓ AIT l RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMJNGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 86 -10 LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 9TH STREET AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT WHERE -AS, on the 16th day of April, 1586, a complete application was filed by The Muller Company for review of the above - described project; and WHEREAS, on the 28th day of Fray, 1986, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above - described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following rw be met:. 1. That the proposed project is consistent iith the objectives of the General Plan and the Industrial Specific Plan; and 2. That the proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and 3. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and 4. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimen. 31 to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to pros —ties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTIOti '. That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration was issued on September 11, 1985, for CUP 85 -14 by Resolution No. 85 -131. SECTION 3: That Development Review No. 86 -10 is approved subject to the following conditions and attached Standard Conditions: 1. The approval of Development Review 86 -10 is also subject to all pertinent standard and special conditions of the approved Master Plan (CUP85 -14). 12 L I 4 _ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION Development Review 86 -10 Page 2 2. The existing silos adjacent to the Inspiron Facility may remain in their present state until the expiration of the current lease in June 1987. Prior to issuance of any building permits for Phase II, surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfa,tion of the City Planner and the City Attorney, guaranteeing the screening or removal of the silos. .3. Any interior or exterior revisions to the existing Inspiron building shall be subject to review and approval of th4_Design Review Committee. 4. The roll -up doors shall be painted to match the buildings and not highlighted with accent colors. APPROVED AND AOOTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY; Dennis L. tout, Chairmar, ATTEST: Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary I, Brad Boller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duty and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regi�ar meetinq of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of May, 1986= by the following vote -to -wit: AYES; COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: r: 4s e e �C a z U .a Q 33 i dL Ly b xx �0u uwN c LYY 4 ggop ._�� by .0 HtfV Tq .YY uu Hr O O A .T.AyCs •G O�AV a�..Ya 6�C Y�V�» LY�w cy0 gGL4� m.Uy O >tT Yr Ay 9w- �,„a0 LaN pYLA NFr AAyMQ O A O O Z T O, G G O H L pY3 y C Y. J n= y b 4 O p G a G yy A +tO YC t1 eGM�p .C.Y.p Ot�M �.� MY iYiQ rM y>. Yy V A yY�.Zb d.r.w C Y8 CyU p pp � GY Cy iY'p Y ^yAN L.0 LM.O+ C�. CQ G =4v, tE .GEe'uy Or 9pN U ^OL 0.a�dV �C6.UW "Y.... .a T.YT CpN C40.�NG.iL Y GT LOy ELpO p�Ad ...w 2:2 qr^- .waN'+a �qo Bu ^i V pAY Y ar oa no-- Y GN.� ei 2, 9NZ nrca A O tNU OLI. ^p P pp^�Y y yOCT AY M dy N Hy a.Y Y 7d 0 N j G b m L C^ LN Lt C O N^.Y Y n C� O C .p C.VA ALT A6G ^N Yyy� 6�v-C QS SIR- t.: C LLc Y+ OdY- Nf v.L OF N .pgb�y VT COY NH N. q G .M1 y02 YOYT Yot1 �AO � La� '^OL -�O�ti A py M-ai YC G.�p aLiC Mcc�OY N.H� 9.L aC.� 44 yy G C U'pn �p Y UYy wE GT c.Y.Y' y'6 .]C EULNU r qT O •C f c�AVK Qu` uo.Nna .Nye > AY a auA o' CCr �y .- ^. PL.YY 464FNLas' O Ru/�� r F CCLt qtr q7 rrH�GYL+- %' -DAS/H a °Y <, N'�'dr3 COAgt t'-t pLpV m W L` W a o 0 w° La °� 6 O h N a �P u p � Y � O yZ A p r o _cY n� Efi ^. 4 • d 13 tai. U. ig 6r v U=v u u o Ya i c w�w, Y >U N ' AL ffb4 My�j. V y.LA tpb I CO YN j 111 r W h y p s 2 4 UdY 9 G O O p Lq qpl� c oY "4uk .G Gqq•^.N i L L M.c O N� h �t FI S h k Z p T �P u p � Y � O yZ A p r o _cY n� Efi ^. 4 • d 13 Y: r t 41 U QJ .O S. s..m aµ `« a � 6 Rp�sY w8y"' tam a a » L Q VY C n�$L CEG.0 D'C.0 CCC' R�• f A i � A 4Rtl C M �j ca�-0 ca N u q Y NxN NL a � M �Sw u.. .Y. OIS I Mw L w,C V roq r N y N W^ L�YLN 'per amiyoNR y$ Y C4 q K� CR .nom Sp q ��Cy� RYry ~ A H Y x 4 YN 6? 11fY _ 45 e U M� h� M,q 4 L: a Y a R L A O L '!t— S. a� T.0 CM RC BO ^+CVyG yCN C b qL roG } ^N.9...SY. L ^. b CrLL roM Nq�« L S.� y .°2 Lg MCC4V ^^ .SON �" YW'Cq M4 LY 4-: yN YL YLY +.�« N.HCCw 4Gr V -- g� SNR� :wM z kv�- .a` » Lt m u T a R Y D M L 2:4. f0 G. C Gy`rn yy Cbuw ,t0 r.,ro4 y CYw C�Y� �ZE YGQIa VCV M LW Cw 14! Y�bY�nbcl. c�Tp 2s R..M.NNYwwa w. S 6L .CLYMy yt4 D.. U Y to.N V-N 9.1 YI Ny d! t1Yr r\ YEr0 f y y O R W � C N; at O N N C U C QaNtN.. NY NwO". .mss av Ma is �u�E v C C V W c M q O M Uwro.A %. SERD Off+ RC �.N by NR- c M qC Cr�M e t O Y L d b z C wO M '.-4 Vc•p 69 u b ,iC O yY » Y H a H .e ' �NN 4U YVAL »CV L U V c rgEi 4 Y N Nq VNY eL.C` sa AW. Nw. U Way C .NCN » Olt 4 vas b• q�YS' 40 �•u Wpa LI' ^.rRC NSW t NGG bG G� �M «i+ ti 0.N C ltlq 4 w W »N dr roa t c6ti°. Cd qx$. - uu C N U M a Z yy�aLi CiN .O w.tl. � � YC �ro'CY jj$$2i b4,04 �y �CC4 YH C� wLwR -•C m4~C s N N ».t_ }YC �r Lott d q U vzi Nr5 st..R. M OdyN aYW L� YCa Z �cCs.Ct O Nh ,�:^ N.tb ^^NUlb w='JyN Cy4„O�ro oOO^ RL4 C» w,� to z NuQ NU ;rY isW. roA �', Y �OwA Y` .C.0 bW VV ^ 4� » W,. u u ��'°u ��iNa cco Rro weYr, �n'UV <.A RS4 6 INN. x�A +.0 /+.CN 4 qK**TMti ^44 L� A ty-U4 M14 N9N� N1Y JMz 44! Y to.N V-N 9.1 YI Ny d! t1Yr r\ YEr0 f y y O R W � C N; at O N N C U C QaNtN.. NY NwO". .mss av Ma is �u�E v C C V W c M q O M Uwro.A %. SERD Off+ RC �.N by NR- c M qC Cr�M e t O Y L d b z C wO M '.-4 Vc•p 69 u b ,iC O yY » Y H a H .e ' u ri Li .O POOL CO p .0 C.ru. °.°. °Oq —NasVy —Vs P 4Yy �QG N K y b,,, �O CISV'G L `C YC b gQYY F NaR i O Oa 0. ON Ca .-•y YORn0PU°i.NY ^LO�L �^ b Y �...�NN I.; p �O �q0 . •VN N�t9 °i Vr w =ELi ry N + CN La` i Cu ^A — Z °� g � 4 q U N. V w .rC- b r� n Y N 4' j N a p y� O N^ • y ^' 4 = by LNaA •,�j ^sca t NbYigNrn —q^ Q oY wnN OO�wo 61.c a ... uLN ^a �.+` b �CuY L NjC 0.Q 4 O a T.A•v b 6 v� �"1 C r —�CC O bLOp D• L.tb lN1 0 ya u N G '. ac Nci N V v •.-a _9 Z5 6Q OI OI c LO P Rr, tH N r. t°t0 CNi.I yy �4;2 A ON 1 rNY A uO VvIt YV JJ .w.roN �UM L�.O Y6� b >��9 N� ciM Jt CVq= f+ C� «NOG s{�. —u gt1LV �O �� Illlui 1 � 4 nLN � Vj�Giw QA NY~RU TN OI G �b as�.°. Y NK Ny dr' y d V y r l�� O r ?N O N Y W Y G46 N— Y�O��CY 6uw b0 OIp0•+ Y q G aLi C G t Y 6 opw NM CC u i°I L C•lgN fiNp YLN __t Ell 10 Lib OL.0 r� CYN .�C OYb�L N•�N 4N� �N 3N0 1�Nt �N V��O1 }OIN N 60 6A�00. !(I t•L.O �6N N• O W as `. a`q �.� pu a T wo�� �� eTOQ •gg- .L.ZeL°�$ oz h` —V^� agy.Gw N, o~ Ra M N.. = nc y.GL L 0. Q °C V QV O O O ^O YG C c �_� p :.; u,lyT' ~ -- s ~NC Lam, t' � - Ly < CCq Y CA N...G. n NV. y L D loam N +r OI Cti 9t C. p OIL XS L 2:; y NCY Vow yE;Op� 2.2 —arN CaYa1LYC QC OLL^ ° r•y z. B L G�aicYi... L 4> Eb YY OL r4ro 6b�a r b N_S Cy 4. uYDC dare YY Y w0. 40 K3 uY N w q VL'OYpt LO ^` .O r U N —^ —y— CC V c �V WN.°r L O M �O L +Z q�6a=•N ~NU U�a•N Y M r — .,:•^ C V N L S.� QL. .yC yCC c'r ro r .Ow O• °+ d Catl 0•G�V Yro A� b M b iQ L T M ° bC1 Y R O• ° C°..0 N L Y a yyN —VWY A T~ V r L q Y y ,VO' q 4yVFt'a• «L VqW • ^G t•� O.O. _ V4.. a n �V' .Y..AN 61 8 w CQM L— ro V ^b= N YqF ay Cr V > n„ A ^N V —Sr V V q BE NY t O r► M� Ypron +.r— yyy b ai i+. `a^n s.y. ..�c.L.� EERr r S L V Y.b. 0Y0 Q1 L ro r Lr°. —.i pN Y LM G2 Oa �p —UMW 7� CNp� 6Yr� L ?V b L7 > V pCp��— LbN T. Y YL0. N 4° Q >> V 4 L + t NNJ w —t0 Z. O L va NO -O.LL N EE V ba l• �[YL.0 4 +•NO Croy. a0 > N K9N 1- 6N OFL C. 6b -0- U L6 <p6 C i[M4A SOO WC 0.wNw1.4 \�ryI I It b N N u ri Li 11 A ✓TN�y ° Op Ld BOG 19 yr ♦ 0.�� C 4^C ♦ G ^'A � Y'� •� °°'°f'qO °yp a ^ rA.nu� ry ua4 w ^.�, � G al .L °. q3 Z;a t 2444 C� VCS M cma^ u uyd w U C p uL ^V qY Y♦ �q +LirN ar.ar a1 e c a db m N N N q A G N a U q vTx u Lm� emoc tC4Q.d 5C C DN« as iVC Gr nL 01 6F+ b or �, pyws N A♦°I TSB V d Mp �' O L mu a r c cxur wab..a: 3l."; i f KR YM IAN Y Sa'L" JLF� C q q w OL INE C 4^221 • ^ • C E,Cy+ � �a °O Cp y': � � mho w.LLU'' Luc WVp. Q W4El�°i � a'a .4 Nu w 1ti,gv C CpMal . .r OW S. a bGa 1"11 w tiw N C �� 'M'S 5' U c y ♦O` C Q d y p r Mi y V oo as caAq .1.�y'r" N�AA�'' uH " a V d 4 o�'o u °aG 4 Ayq L L�gpN ° 4 :i dqw « d as . yo cci"G'a'c «mr 4 ` Y O m° Nam.. 2Y1=..4a yp,"i1 U V» ,'cn dp, Roa L b as >x ..0 U 2a p GLLL G.Q Vt — nL. yy, NE' FY �fwA -+ 6 1 I 1 + ✓TN�y ° Op Ld BOG 19 yr ♦ 0.�� C 4^C ♦ G ^'A � Y'� •� °°'°f'qO °yp a ^ rA.nu� ry ua4 w ^.�, � G al .L °. q3 Z;a t 2444 C� VCS M cma^ u uyd w U C p uL ^V qY Y♦ �q +LirN ar.ar a1 e c a db m N N N q A G N a U q vTx u Lm� emoc tC4Q.d 5C C DN« as iVC Gr nL 01 6F+ b or �, pyws N A♦°I TSB V d Mp �' O L mu a r c cxur wab..a: 3l."; i f KR YM IAN Y Sa'L" JLF� C q q Mr O5C O OL INE C CC • ^ bCUq� U 5/0111 r r� Q. W �OL.r 4 4D WVp. Q W4El�°i � w 1ti,gv C CpMal . .r OW S. •= d .. ate.. • dd + +. °'i r .=a.� #� u °mom . .0 ♦+� a V d 4 Ee °aG 4 Ayq L L�gpN ° 4 :i dqw « cared � i as U�y� E EqM . ♦ ♦N..b N�� L L E 4 ` Y O O a TLL S S g C A- N a U U V» N a D Day! L LQ Vt — — N NW «� d{. ♦VW x q41 y Nyi «u Eap 2 ypA `r a+b °o yi% a ma u a L a v "obi tan A °'u m= me §� <=•- A y m q L b u r ti °y 1Cea vaq EA auN c,1y G' wILdT dO�r yL voAY. N� i w+�iOR MOVSart °d C4 Lq V�_O .. -ELL, DN 4N n3i G A` �wp..N. 11_N6p dG�gC Lw =O� iv N #�S O 4L G « GL N�VR Ga�W CaCu'9� H.. ozMy 04 a 4 •� L Yqt CG >Qi E °7W V..iai NvN� Nei O. A M °U.•...M, Ccw Yb qj !T� 41gLL iVtlOp.,.4 Nq Ao+ 4dm 6uvai� U IJ Iy _��•.' "';4mMu W 4J V 0i .o a. �uL 9u E gogo� L •- my « n ° fir= qu.YS4�T• ^a N L al= C CO ^ Q N N V A N g 0 L wV U a L� y OI L C • r > S a NNrnon q u TC� �o • A d.. C.r•.. C .,. �° E G lL dID a u S d a^ va a 55-: a a o•� ° A a uu pc � 2 y U p d• p1° au w0 EO uV ^ C o u' M° ^ o V4 yam. q y q r r Oq V.6 Ou i O. V v a �• 9 T '6 T `'� o C S S V N L N c qC • T q L' d A _Ya aTi qu uo V N _ w n a°. L pg UZ _ aY ^y L L � d V° •i Eq^ 'tea u w E L n VyuL �� ` g- n q O. V v a �• 9 T '6 T `'� o C S S V N L N c qC • T q L' d A _Ya aTi qu uo V N aa+ q N W a w n a°. L pg UZ _ aY ^y L L � d V° Mt! q U N L Eq^ 'tea u w E L n VyuL �� F�� ydF d d u � Euo EO• V.j. N N M o? c: fi w w E 9 n L L oq N W^ Nti 2q �u 6 w 0 ^ d N A L y° N� ^ �- L q�b 4. y,. T > a., w yN C NYq NW L c °T ^m m t of `°tn mE so �^ �e ngYi n01 A 0 vsoi � Tou 9 3 u2o ^ C M L e O oM q - •�.•I V . W Cw u9 Cq . ME 2L ¢Va• C V Y W me a � o.co c ° u °u cdA •T- °°' y q a,ce w Y oy .Nu c ao c qC • T q L' d A _Ya qn qu uo i"a n, aa+ q N W a w n a°. L pg UZ _ aY ^y L L � d V° Mt! q U N L Nucu °^e 'tea u w E V �o�y .- ooJ LU A bu ' o ^ a cs. L wy N : . + � ° N.O Y 4 q in�cm cq oa Yw 6u QO 6a�V\1�t -o CLCC CNM L«v..E. d� n igoa y d•` C E C q °V' HLyc Nero= M Y mcK� y�o chi q9� L N •°v Yy C L A o 'Y'u °moo c�N J 6r O O -� UMV L q a�a2 rGOC�O Ln. � rn`oN L aamwy� L. °Y� °o�° b a � 11 ri Al aNOG a L = L. u y IM 10 v N L D D it] N N 6.2 4i L N� _ Y —ZE T N '^ u Jd"'y c o« dT .tom m .es °J, EAC d r A`o 01 y A a L N La� 4 c C E U66 a¢ do aM d N N U u A O N b Q? r^b C y W c0L C A coaC WN ca AV Z tldeIF A ¢ v9 V d b¢ V mM ?� O Nb ny qyp E A w« yu gLLp W OI xyt W L LW ° S t H mow EO 'fiy°,LLw E ia�C ,- cii.- y� vi LL oN L w a s, w� _y A ou CAS d a tii w ab � G c a Wd LLL ..E_EAL ='U G Vtd nl°r ¢f d dlu ,L1 - « ^OY y d V S u °O CL w N S ¢�dEN c dV4°.^ A..