Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988/08/10 - Agenda Packet0701 - PC Agenda I of 3 f� f f 7. CITY OF RANCHO Ci:CADViONGA -PLANNING CaN1A/ ISSit A(G&Nm WEDNESDAY AUGUST 10,1988 7 :00 p.m.. MONS PARK COMMUN[TY CENTER 9161 BASE LIKE RANCHO CUCAM©NGA, CALIFORNIA L Pledge of Allegiance IL Roll Call Commissioner Blakesiey Co.-imissioner Emerick _ Commissioner Chitiea Commissioner &McNiel. Commissioner Tolstoy _ BL 4nnouweements IV. Approval of Minutes July 13, 1988 V. . Consent Cplendarr The following Consent Calendar items are expect-,d to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. RESOLU57ON OF DENIAL FOR MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 13271 - LEWIS HUME3 A request to delete a Condition of Approval requiring the construction of Milliken Ave,rue from Ease Line Road to Foothill Boulevard for a previously approved total development of a residential subdivision of 10.6 acres within the Medium (4-14 dwellhig units per acre) Land Use Resignation of the Terra Vista Planned Community into 128 townhouse ` condominium units on a single parcel, located at the northwest corner of Terra Vista Parkway and Milliken Avenue - APN: 7 977- 091 -29. E. TIM , EXTENSION FOR TENTA` 1Vk TRACT is 14.8 CANADAY A total residential developme nt of 60 units'-on 585, acres of-land in the Medium Residential DisPrxct (8 -14 dwelling units peravre), located on the north side of Higli;`and Avenue approximately 900 feet east of Archibald Avenue- APX< 201-252-32. VL Pone Hear cgs The following items are public'biearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opiniort of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND C09DITIONAL USE PERMI8&729 - U.S. EQUITIES: A request to establish an office at a leased space of 1,904 square feet within an eulsting industrial I)ark in the General Industrial District (Subarea 11), located at the northeast corner of Utica Avenue and Sixth Street - APN: 209- 411 -17. (Continued from Tuly 27, 1988) D, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13813 - ENVIRONMENTAL HIGHTECH ENGINEERING A residential subdivision of 6 single famf?y lots on 1.69 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Aellman Avenue, 900 feet south of 19th Street APN: 202 - 041 "35. E. MODIFICATION:. To CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRUCT 13367 - QUINTESSENCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A request to modify the Conditions of Approval requiring the unde,Vrounding of overhead utilities along Amethyst Avenue and Hellman Avenue in the Low Residential District 0-4 dwelling units rer care), Iotated west of the intersection of Amethyst Avenue and Highland Avenue - APN: 201- 711 -01, 02, 03. F. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13541 ALLMARK. INC. - A request to modify the Conditions of Approval requiring the improvement of Red Hill Drive in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling unit;; per acre), located north of Red Hill Country Club Drive at Sierra Vista APN: 207-411-10, 207- 080 -01, 48. G. VARIANCE 38 -11 YOUNG - A request to alsow a reduction in the front yard setback from 37 to 27 feet to allow an addition to an existing residence in the Very Low Density Residential District (Iess than 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 8115 Rosebud APN: 1062- 1.71 -14. 1l, I H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT- CODE AMEND1bSBNT'Si3 -05 CrfY'OF RANCHO CUC4MONGA --A amendment to Chapter 17.18, Hillside Residential, Section 17.18.040 S.2 (c) regarding development within the Alquist- Priolo Special Studies. Zone. I. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86 -20 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 8 ? -08 LEWIS HOMES - A request to modify the Conditions of Approval requiri s the installation of a median island within Terra Vista Parkway between Church .Street and Town Center Drive for an office park at the southwest corner of Terra Vista Parkway and Church Street and a business park at the southeast corner of Terra Vista Parkway and Church Street APN: 1077-421-06,1077-091-17,1011-421-06,09, and 10, VIL Dhwtorls Reports J. VIRGINIA DARE PARKING STUL C (Continued from July 27, 1988 K. DESIGN POR CITY ENTRY MONUMENTATION PROGRAM - Commission is requested to re aeW and make recommendations to the City Council on the proposed monumentation program (Oral Report). L. "LANDSCAPE POLICIES VUL Commission Business IN.. Public Comments This is the time and place for the general public to address tke Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not �,. airsady ai ;pear on this agenda. M Adjournment 4 The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. 4, a_ E,` � IitRNk#It6 ®�:31i�B.tlSNCS i NI LS-101 S� 1 e 1 V� • � V a1 i � Q6I � � e AN .... •86..`_} � RR Ili 0 ��� r'� r �A �� �B iN�ld. iii; bYAY ms - ®ir a V-R •P VTS R V1CT - R!A W A AR. L1M sQ •a o I 7! CN C Amod. ®_.•�,�.a•�I�LLEi1 i2R CITY OF 1 RANCHO CUCAMON I 5 -- -- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August-10, 1988 T0; Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: MODIFICAIT':,nV TO TENTATIVE TRACT 13271 LEWIS HOMES - A request e e a con t qn a appam - requzr ng the cons* jrtion of ;Milliken Avenue from Base Line Road to For still Boulevard for a pre^oi�sly approved total development of a residential sOdiviston of 10.5 acres within the Medium (4-14 dwelling units per acre) Land Use Designation of the Terra Vista Planned Cow.inity into 128 townhouse condominium units on a single parcel, located at the northwest corner of 'Terra Vista Pa;itgay and Milliken Avenue - APH 1077- 091 -29 As directed by the PlennSrg Commission at the July 2r", 1 b8 meeting, a Resolution of Denial has been prepared for the requested condition modification for Tentative Tract No. 13271. The direction was a unanimous vote by the Planning Commission, Respectfully submitted, z Barrye R, Hanson [Senior Civil Engineer BRH;sd Attachment Resolution of Denial RESOLUTION No. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCA.MOVA DENYING A REQUEST FOR A MODIFICATI(IN OF A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR TUTATItiE TRACT K* No. 13271, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVENUE AND TERRA VISTA PARKWAY WITHIN THE MEDIUM (4 -14 DWLLLING UNITS PER ACRE) LAND USE DES73NATION OF Tha: TERRA VISTA PLANNED C014MUNITY - APN 1077 - 091 -29 A. Recitals (i) On August 26, 1987, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 87 -149, thereby approving, sub3ect to specified conditions, Tentative Tract 13271, which provides for the development of 128 towahouse condominium units on a single parcel. (ii) On June 24, 1988, a request was filed by Lewis Homes Management Corporatiosa to modify the condition of approval requiring the construction of Milliken Avenue from Terra Vis ?,, Parkway to Foothill Boulevard. (iii) On the 27th of July, 1ps8, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application anv concluded said hearing on that date. have occurred - All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution . B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. set forth in This ParthA,eof this finds all 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced ,public hearing on July 27, 1988, including written and oral staff reports. together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The requirement to construct Milliken Avenue from Terra Vista Parkway to Foothill Boulevard is consistent with current Planning commission Policy and is necessary for the orderly development of the Planned Community. PLANNING COMMISSIONS RESOLUTION NO. 1T 13271 - Lewis Homes August 10, 1985 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraph 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: e requirement e construct Avenue fron Terra Vista Parkway to Foothill Boulevard is necessary and 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph 1, 2 and 3 above, this Commission hereby denies the requested condition modification and reaffirms Resolution No. 37 -149. 5. The Deputy Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS LOTH DAY OF AUGUST, 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY' Larry T. PcNiel, Chairman ATTEST. �--gad u er, Secretary I I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution duly was and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted b� the Planning Conn.ssion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meetir;I of the Planning Commission held on tbe 10th day of August, 1y38, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: j NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSe CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG?, STAfF REPORT DATE: August 10, 1988 TD: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 1348 - CANADAY - A total residential deve.opmen o units--on-5—.85 units--on-5-.85 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8 -14 dwelling units per acre), lcmafed on the north side of Highland Avenue approximately 800 feet east of Archibald Avenue APN: ^LO1- 252 -32. I. BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract 13248 was originally approved on Accord— ingg to the Subdivision due Map Act,expire Tentative T act Map may be extended up to five years from to date of approval. Therefore, the applicant may request two additional time extensions, in one year increments, extending the map until August 27, 1991. The applicant is requesting a one year time extension to expire on August 27, 1989. II. ANALYSIS: Staff has analyzed the proposed time; extension and has conpare the proposal with the development criteria outlined in the City °s Development Code. Based upon this review, the project meets the Basic Residential Development Standards of the Development Code for the Medium Residential District, except for the minimum required front to front residential building separation of 30 feet. This project has a total of 15 buildings. In all five instances where buildings are sited front to front, the approved front to front building separation ranges from 22 fee. 6 inches to 23 feet (see Exhibit "C"). III. RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission determines that the b i Tding separation inconsistency is not significant, approval of the time extension through adoption of the attached Resolution would be appropriate. R ully s ed d Bu e Ci an er BB :TG:te Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter From Applicant Exhibit "B" - Location Map Exhibit "C" - Tentative Tract Map Resolution No. 86131 Time Extension Resolution Item B away & Company REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS, INC. 4 July � 4, 1988 City of Rancho Cucamonga Attn: planning Department P.O. Box 807 Ranchi Cucamonga, CA 91730 -0807 RE: TENTATIVE TRACT 13248 Gentiemen: This letter will serve as Canaday & Companys official request to extend the approval expiration data on the above mentioned tract. Th's project is currently in escrow and we don't feel that we will be able to close the escrow and record the map prior to the expiration date. Therefore we are respectfully requesting a one year extension on this map. A cheer in the amount of $62 is enclosed to cover the extension fee. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, or if you need any additional information, please feel free to contact our office. Thank you in advance for your consideration and cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, Keith Cantillon VP Construction /ijo Enclosures 2912 S. Daimler Street, Ste. 200, Santa Ana, California 92705 q (714) 263.9151' aI M AIL E v.• n •� �\ s ITEM: � _ TITLE: EXHIBIT: �{ 9C� E: , .!�. m:I /| ; q im % �(� 9 *' q� ■| � 9� W, � � ■ % ($| ƒ ƒ| \ . ii. | 4 �■ | �J U | _ �` i | {� \�■ ! �� �� @ | ,� J�� � � jl RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION FOR T- ENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13248 - APN: 201 - 252 -32 A. Recitals (1) Canaday and Company has filed an application for the extension of Tentative Tract No, 13248 as described in the title of this Resolution,, Hereinafter in cnis Resolution, the subject Time Extension request is referred to as the application". 86 -131, therc%v approving27:. bj ct tto specific conditionsiand time tlimits, Tentative Trac' Jo. 13248. (iii) All legal prevequisites to the adoption of this Resolution -have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as foll.4s: 001 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and coerect. 2. Based u substantial evidence presented ifincludingrittenandoral s aff reportsthis Cmmission her by specifically finds as follows: (a) The Previously approved Tentative Map is in substantial canpliance with the Cfty- s current General Plan, Specific Plans, Ordinances, Plans, Codes, and Po' lies; and significant in on,4stencies� with the o current Tentative Specific Plane Ordinances, Plans, Codes and Policies; and (c) The extension of the Tentative Map is not likely to cause public health an safety problems; and (d) The extension is within the ti ^,e limits prescribed by State Law and local Ordinance. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs. 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby gram e a Time Extension for: Tract A licant Ex irntion 13248 Canaday and Company August 27, 1989 13` PLANNIRS COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0. TENTATIVE TRACT 13248 - CANADAY August 10, 1988 Page 2 i 4. The Deputy Secretary to this CO mission shall certify to the adoption of this " solution. APPROVED AM ADOPTED THIS IOTH DAY OF AUGUST, IP88. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RWHO CUCAMONGA BY: arry T. McNiel—so-airman ATTEST: ra u er, epu y- " retary I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Ctmission of the City, of regularlycInntroduced,h passed, certify opted by theoPlanninglCOmission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Comission held on the 10th day of August, 1988, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: - COWISSIONERS: ABSL`Nl: COMMISSIONERS: DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONC-A STAFF REPORT August 10, 1988 ' Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Chris Westman, Assistant Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88 -25 reques o Qs a ski an o ice n a ease space of 1504 square faet within an existing Industrial Park in the General Industrial District (Subarea 11) located at the northeast corner of Utica Avenue and Sixth Street - APN: 209- 411 -17 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Review of a Conditional Use Permit for a mortgage banking office in an existing industrial park. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Vacant; General Industrial (Subarea 11) South - Vacant; General Industrial (Subarea 11) East - Vacant; General Industrial (Subarea 11) West - Coca Cola facility; Industrial Park (Subarea 6) C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - General Industrial North General Industrial South - General Industrial East General Industrial West - Industrial Park D. Site Characteristics: The proposed use is located within an existing multi--te-na-nf ir3ustrial complex. Those uses which currently occupy suites Within each of the buildings are dominated by office uses, There is also the Highland Community tem ! PLANNING MMISSI61 STAFF REPORT f CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88 -25 -- U.S. EQUITIES August 10, 1988 = f Page 2 Church located in 8uil4ing 2 and a restaurant /deli located in f_. Buildiuq 4. The Highland Community Church has hours of operation beginning at 6:30 P.m. on weekdays and mornings on 5aturdayls a"._ Sundays. E. Parking calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parkins Spaces Spaces of Use P'oota a Ratio Required Provided U.S. Equities 1904 1/250 8 G Total existing j office lease, 31,349 1/250 125 Mobil Oil 6,790 18 I Club Deli 1,632 1/100 16 AM Speedy Printing 1,,632 1/250 7 Hihland Community reh 5 ,42 6* Total * This is based upon th, possible need during normal business hours. The Conditional Use Permit was a pproved with five offices one receptionist. ** The project is not fully leased. About 31,600 square feet remains to be occupied. II. ANALYSIS A. General. As described by the leasing agent, U.S. Equities is a mortgage banking firm. This type of use is compatible with those uses currently existing in the center a0 with those uses within s,irrounding projects. 'however, the staff has a corrern with aterail Parking availability. AM o � PLANNING commissroN STAFF REPORT CONQITIOAAL USE PERMIT 88 -25 - U.S. :EQUITIES Augus`` 10, 1988 Page 3 Ask B. Parking: The project, was parked as a multi - tenant industrial PrONeFf with a ratio of Otte parking stall for each 400 square feet, thus requiring 200 spaces. The site plan yielcled 230 stalls. However, because of the high percentage of office uses currently demanding 58 percent of the total parking allotment, meeting the parking requirement for the remaining lease space may become a problem. ,With 31,151 square feet of lease space remaining, parkine under the Industrial .Specific Plan standards would limit uses on size from 11,750 square nit ivr' industrial tenants. vi'iC8 to 18,800 for mixed use Although there is no parking problem at this time, staff indicated to the applicant that there is a concern with potential problems when the business park is fully 'eased out, and requested a parking d _'wand study. At the time �f completed. However, tai report will be submitted for staff freview Prior to the meeting and staff will have a recommendation at the Commission meeting. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The Commission must mike the following n ngs o ap;i; e"$he requested Conditional Use Permit: 1. That the { _sad project is in accord with the General Plan, the objec Of Industrial Specific Plan and the purposes . of the dis whic; the site is located. 2. That the proposed Lose will not be detrimental to the public . health, safety. or welfare, or materially injurious. 3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable prOvisicns of the Industrial Specific Plan. IV. CORRESPOWEXE: This item has been advertised as a }..•`Ilic hearing e Q �a art newspaptir, the property Posted and the notices sent to a proper y owners within 300 Meet of the pray c-;t, V. RECOMENUATION: ITe COM- Issian should review the application grad ma•"erza s Presented at the meeting and direct staff to prepare the appropriete Resolution ror adoption at the next Planning Commission meeting.. PLANNING COMMISSION TTAFF RE M coNDITIONAL USE PERMIT $9 -25 - U,S. EQUITIES August 10, 1988 Page 4 Res? ly su :' ted, r Ci ty Pi:r, UC:MmIg AttachmE-4:ts: Exhibit "IV' _ Location Map Exhibit "U" > Site Plan Exhibit "C" A Floor Plan �I I 11 P" 1 ^r �i: �i y.' `!1Y Z J .5 2 _ _ o! o o• m o a o =,;nooui n 'O �G r v T:W' Ln as .o c c U c N .o r 3 U~ M q N. � N a o+ r o m l as un m u u x o el 20 o ry E o yl• —P +� ZE9T OLT C2 � o -� - e .. 