-CaC NLL¢N 6 ^6C cf cY L EP bE €Y ¢ CAM L 3 c C vJ d E d L c L % I^e L i L OI d O n d d C C O Ld.-u ER Yu CI �° ac Q c Lr-fr. R O E° G 10 dN d c, NFL° ^ �-fy N U ou jG, A Nt R L 4 J ° Y o ¢ ;r L y c A .Od N3 ^N N V^ �S P.fi Iris L y Nii d P u y1W Bygyw P d a vW q TL fE, S _ Hb1Y9g C4w.W NOMr N d. Y.Y ^ T IYi l 4fi 4� N p - W Wr�L LU 4 b 36 VV 4 6 W aNOG a L = u y IM 10 wW. M d.IRC�U aN � d G vl¢ ZL a cnuLL �� f g m v y o m v d fw a L N La� c WN NO V Y n ^ c g N '�� 3 C` w L•�a E o4 a G c a Wd LLL ..E_EAL ='U G c O °ICY WX d V S u °O CL w N S a LO d R Y Y a 1-� LiY dl y.GLm IpA OI LL C O ACC+ p^ �Q .^-� Gq � Q4 Ld.-u ER Yu CI �° ac Q �t A` .du )( c N L w vd. el a +� 6 w+C ab9N Eq CF O O c GQE. WR 4 J ° Y o ¢ ;r fi Aq N.6 QL fjw m OI H Y N np W � W Q V L G ^ -LLd Y 0 7-1 � 0 " AOd 4-3 a V. AT CL XG .2T ZE 44 11-51 1. CAC. O AbN BE N O 'w m OR O 10 11.-10 --.,o Of,r rr. A COX Es Olt 0 7-1 � 0 " CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 28, 1986 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: John R. Meyer, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW FOR 5009 BRAMBLE - Proposal to construct a ,600 sq. ft. single family residence an a 1/2 acre lot in the Very Low District located at the southeast corner of Ringstem Drive and Bramble Court - APN 201- 484 -02. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: This custom lot single family residence consists of 6,600 sq. ft, of living area with an additional 1,000 sq, €t. garage space. This post- modern style .residence consists of tilt -up concrete walls with scored surfaces, porcelain panels and a parapet roof. The front entrance consists of ceramic the Porte cochere that leads into a glass stare -front style foyer with a steel metal roof. Tie chimneys are also ceramic tile. The Havenaiew Estate Homeowners Association Architectural Control Committee has reviewed and approved this project for their estates. The size, height, and uniqueness of this style of architecture in this City prompted the City Planner to direct staff to present this to the Design Review Committee. II. ANALYSIS: This project ,as first .-svieweo by staff through the Building and Safety's plancheck process. Staff reviewed this per the standards set forth in the City's Development Codes regarding Very Low Density P.esfdentiai District. The project meets all the standards except for building height. The Development Code allows for maxi -,,cfm 35 feet from the finished averaged grade. Staff has determined that this project exceeds the maximum building height by approximately 5 feet. Staff is working with the applicant to resolve this. Under its General Design Guidelines, the Development Code states: Desian Theme: A recognizable design theme shall be established which is compatible with surrounding planned or existing developments and shotCd be based upon promine.n design features in the immediate area (e.g., trees, la0forms, historic landmarks). Subtle variations are encouraged which provide visual interest but do not create abrupt changes causing disLord in the overall character of the immediate neighborhood. It is not ITEM R PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW FOR 5009 BRAMBLE May 28, 19£6 Page 2 intended that one* style of architecture should be dominant but that individual structures shall create and enhance a high quality and harmioniov, community ., appearance. II1. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE: On May 8, 1986, the Design Review Committee reviewed this proposal on a Consent Calendar basis. The Design Review Committee reviewed the project and discussed it with the architect. The Committee opted to refer this to the full Planning Commission for review j and approval because of the visual impact and precedence this structure would establish. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the style, materials, and colors of this proposed custom lot residence. If it is determined that it is suitable with surrounding residences, then this item should be referred back to the City-Planner for plan checking. Respectfully submitted € II E 48rad Buller City Planner BB:JM:ns Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Perspective Exhibit "D" - Floor Plan Exhibit "E" - -Elevations w a' a. . ���&����«� < >«.«a « «w� = *« »y»� ���`§ :� 5\,� � A. � � � / .��} � d�� / Via. � . \ � <� ,Qea ��� � :�� } � � \ �� *t _ 4 * I a X ^� R � >. i N •ytre; 4 6� Ann" `iii. -,: . V 1� ?. tr 7 K C. t x�: ;y n . y I :t' x ru.rrlun 6 . .. ....... . 'r! 1 r!!. rAr.1rY /!1� ' 7r a YL ' � i;Eg lit t il II� Ax $ [ � �T :� � •fit a�� �` _ �-, `� .—° C • � ��'- 's _ �[f +i iii U .. � �- 1 z - - CITY CF n7EM. PJLA;NNM DWISM E {W: 1P- I SE&M, If AT YL ' � i;Eg lit t il II� Ax $ [ � �T :� � •fit a�� �` _ �-, `� .—° C • � ��'- 's _ �[f +i iii U .. � �- 1 z - - CITY CF n7EM. PJLA;NNM DWISM E {W: 1P- I SE&M, egg th-tV h 111 fntr rtt _. r tl 'TITLE SCAM-. Ski 7�i� fi[ l/ •t \S .[ , { f x' Lo C b s , -n -- - -a - -...� r-- i z r r : + _ Z � , t CI'I`y CF rrEM: 16r— �l RANCHO (-:63CAM Wllk �. -a . 3-a-IfEt!" 1 !a L s y From \ \��' w�3 ;J z« a. � •. � I . � ��: �• \.�.`��$ \ Now f C i !Y k CITY CF iTENI: PU�NI`AsIG DRINON SCALE- • � R x-60 ' ; + r x A 1. [F [a REAR ELEV,",MON NORM C= CF FLANCM MCANENUA Tnu., PTANNM DWOUq EXHOT ELSCAU- �j > 11 4 aka: +~ ■ / / ■��� ■■Naomi am _ URN 0 � ■ff ■f ■�ifl � � qff agar -- HW3u�Z'l!71� } �■ eece3,r'T■ r � � 1_ _ HAT6II LANE i CUY or, R A NCTD CLTC C NGA, NH Cl, crry CF s Triu. MANNING DPv%-ION opt _� _ t Ij ♦ ` ♦ ♦ -- ♦ 26- -'., E t,tV- -4rc�• i i __ _ � Lte :. � w.•a�wr -.a .mac � �s�aoaafZE&.R ©©. //��. ��°`!!�� ``'' y`� eA 1 NH Cl, crry CF s Triu. MANNING DPv%-ION opt _� _ SIDE ELEVATION 7 1.1 V NM's CITY ITi is C'i527! j9z2jQ, %.RNP+1MtWSC31<i SCALE =` Arl O ML °:�- FRj2NT ELEVATION 8 NORTH CITE �Nl L fI -mac'' rrEm. AI�T CUCAMONGA TjTi E- E /- x 7,� LANNM DMSJOJ�j EXfi- Bd'T• SCt LE; R - Ito CITY CF RVCHO CTJCWONGA PLANM% WIJSON "VII I-JORTH ,.rfu: EX H W- S C Al E 20,1 CITY OF RANCHO CUC 4l1VONGt °vCnnro STAFF REPORT a l r of z U' > DATE: May 28, 1986 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Bra( Buller, City Planner BY John R. Meyer, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF VIRGINIA DARE WINERY BUSINESS CENTER UNIFORM M. PRGGRAM 1. AB;WRACT• The applicant has appealed the staff denial of the 1Ti erm Sign Program isee attached letter). On June 8, 1983, the Plnnind Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 83 -07 for `the master plan of the Virginia Dare Winery Business Center. As part of the Standard Conditions for CUP 83 -07, the applicant was required to submit plans for a Uniform Sign Program aad receive approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Staff's reasons for denial are outlined in the attachee ' Stier dated April 28, 1986 and discussed in greater detail herein. II. ANALYSIS: Construction drawings for Phase I were received by the ann ng ivision in April 1984. A plan check correction on April 4, 1981 indicated that a Uniform Sign F ogram application was required. In order to allow for flexibility and expedite construction, building permits were issued on September 21, 1984, with an understanding that the Uniform Sign Program would be forthcoming. On November 8, 1985, Larry Tieman of Tower Partners submitted an application for a Uniform Sign Prograi for the Virginia Dare 4inery Business Center. After meeting and working with the applicant over several months, staff sought comments from the Design Review Committee on April 17, 1986. The Design Review Committee recommended the use of cast aluminum letters rather than individual illuminated channelized letters for the wall signs. The Commmittee reaffirmed that the major tenant sign copy, such as "Spires" or "Bank of America", must conform to the Uniform Sign Program letter style; however, graphic '.ego symbols should by permitted. During the d---sign review of Del Taco and Series Restaurants, the Planning Commission conditioned that signa43 conform to the Uniform Sign Program for the entire center with the intent that a single, uniform copy style.would be allowed. The Committee further commenteJ they wire concerned with the style of marquee for the theater that mould be used. Staff told them that no design had been submitted yet. (As of the writing of this report, no design has been submitted.) ITEM S 5 i7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 28, 1986 Appeal Virginia Dare Winery Sign Program Page 3 III. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission review all elements and input of the Uniforms Sign Program and provide the applicant with direction necessary to receive approval of the Uniform Sjyn Program for this Center in the following areas: o Sign Type - The type of sign used shall be cast aluminum ettT— ers, channelized letters, or a combination thereof. o Copy •:Style - The copy style shall be a single, consistent e t� ear style, the occupant's Trademark style, or a combination thereof, o Sign Size - Signs for the trellis and food court areas s a ` -a maximum of 65% or 75% of the store front /arcade opening. i o Edwards Cinema_ Marquee - Proposed design of the marquee. Res ctfully s fitted, Bra�dRull I e '1 City Planner BB:JM:ns Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Revised Proposal for uniform Sign Program Exhibit 118" - Letter of Appeal Exhibit "C" - Letter of Denial Exhibit "D" - Letter Dated March 12, 1986 Sign Ordinance Excerpts .x, r ;bra Z ;x PLANNING CrAMISSION STAFF REPORT may 28, 1986 Appeal Virginia Dare 'Winery Si(In P rogram Page 2 On April 28, 1986, staff Bete -mined that the Uni ^ -)rm Sign program was inconsistent with the Planning Commission's intent for Virginia Dare in the following arfes,, 1. All sign copy shotid conform to the chosen letter style, in this case, Optima, regardless of the established ( "trademark") letter style of the tenant except for corporate logos. This includes major tenants such as Spires it Bank of America. 2. Tho use of individualized channalized letters (see existing Del Taco signs) is incompatible with the architectural theme of this center. The individual ca:.t aluminum let0r, as used on the monument identification sign for the center at the intersection of Foothill. and Haven and as proposed for the Tovar Building is more appropriate, External illumination of the cast aluminum letters may be use4 t which would also create a dramatic nighttime statement for the project (the buildings are already being floodlighted). 3. The Treliis signage and Food Court Arcade signage should be limited to a maximum of 66% of the stor: front or arcade opening. 