11 rN as � ,p p--^ -' t-•'• -� Z£9T 997. {i" Q9ST 09T u ; ZE91 091 O t 9$T SST Z£91 S9T '� a Im 9ST OST teQ �(flTJ y > e Z£91 04111"., �+ �pQ95[ Sill 7 r— t? J ( ZE9T 5n b,ats�aj Z£9t ObT Una Z Z£9 F S C I ZS97 - r I ZC9T 5ZT': p991 OZT r� •�adg �° L9E OTT ' TTO TTgOW ' A n9..w �� OOT 6Z Z J/ anu8AV 2311n l� OFFIG>=. arFiC ' 1p CL crT-13T C LL, --2 COW C it i �I t 1I I. , I, — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 10, 1988 TO:, C;iairman and (,embers of the Planning Cornmiss ;on FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: EWIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13813 residentiaT su v s an o s ng a am y o on 1.59 acres of land in the Lour Residential District (9 4 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Hellman Avenue, 900 feet south of 19th Street- APN: 202041 -65. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Re uested• Approval of subdivision design and concepu-57 gra ng plan for a 6 lot custom,'_:. *_ subdivision and issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Project Density: 3.8 dwelling units per acre. C. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North x s ng ing a am y Residence; Low Density Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) South - Existing Single Family Residence; Low Density East - Vacant; Low D dwelling (2- 4adwelling units West - per ellman -Beryl Channel; Low Density Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) ID. General Plan Desi nations; deco t SL's' ow ens y Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) North - low Density Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) South - Low !tensity Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) East - Low Density Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) West - Low Density Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) i E. Site Characteristics: The site is currently vacant except for s *vera c rus re ®s and scrub vegetation and has a natural" slope from 4 to 16 percent from east to west. Item D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 13813 - ENVIRONMENTAL, HTGHTECH August 10, 1988 Pagr• c` II. ANALYSIS: A. General: The project is being developed as a custom lot su .vision with 6 lots ranging in size from 7,652 square feet will be square ,464 square eetav nags la. siSteaffithf q jredtrthe applicant to prepare a Conceptual Master Plan for the properties to the north and south to demonstrate a logical street layout, lot pattern, and drainage (see Exhibit "A "). B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Car9ittee (Chitiea, tFertcK, Kroult rev ewed the project on June 16, 1988 and recommended approval subject to the following: 1. The eventual placement of hi)uses within the tract should be staggered to provide vi -sual interest and variation in the tract. AWL 2. Perimetse- snd corner side yard walls should be rP,,ired and should be constructed out of a decorative block. C. Environmental Assessment: Staff has completed the nvironmen aT�" ec s and found no significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of this project. If the Commission concurs with these findings, the issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order if the Tentative Tract Map is approved. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The project is consistent with the General Plan and DeveTo—pment Code, The project, with the added mitigation measures, will not be deti.rimental to the public health or safety, or cause nuisances or significant adverse environmental impacts.. In addition, the proposed use and site plan, together with the recommended conditions of approval, are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Development Code and City Standards. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised in The Daily Report newspaper as a public hearing and notices were sent o a proper y owners within 300 feet of the project site. E)—D�' PLANNING COMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 13813 • ENVIRONMENTAL HIGHTECW August 1.0, 1988 'P'age 3 Aft "I V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff r�ecocmends the Planning Comissian approve e'en�Mive Tract Map 13,118 through adoption of tine attached Resolution of Approval w1th conditions and issue a Negative Decl7eation. Resp ly su d li' f Bra ull City P a er j BB :TG:te Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map f Exhibit "B" - Tentative Tract Map Exhibit "C" - Conceptual Grading Plan Resolution of Approval with Conditions Amp- l I PLANNING DIVISION 11 Il ITEM: TITLE: EXHIBIT: .,. SCALE: 0 }ssssss 4.1111[f Mss! I'! t i l 4. �eJ � s L � ti P• / / C E g fit 4 F� 3Q j 4 1 J: t i id.t uOE� t � Y 1 v _ gge it C I� OF l NCHo CUCAIV ONGA PLANNING DIVISION j a, % o '1 1 ■j` BSI ITEM: �%f TITLE: EXHIBIT:- u��t SCALE: G EC�d' P N i a� 58 ^ eY= u WK Y t 113 ra r u u �2 YYffi wa all p§S's Rd7t CITY OF ITEM: RANCHO CUBA� ECN�A TITLE: DIVISION ' i � ���� ►� r L EXHIBIT: 3C A� Her flian 8� P N i a� 58 ^ eY= u WK Y t 113 ra r u u �2 YYffi wa all p§S's Rd7t CITY OF ITEM: RANCHO CUBA� ECN�A TITLE: DIVISION ' i � ���� ►� r L EXHIBIT: 3C A� RESOLUTION N0. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COK14ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT HAP NO. 1383, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HELLMAN AVENUE, 900 FEET SOUTH OF 19TH STREET IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT - APN: 202 - 041 -66 A. Recitals. Environmental l 3i filed plifor the apprival ofTent tiveT ct Map No g1813 s described in the title this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, tote subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application ". (ii) On the 10th of August, 1988, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby fourd, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission or' the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: set fGrthlin the iRecitals, Part A, hereby specifically finds that are true nd correct. 2. Eked upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission duajng the above -- referenced public hearing on August 1o, 1988, including wti: _-•n and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commissiop hereby spr)cifically finds as follows: Avenue with a (sat reetTfrontagecofi150afeeteandolootodepth ofc620 feetPandmis przsently vacant; and subject site is Low Density es property Residential dwellinghunitstper and e) and the ranging in size) fromThe6 o 9,900 app square of et poe4 custom lot tract of 6 lots units per acre). °quare feet (3.8 dwelling during the above -referenced en ed public hearing iandcuppresented n the specific sfindingsfof facts set forth in pangrapyh 1 and 2 above, this Commissi ^n hereby finds and Alu concludes as follows: J✓'� PLANNING COMMTSSFON R:SOLUTION NO. TT 1$813 ENVIRONMENTAL HIGHTECH August 10, 1988 Page 2 (a) That t°- ntative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans, and (b) The design or improvements of the tents tract is consistent with the General Flan, Development Code, and specific plans; and (c) 71e site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed, and (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial enviiinmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems, and (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any eas =nt acquired by the Public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision, 4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviered and considered in compliance with the Californi�zi Environmental Quality Ac,t.of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby issues a Negative Declaration.. S. Based upon Oe findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph 1, 2 and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set, forth below and in the attached Standard Conditions attached hereto and incorporated heroin by this reference. Planning Division (1) The eventual plac0ent of h04res within the tract shall be Staggered to provide visual interest and variation M. the tract. (2) Perimeter and corner side yard walls shall be required and shall be constructed out of a decorative block,., Said Walls shall be constructed by the developer concurrently with street improvements. Detailed plain shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval prior to Final map recordation. (3) The applicant shall provide notsce to the buyers of Lots 1, ; and 3 that Street nit: will be extended in the future and completed as a cul-de-sac to provide 0 C n Aki �t AML 13 PLANNING C"ISSION RESOLVION NO. TT 13813 - ENVIRONMENTAL NIGHTECH August 10, 1988 Page 3 futr• a access to potential residential development to the north. The text and format of said notice shall he reviewed aad approved by the city Planner prior to recordation. Engin_ e_ erina division (1) A request 'to v-,cate e o e Slue leasement t along 1 the west properly royal of the final rnap, The submit *,ed prior to app block wall to be constructed along the west property line shall br^ lecated at the new project boundary. (2) A 15 foot storm drain easement shall be provided and stoma drain facilities shall be co.,struc"led along the south property line of Lot 1 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (3) A "No Parking" zone will Le required en the south side of Street "N'. (4) undergro=Angeof the existing contribution h overhead Utilities (te'ecommunication and elecL.-ical) on the opposite side of Hellman Avenue shall be pall -to he ;Cit prior to approval of the final mlip. The be one -half the City adopted unit amount times the length of the project frontage. (5) Standard full width Street improvements shall be constructed to the north tract boundary on "dig Street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoptic<: of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10-M DAY OF AUGUST, 1988- PLANNING C"ISSIOM OF THE CITY OP' RANCHO CUCAMOWA BY: .arry _ eTn ti a -,ran ATTESTs--g-r-a-a 5 er, ,acre cry Fce Q!� IG COMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 13913 - ENVIRONMENTAL HIGHTECH August 10, 1988 rage I, Brad Buller Secretary of the Planning Gonnission of the iiity of Rancho Cucamonga, do h y oeeby certify that the forego ;ng Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, ,passed, ind adop -ted by tine Pianuling Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission hc-ld on the 10th day of August, 1988, by the following vote- tow.vit: AYES: COMMISSIONEP.S: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: C(IMMISSIONERS: j II 1 LJ i >D 1-. r u° J u y f a Q Y J � C � M �a ^S {pO a M i Y' M y C J 1 C y e 0 Is's N' L`�wi � a O O L M � Y Qrn A �Y� r�MyO� R YU� OL��L =E g�gTCb u � Q ry V G� G L � y ~.! d 0 Y W fO ti O N tl Y V.. pp 6. �O ¢ Y L O a Ny 01tGOq 0r A ✓T G� b T��� y 6� n �� Cr 44S 4C� C6C!'�9�n. 9 �.� y■ L. Nwy a q 1r G�Ug^O O L f� 6 C y O p 'S C�QY c� yVI.N ip! �57 ea Ty V NJ u ^°�L 4 ^G jC 0 4 Y 6 b M i r p YYY. Off $ M O V r L�.G C OL L Y > Y�LL��. G V y i�.AQ 4 g a,-: N �� CL OD SS .yam^ '19 �9I ��Otl "�U.9 NU^ CM b�qa CY$.,GC aL YAv:-x�0 i�y�Y n 3NN tom' Yr� GYO r ~MO �tlAI+V OMfb ~� ~O G CO� C¢ tltl 3 ir". Oi'tt~Opi G �MO yyy bMY p N G �V�i O� ■P•O LA OC G i�G O. «, T y �QG�sY. O � G ��M�, ©. �� 6 nN N r N 9.p ■ O qC �a ygGGGGGG q�s4u�Y qM' `iY ~NLN 4. q�+i�0 V�?�a � ®p fig q�C OiOkY,O hY, CN NO OY ` YsYGrlRyyd Caryqr Ct 11 �Y Va C yb ON^ watlj�^'L �4 �fI 454- F VVV �p Y V C N � LLCCH i`Y NCO X141 A6 L G ` N LJ i >D 1-. r u° J u y f a Q Y J � C � M �a ^S {pO a M i Y' M y C J 1 C y e 0 Is's N' L`�wi � a O O L M � Y Qrn A �Y� r�MyO� R YU� OL��L =E g�gTCb u � Q ry '`t��t. a °. A3 gQ�N�.- Namo�{�1y -ui ...ai i cam. ,c a""dpQ} we N Q L O NAQC 00 NYp N p O y U }iiii� 4 V y y ®� G Y r ?CCU .qC ugi L Nqo ss OG g40N � O NM L ,=� rrrQ� wN+w 4'N.,Y t ZZ NNV i C IIL L zz CTC Q t 1 W.q Y"'V ~pOCC �N xb Vu �N. L CL., q X O'O L�L �'O CNC q. M' �yVq yyYO UNCV _l mQ�OYH >VL M EOg II6 II O qq N 3LL ®� ` � a x O .� CIE-! � OAS. g T6r+®'Ip LCM ^Q M�`.I iSV�II w 1r3 �.HM .fir .-a l r • O ebb Nq NYOy q �CJa w S =N SCI (y' =mwu N - e� {vm�o �q uL 9d LC Oq NG LL Nb C O C� S- 2 5_3 C v. q Ol b Gsc NyroQ O1um °c su�a e � ^u'c"��' M'Q�o i� p Pig ��2f�p L ``c Ow9 $II 4 CRzgY W�qa_� ^OTC �g talf iyY OI O. L4UY VV O LG.,s q.f� -1�i YN CN O�pC Cy VM.4> CIIy Y six M VLyf M ,Y CYO �6."wQ.N M�"1 N CL q. C 60 R«VC to 62 I-! Y.+.G.$�N.O�^ }.$Ep..N �.� E�x.�� IIOl • yqcsON� 012 _4 t��MM2e wV.RV 4q�AL .iLL OliaaL =3 8'OC j u9s rSfY6� fiGNVOV� pgGUYyNY9 C qu�+P}tl. 3.Or�tl c OL ^a. Mj! fY O.O �C H�ON.M iy�,�V� 4 KM NN YY+:4 y�w�� �C GYi �Yi Na.a t 6/ ' �u� u 'w GJC rai� N f ZYY{���CO NV Y.bfi a rLVA�.r LZ cog .y NfL i�M VMf qM Vy B. {�YO. NLNby yY yw•4G wft, N oil 'YSQ 'JW6 Wq4 M �U M r �N�AyI N.tll O jylpa yY .4 wG NwC. CC4 V j rrN� VV O. M1N{Oj Nt-v iuy AG SV•V; -5 pqp L{�+9u C� w�, �� ♦Y y. �+�.Ny .V. SAN Q�Y Vti S Y � Cu ms_M Pi, gig O y` V� eL P iaII V N CI° Y4��y0� UVYy ii� lbM grQ{g� � y! V� 1O�v.N L�iw Vw. Oa �a�C UC is pP fi CQN p,. �: ��jj ® ®�4 » .VO CPL Vw��. o Cfr.7 V � y��r� Efta jj. why L 6 j�qv N qa OLwu, � � �0 V epp' dQp *N'a �MQ A C E O ai�lr ,i „C• CyOQN C W NCO « CGS C� GVasIIQ v vO.CC MN q L7�a Ay V O/ Lp4. yu"u �'�q 6Laq�p p. p• Y� W pig. V q,M1Q Y' -.8s = -a L Z.5 -11- 4t0'kf Zc N V; Ve� 0Y . yq f 1p" 9 CNC M w j 'gt� dpC �, �'C q "° M O C L 128 �-M., ui N �uyyYM�/y�. C OVS�O•. 9 GHoz 7f y0 O N _ Nom' ZV •M+VV f,�`Q'gt:.V ©V 2. . i�6e+� S3•'ga „=NtiW ra qa a iSv Q��II�IIey�° y wCY,, ZEN L pC ■C w R R, e i 4 B �C y oz M Y YV O ~ V qa $+!L 24 silk "O`'ULG , Q.q 4 �YY =yRS AVOlrryy�, ri 9Lr %f 'Q <a ca .`tea (`t NO �r+0 -NA wK +cu �14$79$'J�a °ci. t Em rl GL Ys N• qo TL ay c q+p O G++ =111 Y L N 3 Y qq N C V r Z N N O g 1 N L g C d O~ C+ y Y w T ■ a 4 4�j 1^O`• �. aC yd ^:q Ow. GUL .Cn y�Jy L CU^yYQ is Y O C" L GI IO y�L Y V O Y N u d� R.Q OI.O 0•V ym.y Y G L L M d d M^ R w^ L C V C ei R��N �~ � pr �,L �ddV9� =601r1q aLse�� R grn$C q N d 1�Y OG1 O uM Y'a1.. +Naosi' �. w a -C."u 1+ e. �adr Ls: ..L LO o"Y �iY aW c cv WWy d� R w YO C � Y . >• W � w w R~ N Y g Y ' Y ... p Y^ F V N � R 4J NaOM`~ YLq uC�G'�1YrYVN W wtl�� N�II. O L C � B" O�N Lib1 W 9. w� WY'�WW CO rya A«YGw L ^J OI�d L. ttZ� RL 4N '. SSA yuUiYr+.1�dYLy N.S1N iIAtlTYY Q� VCNaN G�w ' �8 NG1c 'm� xG+N°°�Gi° oos� yr x� O L O 6w A ~= N C L w W G4fv N L Y� N N O q 6 L CH1 s s Y +Y a,_R.+ -� gadLti au� _�' « v $• y�14 ♦J 6M wq NL.�uKOH tItY Lp1CM� Yp N •YWO �` O\�a Y06 JNtL j.LL C ~W__m w"u 0 N vz! -+-a la's S. M ^V iN N C DL Ned �p NNYfO C � =''jjy�y�`�� C� N��aL yY r O W W C fyd C _C Y CYC. M �• O.Y� i Q J cG.t a=q �,' q_ , "l q �y y L V R 4q V Y,4 W 1'4 NOa Yt1 C� pN4hp � Na=y C � YH10LL KCY aY NQ Yq �NW LNG iL L =l99 `V wr p �NAN KN^ !N 1NG �'4RW ++Gr+Yyy KN Yr+w WY QAN 4p K1L+� O. �y 4..99 G- N b IM1. Oi P. uZ� ^i+ri �� �G5'. � •�• �ydre a ,°ar^. may. . TN w.OVq sO 8 p,� rYY GA pi 6 _-Cal . ^Yp C" ■ ?�Qpy�"�� •j4® _�� Oi[ «Y 1-3 Y 6m% Yw grMY q 1^ (b. O 4 -is T� Q C� F -a Q� M Ar qa � $ 7 C4 N > :p ��® O� }4 •4 �QV. 3v. )aL fY+ } Cue p■ON C y O Y6M ON �Y� YNL �f�vy '^YOB ug iA _ j Lt 'oM ,2p ua'Y 1 •w. +�N OIL C L &Z. *RE ^� TvS.S ~ qNS 4w N ; V.yv� M 6`6is iLA ^�yr! 4 33 u Y yy yg� _ left Y LA GL C' N_ L 7 jxtp0, ~O h iy0s YOQ•Yry6 Cam, VN M _ V Y a+ M i '^ A f i T M a i M {{�� y �! �p p N 9 {Y� T �YT yYNNM IJ Ytt-. a j V C- N CA A^ Y't�e4 L�7�yYV {N O C 1pp1tgpl���w � Y � yf • Y - V ppp L. Mz. OR. �� LM33 �+ Y mLi 1QsO�ct44VLS Nom,r. DPW Va a�N4L.wC�Qy{ -Q ® Y~ HIS N C: N M • O N C �M. u .Y,$ 9-0-04. W aC -- «W. pw O V �wy�!iwaAf�a y OGG ii�c a Nom' Cr1yV M ±. aY y�yyd Ci`eeC��Y 6GM^s VyAC Y Nom.: N9q dO M=?OL y o MT.�C Cyl A. ^.y J., LLY.� .� i/{1y LN M V Cw Ma C4 Y i L ^" K C q ^ �._ L Y; i y ' M =w L K M N O K 9 s m Y ` V N h�, 4» L ¢Y O C i ;! E tl.- Y0 W Y .°. y' w K4 <o h�C,N�w. S'o� KR 4'S'daa3 12, a 0-I. w M r ti V GJ �i AA UA, g q yyat,1 per. �� NQ'LO Ste � o 01N0 a B� pp Mw= LYN a.�OW UY. �L CC CA •: . Olrs .Ceq Oir d6 C 9qC pat Qj- ��nLL 47� dOI NM y O. OOC� y^ G. aT L Tq riyy+ CCqq�gy aWC YOB. CygC'Yn ✓LL V �dC a~ 2=�' DC'^CGd uC G • LW d0. ��y,r Y V V�pVy O•ZwC. 6�L0 LO y�V � c Q c C � Ot O gYAC Np M�'iYy6 .a�e�04 a.- L �WW' q�6d NyVy.N T N�VO Cy NVC'� q.A�T � V+ H9J� yQ0 .O LOWCy� LL`(N j.. N! ay. q a$ Of161VI •- O�.V Hi ^qqf c�rt6 rp ■p■,� al.G iaJ C L„" qd YV.aY.._Mp. M; Is ` a ,o a c A M a04 iii �6d NOr ro. >q y V i C L:OC a � $C[.VV q l 6Ll � � � � �o� ~q O4 NqM Ew OO • CS Y 'eeO C � O�C � 4i 2-5- v � W c�p f ixs a L y�. �� ' a. ' °CC C { .: 3Y. P Ht- ' 0. �Y waO i L n]C vC CbY J>. «O _Q]N = N G V Y Vhf d C 3O r f g Lf�aq °y w^L6y m G ¢L^CAw !1. . �Y » �0. . (Od7p! { C+W$arV{ ,«� �Vj �,p. O�C��3Tp t. V Y q C � . a Sa JA t0. .AL �.0 fip `q� m� . �w Y iw u_ d V O �v� T N �y wy3 }�♦Ty� J C OCpC�e �^Cywq t V�w . Y wppyi Ytyya� �CC.I6 N.tL l. L �O s fO 132- V9 y �Vq AR b� i LLF4a O q ttFyN 6 4.iY &(a6 it L_1�Y�YOq w aig^ Elm' ~bO �8 ~N n i^d MZ l 6Yti QVZ AA UA, g q yyat,1 per. �� NQ'LO Ste � o 01N0 a B� pp 6 gyp~ F q C G" ��C IYY�eNe. '��NL 47� 4L�t`�. ! NM y wYb �v if. �j'��q ywL M g `� -He $ 3� N Asa • O wN.a Z. .9 c L � +9 � c Q c C � Ot O gYAC Np M�'iYy6 .a�e�04 two �.°.j. a --a o h >uP `c. ', W L ` a ,o a c A M V t1Gi qg qyq c ~q O4 NqM Ew �p V N.4ai a 9 Off® O.O N C ~� �TSa�c ,C 0. Or N G V Y Vhf M' L, C Uay G� lyN�3r`I + ■Y C y'. � t t. J� �7w AVC. Cd� OVN CYNr YW MM D-iq MI �� El O � �w yaM1 a B� N LL q G" ��C IYY�eNe. NM i m t Cpy AML N_N Ya �pw ywL g `� N LVp E .gi M0 NL gper O wN.a L � +9 El F W d w �..c. � v dFi r C � O L � O $s A6° au ag C o Y +'ter Y a Y NN a �� p8 6 p C p� C a1 N wCi�Q V V W N W V V 01 c d u N °e yw O Y y qe O p w r� e L CNC p4 O', Y O N ye 6 I I i ON C O W n v4u 9 y O p C G r q >q+ Q a � •c`o a waa� yc si » YffiY �a' `Y"n A � ° v� Y YCI L I r �.pppyyO �� O_qC Sppyy Y G�. MILM .'• wC i nfi St �rJ� S�ppYOE a 0691PO.P 00411ty , ' os Y� Yu.. O ° vc. oa N. A. n c+r o cc A Ur ggdyyu taxi , CA Lo. 1 Y I °c yCV L N Lp1' r .tb �y� � Y C y0- V V�_a 'N Vow {{,, p f11 Q V v Y d'j Lqp yr0� Y +S yMi� LCJ H d � _ ■■�EE Oi��6p 2�r0� �. C`.•�qZ � q &Z Q6. ` _ d- _ C j. 9w� ° -ca y. 4$` .2 g r.L ' pLp tV Y Y Y ri _may 0 ®I p V & �m M.. u� aV +' t uN yV I +`~ S V L M G gN ^ ^p ^ ~Y N 5G1 a C q1 tl f.OM!°.x ` Me o� C M CV qp p L G L L� Q L �� Y Na` 0 r_ Y Oy� d�y t►r� ua Y Oy 6C YL�I� NwC$ �I� L Y° ¢ Y� �L a r� Li NN(� ♦�� ry, °� �.a !i 1rp Q.� °Cy ° ^■pq0 �Va. ( 'O CC N� CC 4i y Nr _q �q� VNCO�A �LgyY4 V qqp� ■:y _W O M CC O O .L N Y �L' q °y qOf° °apt4«� S 9083% .8v ;v {{��Iywy ;eY NG iiCi -G n. lei P ! A q.-OY O spCi � r��!!�Orpp�4r�Y aQ. ix- CC�LN••.� y� V"OJa7 !� Id i�y QOUV0014 �. Y igNY fpp+i0 Q� C L6y+ o S M w �..c. � v dFi r C � O L � O $s A6° au ag C o Y +'ter Y a Y NN a �� p8 6 p C p� C a1 N wCi�Q V V W N W V V 01 c d u N °e yw O Y y qe O p w r� e L CNC p4 O', Y O N ye 6 I I i ON C O W n v4u 9 y O p C G r q >q+ Q a � •c`o a waa� yc si » YffiY �a' `Y"n A � ° v� Y YCI L I r �.pppyyO �� O_qC Sppyy Y G�. MILM .'