4. The proposed sign program did not address the Edwar-,s Cinema marquee. Baled on these inadequacies, staff denied the 'uniform Sign Program letter) The which ppl scant has resubmitted nevW Uniform Si Wn 1986 (see packet that includes a full elevation of Phase I to illustrate thc, proposed concepts. However, tsis rendering is inconsistent with the proposed guidelines because it shows major tenant signs with trademark style copy for `Bank of America ", and "Century 21 Hembree" and ten trellis signs. General yuldeli:te 4 speifically states that artly sole occupants of entire buildings are allowed to utilize Is Ji -al 6annelized letters. If Bank of America and Century 13 occupy the entirety of Buildin,ts I and 3, respectively, no other tenant signage would be necessaiyjall owed. If they do not occupy the entire building they would not be allowed major signs t;nder Guideline 4. Staff believes that we have acted in good faith in working with the t`.plicant and allowing development to proceed without the sign pl-ugram issue being iashlved. The developer complains of a "time consuming" review of their sigr program vet it was nog. suamitted until almost two years after their original approval for Phase I. -- Z9L�f GENERA, ' GUIDELINES = I . Th_'following guide is intended to set minimum and maximum s %gnage, standards ft- all occupants of the Virginia Dare Winery Business Centre. All design:: most be presented to Developer fer approval before work is begun: Developer reserves the right to require changps in any design that does not, in the opinion of the Developer, conform with the overall standards of the centre. All signage shall be subject to approval by the City of Rancho Cucamonga sign program guidelines, 2. the letter style incorporated in signage is to be "Optima," unless it is part of an establishes; trademark of the tenant, used on other locations. (i.e_ "Bank of America," "Spires," etc.) 3. Food Court and trellis signage shall not bear any tenant lo, 4. Occupants of entire buildings: Sole occupants of buildings within the Centre shall utilize individual letters to compose major signs. Letter sides and edges shall utilize the standard color and -Finish set forth is this guide. Logos will be permitted. Developer shall review signage designs on an individual basis kith the intent: of achieving compatitility of all signage uithin the Centre. 5. Storefront glass: Signage consisting of 211, 1 ", or } " hi Optima white vinyl letters may be affixed to exterior storefront glass. Maximum letter height to be 4' -6' above floor surface. Letters shall be applied to interior surface of glass. .ate„ 7111 { ". GENERAL CC7NDITIONS 1. Any sate or lease of premises within the Virginia Dare Winery Business Centre shall be subject to the requirements of this guide. 2. The tenant shall slbmit 3 sets (81 x 11 ") of proposed signage depicting size, color, materials and locations to the Developer for review and approval. Upon approval from the Developer, the tenant shall &;.quire necessary approval and permits from the City of Rancho Cucamonga,. 3. All signs shali be constructed and. installed at tenant's expense. 4. -Requests for additional signs shall be subject to the discretion Gf the Developer. S. The location of signage on all building facades is subject to approval by Developer. See Appendix for all building elevations. Future buiTding, upon signage approval by all governing authorities, shall incorporate elevations (with sigrage e,evelope) intn Appendir. to Become part of this Guide. 6. The approved signage plans shall become a part of the terant lease agreement. 7. Except as provided herein, NO pennants, placards, freestanding sign& or ,_- signs affixed to automobiles or trailers are allowed on the buildihq,. in the landscaped area?, or on streets or parking areas. The re,triction pe.caining to automobiles does not apply to magnetic or painted identification signs placed on company or priv3t,#,- vehicles ` 1'or�use in the normal course of business. r. 8. Tenant agrees to remove any signs and return the face of the building '. to its original ^ondition, fair wear and tear excepted, upon thz expiry : cf the lease or any extension thereof. 11 /Stucco wall 10" high letters grey-tan 2P' thick Z. (1.0tal area of sign 24 s.f.) _51TE SiGN, VIRGINIA DARE WINERY BUSINESS CENT RE ..... ..... 41% 1 Baked 'enamel _ letters with gold face., dark green edges Corner sign, Foothill Z Haven I I I I NOTE: See APPENDIX for I F individual building ;u1 elevations. its ::'r4TT=r AIM F .4dobb, I "*A" SITE PLAN —,Sign locatior 3 '-SIGNAGE CUIDE VIRGINIA DARE- WINERY BUSINESS CENTRE � LIN a DEVELOPMENT BY. ,hristeson . COmpany *150-11 Quail Street Newr,-lort Beach CA 92660,1 Gxuie�e by: "'S"' Arch-4t 34U Von Udo. SUfte nO iyevmoll 13%il 6 45!9 a my � t vc w f, i } 0701 -02 o 5-28-86 'P.C. Agenda Pa ke-t o Pa'2e .9 of 1 L LEtter style for major — tenant who does not have custom corporate style. See sheet 12 for example. Ll BUILDING .SIGNS SEE APPENDIX FOR PRECISE LOCATIONS. Aririracc r,f -.- i _ Illuminated letter- I' ' Internally getters connected to electrical source in fascia /wall } provided by Developer. Letters to have ivory plastic.face with dark green baked enamel sidad Tower .bldg: Replicatirn of original signage for Centre tt.dme to be provided by Developer. Signage limited to area over entry. Letters shall be monochromatic, non - illumirated ca,t aluminum. Double row copy permissable. BLJILDIN( SIGNS ►- Ai TRELLIS See APPENDIX for precise - locations. ENTA L CENTER -� Electrical power supply to ;trip fluoresc6nt light behind trellis ,beam to be . provided by Dgveloper. -�- BAY $tOfF{7nf 11. Trellis sgrtae . F. b to an Si e _ said �. blasted redwood with a" raised ' n,• '� letters and border trim color: Letters and trim AKE RtS D to be painted ivory; backoronnd to be painted Ranging sicf to have rh dark green. Sian edges slightly eased. Wmprising 75% of each F arcade opening. Recessed Spotlighting to be provided` by Developer. t ' OAaER'S BUILDING 51GN5 Occupants of Entire Buildings See APPENDIX for precise locations Double row illuminated and bi lit Optima bold letters 24" t Leiters to have white plastic face with dark green baked enamel sides. Developer shal review signage layouts on an individual basis for occupant of entire buildings. 4ccent lighting and specific information-signs shall 3e prohibited unless specific approval by Developer and :ity of Rancho Cucamonga is obtained. Established trademarks may be utilized at wall locations to be approved by Developer and City of Rancho Cucamonga. Letter color and trim for illuminated signs shall match that previously specified! a APPENDIX KEY irrnTrrrUTrrt , f , 1 Building A - Offices . t 2 Tower Building - Off•'ces p _ 3 Building B - Offices j _ 8 4 Existing Building 5 Spire's Restauraft ( _ 6 Ftcture Office Building ; 7 C10 7 Edward's Theaters ` 8 Future Office Building - 9 Del Taco Restaurant 10 Future Office Building �f0 11 Future Restaurant 12 Food Court not within Centre development gl11ldln t[��rt1t1t��nl . 3 4 f I •'t v N �l +min n r ���� •. . Foo Pm SITE PLAN 9 �z s ta ju ,a 2A�-( i i ( �t•- �i � � I n� M---t Q {Ii O M' f • 1 t a i r e _ j t t16 .. '] Q E4 6% IS i+ i4i�1} HUI �I ti r th ins r fil —in iz 14 14 i+ i4i�1} HUI �I ti r th ins r fil —in z 0 a a ua J iL7 LU N LU W J �7 W `z�r 4 in 1 0 '1. J J 5.... '\ jE 0 '1. J 5.... '\ jE a LU W �K.�' S l ti 2 U. N��� �kN /N �C C&C, qdf t17q y c s, pAV oNyq WINERY BUSINESS CENTRE 1 9,9� ilp�11,�1 n G May 7, 2986 ¢ r. Mr. Dan Coleman City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road Suite C Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Virginia Dare Winery Business Centre Uniform Sign Program Dear Mr. Coleman, In reference to your letter of April 28, 1986, we arf pealing Staff recommendations that our sign program be denied. Enclosed herewith is the appeal fee of $62.00. This is the third submittal Staff has rejected. Glen Gellatly, myself, and others have had numerous conversations, at the City and telephonic, regarding our ,ign program. Our initial submittal, dated December, 1985, consisted of six pages; our most recent proposal was over eievan pages. These various meetings with Staff have produced a comprehensive sign program document which in turn was "unacceptable" to the City. This is ineffi:ient, expensive, time consuming, and unnecessary. We have produced a detailed document with the assistance of Sx.aff that reflects the high standards of the City and the integrity of our project. Your letter dated 4128186 mentioned that our sign program guidelines were "inconsistent with the Planning Commission's goals and policies" We were unaware the City has such "goals and policies ", and why weren't we privy to this information? The following are specific items to your letter of 4128186. ITEM #1 We feel "optima" is a compatible letter style and will be used throughout the project for "typical" tenant identification. However, optima may not be applicable for some corporate users such as Bank of America, IBM, Cracker Bank, Spires and Century y 21. By not allowing us to cooperate with this type- useeplaces obvious restraints and limits our, flexibility as owners - - -clat is, to "; 1601 Dove Street, Suite 160 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • (714) 833 -0590 Mr. Dan Coleman May 7, 19$0 Page Two attract quali -ty enants. Planned commul,;ities of Irvine and Mission Viejo haVf had no problem in integrating corporate u;.;ers' letter styles into their major business and retail centers. The City and owner both benefit by accommodating corporate users. We ask that you reconsider your decision on this item, whereby permitting the owner some flexibility. ITEM #2 The use of channeiized illuminated letters was approved by Rick Gomez '- this can be verified. Our pl,ns have always shown channelized illuminated letters. Plans were approved by Planning ane Building Department and a building permit was issued, unconditionally, Staff recommendation of flooding lighting signage at night is inappropriate for a quality project such as the Winery. We ask that Staff verify previous discussions and approvals with Rick Gomez on this item. ITEM #3 We recommend Trellis and Food Court Arcade signage be .,�r.2ed +a a maximum of 75% of the store front or arcade. H 7;;% maximum sign is -in better proportion in relationship to column and beam spacing than a 65. sign. - Proposed signage is of :wood materials and supported from trellis beams. Tenant idenlificatiou has little value unless it is easily visible by vEhicle and/or pedestrian traffic. We ask that Staff reconsider maximum store front signage to 75 %. ITEM #'4 We are currently working with the Edwards Cinema sign contractor. This information will be included in a resubmittal. We assure Staff that our sign program, ;:s submitted, will in no way affect the high integrity of the project. Wa have maintained a high quality project and will continue to do so. We ask that tt?e sign program be approved as submitted. Very truly your:., It Larry Ti r, n Project nager r LT /lh Enclosure cc; Don Christeson Glen Gellatly as Im ;, Cic;.a�tr3tr CITY OF RANC;1,10 CUCAMONGA Majc.Jeffrey King _�; Z . G�nritmanbers LLL Charles J. Huq +wt CI Jon D. Mikels 19;7 Richard M. Dahl Pamela J. Wright April 28, 1986 4 Mr. Larry Tieman Christeson Company 1501 Quail Street Newport Beach, Califori1a 92660 SUBJECT: VIRGINIA DARE WINERY BUSINESS CENTER UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM rmar Mr. Tieman: Staff has concluded its review of your pronosed Uniform Sign Program. staff has determined that these guidelines are inconsistent with the Planning Commission's goals and policies fi -)r a coordinated sign program, as follows: 1. All sign copy should conform to the chosen letter style, in this case "Optima ", regardless of established trademarks of the tenant, and excepting corporate logos. This includes major tenants such as Spires or Bank of America. 2. Staff has determined that the use of individual channelized illuminated• letters is incompatible with the architectural themp of this center. Staff believes an individual cast aluminum letter as ° d on the monument identification sign for the center at the intersection of Foothill and Haven is appropriate. 3. The Trellis signage and Food Court Arcade signage should be limited to a maximum 65% of the store front or arcade opening. This should be clearly designated within the sign program text. 4. The proposed sign program does not address the Edward's Cinema marquee. Therefore, the request for a Uniform Sign Program has been denied. This decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission within ten (10) days from the date of this letter. The appeal must be submitted in writing, together with the W-00 fee, to the Planniny Division. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, M LAITY VELOPME DEP MENT PL LAIN ^ -. U ISION 4 oleman Senior Planner OC:ns cc: Brad Buller t 1320 BASELINE ROAD, SUITE C • POST OFFICE BOX 807. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730 . (714)989-1851 ! o 9 19ii March 12, 1986 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA .11.'w Jon D. 3likels Charlcs J. Buquet 11 Jeffrev King Richard,X.Dahl PamelaJ.Wright Larry Tieman Tower Partr €rs 1601 South Dove Street, Suite 160 Newport Beach, California 9260 SUBJECT: VIRGINIA DARE WINERY BUSINESS CENTER UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM Dear Mr. Tieman: The Planning Division has re:tiewed the revised plans for the Sign 1p Program. Staff has concerns in two areas, completel:gss of program and design of signs. Staff has previously provi('id tht; architect with examples of sign programs to show layout and content. At present, the program is still inadequate in the following areas: Elevations Show complete elevations with exact location of all proposed signs. The elevat= _. _Mould show a maximumssgn "envelope'" with dimensions. Written Sign Criteria Provide a written description of sign locations, sizes, 1 ^t';ering style, colors, materials, amount of rows permitted, and illumination. Site Plan In addition to site plan provided, show footprints of individual or groups of buildings. In consideration of the effort that has been taken in order to preserve the Tower Building and tta overall theme of the center, Staff, ,annot support the use of individual illuminated channel letters or can signs in the center. Staff recommends the use of painted solid cast aluminum letters for all wall signs and redwood sandblasted signs +.for trellis and food court areas. In addition, it should be understood that all tenants shall be required to follow the Ur;form Sign Program without ezbeption. 9320 BASELINE ROAD, SUITE C • POST OFFICE BOX 807 • RANCHO CUCABiONGA. CALIFURNIA 91730 • (719) 989 -1851 id F- 1?esign S_ t�ndards 1• Generally . The design standards set forth for all signing. i n this chapter shall be adhered to 2. Architectural St le That each sign is designed with the intent and purpose to relate to the architectural style of the gain building or buildings upon the site, and to the exteixt not inconsistent with such style, that the sign will be compatible with the style or character of existit s; improvements upon lots adjacent to the site. Signs located on commercial sites but in a predominantly residential area, shat consider compatiblity with such mm� residential area. = sn= MIR S• Re1dinj sh.p to Buildin s. Signs locate3 upon a lot with only one main building h°usma the enterprise which the sign identifies, shall be designed to incorporate at least one of the predominantly visual elements of such as detsaing'sach sign to atedf upon a lottwith more than one main building, oche d sign as a shopping center or other commercial or industrial area develoed in accorda;lce with a common development plan, shall be designed to tK " incorporate at least one of such predominantly visual �(e elements "h. common or similar to all such buildings or the buildings a:eupied by the " ° tt 'main tenants' or y ondit on its approval of enterprises. to require more development director i element to be incorporated into design of the sign where such element or elements is necessary to achieve a significant visual relationship between the sign and building or buildings. 4• Relationship to Other Si ns. jYSere there is more than one monument sign located upon a lot, all such signs shall have designs which are well related to each other by the similar treatment or incorporation of not less than four of the following six design elements: (a) Type of construction materials as used in' he several sign components (such as cabinet, sign copy, supports), (b) Letter style of sign coy. (c) Illumination. (d) Type of method used for supports, uprights or stZucture on which sign is supported. (e) Sign cabinet or other configuration of sign area. (f) Shape of entire sign and its sever$I components. 5. n Dimensions. The dimensions of the sign cabinet, if any configuration of the dimensions of the sign area of each sign shall be r proportional to and visual! �`' or other 5 balanced with the size of the building. -21- i r- 0 Fes+ E s -ac) .. 40i 1, ate' nog °s d a 3 .age ' $ it ate• � c St at0L yam E =a2 n0 Proy�v A. E°" EE �Z a°i0 N J d +C O yN� E vF�. U A '� _ Q `. . w As r N cvat = G N:5-E rod y °c uA Cd y� sL °a ac aN> d'� ce >.7MM�� v C m4° nN� EN ya v oc. y °t c = L �u�° O j(�j {FF{ Qy�t OC O t]�rm b'A h�c. ° C nC TA U E C..'^.. 'E V a; ti ci v d A U arii CL f /7 -V tt T U o '� ar°a°P0 t•,pb m X ,C C1 C ° r• � !Is �.,� O a( � GV. Na°w �`CL Hb 7+Mat � V ° C h O ° � u Y is o z �a g +qi �N et 'Ri a... g� m ty 5' $ to N a ■ NE =! n oo a a zU�` cEUg 0' >� .a. nao d °me 9 O b 6 b 6 E«oti yy�� tl cE 0 $i !°'«a,E�S Y G V O O U Cq 0 O .. ° 3 Y c LH. oxi: N F O Z� 0. v 0 } vsF c ? `o ev 3 a0 °e mE 3ne BE v ucutv�T y N Au .O.2E ..Q L'.6y > q 'U .H (} E `._a�NO a wv u g V1.�C NN yC It aye E aE `�' s -ac) .. 40i 1, ate' 0 -_ - -- I VJ: 4U1,.rtUYLUiX 3A GL uO STAFF REPORT 2 s C 0 t ^may U v e DATE: May 28, 1986 19777 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT .REVIEW 85 -48 APPEAL - GOLDEN WEST An appeal of a Condit-ton of Approval requlring he u 3ergrounding of existing overhead utilities fronting the project, located at the northeazt corner of 7th Street and Helima7 Avenue - APN 209- 131- 20, -36, 49, 50, 51, & 52. I. ABSTRACT: The developer is r :,questing tkat the Planning Commission e e e H e Condition of Approval requiring the under.,rounding ..F existing overhead utilities along the WIman Avenue frontage of the proj -t. Staff is recommending that the request by denied. II. BACKGROUND: The Environmental Assessment for t:ie project was approved -by ue Planning Commission on February 12, 1986. The Conditions of Approval were established by the City Planner and presented to the applicant by a letter dated April 3, 1986 (see attached copy). Engineering Division Condition No. 2 on the second page is the condition in question. The loca'- -n of the utility lines in question and their relation to the prole�t are shown on Exhibits "A" and "Be'. III. ANALYSIS: The discussion to follow is keyed to the lett,_m of appeal—submitted by the developer (copy attached). First Paragraph: The developer references Standard Condition item sectlOn 0 - Utilities as the condition he wants to have deleted. A minor error was made by staff in that it has been ~ecent standard practice to line through the pc.,tion of this Standard Condition "including utilities along ma,3r arterials 12KY and less" and covering utility undergrounding with a. Special Condition. In this instance, the lining through of the section was not done, however the governing Special Condition, No, 2 under Engineering Division was completed. By way of this clarification, hopefully it is apparent that the actual condition for appeal is Special Condition No. 2. Second Paragraph: A cop; of the refere.•..?d City Ordinance No. 11 one Title 13j is attached (refer to the marked section on Page 154). The purpose of Ordinance No. 11 was to establish crit`Ja for the expenditure of Rule "d funds on City utility undergrout.dtng projects. The policy to require undergrounding as a condition of ITEM T 1 k PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT � DR 85 -48 APPEAL - GOLDEN WEST hay 28, 11986 ' Page 2 I land developnent was established by the Planning Commission, i therefore, Ordinance No. 11 doez not apply. Second Paragraph - Item (1): The light load concept is contained in Ordinance No. 11. However, the Planning Commission's policy requires that all utilities on all streets be undergrcunded. Therefore, the concept does not apply: The fact that the number of utilities- is a lcssor amount, a stated, makes it easier (less expensive) for the developer to underground them. r Second Paragraph - Item C1. Ayai^, the concepts presented in the section relate to drdinance No. 11 which does not apply to the Planning Commission's established policy. It should be noted tlat staff feels that Hellman will carry an ever increasing amount o, traffic as development in the City increases and other north /south i' arterial streets become more congested. [. Second Paragraph - Item (3): Exhibit "C" shows the status of — development along Hellman Avenue. It is appartent Viat there is a significance amount of vacant land along the reach front 7th Street to 9th Street that can underground utilities upon development. Again, it is L: a Planning Commission's policy to underground wherever possible as a starting point for eventual total undergrounding within the city. Two recently approved projects (Tract No. 12420 and Parcel Map No. 9280, shown on Exhibit "c") have been conditioned to pay fees for future undergrounding of the lines along k: ­in Avenue. Second Paracr. Team 4): It is true that Hellman Avenue is a major water cgs f street. Staff requested that the developer obtain written 'verification from the utility companies that undergrounding would expose the utilities 'to drainage and create a possible hazard. Ps. correspondence to this effect has been received. Wherever utilities are placed underground, they will be subject to water runoff to a lessor or greater degree than in this location. If water damage is of concern to the utility companies, then the lines could be placed ouside of the proposed water barrier along the street (refer to Exhibit "D "). The :ondition requiring the developer to underground the utilities adjacent to the project limits appears to be in compliance with the es',..blished Planning Cure fission policy. If the Commission were to grant the appeal, staf; would request direction as to what extent the decision wound apply to other similar eavelopments, either _ along Hellman avenue (within what linC ts) or other similar streets, l�u g PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF Rb "ORT J DR 85 4E APPEAL - GOLDEN NEST J m" May 28, 1986 Page 3 IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the appeal be denied and, in ,- order to clay% the limits of undergroun;.'ing, Special Condition No. 2 be replaced with the following ccndition: "Thr ;xisting overhead utilities along Hellman Avenue shall be underground from the first existing pole south of °7th Street io the' first existing pole north of the project limits prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit. The dl- eloper shall be elig4ble for reimbursement of one half of the cost of undergrounding from future developmepts as they occur on the upposite side of the s ,reet." Respectfully submitted, 6 "hle �r Sarrye Hanson Senior Civil Engineer Planner SH:ko Attachments: Project Approval Letter Code Title 13 (portion of) j Developer's Appeal Letter Exhibits "Al., "BILE 1%C,s & I'D" 'Tr'GClrptC' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA C � � � d1c+lerJoTID.JIikeis r A La$ _z fouxeilmrmAen: _ a Charles J. Bu< uet li 1477 I Jetirer [Cur; Richard Ji. Dah1 I'amcla 1.1t ris;ht April 3, 1986 Alan Bel ohl avek Carli Architecture { 1608 West Glentaks Blvd. Glendale, California 91201 i SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-48 Dear Mr. Belohiavek: The development review process for the above project has been S "Ccessfully complete: end approval has been granted based upon the following findings snd �-- .'itions. Thank you for your participation and cooperation dur;ng this process. We si.icerely hope that this process has been a p Sit ve experience for all involved. This decision shall be ef$lctive rollowing a ten -day appeal period beginning with the date of t,,i s l p tier. Aft Findings A. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the industrial Area Specific Plan and the purpose of the zone in which the site is located. B. That the proposed use together with the conditions applicable thereto will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applirabl,e provisions of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Conditions This project is approved subject to the following conditions and attached standard conditions. Planning Division 1. 'Building accent bands and reveal lines to ue continued along the rear of the two (2) buildings along the north boundary line. �« T t 9320 BASELI,STE ROAD, SMTE C POST OFFICE BOX 807 - RAXCIIO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA 91730 • ((Idi 9s� -1BS A Mr. Belohlavek March 24, 5986 Page 2 AMIL 2. Establish continuous pedestrian /landscape linkage along center throat from 7th Street to Building "G" & "H".. 3. The combination of the orange accent band and red accent treatment shall nat be used on any building. 4. Before painting the rnd accent treatment, an actual point sample shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Planner. 5. Provide texturized pavement for the connecting walkways between the public sidewalks on 7th Street and interior pedestrian walkways, Buildings "A" & "E", "3" & A, "E" & "H" and "D" & G. Continue this same texturized treatment with landings or adjacent walkways along the main throat off of 7th Street. (See attached detailed plan Exhibit "An) 6. Increase landscaping at the south end of Building "D" cast elevation in th, order of three trees and vine pockets. 7. Provide two seat bench areas at the south end of Building "E" west elevation. 8. Provide a minimum of four feet wide landscapped planters plus a pedestrian walk on the west and east sides of Buildings "A" & "B" respectively. 9. See Department of Community Development Standard Conditions. Engineering Dir:sion: I. Notice of intent to join the proposed Median Island Landscape Dist.ict shall be fi;sd with the City Council prior to building permit issuance. -- -Y 2. Existing overhead utilities on Hellman Avenue fronting the Project shall be placed underground prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit. All utilities within the project shall be installed underground. Reimbursement agreement for one -half the cost of undergrounding these utilities may be requested by the developer. Please note that home conditions require Completion of certain items Prior to issuance of Euilding pe, ; 'Tv 1 l Mr. Belohlavek March 24, 1936 Page 3 Should yo:i have any questions, Tease contact Dino office, Putrino of this Thank you for your complete cooperation. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLAN WING DIVISION Brad BuTier City Planner BB:DP :das v is o..• I'. c '^ E o P �a a G Y � � G O•^ L +i ei w w n va Yu^ l � t V A S � 4 4 N I. L. q V..J �O L • q a°VIgtY �y� �9 ° 2 ;�� �q � �, `NT LNG x' w�O •.. U: •G.LV CY �? UT D.7 VAC o�. y. OVd Q..x � L � WG K >. j..^ 6f Uy Q� � 1 � • IH Yl 1� q • N /7 Q � n 1p « M « O Gn 0I jU `UUd Yo ° •- e a s x °�'c a '^ L L °u ~°• tY' � L a �°- 0 o qev a� a d ° ..« IF Fy °or x L N dE` SM du u.` a E�.xi Zi n 0 oa OO q � v e n�+ ►e ad ii � ^.s. �' a Ny 2 u _ x4 ° U YxA a. A L G �• a L ��'+• 0..• V.V � 0.a C O ?x Y °GG «4 .Y 4 q OV01 d 7d! 'msµ o°. ra `L 4 d_C a Yq naG YE V•°OL TtOO, •Y+V q Ow. YY^ wL... � ua . �U i.�m.C• .°.w @r vV OG LV l� C. a q r )�U-w KGN a4,N .tZd d u ='• L� LOi. 6v t April 10, 1986 �� tS' Lloyd Hubbs, City Enggineer CITY OF RANCHO CUCAi�lONGA Gf APt;.w CUCAAIO( ;rA P.O. Box 807 V!G°'NEES!NG C°. °liz!0ti Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 -0807 Subject: Project Approval Appeal Letter - Fil.:T DR 85 -43 City ordinance Number 11 Underground Utility Districts Gentlemen: Pursuant to your letter dated April 3, 198E from Brad Buller, City Planner, to Alan Belohlavek, Carli Architecture, we request to appeal Item 3, Section O - Utilities, of the Department of Community Devc• opment Standard Conditions for DR 85 -48. The condition states, "....all utilities within the project shall be installed underground including utilities along major ar.:erials 12XV and less ". It is felt that our project does P_z meet the three (3) criteria established by City Ordnance Number 11 to require the installation of offsite utilities to be underground. The following reasons support this request; Y 1) Utilities along Hellman Avenue are light load and not heavily concentrated overhead or planned to be in the future. 2) Hellman Avenue is a lightly traveled roadway (1800 cpd vs. 27,500 cpd on Archibald) and does not pass through a civic area, public • recreation ama or an area of scenic interest at the locatiyn of the project. 3) The majority'of Hellman Avenue is improved with existing overhead line services. Under- grounding-small portions of this street would be inconsistent with the intent of the ordinance. 4) Hellman. Avenue is designed to be a major water carrying street. ;High volume surface flows re- quire special curbing and parkway devices in street right -of -way. Underground facilities ' in this street would be subject to extensive ' water damage and �r g possible hazards. EN 0 1949 3o. State College Blvd., Anaheim, California 92806 (714 W l � jos " f April, IQ, 148fi CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Page 2 Based. on the reasons, it is our contention that installation Of utilities underground is not necessary for this particular We project_ request that you find Condition 3, sub - heading 0 - Utilities of Standard Conditions to be non - applicable. Please respond to this formal appeal as soon as possible. At this time, the project is being submitted for permit plan check. Very truly yours, GOLDEN TIE'S'T EQUITY PROEPRTIES, INC. i Bruce McDonald Sr. V {,;i�i President /Operations BMD /rm i cc: Brad Buller, City .Planner Dino autrino, Asst. Planner �_-1 ._�.. 3: • .. .au1, ti .h.. .a.. .ex.. .. ., _ _ - '. A 'SSYY� N 13.04.010 Title 13 PUBLIC SERVICES Chapters: 13.04 Underground Utility Districts 13708 Storm Drainage Plan Chapter 13.04 UNDERGROUND ;UTILITY DISTRICTS Sections: 13.04.010 Definitions. 13.04.020 ,`—Iic hearing by council. 13.04.030 ;t7ndergrour.d utility districts designated by Ivesol "cation. 13.04.040 Unlawful acts. 13.04.050 Exception - Emergency or unusual circumstances. 13.04.060 Other exceptions. 13.04.0 70 Notice to property owners and utility com- panies. 13.04.080 Responsibility of utility companies. ` 13.04.090 Responsibility of property owners. 13.04.100 Responsibility of city. 13.04.110 Extension cf time. 13.04.12E Qiolation Penalty. 13.04.010 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter the following words and phrases shall have the meanings set out below: A. "Commission" means the Public utilities Commission of the state. B. "Person" means and includes individuals, firms, corporations, partnerships, and their agents and employees. C. "Poles, overhead wir s and associated overhead structures" means poles , towers, supports, wires, conductors, guys, stubs, platforms, crossarms, braces, transformers, insulators, cutouts, switches, communication circuits, appliances, attachments and appurtenances located aboveground with a district and used or useful in supplying electric, communication or similar or associated service. D. "Underground utility district" of "district" means that area in the city within which poles, overhead wires, and associated overhead structures are prohibited as such area is described in a resolution adopted pursuant to the prov% sions of Section 3 of this ordinance. 153 r� XO //. n f _3,04.020 -- 13.04.030 E. "Utility" includes all persons or entities s electric, communication or s' applying 'means of electrical materials ordevicessociated service by (Ord. 11 51 1978). 13,04.020 Public hearin b ccuncil. The council may from time to time ca11 public hearings to ascertain whether the public necessity, health, safety or welfare requires the removal of poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures within designated areas of the city and the underground installation of wires and facilities for suugly- ing electric, communication, of similar or associated serv.,ce. The city clerk shall notify a.11>affected property owners as shown on the last equalized asl,essment roll and utilities concerned by mail of the time a\d place of such hearings at least ten days prior to the date hereof. Each such hearing shall ba open to the public , ?nay be continued from time to time. At each such hearing all persons interested shall be given an opportunity to�,be heard. The decision of the council shall be final and conclusive. (Ord. 11 92, 1978). 13.04. 030 Underrrr^ —A ,i yam, a--ter any sucn public hea ;ing the council findere public necessity, health, safety or welfare requires such removal and such underground installation within a designated area, the council s1. 11, by resolution, declare such designated j area an underground utility district and order such removal and underground installation. ® S. The council shall also make one or more of the following findings: I. That such undergrouiiding will avoid or eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of overhead electric facili- ties; 2. The street or road right -of -way is extensively used by the general public and carries a heavy volume of pedestrian or vhicular traffic; 3. TLe street or road right -of -way passes through a civic area Or Public rGOreation area or an area of unusual scenic interest to the general public. C. Such resolution shall include a description of the area comprising such district and shall fix the time within Which such removal and underground installation shall be accomplished and within which affected property owners must be ready to receive underground service. A reasonable ,time shall be allowed for such removal and underground installation, having due regard for the availability of funds, labor, materials and equipment necessary for such removal and for the installation of such underground facilities as may be occasioned thereby. (Ord. 11 53, 1978). 