• wC i nfi St �rJ� S�ppYOE a 6 "'C$ os Y� is tl cc A ,gsz+yz LpCN taxi , CA Lo. CQ CNg641 CV~ C O C9 r Y�6�y LN�Y 3 �y� � °I L 6LYC W Y C y0- 1. 'N Vow {{,, p f11 Q V 'pCVpJIn TL Y +S pI V`J� �� ce NO Y a�4+rY 2�r0� �. C`.•�qZ � &Z Q6. ` _ d- _ C j. 9w� ° -ca y. 4$` .2 g r.L ' pLp tV Y Y Y ri _may 0 ®I p V & �m M.. u� aV +' t uN yV I +`~ S V L M G gN ^ ^p ^ ~Y N 5G1 a C q1 tl f.OM!°.x ` Me o� C M CV qp p L G L L� Q L �� Y Na` 0 r_ Hai !i y tN V � � V O+p. 9083% .8v ;v 2 lei P ! it°3lrobi • ix- ygO y� V"OJa7 !� T� ®wGS 101 y. I�eN• G q � N p -ice 1 L Q M o^ y N v�ui �qr N WW w N G+ o Guww e�4 <t 9q. O d O Lab N Cy RyWfC pQ� YAW NAG C. sC.V ,}� T» tyc� M. i �. ON cj W. Y �. C 6 Q >� ,�A O y� d Yom• u O.G VNY LC C` O N 7 QuY -,~ V a YGM W N'� �J 44C m NN O plT q W CIE 3 aMyy "�u 8}O v4 Ow+n OV CCV SYi�Y w' w.LC UUGYjAL C J� 9 �5 q NYC yN 4�V0 r� QWaC �ti W� yA3YQ1cN CN V dp 4' W Z + L ■■ S C 1 L � WQ Y 4Y C�yN LiW 6V' + YC 4 +�Y.pT.� b NOA9 +c�.N.. v a +u° ''i' _� �.,, =au�• � uy�Y c� °i p 'rs PVC r"a d +' AL ACM'. w .�Ly YIIQo O C OY yyL L..yyL. Y qQO �Y °L E CO I- -0, pG. rC C ° L s p. wrf 1i a it «q C. uu� + �L afpu Y-i F: p .7w Yt.Y S C Cw F 4 W C Nw t N Y_C p .` p p'ti = °SLY dO LNw YW s Y' ' to & L`yd-dL L� O4ttl awy��4L WC f�{I�W L OMwrf� NV 6Y��i tId 6f �1MNLLLI 601Q «Y {.sue C YOYC� ay.. i 1 1 t YN « am E p � t' N t+� sn.. a �• Lp L C M Y {fit • p( �,CV C � 0 5 C N� C ,yq pip Y w. H~ Yp ~�NO YG �p�p' pV 'V O C)O C iC+31Y a V. °Y M9 �=N Y : L 1 b Y if q1 YV ijj L C y� pt yp ACVeps� .3 u Y »CYy E Y $L• + •^_� Mp Y N+ gam, ~p N �� w N K 4 61.. yp $$ ME i ASS o!� �^' a N s.. Me Y+� Z. N,•M Y N +N XTOV 'cc Na m 4�Ni W� W Y V ywY N°S elk Y Y+ CN G 36!.� �1L yyyuy yui +� _R V pp� YL � M ; w N C' Y VMV p. we z% Ll�♦ .CL V yr 0.4 aAt d VF {,p+{,� N •°W fLt C W ^•`�iy Ny M4iut� K � V. L�C C NW !a W �� n qv •'i N o �o Y 6M r L 1 a4 W M -+ c r Q„ Y ' e A L` U C a QYyL 6 r� `1�pp' �Y C U4a yY 4 C4 LV ! at G�c'. G� y IMP�OI.n9 G �IbC y w O N' +v � N m�'{� ON YrV.6 �ppatta d N q 2 0 M �i �� pVy. \ L�C C NW !a W N �sv N Y 6M 1 a4 O ^� M Cy c r N H � L` a ua. a QYyL o r� `1�pp' �Y C U4a yY 4 C4 e- G� y IMP�OI.n9 G �IbC y w u N' 2 V N L Y L d CC A L N �i �� pVy. C Y 01 S Y Op Na M t Y Y� M4 NL'� Q.L V �Jw L Ak Y L O. ^ C rrr Y Ytl 'o$ya Q L�C C NW !a W N �sv �UUp 1 a4 O ^� M Cy c r N H � .row.'• $ �p r� `1�pp' �Y C U4a yY 4 C4 e- G� y IMP�OI.n9 G �IbC y w u 4 `��F ^u•�p pVy. g4C S Y Op Na M t Y Y� 'o$ya Q ,� +�.M L N � el D-/-? 141^ YYy AY NW !a N �sv �UUp a4 O ^� CLY �. a c r N H � .row.'• $ �p r� `1�pp' �Y C U4a yY 4 C4 e- G� y IMP�OI.n9 G �IbC y w u `��F ^u•�p pVy. g4C S Y Op Na M t Y Y� I H I CITY OF RANCHO CLCAbiONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 10, 1988 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barrv,) R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Joe Stofa, Jr., Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13367 - QUINTESSENCE BEV PMENT COMPAW— 'A request to modify the on t dns Ot ApprO.Val requiring the undergrounding of overhead utilities along Amethyst Avenue and Hellman Avenue in the Low Residential District (2 -4 dwelling units per acre ), located west of the intersection of Amethyst Avenue and Highland Avenue (APM 201- 711-01, 02, 03). I. ABSTRACT: The Developer is requesting a reduction in the in -lieu fees for future undergrounding of existing overhead utilities along Hellman Avenue and Amethyst Avenue. II. BACKGROUND: The project consists of a subdivision of 6.87 acres into 19 single family lots (Exhibit "B "). It was conditionally approved by the Pl< - -ning Commission on July L, 1987. The Conditions of Approval require ewe payment of one -half in -lieu ,.dos as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities on the opposite side of both Hellman Avenue and Amethyst Avenue from the centerline of the k `,D. right -41 wAy to the centerline of the future Route 30 Freeway right -of -way as- wit on Exhibit "C ". The Developer is requesting that the length used to calculate the in -lieu fees be reduced as follows (Exhibit "D" ?: Amet�Wst Avenue From the centerline of the M.W.D. right -of -way to the property line of the existing residence and then from the south property line of the existing residence to the south tract boundary - ie, removing the existing house frontage and the Freewsy right -of -way .. .Hellman Avenue - From the north tract boundary to the south tract boundary - ie, removing the M.W.D. and Freeway rights -of -way. Itim E p_ PLANNING COMMON STAFF REPORT TENTATIVE TRACT 13367 AUGUST 10, 1988 PAGE 2 DI III. ANALYSIS: The developer feels that due to the unique and restrictive configuration of the property (being bordered on the, north by M.W.D. and the south by Caltrans) it should be given special consideration. The decision of the Planning Commission was based on Item Sa of Resolution No. 87 -96 (Exhibit "E ").. This section states that in -lieu fees shall be ba:;ed upon the length of the property being developed from property line to property fine av, in the Case of corner properties. to the center of adjacent - ,streets. , The M after the word Street" in Section 1 clarifies that all references to streets in the resolution also means alleys, railroad or channel rights -of -Way, etc„ which staff interprets to include freeway and,M.W;n. rights -of -wady; The Planning Commission has made similar requirements for projects at t1e northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue, and Highland Avenue and the south�'.4t corner of Carnelian Street and Highland Avenue. The latter was appJal:ed to and den=ed by the City Council. The future cost of undergrounding the overheads utilities within the Foothill Freeway corridor will most probabiy,be the responsibility of, the City. Therefore, whatever in -lieu fees are�paid.thmugh development will lessen the burden to the City in the future. The Developer has stated that the total in -lieu fees for the future undergrounding of the overhead utilities is approximately $644,36e.00 which amounts to $9,369 per acre or $3,388 per unit. Contrary to his comments these costs are not considered excessive compared to other projects within the City. IV. CONCLUSION: The requirement for payment of one -half in -lieu fees as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities on the opposite side of both Hellman Avenue and Amethyst Avenue from the centerline of M.W.D. right -of -wV to the centerline of tN future State Highway Rohe 30 right -of -way is consistent with current por cy. Therefore, staff feels the requirement for payment of tF4 in -lieu fees, as conditioned by the Planning Commission, is appropriate and reasonable. 0 rjs� PLANNING COMMISSION.! STAFF REPORT TENTATIVE TRACT 13367 AUGUST IO, 1988 PAGC 3 V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commissicn uphold the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract 13367 and deny the Request for Modification by adopting the attached Resolution. Respectfully submitted, Barrye R. Hanson Senior Civil Engineer 3RH:JS:dlw Attachments: Vicinity Map (Exhibit "A") Site Map (Exhibit "B ") Conditions of Ap proval Resolution 8 tIO7 ( Exhibit "C ") Developer's Letter (Exhibit W) Resolution No. 87 -96 (Eydibit "E ") Resolution t` RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGVMMWGDMSojq IraL. -rt- s Tom;: viceryaITv moo is " ar 6 -4 E El 0111 r CUCAMONGA ° :m.t t t i N?GAw4r,f.A' r g TM,&,. -S I rle 91 ra RESOLUTION NO. 87 -107 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING C",SSION OF THE CITY CF RANCHO CUCAMNGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 13357 WHEREAS, TC."tative Tract Ma by Pennhill Land Co., applicant_ foo?. ipu - hereinafter "A3ap° svb+aitted pro�:erty situated in the City of Rancho C� CaMow use of s,a5dividi ng 4le real State' of Cnlfftrnia, described a develo 9 , Cour subdivision cn 6.87 a"es of land d development of a o¢ San Bernardino, dtireiii99 units Far acre) mated "st of the int r�nct�vntol t 0 s ricfi amity . and ie the gland Avenue - APN. 2OX- 711 -01, 02, 03 into 1g lots � (eet before the Planning C'ps�ission for Public Amethyst Street and P c hearing and action lots, care 13, .1957;. HHEREAS, the City Planner has reccnded approval of the e all ca ditiens set forth in the Engineering and Plan�n h a repurt3; a•�d p subject g givisiom s WHEREAS, the Planning Comission Pori _ Engineering and Planning Division`s re�arts and ' reansiand cothederviden e presented at that public hearing. th CucamongaNdoes rreesolvveRas follow. lanming CC`cQ1ssI6d Of the City of Rancho SECTION pT4-t j The Planning C fission makes the fog? regard to en a ve Tract Planning and the lip tl�ereaf: awing findings in ia) The tentati ve tract is consistent with the General Flan, Developaaeni ;;ode, and specific plains; (bi Thy desin or irrore�ents of titan tentative tract is consistent ;Pl the General Plan, 0eve1OMnt Code, ana ��ifie puns; (c) fie site is Physieaily suitable fOr the type of develttpstent paoposed; (d) The deli n of the subdivision is not likely to Cause Substantial' envdron"ntal dm9e and avoidable irdury to hwans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to Cause serious public health Problems; (f) The design of 'the ve tract will not ic with any easement acquired by the puti) $tolargdt now of record, for access thwough or use of large, prapPrty within the proposed subdivision. el� Tr 13347 wl� PLANMING C ISSIt ZESOLUTION go Tentative Tract l',,u7 - Pennhill De�eloFment July 8, 1987 Page 2 !31 That this project will not create adverse impacts the enviranment and a Nepative Declaration is Issued. hereto, sSC�I�N,2s Tentative Tract M60 13367 a ro atiac,,ed Stann a`r�spndir ti n subject ; o aTi of 0 fa following o which is as ached Ptannin Division; the 1. AE'G�licant shalt submit an acoustical rtu bu�iiding per+rrits: winicPo frdicates siti atidprior to i•� Ice r.ar 45 CNt1 maxi g WISures Ceuachiege the r endaticna of Said re�o�uctio4 plans shall conform io 2• Material =��les shall be submitted V- Prov,' prior to issuance of building to the City planner for 3. Landscaping Permfts' P g and irrigationR includin ground cover, is required Detail 9 fl cat itrees submitted to the Cit P g ptan shall ll ah_ building par�rits. y Planz� for approval prior to issuance 4• An eight and sift fcot Shall bloCh ron olrovided along utrespectively. decorative cp d st Property 5• Architectural tree and units subject to Publicai�, provided to all corner units 6• SiX foot high decoNativ� meson along the SOuthside of L ®t 87 and return Wall shall be thelpo of Lot 19. Provided 7• Six fot)t high decorative Prjvidad along Me entire nortS,$or� perimeter all P pt rty line. shall be 5' Flos�r plan #120 is to be used on s rIM garage with LDt 2 with nradifications for a, building nevi and aPPrmved � cess ofr trf Highland Avenue shall be permits. y the C'ty Planner prior to issuance of 9- P-100r plan #110 shall be used on p 10. Proposed 2 to 1 s10 boa 4. filled in and 4' of Pas along east iidia Of Of wall. wrought iron east Lot i9 shall by 9 (provided at the toy li. The 5' wide parkway al2n provided with drought 9th@ se,t6e3 d4 of Highland small be V-- sizes, rou cov4rerant varieties of trees ,fall be revia►ed and tippr^oye and e. shrubs of isguanc� of building r p The tandsc��pe plans S g permits. — City Plannkr prior to thr PLANNING COMMISSIC ESOLUTION N0. Tentative Tract 1300/ - Pennhill Development July 8, 1987 Page 3 12. A spe.ial landscape treatment shall be provided entrance .ff Amethyst, The landscape Plans ajj beersviewed and approved by the City Planner pr; or to the issuance of building permits. 13. All walls within the project shall be coordinated for consistency. The wall's shall be shown on the final landscap Plan which is subject to review and approval by the City Planner prior to issuance o' building permits. �q!!ving Divisinne 2< Hellman Avenue An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existin (telI be pasaiions) Of) the Opposite side Hallman illities shall be paid to the City prior to Of of the final W. The fee shall be one -half the City adopted unit amount times the length from the centerline of WD ,right_of -way to the centerline of the future State Highway Rout; 3C right -of -way. 2. Amethyst Avenue - An in -lieu fee Ts contribution to the future undergrounding of the exfistin mhyst A (telecommunications and electrical) on the Opposite utilities side of Amethyst Avenut shall be paid t� thL City prior to recordatiof of the finale- Tim fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length from the centerline of t41iD ,sight- Of� -way to the centerline of the future State Hi hw nigh „ -of -way. g aY Route 30 3. The existing overhead utility service to Lot 19 underground in accordance with the utility standrrds prix be Occupancy of the first house within the tract. : prior to 4. The developer shall coordinate the design and construction of Aaoethyst Avenue with the City's Capital and Project located between 19th Street and Highland Avenue to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5. Notice of intesation to form and/or join the Lighting and Landsrapirg District shall be filed with the City to recordation of the nap or issr�ance of building prior whic`.ver occurs first, g permits 6. The driveway for Lot 19 shall be relocated to 'An Street or as °therw'`set dppr ®ved by the City ke access from ty► Engineer„ �� An easement and permits shall be obtained from he Ya "ar District for any work within their ri Metropolitan recordation of the final map, t-of -aa�► prior to S. The plans for all work along the tract's southern boundary shall recordation t°heCf�nal map. r review and approval prior to . PLANNING C"ISSIO, ESOLUTION NO. 7'entative Tract 13367 = Pennhill Development July 8, 1987 f Page 4 APPROVED AND AD SPTEO THI" ATN DAY OF JULY, 1987. PLANNINS CDmtISSrom w'THE CITY Of RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' e , a ATTEST: re ary ---� Y, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the Rancho Cucawnga, do hereby rertlfy that the fbrtooin;j Resolution was duly and regularly introduczd, Passed, and adopted by the Planningk .Commission, of tt;e f on t of Rancho of Cucamonga, at a regular awtating of the Planning Co aissi n held on the 8th day of Jury, 19870 by the fomeet n vote- ht.Plan AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TpLSTOY, EMERICK, SLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, KNIEL NOES: COMNISSIONUS: NONE N ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:' NONE This letter is to request a modification to the conditions Of tentative tract number 13367, The modification requested is in reference to the undergroundin$ of utilities along Rested i sin Hellman Avenues. I feel that due to the unique and restrictive cog, of the property, (being a long and narrow figuration stretching'frOm Amethyst to Hellman and being Piece of Property the r District, route in free►ray on the south and othe �Metrapolitan Water Aistrict, Pipeline on the north). This by both special consideration. Property should bear .In Your prior conditions on'the a Tract Clap the distance on which any undergsourdihe Tentative calculated on would be, on Amethyst, .from the centerline ul the M.W.D. right-of way g would be Y to the centerline of the future State Highway Route 06 right -of -Way." a total of 432 feet, at the present rate ($ 5106.50 /per toot for electrical and fight 08.00). oet'n„n .frost the centerlinecofm the 11,W.Ds right of way the centerline of the future State Highway Route 30 right -of-wa 85.00 /Per foot yfor telecommunications 432onfeet, at the present rate of cast of $64,368.00 or 5357Ea,Ofl (~1$,360.00), For a total that on this particular parcel of lot' to file develdped. I feel overly bardonaome and Property Your guidelines feasibility of the significantly affect the economic an undue hardshi project, as well as causing the property Owner affected. P in that his Property value is adversely' Understanding that the City needs �:o *through a fee such t, but also believing thatuthe only criteria for collecting such fees from a projects City's inability to Property owner should not be the Private) I would: collect from other entities (public or cost. Our calculation$ would be. y our appropriate share of the ri Art_ofycst Avenue, from the centerlines of the M,W.D, rope- of -waw (due to hl$hldnc extension) to the property line of the existini residience (5Q'} and then from the south property line of the exia(50' residence C-10 2031 PWO 51REEx RKR510E, CALIFORNIA 4250$ 714.689.8130 I sa the south Tract boundary (IaVor $19,383.00) On Hellman Avo�knue, from the north'tract boundary to the south tract boundary (232' or $9.260.00) i For a total of $28,643,00 or 1,59 Being that we will $ round par.anit exlstizag residence s ^insttiaduofea rinndLfeurof fee I feet that ` g the utilities to the would be a more aeceptab7;s tannnex to fairly assess there feeetfor the future Undergrounding ''of the utility ellacated to a specific lines as they are Prcpe:ty, ?lease note the attached exhibi.tis in making they will illustrate what I feel is a burdensome situation as it relatea to the Propo4ad develope�ent, You decision as Thank Vou for Your consid.,ration of this matter and Z hope You can underetand MY concern regarding these fees. Sincerely, Quintessence Development Company ost9 >x.f . n11 ;! y � 3 Fee. tea rc.et_ LI W L High 1.0.ruC) RESOLUTION NO. 87-96 of A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF V-fiCHO CUCAMONGA ESTABLISHING A REVISED POLICY FOP THE 6NDERGRO6NDING OF EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 803>77 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga wishes to repeal Resolution No. 86 -77 which was adopted on the 28th day of May, 1986 and establish the revised policy contained herein; WHEREAS the Planning Cammoission Of the it oR wishes to remove unsightly existing overtK!ad utility tins in order o toucamonga a;rtore aesthetic and desirable working arad living enviromnent within the City; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to establish a policy to inform property owners and developers of the City goal. except those contained ®��ned in be it Section 7 resolved and ant! any established that all waived by the Planning Commission, shall be responsible for undergrounding all existing overhead utility lines including the removal of the related supporting poles otiacent to and within the limits of a development as follows: mom 1. Lines on the o act side of the street *: a. Said tines shall be undergrounded at the developer's expense. b. In those circumstances where the Planning Commission decides that undergrounding i impractical at present for such reasons as a short lenyh of undergrounding (less than 300 feet and not undergrounded disruption to existing improvements, a services to Developers all payran 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 occi,r OPposite side of the street. on the 2. Lines an the snail pay a ee o - -- ^� a%$ccr. rrum sne ro act* The Dt leper e y or one -'a a amount per etc_ 1 6, 3. Lines of both sides of the street: The Developer shall comply with ec on a ve an e g e or 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. 