154 ERA ,, k m 8th STREET EXISTING t� 1 jug RESIDENTIAL (� ❑o U Y 1 i'L1p�•'1 7{ w , EXISTING, RE D SIDENTIAL EXISTING INDUSTRIAL 13t1{LDINQt F-1 a q L Ern w o o. 4t x a {{ N w 'Col C x 5 �r N�� Ii ;�•� tt �y� ghj r �r � ,a �' rt. ��T^F'r''Y`l..Tr iX1{p1�}Si��.t�.�*�ira' r',•1.''y.3M1�4.3�La`� •� 7th STREET Co to r EXISTING ,AESIDEN T IAC 4—Existing !Utility i �r t.. Pole (Typical) '— DR $5 48 UTILITY LOCATIONS A » rl 0 *OUTHEAST CORNER 7th s HELLMAN - -KING SOUTH CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' ENoGI mm=G DI'mIoN Ll HELLMAN LOOKING NORTH FROM SEVENTH r� P6 1 ITEM: OR 85 -48 TITI�'h PHOTOS OF UTILITIES T -13 Iltt W W • o J V H CD co z w cc w LU r% U c x 00 a of O 0 -j si ui r% U c x 00 a of O a T° 15 O W � KI 0 ![TTV P1T T] A ATI`iTSr% /�TTl1 A 1XrVKTJ� A R .�.aa OOU4,Y:YIOA ^9. STAFF REPORT � l r _ 0 O E Z tJ > 1977 DINE: May 28, 1986 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Bruce. Cook, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW FOR TT 10035 - WESTERN DEVELOPMENT - A request for review of site plan and building architecture for Lots 38, 37, and 38 in an approved residential subdivision of 15.7 acres in the Low Residential District (2 -4 dwelling units per acre), located south and east of Red Hill Lountry Club Drive, south of Calle Carazon - APN: 207 -631 -1 thru 23, and 207 -641 -1 thru 15. I. BACKGROUND: This tract was originally approved for 12 months on March 25, 1981, and subsequently granted an eighteen (18) month extension by the Planning Comm;ssion on January 13, 1982. The applicant requested a final eighteen (18) months extension on August 10, 1983. At that time, several concerns were brought up pertaining to this project and the item was continued to the September 14, 1982 meeting to allow the applicant to respond to the Comnissi(,n's concerns. Of particular concern to the Commission was the appropriateness of the project's design relative to the 'shape and topography of the site. Red Hill is a lardform designated as having City -wide significance and projects are to be designed to minimize alterations to the natural lan0orm. The Commission has concerned that the design of the subdivision was' 'more conducive to a standard, "flat land" subdivision, and was skeptical of development being designed to fit the hillside nature of the property. Another concern was that due to the severity of slope, extensive cut and fill of the site might subject the area to unreasonable potential for slope failure. The project applicant at the time, at the time, assured the Commission that the intent of the subdivision was for custom homes designed sensitive to the physical constraints of the ,.ite.. As a method to ensure the sensitive development of the site, the Commission conditioned that any developed of the tract would be subject to Desigp Review. II. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of precise plot plan, grading plan and building footprints and elevations For unit development on Lots 36, 37 and 38 in a recorded tract. ITEM U PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW FOR TT 10035 - WESTERN DEVELOPMENT May 28, 1986 Page 2 B. Project Density: 2.4 dwelling units per acre I C. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Single Famfl:jy Residential, Low Residential (2 -4 dulac) South - Vacant Lando General Commercial and Office /Prof�> -a ional East Flood Contro? Channel, Vacant; Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac) and Medium Residential (8 -14 du /ac) j West Single and Multi- Family Residential; Office /Professional and Flood Control Corridor 0. General Plan Designations Project Site - Low Resiaer_,.al (2 -4 dulac) North Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac) South - Commercial and Office East F1:; Control Corridor and Office West - Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac) and Medium Residential (8 -14 du /ac) E. Site Characteristics: The site is currently vacant, and slopes south and southeasterly with a maximum relief of about 100 feet. The site has moderate growth of grass, weeds, shrubs, and some trees, along the southeast boundary the site abuts the southern Pacific Railroad right -of -way. I III. ANALYSIS• i A. General: This tract was approved as a custom lot, subdivision. It is located in the Red Hill area characterized by custom hil','side homes. The intent of the Planning Commission in approving this subdivision was to co..�inue the unique hillside custom home character by utilizing hillside construction techniques, including extended depth footings, built-up foundations, split -level pads, etc,, that would create houses that fit the naturae terrain and minimize the necessity for grading. That character can also be enhanced by using a variety of architectural form, color and texture. Three house plans are proposed ranging in size from 2,ZOO,_quare feet to 2,400 square feet. Floor plans show three bedroom and three car garage units. In all cases the garage is split -level from the living area. However, the grading proposed is for the development of building pads (see Exhibit "G"). Exhibit "F" shows the approved cross-sectinns for hillside construction for this tract. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW FOR TT 10035 — WESTERN DEVELOPMENT May 28, 1986 Page 3 B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee has reviewed i the project and did not recommend approval based on the following i concerns: Grading: 1. There should be greater use of sprit level i foundations to minimize grading. 2. The use of balconies /decks should be considered to provide private open space as opposed to graded rear yards. Architecture: 1. The idea of a consistent design element to create a neighborhood theme is fine, but a greater variety o7 architectural style, materials, textures, and colors should be incorporzted to individualize and stylize units to create a "custom" design and avoid the appearance of "tract" homes. 2. Tile roofs shall be used ' with all building elevations. 3. All elevations to have stylized, upgraded treatments on all four sides including trim around windows and vents. Landscap na 1. Landscaping irrigation systems should be automatically controlled to ensure continued maintenance. 2. Plant species selected and planted should all be of a fire "retardant nature. The applicant has requested Planning Comr"ission review and approval without approval by Design Review Committee. The applicant fee7s that his architecture is appropriate and would prefer to proceed with building elevations as presented. The applicant indicatet that he has made the following revisions to the plans and Elevations since the last Design Review meeting: 1. Revised color schemes for all 3 lots. 2. Enlarged the residence on Lot 38. ' PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW FOR TT 10035:- 'STERN DEVELOPMENT May 28, 1986 Page 4 4 Amok 3. Revised the roof on '.ot 38 to a hip roof from a r gabled roof. 4. Indicated vertical batten and board siding on Lot R: 38. C. Gradinq Committee: The Grading Committee has reviewed the project and has determined that the grading plan is technically correct, i.e., the lots will drain water. However, the grading Committee is not making a recommendation based on the position that the design of s the grading plan and its consistency to grading policies is a policy decision to be deferred to the Planning Commission for review and determination. Red Hill is a landform designated as having City -wide signficance and projects are to be designed to minimize alteration of the natural ` landform. The subdivision was approved with the intent that structures would be built consistent with hillside construction practices in which minimal grading is accomplished to site the garage and orovide access to the house, with the rest of the structure being designed to conform to the natural landform 'employinq ,,r_ construction techniques as extended depth footings, split- leve'i pads­ ads, .►nd built -up foundati ^ns. Exhibit "F" displays a cross- section that demonstrates the physical arranging of how hillside construction techniques are employed. In considering the conceptual grading scheme, several issues to consider are: t 1. Using true hillside techniques in which the only grading done is for the garage and driveway versus allowing some shaping of the lot to be accomplished F as proposed. It should be noted that if practices of contour grading are followed, many times the reshaping of the land can be an improvement over the I f' natural condition. 2. Whether grading is to be kept at a minimum, or more extensive grading is to be allowed to create areas of flat, usable yard space. In considering this item, it should be noted that open space could be provided using alternative means such as balconies, decks, raised patios, or some similar form of built structure. 3. Whether grading should be confined to within the limits of the property line, or whether more extensive grading should be allowed to extend beyond property lines. A case in point can be made for a PLANNIMG COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW FOR TT 10035 WESTERN DEVELOPMENT May 28, 1986 Page 5 AW more extensive grading scheme. If grading is to be c ntrolled to be er'cirely within the limits of the property limits if the property lines, then in hillside areas means such as retaining walls or slopes are ,.f *-n rscessary to return the graded area to meet natural contours. An often times resulting phenomena from this situation is a condition know as "hogback This is an unaesthetic hump between two properties caused by requiring the graded ground to be shaped to meet natural within the confines of the property line. This condition can be eliminated by allowing grading to be extended across property lines The developer has submitted models of the three lots to help vivalize the issues described above. These models will be available for the Commission's review at the public hearing. IV. FACTS FO" INDINGS: For the Commission to approve this project, it must eT ter,,,aed that this project is consistent with the General Plan; that the proposed use is in accordance with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the District in which the site is located; that the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions L* the Development Code; and that the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Additionally, the , -immission should also determine if the proposal is consistent with the in':ent of the original subdivision to provide "custom" homes styled to fit -,'he natural topography with a mi;timum of grading. V. RECOMMENDATION: After consideration of all material and input, the Planning Cormiission should pursue one of two options: 1. Deny the request based on the findings of the Design _.Re4iew Committee that architecture is not consistent with the intent of the original subdivision to provide "custom" homes styled to fit the natural topography with a minimum of grading. A Resolution of Denial is provided should the Commission decide to pursue this option; or, 2. Approve the request. A Resolution of Approval with Conditions is provided <,hould the Commission decide to pursue this option. Res uliy submi tad, ✓j Brad Buller City Planner PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW FOR TT 10035 - WESTERN DEVELOPMENT May 28, 1986 k Page 6 Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit 118" —Area Utilization Exhibit "C" - ;jSubdivison Map Exhibit "D" - 'Grading Plan Exhibit ''E° - Landscape Plan Exhibit "F" - Hillside Development - Cross- Sectiors Exhibit "G" - Lot Grading - Cross - Sections Exhibit "H" - Lot 36 - House Plans Exhibit "I" - Lot 37 - House Pla.,s Exhibit "J" - Lot 38 - House Plans Letter from Pete Volbeda, Dated January 24, 1986 Resolution No. 81 -34 Resolution of Denial Resohution o! Approval with Conditions P k r �i a ky Ai. .. .. 