4. Pole Tines _Containino 66iCV or tar r - lectrical lines: All lines shall be un above, a or n- aeu pa in actor once section 1, 2 or 3, above, except ftlr 65 KV or larger electrical lines. C-141 '!r `1° 1331.7 11 E 5. Limits of ,t•pnnsibiiities� a. In -lieu Pees shall be based upon the length of the property being developed from property 7ityA to prUpert�r lute (the center, of adjacent streets for corner propert'ris). b. Undergrounding shall includs the entire project frontage and extend to. (l) the first existing site #rtaes the (across the street for corner ofr� pr`oject�boundari s Project boundary (across the stree ,ties), r6 n�er orops�i %), or (3) an existing pate within 5 feet of a ProjW. boundary, oxtspt at a corner. 6. Fee Anunt: The 3MUnt for in ,-lieu €'e►, -shall equal the length {per as on .a tiffs the unit amount as established by the City Council based upon irritsrreation supplied by the 'Otil ity cmpanfes and as updated periodically as dee ed necessqry. 7• Exam * p tion The .tn,JoWiry Cy; g $ S of pi feCLS shall be x pfl frog ii5 a. The addition of €unctiorni aw0prent Ito existing davetopments, such co loading docks, *ril f5, Su= elute dishes,, antennas, water tanks, a¢:- pordi g ands, cooling toners, enClosera of an outftor storage area, parking and Ioadit�9 areas, block walls and fences, etc. b. Sulidin.4 additions Or AtI free standing buildings cf Less than 25% of the floor area 3f the E dating tuilding(s) on the sage assessors parcel, or 5,000 sgya " a feet, whichever is Iess. e. Exterior upgrading or repair of existing reroofing, addition of trellis, awnings. dlandScap'tso such as. screening, repainting and exterior Pinishssetcand Capin'. ipmtnt d. Interior :extant iraproveMen,ts and non- constructig� Cups. e. The CC-,..ructfoa of a Single fantil,' r 9 esidence on %..� existing pwcel. f. Existing overhead utility lines located in trails 'idle easaWltS with a heavy concentration it r :, , Ys, and utYlity develrr,tia ots, and the utility nines art �' or more from the right of tvay lino of a Special Boulevard. 9. Resicitntial subdivisions o' four or fewer single family residential Parcels, where the utility linos extend at Jeast 600, offsite from both the p"o$r,�� boundaries nd the adjacent prrlwe y is not likely to contribute to f+. -ture undetrgrcunding, * All references to struts shall also me, rights-of-Way, etc. all: y$� railroad or, channel APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS jotj:. n 4Y OF JUNE 1987. €'LANK TNO COPPISSION OF THE CITY OF FmCijo LUrAt MG BY: -. L La y ;, � 0,, a emran -- :.rte 1. a Brad Fuller, paOt!ty S� ratArY° Of the Planning C ission of t�k Citlr �.� Rancho Cucanar:Ra, do hereby certiky th`R tM faregoinq Resolution araW� duty and regul ly intrOduced, passes!, gin: ad0�:W by the Planning Cor�aeissi,�e of the Gity �' Ranchez Curaeonga, at a rcular meetlsrg of .thrkiaesr?ing C:oae>a13mioet hlA Ore the 10 dty of Duns, 1987, by th@ fgl3owing vats -to -eft; AYES: CWSSIONERS EHERICK, CHITIEA, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE A"TAIN: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY i i,•,;,,_ st '�t � "`� " e � i 1. r I kt RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLN_'tjINB COMMISSION OF T.4E CITY Of RAF100 CUCAKON5A,9EWIN6 A RE-QUEST FOR A MOAIFICATIOH Of A CONDITIO14 OF VPPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0, 13367. LOCAT90 WEST OF THy INTERSECTION OF AMETHYS9 AVENUE AND HKHLAND AVENUE IAA THE LOW DENSITY RESI!IENTIAI DISTRICT - A1,* 501- 711.01, 02, 03 A. Recitals. ti) On July 8, 1987, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution i Ko. 87 -107, thereby approving, subject to specified conditions, Tentative Tract 13367, which provide:, for the development Of 19 single family lots on 6.87 acres of land within the Loge Residential Jistrict. (if) On July 6, Ii?$8, a request was filed by Quintessence 1 Development Compary to modify the condition of apareval requiring the payment I. Of in -lieu fees for the future undergrounding of overhead utilities along Amethyst Avenue and He 'ktL-,,n Avenue. (III) Dn the 10th of August, IM, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ccnductad a duly notice public hearing on the application and concluded said heating on that date. (iv) All legal p verequisi'tes to the adoption of this Resolutioh have occurred. B. Resolution. Planning Caanyiissi�'�ir � the it is CiiO+ a 71nchocCucaa�Gtetga asnf=oliows solved b1► the I. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recftal:.., N t A, o: this Resolutior, are and correct. 2. Baset upon subs'antial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on August 10, 19a% including written and oral staff reports, together with public testfmmrry.; this CcMission hereby specifically finds as follows,. (a) The req.0rement to nay in -lieu fee;, for future undergrounding of existing overhead utiliti along Hellman Avenue Lnd Amethyst .'Avenue es consistent with current Planning Coom3issig- l !' Policy, i I f"f i RESOLUTION No. -- TENTATIVE TRACT 13357' j PAGE 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Comm$ssion during the �bwe_ referenced public heaefng and upon the specific 'findings of facts set Orth in paragraph I and 2 above, this COMIasion hereby finds and concluses as follows: (a) That the requirement to pay in -lieu fees for future undergrounding of overhead utilities alc,ig Ifellman Avenue and Amethyst Avenue is veasonable. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth ir. paragraph 1. 2 and 3 above, this Conmission hereby denies the requested condition modification and reaffirms Resolution No.. 87,107'. 5, The Deputy Secretary to tails COMWUP shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS IOTH CAY Or AUGUST, 1958,; PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RAKCHO CUCAMONGI6 BY: Carry T. e , unair=n ATTEST? ORR Buller, putt' ecre art' I. Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary Of the Planning COWission' of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the Agregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Comission of thb City of 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: CMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS:: ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: W, `11- -�j DATE: T0: -ROM: BY: S118JECT: --- CITY OF RANCHO CL'CAMONGA SUTF REEURT August 10, 1988 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Barrye R. Manses, S;nior Civil. Engineer Joe Stofa Ir., Aosoatate Civil Engineer Residential Distric - wiu (2-4 dwelling Wifis per acre) Drive earth of Red Hill Cou=ntry Club Drive at Sierra Vista (APN: 207 - 411 -10, 207- 080 -01, 48) T. ABSTRACT: The Developer i;� ,requesting a reduction in the pavement width for the alley M1 Hill Drive) f?0m Chula Vista Drive *4o the easterly Tract boundar; per lttached applicatiar. ("Exhibits W). I!. BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract 13541 was approved by the Pl-rning Cowtission on constrruucti n3 of1a826 subject i payed alleyd(Red Hill Drive) from requiring ulaeta Drive to the easterly tract YJary (s:e Exhibit "C "). The Developer is requesting that this coed++.Ion be mldi -ried or waived due to potential problems of relocating fences, block walls, Witure landscape, etc. III, ANALYSIS The Conditions of Approval for t)e allay (Foal Hill Drive) require the conblruction of a 261 wide roadbed ar required by the Feathill Fire DistMct. Af:Ar further review of the Fire District's Ordinance and the Uniform Fire Code, the Fire District determined that a 20' wine roadbed on an ex4sting alley wool,* be sufficient. ed The Fire sides of the alley. eThe City does "No of Parking' iypic llyspost bt�a Parking signs In alleys and is not proposing to do so in this case, However, the City £nFineer has assured the Fire Wof that if there is a problem in the future, he will take whatever steps are needed to correct the situation. 'pith that assurance, the Fire Chief was ir: agreement with the reducad pavement wid "h and no signs at this tithe. Stem F P`At��IIWG CQ(�1MISSlog STAFF REPORT TEt TATIYE TRACT 1354] AUGUST PAGE 2 a ropriLte, then � ijed by revising ''b( ' g o; 5t that it bes A087_1174 to read as folloNS: If the Co�nissione should decide the �a maaifi�ation - p Item staff woM, s�igg from the planning Commission Resolution No. Red FSi1¢ ice' Iii formerly give sPra11 be 4 She easi: west al , -, ( to Chula Vista sta w.vement east tract boultda,, :,f the roved to alley st indards i h 4 yfQOt cv rl a In impY°o of 2G` foots a: mini tricrr�iPg of vegetat%U that widt. ova. ert and the �' a hAig t of 14.5 feet. exist` +ng P a pa area exten:is into fh_ P input �dnd IV. RECGt4�;cQiDATI6it; attac4ed €teso°u ich that ' Planpin Cam issi0n consider all Svar'.s Mcormends considera'tiosr adopt the peal. eie -ts and after suite of the conditions of &pP approving the m0dificat on Ft,Sia,"rtftkjjy a43tsde�9i't�Ce�r � Alk To UarrY'= �R._ 4anson senior Civil Engineer Bpjj;d:S :d1w dExhibi't "A ") Attacc�mnts; Application from�,ibii t�«a (Ex 3 Site tp6 (Exhibit "C "1 Peso .t oe: Iu �O. ri -174 olanning CO=i'sion Re�RQ dtioo o� Arprev�i -su v a x � sa I r -a Uniform on lty. cucaR4 ong a FILE NO. GENERAL It�FORIMAiIt�'R1 RE�1l1li%Et� �'- ---- -- NAME OF PROPOSED PROJECT I TRACT 1341 —� s_/ ert,.ntr Club Drive TELEPHONE 1 _ _._.,.., nt aROJ ECT lAOORESSI ia 4. MROM REVIEW :1EAIH�.,STED FoDFVEL, TION! JSE PERMIT ITIONAL USE PERMIT CONSTRUCTION* c; MENT DI•�TRICT AMENDMcN "f CHANGE) RAL I'LAN AMENDMENT ❑ MIC'R DEVELOPMENT REVIEW I, MINOR EXCEPTION ❑ PRELIMINARY REVIEW* ❑ ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT IM sit I? mandatory to � ©Fni�I® gst DES {r ue `� 19TdALS JEtT[ATTACNADDI`h � I �i GN REVIEW ❑ COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL* ❑ TECHNCAUOESION R'LVIEW — RESIDENTIAL` ❑ TOTAL :)SVELOPMENT ❑ 8,4SIC STAMUARDS ❑ OPTIUNAL STANDAROS ❑ CUST'3M LOT/SURDiVISION C3 DESIGN REVIEW (REAPPLICATION) ❑ •.lARIANCF rov. YmOfic'.ciOn o£ Ccz;dition of APP ❑ Request that the re�'s.'J -�ynt that t±° waived due to num_ {DER tiERTgF {ar�iV{G THE r r�ROPE �JPL,CATI AN C 71F TEAT AL FR OF AT i ;.P: PRESEPITL F!L NG Oi THIS ER pSR THE ASCVE DESCRIS II CE ,ra�r EDGE T' FUR`; cFi, i AC%,- .4WL,. :UR vE INFORMATION 1:� TRUE AND ACCURATE. ALit►gT : AUTHO: ''� a2�'slvi °ihlC^.LE.GA! CW�NER. V ;Ce President SIGNATURE Dwight Anthony ,i: ze, DATE ---1 3 PRINT NAME &TITLE' �C EIVED RECEIFTNO -Etiy t,'�.C3r4. F F D * RE �L .�,� •mod 4 ki. W j YICINlrr Ad JF Crff OF rML. rT ims4l � 1 Io '! /KJM IXk •y � ! DRIVE AlOMtX .�1 4 MY Ov ton 'c RESOLUTION NO. 87-1i4 Awhh A RES-; 1JTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO, 13541, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 12 LOTS 'Ott 4.3 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE AT SIERRA VISTA STREET 01 THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT - APH: 207 - 411 -10 a,d 207 - 080 -01. A. Recitals. a (i) Allmark, Incorporated has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map • No, 13541 as described in the title of thie Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application°. (ii) On the 8th day of July, 1987, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucz*,4nga conducted a duly nc.ticed, public hearing an the application, concluded said hearing, and approved the project on said date. (iii) Following an appeal filed by area residents, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that. The City Council stated that the proposal shalt be redesigned and referred the application bact to th .•� Planning CcVW ssion. (iv) On the 23rd 3f September, 1987, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a (u1y noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. have occur (v) All legal prerequisitES to the: adoption of this Resolution B. Resolution. Planning NON, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the COMA ssioa of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as folr °vs: I. -his Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the frets set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on Septet ±r 23, 1987, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) fie application applies to property located an the north side of Red Hill Country Club Drive at Sierra .ista Street with a street frontage of 60 feet and lot depth of 273 feet and is presently vacant; and (b) The property 20 the north, south, east and west are deiignationed for residential uses aad are presently developed with single family residences. F -� EXH a MIT fl t! 01:31 PLMNING COMISS14a RESOLUTION NC. TT 13541 - Allmark September 23, 1987 Page 2 (c) The proposed prole +.t, with. the recommended cond'tions of approval, complies with all minimum Wrldards of the City of Rnneiio Cucamonga. (d) The extensiion of the alley from its current 'location to Sierra Vista r'.;1 provide sec6ndAry rn�rgevgy access to the site. 3. Based upon the sub:;tantial evidence presented to this Comission during the above- refe►�anced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraph 1 and 2 above, this Commissidn hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That tentative tract is consistent with the Oeheral Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; and (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tr-8ct is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans- and (c) the site fa physically suitable for the type of oevelopment proposed; and (d) ni a design of the subdivision is not likely t(e cause substantial enw3iWormntal dwage and avoidable injury vo humns and b0ldlife ae their habitat; and (e) The tent -Dt ve tract is not likely to cause serious ',!Uoic hea,'th problems; and (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any Pasement ac,quirwl by the public at large, now o:� record, for access through or use of the property within tho proposed subdivision. 4. This Camiss en hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and consider in cmkpllance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1870 andt further, this Comaission issued a Negative Declaration. S. Go-sod upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paraoraph 1, 2 and 3 above, this Corueission hereby approves the app3ication subject to each and every condr.rion set forth below and in the attached Standard Conditions attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, Engineering Division a,, Sierra Vista Street: 1) PVVider 3Q feet of dedication :aaresurad from centerline (60 feet total an( a standard cul -de -sac bulb; 2) Eight inch curb and gutter per City Standard Drawing No 3213 shall be ustdf and 3) Sidewalk shall be located 0.3 feet from the right- of-•way line along bath sides of the street. PLANNING COMMISS UN RESOLUTION N0. 81-11q TT 1:541 - AllmarK September 23, 1987 . Page 3 L' b. The tentative map shall be revised as follows: 1) The portions of the propossd alle, adjacent to the north and east sides of Parcel 1 shall be eliminated. 2) An alley shall be provided from Siea,ra Vista Street to Red Hill Drive between Parcels 5, and 6, which shall be de'icated and paved to a width of 26 feet. 3) Parcels 1 through 5 shall be E1oved northerly and the widths 4) The east /west alley (formerly Red kill Drive) from the eas; tract boundary to Chula Vista Drive shall be improved to ally standards including a total pavement width of 26 feet, a minimum 0.1 foot overlay of th* existing pavement and the trinaning if vegetation that extend.- into the pavement area to a heiqht of 14.5 feet. mss. , 5) The portions of the alley from the east /west alley (formerly Rea ;E'li Drive) to the south boundary of Parcel 1 shall b Improved to alley standards including a total dedication and pavement width of 20 feet, a m)nimat A.l foot overlay of th existing pavement, maintain driveWL- access to the prop_rtlm to tht east, and provide a harsaerhead turnaround near th north terminus as approved by the City Engineer. b, The Deputy Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED TH" 23RD DAY OF SEPTFMOIER, 1987. PLANNING CO.."SSIOb''''OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Lar �_�) f • : w y 3C•creEarlr I, Bra sul'ier, Deputy Secretary of the Planning CcMission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby :ertify that tfla foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Coazissicn of the City of Rancho CucarAp9ai at a regular ara:eting of the Planning Comission hel on the 23rd day of September, 1987, by the following vote- toywit. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, SLAKESLEY, CH TIEA NOES: COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK ABSENT: COMISSIONEM HCNIEL ''r a r] RESOLUTION No A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MODIFYIN3 A '�ONCITION OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14AP 13541, LOCATED NORTH OF RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE AT SIERRA VISTA STREET IN THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT - APN 207 - 411 -10 AND 207- 080 -01 A. Recitals. (i) On September 23, 1987, the Manning Commission adopted Resolution Na. $7 -174, thereby approving, subject to specified conditions, Tentative Tract 13541, which provides for the deveiop�nt lots on 4.3 acres of land within the Low Residentlal districof t. 12 single fatally (1i) On July 1, 1981) a request was filed by Allmark, ancorparated, to modify the condition of approval requiring the construction of a 26' vide paved alley (forMlly Red Hill '!rive) from the east tract boundary to Chula Vista Drive. till) On August 10, 1988, the Planning t;oailission of the City o: Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the applicatiop and concluded said hearing on that date, occurred. (iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption Of this Resolv;ic;� Nave 8. Resolution. PTa NOW, THEREFOifr, it is hereby found, determiiyad ant-4 ant-4 resolvtt; by the t�ning Cammissicn of the City of Rancho Cuc s �sga 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. 2. Stied upon substantial evidence presented Ao thi . (4, aission during the above - referenced pabl is hearirSt on Auq*ust. 10, l�tsr , Including written and oral staff reports, ttagether With a }public testi�atan this Commission hereby specifically fends as follows.` da) The request applies to the construction of a 26' wide Paved alley (Red Hill Drivel frost the east Tract coundanf to Chub W'.114 and tb) The width of 26' would place an undue hardship on the leveloper and be 4ISruptive to adjacent developed property; and RESOLUTION NO TENTATIVE TRACT 13541 PAGE 2 (c; The Foothill Fire District has agreed that a 20' width is sufficient for an existing alley if "no parking" is enforced along the :alley. 3. Bastl upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission durirg the, above - referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraph 1 and 2 above, this COMmissiva hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; and (b) The design or improvements of the tent - ,2tive tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; and (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental Damage ant•„ avoidable injury to hhans and wildlife or their habitat; and (e) The tentative tract is not _ %aly to cause serous public health problem; and (f) The design of the tentative tract will rat conflict with arky easement acquired by the Public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 4. ��he Commission hereby finds and certifies that the croject has been reviewed ilnd considered in compliance with the California Environmental luality Act of 1970 and that a Negative Declaration was issued on September 23, 1987. S. Base upon the findings and conclusions set forth in 1 2 and above, this Commission hereby modifies Resolution No. 87 174 by changing Condition Rio. 5.b.(4) under Engineering Division to read as fcilows: The portions of the alley from the east /west alley (formerly Red Hill Drive) to the south bourd!try cf Parcel 1 shall be improved to alley stan.iards Including a total dedication and pavement with of 20 feet, a minim Ott font overlay of the existing paveoent, maintain driveable access to the property to the east, and .provide a hammerhead turnaround near the north terminus as approved by the f,3ty Engineer. s RESOLUTION ' 90 TENTATIVE TRACT 13541 , 6.. The Deputy Secretary to this CoMmission shall certify io *he adoption of this Resolution. E APPROVED ANT) ADOPTED THIS 1OTH DAY OF AUGUST, 1985, 1 i PLANNING M - 9SSION OF ThE CITYrOF RANCHO CUCAM)jjGA Larry T. e ery a rman ATTESTS raf u et ; acre ary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify t6t the foregoing Resolution wab', duly and j regularly introduced, passedt and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a' regult.,meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 10th day of August, 1983, by the following Vote -to -wit: AYES: COMISSIONERSr j NOES: C ISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMISSIONERS: I i DATE: TO: FRD,M: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CI: "CANITONGA STAFF REPURT August X, =588 t Chairman ,.nd Members of the Planning Commission Brsd W'Fter, City Planner Cindy Norris, assistant Planner I VAP.IANCE 88 -11 - Y0UNG - A request to allow a reduction in he fron yar se Track from 37 to 27 feet to allow aft addition to an existing residence in the Very Low Density Residential` (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) located at 8115 Rosebud APN: 1052- 171 -14. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRTW10d: 6 A. Action Requested: Approval of Varyance 88 -11 B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoni North— i I x s n"s+� y— hcn eS, 6evy Low Residential South - Ex sting king$ t - efamily homes, Very toweResidential District O ess than 2 dwelling unit:, "er acre) East - Existing single family homes, Very Low Residential, District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) I-lest - Existing single family "homes. Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) C. General Plan Desi nations: r ec Si e-rY Low Nesidenti.aT Density (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) "forth - Very Low Residential Denis; a (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) South - Very 'Low Residential Density (less than 2 dwelling un't; per acres Eas: - Very Low Residential Density! (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) West - Very Low Residential Cens{ty (less than 2 dwelling Units per acre) D. Site Characteristics: The project site is developed with an ex s n3 .qua`re foot single family 2 -story Wise on a 30,844 square feat rat. Item G PLANNING Ct3MMISSIOU :MWV REPOR; VARIANCE 8 -11 - YOING August 10, 1988 Page 2 �s II, ANALYSIS.* The applicant is requesting a Variance to reduce the ron yard setback adjacent to the weste^n portion of the lot from 3? feet to 27 feet in arder to build a 2 -sto , addition to an existing single family residence, The subject lot is situated in the convex portion of Rosebud Street and is pie-shaped with the arc fronting entirely onto Rosebud. As a result, the lot has an unusual front yard /corner side yard condition. in addi;:iosY, the house has been plotted parallel to the e?st property line at the narrowest portion of the lot, in a manner consis *ent with a typical corner lot, rather than being skewed to follow the curve of the street. This placement allows for a dee►er rear yard, but restricts the owner's ability to add on to the fro- of the home. The applicant Would like to modify the front exterior and increase the square footage of the house by adding on to the west side of t'Y house. He is restricted from adding t(r the rear' at the house because of an existing pool. flue to the shape of the lot and the placement of the house, Mr. Young would like the west portion of lot to be ather as a frontrsetbacaof with a setback III, FACTS IPOR FINDING: In reviewing the props ",d Variance, the ann,ng omn sslon may ;fish to consider the fol "owing facts which support the mandatory findings; 1) fie subject lot is defined as a corner lot; however, due to its ale- shape and the street configuration, it is diftita ^t to jeverm..ine at what Point the "front yard" ends and the "corner side yard" begins, 2) The closest point of th-1 house will be 27 feet from the curb face, which is consistent with the minima, corner side yard setback allowed an Lot 4E to the west and tot 18 directly south of the subject lot. 3) The Variance, as specified in the application, will not contradict the goals or objectives of the city's General Plan or Development Code and will not promote a detrimental condition to the persons or properties in the immediate vicinity, 4) The proposed addition is located on the west side of the house which would trcditionally be considered as the corner side yard, `' d lu PIL PLAMING CUMMISSION STAFF REPORT VARIANCE 88 -11 - YOUNG August 1;0, 1988 Page 3 �r IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised in 1"he Daily Re ort newspaper as a Public .hearing, the property paw£ea� an no ices. were sent to all property owners withi site. n 300 feet of '.Jie project V. RECOMME4DATION• Staff recto rends that the Planning Commission con uc a pu c gearing to consider input and E!lemenjs of the project. After receiving all information, if he Planning Commission can support the findings outi3ilrid in this staff tannin, staff recommends approval of the Variance through �adaptix:c �F the attached Resolution. Respe ly s bay° ted, Sr D r City nner BB:CN :vc Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicaot Exhibit "o" - Location Map Exhibit "C" - Site Plan Exhibit "D" Proposed Front Elevation Erhitit• "E" - Proposed Floor Plan Resolution of Approval R =GUEST FOR VARIANCE SUBJECT PROPERTY: YOUNG RESIDENCE LOCATI'`N: 8115 ROSEBUD DESCRIPTION: ADDYTION TO EXIISTING RESIDENCE. REQUEST: VALIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO VRONT YARD SETBA 13 �PECI`AL Ci. 1. The property shape is uni situated at the pie end o: the lot',. The existing, structure ?s house is bordered by an exit The south portion of the struction at the rea:. sting Pool which prohibits con- 2. The priperty differs from zieighborira pro ert the shape of the lot at; the front': of the: house hassaneexireme curve that differs from the adjacent and neighboring lOtZ, This corner lot curve a varies from ether co rn,Qr extreme curve at the front&9e. Other corner lotse because a shape that is closer to rectangular with more defined corners. f the 3. The new construction will add,apace to the living room. The existing plan dictates that the only fea3 ble area, to addition is on the west end of the houses. put The The peculiar shape of this lot creates a situation that is ditrerent from other lots in the azr3a, The existing structure and the pos tion of .an existing pc�'eat of the the condition that the on�t. aria to add .jn to the house oiscreates west. If the lot had a o variance would not be necessary &ditional shape thi. request-0 the guest for a ` 4 0701 -02 0 8-10 -88 PC Aaenda 2 ,of 3 a z 0 o$�_ cn vSt'h•�.+svn{. -a «. nr 4-4- . B q� . I + III m a I•� o C � a � it T O ; ,f c7 p '' i aC•1 �. Y QD 1 1 ai Y olm sir. 1? �.SlvgltJl[.•••�.�.. �� R rTC1t0 CUCA ITEM. �� TITLE. PLANNING DIVISION " 1— EXHIBIT: s "_ SCALE: � III � Sr /3b yl qV yrs 90 Z8 9Q•2 93.29. 95 � 59 9/ 40. O ' q -- NORTH CI `1°V OF IUM• PLANNING DIVISItN€IBIT. �5i 48 , 49 rivv s0 s► Q"52 ddllh ti ♦ � N ti q 0 1 % y r31 v yS gyV fir Do ;n h Aft hq t4 4 13 11;1 1e 42 17 41 IB 40 90 yD SAO Gs c� 999G s� 19 Q 20 (5 93 21 95.30 O 22 95176 33 23 III � Sr /3b yl qV yrs 90 Z8 9Q•2 93.29. 95 � 59 9/ 40. O ' q -- NORTH CI `1°V OF IUM• PLANNING DIVISItN€IBIT. r /a it Site TITLE: __ Pf, &tl ti it Site TITLE: __ Pf, &tl Avvr iDM A D i -r'1 o rt (61YINtm I � i I YAMILY PPPM .109 Ll IaY A OATP 1 iANSAi G;74 -1 I -r4'1J&F,7` c4m, /h to RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUT!nN OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING "t "RIANCE NO. 88 -11 TO REDUCE THE FRONT SETBACK FROM 37 TO 27 FEET LOCATED AT 8115 ROSEBUD IN THE VEKf LOW RESIDEN71AL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) - APN: A. Recitals. Variance No. 88-11 as described inithe title this issuance of the in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application ". ueT#s ;c Commission the tRancho Cucamonga co dcda duly noticed publi hearing on t application and concluded said hearing on that date. (iii' All legal prerequisites to the adoption, of bits Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set for.N in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2.. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on August 10, 1988, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at 8115 Rosebud with a street frontage of 284.5 feet and lot depth of 175 feet and is presently improved with an existing single family residence; and subject site e developedowithi existing single family home aall� within the Very Low Residentf4l District; and to its pie -shape and he street t configuratidefined n a it as a corner is difficult to determine at What point the "front yard" ends and the "corner side yard" begins. (d) The closes point of the house will be 27 feet from the curb face, which is consistent with the minimum corner side yard setback allowed on Lot 45 to the crest and Lot 18 directly south of the subject lot. G -lo PLANNINo COMMISSION iRESOLU71ON N0. VARIANCE 88 -11 - YOUNG August 10, 3988 Page 2 (e) The Variance, as specified in the application, will not contradict the goals or objectives of the City's General Plan or Development Code and will not promote a detrimental condition to the persons or properties in the immediate vicinity. (f) The proposed addition is located on the west side of the house which would traditionally be considered as the corner side yard. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraph 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That strict or, literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would reult in practicol difficulty or unnecessary Fsysical' hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. (b) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. (c) That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. (d) That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a graint of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same distrrict. (e) That the . granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph 1, 2 and 3 above, the Commission hereby approved the application. S. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VARIANCE 88 -11 YOUNG August 10, 1988 Page 3 APPRDVED AN6 ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1988. PLANNING COMMI''SION OF THE CITE` OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry e a I rmart ATTEST. Brad u er, cre ary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning COMMISSion of the City of Ranchc 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 10th day of August, 1988, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS:, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: C ISSIONERS: . 1:� Ir DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA STAFF REPORT , August 10, 1988 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commissicn Brad Buller, City Planner Dan Coleman, Senior Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEv ;ELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT amen nen o ap er regarding development within t the Alquist iPr ioo Special Studies Zone. I. ABSTRACT: This is an administrative revision to clarify ttae City's po cy or su;,divisions within fault zones. II. BACKGROUND: The Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zones Act was enactie "Ty' the State to prohibit the location of most structures for human occupancy across the traces of active Faults and to mitigate thereby the hazard, of fault- rupture. Under the Act, "special studies zones" are mapped along known active faults, such as the Cucamonga and Red Hill Faults. Cities and counties affected by the zones must regulate certain development "projects" within the zones. The City must withhold development permits for sites within the zone until geologic investigations demonetrate that the sites are not threatened by surface displacement from future faulting. III. ANALYSIS: The City's General Plan pr.,vides public disclosure of the pEC al Studies Zones and contains general policies regarding development within the zones. The areas .ilthin Alquist- Priolo � S n_ es Zones are designated as Hillside Residential District. The Development Code provisions for the Hillside Residential District contain specific geotechnical performance standards. There is an apparent conflict between two such standards. Section 17.18.040 B.2 (a) states that: a) Any development or subdivision within-the Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zone' or City- adopted "Special Studies Zone" shall conduct a geologic study in conformance with t1h requiraments of the Zone. This study shall be p- epared by a certified engineering geologist. Item H PLAP4I14G COMMISSION STAFF REPORT RE: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 88 -05 August 10, 1988 Page 2 Conversely, Section 17.18.040 B.2. (c) prohibits "subdivisions" from the Zonv: o) No subdivision, emergency facilities, community facilities, or places of general public assembly shall be permitted within the Alquist - Priolo Zone. Whereas, subparagraph (a) clearly permits subdivisions subject to a geologic report within the Zone, subparagraph (c) prohibits subdivisions ou"right within the Zone. ib resolve this apparent conflict, staff compared the Development Code standards to the General Plan policies. Subparagraph (c) is an abbreviated version of a General Plan policy which states: my major subdivision, emergency facility, or other type of structure that attracts numbers of people, is open to the general public, or provides essential community services should not be permitted within an Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zone, as shown in Figure V -3". This Gene: °a1 Plan policy is intended to keep fire and police stations, schools, and places of general public assembly out of fault areas where they could be subject to significant damage and loss of life. The use of the term "major subdivision" is not sufficiently defined. The term has a very specific meaning under the State - Subdivision Map Act to define subdivisions which create five or more parce:; of land. However, the use of the adjective "major" may relate to he latter reference to "other type of structure that attract. umbers of people ", with "numbers" also not thisbissuegbynusingdthe- all- inclusivettem, "subdivisions". s ". Section 17.15.040 8.2. (c) madifies the General Plan language and refers to "places of general public assembly ". Under the 4lnifo-rm Building Code, "assembly area" is defined as an area where 50 or more persons may assemble for worship, entertainment, dining, etc. Staff recommends that the Development Code be amended to allow subdivisions within the Aiquist- Priolo Special Studies Zones subject to geotechnical investigations as required by the Alquist Priolo Act. This can be accomplished by deleting the reference to Ordinance. " subdivisions" from subparagaph (c) as shown in the attached IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission a op' e"'a'ffa—ched Resolution recommending approval to the City Council of Development Code Amendment 88 -05. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT RE: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 88.05 August 10, 1988 - Page 3 ReAm- y sub ed, ' Bra City Pler 0- 5-J BB:DC:ko Attach-ments: Ordinance Resolution N'3 0.1 e ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 17; CHAPTER 17.18 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMOr3A MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING DEVELOPMEKT WITHIN THE ALQUIST- PRIOLO SPECIAL STUDIES ZONE WHEREAS, on the day of 1988, the City Council held a duly noticed p-,`>iic hcaringi pursuant 13-section 65864 of the California Government Code. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain as follot z;: SECTION 1: Section 17.18.040 $.2. (c) is amended to read as follows: (c) No emergency fac',lity, or other type of ;structure that attracts numbers of people, is open to the general public, or provides esseltial community services shall bo permitted within the Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zone. SECTION 2: This 'Council finds that this amendmev#,wili not adversely effect the environment and hereby issues a Negative Declaration. E RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE r„1NNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY ; RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT To TITLE 17, CHAPTER 17,18 OF THE RANCHO CUCfte'4A MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING GEVELCPMENT WITHIN ALQUIST- PRIOLO SPECIAL STUDIES ZONE WHEREAS, on the 10th day of August, 1988, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing pursuant to Section 65864 of the Califoria Government Code. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that this amen-dmenw not create a significant adverse effect on the environment and recommends to City Council the issuance of a Negative Devi aration on August 10, 1988. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. 'inat pursuant to Section 65650 to 65855 of the California Government Code, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of this amendment. 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve this amendment to the Municipal Code per the attached Ordinance. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, CnalFffin ATTEST•. Brad Buller, re ary I, Brad Buller, 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 >lanning Commission held on the 10th day of August, 1988, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS:. Alk NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: �1' 11 — CITY OF RA.'vCHO CUCAW?NG STAFF REPORT j"' DATE: August 10, 1988 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barrye R. Hanson. Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Modification to Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Pei t an eve a nt ev ew - Lewis Homes - A request zo moolty the CondiT.Ions Or pprova requ r ng the installation of a median island within Terra Vista Parkway between Church Street and Town Center Drive for a office park at the southwest corner of Terra Vista Parkway and Church Street and a Business Park at the southeast corner of Terra Vista Parkway and Church Street - APN 1077 - 421 -06, 1077091- 17, 10.1- 421 -06, 09, and 10. I. BACKGROUND: Development Review 87 -'?3, approved August 26, 1987, (Exhibit B) and Conditional Use Permit 86 -20, approved February 24, 1988, (Exhibit Q were both conditioned to construe". P. median island within Terra Vista Parkway for the frontages of the projects extending from Church Street to Town Center Drive. The Developer has now requested that this requirement be deleted (see his letter attached). The letter refers to Parcel Map 9897 (that subdivides CUP 86 -20), which is currently scheduled for ", City Council appeal hearing on August 17, 1988, concerning the s =a portion of median island. II. ANALYSIS: There were two basic reasons why staff included the construction of the median island as a condition of the projects: 1. It was shown on the Terra Vista Parkway cross section on page IV -30, third from the top (Exhibit D1, and 2. It appeared logical to extend the median to Town Center Drive which bounds the Town Center Shopping Center. Item .I PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 86 -20 AND DR 87 -08 LEWIS HOMES AUGUST 10, 1988 PAGE 2 Also, it is noted that the Developer did not object, to the requirement at any of the hearings foe projects requiring the medians as follows: Hearing Gate Pro ect Type of Condition 12/10/86 PM 9897 Special & Standard 8/26/87 OR 87-08 Standard 2/24/88 CUP 86 -20 Standard 6/22/88 PM 9897 Revised. Special & Standard The Developer's main concern with the median is that: 1. It requires an additional one foot of pavement width on both sf.ls of the street (2. feet total), which he feels would severly impact tha developments, and 2. He feela the projects require a median . "' Wing for left turns into the project driveways located approxim +ely midway between Church Street and Town Center Drive. Stiff considered bath concerns and determined that neither could br accommodated. Tf;e street width is essential to provide proper road and median widths. A median opening is not possKile, because the length from Church s-&.eet to Town Csnter Drive is too shor* a accommodate the left turn pockets and still provide a reosonable length of landscaping (refer to Exhibit "E "). The Developer appears to have a valid legal argument for deleting the requirement in that the portion of street in question is designated as a Commercial Collector on pane III -16 of the Community Plan Text (Exhibit "A " "), which dais not require a median. III. CONC".USION: Staff feels that a median within this portion of Terra vista Parkway is a good 'idea; however, it probably cannot be required because it was not specified in the P";:nned Coicranity Text. PLAINING COWIISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 86.20 AND OR 87-08 LEWIS HOMES 'JGUST 10, 1988 PAGF 3 IV. RECOMMENO'.TICN: st is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of the modification roquest. If after such consideration, the Carission can recommend approval, the adoption of the attachsd Resolutions kauld be appropriate. Kespectfully submitted, A "Rl Barrye n. Hanson Senior Civil Engineer BRH: jh Attachments: Viciii,,,► Map (Exhibit "A") OR 87 -08 Site Plan (Exhibit "B") CUP 86.20 Site Plan (Exhibit "C ") Cross Sections (Exhibit "O ") Median design Mthibit "E ") Modification Request letter REsolutions }c} 99 man aca� � tvr p aP w e KE V_ a R 4' a �t�t DQ Cc c� j y Qa O QO ti rim a r ?.. CC } W JJ w 2 a 00 }c} 99 man aca� � tvr p aP w e KE V_ a R 4' ' � � � ��_���� -•� .ate.,• .....�r. ',� � i��•i++l�` f` �� ��� i �V� von 2 93 111 -i •_Ft i ti t Ail to ■ U II. ' 1 � rte.. —��. ` .• j r Nl- f ( Ti I ti '-ate 1 � � � d l � 1 y �I TERM "ran WN ft" w I visTR SUMEft Pic 11� I 41 - 14Y 12V 30' 12" 1t7d' 1� t� 2T 12' 2T w wW IL � It ZT' f r 2T tf4` till' f L �.�p -. 7�s Si0'— S13' CFrY OF A ANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGYMM G DYVOON k s PSAJOR DIVIDED ARTERIAL Foag6lll Boulmrd e Karen An we o Milliken Avenue Y Bate Una Road MAJOR ARTERIAL 0 RodmW Aeeneaa SPECIAL rrCONDARY ARTERIAL • Chumh Stra" s T"m Vino Parkv&V SECONDARY ARTERIAL OR COM "ERCiAL COLLECTOR e SPM= Arenw ® Gdwn RESIDENTIAL COLLECTORS FIGURE IV -38 Strut Crow sft -dole. CUPU-20 f ®Ra7 - *i)& Ig ;t aFi ca9 Qft C�RiL114t�'i�iS TIME STREET CRDS& SECTIONS EXEMIT.- Q r ®a d Ul.� 3 iii Levis Homes Management Corp. 1156 Nonh Mountain Avenue / RO: Bmt 670 / Wand. Galdomn 91785/ 714 9861'- ;1 July 20, 1988 J�( 1988 (:'Fy OF RANCKO CUCAMONG ENGINEER(NG OIyIS10N A Mr. Barrye Hanson Engineering Division City of Rancho Cucamonga P. O. Box 607 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Subject: Request for Modification of Conditions - CUP86 -20 and DR87 -08 Dear Barryet On July 1 of this year, I wrote a letter addressed to the Planning i.SmmiASion and '.he City Clerk appealing the condition attached to zontative parcel map 9897 requi•.ing a median to be installed In Terra Vista Parkway between Town Center Drive and Church atreet. 'Since this condition is also attached to CUP86 20 and DR87 -08, I also wish to formally file a Request for Modification of Conditions to those two items for the same reason. I have enclosed a check in the amount of $649.00 to start that process ($398 for the CUP, $251 for the DR). Barrye, as you may recall, the reason for this appeal is that this section of roadway is designated as a "commercial collector" in the Terra Stista Community Plan, not as part of the loofa parkway system. Al such, it should have a 64 -foot paved width with a 10 -foot pa�;nted median area to allow for left turns into and out of the office and business parks, This 64 -foot width has been incorporated into all of our site plan designs for both commercial areas. With a raised median as currently required, no left turn lanes would be allowed mid -block per my discussions with Mr. Paul Rougeau. In addition, the curb-to- curb width increases to 66 feet which adversely affects the site plans currently approved. July 20, 1968 Mr. Barrye Hanson Page Z From our discussions, i understand we can get a hearing before the Planning Commission on August 10 on all three actions. Please let me know if there is any more information which Y can supply. Sincerely, LEWIS AOMES MANAGEMENT CORP. 1 1C�4ts rd Ken Nishikawa Project Development KKN /jh cc: Mr. Russ Maguire, City Of Rancho Cucamonga Mr. Brad Huller, City of Rancho Cucamonga Mr. Don Thompson, Lewis Hoa.Ps RESOLUTION N0. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MODIFYING A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 87 -08, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TERRA VISTA PARKWAY AND CHURCH STREET IN THE OFFICE PARK DISTRICT OF THE TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY - APN I077- 421 -06, 09 and 10 A. Recitals. M On August 26, 1987, the Planning Commissicn adopted Resolution No. 87 -155, thereby approvini,, subject to specified conditions, Development Review No. 87 -08 for the AsV /elopment of an Office Park consisting of four buildings in the Office Park t>istrict. (ii) On Jul;: 22, S9W, a request was filed by Lt: -Ais Homes Management median island within TerraiV sta Parkway between Church Street and Town Center Drive. (iii) On August 10, 1988, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. occurred. Civ) All legal prerequisite: to the adoption of this Resolution have B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga 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. 2. Based upon substantial evidance presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public f,ariirg on August 10, 1988, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The request applies to the median island within Terra Vista Parkway between Church Street and Town Center Drive; and (b) A median island within this portion of roadway was not a requirement of tha Planned Community text; and ) practical due toroa way median island width const aint �n this portion of roadway is not PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. OR 87 -08 Lewis Homes Management Corp. August 10, 1988 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public nearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as 'follows: (a) That the proposs�d project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and (b) That the proposed use is in accord with the objective of the '(c-era Vista Planned Commun ;ty and the purpcses of the district in which the site is located; and (c) That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and Terra Vista Plmned Cosimunity; and (d) That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will be detrimental to the public health, Wetty, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project <sas been reviewe' and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and that a Negative Declaration was issued on August 26, 1987. 5. Ciused upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 above, this Commission hereby modifies Resolution No. 87 -155 by deleting the check mark under Median Island for the Terra Vista Ptr%wzW portion of Standard Condition No. L.3. 6. The Deputy Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T, e , Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary -f:' 10- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 87 -08 - Lewis P%-*s Management Corp. August 10, 1988 Page 3 I. Brad Buller, Secretary, of the Planning Commission of the City of Ranc!to 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 Cvcamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 10th day of August, 1988, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMNISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUC.AMONGA MODIFYING A CONDITION OF Pd- PROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88 -20, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TERRA VISTA PARKWAY AND CHURCH STREET IN THE OFFICE PARt DISTRICT OF THE TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY - APH 1077- 42,11 -06 AND 1077- 091 -17 A. Recitals. (i) On February 24, 1988, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 88 -34, thereby approving, subject to specified conditions, Conditional Use Permit No. 85 -20 for the development of a Business Park consisting of six buildings in the Office Park District. (ii) On July 22, 1988, a request was filed by Lewis Homes Management Corp. to modify the condition of approval rauiring the construction of a median island within Terra Vista Parkway between Church Street and Town Center Drive. , (iii) On August 10, 1988, the Flanning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a deny noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date, occurred. (iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have B. Resolution. NOW, T'EPIFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Piet -;ag Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Cammission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- refemnced public hearing on August 10, 1988, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The request applies to the median island within Terra Vista Parkway between Church Street and Town Center Drive; and (b) A median island within this portion of roadway was nt a. requirement of the Planned Community text; and (c) A median: island within this portion of roadway is not practical due to roadway width constraints. i �f PLANNING COM!4ISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 86 -20 - Lewis Homes Management Corp. August 10, 1988 Page 2 3. Based upon the substarntial evidence presented tO thisfC00missicf during the above - referenced public hearing and upon the facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission to finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Ter& Vista Planned District iCommunity ich 6e site is purposes oca located; and the (b) That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to tine public health, safety, or or impyovementts materially the vicinity; properties nity s and (c) That the proposed use cogdlies with each of the applicable provisions -:�f and the Terra a Vista Planned Community. Code LA 4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that 'the project has AIM been reviewed and considered in c ,)mpliance with the California Environmental Qualit A 19 ct f 1970 and that a Negative Declaration was issued on rY 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 above, this Commission hereby modifies Resolution No. 88 -34 by deleting the check mark under Median Island for the Terra Vista Parkway portion of Standard Condition No. L.3. 6. The Deputy Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY of AUGUST, 1958. PLANNING CO,*ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: tarry ATTEST: _ Bra Buller* Secrewry PLANNING Cb SIOl� S R !9�lI RESOLUTION Nd, CUP 86 -20 - Lewin ftoz -ws Management Corp. August 10, 1988 Page 3 X, Brad Buller, Secretary of the manning Commission of the City. of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby tertify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passel, and adopted by the Planning CorAmission of:t�.e City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Com►is$ion held trn the 10th day of August, 1988, by the following vote -to -wit,: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIOWRS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS DATE: TO: FRONT: BY: SUBJECT: I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT August 13, 1988 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Dan Coleman, Senior Planner VIRGINIA. DARE PARKING STUDY - A review of the pa study a analyzes the shared parking concept anc projected parking demari for the Virginia Dare Center ,ABSTRACT: The purpose of this report is for the P1ai �f- SSTbn to review and determine if the proposed shared pa concept and the arojected parking demand for the different uses in tho Virginia Dare Center is adequate and acceptabley Mau 4 not, to detemilne the mitigation measures ane provide 4 rection to staff and applicant. Ii. BACKGROUND: The original Nester Plan and Conditional Use Permit or a Virginia Dare Center was approved by the Planning COMMissioa an June 8, 1983. On December 12, 1984, thy: Planning Commission approved the revised Master Plar, that included an 1,800 seat theater based upon a shared parking concept. Design review approval of the theater was approved by the Planning Commission on duly 24, 1985. The 1,800 seat theater required a minimum of 455 parking spaces within 300 feet. A part of the applicant's request at that time was the approval of the eihared parking concept based upon the preliminary night time demand for theater parking. One of the conditions of approval for the theater stipulated 'hat at the time aiW office structure is proposed, which would require more than 85 perNing spaces adjacint to the theater, the applicant must submit a de�; ailed parking analysis to determine if there is adequate parking for all the operating and ultimate proposed Usea. coThe.s ex � p tO,bW Qevie�wed by the Planning Coharsissi d Item 3 PLANNING COMIISSION STAFF REPORT VIRGINIA DARE PARKING STUDY August 10, 1988 Page 2 .M, In incorporated v this asa Dael opment Agreement. condition On , July r9,a11986, the Planning Commission approved the Development Agreement beu -4een the City and the developer and recommended approval to the City Council. On August a, 1986, the Council reviewed the Development Agreement. After long discussion regarding the shared parking, the Council did not take action on this Development Agreement. The Council expressed severe reservation about the feasibility of building anymore uses on the site because of the anticipated parking problems. Therefore, this original condition of approval pis stated ib Resolutien No. 55 -112 is still in effect. This arking study was pr tated by a proposal to construct an office building on the va t pad south of the cinema. According to the applicant's architect (see attached letter), the developer is considering three d;fferent schemes. The architect has stated that "the developer ' still unsure as to which actual seheme is desired to be proposed": 1. A 5 -story and 1 -story scheme comprising a total of 66,250 square feet, or 2. A 3 -story and 1 -story scheme totaling a combined 57,000 square feet, or 3. A combinka' E,stary and single story building of 76,2250 square feet. This parking study was prepared on the basis of the 3-story and 1- story scheme with 57,000 square feet because that -as the latest information available at the tine. Eased on the above- described condition of approval, o parking analysis is required. Staff has retained Austin -Fouts Associates, Inc.. as the City's traffic engineering consultant to do an independent parking analysis and study. III. ANALYSIS: The following sections summarize the results of this par THg study in areas of the parking requirements based on current City Ordinance, the feasibility of the shared parking concept, and the projected parking demand based on the proposed and ultimate land uses within •+ht`s center. A. Parking Reryuiresents Based on Cify Ordinances Table 2 of the parr {n�g"s�'u presen s a susmary ai a e- sting and proposed land oyes as well as thr ° "vnt of required parking for each use, based upon the City's parking ordinance. The total