4 lu LJ NOR- -11 i�ttTH CI'T'Y CAF rrE?vi: "�" IC035 RANCHO PLt1NNM DR%ION SC.ritE,!� . 1 roc S.E. 1.4 SE 114 Sec T.I�'4 ?W. S9Q. &A9. Ronal*cl Tax Rase A 15011 ,15012 .�` ccuR !01` 1- 40 , 1:. .�j 5 v )Q) i / is >.i. aeory 1 l rt wA 3 ljVQAf a l • 2 SIC Por Red lid: Sub �•%` -ls6 .21!33 Assessor'. Par cu:arrongo Fruit Loods. US 419 P:r G_womorro vw7eyord Tuc! SuL`B !rI@ 20/45 Nota- Assessors Btk a Lot Baah -0i ' Numbers Sham in Cwcks Srn BArrn 6 �"ZT'I\URTH CITEI OF Rc a1 vT ...1 ilJ TTEtb1� �7�. CUCAMONG , ` Tom, HABIT= ?� .. SCALE---- - ✓' .'Sir �� - _r°'. ` i � .'-.•c � t_._ =� \ i`� ff �l`- )� �� ���� a � qtr ..r% 1 r• /()1 ��� ! r' j �. �;.� % /.�fi h ';.'7%i:� �rl1i ~i1t�4"�'��F `!�f'*�'- '� T r f•. /��-- C��..I ' )I �r� ' i � i f r!/ r ��. r tJ ,T'`�(�..%r •% /" t Mfr l� I / �r j�, i�rl, / i r ✓ �. //^��_Jf ��\ " � t! (7: ,i < ))� Wit, r . -VFi �... r �y ;�.}..7✓ � ..� � �'— riy;r� ; 4s`,�� ,�r�• i /r r, � , jam. t �` f! � �i `' Y � i +' � ✓•T�f J 'f et'r+'J F �' �' � \`'� ��� -�� -ter°' ;�����„-.. ''r �`JX "•rte '�. F� �l is 3 ��• �+�+' a' !'' �'i'' /.' /,, T : � � �G�1 ./tom , "✓: C i TrrLE: � . • PLANNING DWLs�A\T VICIRITY MAP KNOWAR( FINAL GRADIN PL pj' FOR LOTS 1.2.6 AND 36-38 TRACT NO 10035 alwCFNERAL NprEg WNW y _ .wwias.w+�nr LOCATION YAP C V i NORTH RANCHO CLTU MONGA TITU. - ...> PLMNUNUG EYHIBIT :,,_SCALE: r. �TfO- sy . Pt!i3O CrrY CF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLAIetI` Mr , DVl i NORTH Trra. _ HXHIBTI' :' -'? SCAM----- _ El .,. o 1 xcz��• �.r.u• ..a�.r.... xns4t �3[[�TICMy N t[[[IO Z r wisaa ,K .N%" mot+•. + °� •� i r j i �� � OR.�aMCe uem° s•s iE ,r f'� „ - NORTH ir7��•�y� RANC143 C�UCAMONGA ��� PLANNUI G DNZSION car ti .� EXHIBIT.-V—=!5L— %-'ALE a:�4 ` '•� �yy�w`.y µ YW Mwwi w+�: w�qy� I , 1 NORTH m. MY CF TCAMOTXCA RANCHO CL 'i'!'m. j M► - _.,..^ALE, 1 U-13 ." t \mss .�_.m�S...+...�.•�+.�.� l it v 4r J 1. j \ . \.y vcll ©FL U-1 e r • `. i ill¢ -- F6'G"'• T1 ;,OT Sri JNIT M pp� LO'( °3 Q•L Opt" 2. . s• r11 s Wi)'1URB a8a. s• eSCTcM -=-- . . — t CITY OF MEND RANCHb PLANNING T iV1 �rGA Tfn E: - vG JT4 Q�j EXHl :t 1 &L-j L L.-� __ _ - NORTH CITY OF RANCIFjO C UCAIV aNGA ANNING IxSlOIV - - 0 PL tt C t a t r� -- e — V NORTK a';1Mc o Cj �_l '01 if l� -- - -- _ _ ... 1.:,_ ua >r coew.m<u — - EL�v Ttok1 I . G NORTH CITE OF - a _ A ii7 T T Wild..�S.L�ref_ . , l"� • .. S�[u \C CL ; PLANT` 21r, DNI$M EXHIBIT: . scaLEI u -18 �. MLVM F-� -1 �. �.r E i I I i i I C4GV9.7'foF3 � V E NORM CITY OF rrE?Vl -2 RANTCFD CLCAMONGA TmE: i { t AGGTIOU YAP -- 0 t -- re-WI> M-r- NOM CITY OF rrFvl. RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: PLANNec I EXHiBrr-. SCALE ---------- r I i . NORTH CITY OF RANT CHb C�CAMO\GA �: - - P"NNuvr, N ff ~ i R j; _ Yv �_���yj r� •fit •L�-•. .� �_�. _ -Mn . _ NORTH CITY CF " Ito RANCHO CUCAMONGA WrL-lz: :L PLANNING DMDON EXHIBIT= "" J9 91 1 r E V NORTH CITY OF T RANCS:- HO CUJCAM0NGA TrrE: PLAWNC, MOON ExHIBIT =_ scA cx� � f0 I.rn �r` rr t 4 1 s ..F rbNV Vi. tl NORTH CITY r O RANT CF .J - CLr C gV O G A TTTTFFLiE= • PLANNING JVISON -- EXHiBnr: , f 1. zy . L1 MR H CI'T'Y OF � Y RANCHO Cj,rT T TTFrbI�t" -'L �1`IA.MOTNGA Tom. F7.ANNI1` I }[' LWq 7 EXHIBrr. e �t -aLV El t �� if - �.� � ((N +. --e-.. •—° � .r+� r a� +w�"�„_�' I-�,N! �., ! — rl Ir NORTH MY OF � RANCHO CUCAMaNGA Trf U.- III' 1. a NORTH CITY OF MONGA PI.ANNM LDnrjSkvN I 1 l* 199 S. MONTE VIt, A N04 SAN DIMAA, CA.91773 7i4598-8000. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTENTION; BRUCE COOK 9326 BASELINE RD, SUZTF C' RANCHO CUCAMONGA, C:A, X1736 SUBJECT: TRACT 10635 JANUARY 24r 1586 DEAR SIRS; i WE HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE SITE AND GRADING PLANS AND EXTERIOR DESIGNS Ok LOTS'36v 37 AND 38 BE FJEV EWER BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL. WE UW0CRS ANl0 THAT WE ARE SUBMXTT;NG TidIS WITHOUT THE DESIGN REVIEW COV"MITTEE'S RECOrjm NDATYGNS. WE ARE REQUESTING THIS SINCE WE HAVE DELETED LETS Is 2 AND B FROtt —,HIS APPLICATION, THUS DELETING MANY OF THE CONCERNS OF THE COMMITTEE. WE NAVE MADE THE FOLLOWING REVISIONS TO THE PLANS ANn ELEVATIONS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW MEETING. 1. REVISED TS-iE COLOR SCHEMES FOR THE 3 2. ENLARGED THE RESIDENCE ON LGT 39 3 REVIScsS THE ROOF ON LOT 3B TO A HF" 'F FROM A GABLL.D ROOF 4.. lAjD!CATZD VERTICAL BATTEN AND BOP' _ INS ON 'LOT 3R 6-c !PAVE PROVIt2E'D '.T"wa GRADING CONCEPTS FOR THESE UPHILL, LOTS. .OA9 _ INDDICATEq A USABLE REAR YARD kWA WITH ADDITIONAL CUT PEQUMED FOR Tf,- SL ME BEKrND TPZ HClUSE• THE OTHEK INDICATES L.FSS OF A REAR YARD AREA WITH MINIs4AL CUTS REQUIRED ON THE SLPPE. WE WOULZ LIKE T4 HAVE THE PLANNING C9MMISSION RE4i''_r"4 THIS IT,4 -A. WE ALZG WANT TO NDICh f7 CUR R7::OLUTIOA OF THE SRALING COMMITTEE ITPNS DATED I AND 2, AU 'ADDENDUPI ::ILL. BE ISSUED C!N -HE SOIL REPORT TO ANSWER THESE Qt,E,, yIONS. 10P Its 12P 13 DOWNHILL WILL FURTHER ADDRESSED �A FINAL GRADING PLANS. WHERE SLOPE CABLEASSRADI�E CONCERNS FOR THE DOWNH . ;L '.DTS WILL BE ADDRESSED WHEN THESE HESE Y = ttti SIGNS ARE 5€IBMxTTEL+ TO TtiE DESIGN REVIEW AND GRADING COMMITTEE AT A LATER � DATE. 4 A LAi'ZSCAF'E PLAN WILL 3k PROVIDED BY A REGISTERED LANDSCAPE � ARCHITr" }x WORKING ORAVINO PHASE. I .,I f 199 S. MONTE VISTA NO 4 SAN DIMAS, CA.91771 1 714 599-80gj 9r 14 AND 15. ADDITIONAL SECTIONS FOR THE UPHILL LOTS `. °_E ATTACHED. i. TRANSPAREhT REPM,-.TIONS OF ELEVATIONS WIC,L BE € FQVIDED PRIOR TO PLANNING ComkiSSIOIY MEETING. @' INCERELY i� j P TE VOLHEDA CC WEST: RN DEVELOPMENT MIM !"ACK fU • I 1 0 i 4q�+x i a r G RESOLUTION N0. 81-34 A RESOLUTIOW OF .THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APFROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 10035 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract ;yap No, 10035, hereinafter "Map" submitted by The Developers, applicant, for the purpose of sub- ,Viding the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga; County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as a custom lot subdivision of 15.7 acres of land in the R -1 -12 zone, located south and east of Red Hill Country Club Drive, south of Caile Corazon - APN 207 - 101 -37 znd 207 - 092-10 into 38 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for Pvblic hearing and action on March 25, 1981; and WHEREAS, the City Piannet- has recommended approval. of the Map subject to all conditions sut forth in the Engineering and planning Divisions reports; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning G visions reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, TVF.REFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga doer, resolve as follows: SECTION 1`: The Planning, Commissibn makes the following findings ir: regard to Tentative Tract No, 10035 and the Map thereof (a) The tentative tract is conzistent wil_% all applicable interiir, and proposed general and specific plans; (b) Thi - ?esign or impi•atemeats of the tentative tract r. cor•iistent with7aii applicable interim and proposed geri"al and specific plans: (c) loe site is rhysic,.11y suitable for thE, type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is hot likely tc cause substantial C Vironmentai damge and avoidable injury to humans and wildii;e or their habitat; (e) The tentative ti-act is not likely to cause serious public health problems. (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict Yrit:h record, efor taccess rthrougri r�use�ofatheapge, now within the proposed' subdivision. r. ;5. Pesolution no. iil:-14 Page 2 (g) That this project will not create a(lverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Decleration is issued. SECTION'2: Tentative Tract Map No. 10035, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject td�all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1. Prier to final map recoriatioii, appropriate provisions shall .be made for the disposi;Lion and/or maintenance of dja areas ai;ent to the two existing single family residences on Red Hi`t`l Country Club Drivl! which are not needed for right -of -way purposes. 'Such 'lrovisions shall be approved by the City Engineer and the ��ity Planner. i 2. If this tract is to be developed as a custom lot subdivision, the precise design and placement of all structures on all lors shall be subject to approval by the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Appropriate restrictions to this effect shall be recorded aling,wi.th the final map. 3. The Building Official shall critically review the structural integrity of each unit in this tract as it relates to seismic safety. If, in the opinion of the Building Official, additional structural elements are needed, tt_n they shall be so required. ENGINEERING DIVISION 4. Prior to final'mag recordation, the precise alignment of Camino Predera at Red Hill Country Club Drive shall be revised to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5. Installation of a stormdrain system from existing inlet at Red Hill Country Club Drive -to the existing inlet structure at Cucamonga Creek Channel including dedication of easements shall be required to the'satisfactr)n of the City Engineer. 6. All existing eas -dents lying within the future right-of- way are to be quit claimed or deli- ;,.,Pd as per the City. Engineer's requirements, prior i:o recordation of the tract map. 7. final plans and profiles shall show the location, of any existing utility facility that would affect construction. Ell LAC- PaRz 3 8 Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and di$p45al of surface drainage entering the praperty from ad�acetrt areas.. g. Private drainage easements with improvements for cross lot drainage where required hail be delineated or noticed on the final map. IO. Sewage'ror lots I -21 shall be accomplished'n common anti maintained by G.C. & R.is by the developer prior 4 the r-lease of all improvement bonds for the trac-c or other alternatives to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Building Official. APPROVES? AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF PARCH, 2581. PLANNING COMMISSION' aE THE CITY OF::RANCHO CUCAmONOA Richard Dahl, Chair an ATTEST' Secretary of the Planning Cotnnisslon I, JACK LAM,, Secretary of t.,+e planning Commission,-- pf the Gity of Rancho Cucamonga, do 'hereby certify that the fore oin Resolution; was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the PI-anning Comitission of the City of Rancho Cucamanga, at a regular meeting a the Planning 1 Commission field on he 25th. day of March, 1982 by the the Plann note to- AYES: AYES: CeMMISSIONER5: Sceranka, Tolstoy, King, Re,hpe7, 'Dahl NOES: COWISSIO.NEFSt None ABSENT: COMMISSIONER., None 0 �v x RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DES ?GN`'REVIE +A OF LOTS 36, 37, AND 38 FOR TRACT 10035, LOCATED SOUTH PND EAST OF RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, GU►H eOF CALL£ CORAZON IN THE LJW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 14th day of April, 1986, a omplet.