number of spaces required by ordinance for the existing uses on site is 759 spaces. There are three pads left to build within the j centers which includes the proposed 3 -story office, another j E J °''2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VIRGINIA DARE PARKING STUDY August 10, 1988 Page 3 Aft small office building south of Del Taco, and the second phase of the Food Court that has been approved. A total of 13125 spaces would be required by code for all existing and proposed uses. no fol Towing Table "A" presents a suriary of the number of spaces required for existing and approved uses compared to the number of spaces required for total buildout of the center. This analysis indicates that 897 spaces are needed f:;r the existing uses and those uses already approved by the Planning Commission compared to the 1,125 parking spaces required for total buildout of the site. J- 1ABLE "A" Number of Number of JI Spaces Spaces Required Provided Square Parking Lard Use ,'outage Ratio (Existing & (With Offick=. Approved Usee _Expansion) Office 56,594 1/250 226 226 Proposed' Office 57,000 1/250 228 Retail 2,850 1/250 11 11 i RestaC.dnt 18,935 1 /100 (under 6,000'sq ft) 189 189 Fast Food 11900 1/15 25 25 Theater 1,723 1/4 seats* 436 436 seats GTE Switching Sta. N/A N/A 10 10 Total 897 1,125 *Plus 5 spaces for employees B. Survey of Parkin Soaves Belo Utilised by Existing Use: An aspect of e par ng s u was o con uc a par ng survey a� Virginia Dare Center. The purpose was to determine if there are different parking demands for might support different land uses which a shared marking concept. The results of the survey as shar�n in Table 'l indicate that there is variation in parking accumulation by time and day of week. The survey was conducted during the month of May. Peak use is 276 spaces. However, this figure does not take into account seasonal peak. J- c PLANNING COMh9ISSION STAFF REPORT VIRGINIA DARE PARKING STUDY August 10, ign Page 4 Br - -zc on the "parking studys the seasonal peak is in the months Of J"ne and July. The parking study indicated that the adjusted seasonal .peak use tvoald then be 343 parking spaces (see Table 81,. Therefore, the maximum usage of parking spaces at this cents during peak t,rne is 343 parking spaces of the l total 600 spk'.es provided on -site, VAIch is approximately 46.3 percent.. This figure of 343 spaces does not take into account ultimate uses hib d nse "Ty"ii' n number onl ref t theaistyui7dil existing eu u tngs. C. Parkin Demand Based on Land uses Another aspect of the par ng ana ys1s s o e ermine he projected peak parkin demand based on the ultimate land uses in this center. According to the parking study, each type of land, use has a hourly and seasonal variation in the parking demand. BY obtaining such information of hourly and seasonal variation, together with size and type of land uses, Parking demand can be estimated hourly. This is illustrated by Tables 3 and 4 of the study. Table 3 presents a summaey of parking demand by time of day and type of land use. This summary table is used by traffic engineers for determining parking demand and this resource is from urban Land Institute. With information on the II size and type -if land use, together with Table! 3 hourly I variation in parking demand, the consultant could estimate the I parking demand as shown in Table 4. For example, Office uses j at 6:60 A.M. has a demand of 0.12 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet while it requires 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet at the peak period period between 10:00 A.M. and N00li. Tables 5 and G graphically illustrate the variations In parking demand (in number of parking spaces) by type of land use for weekdays and weekends. For example, the estimated number of parking spaces needed for office use at 6,00 A.M. during weekdays is 13 parking spaces and at 10:00 A.M. 4s 464 parking spaces. Through these two tables, the peak ,�arkiaq demand for the center can be determined as follows: 1. The estimated peak parking demand on weekdays; with matinee is 881 PEkina spaces. 2. The estimated peak parking demand on weekdays without matinee is 6$6 parking scares. 3. The estimated peak parking demand on weekends during evening hours is 666 Lrkin, 4. The estimated peak parking domand on weekends at 1 :00 AOk P,M. is 469 parkins sr°aces, 0 11 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VIRGINIA DARE PARKING STUDY August 10, 198$ Page 5 As mentioned previously, the ultimate numt*er of parking spaces Provided on -site according to the propced office project is 680 ;paces. 'his means that the ark_;ir s ,c ,:^ovided on- site will ade4u« e y mee a par nj imam urn:Wee en s. Hunever_ mer nn wan a— -�rz-. Further, the City Traffic Engineer has reviewed this parking analysis and rep5mmended that a 10 to 20 percent Wfer over the projected-681 space parking demand► be provided in order to have an adequate level of services. A copy of Engineering comments ragarding the parking- study is attached for your review. Staff recommends that the Piartrtin ��e ssion re wire �M! um e ercen a srve a ra ac a r n an dr n S aces W a nev an n spaces u ma nee. s wou grans a e n spaces w n ma ar ces withc: € tie, 0. Distribution or Parkir S aces In considering a shared p- erk ng concep s Imporian� to review the distribution of spaces. In other word"., how far will someone have to park during peak hours? For. example, the peak parking demand during on days between NOON and 2;00 P.M. is 881 parking spaces. The theater alone needs 301 parking spaces which is 44 percent of the total 680 Parking > paces available an -site. This will create a conflict with the restaurant uses between the hours of noon and 5;30 PA on weekdays. Cinema patrons wiz" compete directly with office tenants and restaurant -goers for scarce parking spaces during the lunch and earily afternoon. In addition, it i'y very likely that theater -goers will spill over onto the Brunswick parking lot becauso of its close prox ;miiy. E. Options: The Planning Commission may consider the following m ga ion mear:;ires to resolve the potential parking shortage; 1. Eliminate Matinee - The property owner for the cinema has c arse ln_tF'ir Tease with Edwards Cinema that gives them the right to restrict matinees The Planning Commission may modify the conditions of approval for t., cinema to restrict the hours of the cinema to eliminate matinees to the degree necessary to balance parking availability with demand, PL -LINING COWISSION STAFF REPORT V14GTNIA DARE PARKING STUDY August 10, 1588 Page 6 2. Re uce Office Square nota_e The Commission may reduce ;: amount 0 ffi ce square footage of the remaining unluilt office buildings (the Iroposed three story office and the smaller building south' of Del Taco) in an amount Pj; mensurate with the parking shortage. 3. Construct Parking Structure — An aboveground or su terranean parVng s ruc ure could be required to provide the additional parking spaces needed to support the proposed uses. Such a structure would be designed as part of the proposed three story office building, }Y. SWAY: The parking study concludes that there is a strong possibT ity for a shared parking arrangement. The study estimates that "900 parking spaces for the proposed project would be sufficient," whereas, only 680 spaces are proposed. The el'ogineering Division recommends that a 10 to 20 percent buffer over demand to provide some opportunity for vehicles to find an empty space when arriving at the parking- peak, Staff is recommending several options for the Commission to consider. to resolve the parking shortage. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Connission accep t tne parking study as adequate and complete. Further, staff recommends that the amount of parking provided should be consistent with the recommendations of the, parking study and the Engineering Division. Re fully ted B d B er City Hoer BB:DC :te Attachments: Parking Study Memorandum from Engineering Division Letter from Architect ea 04 1 ?aa 11:45 FROM AUSTIN F0usr Assoc.. TO P.0-1 ' ArdSUSTIN -FOUST ASSOC1ATIKS Ime TRAFFIC ENOINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 1450 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE SUITE 108 • SANTA ANA CALIFORNIA 92701 - TELEPH, NS (714) 667 -0496 FAY 1714) 667.7952 Auge,.;L 4, 1988 City of Ranch Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 ATTENTION: Mr. Dan Coiemaa SUBJECT: Virginia Dare Parking !� 'udy Dear Mr. Coleman Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. (AFA) conducted a study of Virginia Dare place in order to determine the existing and future parking needs of that facility. The study included an analysis of the existing parking demand at Virginiz Dare, the projected demand based on Proposed land uses for the site, a detailed summary of parking demand for the various land uses, a comparison with similar mixed use centers, and a possible shared parking arrangement. Figure J indicates the project location, while Figure 2 illustrates the project site plan. Parking counts were conducted at Virginia Dare Place from 12:00 Noon to 9.00 pM on Friday May 13, Saturday May 14, and Saturday May 21. Parking counts were also con duet ect from 11:00 AM t(, 3.00 PM on Sunday May J5, Table I presents a summary of the half hourly counts including the average and maximums for each time period. Figure 3 illustrates the variation in parking accumulation by time and date, while Figure 4 illustrates the hourly variation in the average and maximum parking demands for the projv4t site. When determining the amount of parking required for it mixed -use project, certain information is helpful. The types of information most important for determining parking demand are: sift of the land uses, types of land use, hourly variations in parking demand (for the land use types in question), and seasonal variations in parking demand (for the types of land use in question). The project currently contains office, retail, sit -down restaurant, fast food and cinema uses. Proposed plans call for increasing the amount of office, retail and sit- down restaurant space. Table 2 presents a summary of th3 existing and proposed land uses as well as the amount of required parking for each use, based on the City of o parking ordinance. The foilowing analysis examines the Un Cucamonga payt of those Rancho as welt as the estimated shared parking savings for the project. TO assess the parking experience of other similar mixed -use projects Urban Land Institute (Shax-d Parking, 1983) and American planning Association (Flexible Parking Requirements, T. Smith, 1983) data was used. These studies have hours and requirements for various land uses, determined the peak parking Table 3 presents a summary of barking demand levels by time of day, for several land uses. As this table indicates, different land uses have peak parking demands at different times of the day or weak. Table 4 presents a similar anal +sis for the land uses which are part of the subject project. These tables allow for J_ Jai 04 1 ?$9 11 :49 FROM AUSTIN FOUS? ASSOc P.Oy estimating the number of parking spaces needed at different times of the day for weekdays and Saturday. Figures 5 and 6 graphically illustrate the variations in parkitig demand by type of land use, for weekdays and Saturdays. The above information provides the basis for assessing the impact, on parking demand, of combinations of land uses. It is apparent, by exandning Figures 5 and 6, that certain uses can be combined so that a savings in parking can be obtained. Using the City of Rancho Cucamonga parking ordinance and Table 4, the estimated . number of parking spaces required for the project can be calculated for each hour of a weekday or Saturday. Table 5 presents such an analysis for a weekday, with and without a. cinemR matinee. As this table indicates, the total number of parking spaces require, would be 881 at 2:00 PM with matinees and 686 spaces at 8:00 PM without matinees. Table 6 presents the same calculations for a Saturday, whe � the peak demand would to 666 spares at 8:0t1 pM. Besides hourly variations in parking demand there are also seasonal effects on cortale land uses. Table 7 presents the monthly variations in parking demand for a number of land uses. This iniorwation is important when interpreting the results of case studies such as the ores performed for Virginia Bare Place. As the study of Virginia DUO Place was conducted in May, some of the land uses were not a .periencing there full demand, regardless of the day of week or time of day of the study. To convert the existing demand level to the maximum seasonal demand, a target month must be chosen. For the land uses of Virginia Hare place, the months of June o. July are optimum, as only retail is below 100% of 1- Mintum demand. Taking the hourly peak, (5:00 PM Saturday) found in Table 1. the sessanal eff of the Parking demand for each type of use can be eliminated. Table 8 uses the month W.. June as the target month. fly converting the existing parking demand, for each use, to its optimum &mend lei el in EN-0, an overall maximum parking demand level can be calculated. As shown in this table, the total demand of 276 spaces, calculated is the field study of the project, can be converted to a ,total of 343 spaces for the hither demand month of rune. Wheat this demand level is compared to the number of required spaces (contained in Table 2) the actual demand is only 42.6% of the required amount (343/805). This would seat to indicate that there is a considerable amount of shared parking savings at tho project site, rand /or that certain land uses are not experiencing, their anticipated parking demand levels. This parking study catmdated the existing parking doinand, the ordinance requirements, and the shared p4rlcins affeow of a raixad -use projo;t in Rancho Cuearnones. The nomber of Parking spaces required for existing uses is 805, while the peak parking demand calculated by a field study of the project site indicates a need for only 276 spaces, 343 spaces when seasonal effects are taken into consideration. Proposed changes in the project site, would result in a parking ordinance requirement of 1,176 spaces. A parking demand analysis, based on hourly variations in parking demand, indicates a need for 686 sMes (if there are no movie matinees) or SW parking spac,3 with aovia Matinees. Sawd on tho hold study. of the existing Project land uses, it is evident that shared parking arrangements are being utilized and that the an:Wnt of parking required by the ordinance exceeds the anticipated demand. Given the abowo results, it is concluded that the proposed project will not require more parking than that provided for in the City of Rancho Cucamonga parking ordinance. The proposed project provides strong possibilities for a shared parking arrangement, Using the results of a field study of the project site and JT 9 Oa 44 }», TO a'Oul bJe suffici demand date* it is estimated that 9{30 parking spaces for the piaFOSed project � "' ^uId be snf£ :ciu;st. If you have any Questions regarding this study, its methodology, or the findings, 'Plowir Galt, Respoctfu22; $Ubmi d, Ift f. E. XEF/kh A J 1 3A c G 7 Yo IOo5SAN „ ; S Ark Y• Y r� riLA q �o i71tt G f+3AVH 7016G8 S y:... t { AV o { �,.. —• [lYZ Kifs is 3"a'"m - p2 t14M1! § W V �3i :i �+q i 4M l'•31 -� - - -- ' Ny 12 MIpM N - - - - -- - -y -±- 0016 SB ^y ^r #! 1 �1 ___.•rte` --- - - - --� - - -- -- o I i �' A { J ♦ ® �y I � 34 a � c. 1 •� � 2�, ( MA" C Air_ ray ly � u Av 1]C „ ; S Ark Y• Y r� riLA q �o i71tt G f+3AVH 7016G8 S y:... t { AV o 7 vSOWtl3Ha •q lr -LMMU� �+q vl GCG 4M l'•31 I ^ LU ^r #! 1 ff � J� 'R W! .• I j{ lf AV t� Y F -- I j� r I� 1 I L r r t 1 iiw6� c Y• Y �o i71tt G f+3AVH 7016G8 S y:... t AV $I I I � MA" emu: � � rru . 5 i 3 I a•o� L r if u 3fLILL'•M 1 Faun A, w f It OMI u 1 wtArti Ar :aw i a , nr luno I ^ N a 48 M h K b M B 4 i M ..,® FCVTHUK%U I 'Figure 2 PROJECT SITE PLAN Table 1 NUMBER OF PARKED VEHICLES BY DATE OF COUNT TIME __ Fri 5 -13 __ ______ ______w_,�-___ sat 5-14 Sun 5 -15 Sat 5 -21 Maximum 11 :00 ,._- __ ---- .__________..__- -- __, --_ �~ ^Aver 149 148 149 NOON ISO I96 168 249 173' 248 Iii 1t0a 186 290 206 220 170 266 234 234 I88 199 i 2;00 200 200 186 186 250 240 260 266 260 228 224 3:00 187 106 153 158 185 154 223 IBB 186 174 183 140 235 4:00 175 235 230 215 5:00 166 2 -6 239 260 450 2001 6.00 160 156 250 155 263 241 250 JJ 217 i 160 180 160 150 l 7:00 120 lsa 185 165 158 Ise 132 159 Ij 8 =00 s3 2 141 138 35 9:00 86 s7 142 138 142 x10 148 148 110 AVERAGE 156 183 183 198 208 MAXIMUM 223 276 266 263 176 2e6 23 Z Q LLI V 2 Y X LLI C� Q C z 0 0 0 w N o i ai 1� tp o mPn q ' * R R 0 F¢ to 0 M o i z v + z a O® 0 0 O O® O g Q 0 C O® j �anw0 MCV a�rneonraMgeoN,. -owcv J T uir C3>IUVd S.3 !OIH3A JO 2�13evm O a w s4 a w � z E 0.4 4 0 _ ca 0 0 do sa 0 is W C9 LAS s( 0 JE ✓ d g iy sr O T 0 P a o m o o P c N® o r• co N " P. N N N N N �Y N ty N P o - - - - ity N N N N N P P P P JI Tabla 2 WNW- �7mmmmmmmq� ORDINAN09 PARKING REQUIREMENTS LAND USE EXISTING SIZE PROPOSVZ PARK11twel REQUIRED PARKING REQUIRED -__.._ ---- _ - - - -- y35. SIDE 'ZAISTING} - -TSF ik'120I'OSEDj OFFICE 6 TSF' -- .,__. _ _.._ -_. 113.6 .__ _ . _---- - - - 142 4 d RETAIL 2.8 TSF 2.8 TSF 11 RESTAURANT 13-6 TS$ 18.9 TSP 135 1ID:9 FAST FOOD 1.9 Tap 1.9 TSF i 25 25 GINL67A 1723 SEATS 1123 SEATS DES£ 436 GTE OFFICE r'A NA � 10 1a TOTAL - ?5 :azS 3 I i • I: • v< N N N N N M M V V ••OO P O. O O. W pp a w O m O fJ O O O N N N .N M-A !p N R A 3 J O P. A Y1 • � ppN P� L uqi v M M I) PM1 .Ot h W A iD P P S fJ^q' O .III f • N p<p •x1 fA M* An O O N A N p O yc p y9 p 12 !Q N �T M M M M M .f •6 C� h P P .7 S S � m u t ' 199 W 8 Q 0. NM 4 b® P ON. P P C O P P r "- +yJ� � � O C.. � Nl I+V. A f� A tom. 1� M. e0 O O P P O• P D �' N i (•) � d 4mj W Qp ,t, p. �p p Oa .p 1�, p OO 1. +G •O N W �'! •O !. O nVi P P P C� AlMlk *~i C G • • . a • • M hlr 1� � � fq O• S w p q po S 9D C yl 6 1= N 9O p yy�t pp y1,�� ' 'N M •O C O M V V •O (: P O O A m A Z � •' W p N IA O g O O O `G .O N A {t P n^ P A O •K W y J QNp1.�19 i+.W d »Om� M Y CP ^ @ �O a 4n �t M. r W V • 0TA d • y U . N Q o 7 S a Rd o O O O . O O O tl V V NN N N • • ✓� , V • K M 2 T M p A P Q O' P P P G A A A M M `x{11 -- @ ® � � ` A Q i E E Oi R 6 i � � x.• � .� .? A q..p.. e- ^ x r N. M v rn •p f•. b Ow � .^. = m Table 4 SATURDAY PARKING DEMAND (FRR TSF OR 10 SEATS) BY LAND USE WEEKDAY MARKING DEMAND (PER TSF OR 10 SEATS) OFFICE RETAIL RESTRNT FAST FOOD BY LAND USE 0.00 0.00 ~- - - 0.00 -TIME- --------------------------- OFFICE RETAIL RESTRNT FAST FOOD CINEMA 0.27 6:00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8:00 2.52 0.32 0.72 0.20 0.50 0.27 0.00 11:00 10:00 3.72 4.00 1.68 1.00 0.67 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.54 3.40 3.010 3.00 4.56 2.72 2.00 2.66 0.00 4.00 NOON 4.00 3.60 3.48 3.88 3.00 5.00 1q,99 0.,00 4.50 5..99 3.60 4.00 7F00 6_$5 9.31 0.80 1.75 5.99 2:00 3.83 3.88 6.00 7.9A 1.75 ' 1.75 4 :00 3.72 3.08 3.80 3.48 6.00 5..00 7.98 1.75 /�X00 0.14 0.14 1.88 3.16 7.00 6..55 9.31 1.75 1.7 0.00 6:00 0.92 3.28 9.00 11.97 2.00 1.52 8:00 0:28 0.28 3.56 3.48 10.00 10.00 13.30 2.25 � 12 2.44 10.00 13,30 13..,S 0 2.50 2:.50 10:00 0.3 ?. 1.28 9.00 11.97 2..50 Ark SATURDAY PARKING DEMAND (FRR TSF OR 10 SEATS) BY LAND USE TIME OFFICE RETAIL RESTRNT FAST FOOD CINEMA 6:00 0.00 0.00 ~- - - 0.00 - - -- - 0.00 - - -0.00 7:00 0.14 0.12 0.20 0.27 0.00 8:00 9:00 0.41 0.40 0.30 0.40 0.00 10:00 0.54 0.54 1.20 1.80 0.60 0.80 0.80" 1.06 0.00 11:00 0.68 2.92 1.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 NOON 1:00 0.68 0.54 3.40 3.010 3.00 4.56 3.99 0.75 2:00 0.41 4.00 4.50 5.99 5.99 1.75 1.75 3:00 0.27 4.00 4.50 5..99 1.75 4:00 5:00 0.27 3.60 4..50 5.99 1.75 6:00 0.14 3.00 6.00 7.98 1.75 7. :00 0.14 2.60 9.00 11.97 2.00 /�X00 0.14 0.14 2.40 2.20 9.50 10.00 12.54 13.30 2.25 2.50 oo 10:00 0.00 1.50 10.00 13.30 2.50 0.00 1.52 9.50 12.64 2.50 a i D Z Lam. tc7 a C.� Z •- ut co Q N p D Y W Q a ip uj i Z Lam. •- ut co Q N p W as Q a ip 4, k_ toil o Q En o W d IN ° a z 0 o" a' 0 o' Q38lrh6� s33VcIS 3d U38FMN V a b " Q U a lip. 0 Z Q W 0 0 z a d 0 0 r in .z is o t n x %D H (1) p H R co d . cWw. 2. 6 in rn w a to 0 rn 0 a o Q � o � 0 e ►'� N .•• o' Cf Lfl R tp U1. �' V1 R1 r Q !E v Lf3wilmu S3ovds dd m38t+m1ilSJ O !® twill - 22 Oa 04 IMS II:43 FROn AUSTIN ROUST 49301, TO Table _5 WEEKDAY PARKING DEMA14D (PER TSF OR 10 SEATS) BY LAND USE TIME OFFI ^8 RETAIL RESTRNT BAST g00D CINEMA -6 00 ----------------- -- ----------- CINEMA - - 0--- - - - - -- -0- - ------ 0 ------ - - --14 8:00 286 2 4 1 06 5 19 1 0 299 10:00 54 3 a 8 a8 505 i 10 S 0 I NOON 409 °7 g 0 528 13 129 409 11 132 2:00 441 13 18 301 g56 11$ 13 301 f�8 +� 4:00 350 3 X55 15 301 23 $02 6:00 105 3 '7e 18 301 673 32 9 344 651 8:00 1S9 b 643 32 10 189 26 x430 686 14 ? 189 S 440 u�65 10:00 -14 4 1 0 23 430 _ 84 MAXIMUM 454 13 289 28 430 - WHEIDAY PaRRINO DEMAND I (PER T$F OR 10 SEATS) BY LAND USE r CINEMA TIME OFFICE RETAIL REiAWNT. NAST FOOD N -------------------------------------------------- 0 MATIP�BE E�ffPi 6:00 14 0 -�- ---- .. - -.. ----- - - - - -- 0 14 8:00 286 91 1 9 1 0' 98 1 p 10:00 423 a 33 3 0 289 5 0 449 10 57 NOON 409 1!, 95 8 0 528 409 11 132 13 0 527 2:00 441 11 113 18 0 570 35 0 423 11 113 580 4:00 350 10 96 15 0 567 13 0 6:00 105 9 132 18 301 673 344 65 8:00 32 10 188 25 E30 8$ " 10:00 14 4 170 439 68g 23 930 640 MA�{1hIUP! 454 11 169 25 430 686 G J 3:3 Os. t ?2d 1I143 FRO14 A14STIN FOU3T ASSOC, TO ?.JS Table 6 SATURDAY PARKING DEMAND (PER T37 OR 10 SEATS) BY LAND USE TIME ------- ----------- OFFICE r.._.,__---------- RETAIL --- RSV RNT EAST _ FOOD CINEMA SUM 6:00 �:oo 0 �------- �---------- � o 4 o - - - - -- a --------- 8 :00 48 1 1 1 0 54 9 :00 82 5 11 0 0 54 10:00 82 15 2 0 11:00 7p g 3 0 84 NOON 1:00 77 82 ip 11 $ 120 107 280 2:00 46 1i 36 11 '301 3:00 4:00 31 11, 65 11 $01 456 440 5:00 15 10 85 113 11 13 301 438 " 6 :00 7:00 15 13 7 170 23 301 $44 453 Sao 8: 0.0 16 ? 130 B 186 24 25 $67 613 9:00 lozoo 0 4 183 25 430 430 666 643' -0 4 180 24 430 636 MAXIISIIM i 77 11 188 25 430 666 �11�yuu Op pp p pp Y W i y 4 N < N < � � d H W H K p po CO .0 W W W R' •OMB A {� A ice• � 4r � A q W yb p p p p p p p pp p � M v J G x L ` L L M � .�p1j � • Y ~ _ V A CL 4 7 pC n fM V V LAND USE --- - OFFICE RETAIL RESTAURANT FAST FOOD CINEMA GTE OFFICE TOTAL i �► Table 8 16 PEAK PZX=NG DEMAND CONTROLLED MR SEA50NAL EFFECTS EXISTING MAY ,-' JUNE X ESTIMATED PARKING PARKI'M PARKING CONVERSION PARKING. USED ___-_ - - -.. USED USED _- _------ ..--- --- FACTOR REQUIRED 49 -- - --- 100% 100% --- ---- --.. -_.. 1.00 _--- -_ - - - -- 49 3 706 T6% 1.03 3 46 96% 1001% 1.06 49 s 95% 1 a% 1.06 a 150 lax' 100% 1.43 214 20 100% 100% y.00 20 276 3A,3 16 Date: CITY OF RANCixr) CUCAMONGA MEMORf NT)UM June 139 1988 To. Nancy Fang From: Chuck Mackey Subject: Virginia Dare Parking Study 14v , MIN *%X The Virginia Dare Parking Study by Austin -Foust Associates has been reviewed. It is a solid traffic engineeric .1 study aivtlyzing this centers parking patterns and determining future p:•rking needs. The study uses shared parking methodology. The shared parking concept is valid. "Different land use activities are known to have different per parking accumulation Hatteras. When such use; are combined in a mixed -use dev0 o -races required is less than tGk? summa ion yo`hthe spaces required when Such 'e same land use activities oxist as stand -along developments. When adjacent toueach other, variances in single adevelopment aking requirements should be allowed."* This study by Austin - Foust, is straight forward, complete and basically, accurate. It concludes that shared parking is presently being utilized, and that will also Continue for the proposed use- It also concludes the: amount of parking required by our city ordinance exceeds, by a considerable .amount, the anticipated parking demand. These conclusions are correct., The study goes on to conclude t expansion would be sufficient hat 940 parking spaces for the future o 2188 parking spaces will be required by City code and the study shows an Anticipated peak parking accumulation of 895 spaccr (study shows 888, corrected to 895 due to restaurant rate adjustment). However, the design narking space capacity should be, at least, 10 to 20% over demand to provide some opportunity for vehicles to find an empty space where Vriving at the parking peak. Therefore, in order to provide an adequate level of service, 985 tr 1074 Provided. The 1188 City code spaces provide for afi 4 %Smargin of us fey and provides an excAllent lever of ser<<ice. * page 188 - Stover, Keopke TranSportation and Land Deyet�aent, 198fs, Institute of Transportatiorters. CM :pam "' 4 EI ! Y,: h� - f i s July 1s, 1988 Nancy Tong, Associal;e Planner Rancho Cucamonga Pla.;. =ing Department City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9171 Re: Parking study virginic Dare Place. Project No. 87- 133.30 Dear Nancy: An JUL 211988 Pik AFter reviewing the preliminary staff report in iregards to the above referenced project, I feel it necessary to respond to some of the analysis offered in the study for clarification purposes. As you are aware, this project is extremely complex, and requires a sufficient amount of time and study to understand all the AWL issues regarding the proposal. Fo': your review* and the purposes of the Planning Commission, I offer the following co"ents: 1. At the present time, the developer is stall unsure as to which actual scheme is desired to be proposed. This obviously is largely deperdentvupon the issue of parking. We have actually proposed three different schemes for the intended project: a. A 6- stoi°y and 2 -sta scheme comprising a total of 66,250 sq. ft. which establishes a total of 718 on site park!Lg spaces all at grade love-k-, b. A 3 -story and 1- s'zory office building totaling a combined 57,000 amount of squares footage utilizing 680 parking spaces on site all established at grade level. C. A combined 4 -story and single story office building comprising a combined total of 76,250 square -set: with a total number of 800 barking spaces p_ovided on site (combining both surface parking and subterranean parki._y) . 2. in Part ITI - Summar!r of the Parking Study, it is ¢hated "that the proposed office expansion could crel!tte a shortage 2 320 spaces (400 -6SO s�paces) not tncluding the 10% Mt buffer'. 900 - 680 z�cer actually e.-ruals 220 spaces. Please also note that. this recommendation is based upon Scheme B which is tie 3 -story building proposal. Virginia Dare Tower JI _ OI� 10470 Footnill Boc'evari. Rancho Cucamonga California 91730.3754 ..rr tc •t R A ! f ao - �' lobe :t. Ra:i -may �.# 41Yp'��y�MON4� LANNING OMSiON I July 1s, 1988 Nancy Tong, Associal;e Planner Rancho Cucamonga Pla.;. =ing Department City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9171 Re: Parking study virginic Dare Place. Project No. 87- 133.30 Dear Nancy: An JUL 211988 Pik AFter reviewing the preliminary staff report in iregards to the above referenced project, I feel it necessary to respond to some of the analysis offered in the study for clarification purposes. As you are aware, this project is extremely complex, and requires a sufficient amount of time and study to understand all the AWL issues regarding the proposal. Fo': your review* and the purposes of the Planning Commission, I offer the following co"ents: 1. At the present time, the developer is stall unsure as to which actual scheme is desired to be proposed. This obviously is largely deperdentvupon the issue of parking. We have actually proposed three different schemes for the intended project: a. A 6- stoi°y and 2 -sta scheme comprising a total of 66,250 sq. ft. which establishes a total of 718 on site park!Lg spaces all at grade love-k-, b. A 3 -story and 1- s'zory office building totaling a combined 57,000 amount of squares footage utilizing 680 parking spaces on site all established at grade level. C. A combined 4 -story and single story office building comprising a combined total of 76,250 square -set: with a total number of 800 barking spaces p_ovided on site (combining both surface parking and subterranean parki._y) . 2. in Part ITI - Summar!r of the Parking Study, it is ¢hated "that the proposed office expansion could crel!tte a shortage 2 320 spaces (400 -6SO s�paces) not tncluding the 10% Mt buffer'. 900 - 680 z�cer actually e.-ruals 220 spaces. Please also note that. this recommendation is based upon Scheme B which is tie 3 -story building proposal. Virginia Dare Tower JI _ OI� 10470 Footnill Boc'evari. Rancho Cucamonga California 91730.3754 I� (��lIi11lniNlll�� Nancy Fong, Associate :Planner Rancho Cucamonga Planning Departmenc Virginia Da..-ii Place Paring Study auly 11, 1988 page 2 3. The 4- 3tory off:f.ce proposal (scheme C) has been created in order to achieve tije suggested required parking based upon a shared parking concept: as established by Austin -roust Associates. A Projected peak parking demand based upon shared parking 16s established at 900 parking spaces for matinees and 728 spaces without matinees. Tbq developer is willing to abolish weekday matinees during the peak demand. Utilizing a contingency of I t, a total of 800 parking spaces (728 + 72) becomes the shared parking requirement. scheme. C has they ability to deliver this amount of 1,lrkinct. 4. The staff report, suggests 'that the proposed tfice expansion creates a parking shortage." Iron: :ally, the moss office space that is provided accompanicd with Increased leve7a of marking, the better the parking shortage is overcon(s. T tt= words, the+ larger the office building, the fetter peak parking demands are satisfied. This is based largely upon the fact that under the shared concept during peak demands, office building uses contribute little to the total number of spaces proj'ected. It would be extremely helpful to receive more input prior ::o our next Planning Commission meeting GftedulW, for Auguat 1J, 1988. As always, your assistance and coope3rati4,q. is appreciated. Ver3f truly 7vpurs 1 F hit AIA Wsgj cce D vid Michaels, Tower Partners Tzgh -Der sun, WLC -Tin DiCam.' Ilea, WLC !�, , 0 i L • in a �'�•'� ';�,: .. . ,';: � : t,.. .'� H`? „.ti; �:, {i� Y � ,k �°... +� � v. ^d p, � gip: „ �.� x•. 0 i.w �♦ � d: w M' ����� +- M � f � � _ ' ���r i �� r f Y i � � �.. ;may ���(� �,'� -....1 - � ��.+ '�. i,�' 3. _ .�.� �` �. c Y .y s � tea.:. +kt ,p,;. d � z�: d� t .ir � ro � � of ��e "i n �.._ Y � � # � .,�� r � .,' �i 'h� , „ � � � } � y w w Y � � � •.r .r. �v t. '' r : � ., � � � �# 1. �� r i` amp .� ,y�,���, ig .: L '.� � t � as n . ,'M gyp, `''. ' ,' i :r xF R ! .ir V4 � O � � • � � ��` �� +� � t � 1 l �I 1 ( '1 J 1 � �� 1 + � # � Vii. x• .etw a.' � � I � Y . +1' � '•'�' . e�. m i ,s 7� �. �t air I : ?t s^ • T j. {�f +, * , Y JJ Is IF Ai 44 y _ t. {.: -f'; �r �� «rK � n♦ ,�_ � ���i [`�,,, ;n�`�i (•?.e%a � c4,� � �� � S .� P� `,i fill° Arf- • ne►„� I A� ti i - Oi . ° a WNW -10717171F T1 A y! i s � J 3. 1EAN ■nn}� ' 1.�1 9qq C Z 74 t r �n /f e �� � .. ''►� • � � r 5 i s �, 1 ,� _ _.. . --�a�i R ���1 ..� a ,�iw t ;Jill 111111 1p11.g11 l a i • is IWO 03d �Pmd ep i d OK _1__ L L L L L LLuuuw TRW. Aiw& oil II �I O'er ,3tm u I Ao viii► � '!r F� '+� 1�•A'il�iiyl� t�1t�,, � a' �■ - ._ - �.i rte■ ' � #, 1z�' — .,}' • I� Imo. ir' r.....�.� R w , oli i Cpl'' � Q,aoai�9 s� LQ 1 dbets isSNON K ` • ,��o a�a y Q re. Q� �s :.,` ,�ao Cif mean he Qua t o s a °+ SeaioiS ;c� �'�i9a i r oQ Q�agni�o 0 o "em t0 Qap Q �� QQ� s a an cZa� Q aQ ttat �s te a aa4c aia ,q a be Qus � °� ai � yawns o ,p N� -\Z iste9at °� R��g'�e ec `CO� �h 1G� ��eq� a °0-3�P Q v" the Q° iii i a p$'S�sA etie� • ��e its eat vlit�`pa`� 5�1t�� • the Z, Gop ecw Za stab ib1 °ce i'cy to q a t t E ipo ota i irsQ 0�: ip �QonQ�i`°e ao�lyies 1s ° aira pfess cpa a°�i °��`e�te Qta e 7 ted > c�et' �eeq�itetia Copt �,a1� s 0Q Ot ip?� �n5u �p�e iS v1it�� 'a an Qe�eypq k�° eii °eCtip� Z� • his �m '� ps fan ev' r— c''' V:a . re sQ Qi rs iop' s ts° Q sQ • a sQe a� oa i , ^,a iss 1st t��e QGc a Debbt us {i �` ep'� Q eQaY1 uQ it �° 'Gy tXee jc ' aao aQe aec t� ,ei Qt S e �s'� 6e�$ s z;e iof ��a� ae�o 5�'e issioAagasc��� io scirg s Q�aa lac fessi �' `'� e{ m C�,lc�`ite taQe 1e�'e s� eck ,ire s a �° ans• �,o gt. ,che teq aqa., cp+o4 10 v cFie° a �esiwh i ZCP vo op, �s ��,icisteIo�� �Qz�act °t tz, b� psis ,tie a°at et oF to c @ °Pa by aw G��y ScaQ a Q, a sttice ,i QatiE a�a p .0 p�ZQo,o i a Q G °t ea Q1T �F,G c e pp Q ' oe � ZZt • �a �9a�'igq�tei�`n is o o a Ge � c 1) acc / / I O'N CURREC 1� 0701 0 o8-10-88 PC Aaenda o -- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIvIONGA STAFF REPORT DATE. August to, 1988 T0: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner SUBJECT: LANDSCAPE P1LICI'cS I. ABSTRACT: This report presents a policy for the Commission's cons era ion regarding landscape and irrigation plans and inspection. II. BACKGROUND: In the City of Rancho Cucamonga, landscaping plays a m or ro a in establishing a high quality community. The planning Division is responsible for plan checking landscape and irrigation plans to insure compliance with the conditions of approval of the Commission. However, the City has no policy as to who may prepare -these plans. This frequently results in inadequate plans being submitted by persons with l #ttie, if any, background or training in the proper use of plant materials or the design of irrigation systems. Staff must spend an inordinate amount of tire plan .hecking such deficient plans. Even when the plans are prepared by a competent professional, there is often times a lack of foiiow -up inspection during construction by the design professinnal to insure that installation is consistent with tale plans. ft developer typically relies on their oar-, site superintendent to "look over the shoulder" of the landscape contractor. Again, staff must make frequent inspections to insure proper installation. III. RECMLIENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the attacliled Resolution setting forth a policy to require landscape and irrigation plans to be prepared by a registered Landscape Architect and require them to certify that the work was completed in accordance with the approved puns and City standards. Res lly tied, Bra B r City nner BB:OC•vc Attachments: Resolution Item L 0 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO_ CUCAMONGA, 'CALIFORNIA,;; ESTABLISHING POLICIES REGARDING LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION` DRAWINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds it necessary to establish certain policies regarding landscape and irrigation drawings to implement the City's goals and objectives, NOW, THRREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does: hereby declare their' policy to be: 1. The eeveloper is responsible for the proper Installation and completion of all required landscaping. 2. The developer shall s ibmit landscape and ir- igatigp plans for review and approval to the PTanping Division in a manner -orescr ;bed by the City Planner. Said plans shall be prepared by a registered Landscape Architect whose stamp shall be conspicuously affixed to said Khans. 3. The developer shall retain the services of .a regi-stered Landscape Architect to provide inspection Of the installation G,.the landscape and irrigation system. It shall be the Landscape Architect's responsibility to inspect or, direct the inspection of the installation of plants, materials and irrigation systems in compliance with the approved plaris and with City Standards, requirements and conditions of approval. 4. The developer's Landscape Architect shall notitfy the Planning Division Immediately upon the installation of any material or, equipment other than shown an the approved flans. Ail changes are -subject to approval by the Planning Division. Upon written report to project, Planning developer's isinincluding: a. A c.:rtification in a form prescribed by the City Planner that the work was completed in accordance with the approved plans and with City standards, except as listed in tbi below. b. A listing of any deviations from the 6�proved plans or from City standards and the date of approval and by whom in the Planning Division approval was granted for said deviation. c. An "as built" set of landscape and irrigatioVA plans.. I i 1 PLANNING C "ISSION RESOLUTION NO. .Landscape Policies August 10, 1988 e, Page 2 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1988. PLANNING COhR+lISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY Larry T. McNie!, a rman ATTEST: ra a er, epu y -e-cre ary S, Brad Buller, P?Mty Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City Of Rancho Cucamonga. d6 hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly a►ld 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 10th day of August, 1988, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMlISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSUT: COMMISSIONEF, 4 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT CERTIMATION On behalf of (enter name of - I hereby cortify` that I . rna am a registered Landscape Architect employed by the firm and that as of (date) "' the landscape and irrigation system for name o has been completed, under my proec z; y e number) supervision, in compliance with the approved landscape and irrigation Plans on file in the City Planning Division and in accordance with all applicable City Standards, requirements and conditions of approval. Any deviations to the originally approved plans were made only after Craving first obtained written approval from the City Planning Division. ISignat5re) (Please. Print Name) (Registration NUMSe r te — 1 41-1