� application was filed by Western Development for review of the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on the 2Sth day of May, 1.986, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission helo a meeting to consider the above - described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as. follows: SECTION' i That ti,e foilowing can be met: 1. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives fix;' the GenEral Plan; and 2, That thz prop. ied use is 'in accordance with the objectives of the Development Cade and. the purp ses of the district in which the site is located; an�'< 3. That, the proposed use is in compliance with each: of the applicable provisions of t1ie Development Code; and 4. That the proposed use, together with the.conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to propertie< or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: fiat Design Review of Lots 36, 3Z, and 38 for Tract 10035 is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. All necessary reports to determine the structural integrity of the planned develop,nznt shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to the issuance of auy grading or building permits. Whale not necessary limited to, the submitted re,.ortt stiould inlcude at least the following: a? Geologic- Seismic Studies b) Soils Report s) Hydraulic Analysis PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 10035 APPROVAL May 28, 1986 Page 2 2. All slopes are to be landscaped per the Slop- Planting Requirements of the Development Code. Special landscaping shall be required to avoid the problem of surface saturation brougnt on by "flat land" landscape. A landscape and irrigation plan is to be prepared by a licensed Landscape Architect and shall be submitted for the review and approval of the City Planner prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. 3. This approval is for Lots 36, 37, and 38 only. Any future requests for development of any other lots within this tract shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission per the Design Review process. 4. A final conceptual grading plan, revised per the direction of the Planning Commission, shall be submitted for the review and approval of the City Planner prior to the issuance of grading permits. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 1586. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. Stout, Chairman ATTEST: 3rad BulTer, Deputy Secretary 1, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the Lity of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify Oat the foregoipg Resolution ;was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Plannia� Commission of tha City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Cow! -;ion held on the 28th day of May, 1986, by the following !!ote-to-w I it: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT, COMMISSIONERS: El 17 11 It RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING DESIGN RF,VTEW OF LOTS 36, 37, AND 38 FOR TRACT 10035, LOCATED SOUTH AND FAST OF RED HILL COUNTRY CLUD DRIVE, SOUTH OF CALLE CORAZON, IN THE LOW F:ESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 14th day of April, 1986, a complete application was filed by Western, Development for rc.riew of the above - described project; and WHEREAS, on the 28th day of May, 1986, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above- described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Plr.nning Commission resolved a- � °c11ow ^: SECTION 1: That the fallowing cannot be met: j 1. That the proposed project is consistent With the objectives of the General Plan; and 2. That the proposed use is in accordance with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is locate; and 3. That the proposed use is in compliar J tb each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and 4. That the proposed use, together ?-6th the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detr' mental to the public healthy, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2 That resign Review of Lots 36, 37, anu 38 for Tract 10035 :s hereby dep.ied. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 1986. PLANNING -COMMISSiON OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA I . BY- -Dennis L. Stout, Chairm a 1 ATTEST:, road Bullets Deputy�ecretary 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 10035 DENTAL May 28, 1986 Page 2 . l 1, Brad Buller, Deputy Se xetary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly -.and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the:; City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular melting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of May, 1986, by the following vote -to -wit. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: 1 VOES: �- OMMISSIONERS: I ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: I fl� DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA STAFF REPORT G� ~� CtICrllr�iC9 t t C? 0 F Z U >> May 23, 1986 1977 Chairman a0d 62tmhers of the Planning Commission Brad Buile. ~, City Planner Nancy Fong, Associate Planner THE GATEWAY LMAp TER PLAN (DR 86 -31) - A request from the developer to review the cnanges to the conceptual master plan of the Phase II development and the shared parking concept. I. ABSiRACT: The purpose of this report is for the Planning Co-mission to review and provide directions to the developer regarding the followirg items: 1. The proposes- revisions to the master plan for Phase II development and the division of this Phase II into two phases (Phase I1 -1 and Phase ',I- 2). 2. The options of intensifying office use along Haven Avenue and adding a narking stru,ture for Phase II -2. 3. The concept of 20% shared parking with this Phase II development. II. BACKGROUND: On May 12,, 1986, Staff met with the developee to review and discuss the proposed changes to phase II development. The developer would like to receive input frcm the Planning Commission regarding his proposed changes to Prase II prior to developing formal plans for submittal of Development Review process. Attached for your review ar the d„veloper`s letter of proposal and summary Development Table for Phase II development. III. ANALYSI °, A. Changes to Phase lI - 1 Site Plan 1. The conceptual site ;plan chows the two buildings in the middle are comtYined into one two-story building with a courtyard /atrium on the ground floor allowing for pedestrian connections to the central plat. }a area (see Exhibits "C" and "E "). ITEM V ?LANNINC COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 28, J86 Tre Gateway Master Plan Page 2 StafY Comwnt: The entrances of the atri,imlcourtyard an the ground t oor should be carefWly r4esigned to draw people . into the plaza area while sti'fl providing wind protection. 2. The two buildings north of the tr-,angle shaped building are shifted northwards to enlarge the central plaza area. Staff_ Comment: This expansion of the plaza iireLl ,ire . would allow more outdoor eating facilities that encourage pedestrian usage. However, Staff is concerned with the loading service area for these two buildings since they would be facing Trademark Parkway. The developer should mitigate the public view of the loading service area by providing adequate landscaping, screening and buffering. 3. The driveway locations and configuration for Phase II - 1 have green revised as shown,;in Exhibits "C" and "W. Staff Comaent: This results in a reduction in the anT� iscape median for Trademark Park,,,y. The median landscaping was a trade -off for reduced landscaped setbacks along Trademark Parkway, B. The Option_ of Intensifying Office Use and Providing a ar n ruc ure; a avelaper I n ica e a ey may Tito nave that option of 'increasing the square footage of tihe 2 office buildings along Haven Avenue from 134,00,0 square feet to 234,,000 square feet. Also, a multi -story parking structure will be added immediately west of t`i 4 building as sho.,m in exhibit "l} ", in order to comply with the required parking spaces. The developer would lik? the Planning "o=ission`s direction and feedback as to supporting such a concept pri.r to formal application. DI IM PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 28, 1986 The Ga�:eway Master Plan Page 3 Staff Comment: The intensifying of office use along Haven Avenue means adding building mass (mid -rise ,type building) to the building which would further imple ent the desired "uroan center" of the Haven Avenue Overby Oistrir. However., the increase in building height would require - additional "se'tback, from Haven Avenue at a rate of 1 pilot to '. foot of height above 35 feet (e.g. 'terrace tvpe,sf building). The proposed parking structure should b-s -architecturally compatible with main buildings and should include landscaping on each story of working structure._ C. Shares d parking Concept for The Proposed Two Optioes 1. The developer is requesting direction from the Planning Commission with regards to a 20% shared parking concept for the proposed two options. option A. consists of 13A,000 square fo ^t of.offi -,e space and 20,000 square foot of restaurant space where the total required parking space is 751. The delFeioper is providing '601 parking spaces. option B 6gnsists of 234,000 square foot . of -effice space and 2Oj,b00 squara foot of restaurant spice where the total' number or required parking spaces is 1,.151 spat ±es. The developer is providing 920 pa6.'xng spates. The proposed justificat.bn for the proposed shared parking are that: service and rest4urant uses may hale varying hours of operation or hours of peak use; that the service use and restaurants are intended to provide service to the occupants wit6,in the Gateway; and, thiLt the strong pedestrian connections are designed to encourage pedestrian traffic. The following table shot's the breakdown r' :he required number of parking spaces, the number of parking spaces provided and the number of spaces within the 20% shared parking: .,. PLAW!ING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 28, 1986 The Gateway Master Plan Page 4 TYPE OF USE OPTION A Office Restaurants(3) OF 01 TOTAL. PKG, # OF GROSS 20% SPACE SQ.FT. RATIG REQUI 1333,794 1 /230 535 2.91000 x/100 216 under Office 23';79+' 1/250 I 93 6000 Restaurants(3) 20,00( 1/100 216 •, a. —ft Under 1/55 4900 ov-r 3,g. -ft. 6000 1/55 seq. ft. Over OF 01 TOTAL. 7bT —301 NO. OF SHARED PARKING SPACES IS 150 20% OF SHARED PARKING SPACES TO REQUIRED SPACES IS OPTION B Office 23';79+' 1/250 I 93 Restaurants(3) 20,00( 1/100 216 Under 4900 3,g. -ft. 1/55 Over 6000 s(I. NO OF SHARED PARKING SPACES 1S 231 OF S11ARED PARKING SPACES TO REQU;REO --a% v_L`1 ,, d: