The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1989/06/14 - Agenda Packet li�lii 11 ��I�i i��i i I i I��i I i I I I� lig mil 9, �=44 �� = o CITY,OF ", a24NCH�F C�TUCAibiCX%APLA r STO' T WO AGENDA 1977 WEDNESDAY JUNE 14,1989 7:00 P.m., L'ONS PARK COMMB2tiTi Y CENTER, 9161 BASS LIKE RANCHO CUCAMONGA,Cl XAVORNTA 0 L Fledge of Allegiance I.L RQU can Commissioner lilakesley `Commissioner Emeriek Commissioner Ohitiea Commissioner McNiel Commissioner Tolstoy Iil, Announcements IV. Approval of rftutes May 24,1989 V. Consent Calendgr The following Consent Calendar items are exj:,edted,.a be routine and non-controverstal. They will be acted on by the Commission at one. time without discussion. If anyone. has concern aysr any item, it sh:ytld be rer gved fordistussion. A. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13813-PERRY-The Design Review of building elevations and detailed sits�plan for a previously_approved Tentative Tract Map consisting,*f 6 single family lots on 1.69 acres of land in the Loco Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre),located on the west side of Hellman Avenue,900 feet south of 19th Street-APN: 202-041-65. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-09 7SHARK - The development of 4n offaee and wrgrehou�e building tptaling 14,360 square feet on 0.53 acres of 1<;nd in the, Industrial Park District tSubarea 7)of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the west side_ of Maple;;Place between Elsa ; Avenue and Arrow Roche-APN: ,208-3s1-64.' � t C. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACTS 13542 AND 13542-3 GRIGSBY DEVELOMENT - The design review of building elevations are' detailed.,-ite plan for a previously approved Tentative Tract consisting of 80`single family lots on 26.76 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located north of Baps-an Avenue, west of Deer Creek Channel APN: 201-191-21 e;,cd 212. t, VL Public hearings The following items are public hearings in which co»cernert lndlvltughr may voice their of the'refuted project. Please wait 6 At recognized by the Chairman,aner,address the Commission by stating your name and address, All su.crttpinionsshalI be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each projects D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDiTiONAL USE PERMIT 89-07 - A:DAME - The request to est iblish a second dwelling unY. on a single family lot in the Very Low Residential District (Iess than 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 5254 t Galloway Street-APN, 1061-061-10. (Continued from May 10, 1989.) ` E. VARIANCE 89-06 b +::JAME - A request to satisfy` the Development Code requirement of an enclosed garage spgce by constructing a carport for a second dweiling unit on `a single i family lot In the Very Low Density Residential :District(less than 2 dwelling units per agre), located at 5254 'Galloway Street - APN; 1061-061-10. F. ENVIRONMENTAI ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DIURICT AMENDh7 NT 02 - BLtlCKtAON IiOMES. INC. -,A request to prey-zone,approximetely 25 acres of vacant laid)located at the northeast cijrner of Highland and Rochester Avenues to a density of Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) - APN: 225-152-01,02,06;04,do 18. (Continued from May 24,1989.) G. ENVIRONMENTA ASSEP SMENT A ND DEV11OPMENT AGRE' EMENT 89-03 - BLACKMDN HOMES, INC. -A request to approve a Development Agreement for approximately 25 acres, consisting of.78 lots at approximately 3.2 dwelling units per acre, located on the 'northeast corner of highland and Rochester Avenues- APN: 225-152-01, 02, 03, 04,& 13. (Confined from May 24,.1989.) H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TR-*.,CT 5351 LEWIS HOME97 A residential subdivision and design review of 118 condominiums on S lots and 8 single family lots on 9.07 acres,pf lend in the Medium Density Residential District 0- 14 dwelling units per acre) within the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the southwest corner of Terra Vista Parkway and Milliken Avenue {- APN: 1077-091-34, (Continued from May 24,1991 t I. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE:, ENVIRONMENTAS;ASSESSMENT FOR DESIGN REVIEW UNI-!ERSAL PROPERTIES - An environmental analysis.of the pr pu"sed development of 38 apartment units on 3.15 acres of land in the .Medium;Residential District(8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the the north.side of Arrow Highway opposite Ramona Avenue APN: 2U841 43,04,21,&24, Associated with this is Tree Removal Permit 39-28. J. VARIANCE 89-01 - LANG - 2s, request to construct a tnallis structura in the ront yard, which encroaches six feet into the front yard setbeek at 6465 Jasper Street-APN. 1062-621-68. K. MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PARCEL MAP 11891 OIDONNELL ARMS TONG ' BRIGHAM Sc ' PARTNERS - A request to 1 delete railroad spur service to parcel 24 2)increase the amount of on-site inundation area,and f 3) add an on-site retention basin for the project located on the south side of Arrow Route at Milliken Avenue-APNc 229-111-23. VII Old Business L. ENVIRON ENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-36 - O-DONNELL, ARMSTR70I3G RIGHAM, 3c PARTNERS - A Lr_�uest to delete railroad spur service to'gareel 24, increase the fiount of on-site inundation areas, and add"an on-site retentooi,_ asin for the project located on the south side of Arrow Route and Mllj&,en Avenue APNs , 229-111-23. VIIL New Business M. MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-32 NELSON -- A-►,appeal of the City Planner's decision to deny the request to delete a condition of approval requiring the payment of an in-lieu fee for landscaping Within the I-15 Freeway right-,.f--way along the project frontage for 1.55 acres in the General Industrial. District. (Subaroa 14) of the Industrial SpeeiDc Plarr,located on the east side of Hyssop Drive, north of 4th Street -APNc 229- 331-02. IX.. CCoweil Refermis N. OISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL, DEVELOPMENT CODE ANtFNI3iVEN11S RELATING TO CAR WASHES IN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIALNC DISTRICTS X. Directoes Reports O. REVIEW OF COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT CAPITAL PARK IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR 198943&ND,934-@l. P. COURTESY REVIEW OF VICTORIA GROVES ELEMENTARY 5CHOOIL I t Q., STATUS OF FOOTHIU �SOULEVARD MEDIAN ISLAND r1SIGN , R. GRADING OR.DINA. rE--STATUS UPDATE(Oral report). XL Commission Business X1 Publi2- 4:ornmenu' (} This Is thv time and:place for the,general public to address th3 " Commission. Items to be:discbssed here are those; which do not already appear on this agenda.- Im Ad*rnment The Planning Commission,4as adopted Adminietratiye Regulations that set are 11 p.m.^adfournm4it time. If items go beyond that time,,they hall be heard,- 'dy with the cons�Mt of the Commission. II r 1 �kaYQs.w i CNIRFR ��I e VICINITY` MAP N yi•i 9� as am mu 71N ! biass�sae �me ,ygp B..nthe ' e � -3 4SaN RAN 0 eS4T HALL s G CUCAmcRaA-9UASTf C9UNIV Ai l.4#Ai* j E Lt MAP*4N{i4N4T7aNAL A{A`saAP t' fir CRY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT --1, h DATE: June 14, 1989 1 TO. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission MIX: Brad Buller, City Planner E BY: Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW FAR TENTATIVE TRACT 13813 - PERRY -- The Design eviea of-liu-11difig a eva sons aril "'U fa-Tte`d"s-Re plan for a Previously approved Tentative Tract trap consisting of G single family 'tots on 1.69 acres of land in the Low Residential District #2-4 dwelling,units per acre), located on the west side of Hellman Avenue, 900 feet south of 19th Street - APN: 202-041-66 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCKPTIQMit A. Action Requested, Approval of building elevations and plot p- --ans B. Project Density*, 3.8 dwelling units per acre. C. Surrounding Land Use and Zonis ._ Ao`rfifi " P-1179`s" 'ing ss ng e afint f 'residence; Low Residential District (2-4 drrellin4l units per acre). South - Existing single €amily residence; Lori Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre). East - Vacant; Low Residential District. 1 2-4 dwelling units per ACM, West - Hellman-Beryl Channel; Low Residential District (2-4 duelling units per acre. D. General Mn Designations,. ro ec 3"1,e ou Residential District North - Low Ras} .,ntlal District South Law Residential District East - Low Residential District West .Low Residential District E. Site Character°istics: The site is currently'vacant except for seveFaT a rus reel and scrub vegetation and has a natural slope from 4 to 15 percent from east to west. ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSIOP STAFF REPORT RE: OR FOR TT 13813 - PERRY June 14, 1989 Page 2 I1. ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is proposing a total of five (5) floor p arts, u,--tw ere are four (a,) sin^11e-stor; floor Mans ranging in � r size from 2,157 square feet to 2,370 square feet, and one-(I) two-story floor plan totaling 2,659 square feet. B. Design Review Connittee, The building elevations and detailed site p as were reviewed by the Committee ('Emerick, Kroutil McNiei) on March 2, 1989. The Committee did not recommend approval due to the following concerns; 1. The massing of the unfits is too repetitive. The applicant should provide greater variation through: a. Varying the side yard setbacks to provide movement in the floor plan/elevation. b. Shed roofs should be provided ovrr front window elements to draw attention away from the garage, The roofs should be in pitch fro~; 4:12 to 6:12. 2. The brick element on the front elevations should be repeated on the chimney. 3. The proposed manufactured granite stone is not acceptable, only natural stone should be used. 4. The rear elevation of Lot 4 appears awkward. Either add a post to support the extended building mass,, extend the bul%ing to the ground, or reduce the overhang. 5. Improve . the side elevations by extending materials, i.e., stone, brick, wood trim, wood siding, chimney caps, etc. 6. The shpiap siding on Lot 6 should be extended to all elevations. 7. Provide a 15-foot landscape and wall setback along Hellman Avenue (Lot 6) . The wall should be decorative block with a decorative cap. 8. Return fencing should be stucco, painted the dominating color of the adjacent unit.. �r� PLANNING COMISSION STAFF REPORT RE: OR FOR TT 13813 - PERRY June 14, 1989 Page 3 G 5 I' The applicant then, revised the architecture based on design issues presented by the Committee, The Committee (glakesiey, Kroutil', t McNiei) reviewed, 'he project' on ,ay 4, 15139, and reco�en ee approval based on the o owing crianges: 1. The v.,ai i design a]Qno the corner side yards and rear yards of Lots 3 and 8 (which includes-the, wall design along Hellman Avenue) and the return walls on all units should be a split face block w; h a deccrative cap, 2. The wall pilasters should be designed so their height is one course on block higher than th.e wall height. Design of the pilasters should include a decorative cap. 3. On 'those elevations using a natural stone fascia, a slate .stone of a consistent color should be used to transition between the stone fascia acid the stucco wall. 111. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The project is consistent with the General anal"and Development Code. The project will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, or cause nuisance or significant adverse environmental impacts. In addition, the -proposed use and the site plan, together with the recommended Conditions of Approval, are in compliance with applicable provisions of the Development Code and City Standards. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve' ie c;esign review of building elevations and plot plans for Tentative Tract 13813 through the adoption of the attached Resolution. Resp fully t Bra er City Planner BB:TG:ko Attachments Exhibit "A" Site, Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Tentative Tract Map Exhibit "C" - Finish Grading Plan Exhibit "D" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "£" - Building Elevations Exhibit "F" - Fl00r Plans Resolution of Approval �S 10figinal pQr Quality ,t y � q qp a� + ° 3TN3n�' avwr,3H cj J-1-E7 HZZI C r t. �' 133n15 T.Itl3¢ l Quality SiaaY9 r fi c �� a � r v , f t•4�SS � D v� g � s �� ,� ,� n a a a Iiij it let 4 to f f. tit 7` A@ s ,�. fry" l- yYs _ �,�V- •`�� , v��Jam,::►.. tt � t . L'i Ps ft wax : <ss $, . 3€,+}3x a i ; n I �, r aaaays v J q. ros. }T Sod T a l •#� ?l �; `�r7l:t'T. }� �} �. ��, zay• Fib.1� � ��'i .� c a '"�'>�`�' Cf s u jj Pt. .r (� it {: M i•t '� .t '.rt ci 1 jit .r ,_=+F._, +�� a+ + lid All rd ' J a r 4 ,;� �♦,t TiR; f/ v#o 1 J 8 DE '3p ! J x t v 3 tz G w t t } .l ITY OF ITEM �#.� 1 4 $'�' RANCHO CUCAMONG TITLE: CALE: �. PLANNING DIVISION � EXHIBIT: S _.. .. Downers = l! Was aM Sam Ewa ■/wa r !e 19 3N� Kong Si r- rt` 1 AN■ t *man aTt'r i i r \, wRt: t.tt��i I �` ■�F� 2�4a,Y e 'r. II t Orta:c PQar Quality JI- aV 4 V. F 14 e a ' Oki Eli �_ �{� � � ��• ,tom -�- __/ i �,_;..�� +} 1. , _ l I f� C= , ., Original Poor Quality sll _ •r e I J r 1; 1 I j,, I f X 11i�.a r�:ril� J ti a� l� original Poor Quality _ a _ a r r , � t r 7�, Original Poor Quality 4 Y r i y all i a Original poor'QLaallty. t �lLim 40 If 3 #� d _ :4 I IL LL i f 1 � tr 'Ills y ICI ]S Y9� v ` v � pr�gna` Poor u�1it� �. { yr' t a s Original Poor Quality a 1; si � �-�_.... �s by •� qw cu All :(� f a Original Poor Quality t K , - v ! , _ S j ^�+7i �� S°' a.a.rati.•a'a"i.,, n, Original Poor Qualify LL I t• � b It IgCT __Val {'I t I „n�v i 1 :�""Pw`� .off V�� `� t��l,�•��! Original Poor Quality VA r7lt c a � t.l r a t'- UT !r (YV�� D 10 AL at 1 EC .ryw original Poor QL'31RY :k 4 •J,. � •71C�� _ P q? ��—ram.—a i 2�88� nri, inai Poor Quality ��kf y � � t • "tt -!y n � in 7 _.•` = .!"�..—�1—modd_�.�r�� 4 34 -Kr�r t Psss¢YYYt ,. . t e L.-f - 21 0 w o-aa, v sue— .. ..Tx., ., �IT:�..• 44 9 R k 3.�.t. 3:xpF.♦'.''�. �Y9 '�1^ c."r/✓ � � 7?J1. 3{ 0.I 1.Q! grd♦. Q0Z• Y 1p 14 aCL .may a �r i �_ ,h, � 4r• � � 1' i . 1 �,. � �� RESOLUTION NO. A 'RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT NO. 1381S, THE DESIGN REVIEW OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND DETAILED SITE PLAN FOR 6 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 1,69 ACRES OF LAND, LO.ATEO ON THE WEST SIDE OF HELLMAN' AVENUE, 900 'FEET SOUTH OF 19TH STREET IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APN: 202-041-65 A. Recitals. (i) William Perry Construction has filed an application for the Design Review of Tract No. 13813 n described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application". (ii), On June 14, 1989,- tho Planning Commission. F the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application. (iii) All legal prerequisites 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 follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically ff�ds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. l 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission I during the above-referenced meeting on June 14„ 1989, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (1) That the proposed project is consistent. With the objectives of the General Plan; and (21 That the proposed design is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and J tVi That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and (4) That the proposed design, together with the conditions• applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the Dubiic he•"tF, safety, or. welfare, or materially injurious 'to properties or irprovementt in the vicini"ty. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. RE: DESIGN REVIEW FOR TR 13813 PERRY June 14, 1989 Page 2 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs l and 2 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 herein by this reference. Planning Division (1) The wall design along the corner side yards and rear yards of Lots 3-and 6 (which includes the wall design along Hellman Avenue) and the return walls on all units shall be a split face block with a decorative cap. (2) The wail pilasters shall be designed so their height is one course of block higher than the wall height. Design of the pilasters shall include a decorative cap. (3) On those elevations using a natural stone fascia, a slate stone of a consistent color shalt be used to transition between the stone fascia and the stucco wall. 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 1989, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad u er, ecretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, du 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 mseting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of June, 1989, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: AM ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: F F R WW 4V Y6 y4`N4 Tp qlp ;+ �'_1e0y t1 a•' tJ �,=�Y++�44.Cw. QCrpYYQ q4N 6C�GY G� AR�1�> a Y43 CO N+^� Abh �G 4aN q �N� ge�w10 Q 54S Y.y 4� OirV QCj4°= O MN.Mtl� �db 04g S�.n�N ggO■�4 d V O�V b C Y w A C 3 Y Ol C Y = 7 y U V i S w �,.SaYa�=�»4y Qc✓ C 4�,L/ �4_� EY°.40.Q 'g^cpc 4Ytfy�0 wy8 .wry G.. $$NLG^.®C i~.� 3y.gwrS LYC Cj�NCdR. \V 1 Q. Q 7d c.. �'Mw Yaq ow. L'.aw q:`a °` all cr54 x•G �$y,� 4«° an^a Yuan.. /"y � of cq w ��+ INK Y$4.w- usf� 4�i ti c u I S�wp'"3aaruq 6Y UY r~. ea. a�pp c�a.9�� .c-p O� o. C 11AOIa°�roS O4HY 2 °Vy yy Ca y. ��4 V61 YL�V� 01 o.�TY �66 wG Nw LL�`�49rySMy�?6�pY i4 6Y�i. 0.`'CYgiN Ypx�'iN ar�u+�y y0QOt 4 ~ ~fi x Hpb CE 5W p C 4 VV" yQ yYgK �. .. OCroL eC��OT�YO 'C.G[�}CV NN.G 6�0 q 4m4W y�� 4C u C}y1Y.G C Gy Q Y uqqqq « H M..4 Q N N r.°A Y N N 4 O Y Y 4► q=o p Yu y �ya �v+R COr Y p .�.a W wrY ty-''C c L Y p yt� r•4 4 0 L6 �v tt 4Cw.p.^V roROSNLAI� 4 1"'000 Y 4 ® 4 C as tr ea C O. &yy, FV A Q�4 Mt4 u o NNH a °'Irw" V ;I i N ® CYM Y.OYCVy %aN w � i1 i 9 7aYYW7 +NNf s yYO yON� OO D+LIY YD V OI N� L uiA gg cY^ g.OGV$ �O.}Ca L.-w 9 ■ Ate' PO IS— ��LL c nY 9T yyyyyy�� h MONO, vNMYS`-®.6CYcyVi yOjC'YY^: MbLY" W �O Gam, YL P y. o�.ua .�-$u+ .,^g«abia.N,Ra-.. a9Y..nWra`rr . /�[ O_ 4 YCEVYP+eN+� O WLCQ.^.YYN. Y.T ._ Baca N.A \V L v yy j^ CN.1P y � 4 p NOG rYegt.Y LG 6 qG t 1. V C No13�Y�.A. `Y N S^ Q ~��y�yEL�7� L99Mtl y>a ySN yPCA gpYy OOV�y V� per( O q. W C ti w O w Y L V O OI C.Y 6 n'y L Q P W g 9 V Cd ae`Yoi=.^. YCNao�5 ra w w > > e to�+ w rdFup'o'� Q.p�61 .O qOCqq OY iS 6..�D ONyIU Y C NYO� 1.1.N SO O :Ev O.S� La �^ CG 4J gqCYiIG�// U4aL^33Pu g9g ttY L 1N�L�L91Y14 � CCi.®6yc�YaOOvLO �yGyycc 1N ^y{C P`yp � �.Y 60 CNU Yam. NM MaN L�)NdCI C i�W N VMw` UI p" IL Nw2. NOa N O L 6■ M^Y.�!l M ic S%�vppH :YP= y M- O �l. w YY C N—ab JV . AMY'CN YwL OW�YQwbNl L�q i. wwSa Vy ^. PY Y ` o OE` `N OC~ c� y0VMC-O 97 g#$t O.N O�E.LL yL -..Q. VTL C PI -.Joe= i`P�O 1uw�'-V V'a gV G-W� �''V OP2 6W 'F+ pYy tit _, v. pY EU SSC a r� y C tl %. ~�G�w y VLrG�fY1 RO'9q N q' yg a'pi: ''�N•.. i �^ �� *wC YY^•�gE�PV V N.4gVti Y ��Oay qo. g °� w$ `o'v On C^y WaagwN mPy'$ a gLLLu.^ oA . pr OIP� '^O P >I E Y 9.Y=. �m P Y V P S > NYp�Li, A C=pt Y w • p`� YOa d'�..�Cp C �OtlVL> �YN�7'^y�y. Os7 PLyY.d �S�Y WA m4'c LYd+�=w•aw�Yqqy9Y��,,. >9CC VM+oV'f Ew9 YZ��Y �OC 9 .4 2 4 Ohwn.P 11V9CC C.�M4.8 Cj.yPP6* sr {+ ill a ib .�a90 llEyii .. w yC x VA 6144E aEL9 {�y M �V �9yC6 �C{y� O�q,Q^>O.O SpPO N.qq. yq4 yy.OIY VM}PW T1..WW >VOW. p9u >Q9 w i n• 6 w N O� Y Q t 0 L.G N± 6 E J.S V C■ /�MJtNC ^qVM ^p AY q� gOO�LdCOHe�.�. dd$AO LvW� N�L10 L.N w dN q9 QIQ �yV?q C.�.L O.CMMee�YUC � ■CeL mYVO V CV.1 OV OL ��~ V Y L O ^ gqL.`pV A qO VY VNa aLil 9 O deuC q0 ! Yq�C 3 it �ti dLO^O4YLV 6W L.N L. Ud^N �.7 �qN {. �CC• C q C � > ^ d N•rS a 4�•^ q {� 7 Hjq.6Y1 � ^ « qY� }y Oq�0.0 KN ON! Yd Sq'N ^ •. V.~d a Lu i e l u "pp , OG I G4 ON 4M ,,,� q CVa y dtt Off. bNa N ^OV b VO• 6N O.L wed Yu CC �aO+y y L w L O q O L X NCO 0Y i^ NN 6y41N�.V CM.6�q HN dgdl O ~.EK.} '.8y O.^dM•"I O Yi.e. Yp O1 V o CMS Wv0 �V' 46u1 r� NGL V 1oNL CC� L 010q H�.V e=^ N Q- y.N U d V.Y 'y q 5, e'> Ya d N W a s^N CNd.L O I 1.1A y.V LL:pOV 6N LNa6 Nj C Qt�.. ♦10, 02 gIJ6 V �d.�i � OjN d4.�RQ �Yq.�,Oy^o OIMw � 94yy V N'y •`:. N d•�'I O. VM H CQ' i �e dq I'( �A O N..`OIL l-2 4sC L•N- �.L A 31{�� • Y�'K: LeLN Oi I Ow qV+ ^V� YVgT N>i C� ��+�Q Vim_ e�LO�Vy (CIS u^u L Y1 dC@ 6 V 6t L^ 6 Q N N V^O y g C L 6 O O� e p L p Y L u y H _C C M tyV� O •�I- L L e.V cO i q■C O^ ' l✓Y q` O d OI C U Y Y V � N O�OI:P�L^e O G Y �=L 9 w� 0 7qL V^N C•.yyyy Ly O CCLM N M g N <N <N N Q H N L... <l�V r�•.01>a N h 0 t p T O C- 4 Vqp m 1.0O auq 9c CY L T oLY p,C Li Oac O. ••LB4ib s^ 'cYf `ei 8a®nJq. .p.'ec�.. s� q`>>�+. Oy talro. a rears • V O.L ip, 4� p m d^-.yEVE' o^J •�6� Nq_ VIn N 5oO}Y .5YaM y0 VC LOOY'�_ �ii. M.16 -31. 4 0 Y V � IL G2 4" Y'•� <c :�� ~ wr 8 pale •�• saLv ' JR. Nei Uri 4 �o Py■c u. ,r$ z «t .�p.'�o. rie.a�$+ N w�V Y Y C 7^ �b.r•M y Y N �Y 71 g T a wtL O O 1.. M I= LqAs®_i Ca • eY �Y�N_ yy ■V 4 aM w+ :s Ova y � C�.C� �` O LO V LY®yypyy.q�� Ua uVYd Ni �LV_ Om JOWL. ^� W. Yu4YM CIy . ..L 6.yy 'V 016�I� Y9p~ M~w Y: �C MYnCtl Nam^, OYO.. i�YC4r�. 1,„dJN YL'GN !L �.M . VV VtY({tO Ay M ~N NyuL EO'S!�■+ LC V y:�+ Y O`� �'NM Mo Y Y Nw nT,SLY. C� �AqO M �W G e3p0 y6� yV ^�•M� C{ O I yTLV CC. YYO e 7'a VTY� Vy 01�•' 6L L N V. S— Y O'•.b Q� ~ 3+. 4^TYy OIL V O N pYY LLg� �O.VO •C �_C[CO V OHO C w Yg M�O.O"N11 p N40 O{Yy�ea 9. LCw V C t. YT Oqp L ^ CyY 'N Vyp V .LI� � V.yly1 L INApCY■eT L_M 4N C VVYLN y�Y NyaLa Y.~.YN.a:V6� ^V dea cVV 9�w wy{�IYttY:��jaL C M u0i 0 <7•ILi O Y <e w FU.,O M <Li ^<V 1'•O N�x 9 Q Y. O.. t N IL I W LL 6-5 •O.r s w na \I W �' Y..- »a v �ev a.• v L o r Y a 1�, a.. t�'S c. w•.eS.T... �a � o.o�► �c'�.�n o«ri adr `� c�X CY Q 4 wl�i.G.L ~Y Fps RgZ U~■wCC 90Si d �LabprC$}� Ni+Ya O`p. L y.CID Qom.. g'. eu-^. CLw. U ,rOLd Cau94.G V8„4s q aN. �� bylCyyy1�dyy Qes ra-V 147 ! a OI>LII1 CY LV NBC t�L O �r+.�4e^ QYY�' C QN'4 ■ ppO p �i. 9b~ V4 � YY � G a C�• L%� C c� c,dN 4 o L'a: may"f c'OCI yoa� }^ go'uN c' Lyn wn�$eYi. Y .'.L G ar py E yo. o ovcui! a '$eYiu� c :°� vwY.Y�L o WE �. c 4 �a 0. Nod g xci t7z ep-c- 94 u amL Ncy^i. GaL V 0. ^MY(,t u�� SY.aY. 'w�i.. «�� "•. $.'�.w.n �YY..c ��qs ay. a Ma 0 f.+V wV yV��QOC QLL. G N.� �Yi qY iya} Q ZTyN .+ A /y —5I.O U 'K ti r�G?:JY Q9» 9 �ypC$Sp. LY N 2w LLN N'd6"rc e.Y+iIf 5. 9 •N 4C 3f=`c"g ^ +o w T dIY dU7a V=�q y�.tCd m V�C1NC wLOV w q'� O g6N y�/�•uy OY■�. •W A�N Eg �Y4 6�.NN N jY v. i+�L 454�O1R A W Lhi4�6iN6'dO0YE CNbyyC N4AE�yA4A ��.tTiY C O' •N.„VjL �N. Vay' OM_.A �.C !O .N�. Y h U yya { YNL >60zU�Y 3�Q - x Y N.4MH. Y�q Y'L3 _Y_ pCq OL�C GKYL4�I q'C S.4 O. �V� ni u~pC1 t1 Y..�Yy N, J CCn {S�� Y Lit U N O L X r A�j O C O L�p Y.'ss 4 t$ .Qq. Q C w{t q�0 L V •Y+~±�Nj{ VOA NYC it 9. A CNL «•^G�V. ;S�! Y Y'+� N Lz a'y! •p Cw _ � � QyNM M O � w. �SYpspC�: 02MM A4YCC MUM" C arse ruy � CYy�^ G'y pLC �OqL wC �M�yA • nC4 O 16+6. ~SY pe'•V.Y6WO~ YCG YYi+YN - «12. �.Y�4 •� X �_ �C MAN L �O. '•✓t V.�� 5-4 Qu.S SwY M.7 N y a.Y a. $.sA •^^'Ir i. N L 2 �Y 4 Lw L, ^'y T yL V{ yy a wJ.i Y pw it OL YwYAV L CMYY p�Lgt� tl Y�y>N Z.5 all- � �.GrJt G� NM•.Cj q�� Mw0 r"CI:M ��w yYJ. }N.. L. L Ygyyy ^r.'sA {� L to W IL yy G'. E �yL_ vN•� at qG 9qp a p p. L fC53 4ccN Vm 4. .�p�.. y'= y�1 b- 4. NM B C M. 9 aY NC. ��D a CiCNa _'jf0. ONe �0O �7 Q C O. LB�y9 L 4iblk a- al �. a4O�al cC� Qs■]a! C~ Y. yn. �GLY �.CC•jyN�tW V Y 4 Y�� -14 9 CC 4V:L L gW�'j Stgl Q tAv O-5 4MA au,:-- � 120 ®a �pOQ- a ti � t.• -.may � C ty �ry Y� ��y � i i\` N W O ^6"ML N 6vvLyy L. M tl C NOO.0 `_- O IL d�9. ltLiill'W. p L. C H=2 p O.q W zi_ .O L Y F uy N �®M l �OICOa dam. L30 � }�A LLY QQ Q ism =i5oa NMtl O O VI Y Y 'qd �.... g!g W "a m='EN C{.N 1 u w d. YYSLy q0� �tlY OLL. � ai 6 N Sy Lp O y i S 1 qN.O WY yy Y pp QLN G� MnY�N �A^ d O L Y NYtl �C y ^q y■e� $11 O` �y .p y CN.Y C' L" 9j�w q L� y■C1 C SL N py O Y 61 `^^ Gp Cp Op f. d N CLNL�Y dyC .�+ �ti OE�Y YLONq YC q Nq�L yLjL MO M 41V�N.Cm �C E� O� Ry.P V �^^aC$ M ya L.U�L Y.. V COY 38 01 q O y U B N V O O ^ CVC G Yy 6^ ■■ N d L! L U w uaO G }- Q Y G C tlO=W Ow .Li.N Cpi ON eGM.6L OL.A AML Ln tla \^ C d�Yy. a OO_Y tN Oi N COC CVV OSiL�OM q QQ ^ �Q$CpC QCC !..Is L6�Ye O� VLy D, ® YV�p pin OIOyuL�Y VZ N� aC. 1tl I`p� Y V Y`.p `CC. Ipi q.Vyy Tay ''a. Q� `4L Yd. �i Y �4®(y6 1Cal O�l371 �~ LY Vcc. C•» � NL.~i.L�L • �V � � �.Yw OUM V� Ls�,7Y '. w.y l f— �ee 3. YO.q� �v� I V �� -4! -I .riLa` c4 ® B YYf.bpi pan ��b yYyC p.Ms w Cq ®e wr1•Y g_"J!y 44 ■o. C Mq. NY � G.NgqNd Y26 M'e�Ns C¢ mL 6�...Lq YO �+ � qS;.. YJabya y■ pp O aVV NM. Y.4V1� M`pp OY��qV li Qg' �f�y® pyL �MW OEM a M M M �ti CQv�b lla `V Lb bq +L GGG L ^ V C V IO.N�O�® ML 4y A V •CA C#I DMr Mee. N V N tbr.Y G::OPMMM �''O CpO ..�CC ps. d� C�CV �G ^O�ypO Imo.�$■ �� if qe^S�� {��r M1 +�r1u�t, Cy Vp�¢ N� V6CVs a^y. y®�¢lGC8s3 �iN OT. M +�aN V�� tZI VaSi �� ..$MO V5W�9 y ti 01 JOy, Na L�Q L V� YNY10 GjC g... p■� C� tVG��b�+ .Y. • 8 AV dDAGm�y y�.. ((yV,J1c$p a OIL �Q C1 CGwa L Y^SV6 p^y C N {y��4tl `qLCw 'Hal YyV q T7 LQA {�ramy 71 L VV`pV G4� ! qq L. AM r � q � �.� �{O 1[q0 C� LC O �3yty W'N� WLLi' �G {J=6x nCrJ YCm 1Gi 6@Il t� F`e R q d u 1` i �` �O Q J4 O 4 � � .Cd Y L.G 4 d LY d .L Dn ♦ � �if w�i M.a .. »V'c Ya oAS � c'; °1z•'.�tu � s m � `o'Qgx �•N+E `f' ✓�.""N aM Nr i N +� CI C N q � ?�. T^' 8t � u iv 4 C 6- yQ. Y aCj C w`,ee 116 Y� �o.r /^'�.� G tlYu y4 yCC W. rN �dVgV a Vx. L �i ed3'~ji y, L leY ti y N C y i 6 w 1+r M bbq.G�LY . /V y�NO C! ryy i`V 0 VUuC. O w `.ryi A CNC Q V 8'. b 14 A'oz a i a _mod .mow c pa 4ga SV c •Cwr„YT,bVi w 4! � Ali ° s� tµ.Ea i Ydi ice. YY .. TN 9i�dM g 3`aSS: is $w .rt :cu a� w»«��'.`o pia s3q` Kw Av .G. .3uS san a Q N fyv y �'�. NYY cNYOu MM o W G7 �« O 4 wY. •O�V O�� 6y let. Y N p yy O� wV q p f. tiY Qi MATw.W _iQ � .` �u. � ; w'. � vy�6 NY.YZ 4Vw yM �VQ. ,,G N4 yu 9 N ~ V41� Siyp.4.Y�•Y M e Mr R {{.. yyq GAM ppC'.l few 4 1¢ Q q o ail jzg �ypm�.'. ZS N� ,'paacc Se , 3, �V Z Mir Q Y dO. O C • w .,.L(Z• b+IYGM q;J �L yF�.w6 Y1�C`i+t Ve i y N'^.p C� E TAils Q �p LU tiw+E� Ma M 4�'.V �� ■ � a Y 6 uy � yy N c cv Y 6 O VV L V9y Y 1cc� •�lk (� a C$"y' 32JNId _ V�g CC '2 s �{C SKr ua i z wu t"i r o 3�� b N �,(µ CLL�> NaOµOMC a, yyry� 6 S �.yy� �tYl �Y ~d y (q� Pcm �J Aj 0 4 q• N wV S l�p�y� r MVML ^}y �tC uc pe�.{L¢1 VarV [�c V g V V MCR� yNy :r 1. UO �y7�wW :MN ` ^O ■{p� yOh.{Ye dWVc V4 Np N4OM dl�V Yµ Y�y4 N C1� YO 'd,OV Ov V OV �C py6?tl" V aV�J�W/pY Ld ON M C; p+p Z �'W Oy.3N VpE MM ITQ�D yA^' C UVV �U a1G• Qµq � A 6 G+�qa i��. 'tl.µi e Y fN VL.a~C vW�.N 4i >>p , U�. w�i 6> Yµ .V.0�� N N.� UAs / a �1.3=1 cpc S.n �Yo� ;e to m o`'.�v� $ca c}-.sa Nµ 1� <{M 3� t�: l� — CITY OF RANCHO CUC.AMONGA STAFF REPORT qPr- DATE: June 14, 1989 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Steve Hayes, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL. ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-09 SA7{RFI-=-'The—ic r"ave opmen o an o ce an wa-'r' ouse b;,,l ng`totaling,,14,360 square feet on .53 acres of land 4 in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Specific Plan located on the west side of Maple Place between Elm Avenue and Arrow Route - Ai-n: 208-351- 64. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested:, Issuance of a Negative Declaration. Adak B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning,: —rri�- vacant, Taaus'ti i rA h Specific Plan Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) South - Vacant; Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) East Manufacturing and warehouses; Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 8 (General Industrial) West - Vacant;Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 7 (Industrial Parke C. General Plan Designations: ro ect-sft—Industrial Part: North - Industrial Park South - Industrial Park East General Industrial West - Industrial Park 0. Site Maracteristics: The site is presently vacant with no significant naive vegetation or structures. E. Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Req;aired Provided' Office/Administration 6,000 1/250 24 24- Warehouse 8,360 1/1000 8 8 1 17 1- ITEM B p PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT RE: ENV. ASSESS. FOR DR 98-09 - SNARFI June 14, 1989 Page 2 I 11. ANALYSIS: A. General: �,hfs review is. for er%vironriantal clearance only. e app icant is requesting approval for new construction of an office/warehouse building totaling 14,360 square feet. The building is designed with a plaza :area near the main entrance of the building.. An`access 'point is located on the Maple Place frontage. Follcaing issuancl? of a tle93tive Declaration, the City Planner would grant appl^oval subfict to conditions recommended by the review commit`,elts. B. Design ;Review Committee On,;April S, 1?39 the Committee ie , ruu 1 rev owed the project and recommended revisions. The following issues cure discussed: 1. A planter area should be incorporated on the west side of the trash enclosure. 2. A master plan for the purpose of eliminating the 5 foot setback along the south side yard was not considered acceptable. 3. Architecture: a. Floa`k=6tucco texture should be elim,' ted. The lace stucco is preferred. b. Glass or spandrel glass. should be wrapped around to the southwest elevation from the southeast elevation.. 4. Bdlcaties should "pop-out" from the building face, to become a more significant element. The Design Review Committee (Fjnerick, Kroutil) reviewed revised plans at its May 18, 190 meeting od recomir�ndded approval subject to the following conditions; 1. The first 24 feet of the southeast section of the building shall be stepped back in order to maintain a 5 foot side ydrd setback. 21 The balcony above the main building entrance shall "pop-out" from the main building structure. PLANNING COWISSION STAFF REPORT RE,. ENV. ASSESS: FOR OR 88-09 - SHARER June 14, :;989 Page S C. Technical Review Committee: On April 4, 1989 the Committee reviewed the project and defermined that, with the recommended' StandarA-Conditions of Approval, the project is consistent- with axl applicable standards and ordinances. The Grading Committee conceptually approved the project at its meeting on. April. S, 1989, D. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has -een comp le ty the app icant. Staff- has completed Part 1, of the Environmental Checklist and found no significant adverse environmental impacts as a result,-,of this project. If the Commission concurs with staff findings, the issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. III. FACTS FOR FIF31NGS The project is consistent with the Generrl an and the indusTrial Area Specific Plan. The project will rat be detrimental `a the public health or safety, or cause nuisances or significant adverse environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed use and site plan, together with the recormended. Conditions of Approval, are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and City Standards. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recowirsas issuance of a Negative Declaration— e DR 88-09. Res p f ll ed 4� Arau1 nner i BB:SH:js Attachments:: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Exhibit "B" - Master Plan Exhibit "C" Detailed Site Man Exhibit "D" Conceptual Tree Plan Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "F" - Conceptual Irrigation Plan Exhibit "G" - Grading Plan Exhibit"H" - Building Elevations I i N ;W, O_W SesL�!'�IaY �i •El�n� '� A� ,�,4., J �S r t yet _ C,vrc t}n4r ty,. � V, e6a1`R.au[ice t v I i 7 � I ` SITE UTILlZM _d MAp.. oa 6" rrnd' "i�fa NORTH CITY O - s s�-�� mot. R RANCHO CT.,TCAMoNGAPLANNING DrilISION :_�;+� ;�►;�.�-.gin SCALE-. ABU Original Poor Quality El 3f y ti ti a NORTH OTY OFr ITI :RANCHO CUCAMONGA � r .PLANNING DIVISION e rlgarlal poor Quall �l*i• `'�^•*ti.r� t .r/ l / .e�,/y_4,/r:4•.� ,`�'!^t s.R.. �.I e.ii r. CITY OF RANCHO CUV 9I ITEM.o.UE s S. 1 4 '7 I NII lW i;r1 t� UFRIMS A WAItF.11t1USF I N / VNIN,TY wnnj 1 i OF I ^ RANCHO CU C�-,� � �r t DIVISION IT: fibm SCALE:_-� I all, C� 1 _ . J., mow PARRIN4 ;6A,-.t- h ly -c E s r mom xff TPA E ENTRANC y• O"ICES&UMREHWSE ... wave • gym--- CITY OF _grf Ex. , , RANK` CC Trru: �Jn�a ua� nn G.a 2 �are PARKING a I +141 MAIN ENTRANCE Mae clry OF 1 �* r•�..� J yam" ! „ri r y� �. ' L r ! a - gG4��1Q�1A1�RtO�ip. �� a atataw..aa RANCHO CUCAMONGA °e �Qnt�tAA� l t Per 4,f Un I�t A r, PLANNING DIVISION Aa ff �t Original Poor Quality WAIV S[CTION'A•A' SECTIBN•B•B' II � 1r1 �qw. 7f �I J'�•4 N 7 1 J !f �r,N t::/� r �I» .'tea_ aj ,i K�� `�-'� •7. 'r• ,� 1 � r( I � ; I• ► �� 11 � r 1 i i I - �� IRANCHO CUCAMONGA 9 PLANKING DIVISION r S i OF ITEM: sfr-v� ,RANCHOCUCAMONGA Es� k, ►.a,�� cry PLANNINGDIVISION . HIBIT: SCALE:- CITY OF RANCHO CliCAMONGA 2AFF REPORT DATE: June 14, 1989 TO: Chairman and Prembars of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner 6T_ Tom Grahn Assistant Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACTS 13542 AND 13542-3 n e design review of buiRling` vac;onz s and etaaifrd site plan for a previously approved Tentative Tract consisting of 80 single family lots on 26.76 acres of land_ in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units por acre),, located north of Banyan Avenue, west of Deer Creek Channe-'- APN: 201-191-21 and 22. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested:- Approval of building el'pvations and plot pans. B. Project Density: 2.98 dwelling units per acre. C. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning, liorfin Single family residential (under construction) Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre). South Vacant; Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre). East - Deer Creek Channel; Flood Control. 'nest Chaffey College; Low-Medium R�:sldential District (4 8 dwelling units per acre). 0. General Plan Designations: Project ="Low Residential District North -- Low Residential District South - Low-Medium Residential District East - Flood Control West - Chaffey College E. Site Chara;teristics: The project site is currently vacant with a slope of approximately eight (8) percent from north to south.. The site is bounded 4y previous development phases of this tract.to the north,_Deer Creak Channel to the east, the Banyan Street extension to the south, and Chaffey College to the west. ITEM C PLANNING COMISSION STAFF REPORT RE': OR FOR TT 13542 & 13542-3 - GRIGSBY June 14, 1989 Page 2 I i It. ANALYSES: A. General: The applicant is requu7ting approval of building e eTv Tions and plot plans for the remaining phases of Tentative Tract 13542, consisting of 80 single family residences. The units proposed for the project site are identical to the units constructed in the previous phases of this "Compass Rose" project. The unit nix consists of two two-story and two single=story floor plans ranging in size from 2,257 square feet to 2,900 square feet. Each floor plan has three elevation treatments. B. Design Review Committee: The Committee (Emerick, Kroutil, o s oy) reviewed a pro."ect on May 18, 1989, and recommended approval based on the following changes: 1. Sie, rear, and corner side ysrd walls of gray slumpstone will be provided. A return wall should also be provided on the spurt-side of each front yard. 2. Additional architectural treaument should be provided around windows on all elevations. 3. - Additional trees should be provided in the rear yards of Tots backing onto Banyan Avenue,, adjacent to the wall subject to City Planner approval. Pop-outs of apprexiaetely 5' x 10' should be provided in the perimeter wall along Banyan Avenue to allow for street tree planting. Pop-outs should be located at eaO property line. and should be shown on the final landscape plan and will be subject to approval of the City Planner and City Engineer. III, FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The project is consistent with the General Plan and DevelopmentCode. The project will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, or cause nuisance or significant adverse environmental impacts. in addition, the proposed use and the site plan, together with the recommended Conditions of Approval, are in compliance with applicable provisions of the Development Code and City Standards. LY. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the design review of building elevations and plot plans for Tentative Tracts 13542 and 13542-3 through the adoption of the attached Resolution. PLANNING COMISSION STAFF REPORT RE: DR FOR TT 14F72 & 13542-3 GRIGSBY June 14, 1989 Page 3 Respe Ily s ed, /B d Bu r f city Planner BB:TG:ko Attachments: Exhibit "A" -_Site Otillation Map Exhibit "B" - Yentatixe"tract Map Exhibit "C" - Datai 1 ed Site Plan Exhibit "D" --Grading Plan Exhibit "E" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "F" - Building Elevations Resolution of Approval I is E t SHEET 2 OF:.S EFTS FL <:>tvTRACT NO 13542 IN T.°E CITV OF RAWW CICAMMA. ZNTY6F SAN BERNARDINO.STATE OF CALIFORNIA.AEINOSIRD1V15OF a,;.. OF PARCEL2 OF �F PARCEL PARCEL-I0771,REGARDED IN BOUC 178.vhGES TT:CALIFORNIA. No'.C.E. 14014 MAPS.RECORCS.OF SAN URNAROINO G0.NI„TES INC.� DRIVE ✓'� • 7 STONE�� "'—�.�__ 1 ,RAet.a t]s•2�. �r W '.�. ♦�T a5i � 'r' ` ' __ -•i � •,.Z AtiQ. MIA414 S.F.101 2 40Up1•T ''[t .y 9•7s s.F 3D R.TSa s[ I f.Eta 9.]siF Sl oeee st. 43t5:F 32 IOtIt 3Y. - i } 4.3793F. 33 107a2 if HAREOR y r CEDAR KORIY _ 4 373 3� 74 m.o7t:F. a 4.6 iF. I1 313 1j3. is 11 LC. ~ 9RIY ' �^--• }. a a 73 15761 iF. of ' 3 n 71s:F tT5733.F- ^tYa-� Dp 'IC 43733F. 30. fl Ot3 sf �'I 1 <' ■ [ 79 9.2t2 S.F 1 qr1� 6� 97"Air. as 11001 r. 11 ti Ca11F. y K OSS KEYS ORI ..GETTVSD Wfi 60.1YE .r i...+,x 43 to 332 SF. j > •.. / a3 14 19.,n 44 16.114 5.F. y j t w 7 9.375 5F.' 47 1333E SS. T r � 1.rr.r, r1- e• 4:190 S[ 46 71.7 o iF. Yrl�r� J 4 {.14.3 SF. i9 9,Y.2 Si. 17.E39 SF .Ts3 S.r 49 1 io Ci.li ti I,sto s7. i 4 Qa S.F* '2 f9.]12 if. 112321F. 53 10 T701 # `•�%W � IO r54 3i. 56 12.225 S.F. 7atu1DTNRrA,cxr.vst ii was oaw [ I.ErAmu- tan. 1 � t,• i e r p + i . • ..c.ew•o oa"`r i L ¢ .Fp„ g �£a sIs •_�t !�€ne✓m*a� l ��^ I �_: �5. is STREET Iltte t.t'"" ..ttxo,• 1 ::. £ BANYAN .Y— d rrtvww.rrr wra•s:••«r .van.nrw r�ga.r.s-rr stex.:iJ►'7Rae •� DATA a{R q ND 4362•i+'t 9 in 71��',_,.1 �T "'��M"'Tw—''ib•nI'+Y•'fr' .....«�..^y�armT.�..p T.i..• SyEDp'4lSp•f lDiO iM Y•C.Rpr z5 3g 3l•e�W.D O5L.TO RA+iS T44s 613 ESClasM Z• h SfP4S D 7W Ro . 'AGD A.C.E tl{7. 0CE�At3P ..QED R.0 E ,i31a • Sa..R6 .J ACE IgG,e _ si OE Da r o S.rE" '9.Af CE. b1C'Es ..R �. •1 i.l.......tl.w--'L+[9.1��_��..��—w m•� � �g��.sRC F•CC p4Y.f 4CGA.74 4 f.KC4[Rlo*ti>[E TVIS w 36EtSF+E•'R asT W OI�E FE DD tRi l.T nE =D R C:E 4E C CDO 4 S StE- t a314 �CRC444ZES 5 QtC 7•.•�eeawo Vv.u,.Kr�r9:wmffl •rdo I ND X A �QUNDARY MAP -v. 9 6 � a d � S .:jiltCU �' LO lit g� •�* � fi _� h e X7 y Q ho N �i p list!aI sale m ;fl�Z:a iy MI t 3 v �iti'`4 Ix i •1 ' '----- to t �� •a la wi gg sln a t a a e a r 2 _..a�..••�� o .. H x. T 1 r ai a CJC 71n ! 1 " 1 a seaas$"'aa aa,saaa Sig 8 8 k q L�. Razz is's 88'8838'848 8 l Ilk F f k x f%i E m.[ � J�f• fib, `YYa a a 31 ig t 3 cis -. aGy....t 1.a.wa.•.- -J r.,q.Rr. M 22- R �+.�..� ?a1 ]il wa..a.w!.. , .R»• 6 w.t,rr. .fy". }? 3 _i'= y1"�.wt1/v MP•M9+rJtataCfad � " +<� y�} rf r r, IF s •'•'y!y,�,�+.'.,,.,,�,]�'�,f' mob, -r /�`y `�'�{y� ,�} •.q a$iei/+- ft!+' ' `IS x�`{�, ��y,�' �. �i iie�� y�•,,��•ptj� 1 y �`"': ..0 �.. � fir :� '+�� • 3-�. � •�3. �. f,�;.�` 1 u.< 1 s. T1Ti M OrIginai Acor Quality LO !S n +r h 4t r y ✓1��i�S�.4 ..s»«. a �y x t� GG$77 yNr � pp •{{ dyy !�=1 k• a.�pT�e1 •1^ ��W a n y� � F �3.2. r��sv'�I.frbi�6Za .. ♦.. ♦i. x 14 2pppW Tj; N' !• b � 2� w 'y �� '� gN sppp N F., �c`n�' gt E'��,tf `. r �1 • �. Its ,M��-�iia _ r y ^Nt� tt .. 40 1 �•. s ' i Ffl �'��"� � � �.1. • i1 i }t � t =t'Z1 17 3 P� 7� Ic it I OM. In I �1Vr1 YY cc +!Fj yy , riI x Ll wc LU it °� r, it 3� ..•I !- ,�I.,,� 1 n I ;Y u� 1 1i •rt z �• �� os" t}I n �" a � � �� _��, •� � �i��c.E i i 'S ^mil .� � 1� �� ' ✓��r 1' �It{;}'I oor {A' 7 m ,.Yaa Y� ttyrtofa�( l < �;++A.F iE�'fb ,' ul y of ad�K <' J ] te10 5 a a' •C,y.�.V•, r` 1, i i.,,.'r-%T �. I- t' <~�� $`t,• a t, ag • _ 1� ,M r� d -Z1 An t $ ears a ?OorG+ fr L o =Mr O .ate 1 Z _ii5 ��a t y�� r•i 3 et lu �St y+P �i 'Z �•. w S e1 ��i i. r t z� r••-_.,may `� r •' a 39�'EE� � R�+'i�d�fY� ' '`�,�� sx• e Original Poor Quality �• •s , �� g i �4 ti��. if \ #1 a 10 It { s 1 PQCl6' Q�1a1 of 4y 2 � i.5°:. Original �� , s �P .53 It- IN •�.%°. \ ` ktl iy 7C S33KS 3�� ngena oor Qua!` •'z 2 14 PW 1p if _ 9�{�a `�. may. .'� �'.,� t' �� at �Z �ccF•�C_c d •t— ^� i a t � :Farr 1,��y�� J r".J �� 1 i 4 1 f ` , a`: � tt' 1�;T +_ .: ,• � f.=` sue,—'i': �� `;;�� t t 1 ` � �� ♦ —,ref-_ -- i � 1 � r".�--,.v�l�µ .�ti. Y+etc J � �i �F [�1r •+e1� r')- �. ♦t� � yam{ C 1 �f t - i1D s •_ tJ+ii_ i,� t' .Alf ,. _ ,}i F}f;� x 69;g �,. Original Poor QualltY P11-1 r !L 6 IL t f c 4 _ i ! � � �� woo aJ � _..._ 1!�', '-`.`✓� o ;Ie� �;a •:Cts+ t�� iE�J � gib � ? '�C -. e 2i cv c �r;y P `f1 Y Am. zz V 'al = Original door Quality Y a �. 0<4 Z..z v��s„ 6 07 - 7! Gz - Al1 Nit It �� +PLP iON '' 1 Original Poor Quafity - S -- I \ t , LUX W� � � ��L, \\ r 1.��_J—� 'r �' fir, f• �� ' , '� �` '� � %� ��1�`•�--�1 '1 � r-� � � Sri c- i --- , • ..�icti.iiip�y a Original Poor Quality Ito Wig f i t `'{fit j f t}•t .,�\ �'�� `l��'�� e aaaesa aai► 7-14 � MN? fr 1 i �` zr ut CiY r 'r / y k•t— 0 tt o • � rF�� •w � �. ` fr tit �i u Lqr 4 •�� "'tat 7 t.. < ! it, t L � K• L - 1 it.. R ��a71 7'a G`•�' \ `V, ��•.w 7 I�1'�r 1, Y�, - C (` y f tP 1 1 t~ i Ot h � I y .•i. r yu.rr�; i,'q�411M9'31.!i!p•K 2115.'�I 1" N x �s1 1 POor to ��1�aI Quality . .d lyt 'L7 �y—. 'cif' .� `ti a.y� �•�� .+ .�' 7' �`�•. ` ---- �..• � '•�_ � r. iA�Y •7� -- — Eby } -_ 1 ♦� s - y`NV 1372—W 72G. �r - .,`� �$ � ! ` '� }:� age'+ _ y,(ea }� es_.:��---"•"_L L -ax�� N c IF 14 it s .—='` r, x "•-?' i ma! Poor Quality 1 —F I � ;~L IS A In - -, a� •> � . J E j o PC, 14 8 9' � V4pf,:y-.era.«-•...�ryTrww-�� .-....�. e. . �- A�..r+.wtiwY__w Vv+.�.. T-,r. ... .. Original. Poor Quality u a all A 1yy � '''ate�� . ��+-' '�`•,•,��'` � r"" jh - s T i 133i9f�: 3f$! 1 " t a3 ! 1 FAM f �--r � i� �.•--- 111 a ��y `, •f ' ( Y i �v m s�-er.vm- -Q:sa• s aa (ft , 1 i V ) � Y .. Amk Li - - { S ," CQ❑ ED c� 'E RE ❑C7Q {f,€rrrl QQL.J { I I Q�G : , i{{ a CRE ,{ Rc — ' K•. (Sri 90G� � 1 { C i( '�` a •i. fii'i. 1. 2p -��t tfr 4 7 1 i r i �; �� .�• ego .»T�1 � '� �. Z It LJ. if `�, � � �� ''till E;, •i j, .�� i a �. a . 6 8 Tit �•.4 di i, I a } � E + I r Z $ r � Fill ©o Tw 3 Fill I -- -` I injI{ It v Li 11E tt 4 Q,_'0 i [LL, i(f ��QLI�, r(; o T I w 0OG7 N l II` rrI tr7frSrJ� S .� �. r r�l P+ru{ 'r rnJJh 1 III !!r `((` rfr• 6 p ( •• '' ty sf f f lr f(y�.Jir JJ' r- _ 11t 't}I r f,f as t r wl ll N i �I 3 ` L-L Y 1 fl` it ra Mi `1 1 .!! J �. rSS j{�SI SI Y S4��i.r ❑ � , t r 13G9C3. 6 � •: .� r r4 IIIJIS' �I CF9 As0 �. „ r =. uaj .......... I t Ffi4 S Y j:{i { 1 YI i S 1 k/ ,orf. 9i R 1 C JT TT � .; ti 4 I�•� ram` � p A �\ t mom ai f t ' silt < 1qFafS. n ( a r 9 _ t � s <+ , if !9 ' =1 II VI ..... f€,,►tJ Co tL all - y. 4 et r14a _. ----- rt 4 t�• I - { 4 _ c 1trC�1t 1 ! = t I i c.--3 Z, t i t f Cr� s r ` 15 wit' t•I��;SS+ ��nC I x 11 v i 7� b ; �• ? yip � �45;'�" �(•i� � _... x.. ` ly C0O3i' (( ON ( l , St i 1 �� •.�'�I l'y t G i��( F�4�I� 1 R�. Ir 7711 �u: ; .. 1 v i J, .11 j, 4, j I I Et ' a i I r Y_ jr"s e`t ;�--1 � �� j - �p •so P Mug I , at v f 1 .. ®� i j •r JJJ ( 1 ,I u r �t� if hi RESOLUTION NO, N RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT NOS. 13542 AND 13542-3, THE DESIGN REVIEW OF BUILDING ELEVATION$ AND DETAILED SITE PLAN fOR 80 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 26.76 ACRES OF LAND. LOCATED NORTH OF BANYAN AND WEST OF THE DEER CREEK CHANNEL IN THE LOW - RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APR.' 201-191-21 & 22 A. Recitals. (i) Grigsby Development has filed an application for the Design Review of Tract Nos. 13542 and 13542-3 as 4escribed in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application". ( i) On June 14, 1989, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucomonga held a meeting to consider the application. (iii) All legal prerequisites to tk-e adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Ask 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 truee and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting on June 14, 1989, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows; (1) That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and M That the proposed design is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is locatedq and (3� That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and (4) That the proposed design, together with the ccnditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety* Y,r welfare, or materially injurious to properties, or improvements in the vicini•�,y. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, RE, OR FOR TR 13542 & 13542-3 - GRIGSB June 14, 1589 Page 2 Ask 3. Based upon, the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Cortmission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the attached Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Division (1) Side, rear, and corner side yard walls of gray slumpstone shall be provided. A return wall shall also be provided on the short-side of eacli front yard. (2) Additional architectural treatment shall be provided around windows on ail elevations, (3) Additional trees shall be provided in the year yard of lots backid`g onto Banyan Avenue, adjacent to the wall subject t(,,City Planner approval. Pop-outs of approxirsafely 51 x 10' shall be provided in the perimeter wall along Bany..n Menue to Allow for street tree planting. Poo-outs shall be located at each property line L,;, shall be shown on the final landscape p1en, subject to review and approval by the City Planner and City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permit. (4) All Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract 13542, as contained in, Resolution 87-37, shall apply 4. The Secretary to this Commis cnr shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AtiF3: ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 1989. PLANNING COMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY-. Larry T. McNI e , Chairman ATTEST: Brad-BiTTer, Secretary � 4 . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. - RE: OR FOR TR 13542 & 13542-3 - GRIGSBY June 14, 1989 Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and r;;gu�arly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Come;ssior; held on the 14th day of June, '1989, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES. COMMISSIONERS: j ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: I f E f � ppt CcSp �• M Aav SLY 4�rM fALY 4 Fla ^rYYM 'HUN x yyo yb s$ a gt aY�� E :5 �4M a6�2t.a 4 �' i..�'..CA VNyA1 n-Y 44 YYyr. GILNN Y �.t {YL.wy'LCYq F" N~�r�ryyAL�vM u�Dy yb �Yfrgi iy�r lC L� �V YJ� YL�Vp I 'w Y Yty .�iX Be n wp�..CJC �Y aaq tHa qg �� IIR awe jSy� q 7Z Lri. 4 ■�■YMy NO gYcul� �O aq�N. j.,�pp ¢�D.grt � N AO�N�� iY+Y Val 4-0 :d.. Fyl y YN�>y—F 9^`�bQ'4J.01`'+s�y�l lY .2y OEM �. m. x CA L,� G pN $' ! .. q.Ne b qb Q TygN9911 N'� ,Oq M. j� p Y9q� �eyr�ULn q- 411zf. 4wN�uP ayy �1R�, 4 'A4.. p+q:.�sry V e 4 1w a NQy�Y .0YV$ t a£�Ts.0 +tea G� 61' gW 4 �y td Al bPKQ J► Cf ^ Ua�g+S ruu14GG N��66y`.Cye �.y$yVy�ty! Sp�LtF rYi. �� v 'QPi 4 �'i Yaa.-�i�Ny4� C' gw�ta ,4.y.4 NM y Y YIS+1O'.Y 9999 $000 y+ po4 !�{1 p ov aw. u°c u'S spyN„ �,k. $'o.QA� 41 S � = SX N J T a %$q a� TA l+ .s 1gn (�°�y► +� u Y 4 p � �p ygy y��ffiY 12 H 3 1 ai is MVa J � H N �izlb;g L Y gVyyy � paLA q pYp�� pN�y �iy .Q^ L NtYN �� 'i aY✓g C.MrNi GJ^�j� �UYq ULyCY� Q vNd M Y�4 M. t. � Yoree p.a NyMVyVOY�� OCHVwN.M L1N � �y7w `.O a<y� i^D aGI O'�4Si 9yQ['��Y y■p�D 1��j �C1Y � Y.�IY... ' i �'. yya ggYy 4 Qid 'j'�'yO. tl4 AY^ Q�i L.Cy �.�b�Oii �7- w GtIRM ��yw jV1V. S~LTb � �6 L.�yM tC NKa� Y �aY.L F Y4LM f{}MyL MIL�.C~w YY gM_1Y p�VK .r a4id V �� „ff ti � ~Yy� CE A' t!yy`(]QOip YC@NY Y.(yw IIGC b� f apC� L�YL bV6a t�C�»i� �d�'�4M 6M 4IVV?Y¢� v i O tl q A D N Y N C y ~ 4 L~. N Y 0 CCO `NG Y n ^as a4�euav '! ers+wNyAv YCC C a j�;s�n MY`ey� NN E�! p4 CY y. O MNw.4R it y p.Y Nii# ?S FIR .c_tic C W. 9 Y l r L pt p�.1.tC� G N L t'�C N {``L ��• C «e?, ��L�S� f�TL M.+.EppQp pgaya�9j_'yY77i$i{ AV�^+t'�� '�p� M,6 $4$� w.N. T (F Yhy ppy.'•w — •U Ql• Y1AAO 1,AN ate'^.. Y,Y yb« �K p p �.q .r4W Ng� YC�O � V*O.y �.d�� tlCR• coAte' _ psi uL gq Lea it l lit tl cRr7�NA T11w3u� 'YfeB.'G�8 s ."�# 5a :cCiv+`sT� : �b� 1 7 cC CC �I $�E r m q AVM •.�.A. a 3.Ep��9.N.•` GY1+IN. � V +ia Y.L7S w61 r� i Y p pia «. mom ++ .4 be. a g wt� Q ay �w D a�ffi aM. A'1�� Cos I. 4i e9 p y ; aPp M.b �{'1 qq�� `l+ 4Qi �4Ar R^ 6 .wd If•M Cp6T,� email Ad4 � ppF b �qv.. 9s � y� „ Y M @6u spa .i. D� �aaw a Mlp y � tipsi ' _ , y rq ems• 0. pjv 1 � gV .NO }, ZRM MQaS$q� yy e0„ CG VV e4 �{1■ N e tl ea C M/- 3 !!� qgp�. p 4 S $== SSiz ��Y�t Y�, �4 33t—Yed� nMw o''t A�'g i e,E ��V arw AtYli spy~/y! •Z§ q ' N g ' 1r, 4 N N Stir A Vj ~ � 4.+aeV� yy+ry�gT7� CLitgip t+.Psp4 /. • N GIVYL eV 8 �" C nvYYL y .. �°p�p. �� C CC bYY L iOL VY�±• i Can.. • � .^��'YY �S � OI Or b�G 9YOOOw�y�CY6 C YN¢�C � CYY� NYU� YN w gOYI OIOV^L�^L C�`Y C O •O�YO WWW11"` L 6 yy O �. pNu $' � �y$' o' is CCnarLYeYo.,^L•S � $y'u�u 'GG� qaS a U q CL�0 b U N N S 8.8 O c. C N�c�' ua 'aL � r• =� aen G.�NySv. �''fi.Y.jG 4% µc.•- 4• ^�� L619 Cq aN� QO �O.y+0.0 NO rA� ^a�� "�! ON�� 47�'tz� 1+$ V a9 ! `� ag®e. So— •/--�• �•- �C rnC. f N ^ 04 .y.ar QN�gbUsS OC3v'e ow es a�. •V. evwo5 IS MQ Nw P a3''.��.$.0L�1 m3 a�b'"*j�'. .�'« 'o""'{�,�, a 0 U^ �.N L 4N T N=L V Y N L C C .. S-San xt Y w a _■ N N U b b b O�{Ny v G NV� �1 '�'S EO N L�'40YO.6N 9Aw Ap 1 tt l' C Y bOa y p� ,at j4$Q N •r J T Y 64 p 4 Y V b �0 q L ^.M Y 6. b�^S p,� r Y.K O a a,C 4d bV L.Y IWQ 1I�•"110... r.Y.� '. y YpypyL yra Y- V . •LwQ W^� yY _G L.L SY A1N� :Cw L�WO Ob I OK L`L ^bU atONM ai^NG� O�y[�,pp „GO� •4 aO ® -as YTONO.O 64.9 A c Ogpy �qy V w Ask 1 t yy yy �y ry y g q p CU ■ Oy OG Y GgO �� 6iG w �Ow 6• Cll aYpA rM•+. o1pY`NU b yy c rL GL♦� C r_ y1 6 cbN s Nam` aSCC C9 M • wF (g,�'$ GG L + � YM^ N �0 b=Q S � tiercis Zilee ? W eI. go (� pq Q fps Y Iat a- ;� �°Ax+3« � bus ceo 30 pN 34 Y� �y12 S� yyCOu. vd� `aaL. N� lQe��.L� :,` ^M a v.�' .0 O NCI pUVC a +� ~ ,eqi. Y O 6q^ g .��R2i L'•L,.brE' _V sR �� L6A G.t{yF�Y 1.YN N_OS qa,� dy �CY yN %Y u A^ '� ^ V E ^Y •.• Y y C 4 tl y O N C L Y�+�• L c5'.`a WX_z a in = s�3 So3-ce zap ate. W$o`a•7{Q° y G �Ir � G r N �'1 R Y� � u • N e-Yo W � g �Sa�. n� VrQt �J yg Y A, fee yt "3 s �«q�g. .�Y� W. 6'y'I HiZ� c> $3uo Q vyi X N ti qq �«�Y� YNp■ �: Y�V:C� G 01�9"' C��pY Y r..L�rt�. � qsm g !gc ^q a, '•dr 1 A! it u'as �q N�t.q� q��Ts �Qx7.�3.•g � u'�a /�� w� m_ ' �... ii .'e yea . �i' N. 0 `s,ywea.. �'" e"�L Yz Y .. $1"`� Y V qvv ^ q 9 L '4 Y yC Y A^if t OLp V� q a i__ �. QY44• m �4� yy � N� ri t q 3 i s d AMA � �� s t� AN ..� � }}`yNN A� 6. O _ V� ISYV pYdap b \.L �3�'» � '► �' � °� ?i�� $�' is � " '"'�N aNa y Y��YYYA y � VM� 9�6 � Y6�m4.Q ��®9 � � �. VYO Y{�i •V��iOt V NC1 G4M V 3i* dlaa ! �♦�qn 4C 6{ C Yi f � u a^^ yy «. W Lq WyLNCb�. ^dY CCY dtl Y OIO LY N' �y �r.N �yj. `1IL_L 0 YAeNc� �r O� t pni..`.• —y'.po �. �Y s tl� yn. v cU-'v N6r M=N�Y cc$'.�$ C=u6My co Us {d� AY�M C� d `�•Y Wq Yy pR S. N N�^Vp9� N b S Cy S+. ■ tl^ N yyy M L 01w N C�N �NG �.N NL !. M Gyy [. i 4Y.lit C.tlp L 0•r n O Y wpp.4 O 5 CC Q V N O y. Y br 4 a O _O.il Jtl} N••^pp C`V'y L y Y Or"01r O g01 �yyp 111!!! �� y•• +q��M}S �^t Mast \ QyO 919 y Uyy9 uY vyyO Y pys QasC Y. ue�q 4Qs 1�p �WC(. /�pq C f! 9 � POD a& I LL�11 1iV iLM QY O.L6 td�i ♦y y�y�626jj y A.I NI Al !I Yf COI ^ �y�n Yi all 1p Ln � e� g g s� ov o. .Etl•.�iE a guy II b 3 u �� L,� -2-.o,N. SHi Age y mal ii®. 3% x ±pa�Z •N•C�`�Z Z. «V+ ax 54 ,�� W w `M YY 444gg Alto 13 RY vi Ya K�O r0. .64s.�^6 CL y y Y y Y II g 9■� '�' n'iC 3 �. L� o � G Gc e�do .^q+ iv �SjYau c ua r �.. �+ w�� •uy+.5 S- s'p�3� OW 6C s M vo L.8 CqQ ■.O Ego$ c L�auaY na ca «d�Y- �.G uo G s� q `Ya u� co roC of Y w •�_ NN�SA �N q±.A Y Nv. m�Vy C�.ACq e G yr^ gGy G «� Ix- Y5 3Yci, an L u w a3 „may,—@� �� u. � qL q mai La v �`055 v�si d�5 *tu o.G. .L.nYEW a WV -4^ I �iN .`. ��uo�i tM. O N R • !1 _21 aw'r ww C cei aaT �u u u=Z o ♦ 'fru• >� su Q;_Li yg � g� q. MY Y Ina -es q V.■ y` j a i �' -j ' ^` «`�-es G w O Y8y y1 ii My s. L C o.Y Y N Lq Y • f�� ^Y �6 0 TEg$ CL sw q q Y — ^ram R yam. M wr q ■Qv Yat YpG ��L �n J ��¢¢Lyggq��N� ��.7�E —�rYL�® •Y{NL� YM� Y G m Y�M L•Y � ��,� 6�W YdlCy« �H L`. yy pp =ypo �epC y L p`GfyW aLI CO 4�'i• W� L. �OM 4�. l�i ��wtl ��1./ N6W M� <OW . K ' goO1 J N 1A CI w y C.= O Y 'd J C -- 1-j .ga co ay c � �yy � Jay i fa t pN 9qn u� a J C S tom.y� CY. w� o A..G. GY.m L2.0 � yy 03 »1p� Vya y'L� V LYI 0 1 CC]4 N .v Q a O w u�y O Y CIi gpL iHYt C Y iJ C.N� tqa� 'C L�`6 5 C N 6 N V� • qq U�� C `Vr O. Mi. J L1 LLiV 45 IF uYl CY C W y It ttp� y o a`� dam• J+b Y� lUyyyZyyy111111O +.�a LV. LA� S A L� v » � s Vw, p • �� id o Tt VV bbb E. f MA p q 1.5 ASK 6 KJ- at; N t»i 4 a^ y�r � • 4 V^f •s a•�a... $�� Ca. �j l � �� .off �'u'� ed0".� a�.:� ' gal W w I N Vp �oltt N 1A o e ^4�� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 14, 1989 TO: Chairman and Membeps of the Planning Commission' FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brett Horner, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-07 - ADME--Vie request o estaMsh a second e ing um on a singTe family lot in the Very low Residential District,`less than 2 dwel',ling units per acre), located at 5254 GalToway Street - !; 1061-061-10. RELATED FILE:: VARIANCE 89-06 I. PROJECT STATUS: This ite►r was continued from the May 10, 1989 meeting in order, to allow the applicant time to suWit a Variance application in conjunction with this Conditional Use Permit. This item and the %riance will be heard togetaer. II. ANALYSIS: A. general: Section 17.08.030 of the Development Code permits second dwelling units subject to certain criteria and approval of a Coriditionbl Use Perm.t. Staff has reviewed: the application and has determined that, with the. Conditions of Approval, all the criteria will be met. B. Specific: The applicant intends to convert an existing accessory structure into a second dwelling unit. It was built in 1981 as a recreation building. Approximately 180 square- feet of the existing strueture will be converted into storage space. A garage door will be added in order to access this. portion of the structure. The remainder of the structure (620 square feet) will be used as a living area with a small kitchen and bath I The unit is intended for use by a relative and meets all of the applicable site development criteria for the Very Low Density Residential District., In order to satisfy the Code requirement for parking, howeve!w, the applicant will need to construct a single car garage addition on the north side of the main r residerce's garage. Section 17.12.040 of the Rancho Cucamonga ( Muni ci pal Code requires that parking be "within a garage' carports are prohibited from use to satisfy minimum Code r ITF.14 D PLANNING CO104ISSION STAFF REPORT RE: CUP 89-07 - ADAME June 10, 1989 Page 2 requirements. However; the applicant does intend to construct a carport structure rather than an enclosed garage. A Vawi'ance (VA 89-06) has pzen filed for approval of the carport. C. Environmental Assessment: Staff has found no significant impacts on the env>rogWnrt as a result of this proJect., IV. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The rroject, as conditioned:, is consistent win the-Rev: oprment. Code iad General Plan. The projectx..iil not be detrimental to' adjacen�,J'properties or cause Tgnificant environmental impacts. Tn addition, w,th approval of one Variance, the proposed project is in compliance with City Standards. V. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised in The Daily Report newspaper as aas a public hearing. The property has ee'pos'�d and notices were sent to all property owners. within SOO—feet of the project site. VI. RECOMMENDATION: Stay recommends that the Manning Commission. appro—v cond7ional Use Permit 89-07, subject to the Conditions of Approval, through adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Res ully su e ^ad 8 P r Ci nner 88s8Htko Attachments; Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant' Exhibit W - Location Map r v StreeEihf bit "C" - Si to Flan Exhfbi: "D" - Garage Plan Resolution of Approval with Conditions 1 Ci. «.. v Original Poor Quality PLANING OO 211ISSI0i1 TIMSE.4S Per Set ion 17.08 030 Item 6 Seer,"! Dwelling Unit. This Unit vas constricted abcut a decade ago as an accessary building in a residenti-- area as indicated under 6—a. The unit is far -.use by a father of 65 years az required by 6 b and h. The lot contains an existing single family detached residence and does not contain a guest house as per 6-c. The unit does not exceed 640 sq. feet. 6-d. This unit ':,,as a separate entrance from the main residence 6-•e and 6-f groviaes a vesicle carport/-arage per Chapter 17.12. Tne -nit looks like all other swellings into area with shake s:ir._:les"anal c.-:eam color stucco ter 6-s. Items 6-i and j =a complied with. A septic tark/drain field :as been installed and accepted roermit a d9-2705. ccep,snce by Jim Sc^roed.r on 3-14-69, =o z.a best of �:y know:led`e all of the conditions =et :reek by Sect cn 17.w6.030 Items 6-a thru j have been compiled :hit:, Than: ;;:.. 'c_ ._e t,r_e o- stand on t.:ie application. Signed: *_eorge sulick, :_rent i I I i CITY O IT SUP 89-07 ��a RANCHO C UC AMONG TITLE: LETTER FROM APPLICANT PLANNING DIVISION �"�' E7��IIAIT:.�._ h 1 V1C,9y1 t t t ff1AF ate` main dwelling unit second dwelling unit ` _y fig,6�.._...--�---•-^""'"' � ,,, Y 1 � , rG7an C1 C7 �a ! 4� i�4` #i.'• M $�` `s„ t ��✓9�x S$j !^ � ... :fl to :4 ter• sy� .. ... � � W1r.zG r6+G.3C i* .% ti ! l WORTU CITY 01*4 CUP ag-ar LJa.f'eP cdi.rn>>c/ ey,�', CCaCak�o��t� �xn�"nM I 4�.fe --- 31 (;vi,J Ye6m �",�'i^Jtayc I 20" c 42o SQ botb r Ihs Oeo► +� C1 00r� �hfrhis{�ed ya�� es" Pl-o�osee� LCilout SECOND DWEWNG UNIT NORTH OF ITEAL CUP 83- RANCHO C CA ON A TITLE:ET ev PLANNING DIVISION :�)-5__,_ ti �_ 4Xr51175 j _ 64��vw by JJ cj r l ee .--z Y a / r, Gr j<, cul-fie--f J Llf.LM+S, C tL r�4L I 77 k GR/'.?�'1 11 a/•.. YC�/>. } / �f /YOI i6 SC..N/Q �.,��5�1!,c:St'� tar• ��r Jv f _.. .. .,._ --_,, MAW4\10VJR L ua UNIT NORTH CITY OF ITEM.- CUP 89-0-11 t PLANNING DIVISION -42 NNW RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-07 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SECOND DWELLING UNIT LOCATED AT 5254 GALLOWAY STREET IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) - APN: 1061-061-10. ANG MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. M Jose Adame has filed an application for the issuance of . Conditional Use Permit No. 89-071 as described in the title of this Re^olution, Hereinafter in this Resolution,.,the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application". (ii) On the 10th day of May 1989 and Continued on,June 14, 1989, the Planning 'Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a dulls noticed public hearing on the application and concludnd said hearing on that t1il`e, (iii) All legal~prerequisites to the adoption of this Ressolution 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 forth in the Recitals, Part A. of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substant?al evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearings on May 10 and June 14, 1989, 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 5254 Galloway Street which is presently improved; and �b) The property to the north of the subject site is San Bernardino CouOy Flood Control property, the property to the south of that site conaists o,r a single family residence, the property to the east ?s a single family residence, and the property to the west is a single family residence. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearings and upon the specific findings of f?,cts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows; PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. -v; RE: CUP 89-07 AUAME June 14, 1999 Page 2 (a) That the proposed Project is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Cade, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and (b) That the proposed project, together Edith tee conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the pubiiu haalth, safety, or w0fare, or materially injurious to properties or impr,ivements in the vicinity. (c) That the proposed project complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code, including Section 17.08.030 pertaining to second dwelling units, 4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project hac been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Enviro mental Quality Act of 1970 and, further,. this Corunission hereby issues, a Negative Declaration. 5, Based upost the findings and.conclusions set forth in paeagraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below. 1) The applicant shall p:toviaA a single space carport to serve the second dwelling unit to the -satisfaction of the City Planner. Said carport shall be completed prior to occupancy of the sc,,-oral dwelling unit" E') T',a second dwelling unit shall not exceed 640` square feet of living area. 3) ' The unit shall only be for use by a member of r the, immediate family. 4) Prior to occupancy,. the applicant: shall submit j to the Building and Safety Divisien oritter certification from the affected water and sewer 1 district that adequate water and sewer 1 facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed unit. For units using septic facilities allowable by the Santa Ana Regional Quality Control Board_ and the City, written certification of acceptability including all E supportive information shall be submitted. f 5) This approval shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code or all ; E other applicable. City Ordinances it) effect at 11 the time of, _-nprovp1 of the Conditional Use l Permit. } PLANTING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, I RE: CUP. 89-07 - ADAME i June 14, 1989 J Page 3 J j 6. The Secretary to this 'Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, r APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH,0AY OF JUNE, 1989s PLANNING COMMISSION Of THE CITY OF RANCHU CUCAMONGR BY: Larry McPd�e , Cho man ATTESTS r} Braa uuT'ferg,secretary I,, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning- Commission:4f the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resol?+lion was duly an<< regularly introduct !, passed, and adapted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission Bela on the 14th day of June, 1989, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMAISSIONERSc NOES: COMMISSIONERS: r_ , ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RA, 3 CUCAMONGA STAFF" REPORT DATE: June 14, 1989 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad E .-Per, 'City Planner BY: Brett Horner, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: VARIANCE 89-06 ADAME - A request to satisfy the development co a requirement of an enclosed garage space by constructing a carport for a second dwelling unit on a single family lot in the Very Wi Density Residential District (less than 2 dws-Ming units per acre), located at. 5264 Gallowa; Street - AM, 1061-061-10, RMTED EILE: Conditional Use'Permit 89-07 I. ABSTRACT: This item is i request for Variance -rrom the Development Ede requirement for an enclosed garage with development of a secotid dwelling unit. AMk II. BACKGROUND- On May 10, 1989, the Commission heard a Conditional Use Perm (CUP 89-07) for the establishment of a second dwelling unit at 5264 Calloway Street. At that meeting, the applicant indicated that he would file for a variance to construct a carport to satisfy the Code requirement for an enclosed garage. The Commission concurred with the need for a variance and indicated that findings could. be made to support it. Staff was directed to prepare a Resolution of Approval, which is attached. III. CORRESPONDENCE. This item has been advertised in The DaiiyReport newspaper and public hearing notices were sent to all prope�rries within 300 feet of the subject site. V. COMPUSSIC41 ACTION: Per the Commission's directio,., a Resolution of AW- mvil is attached for Adoption. R u ly B d Bu r City ner BB:BH:mig Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant Resolution of Approval Il'E E ,y 14 ��a ..tov �trayE+ i s Yv�w,erro! I`j ea r a h a y" Vak/4 n !$ pP®I' s�ArA� e ® -/ A ;S e®Gsif,.1�rL Q.V&�tj ba d ►► �� e vrt r.c @ v e r ��u cf` � tr..r ��A. va P; {c p TAe 5&eoh� wessah w *4 /1 6e 1-kat 4 es�4ehr vojfwhs. 17L w •tald I®a'k I//,re 40, add- oft . 1�3 et��@aro nct WQ%4)d h D-7� fie` !l d► 514 1 �y /t s r CITY O MRIAN RANCHO U fd�_ (- ESA C..A 'a T ES: A r- TEn rrrr'9�"".A S eW f t'Ll�d'.v��.. aaaanra. f PLANNING DIVISION E � z� EXHIBIT: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING VARIANCE NO.. 89-05 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION' OF A CARPORT FOR A'SECOND DWELLING UNIT LOCATED ON A SINGLE FAMILY tOT 'IN THE VERY LOW DENSITY 'RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AT 5254, GALLOWAY STREET, AND MAKING FIBDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF': - APN: 1061-061-10. A. Recitals. (i) Jose Adamee has filed an application for the issuance of the Variance No. 89-06 as described in the title of this Resolution, Hereinafter in this Resolutions the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application". (ii) On June 14, 1939,.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 found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City cf Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth ih 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 June 14, 1989, 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 5254 Galloway Street with a'street frontage. of t114 feet and lot'depth of tF60' feet and is presently improved; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is San Bernardino County Flood Control property, the property to the south of that j site consists of a single family residence, the property to the east is a single family residence, and the property to the west is a single family residence; and (c) The application has been filed; in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit 89-07 for the establishment of a second dwelling unit in the rear yard area of the property; and i PLANNING COIMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 89-06 ADAME June 14, 1989 Page 2 (d) That the property is unique in that only one covered space can physically be provided, and only on the north side of the existing garage and (e) That there are existing structures on the subjec* property and in the neighborhood, such as balconies, which are similar in design to a carport structure, and that the proposed carport can ba designed. such than it will be architecturally compatible with the character and style of the homes in tka r,0 hborhood; and (f) That an enclosed garage space would prohibit any vehicular access to the rear of the property whereas a carport would not. 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 paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical 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. 4That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. (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 paragraphs 1, 2 ands above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below. I C - 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 89-06 - ADAME June 14,a;1989 Page 3 1. The applicant shall r provide a single space earport addition to the north side of the main residence's garage to serve the second dwelling unit, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Said carport shall be completed prior to occupancy of the second dwelling unit. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED ANDADOPTED THIS ITT DAY OF JUNE, 1989. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RAIVt a'7 CUCXMOI&; BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, ecretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, ,do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was 4,--y and d b the Planning Commissit `;f thE, ' t d ced' passed, and adopted P regularly in re u p , City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular, of the Planning Commis�—,dn held on the 14th day of June, 1989, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 1 I, 1'S -- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAI IONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 14, 1989 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission � FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Jeff Gravel, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT W DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT �9-02 KACKMON HOMESrequest to pre-zone `approximate,y acres of vacant lard located at tfie northeast corner of Ki hland and Rochester Avenues to a density of Low Residentia"I2-4 dwelling units per acre) - APN: 225-152-01, 02, 03, 04, and 18. (Continued from May 24, 1989) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT'AGREEMENT 89-03 - BLACKMON H M_., NC:- - A request to approve a Devi lopment Agreement for7;:proximate1y 25 acres consisting of 78 lots at approximately 3.2 dwelling units per acre located om the northeast corner, of Highland and Rochester Avenues -: APN: 225-152-01, 02, 03, 04 and 18. (Continued from May 24, 1989)' I. ISSUE: Staff is requesting a continuance of the public hearing on Development Agreement 89-03 and Development District Amendment (Pre-Zone) 89-02 scheduled for t;te June 14th Planning Commission meeting to June 28, 1989 meeting. The purpose of this continuance will be to provide additional tim for staff and the applicant to review and process the 0evelopmerv� Agreement before it is presented to the public and the Planning Commission. The applicant agrees additirgal time is necessary to complete the Development Agreement, I1. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission appr57F a continuance for Oeveler-ent Agreement 89-03 and Development District Amendment (Pref- ) 89-02. Res ully s ted 8 d B e City annex BB:JG:mlg ITEMS F• G -- CITY 4F RANCHO CUCAMONGA A91k STAFF REPORT v DATE: June 14,, 1989 TO: Chairman and ambers of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BYz Brett Horner, Assistant Planner SUBJECT; ENVIRONMENTAL ,ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13351 - LEWIS t Ate- A rear en a st� v s on and design-feWew- o condominiums oi�5 lots 4nd 8 sf1h9le family 'lots on 9.07 acres of land in thi" Riedia Oe it, Residential District (8-,14 dwelling units per acre) within the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the southwest corner of Terra Vista Parkway and Milliken Avenue - APH. 1077-091-34, I. PROJECT STATUS: Ibis item was continued front the Fay 24, 1989 meeting ua a notification received from the Chaffey joint Union � High School District regardfng school capacity concerns. Presently, the District, City, and Building Industry Association are meeting to address this matter, but a final agreement has rot as yet been reached. Therefore, this item-stziuld be Continued. 11. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recvnanends that the Planning Comission Con"tin`ue�s "temm to the ,tune 28, 1989 meeting. Respectfully submitted, Brad 8611erw City Planner 88:BH•ka ITEM H CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 14, 1989 T0: Chairman and Members of the Planning Comniss;on FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner I cY: Cindy Norris, Assistant Planner SUBJECT, OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE ENVI?ONMERTAL - UNIVERSEb'MPFRTIES' environmental analysis of e proposed development—oT 38 apartment units on 3.15 acres of land in tF;e Kedfw Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Arrow Highway opposite Ramona Avenue - APR: 208-311-03, 04, 21, A 24. Associated with this is Tree Removal Permit 89-28. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION; A. Action Requested: Recommendation for preparation of a focused Environmental impact Report. B. ProJert Density: 12.08 dwelling units per, acre. 1 C. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: I North - Single family Domes, Low Density Residential (2-4 I dviel l ing units per acre). South - Single family homes, low Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) East - A'church fceility, Medium Density Residential (8-.14 dwelling units per acre). West - Older single family homes, Medium Density,: Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre). I D. General Plan Designations: Project Site Median Density Residential (8-14 dwelling units j per acre) North - Law Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - tow Rensity Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) 1 East - Medium'Density Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) West - Mediun Density Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) ITEM I PLANNING COMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ENV. ASSESS. - OR 88-—1 - UNIVERSAL PROPERTIES June 14, 1984 Page 2 E. Site Characteristics: The project site is currently developed Ri h 2 older. s ngle family homes plus several accessory structures. This site has an approximate slope of 1% from north to sn�+'�=gnu 7,�merous mature trees. To the east is the incrch of Me Nazarene; to the north, existing family structures; to the south, Arrow Route and single family homes; to the west, older single family homes in some disrepair; and northwest, the slible Missionary Church prope►-ty, II. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCBS., Under the provisions of the California nv rorr-Ra u l ity Act, (CEQA}, the City must determine if this proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the City determines that there` is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the env i-onment, then an Environmental impacs. Report (EIR) must be prepared. If the City that these will riot be a significant effect. then aaNega iveetermine�Declarat on (Neg. Dec.) shall be prepared. The applicant may modify their project to inclu4e mitigation measures in the design. GEQA defines 'significant effect' as "a substantial adverse change in tSe physical conditions which exist in the area affected by the proposed project Determining whether a project may have a significant effect plays a aaitical K• ,p in the CEQA process. 1! This determination calls for careful jud§gjnt, based to the extent possible on scientific and 'actual data. The City must consider , public opinion in determirti'ng whither a specific affect: will be adverse or beneficial. Generally speaking, if there is a substantial body of opinion ghat considers an effect as adverse, the Commission must regard th!\ effect as adverse and prepare an EIR. CMA estabi'ishes crtteri,� for mking the dati mination of significant effect. Project impiq 5 are judged significant based on the context and degree of change- in one os more of the following; public health and safety of the cmwunity, • Onntroversial effects an the human environment; Violation of feder:I, state, local, or health and safety laws; Requirement for a fr-mal institutional-level response. 1 PLANNING COWISSION R�SOLU1'ION NO, ENV. ,ASSESS. - OR 88-17 - UNIVERSAL PROPERTIFS Jane 14, 1989 Page 3 III. ANALYSIS: the following is a stmimary discussion of those items whidi were identified as areas of concord Ay Staff through review of the Environmental Assessment Pin-t 11, which has been attached for review. A. Soils and Geology: This project; frlls within the San Rtrnar no own y foil Erosion Cog.rol District. Mitigation: A Soil disturbance be required. S. hydrology: As a result of the proposed project there will p`roTsan y be some changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or rate and amount of surface runoff. Mitigation: On-site landscaping will allow absorption to continue and any increased runoff will be conveyed fror,� the site in improved drainage devices to existing storm drain facilities. C. Air Quality: There will be an indirect impact on air quality as a result of the project generating tr4fiic. Mitigation: An individual project cannot- mitigate air quality IW acfs as vehicle emission contro'4s arm u,e respo►lsibility of the ' Federal and State gover=ents. See st;ktement of Overriding Considerations iiicluded as part of -the Master Assessment and General Plan Environmental Impact Report (Exhi bit A). 13. Biota-Floras There will be a number of trees removed as a res'u1•t'of the proposed project. Mitigation- Based upon an arborist`s report by 'a"' Chaney; osl se tr`e$s which are designated as "Heritage Trees", €ccordi ng to the Ci ty's Tree Preservation Ordinance, and are ist°good health are recommended to either be preserved ir. place or-relocated elsewhere on site (Exhibit B). E. Population iknd Land Use Planning Considerations: As a result oT7W-W-Tr*qW project, fne densi ty in e area will be increased. In addition, the proposal will alter the present land use. PLAPNING COMMISSION"'ZESOLUTION ND. ENV. ASSESS. aR 88-17 - UNIVERSAL PROPERTIFS Jutie 14, 1989 Page 4 Mitigation:: The proposal is consistent with: the planned land use an densities for the area which is Medium Residential ('8- 14 dwelling units per acre) as designated by the General Plan and Devviopment Districts Map (Exhibit C). F. Socio-Eeonomic The impact of the construction of multi- family ous ng upon surrourling single family neighhorhoods, particuldrly tax rates and property values, i; unknown. Mitigation: Furthe, review and analysis of these impacts is Eeeasd and should be addressed in an Environmental Impact Report. O. Transportation: Traffic levels as a r'esu% of this project w e re t vely minor, .'n comparison wits, levels predicted on Arrow.3oute as a whC ° and in fact, have been included into the total projected -raffic figure of 45,000 vehicles trips per day. Mitigation: As Arrow Route.. is a si�.ii fi cant east r,est arteral—which traverse; through shveral jurisdictroei& boundaries, the street will be designed to carry the projected traffic load at an aeequate level -if ;service which will mitigate ;the:rroposed traffic concerns, f H. Cultural: 'M--- ekisting Croswell house, located at 9874 Arrow ou e, s cur,-ently on the Historic list as "surveyed, undetermined status". Mitigation: Consistent with the historic preservation F omm ss on s recommendation, the house has been incorporated into the design of the project site and could potentially receive a designation at some Later date. I. Health, S ety and Nuisance Factors: Ij gtrets: 'Staef has received two (7) petitions with a total o'lrllU signatures requesting i..dt a "stress 'gavel report" { =tl be.prepared to analyze the traffic effects an physical and { mental health. (Exhi bit D). {t i Mitigation: ! Further study is necessary due tv substantial r pu c controversy concerning potential adverse i>'pacts. f Require an Environmental Impact Report. PLANNING COWISSION RESOLUTION NO. ENV. ASSESS. - DR 88-17 - UNIVERSAL PROWIES June 14, 1989 Am Page 5 2. Crime: Residents have also expressed concerns regarding a po en ial increase in crime in the general area. Mitigation: A statistical analysis, conducted with the efi T`of- e Sheriff's Department, indicates that generally Incidents of crime_ tend +o increase with increasing density although other facl,ors may also be related, wch as, unit management and ease of opportunity and chars er of the area ii.e., age of units, socio-economic status). The evidence is inconclusive that an increase in density is the mast important fartor contributing to increases in W, crime or that incidents of crime in multi'-family areas are pr;marily drug related. Require an Environmental Impact Report. 3. Noise: The proposed project would have a direct effect in generating noise by construction activity. In addition, rp?Adents- of the proposal would be subject to traffic related noise impacts from Arrow Route. Mitigation: Impacts will be mitigated through required prow sions in the City's Development Code which limits the times of construction activity and by the construction of a sound barrier, of at least 7 feet in height, for patios exposed mi Arrow Route. J. Public Services and 'Uti'titiess 1 1. Police: The San Bernardino County Sheriff's, Department a�manpower needs on past City growth and future projections. lkitiga" o: There should be adequate manpower to handle 'tncreated'growth of 38 dwelling units. 2.: Schools: Project will impact the Chaffey High Jnint oo istrict. Mitigation: Further study is required to determine the '"ve"OTTTpact on the school district as a result of this prof%ct necessary mitigation. `tequire an Environmental Impact Report. IV. RECOMiiENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission conduct a public bear n to receive input on the potential environmental effects of the project. The Commission may consider.the petition as public controversy and r zgtsi re a focused EIR on the points. raised by the petition as identified in the Initial Study. Z , PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ENV. ASSESS. DR 68,17 - UNIVERSAL PROPERTIES June 14,.1989 Page 6 ;Res ully sr d B sri t 1 ner BB•CN:sp Attachments: Exhibit "A" Statemeni of Overriding Consideration Exhibit, "B" Tree Identification Map Exhibit,"C" Development District Map Exhibit "D" - Petitions Exhibit "E" Location of Petition Signers Exhibit 'IF" - Reporting District Map Exhibit "G" - Surveyed Reporting District and Fro ect Locations E,vkjibit "ki'I,- Igitial Study Part 1I Responses","", Exhibit "I" - fite Plan ��r Original Poor QuAlity VCHIF!IT „A,r STAT1:;MGN'!' Ora OVERninir. cons:IDERATrOUS The final Environmental Impact Report and Master Environmental Assevantettt identifies certain impacts which cannot feasibly be avoided by mit.th( -lion measures, Those Impact consist t3F a. cumulative ,_bntr1but:1on to the degradation of air duality as a., result of increased population, commercial and Industrial growth. The grnwth, while not directly caused !rf the General Flan, is the effect t of development pro3itcts lrnplemented through the Plants policies. Notwithstanding his Impact,: the project was approved based ulion the find lirg Yj►gt' specific •eeanomfc -and —social consideratlono make Infeasible any project 41te±rnatives specified in t•1te final Environmental Impact r.-.port and Master Environmental Assessment and, accordingly ` constitutes and overriding basis faV project approval. Those considerations are that the Genoral Plan Technical Update is itself a measure: t.o mitigate poten Impacts of development ail tial adverse cite existing community which would othearwiaQ eve without the l>I:�ntled dUd compreehesnv1ve approach to futearo $trvE:loF�mNnt. `!'!tie General Plan 'rephnical Update includes current rt;atlstcu3 ittfotgttation on t.ltae community and reflects changer; in development policies as well as asotablislietd VQ,1.iciuca Iltcarrurated in that (enera:l Plaq at its adoption in 1901. 'Pha veatleral Plan provides appropriate guidance for the. seta!>}isltruetrt of zoning and development regulations to mitigate growt:1 induced .impacts. Corisequeutly, the uduptleset of the General Plan Technical Update Will result In potelitiarl ertvironmental effects that are substantially leou uiSinificant in asape than would occur wlthqut-ftneral Plan guidance, including each alternative analyzed in the Finul Master Environmental Assessment and Environnontatl Impact 116port, STATE14 CAT OF 6VERRIDING COMIDERATION -71 Ci9 nj Qi m m > #. > 9 Q ® <ti m am, �!1. L TT- 0 to n1 . a -4-4 m QArbcr�5t�nmherxls Pre�xru'"j 'i.Et°t? grbcr,bt r'ecom—X0 rilocu};ory Fo P e me � prb:robt Rcammemib rernova4 NORM i d 'frces rot 5".b1¢cf 10 Prctecitop perl 0 recZ7 P CITY OF ITEM RANCHOC e.J AMON.G °a TITUS: 1'R IDENT'71CA'TION MAR j ITT _ � z ■ \ n - � - a a ■ � ■ Qom'/ f � f�'/ f 6 ■ s Aw ■ -riffl, ra■r loss Dam • �3 ■. 3 P d � I rf ITEM: � RANCHO C &M2—Lopm—m @fSTwT MAp PETITION We, the undersigned, who will be most affected by the Universal Properties proposal to build apartments on the north side oc Arrow Route between Archibald and Hermosa hereby potition for the following: We rr;uest a bipartisan Environmental Impact Report along with a Stress Level Report, and how traffic stl•ess affects our mental and physical health, Furthermore, we request the city to provide police crime reports (types of crimes reported, not convictions), and also the statistics on crime growth in relation to apartments in the Arrow Route area. A valid Evaluation Report by experts on the effects of a neighborhood when drug dealers and users gather in hibp numbers in u go small area, such as this area between Archibald and Hermosa, it's affect an property values, home- owner'.s, and thr drain on law enforcement. Disclosure names of any elected off�ca'_or appointed person or persons who may profit in anyway from building anywhere in Rancho Cucamonga by product or service. As the people most directly affected we wish to see our tax money in action in the form of support from our Mayor, City Council, all elected officals, the Planning Commission, and the Public Safety Commission. •AMt STREET ADDRESS CI IPHOMP MAT , 4r / n `t : 2 1 3 1 94 �t w. _ -Y1Olo 13.a_i.9 r1 ••/ e. .4rurx •�/-Y - v LV ') - 1 4 T -/ t<s s ,- s r• - / u t C. Sal.acca sal ' �a 4 > t i x /- plt 1 e r a•s - .i G V ^f I Please send me notification of the Planning Department's next meeting pe^Universal Props "0 Proposed project an the north side of Arrow Route, 1 PETITION A Original Poor Quality MITtoH We, the undersigned, who will be most affected by the Univerrdl Properties proposal to build apartments on the north aide of Arrow Route between Archibald anal Hermosa hereby petition for the follovingr We request a bioerti'san Fyvironmental Impact Report along with a Stress Level Report, and how traffic stress affetss our mental and physical health. Furthermore, we request the city to provide police crime reports (types r crimes reported, not-convictions), and also the statistics on crime growth in relatipn to apartments..in the Arrow Route area. A;valid Evaluation Report by expetca on the effects of a neighborhood when drug.dealers and users gather in high numbers in a small area, such as this area between Archibald and Hermosa, it's affect on property values, hone— owner's, and the drain on 1:, -enforcement. Disclosurernames of any elected offical or appointed perscn or persons who may prufit in anyway from building anywhere in Rancho Cucamonga by product or. service. As the people most directly affected we wish to see our tax.money in action in the form of support.from our Mayor, City Council,.all elected officals, the planning Commission, and the Public Safety Commission. 1 ➢ NAHC STREb'T A➢➢RES-3 - CZ r v Ji 9 6i rr. ) /H 6 AC Pr - .rW .,,, Cry' G __ V,'¢ Fq fA.3'Ift- e Cam_ %i n — �✓i1: iv tl'- 6Z? T -i2ZOO i t s is s. Please send me pnrifirpri-I of the Planning Repartments's next meeting per tversat'Pro➢ernes prvNuyed project on Lhe nurUt side ut Arrow Huuls. ; 4ttention., Cindy Norris- Pruj . Coordinator - Universal Prope. ,es Planning Department Rancho Cucamonga Please send me notification of the Planning Department's next meeting per Universal Pro erti proposed project on the north side of Arrow Route. I am opposed to the building of anv tv rental units as this area,is inundated with rentals already. I would be pleased to see a said arpa,-1 agree with the letter sent to Cindy Norris (dated March 8, 1989) by M. Cutillo an3r petition.herein. My name and address is listed below or attached. Thank you. NAME STREET ADDRESS CITY ZIP PHONE A DAI /ter- /--,n 30 t�mxr �i r7,?n 533 W'I i,., CG O, �,=r sso ll�af c 730 941 t a7q s- .� ,Qr,� ,, nye m,6 t�.., d� �C�. 9i73v 94IS--e`azs- 0 qi9 Pl 5.., C. Elt730 o q-7 p q ^2 4v, C g rr�iJn QQl ,J2' yea al:2 z., �r r_ /7 rrcz+ti c�S-5 y4y //d«J i)li 0 C 9 C 7 3 J rw 5 W,/rcv `YJa r 9+730 i87-j°11'7. '2- PET9T N t4l r, Cindy Norris March 8, 1989 City of Rancho Cucam,,.ga Project Coordinator - Universal Properties Arrow Route - Apartments Dear Cindy, With regard to our recent telephone conversation about the proposed units on the north side of Arrow Route per Universe:.•'. Froperties. This project will have it's greatest effect on homeowner's on the south side of Arrow, then spread through the community with related effez`s. I have spoken to many homwowner's who are opposed to this project. There is a growing drug problem especially on Arrow Route because of the availability of apartment type housing which attracts transient's and drug dealers. Many drug dealers can afford very high rent as they are 'sup- plemented by their victims, drug addicts. These drug addicts steal and rob in order to support their addiction and recruit innocent children into their world. There is a terrible drug problem in this area. I have spoken with law enforcement people who agree that apartments sri the biggest problem. You must change zoning laws or you, are pnabling drug dealers: to flourish along with related crimes, and pruulems su4'. as Lhe urea!:-dow.1 of the r sky structure. You are either fight2ng the drug dealers or helping them! There is no in-between! There is much smog in this area and streets are handling three times their capacity level. Before anyone thinks about building apartments, we would like said builder to provide a bipartisan Environmental Impact Report along with a Stress Level Report, and how traffic stress affects our mental and physical health. We would like the city to provide police Crime Reports, types of crimes reported, not convictions. and also statistics on crime growth, in relation to apartments in the Arrow Route area. If progress must march on we would like to see the type of housing built that one must purchase individually. This type of person tends to contribute to the community and is not a parasite. We want to see our tax money in action. We want to see the city of Rancho Cucamonga stand behind it's citizens. It's , not important what color the stucco is on these apartments or what kind of gate they put up. This will not crib drug dealing in this area. Re-zoning to prevent drug haven's is the only answer. No one can stop progress, but progress should be regulated with regard to environmental capacity, impact, and Gtress level as it relates to mental and physical healtrt. If you drive under the ~ *,fluenta of a::cohol,you, according to the law, are responsible for your ac`-ons. If you vote for oe atloW these apartments to be built under the influence of Misguided loyalty you are responsible=,ior the outcome. I .:rr�' d ba the killing of :a police officer trying is aarfo,'t: his duty,or the,overdose,Ar is child, or maybe waking up to.see a drug crazed killer in.your r'".' ; Without a ats.dsug dealers cannot-live ire your neighborhood in such great. numbers, ou have seen neighborhoods on the news when people are fight- ing to take back heir streets from cocaine - crack dealers, heroin addicts, and related crimes they create. You gay it can't happen here. If you as elected officials join -s in this fight, it won't happen here! :low many drug relatel crimes occurred on Arrow Route between Archibald and Hermosa (previ- ously Turner) before apartments were h-;:clt? How many drug related crimes occur after the apartments? More people, you say, per population. Thnt just doesn't wash! ; i Sincerely, t` rliaaa Cutillo RESO)ENT LETTEi P.S. Every homeowner should be notified by mail of-alf foimal W iriforilieZ mherinan concernina this matter. Thank yon. c �:,Voasrataneste •>`-� T . , :.:• - itl��t�nnma�• r gai�aaaaanaR�rn ��atsxianoser • M7 At 40S'a Ativac �� • _ $ "d a��s. a � �;?sage �_•_x�. t.. 3� • Y ''..."�"'^""^'y .. vt �i • i #k s t, ifs '+ r c _�, w a.a Y � i.<-i_'aTt-z —•.ram`-wr ...---• �•,•r.+w...... s � �; _ a a} ��'ts; 2s� ,s : is ig` s ti •� �i., F � ■i! i � '. •i2 t- fig SUBJEC o. ■ as •� � t � 'g • s 3 � s i"y, zo t �: .aka.;• _ a4'.a .� �. AAIROf ka ".. ,a ,� 9 � ••y ',fit IALP(L ACPI�y;p 'J'gk.,a fit, . J14f'�T''ffd't• ,��. Vtr. ningi/ n i '' k u X';X,., s 7, •�.. 0 .:tic �;, t'ti1 •§. 'Ark jr V vn Y '1• c, a.s•sY�µ Yy.. t,; � IAL A f Yrf� c lit R�.'� I4+ Al kyf. Y�cICOnr>'•1 "*;�: �.�. , 4t�'►�'i�,, �`t HN � 3t , •t' i_ t u � � d it •�{ i 1* f ( •��r� ♦ � �Sr ii�. ' to t'' tk i • t3 '��w�;i i<'#°�'�jr`�tt ft�`�t�c Zf,�.�f yf ar.�f y ��i , y♦''wrMrrw�... j !•QCX7C*OF RWVeW3 Ste.; FMMM A ,r LOC;."m OF RMMM 8 SOOM PeTnX*�a AUk UOMN '1,14' t` 7 a� ' �a OL O co 4 L �ooc..4,3,co tr1 R r/! ►ar,3E+ O ►�i q >VOW7C� Lst N N C C O N N � i`j p h�ie Q O O p S�7 t%NNf�66Y U9 Ig OC! 0000 C cal' O Q N CIA R'. may . Gq .� o• a crcr u u U 1-4 � a p. 4 a c O ap O O � to N O tr1 O r, T Apr r s n�'. F L+ Y. }'- argil M MISS AP ■ �e 11t.0 IN liq WM ,� rim I r,4 � ... .r....w�� r.ati. •..s :ra . r J. - _ -« _ r O' -� ti ,� SU®JKCT PROPERTY ►; F] I,! Brt,potexL mu -rues. lit 4 Nostr CITY OF W112 PLAN RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION -- E Mi arl.��. ALEt ,T EXHIBIT "A„ STATEMENT OF OVERR161fla 'COt,81D !A;'IOtiS The final Enviranmental Impact Report and Master E,nv#c4anmental Ass?sc,j3ment blent#fles cartaln impacts which cannot feasJbly 'be avoided by mit3g3tian measures.. T :o Impact co" c#a I� o it is - f a. citr6ulative. contribution to the deyradat#orn. 74, air q-jality as a result of 3ryrow crQ�sed populatinut commcrc#cl ar.,l iR.dustr#al While n��t dSrect ly` c.tusczl by the Genera Plan is tllegetga t of de•velopMent ' projects iinplem-�rited through the effect pa-acies. NutwiUst3nctiny this impaet, the projectaa ! approved bas*d tt1aon the finditys til t �pectthe economic and 1 social, cttntstde.*at#aiis make inEeaa#b3e any projeot alternarivrai speaif#ed in t110 final En';Ironmantal Report and Plazter .� �n ir,,111g al 1lsses5meaat and, rcc©rdin �3� constitutes and �veLyc•1•;inr� lxas,ia Fol. 9�a3t project aPPr+oval. staose considerations are that the General Plan T,schn1ca2 ;3pdt�e is itrulf a measeire to mitigate potential advers® i nPmctu of development on N'ae existing community w�i3ca gorse Otherwise occur vlt3roltt a planned a:ld comprehenn#ve E Co future devc�3 ,4pmrnt. :pprecsah The Genera Plan Techri1call Update and reflects c r includes current utatlssticul into*.matclon on t1:e c©nmunatl.anz�u s In �develoPlaa;-t tiol#c#es as 'well as eutwblisteud pglfcsu 111cvrpora.ted ln' the teen&raI plan at Its adoptlou Ili ,;sldi, The General Plan {I : ^eyul eicns l videIgui+ ance Cor a-rgropriate• Of Zoning api davelopwenttom5e3gsCe gwtCotseq; 3attly, Oho uadapt."' of tile Gene Mll xa�lg in ailar, T6clTSta,Ta potelatlal environmental efi`eCte that are au6�t zsatl lg�r lsau u151" tic;ant icywith �4.pe than wcUlyd occur aital0ut a� l -t &aa gaelda�ce In62uClf.9 each aitrrnative yx;0,w,tiat; aAna3l ►4astur environenan:al �'nviron•'�ta::- Impact ltepert. dlssessmcx,t and ': _ r- r- io 0 n G _ co ra u B IZ �s ma 't' F.emna sYt,F s Arbcrcyr rtusrmendo ha'.bGst4ioR :r3'F'=S 't+e- $ ►sr+ f Tr>o^nm 7e1S iC7Y10�Wi ;1, ORSys ptbtr-jlcp Pet ard ..of OFs o Y O O©�r Ci.1^i• C. i �gS � ice• �� O O O 0 o G_+ >Cep 6]w cn Eb N N O O t O co 4 '4 a �'`tt1 h v'1 00 w's O c Ey �01 + O �O.Le ��++ .7r,7 in IN N.7 t.� ' 00 CoOO N • l3t:� ,.. ,�.�. a r. .. .. cn M ' •W s}sbs: .� 6kJa N , N M loi ' y..eV l•.P con• LO m LC �'� c �M a 7RBTdliM¢ G n & 7-1 O � O 0 a� �-! el►�i t+�, �' ate--. T 7-1 :OAP VIA 8 IPA I Ilea r ;.. .-. .may nrjr TT � a AML CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGa PART 11 - INITIAL STUDY ENVIROA'MBNTAL CP-ECKLIST DATE: aoPLICANT: )nnS�Lr,.L2 FILING DATE: ti-h 71 R'Z LOG NUMBER: ' PROJECT: yt rycum ` �.C�v� t1 —L PROJECT LOCATION:- I.. EN11RO`:MENTAL TMPACTS (Explanation of all styes" and "maybe" answers are,required on attached sheets). ?FS KkYBE NO 1. Soils and Geology. Will the proposal have significant results in: a Unstable ground aoaditions or in chenges 'in geologic relationships? _ b. Disruptiona, displacements, compaction or burial of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface, contour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? Y -11 e. Any potential increase in Wind or water erosion of soils, affectinF-either on or off site conditons? f. Changes .in erosion siltation, or deposition? tl" g, Exposure of people or property to geologic ha;ards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazard0? h. An increase in the rate of extraction and/or use of any mineral resource? 2. Hydroloey,. Will the prrposal have significant "Y results W: f Page 1 YES MA YBE ti0 a. Changes in currents, or tba course of direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream chan nels? b. Changes in rbsorption rates. drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surfer I ce wat er rune f? c, Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface .,ater in :any _ body of water? 1� e. Discharge into surface graters, or any alteration of surface water qua lit;-? f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g. Change in the quantity of groundwater,, either through direct additions or rri � draaals, or through_interference ai*:, an squifer? Quality? Quantity' h. The reduction in "he amount of water other- AU wise available for public water supplies? t i. Exposure of people or property to Water rel:nted hazards aLlch as floeding or seiches? 3. Air aualty, Will the proposal have significant results 4.11:. a. Constant or periodic air scissions from mobile or indirect .aources? Stationary sources? -� b. Doterioration of ambient air quality and/or �+ Interference with the attainment of applicable �. air quality standards? C. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, Zffecting air movement, moisture or temperature? lr 4. Biota Elora. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changt la the characteristics of r ivies, Pill including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants' b. Reducti®t of the nuobers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? .a?e YES cr#y-w: Adlbk c. Introduction of new or disruptive_species of pl ,nts into an area? d Reduceion in the por.ential for agricultural` production? V^ ?auna. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any s9e,:i4s of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, r;,re or endangered species of animals? c. Introduc;ton of new ov disruptive species of animals into an area, or ricu3t in a barrier to the migration or movement of anzwals? d. Deterioration or rp-moval of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 5. Pooulatian. Will the propusal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alcer the location, distri- bution, dAncit;r, 4.iversit7, or growth rate of the human population of an area? S' b. Will the pro,pt%al affect existing housing, or creace a demand for additional housing? v/ 6. Soclo-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in a. Change in local or regional socio-economic characteristics, including economic or ==Qrcial diversity, tax rate, and property valuatVS I.;` i r l" s b. Wi.11.p;;oject-t„osts be equitably distributed aRong project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, Via:•: payers or project users: 7. Land Use and Plannina Consideratior . Will the Proposal have significant results in? a. 1, subscantial a..teration of the present sr planned land use of an area? b. A cunflict with any designations, objectives, Policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? e.- An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non-c-nsumptive recreational opportunities? —Z 9 ?age 4- 'YES ?AY3E No8. Transportation. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of substantial add':tional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or i demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems?- e. Alterations to present patterns of eistula tion or movement of ,people and/or goods? f. Alterations to or effects on present and Potential water-borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic?. g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or peeestrians? 9 Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A.disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, �. paleontological, and/or historical resources? 10. Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal,have significant results in; a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. Exposu%pf people to potential health hazards?, c. 9 r1sk of eupZrsion or release of hartrdaus 21*Stances in the event of an accident? d. -Angincrease in the number of individuals �` V -Or;pPeeiia;w of vector or pathenopenia organisms -)r t;;a exposure of people to such organisms' e. increase in existing noise levels? t''- f. Exposure of peopl.t to potentially dangerous w,-• noise levels? g. The creation oy objectionable odors? ; h. An increase In lisht or glare? I Page 5 YES u4XHE NO 11. Aesthetics. Frill the proposal have significant _._. ~ results in: a. The obstruction of degradation of any scenic visa or view? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? y/ e. A conflict With the objective of,iasiana od or potential scenic corridors? ✓' 12. Utilities and Public Services. ';ill the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the folloving: a. rlecrric 1:ower? .. b. Natural or packaged gas? c. Gommunf=ations systems? d, Water supply? e. Wastevater facilities? ✓r f. Flood control structures? g. Solid waste facilities? h. Fore protection? _✓ I. Polite protection? r J. Schools? L. Pagt,s.or.ether reeresriona`i facilities? 1. V ',nth a 41 public facilities, including ' %Ida,,, Ot od cattrol facilities? Fr"' m. Other gpv wmaer tal services? 13. Enettrs��an!&Scarce Resources. Will the proposal f have significant results Sn,. a. Use if substantial or exenssive fuel or enasgy? � r ( b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing � y f sources of energy? {� E c. M increase in the aemand far development of new sources of anergy? d. An increase or peril =tidn of the consumption Of non-rere+:able fvrds of energy, when feasible renewable sources st�z,Y nerg�re available? ?age b YES u,AY3E NO e Subvtartial deletion of any nonrenewable or scar,:e ld-tural resource? ✓' 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does *ne project have the potential to degrade the quality of the enivircnmelt, substantially reduce the haditat of fish or wildlife species, ti• cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sust--n{ng IPvels, threaten to el urinate a plant or animal com=.%JEy., red-sce the number or restrict the range of a r"a or endangered plant or animal or elimina important examples of the major perirds of California history or prehistoi;y? b. Does the project hav* the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, f environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the I environment is one which occurs in a relatively III brief, definitive 'period of time-w'oi:le long- term impac.s will endure well into the future). c. 'Does the project have impa_ts. which are individually limited.-tut cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively Considerable means that the incremental ef£t+cts of an individual project are considerable when, viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, and probable future projects). ✓ _ d. Does tha project have environmental effects which*gill cause substantial adverse effects on. human beings, either direr tly or indirectly? tole h II. DISCUSSION OF EtdIRMENTAL EVALUATION (i.e,, of affirmative answers to the above questions plu¢.a discussion of proposed mitigation neasures). a r�r s —K t" III. DET«i!NATION On the basis of this ini;.ial evaluation: 71 r find the proposed project COL NOT have a signzr.:c,Ahc effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will b,--r!pr-Ap2red. I find that although the proposed project cpuld have+a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a s:.guificant effect - in this case becausa the-mitigaticA mPlsu:.=s described on an attached sh at have been,added to the ptojecr. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION'RILL BE PREilRED. _ I find the p-opos,ed proje_t 2-&Y �a�e a si;;" ficant effect of the envirnment. 'tnd an ENVIRON:IE`2T 'UPACT REPORT is required. Date Signat�tr Tr tle i f i i 1 _ e ADDED Mi TO INITIAL.STUDY PART II II. DISfUSSION OF EMiiIidONli£NTAL EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the questions in the Initial Study Part I1, plus a y discussion of proposed.mitigation seasures) 1. M^;ls and Gael ogy le Maybe. 11his project falls within the San Bernardino County Soil Erosion Control District Area and a Sail Disturbance Permit will he required. 2. iydrology. 2b Maybe. . The site is primarily underilcped; hence, construction of buildings and other, impervious surfaces will result in changes in absorption rates,, drainage patterns or rate and amount of surface run-off. ThFre Ask will be significant areas of landscaping on-site to al'iow absorption to continue. Any increased run-off will be conveyed from the site in improved drainage devices to existing storm drain facilities. 3. Air Quality. 3.a,b Yes. Construction activity will have primary effect in constant or periodic air emissions from construction equipment and vehicles. The project will have an irdirect impact upon air quality through construction of % 38 multi-fwily duelling units which will generate 232 vehicle trips per day. An individual development project cannot mitigate air quality impacts because vehicle emission controls are the responsibility of the federal '& and sftte governments. See Statement of Overriding Considerations which is Exhibit A in the General Plan j Environmental Impact 'Report. (Exhibit A). ! 4. Biota-Flora. 4.b Yes. Ak,bori3t report was prepared pursuant to the I provisions of Ordinance No. 276, The site contains numerous mature trees which are defined as "Neritage Trees" by the Tree Preservation Ordinance and protected` j ' thereby. Of those subjfct to the Tree preservation Ordinance, staff has made the following recommendations based upon the arborist's report prepared by Paul Chaney which wAs completed on May 12, 1989. (See Exhibit B). Part II Page 2 TABU 'A TREE i.D. SPECIES COI+ME S 5,6,7 Canary Island Date Palm Preserve in place by designin7 grading accordingly. 8,9 Canary Island Date Palm Transplant elsewhere a":ona street frontage to save. 10,11 Cedar** Preserve in place. May require i shifting the driveway to save tree #10 14 Bottlebrush Pre-serve in plane by designing ` grading accordingly. 14.1 Cedar** Preserve in prate by designing grading accordingly. j 1 Crape Ityrtl a Preser vc, In place by a�rusti ng proposes priate patio and designing grading accordingly. 16 Canary Island Date Palm Transplant elsewhere or. site.* V. Olive Transplant elsewhera an site.* 22 Crape Myrtle Transplant elsewhere c sit, 31.1 Baby Ieaf or Grecian Laurel Transplant elsewhere on site 37 Cedaf•** Most significant tree on prnperty* Preserve In place by ellmInating any building within 20 feet of trun� *NOTE: Yrees could only be preserved in plr : if project tsi'tki plan? was significantly altered, **NOTE: These trees are not suitable for transplanting; hence, :can only be preserved in place. S. Population. . 5a Maybe. As a result of the proposed pcojecz the density in the area will bo increased. The proposed project eansity is twice that of the single fan.ily nei .iborhoods to the north a.nd south, and comparable to the ex stingapW'mcrits to ;'che east. Part. 11 Page 3 However, the increase is consistRnt with density ranges allowed by the current General plan and Development District designations of Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)+ The General Plan encourages a varied mix of housing types and locations to help diversify the population and mix and meet the housing needs of the entire community as required by tile State. 6. Social-Economic Factors. ea Maybe. the surrouiidin_i neighborhood includes a dOerse mix of single family tract, housing, apartments, commercial, and a church. To the west are marry larger parcels zoned for multi- family residential use the": have been only partially developed with older single family residences. The coalition of Vie housing-in the area also varies greatly, with one tract homes generally being in good repair. The impact of the construction of mult14amily housing upon surrounding single family neighborhoods, particularly tax rates and property values, is flak unknown; therefore, an Environment& irtpact Report ,hould be required. 7. Land Use and Fanning Considerations. 7a Yes. The prYposal will ssibstar„sally alter.the prx..Jnt land u;e of larger lot single family r {dential located on the not di side of Arrow Route, The pre'. Al is Consistent with the planned Und use for the area, which is tiedito Residential (a- 14 dwel. ¢.g units per acre) as designatekd by the General Plan and Development District Map. (Exhi V C). 8. Transportation. 3a,b;dr9 %be. Ost-4 upon land use designations in the re;,eral r1an" t .i.;,_%Arrow as ; a expected at build-out to carry 45,030 vehicle trips pr ,,X*:> (VPD). For that reason, access to Arrow Route is limited and as a designated mj4ur arterial will hp-,e an "T" ultinat�x right-of-way of NO feet (72 feet of pave'tnt). 451000 is at the upper range of the capacity at w!tlth a four (4i Tana hiqhway cox hardle at a servir4 level "D". The applicant shall by required to dedicate an additional 60 feet of right-of-ray for Arrow Rogte and add street j ghtsa. However, widening of Me north side of Arrow Rout? was cW—leted through the Cii-`s capi*,al imp-over ant prop'am in ' 1988. Widening for the south side of Arrow Route is , ant{;ipated during the 1989-90 P.1scal Year as gas-t of the � KJV City a capital improvement program whit would ,precede or , coinf.Yde with the construction of the proposed project, Part II Page d AWL To reduce potential hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedest-ians, access to Arran Route shall be limited and: the proposed driveway location aligned with Ramona Avenue. In addition, type and height of landscaping will be restricted on either side of the driveway to ensure adequate line of si: it 4 si bi l ilty. Signalization of the ;Intersection at Ramona Avenue may occur at some future date; hcwever, will depend upon the volume of traffic expevierced on the side "streets" (Ramona Avenue and the driveway). A signal is not anticipated within the next 10 years. In addition, traffic generation would be approximately the same if the project site were developed with single family uses ins tad of multi-family, -.as shown in the following calculations. Single family - 3.15 ac x 7 du/ac* - 22 units x 10.00** - 220 (Vi'Par*** Multi-family - 38 units x 6.10** = 232 (VTPO) *Based 6,000 sq ft. average 'lot sdzes (low medium 4-8 &ellings units per acre], **Based upon daily strip generation rates used in the Master Environmental Assossn*rm and General Plan Environmental impact Report for single faxir, gad ivult-14n,ily uses (page 91). ***(VTPD) - Vehicle trips per day. Traffic levels as a result of this project will be relatively Wmor;4s mparison with levels predicted along Arrow Route as a, whale arm in fact, have been included into the total a aria whgchQ.transverseess Route is se significant rsdictiioonal boundaries including Fontana and Upland, the sif eet will be designed to carry the projected traffic load of 45,000 vesicle trips per day at an adequate 'level of service which will mitigate the proposed traffic concerns. 9. Cultural Resources. 9a Paybe, The existing rroswell House located at 9874 Arrow Route Is on the. City's historic list as "surveyed, undertimined ANk status". The house was not designated as a Noint of Interest or a IWO Landmark status due in ;large measure to the property of rt r' �� %si,A,os to th des nRatior. , However -PosistiRt w t9 t ips.or c reserve ior� u .piss An s recomnsefida ion, e Part IT Page 5 house ha, been incorporated into the design of the project site and could potentially receive a desipnation at some Eater date. 10. Health, Safety, and nuisance Factors. 10a,b RayGQ. Staff has received two (2) petitions with a total of O 110 signatures requesting that a 'stress level report" be prepared to analyze the traffic effects on physical and mental health. (Exhibit D). With respect to increased traffic, staff has 'determined that the amount.of traffic generated as a result of the project will be Insigatficant in comparison with '.raffic levels projected to occur an Arroou Route. As Arrow Route is C. significant east/west arterial which traverses through several jurisdictional boundaries, the street will be designed to carry the projected traffic load of 45,000 vehicles per day at an adequate level of service. Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is recommended. i Resi6nits have also expressed concerns regarding a potential increase in incidents of crimes in the general area. Based upon these expressed concerns the staff, with the help of the Sheriff's Department, conducted a statistical analysis of multi-family projects near the proposed project site. The Sheriff's Department has divided the City iota reporting distria5 for means of statistical data gathering to track the nwrber of calls for service. In addition, data is collected by Individual. address. Tre following tables illustrate the number of calls for service for reporting district and for specific units within each district. The study period ran from March 1, 1989 to ?Ua! 8, 1989, The m0ti•family projects were chosen due to proximity to the projc.;t site along Arrow 'Route, similarity of age of the projects and consistent zoning do;ignation. All are within the Medium Residential District. (Exhibit E & F). Table H `ells for Sermice for Rg2rting Districts RD* CFS* ACRES CFS/1C DISTRICT MAKE-UP { 031 221 275 .DD District comprised of multi- family, older single family development and some industrial office. C o Part Ii Page 6 032 192 285 1.24 Diverse make-up. Combination of single family tract housing, an older duplex apartment complex,- older single 'family homes, and: some commercial along Foothill Boulevard and a ,mobile home project. 033 242 191 1.27 Primrily single family with some limited multi-family and commercial development 052 667 955 .70 Largest district. Extremely varied with older single family, multi-family, older commercial - development and industrial 029, 183 310 .59 Primarily single family with a small amount of commercial. *RD = Reporting District. CFS = C411s for services. **Make up of each reporting distri, e may vary as some may encompass primarily multiple-family houstag and older single foily housing while 019 is primarily single family. Table C. Calls for Service far Frojeets RD CFS UNITS ;i UNITS #CFS/ilnits 031 50 Meadowood tillage 328 Cgndos .15 10130 Shady Oaks (garages) 033 .131, Spanish iks 150 sownhomes .15 10161 Arnm Route (carports) OC2 33 Vineyard tillage 164 Apts .20 8960 Arrow Route (carports) 052 39 Robertson domes 114 that% .34 8701 Arrow Route (carports) 052 5 TT 12621 90 Towo ome s .05 h S/W/c Ar ow Rout ano garage Madrones) Part 11 Page 7 C#,;ls for service in the primarily single family reporting` d.strict (029) Lead to be the lowest. However, reporting district (033) wish also has a majori�}y of single family development has the highest number of calln for service. High levels wil.ain this district are related to the fact that it encogasses the "Northtown" area of the City, '1hich tends tes have a large nLraber of transients, illegal aliens and has two (2). 'known gangs. District (032) also has a high rate of caV's. This is probably the;last diverse di sarizt.. The large number of calls is maybe due to order commercial 0welopment alor., 'Foothill Boulevard and, may also be attributed to the older mobile home project youth of roothill Boulevard and the older multi-Feetly complex east of the project site. Reporting districts 031 and 052 also have a higher rate of calls than district (029), but this may be attributed to higher densities in these areas.. Based upon discussions with Lieutenant 7Peppler of the San 3ernardino County Sheriff's Deparbmert, incidents . of crime generally tend to increase wit4, incr<asiftg density. However, the increase is also function of Management and ease of oppor-,=,jnity. For examnse, when there are a larC_ number of cars available, such as in s multi-family TroSwt with unenclosed parking facilities, imto related crimes tenet to go up. According to Lieutena,it Pappler property and auto crimes Mend to be the raos, numerous in .multi-family projects. Other factors affecting incidents of crime also involve special circumstances. For exap{sie, the number of transients near Arrow Routo west of Vineyard Avonue,may have an impact on units within the immediate area. Also, the subject site is located about one-fourth - one-half a mi 3- from the "North,':own" area which has gang acts_*Q. No prajects wire samples to determine types of calls for service generally occurring for i;l the area. The two chosen were the W neyard 1R17age, located at 8950 Arrow Route (Ho. 3 on Echi.it 0), and the Spanish Oaks, located at 10151 Arrow South (No. 5 on Exhibit 0). the following lists the types of calls for service for the period between Wrch 1, 1989 and May 8, 1989: Part ix Page 8 Yible D Calls for Service ty Category ('Note: These figurFs represent "calls for service" by the Sheriff's Department and do not necessarily represent actual crimes.) Vineyard Village Spanish Oaks 8350 Arrow Route 10151 Arrow Route #3 #5 No. 17>,:: of Call No. Type of Call I fight I suspicious person 3 burglar disturbanc,; 4 disturbing the peace 1: warrant arrest 2 calls for service I burglary' (notification of an-emergency) 1 repossession 2 suspicious circwastance 1 burglary alarm 2 vandalism 2 snots heard in area I repossession 1 forgery report I man with a gun i missing juvenile 1 disturbance call 1 fight i burglary 2 lout' Music calls 1 domestic dispute 2 ln,zwi panty calls 2 battery'calls 1 hi a and run accident I prowler call" 1 unknown 1 keep the peaca I grand theft euto I assault with a deadly weapon I keep the peace suspicious person I suspicious vehic;e 1 petty theft I under the influence of narcotics 1 drunk in public 1 battery I under the influence of narcotics 1 grand theft I loud music calls 2 loud music calls 2 traffic colisios calls (at Vineyard and Arrow Route) TOTAL-"i3 Mitigation: Require au Environmental Impact Report. 10e,f Yes. The proposal would have a direct impact in generating noise by construction activity and construction equipment, This impact will be short terra and should be mitigated by following City standards for allowable hours for construction activity. Development Code Section 17.02.120.E specifies that construction should take place between 6:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Monday doo through Saturday and provided that noise levels, gelled IT.O Q 2Re c1ed 65 ADA plus the limits specified in Z^ ��O Part FT Page 9 In addition, the futu,!e residents of the proposal wound be subject to traffic related noise impacts from Arrow Route. The City's General Plan projects, future exterior noise levels of between 60 and 70 Ldn. ,Based upon an acoustical report prepared by Gordon Bricken & Associates on Eehruary 27, 1989, a sound barrier of at least 7 feet in height (relative to pad grade) is requires for Datios which are oxposed to Arrow Route in order to achieve art exterior noise level of no greater than E 65 CNEL. Interior noise mitigation measures are required in building construction to achieve a minimum of 46 CNEL level Inside the units and have been specifi*d in the report. 12. Utilities and Piblic Services. 121 Maybe. - Per Lieutenant Peppler of the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, the Sheriff's Department bases .manpower needs or, past city growbI trends and future projections. The projections do ta,�e into account proposed densities indicated within the City's General Plan. Therefore, there should be adequate manpower t, handle increased growth within the area. 12J Yes. This project is served by two school districts, the Cucamonga, School District, which encompasses elementary and Jr. high sb,dents, and the ChaffeY High Joint School District which handles secondary (high school) education. Based on information from the districts, both are currently impacted; however, according t: •Jahn Costello, of the Cucamonga School District, a new school is urler construction in Ontario which will mitigate the problem in that district. The Chaffey Joint School District, however, has recently inform-ed the City of Rancho Cucamonga that they will no longer be able to meet proposed capacity loads and,have asked the f-ity to help determine appropriate steps to resolve the problem. At this time a solution has not been determined. Ps a result, additional analysis through an Environmental Impact Report is required to determine impact on the school district as a result of this project;. The following table provides projected student generation rates for the affected school' districts as 'based on Generation Rates contained within the City's Master Assessment and General Plan Environmental Impact Report, pg. 147. Part II Page 10 STUDENT GENERAI'YON GENERATION DISTRICT RATE NO. OF UNITS NO. OF STUDENTS Cucamonga .60 38 228 Chaf foy .15 30 5.7 Total c"D".'�' Exhibits: A - Statement of overriding Conside-AMon D - Tree"Identification Map C Development District Pop D Petition E - Reporting District Map F - Surveyed Reporting District & Protect Locations �(y Ir A\ Date: June 14,1969 ` To: Chairman and members of the Planning Commission From: The Developer of the proposed ArrowRoute Project Suoject: Reasons viny the Environmental Impact Report(EIR)is not required ` for the proposedsed 3$�units apartment complex on An-ov:Route � � I I. Small projects normally don't require EIR. This project has 'roposed only I 38 multi-€amiiy units. Not hundreds of units or even industri4l or commercial projects that have much more impact on the environment: Many larger complexes do not need ETR 2. Quality of the two p Utions are questionable. C-ne petition likes to see a condominium project tliere and the other likes to see EIR. Our research, based on discussionwath the Sheriff Station(9th Street),indicates there is k not too much didarence batvmeacondominiums and apartments with I respect to crime irate,traffic,noise,etc. On the other band,the dty's L General Plan fdi esees the growth.along Arrow Route and imposes design for 45,000 car"traffic per day for all new projects there. Associated with ~ the General Ilan is the known General Plan Environment Impact Report, which,based on the growth anticipated,addresses all the possible environmental concern$. Now,the proposed project has only a maximum of 76<cars on site. How could this small.impact on the residents be:worse than that of the Arrow Route out of its natural growth? 3. Environmem i concerns have been addressed or considered in the review prom.ss during the last 16 months. The proposed building plans have met and far exceeded the standards by the city regulations,zoning,and development codes. There are soil report,acoustic reports(revised three times)„a,,A arborists reports(by¢vo city-approved arborists)which are incorporated into the design. (NVe strongly feel that the ity is especially strict and critical about the proposed project) 1} .�a .._.. ,-, 4. The'STAFF REPORT is misleading; On several occasions(the latest:11:00 A.M.,5-14-89).the talk between tl.e developer and.Cindy reveals that the>city would favor the E1R requirement because someone has submitted petitions. To achieve that end,the Report naturally emphasizes the negative factors,actual or assumed,which would justify the requirement. We never agree to that stand. What the Report did not Point out,are as follows: 1 a) The proposed project FAR EXCEEDS the city's deveopment standards. b) The project will cater to upper-end tenants iu the well maintained, high quality environment. Sharply contrasting wit1h,the areainst across the Arrow Route where prop zmes are not well kept,ramoured to be gang-active,and where many of the petition signers live, c) There are about thousand of new,mull-familyunits on Arrow Route near the proposed site,put up during the last couple ofyears, but the crime rate is not seen as increasing,per talk with Offlo Dan Glozer(Sheriff Station,9th Street). d) More trees will be planted thanxemoved.At least 145 beautiful trees will be provided when the project is completed. e) The property value will goo up when tLo proposed project is completed. This is evidr n4ed by the constant appreciation in property value after the said thousand units put up to the east of the prnnosed site. Conclusion: The General Plan Environmental Report has covered all;and, there is no need for small projects to have a separate;EIR. '`Very truly yours, hn Liao,Ph.D Universal Froperties J n c Ui I Y a..RS PROPER A ii-if...: (� r ENGINEERING*REAL ESTATE 1150 N.MOUNTAIN AVE.-SUITE 112-UPLAND.CA 91786 (714)946-9090 Date: June 12, 1989 To Petitioning Group, headed by Mr. M. Cutillo From: Universal P;:oper�iesj . ohnson Liao Subject: Condominium Project c,,`9874-9892 Arrow Rt., R,:C. rnar Mr. Michael Cutillo e Johnson Liao, tepresentiny the group having interests in the development of the zTow Route project, would like to assure you that the project will be changed to type of condominium instead of the apartment complex as intended originally and that we do appreciate your promise to whole heartedly support tho revised project through the final approval by the city of Rancho Cucamonga_ To facilitate the processing of the approval, the current process will continue as usual, but* an additional tentative condo map will be submitted within the next months, which is necessary for a condo project. Addendt - This property W.11 not be built fcr the purposes of rental. units, Property to be sold individually. Very truly yours, Jo on Liao, Ph.D. Universal Properties CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT f DATE. June 14, 1989 TO: Chairman and hIembers of the Planning Co=ission nlom: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner SUBJECT: VARIANCE 89-01 - LANG - A request to construct a trellis s ruc ure in the--fr-o—nT yard, which encroaches six feet into the front yard setback; at 6465 Jasper 'Street - APN: 102- 621-68. 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Fiction Requestea: Review Variance request. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning; North - Si ng I e faun yy reessidentia7; Low Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South Single family residential; Low Density Residential (2.4 dwelling L.siZj per acre) East Single family residential; .ow Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) West - Single family residantial; Low tensity Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) C. General Plan Designations: Fro ec ® Tow—R-elTren-tial (2-4 dwelling units per .acre) North Low Resi&-ntial (2-4 dwelling units per South - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) j East - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) 'f West - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) II. ANALYSIS: A. Geaeral: The applicant is requesting to construct a trellis s re re in their front yard, which would encroach six (6) feet into the minimum required setback of thirty-two (32) feet. The proposed structure is already partially constructed. The applicant is requesting the structure in order to create a front yard entry courtyard and to shad.4 the front of the house from the afternoon sun (see attached letter). The lot is 121.5 feet deep ha 82.31 feet wide (10,000 square feet) and is regularly shaped. The surrounding tots are all of similar size and shape. ITER J i PLANNING COMISSION STAFF REPORT RE; VARIANCC 89-0I - LANG .Tune 14, 1989 Page 2 [ ' The Development Code prohibits trellis structures or similar patio-cover type structures within the front yard setback area. These types of structures are typically located in the rear yard or side yard of a lot. However, the Code does p-ovide for "eaves, roof projections, awnings, and similar architectural features" which may project into the front yard a maximum distance of 3 feet, if the structure is "supported,_nly at, or behind, the building setback 'line". Alt ough the trellis may to considered an architectural feature similar to an awning, it would not meet the criteria of being supported only at or behind the setback lire. In either case, this would not at',w a 6,foot projection into the front yard. 111. FACTS FOR FiNDING5: The follaring facts would not support thr:' variance req ks`t a`n'd are contrary to the required tfindings; 1. That the subject prapirty is not unique with respect to size, shape or topography. 2. A 6-foot trellis co id have been designed to attach to the Alk from of the house which would have complied with the required setback. 3. Any removal of portions of the structure which have already been built due to the strict or literal interoretat+on and enforcement of the setback regulation would" be a self-imposed hardship calised by proceeding without proper ap}. ovals from the Ci ty. Based upon these facts} it is the opinion of staff that the granting of this Variance would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same zone. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised in The Daily Report newspaper a ' public hearing notices were sent to all properties within M' ,eet of the subject site. V. RECOMMENC1TIM. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Variance'"39-01 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Denial. If, however, the Coarrission determines that tM proposal is acceptable and that the required findings can be made, staff should be directed to return to the June 28, 1989 Planning Commission meeting with a Resolution of Approval. PLANNING CO A SSION STAFF REPORT RE; VARIANCE 84-01 - LANG June 14,, 198 Page 3 t Resp ully s ted, B er hv,; city P tin^r ABs6N:ka Attachments: Exhibit "A" Letter from Applicant Exhibit "B - Location Map Exhibit "C'i" _ Site Plan Exhibit 7'R" - Perspective Sketch Resolution of flenial AM "i Original Poor Quality canape .reiiis addi;i.ian to a front house cotirtyart� of., appra inately 9f€ sq, e4cA oaches w ix ,') feer, ,aura the front yarn (tea'} setback. rout I +r a+ L2cite concrete �t:.ock "k.+L= 3rS ca. i ,e :Sr ':Ci s t?e of A, , �,ard suppar: o`.ir 41 egs of p rami,.al ttrellis'-sun snape i to screen. `,.18 fr4iit ,y.ad6eiys frorl the t';ester1%. $un. The pillars are a'-8" assay front ec:t other (2' frurt e.;jsttn3 house) iA3 ua east-nest directive and 71_4" %n a north-south direction. The pillars a-e eight (7'-8"1 feet tall and the trellis members ary approxinately 6" on : tt�:r forming a open (unco%.ered) shade,structure. The courtyard is ap�+ro""MatelZ ol? E y.4 attu t, t;ti`t.yx_� be3ifWd Iowa;-at, Lihe street reducing the overall height ac the trellis structure to Nbouz 3' high, Me gund floor footprint of the house and gara�ie are about 25$0 sq.it, :.n a -xQO sq.ft. property a4id the house was placed, Seery near the street which createt; difficulties for entry`approach (in a traditi.enai J .at'1 and for shading t� : to t.eszern face of tile hone- tructl!"e. to cti::rtyard was resigned to softetz the encr;• approach and cream a 3 ion iron within and without of the front door for a Puffer) for mild light. The trellis structure could be the Final atop in x,irr;;tg ,he area but because- of the laces t : a front yard would need »'a;k ricrz ,.t t,g c,rt; ,attc� ,ICrQac`h into the ypicai > ,t .:tit' her. 'tack The encrcr Ar.1 a -eallj only cozia_s"s of the open :is structure tt r e s ;. :a. fL�eb s sJtitic 'at+t y .,ze p il:fa, j teiselvea ttt.1C7' 2rL;i) ihere"t^.ie itC ;2 $ld.l tt t aSiC ktC i43t lull' Ly L tl and tdiyttuv,`nt? t.. t.;.e,c _ S i.r.$ .,'tile wakxi oa.+.ri .ikt open d1ld .S+:t �e frG:1LEt r of zae proper,:,. , i I i J� I - l I *.o ' ~ 'Lq r�p�j•'. r WON xM1.1 JA r Nw r f � 1 ! �'�Lt!•� 1='�}.4�r- �H�E,�t��eS.iCx" Y�. - � 'Nil rites Two< a.t - 4�ele��, w ._ 1 s i v NN ca P , s: (v It r� •/ 4 w1l Or* 9-inal P:)or Q:uaji y I r.F Ul WNl g , t I t I t raj 1 f 1 I 1 fE N TP r' -- f GARDEN C7 - .17 I � 1� CITY 1 Proposed Wood Trellis Existing Concrete 1 Block Pillars Courtyard Concrete Block Wall ` 1 Crass Berm, RA,' DI.V HIM CIE: i lei I RESOLUTION NO. A_ RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING VARIANCE NO. 89-01, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A TRELLIS STRUCTURE IN THE FRONT YARD OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 6465 JASPER STREET IN THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAC",:S FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APN: 1062-621-68 A. Recitals. (1) Dale and July Laag have filed an application for the issuance I of the Variance No. 89-01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution,. Vie; subject Variance req ,st is referred to as "the application". (ii) On Jane 14, 1989, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and f, 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 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 evidence presented to this Commission c�!ring the above-reFerenced public he,arina on June 14, 1989, including written. and oral staff: reports, together with pub"tc testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows;" ta) The application applies to property located at 6475 Jasper Street withGa�street frontage of 82.31 feet and lot depth of 121.5 feet and is presently ilApxoved with a single family residence; and (b) The property to the north of thi_ subject site is Low Density Residential, the property to the south of that site consists of single family residential and is designated Lcw Density Residential, the property to the east is Low Density Resideptial, and the property to the west is Low Density Residential; and 1; ;r. PLANNING C"ISSION R7SOLUTIOR NO. RE: VA $9.01 LAt 4une 14, 1989 Page 2 AML (c') The subject property is not unique with respect to size, shape or topography; and (d) The design of the trellis is not architecturally integrated with the existing single family residence and could ,have b.ee� designed to attach to the front of the house which would have r,&1pliE4._with " the required setback; �.nd (e) Any removal of oortions of the structure Ai ch have already been built due to the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the setback regulation would be a self--imposed hardship caused by proceeding without proper approvals from the Chit_). B. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of `acts set forth in paragraphs Land 2 above, thit Commission hereby finds and concludes at follows: (a) That strict or literal interpretation And, enforcement of the specified regulations would not result in practical tAfficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of ,the Developmer.t Code.. (b) drat there are not 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 not deprive the applicant of pzlivileges enjoyed by f the owners of other properties in the same district. (d) That the granting of the 'variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent wit!`. the limitations on other properties classified in tie Same district, Than the grantingr of the Variance wilt, be detrimental to the- public healtffi�, safety, or welfare, or materially rn9uriaus to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the findings and conclzsionn, set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this" Commission hereby denies the application sub#eet to each and every condition set forth bel*i. 6. The 8ecret&ry to this Gomission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. t v PLANNING COMMISSION RESOWTION NO. RE: VA 89-01 ='LANs June 14, 1989 Page 3 Amok APPROW? AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 1989, PLANNING CCMMTz SIGN OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry 1. McNiel, Chalnean ATTEST: Brad Bufler, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning ,;)tmnission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby,,certify that the foregoing Resolution was 'duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commiss,19n of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th dcty oF° dne, 1989, by the following vote-to-wit:' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: AM ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: j �{ 9 ,, ' .� � ! { ;, �� `�.� ,�- ti' i b t z � � � �` l } to ` � ,� �t � � ��. E j �� {, � e _. r! I - l�� n i `' ' i x f ''� I .. \. � U �. � J ... t. 'j � �� t� x g �`=- �� E ,: ,� ,. � , ,j u------ _-_.__.�_.�.�u.�_�__�.. — CITY OF RANCHO CtiCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 14, 1989 - ` TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer l BY: Barbara Kra i, Assistant Civil Engineer SUBJECT: MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PARCEL MAP 11891 •• - A request to delete { railroad spur service to Parcel Z4, G increase the amount of on-site inundation area, and (3) add an on-site retention basin for ` the project located on the south side of Arrow Route at ?Milliken Avenue APN: 229-111-23' I. ABSTRACT• The developer is requesting-a modification of the conditions of approval for previously approved Tentative Parcel 'Map `1891 'to allow for the expansion of inundation areas, the addition of a retention basin, and the deletion of the requirement that Parcel 24 have rail service. II. DISCUSSION Tentative Parcel Map No. 11891 and the related Master Plan (DR 88-36) . were ipproved by the Planning Commission on December 28, 1988. The requested modirications to the conditions of approval are discussed in the staff report on tonight's agenda as Modification to Development Review 88-36; therefore will not be repeated here, ll Attached is a resolution approving the requested modifications. The I resolution modifies the previous condition pertaining to on-site inundation areas by allowing a retention basic if fenced and landscaped. Also, a condition has been added deleting the requirement for rail service to Pa;^cei 24. j III. RECOMMEMW IIJa Staff 4conmends that the Planning Commission approve the requested modification by adoption of the attached resolution. Rrspectfully 'subrktted, Barrye R. Hanson Senior Civil Engineer BRH:BK:sd Attachments: Staff report dated December 28, 1988 Original Approved Resolution No. 88-248 Approval Resolution with Conditions ITEM K____) — CITY OF RANCHO CUCA21013GA STAFF REPORT DATE; December 28, 1988 TO Chairman and Members of the Planning Commis3ion FROM; Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer~ BY, Barbara Krall, Assistant Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE' PARCEL MAP I1891 - r - A diY Pon ar 131 acres i a 15,14 into . parcels in the Minimunt Impact Heavy Industrial designation (Subarea 9) of the 'Industrial Specific Plan, located an the south side of Arrow Route at Milliken Avenue - (APN 229-111-23) I. PROJECT AND 5(TE DESCRIPTIONs A. Action Me uested• Approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map as shown on ExhibitANIL IBI' A. Parcel Size,• 24 Parcels Ranging in size from 2.0 acres to 13.8 acres. C. UlSI�fy ti- Zoning: Minimu)a Impact Heavy Industrial District D. Surrounding Land Use: ' North . vacant a,$h a#cluing.Industrial and vacant 'sand 4 < isting Industrial and vacant land Volt - Existing Industrial 1 'Ago- E. ,1 Surrounding general Ply., and Develont Code Designations North - Generr, industrial. subarea South - General Industrial, subarea ID East - Minimum Impact Heavy Industrials subarea 9 West - General Industrial, subarea 4, and 'Ainit-wn- Impact Heavy Industrial, subarea 9 PLANNING COMMISSION � -F REPORT TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11891 - W OONNELL, ARMSTROPG, BRIGHAM & PARTNERS DECEMBER 28, 1988 � :PAGE 2 IF. .Site Characteristics. p The site is vacant containing only natural vegetation. II. ANALYSIS: The purpose of this Parcel Map is to create 24 parcels for industrial development. Development plans for six (6) of these parcels are on tonight's Planning Commission agenda of DR 68-36. A Master Plan showing the future development of the remaining lots has also been submitted as a part of DR 88-36. �,.. There is one unresolved issue associated with the project, that being the size and depth of the onsite drainage retention &reas. T►fls issue is discussed in the staff report for OR 88-36. FII. ENVIRON14ENTAL AVIEN: The applicant completed Part I of the Initial Study. taff conducted a field investiC�tion and coMletet;part It of the Initial Study. No adverse impacts upon the environment are- anticipated as a result of this project. Therefore, issuance of Negative Declaration is appropriate. ;'V. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of ftclic Nearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and pl4ced in the daily Report Newspaper. Posting at the site has also been completed. V. RECOWENDATION: Staff recommends that this item be continued for two wee Saa a more detailed analysis of the drainage issue alool the southern portion of the site. If additional information is provT ed and the problem it resolved, a resolution o,' approval has been included for adoption. Respectfully submitted, Barry ? Hmson Senior Civi.I*'ftinea SRH:BX:dlw Attachments: Vicinity Map (Exhibit "A") Tentative Map (Exhibit Us") Resolution and Recommended Conditions of Approval Y� sr Q rN ter. j i t I MY OF . PAP4SL MRP t l a RANCHO CUCAMO 4''GA VI CI N 17Y MA�._�. LNG TF TG DIMON IT: Original Poor 4uahLY TENTATIVE PARCEL M..'*NO.11$91 INTIIR CITY Of RANCHO CUCAYORµ.QOUNT't Of.PAN G RIIAROINO.RTATQ OF CALIPORW► �.A..«wn I.wArw�r��elm••w.o WILWANODN AND RCNNIO COARYLt.*",.I°001!!RRIO..0 4..0 W«Rr00A AUGUST 160, GRRALD VQLOENRERD.",3240 xN 9ARCRL9_t ISA_':ACRES NET 131.06 ACRES-GROSS SYK ��' } p,O�hpCfL,1+A7�f Q .Rctt. IIASt�It •P.MCIL 10 `F .1,C[L° �V swK t .a 71 n.c 14, CIL t EARetC to^ Auan s7� � "Itch to Am ,y #.actL Ir PARCEL.1i ,� . .iT•Jf?; i �,1};tr�7 r'` u •• } � sit ...�. "T""'—b"' � 1 - �.,..:•— � I ; �; seas¢v r e c i rrwLL�at S ran,t6 it, •;iRgy ��.l. y� pA'. .bF.IR. •'g'liP�.fe� crry OF nm&JPARaL MAP haci l 1 ENGDMEMG DFMON maam. � RESOLUTION NO. 88-248 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMO'):GA, CALIFORNIA, CON??ITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 116 A i.00ATED ON THE SOUTHSIOE OF ARROW ROUTE, WEST OF ROCHESTER AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - (A,eN 229-111-23) WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 11391, subuiteed by O'Donnell, Brigham, Armstrong & Partners, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing into 24 parcels, the real property situated in the CiV'of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, identified as APN(s) 2241 111-23, located on the southside of Arrow Route, west of Rochester Avenue; ap-, WHEREAS, on December 28, 1988, the Plannir3 Commission held a duly advertised public hearing .1r the above-described map., NOV, THEREFORE,. THE RANCHO CUCAMONSA PLANNING, COMPASSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS SECTION 1: That the following 'findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. Awk 2. That the i:np..;vement of the proposed subdivision is cons sfent with the Goleral Plan, 3. That, the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision rind iMrovements will not 6adsa substantial environmental daaage, public health prV41ems or have adverse affects on abutting proper. SECTION 2 • This Commission finds And certifies that the project has been rev sfi'cite 'Anf snsidered in coaplianee with the California Environiscntal Quali4,y het of 197J.- and, further, this Commission hereby issues a Negative Declarattoo, SECTIOM 3: That Tentative Parcel Map NO. 11891 is iereby appr6ied subject x Ittached Standard Lt vitions and the following Special Conditions: U�; PLANNING C"ISSIOk ESOLUTION NO. 88-248 PH 11891 - O'DONNELL, ARMSTRONG, BRIGHAM 6 PARTNERS DECEMBER 28, 198$ PAGE 2 Special Conditions 1. Existing Overhead Utilities (a) ArrAiw Route - The existiijs overhead utilities (electrical and telecommunications) on thy+ t, oject side of Arrow Route shall be undergrounded from the pole offsite east of the project east boundary to the first pole offsite nest of the protect west boundary, prior to public is;.Trovem,.nt acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. The Devoloper may request 4 reimbursement agreement to recover on-half the City adopted cost for undergroundfng front the future development (redevelopment) as it occurs on the opposite side of the street. (b) Comm>unl,�ation tines within the A.T,. b S.F. Railroad right of way - An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future underground.ing of the existing overhead Railroad Compmication lines shall be paid to the CIfy prior to approval of taf,e Final Parcel Map. The fee: shah be one-haif the City adopted unit amount times the length { of the project frontage. Ashk (c) Communication lines for 66 K.Y. electrical - An in-lieu fee as contrip AIon to the future undergrounding of the 6*1stin overhead utilities (cosounications for 66 K.Y. electrical? located within thn Southern California Edison Easeownt south of the project south boundary shall be paid to the City prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length of the project frontage. 2. The developer shall obtain a license agreement for• the A.T. 8 S.F. Railroad and construct the railroad grade crossing within Jersey Boulevard at the west project boundary. The connstrutt on shall include crossing guard gates and rubberized pads. The daveloper may request reisssbursmnfr agwaweiits to recovc- one-half the cost of the grade crowrai n =fro the proparties on the west side upon their development 'eopwesmt). x� 3. 0 go/fl d protection facilities shall be provided for the project area 4 the satisfaction of the OW Engineer as follows: (a) The project area shall he protected from a Q100 from the area north of Arrow Route. G ' W The runoff (Q106) from the site, including any runoff from tht, area north of Arrows Route, shall riot exceed the capscity of the existing public -story drain system to the south. PLANNING C',MISSI0 :SOLUTION NO, 88-248 PH 1189L - WOONNELL, ARMSTRONG, SPIGHAM 6 PARTNERS DECEMBER 28, 1988 PAGE 3 AML qW (c) a fnteriurr berm, ditch, and retention basin system shall be: provided on the north side of Arrow Route to control floras from the ar43 to the north, or oth, equivalent systems tz3y be provided as approved by the City Engineer. (d) Any interium retention basins that are not designed with a free flow outlet, shall have sufficient capacity to contain a sequence 8-100 year storms. A gated gravity rr pump system shall be provided to drain the basin during off peak flow hours. (e) A mechanism shall be provided for the maintenance ar.d the funding thereof of the interium drainage facilities by some entity other than the City with a provisic"t that t -t City be allowed access and cost rEcovery for mAintvr,anee if necessary,• (f) Easements for on-sits . drainage retention arF,s shall be delineated and inundation rights dedicated on the Pir.yl Parcel Map. The retention areas shall be dasigned to limit the .aximuz ponding depth to 12 inches and 18 ir4he3 in parking arts manuvering-areas for auto biles and trucks, respertively. In no case shall the gonding depth exceed 6 inches for mare than 4 hours, No public crater shall be tributary directly to the on- site retention areas. (9) The Developer shall obtain an easement for the drainage facilities on the north side of Arrow Route pr-ior'to approval of the pinny Parcel Map or the Facilities shall br constructed within the boundaries of this Parcel Map within an appropriate ea$ewnt. (h') A plan ideaWt r`q— interivar and perm nnt drainage facilities shall be provided) to and approvedb by the City Engineer 4. The developer shall provide a sight line study for the Intersection of Milliken Avenue and 'ersay Boulevard. S. PAIkW ,r imprOVIU is way be deferred until' the development of tl+r, a4i+eceCtt panels, except as otherwise rewired for the area master ptaki. 6, 41,4 Ricular access rights shall ba (Ildicatod to the City on Alilliken A,tonua; Arrow RoaYo- and Jersey i)oulavard except for approved driveway l4catioaa. The drivEvAys tis�*n on the tentative map along Milliken Avenue and Arrow Route are acceptable however, those along Jersey ;aulevard shall be relocated to net City spacing standards. The most westerly driveway en the south tide of JarSc-y Boulevard shall be removed. PLANNING COMMISSIt RESOLUTION NO. 88-248 Pk '41 - O'OONNELL, ARMSTRONG, BRIE-W S PARTNERS DECEMBER 28, 1988 PAGE 4 7. Right then lanes shall be provided for all driveways on Milliken Avenue and Arrow route and on the south side of Arrow Route at the intersection of Milliken Avenue. 8. Easements For J oinc use driveways shall be provided on the Final Parcel Flap or by separate irstrument prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map. 9. The total area required to construct the Milliken Avenue/railroad undercrossing including parkway slopes, top of slope access areas, etc. shall be dedicated to the City as street right of way. 10. A setback area shall be provided for a shoofly (railroad detour) if one is necessary as determined by the design of the undercrossing. 11. The a.ea required for the relocation of the railroad spur along the southwest boundary of the site shall be dedicated in fee to the A.T. & S.F. Railroad. 12. The developer shall construct 18 feet of tavent on the north side of the centerline - of Arrow Route. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover the cost of the construction of the pavement from the property to the north upon its development. IBM 13. The landscaping for thia Milliken Avenue median island and parkways shall conform to the City Landscaping Master Plan as approved by the City Engineer. 14. A good faith effort shall be made to obtain an additional 7 faet of street dedication for the half width street (Street "A") along the east 1 project boundary, north and south of Jersey Boulevrrd from the property owners to the east (APR 229-11-6, 6 and 7) prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map. 15. The developer shall make a good faith effort to obtain the necessary right-of-way and construct curb, gutter, pavement and a drive approach on Arrow Route from the easterly project boundary to the easterly side of tf first anistir3 drive approach to the satisfaction of the City EvIsimr. The developer may request a raimburse nt agreement to rooter the cost of constructing these street improvements from future develo dt/redevelopment as it occurs east of the project site. 16. If a deeerminatian is made by the Planning Comvission that the parcels north of Jersey Buule.-4 are to be rail served, the developer shall be responsible for the construction of the railroad grade crossings including gates and rubberized pads. 17. Previously approved Tentative Paecel Map No. 8578 shall be rescinded by the approval of this Tentative Parcel 14aap. � I PLAH'a i4 COMMUSSIOP :SOL[UTIOM N0.38-248. a PN 1189t - O'GORKELL, AMSiRORG, BRIGbt,�.'N $ PARTNERS DEC-IABER )8, 1988 � PAGE S APPRv-v0 AND ADOPTED THIS 2STh DAY OF W M1-:R,19 PLANNING COMAISSION OR THE CITY OF RaNUO CUCAM090A airy' ATTEST: G ' ad Ulle seqa,py I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the planning GoWssiof, of the Civy of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the fmregoinq Resoluttott was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted 'py the 'planning Co mission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Co.Wssion held on the 28th day of Deceniijr, 1968, by the folklowing veteoto-wlfi¢ XfFS: COMMtISSIONERS: 6LAKESLEY, iMEWK, MUM, TOLSTOY NOES: COWSSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CNITIER ID Original Poor Quality Ma arc NY Y V. `` Nam^»�t— _ V: 4•. g M V ti qqz ,1 ..t ,•,w ® � .tea.s V 0 s� p c H4b qq QQ r Zv y S. 4 rr Nei ��$ 1% Y G9 � er N. Ku�yQ Y r dvd iA\ 1tl Y. �OE Vy V a C*� 6■■y O �� w.u r • 4 4�4 L V ^Y y �^'l Eli 1 4 a yC y gg g+•^ �E Eck IRS �'= c�� _�` =�'a _aft •boo N N,L aM 1. ilk Zvi.21 a In 1.29 Y g + I II RESOLUTION NO. 88-248A A RESOLUTION 0"', THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MODIFYING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11391 LOCATED ON THE SPUTH SIDE OF ARROW ROUTE AT MILLIKEN AVENUE IN THE M:KIMUM IMPACT HEAVY INDUSTRIA'. AREA APN 229-111-23 A. Recitals. (i) On December 2$, 1988, the Planning Con-nission adopted Resolution No. 88-248, the approving, subject to specified conditions, Tentative Parcel Map 11891, which provides for the subdivision of 131 acres of land into 24 parcel On May 25, 1989, a request was filed by O'Donnell, Armstrong & Partners to modify the conditions of approval to (1) delete railroad spur service to Parcel 24, (2) increase the amount of on-s-ite inundation area, and (3) add an on-site retention basin for the project. s_ (iii) On June 19 9 39, the 'PTinving Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga cnndtscted a ly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearinrj on. that date. (iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Fesolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Convaission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows 1.. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part Aa,'of this Resolution are true and correct.' ' 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to thin' Commission during the above-reference4;public hearing on June 14, 1989, including written and oral staff reports, tcjk$ther with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows; (a) That�the request is to (1) delete railroad spur service to Parcel 24, (2) increase the amount of on-site inundation area, and (3) add an on-site retention basin for the project; and (b) That the requested modifications are acc,`;ptable. 147 �-13s- F PLANNING COiMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 88-248A PM 11891 - O*OONNELL, ARMSTRONG, BRIGHAM & PARTNERS JUNI'14, 1989 PAGE 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to_Fhis Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specir`ic findings of facts set forth Lin paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (1,) That tentative parcel map'is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and spe0 fic`plans; and (b) The design or improvements of the tentative parcel map is consistent with the General P`,a,,, Development Code, and specific plans; and (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed, and (d) The design or the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and (e) The tentative parcel map is not likely to causer serious. public health problems; and (f) The design of the tentative parcel map will not conflict with any easement acquired by tPe public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property cjithin the proposed subdivision. 4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and further, this Commission hereby issues a :Negative Oeci aratiort. 5. eased upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph 1, 2 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby modifies Resolutiont No. 88-248 as follows; (a) Special Conditior, 3.(f) shall be modified to read as fol logs•. 3.(f) Ori-site Lretention areas shall conform to tee following* (1) Easements shall be delineated. and .inundation rights dedicated on the Final Parcel Map; (2) No public water shall be tributary directly to the inundation areas; PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 88-248A PM 11891 - O'DONKLL, ARMSTRONG, URiGHAM & PARTNERS JUNE 14, 1989 PAGE 3 (3) In automobile and truck parVing and maneuvering areas, ponding depths shall not e~kraed 12 inches and 18 inches, respectively, and; shall not exceed"6 inches for more than 4 hours; and (4) The proposed retention basin at the southwest corner, of Parcel 21 shall be secured by a 6 foot high fence and landscaped, as approved by the Design Review Committee. A method to guarantee the maintenance of the basin shall be provided as approved by thi City Engineer and City Attorney. (b) Add a condition 18 to read as follows: 18. Rail sere,',e is not required for Pas-cei 24,; 6. The Deputy Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution': APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF DUNE 1989. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF 'RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: LarryT. McNiel Chairman' ATTEST: Brad�uT'1er, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary' of the Planning Cortmission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do ,hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and L regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held i on the 14th day of June, 1989, by the following vote-to-wit: f AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: 1 ABSENT: COM.NISSIONERS: i f u f CITY OF RANCHO CUCATMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 14 198..0 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AKO MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT requestodelete rail'r�o�pur service 'to parcer 24, 1 increase the amount of on-site inundation areas, and add an on-site retention basin for the project located on the south side of Arrow Route and Miilyken Avenue - APN: 229-111-23. RELATED FILE: MODIFIi4,TIJN OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR • PARCEL'MAP 11891 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: DelWon of railroad spur servit to I� 11-arcel 24, addition of an on-site retention basin an I increase in the amount of on-site inundation areas and issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning; Rater h - vacant; n uS r a pec1fic Flan (:Subarea 8) South Industrial buildings, Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 10) East Industrial buildings and vacant; Industrial Specific Plan (Suber-, 9) West - Industrial bu ldings; Industrial Speccific Plan (Subareas 8 a9d 9 D. General Plan nDDesignations: ro ec to- Heavy n durial North - General industrial South - General Industrial East - Heavy Industrial West Heavy Industrial B. Site Characteristics: The site is currently vacant with an ulferage slope o o 2-1/2 percent from. north to south. The site is bounded on the south by the AT a SF i�a;lroad and on the north by Arrow Route. Milliken Avenue, ,.ouch of Jersey Baulevard, will be part of this City's project to provide an underpass to go under the railroad tracks. ITEM L PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT RE: ENV. ASSESS & KDD. TO DR 88-36 June 14, 1989 Page 2 II. ANALYSIS: A. General: During the elan check process, it was- discovered it�We three previously approved inundation arias for temporary water stoeage during 100-year storms .would not be suf:*iclent in size. With the original approval, ponding was allowed in the parking arias of Parcel 21-(Areo A), betwesn Parcels 22 ana 23 (Area 0, and between Parcr_-Os 23 and 24 (Area O) (See Exhibit "A"). she applicant is requesting that the approval be modified so as to allow the expansion of Areas A and D and to add a new on-site retention basin (Area B) south of Parcel 22 (see Exhibit "B"). 1. Expanded' Inundation Areas:- 'The expanded Area A is located on the east s e of Building 21 where a 0 0.9-foot r,axinum-ponding limit is proposed. This would allow for car parking and maneuvering. Truck karking will be p�zmitted east of Building 21 in the southern portion of the'site where the water will pond to a maximum depth of 1.3 feet, A car maneuvering area located between Building 21 and il.e above expansion area is provided and a ponding dep-6 or 0 - 12" will be allowed in this area.. Ponding ;gyp to 12" south of Building 21 is also being proposed. The expanded area 0 is located south of Building 24 in an area where rail spur service was previously provided. 1ondi'ng depth in this area will reach a r maximum depth of 1.5 feet. A 26-foot wide drivewli�u has been prcposed in this area. The ponding in Area C be-Neen Parcels ZZ and 23 remains unchanged from the prior approval. Truck parking only will be allowed this area and d!-pth of ponding will bp a maximum of ,_} feet, 2. Permanent On-Site Retention Basin: Additionally, a new on-site perm5anen re effii -.: asi,n is being proposed southwesterly by Suildir 1 and southeasterly of the rail spur that would Jointly serve Building 21 and Parcel 22 (see Exhihit "C"). This area is a permanent on-site basin with a idaximum depth of 4.7 feet. The area was required by staff is be fenced and landscaped. 3.. Deletion of Rail Service: Due to the proposed expanded inuA a3ation Area sou of Parcel 24, the applicant is requesting that rail spur service be deleted. The master plan was previously approved with spur lines t� PLANNING' COMMISSION STAFF REPORT RE: ENV.. ASSESS & MOP, TO OR 88-36 ' June 14, 1989 AOL Page 3 extending north off the main line for services of Parcels 21 and 22 and spur lines running parallel to the mainline to service Parcels 23 and 24 (see Exhibit "E"). The Planning Commission may amend or delete, on a site-by-site basis, the rail service development standards.. In order for the Planning Commission to authorize any modification to the rail service, the following must be determined: a. Thkt installation (tf a lead or spur track cannot 4e accomplished due to physical constraints on or adjacent to the project site; and b. Other existing or potential rail service properties will not be negatively affected in their ability to accommodate rail service activity as a result of the modifications to tyv standards. The applicant is s, submitted a letter from the Atchison, Topeka and SantA. Fe Rahway Company stating that thqx cannot provide rail service to Parcel 24 due to conflicts with their existing lead track located Immediately west of that parcel (sae Exhibit 7"). Since Parce; 24 is located in the :extreme southwestern portiowi of the site, no other parcels will be negatively affected in their ability to provide rail service as a result of the modification. For the above reasons, it is the opinion of staff that the modification. "to rail service meets the intent of the Industrial SpecEYic Plan, The concept was elr-, presented to the Design Review Committee on June 8. 1989` and a verbal update will be presented to the CommLsion. g. Design Revftw Committee: The Design Review Committee r olMann;`Ch ea, Tolstoy) reviewed the project on June 8, 1989 to review the. 'landscaping and fencing around the permanent on-site retention basin. A verbal update Will ba provided at the Commission meeting, C. Environmental Assessment: Staff has completed an addendu;n Ito Part il of prey ous Environmental Checklist and deterninod that no significant adverse environmental impacts would occur as a result of this project. If the Planning Commission concurs with the findings, then issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate, 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT RE: ENV. ASSESS & MOD. TO DR 88-36 June 14, 1989 Page 4 III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS:;._ In order for the Planning Commission to approve the moditicwtions to Development Review, 88-36, facts to support the following findings must be met: A. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Pan; and B. That the proposed use is in accord with the objr, Lives of the Industrial Specific Plan and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and C. That the proposed use is in conformance with each of the applicable provisions of the Industrial Specific Plan-, and D. That the proposed use, together with the Conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the flan' Comanission approve e modificati n to Development Review 88-36 and issue a Negative Declaration. R f41 esp ` 1y :' ted Bra r City P1 rner BB:BN:ko Attachments, Exhibit "A" - Approved Ponding Areas Exhibit "B" 'Proposed Ponding Areas Exhibit "C" Proposed' Permanent On-Site Retention Basin Exhibit "D" Retention Basin landscaring Exhibit "E" - Proposed Rail Spur Deletion Exhibit "F" - ;Letter From Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway. Resolution No. 88-249 Wnutes fr=' Planning Commission Meeting December 28, 1988 Resolution of Approval with Cund Lions �r ��! '�.�' i ��n mkt _ . _ _.�� ,�;� ,, � � .a _ •ti � ' i 'r L ��. f - �t�? .,�,, °t�r'11 (�� ` 43,q, 1?' �cv�} � �t 1 �"� •` '� ` � .� � , �� ,• ��- � � �i��l �� 1 �; ��a 'E � f a ,r,'�i�.��_:.r��4'1:3m�-F,iL'.C< "tr377F�ri*'ti�'4.'l.: �,i� A�_* i �^ � �� ,., •. A•. •i f�' _� � � � f j � 1�� -r L`..�� V i /� �� .. 4 ,5 I i L ass... �•.� � }l�,w t ��,d 1�..+�� ,sr,�-•'4-'"__Y'Cs-r`y=-�=�m._�C-T�.,y*�'�n�-J!"�`�F`..-''-�7�---_�-+[,��.�..i ,.., f 1•� 1 wln� I �� ` ICJ. rtr� t �t�+,• r� !q dl s\ \ � 3 ;x 1..it�t a , CITY lmt Or 1 . r, MOM k rMIRE- #� iE��1� e=g ,' W0 U H Cy0 1 WA 4 ,e j U �• 5}.> V F 1 <g O o iw 10 W P W E7—H RE M,UKEN $j'�QA,-' {4{ �g+�p� pp M r. C CA, 3 tom' k I l'p" PUNNING aVMON EXH19F.- SCALE- 44L Ill Fi CITY OF MEM: Tom: Pe. � D(VR)N EXHIEM_ SCALD., I i i i i 7REES: VERTICAI.EVERGREEN rRfE. �.. OANFlIlP181S BRACNYCNRON PbPUtNrM 1 i. 1._..• OROUNOCOVERIVRUS PCFNTiNO II i SEG�MN VC T VERTMAL EVtAORlFff TRM. ®LiF3 24 .BAAQ',BATON/OPULMEU% I VEROttEf7t OANOPY TREE �CUPANROPBIS ANACANOi010EE' ABROW ROUTE17 I s. • QrMCK hWIOCE�`TAEEC6Ct _21 I CIS OF CHO RAN PLANNING DIVA `� TITLE, 1 *, rirtc Affi* P. .2i TbW' Atrj j$oae,T*Vska and Santa PC RuIl gay COMPRUY A StMfs Fe InCvt1ne8 COMPI"Y 1170 West 'third Street San Bernardino, CA 9241.0-1789 May 23, 1989 File: 11916690-50 FAXCN: (714) 988-5299 Mr. Maurice Wrad, Project bhrtager Williamsar -.ad Schmid 1101 Sou.,;3Jillikan Avenue Suite G Ontario, C&91761 Re: Proposed rail service to O'Donnell Armstrong and Partners Industrial Complex west of Rochester Avenue Darr W. Miradi please refer to W- Lockwood's letter of kUy 22, 1989 concerning the IoNk above project. Parcel No. 24 carnet be rail served due to our lead track immediateSY to 4h& West of the Parcel:. 'There is no room to construes an additional switch between the existing lead track switch and the propu$ed deveiopernt trackage sNv itch- If-you have any questions or need further assistance involving this subject matter, please contact Assistant Supervisor Maintenance Bob Schultz at (714) 387a1275, citing 'thq file number indicated above. very truly yours, L. Fields Division Manager l cc e!assss. Q. W. Torpin Los Angelcs (nf W. E. Lockwood - Los Angeles (rsf) M. V, Frank Los Angeles (nf) i, 37844 f '� - :'-AY 24 '89 13t58 W&5 1E0 �. P.2113 The Atchison,Topeka and Santa Me Rai!way Company One Santa Fe Plaza I 0900 East Shelia Streec May 22 1989 wo Los Angeles,Cali.ornia U0040 ygB-0`Donnell Brigham i i Mr.. Maurice Murad I Project Manager Williamson and Schmid 1101 Swath Millikan Avenue Suite G Ontario, G.P. 91781 Dear Mr. Murad: This will confirm your telephone conversation of May19 with Mr. Harold Brown of my office concerning your company's interest in designing trackage to provide rail.serviee to O'Donnell, Armstrong and Yartuers' Industrial Complex:, west of Rochester Avenue and north of our twain line at our station of Rochester, CA, Our Engineering Department has revie%ed plans submit`t(d to this office with your letter of transmittal dated March 28, with the request we address the feasibility of coaatructinO_ a track to serve proposed Building No. 23. The comments relative tc your proposed j' track layout are as follows; I 1. 'All need an operating easement for track line "'.A'" from our � light of way line: to end of track, incl%tiding PrxcelL Nos, 23, No. 24, etc. 2. Clearance of 9 feet minimurrt center line traclt line "B" to Building No. 23, 3. Clearance of 14 feet minimum center line track line "B" to center line track line "A". 4. 34 foot track centers will not allow Parcel No. 23 to be fenced between the tracks for security. S. if track line "B" to be constructed first, it will be necessary to construct track line "A" to east property line of Parcel. No. 23 in order to perform switching. 6. Note the proposed shoofly track for the Milliken Avenue underpass has been designed for that same side of our right of way. If this proposal is built prior to the underpass, trackage from this development will need to be relocated and engineered to come out of the shoofly t-ack or dis- continue service until the underpass is in tie: and all trackage has been restored. .4SeaU fa5a4tharnpipti•Campany. . :MAY 24"169 13:59 WgS IE0 P.3 3 qP We further understand the City r� Rancho Cvca_monga'ia requesting 'tha-l' you provide a`letter from our company stating, reasons we cannot accomplish rail service to proposed Building No. 24, This matter will be discussed with our Engineering Department and if appropriate,, a letter :,rill, be directed to you, prior to your meeting with the City on May 26. I` If you have an queutions, or this office can be of further Y Y assistance, please call. i I Yours (rtruly, W. E. Lo--k*ood, Manager Industrial. Development i HEB/8306bg Y `ii i RESOLUTION NO. 88-249 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCrAMONGA' PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO., 88-36, THE REVIEW OF A MASTER PLAN FOR A 131 ACRE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX AND PHASE I CONSISTING OF SIX (6) INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TOTALING 635,970 SQUAPE FEET ON 32.4 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MINIMUM 'IMPACT/HEAVY' INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATION (SUBAREA 9)_ OF THE INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH-SIDE OF ARROW ROUTE AT MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN f SUPPORT THEREOF APN: 229-111-71, K ;I A. Recitals. M O'Donnell, Armstrong, Brigham & Partners has filea an application for the approval of Development Review No. 88-36 as, described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter i.n this Resolution, ,the subject Development Review request is referred to as "'the application". (ii) On the 28th of December, 1?88, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.conducted a meeting on the application and concludes said meeting on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites to be adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW,.THEREFORE, it is herebyfound, determined ind resolved by the Planning Conwai s�-i on of the City of Rancho Cucamm9a as follows: 1. Th-;i Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. 8,1sed upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the abTie-referenced neeting on December 28, 1988,, including written and oral staff reports, this Cormission hereby specificzlly finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located on the south side of ArrtW Route at Milliken Avenue with a frontage -of 2,157 feet along Arrow Rout4; The property is presently vacant. (b) The property to the north, south„ east and west are designeted frr industrial uses. The property to the south and west is developed wit, industrial buildings. The property to the north is vacant. The property to the east is partially developed with industrial buildings. (c) The project, with the reconsaended conditions of approval, complies wife'; all minimum development standards of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, .:,�Cr PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 88-249 DR 88-36 - 0°Dolinell, Armstrong, Brigham & Partners Decerber 28, 1988 Page 2 (d) , The development of the industrial complex is consistent with the Minimum Impact/heavy Industrial designation of the Industrial Area Specific Plan acd the General Plan. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting and upon the specif;,c findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above; this Commission hereby finds and conclud,:,s as follows: (a) That the proposed project is consistent :with the objectives of the Generai Plan; and ib) That the proposed use is in accord with the: objective of the Industrial Specific Plan and the purposes of the district in which the site is located, and (c; That.the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Industrial Specific Plan; and (a) That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will net by detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. This Commissioni hereby ,,ods and certifies that the project has been reviewed and Considered in catmi=yance: with the California Environmental Quality Act of 19,70 and, furtha , this Commission hereby issues a Negative Declaration, S. Based upon the finu(ngs and conclusions set fort,'4 ire paragraphs i, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Comission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set fort;+ below And in the attached Standard Conditions attached hereto and incorporated hevein by this reference. P "aing Divisiranz.; A. Master Plan f ' 1) The Master Plan is approved in concept only and future I development for each parcel shall be subject to development/design revieto process for Planning Comni'ssior, approval. Modifications to the Master Plan shall be subject to Planning Cmmission approval, 2) Each parcel developed within the Master Plan shall Include r individual plaza/open space areas. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLItr1ON 40. 88-249 OR 38-36 O'Donnell, Armstrong, Brigham Partners December 289 1988 Page 3 3) At such time as any parcel' develops, the developer 'shall concurrently landscape the street frontage pn the adjoining lots along that street. The applicant shall develop a landscape concept for the Master Plan, this concept shall establish guidelines for streetscape design, property boundary dosigns..and maintenance, project identification for major street 6,-ners as well as a plant palette for the selection of parking,',ot shade trees, entry accents, etc. 4) A uniform program for security fencing, if any, shall be provided with the Master Plan and is subject to the approval of the Foothill Fire District and the City Planner. 5) 'lite Master Plan text and/or CC&R's for Parcel Map 11891 sh,tl be developed to incorporate conditions Al through A4 and submitted for City Planner review and•app-�oval prior to recoriaAtion of the Parcel Map or issuance of building permits, ictever occurs first. The document shall include guidelines for landscaping, site planning issues, snared access and architectural guidelines consistent with the appropriate subarea of the Industrial Specific Plan,. - 6) Variation shall be provided in the building and parking V. setbacks along Milliken Aver.-lie and Arrow Route. The setbacks shall be reviewed on future Developmem. sign Review applications. I!: !, B. Phase I Development 1) The plaza areas shall be designed with a physical separation from the entr% areas. The final desi&_. shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 2) 00ors shall be provided for buildings 1, 2, and 3 'o connect directly to the plaza areal,, The final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the , Issuance of building oernits. Engirearing Division: 1) The conditions of approval fio .'arcel flap 11891 shall apply to the project, Therefore, Parcel Map 11891 shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit, PLANNING Of)MISSION, RESOLUTION No. 88-249 DR 88-36 - O'Donnell, Armstrong, 8:19ham A Partners December 28, 1938 Page 4 Building A Safety Qiyisionz 1) Prior to the issuance at any peraits, a detailed. hydrologic and hydraulic snarly shall be submitted to indicate hors on-site retention will be maintained below 12 inches in avtonabi e pa"king areas and }8 inches in Muck parking arras, and the water retention level shall not exceed 6 inches for a period of 4 hours or less in either case. The study Shall be reviewed and approved by the Building official. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adootien. of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 2 P H S 8TN1 DAY OF t7ECF,m8Ei{, ]988. E PLAMINC, COMISSION OF THE CITY OF RAMCN0 CUCANONGA SY: Larry we airman ATTESTS r Bull YX-SecreW. .. .., .�.,� I, Brad Buller; Secretary 0' the Planning Cowtttsion of ::: %iLy of Rancho Cucamonga, 'do hereby certify that tiw foregoing Resolutionf was duly and regularly introduced., passed, and adopted b.,y the Pl;ar,lno CoOwission of the City of Ranrho Cucamonga, el. a re�__Ar meet69 of the Ptannfi rr 76mmission held 4 on the 280 day of De"Mbep, I988, by the following vote�topwyt: [ AYES: BLAKEsi.EY, EMERICK, MCNIPt p :OLSTOY ' NOM COMMISSIOHER4�: NONE A3SENlT., CD YSSIONERS: CH171ER ;, -y NCI Lr W Y M N r C p�] C. Y 4 v 4 4L u MY .aa�w =Q 9g� j Mw++ aa 1 aiat2 `'1a >ti*4��'`�L R';`�{•'1A �9.0. ryY.~� au.ki U1�.Ly.V j W ,sYo=.,uy^! «Nyu.. QY�La'.G wa �. ... .t..c.a^Y `.Q.. �.r. $.e 4Y^�r L i ffam�M e�� Rygyqya�o� 6Ya {�{ a�u p� i OCLY4Q4 ==u� CU� C V�O yCpO `Aq. K � I yVNC ppL y .l�Y v9�A C �4 2 drY n^ �. �l O."Ci dS.. '� OMyyIX Q �� yyy9YL4-yjwpL.CC�C. �aNyN � Y y"'� 4p ^`^L �V�Y�� CCI u& � �� i•�CC A$" :..tea •.pp>qq.� �� $4 a►v�F$ �q� +ar tat (L,Y III a'a-I1a-zrN�+wQ r. z-P Q u 4 is ryp� `p .teor a, ti ` �i y�� G. 1 di1 •Yo7F9 w�'�'Q VVV y�V�y� 01d ! 6 �V vQ t1 Y ONi.fM,��Y WY4 Cia W I .. r� tf1t RV w.+wON �wRKS NC✓v, a r« V -3 t.°�, cs'cZo►�awe �•,�a'gts a-o a� p�YW bw�lS� "yam N#� Cyi+ysl�. V CpN 4NNq G� N � .ar �JJ DDDDDD w a V �y Y N yT ^ 1� Ya v�Y.—. arAN VqV4 LA +y II YN.• q .Li yM Y� . r b �p+O qa�r•V «�J ~p A pu y Y�4v yQ lily 4g � -g c$Y o,iQ•Q `.3 e$'.+ gad `c v c'.Q. 53 I li v�rr�d'1��, 4 4►.Q b H w tl 4 p N V "r a Zi. AD�4 Qw«k C�«►$►�y{�� Cxig. u �i tlV tiq�, .r VUL� Cy tl y «y R'f. �`. 4 Q~v�CO L.Vrw . yV." 1N< yVCba C.O�'µ, yL�J.f ppvCe ys q A1y`�iYit�v� t�Y'if.hl�,f 7,O ti yyw W Fp{O.�V -0Y� '=M !•�� a�aiq a7fa =�t•`..ySt 4`. � :KC 0. s q Y y .R a % �1 ywQC vra y?y� MC y4 c R iN Rhl ��u��w •JiV�Q 6 9bpyiY y4'.`�+.0 ssp�Y Ci�4f � «� N.«wY.�Q 4� ywy L� 4MDQ> a [f�j k �•GL OF. G1 4.� �V A�t�.-Y.~w@� �3Nx�uV.O=.� lT~y� ^'� C11w�11f4 ait< ♦�+. t �C y■ My��" C qY G 4 yy V C Ct .4i Y�bf 'f3 '� 4 N QNCris�.� VC'^��Y ��^�. Mti M.�•r�1� Lw A.. «yw�Q��H¢ ¢.,�,g f�• O44~Y.� li j'4 wy 4.Aa .. �wR 4.�.QwY �.0 G4 •u.. y g a i w 8; 466 t V�R y 4 31 Y N.""�Y ive.►.n vw �'^ zed_4 A L . y . t Mfin; ,q p a1 i t f5 Y.lA �lY • '+Y� �`y 4.C�N4 aC 11 v. H NNL NvGi Y NywwR —i CLr-2lp Ik l� V d1 .Y b. >\q v l • .Gi.r • 'R1 Y.' �i a!aj Y ac a..,sg.b v g- e `o a • ub. ».sax «. r y� `A',y pa b; V r•.i ciy >C4 •Yru 4Y.n' N Va: 'ic A335 • o :. o" „i - Y�i'T sYw cw q �p �� OR bgqqqq'.Yi Zjr w yr. • ��> ��w Y 14 ��. Q�si u.'�ay�3 Lw � MN�a Y•a: gy. ' ge�j. �� a»s.,�. ;�w�i_•ay. '�,buu m��a'�.i+� tia., 2.1 Otl�.c. _I L 7� Ln Si cs"�w K Y +R O » Q v _ ui 2 1 R y�n 4ppJ ro �to�enay „p&4 p M G M • LC►sa. r G»� 4y� V.r4ie L bJyt ly1�� • 4h,L O`t1 4�NY aCy N fal�j Y•C y '4•i, Y S.., W q N C v Y td 4►Y R f t3 4. iµ.3cRb �Gr 9. �� a�YU ♦.FY �yg!`-.� �N MN 4' S� M'`�� 4�rtr v 4 L _O fl s~." M tl a w �M O y V !G K��p i6 w�� '��— ~�S pY VC N4 t� C Vr1.d r►4q VaV�V�. it N4 ti V — .4. L'V yCy� V�.N �N'f! ■��. riF �Y�14?!'.'�G.C��l f�bt. C� +FQa► r�OSF'�pO y�nmwi y�'a►.•.►� 1 yy PY4rrLp y i�• Ly66 a+b�y*{ l •P.btA hV wat jppif�444µ ;ysydatr t..r. ML tlGv �iLY} <t0•. ,4.Y.. �a�i Dy69 Vi{ irM V`.i`yp t'`� Kul 45C ii �r4 y.~C,�~' —QYM eZ ud - ��4yyy��,;4�lyypp ryLYA 4igIIf GERYN LNu..�w�.pr.y 'K++N..+ Jf• Gal yp 4L4YA+.=ii f.�F,j N.GN F..�i 6.wA Y. Cep. 1 M0•�4. ?Q. w Yf'ia ".�.LC`I Cb��04�`C V.L �r 34� L CL 61 L4u440 4 L L4 Y� �tp � OCpp 4y L [3 MYL�p. .T'. Y'1N p 6 DN �.p ee�V's.�p 4N MCC 4�y ♦T\C^pp0 w. vy4��tt3��«�1`y O 9 V ryM�NN �!. V7.a4 $•^ � ».yN �..L C�46W ccp ^ d C rN Y quo`- N°J 'L CCp �"�..'�''s YuE?.P tv4i y+ •�� e� (� rOJC pIC � .ClD �VyI O CY d��o-N��Npp�� y�6�� ■L L��. �^ {.�'N yq raQ ��C �3 6 CCp WL�,le�� as•�i{�p�gg �lO LyG� ' �. eC MQ S 4!O R O D T p p Yd y w b 4Q p G ^ al CND MY� N V.Q b'Ly yY rW«^.~N ^.�O�iNf Gyy Yyr f��/ � Yd OVC OI. V 1 Y�{yiy uy '61 gY L{'�Of14p �^.rp�t�if N■O■O■O} G"�. �y Cb tom= .C�eyyyL��^ 4� 4 ' b �^Lµ O. r♦�M Y CLC Ly�{ M�NMI 0nol—�„ 1y^ TIW Y 4y4 Ve FD�.� ate^ r91V �I 4SJV i •N L �w. 4 .it y�Ns T y V L L N �N I,[N G`O t L.rr b W�M a^f V✓�:'.N�S y� q��f A� MC` �q�A� •� �4�>.Y 1" •W t{y�� GwY D� �L s 04 L V L•V �Mq Y VAN ^DLm—, Q N.�..N N N 't N r K N S M A tL•»Fes+, K Y�J�i •' y CL�N.�O <'y`r Y: s Y L.D a.6 N CC O � O ya ic.� W�...4 CCa � p■L tQ._ C Yp ~C ? .. N 2 y o ♦ 4 S h n Y nYj U.C.6e l�Y H 6• M CY M fC x. U p'.i `~� 4 24 tNvkfa cc C 335(pp O\ti Y Igi C M �d ��C V=�y �• SIY ��. � 1k N}. M� 1�.�0 w��a y�y 3 4 d N CI � L NN +tlyi� J{ H s i fill rll� 9 '�a 4�re" .mN. •ya y w tl$ ,aY,u e i � o C r a d g »� 5y�. '� +it 114O pia yV y N Y y.y W Cgy ns Q i.'M 'ga d �.�c�� `M��.� � YP' 4�w '• C�d 4QC.F. �L. yvY Y O�y� q�ti C.yqLps a. V �pY� ♦ �.t.� N G� O Yr� '...IA. GL'\ U9y".1M a; {I y� V`vC •�=� wC� MLb V Qr�Y7 $! ybs gvaM.+®� CN'1 r�e.YC �C Y. .Q IrQ �� w GV p Ly'� SCa. EN Vi �w+ysu.C. yeiv .m�. N Gad'V V QM ♦G yR�.Cr CZ2 y+�r D V Q\t y� Y Y O L p C ..W C'y'.. 0.'ny9 LLyY�Q `It �Cr ��y N p�. LLV1.r LOv4i.S7;1-. rTLr� '.�.!� i ZL.DN. _<.L�I _•rC;L ^wDL.0N�C�L fM�+,.w_GwyY 1_{ C�AG.\��.'or' W�rGy.V�, !a�Y♦sd gLp VL2KQ LV2L. : �I 1 � IT $ aho Y4yi Cl m,�'u~ tdc�o n gy�tr yY.. nSv ^Mg 3Yc &.! v`1a��ar `� Au o aY Xl a9.N �'. 'v7 aeY� O Z .]KM }xQ Crr4�.� ar a 4jw �' Sp•q •O 51a~�^ Vg■ � QOV� w�LY9 CAy� � �_. mot. yd aQ yan � �8 3 Y•v�VY q � rj .1.r � C�QO�r. Z1Y^a}f.�.1� yyC}M�� ..ry.. qqq�= }�}��Q /�+�� q�� Y Q �it 0 4= Cy E. 0 0 =2t.. Age NN cY6 ° u .+ RQ3 rg� QN aQuca, a Ct3 f !C yn' MG� Q`,.tl@9 M. ` yry[M prr O q�■C�`,�jAu '� aL •�. f[�:.. s yu ^� o�u a ��'i,`g. « o'�nV°i �Kq ^gifG � t O�.ii O G•g: � �a� /»'�, l4 C CAM.� tY,!�� N Y"' .N i.� u� �C CI ti �q j�C,j��y� �q�� W y� �✓ ,u� �:.. a'u i+s, v9�y.y�w Yp„ �.. a�•� u�r�N a'�Y'?�.o `w`�`�4�. � Qj'+ sppas«aa t'r. 4, ^y� P-4 a3.� iy�1i �foV� 34c Xi nt Nc n II •`Wtl" +04 'Pial NVV NI C V L 1.sCi gV IF �N.i' V r -a II .v`. � v aIL �a+ � �� o.. o c� w `u c sq II' _ � nm. as d vs o aga e..'- S �i (E��:. 3 _.!p n�{{��i + .'S<J)V� Y Y r�—� ate+ V.i• � I� L'F C1 OC b qQH xV•tl YA1ai O yN 4,� ` Q� LQI III Cqq c r 0 0 ..au�: qC �� <c_✓ r p'O 4$ a N ti qwC u�^ 1 IV `y w G �1 'CF � p� i �g iFr'oa '.8 q ¢� 'a. 24 `ca re..II$ III c�s— �' as� 0.� ■.k.: `°Qua �. a I }��' Lyyoa `�j� a a ..a. 6.�oy u b— u'r' ic5 yas�i :va Y R.y nM 9 6 e "w_a. N ,+G- L•C.�q �' M »p.�' .�q�w .A,O a {� Y i !1 Ica a � � ��a i �. ,a,S'w�c P� a• �6 ��i 'ca 10 O ?L �E:N va oa. Wwy' Wyu^ 165� wYT �y{ LVQ 2 V8 ��j;.a+a Y � 4�i lbb+VL �: M s��4 134 ��~e��■■r■■r you' aO Nq ~a+<$. i a v c ,.�~W. a �� p a « c'. `f C 0 r w Lp �. F y¢ .s. y q.. um 6a Ls tiara llnM1, r a ... c'� An a.... y4R. aaai a ra�J a,w,c „w ¢ t7 t: 'q 3 V. � Tj Is 2,1142. .■ y r la\?1 LS N_ vi i • iQ... ` q y P Iql \V /�y C Y Cl A'y e p HCy *3 erj' O w. •~ C C P_ C VA^ NgLO.w.bG U �Y.�M iY`q,t d d yr L N Aso L:c i`A 'x'�'V C�C � C C.p. dN b, ewp 9 4 L O '.. y d•J�t.$4j y t Y_�@y��T o®o a'-g`L v—t`L :• avc'a. =� ( ` a'g o 4 M.`' v,,FFlao vYl�y T oM uA v,7 t INN CF GL 6. Za j. 4 +� q.1J `C � LC.a4I A p R'M b OYt d 2r L,L0.4 iw ♦�V �:�i401� dud �t V fA '� E OYO.p 09 � lw1.pL �OCG `.17wdG, 3i b g9tyy 1t4G 61. C Y^ L N y ti•gay pl. Y 4 Gu i 6 NP.S K1C .Gs�b�rS bP. � OwptQ E' \��4b. gOGy gqm 14q•'��++ Vy iw��([' a4 4 ezr `F6 0e �.i; C(j c�T451tlp qua C{ � G ; {QUO C�wvy. ji G :) v.9oyY� q O -L6a7ab> :p 4(1if'r a `L �$z( 9aJ' .�wyC •�4 Q O w tui e` .s q pp, bQs yp.3 4y� eRJwCC C�G Q.wl b.�, Cw N U b �y�y� .P G C N N �t�Gt 'bv tb• Ny q y ag L'! iw,� 9c�+ay� Nd' �9.1�.0. ♦� X Y. i Vl t) CL40 fi 0.+�rbiV J c �0 9 J N ng•4LN Y.W l�� 6 OMNY.Cia " � � •� Q • � 9�y y� M.a 6t w�«,• .N a'.Ns. �� 'ju v w. � r a o J 'o�N� � Ay npif cd adEd Y ass c e(.1 yy®CN �r�•q y4 . � •d Ctl -A en•i N•ii��YI T N N y _ .0 ,1 pCY V Y� 4yL y 6Q1. Awa Ouv 9 QCyyp �3A wqsGd Va•`�` Q9N CO` N w` �i�BVt gCOL CV t04 O Oly pY t}i a R 01 b. r0 ' f' nWQa ��'. Co Via: A ToE$. '�' '� �' $� a I oaa. =2 uy32 M�+^R — oN� c� u m '+ef a Nrpp..v. aw �+� '�yy � I QrJ•ev: �${�� ,� ttY� wN �� Cam_^^ C` L W TrDqL 6N � A01 Y Y~YIVL t!Z{. dYtt �\ v!J Ni4d. uY ^.�y dX$K � LL7777 Y4 y yd LllS ~p - v�0$Vr My ��.S �C L) � . WMNL LV. 42L VQ gYO. R� �O tiN•diW <GK d I a:7 L ~v 6 9 =A a I. A « i YL � W 24 o s u L_ uA wy NL !i^ S it eis� w iii.® So l'z y.LO Lr g#I N+i �. ea 9 .♦ CggA d p. � ��ti O �Y. QC .R vtq O dC.G 4 O.. ar J M\L RLPd GEC V Nuc T g�L YJ 4 M1d 11 a:L U W. � yflb\�.A aLii NJ1WRt�v iS A161 y i.W.e y sd a� ,='. • u spy P u qa j f V G S T k L 1 C^w w.Gjr i t CS � uy i✓pA Gib -is L Y C w`✓ G C i Y R C i �9 r piY yy GMG +g'*•�+ 1�N yk' +�v ` NyW p O pp YK.' qqy C UJOQ ad C Crtii G G N M i V V Q L V tea.a. c t Y 4'Y T�w� %, 4 M � c lo ga y, �i✓Y ��6 Y. 64�. �. G rA� ✓rya. yV�. �c0. .. N a M W N ✓ a T. �v dre•s{i YG �.�� +`q j� � N�O.�. � Lb� i� �✓yC Y �sC Ny a W +p�� ..by A . �LVY if y� R p�j g'i �^ TV Off• �!�• tl7 MrA _V{}.�L. b T M ✓jCO CAN Ye'µ wv ' d � ✓1r•i ^•M O �O II �y.Y ?}� iMb 4AF6. •�N� NCO 1 G 4. C G O �r Y 01 L N`,i ♦i'1 K a V �� O�a•}. O V� {�i a� ✓w i ff L pp '}s ✓ wi1 6r =�s4 b4 6T0li OQ » i 9� 4Fr.b1 Vw Nam^ ,:. a= QyDY O qL�O aM M 4 YyO �Lyy d. �� ^�L tt I3 NNC al ✓C �{�}�V,� Ve,. ^ aV rc ' dNV G. �� Na C A M it p 4 0,C Fw✓'J �q C� Y jj J'ry� 7�. w y Y�Y �U1 p•N a r�l � Y Y✓Q M y :V< s D w Y i a Chairman McNiel asked how deep they were. Steve Hayes, Assistant Planner, responded 3 feet. Chairman. McAiel opened the public hearing. Geoff Reeslund SGPA Architecture and Planning, ated he had no problem with angling the walls, but requested that the ang ng not be continued on the face -f the other tenant oortions. Hearing no further testimony, the p�blj hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Emeri ., w- ed by Tolstoy tun, adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Perm'" 88-35, with a*dif-cation to require revised drawings indicating angular iculation be approved by City Planner. Motion carried by the following vo AYES: COKMISSION B1 AKESLEY, EMERICK, MCKEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COK41S NERS: NONE ABSENT: ISSIONERS: CHITIEA earried PUBLIC HEARINGS !!! B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 'tXll O'DOiNNELL, AR4STRONG; BROW-1 - A division o acres 3j Ma ir o 24 parcels in he Minimum Impact. Heady Industrial designation (Subarea 9) of the Industrial -Specific Plan, located on the south side of Arrow Route at Milliken Avenue APN: 229-111-23. '!EW BUSINESS 1 C. ENVIROWENTAL ASSE5SP!ENT AND DEVELOPMENT `.REVIku 88-36 O'DONNELL, ARM a rev ie o a rTasterr an for a 1.31-asr .n us rra -comp ex .ki-d-a'se I corsirtino of six (6) industrial buildings totaling 636,970 square feet on 32.4 acres of land in the Plininwhm Impact Heavy Industrial designati:n (Subarea 9) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located or, the south side of Arrow Route at Milliken Avenue - APH: 229- '11-23. Scott Murphy. Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Eaerick asked when the ,ydrology infoimation had originally been requested iro;,r the applicant. Mr. Murphy responded approximately d to 6 weeks ago, Commissioree Eme.rick asked if the concern was that adverse num. r-s might affect the placement of buildings. f r Planning Commission Minutes -2- December 28, 1988 Mr.. Murphy responded that it was felt the building placement might potentially be affected. 1 Chairman Mctliel opened the public hearing. Lee Redmond, O'Donnell, Armstrong, Brigham a Partners, stated they had been I providing reports to the City as requested, with the last information being presented on Thursday, December 22. He felt the conditions in the Resolution were sufficient to, protect the City and requested approval rather than a continudnce, Jim Westling, PafItner in charge of construction activities, O'Donnell, Arm:,trong, Brigham & Partners, stated they felt they had enough area to the north to expand thu retention basins to reduce overall depth if necessary. He did not feel the site plan would have to be revised. Because the Resolution was conditioned to require approval of the hydrology report by Building and Safety, he requested the Resolution be approved. He offered to pay the cast l for the City to submit the report to an outside consultant if it would help t1. expedite matters. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what the ponding depth wou;d be in areas where automobiles would be parked: Mr. Murphy slated the deepest portion would be in the truck, o,rking areas., only a few automobile parking spaces would tie affected. Mr. Vestling stated th re would be c maximum ponding depth of 19 inches in all three retention areas Corrsnissioner BlakesleY asked if pooling would be seen in an average year. ;-ark skits, Williamson and chmid Civil Enyi"Aring, stated they had requested historical rain data from the County to co° the last ten years, but they were still waiting for that UtA. He said Lli smal,e4• events Mould he flushed out of the system with no retention on-site. He said the extended ponding and retention would be Seen in 25, $0, or 100 year events. Nearing no further :estiraony, the public "nearing was closed. Chairman rcHiel asked if Ehgineering was comfortable with Building and Safety Crnndition 1) of.tt*SolUtion OR E$-1, Mr. Murphy sUted the Condit ,)n was added by Building and Safety because they did not feel comfortable *aeh the information that had previously been provided and tied not had timm to review the latest submitted -information. 1 Sarryo Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated the map he h�td seen refle..:ted deeper- ponding. Chairman AcNiel reopew' .the public hearing to ask mt. Setts if he stood behind the 19 inch depth: Planning Commission Mnutet December Z9, 1988 f p11� Y "i . 1 Mr. Seits responded that he did, 1 ha initially Chairman McRiel stated he would b ncreasing the numbersheb tanstead t eych`c�d in with low numl)e.-s and are initially come in with higher numbers and were now decreasing '.hem after further stuuy, Mr Hanson stated Fngineering would have tri approve the hydrology report prior tc ',ssuance of building permits. Commissioner Emorick stated the Horse case would be that the applicant would return for site Plan revisions. Commissioner 7t9lstoy el$, bu-0 ietadid with not want parcel appl cant�to lack expand rail the service to some parcels, b the landscape areas er the layout. He wa: ponding areas by sacrificing p comfortable with IZ inches and h inches rB lroad�tracks truck awe respect-*':IQIY- He pointed out that the C elevated fjecause there has been a problem Witte ponding during rains because the storm dra+as under the tracks are not adequately sized to handle heavy Ck rains. l Mr, hurpiny °..gyested a litlit of 4 hours of poadin9 be added to the Conditions - j in orde;' to~be consistent Mitt, the report. Mr, omits asked for clarification regarding the t-hour time limit, He so Vd the site would not be completely dry, but therr would be minima pond ng of up to 6 inches. He said in order to get-the area COnplrr�ly ury i would be necessary to Out morn than the downs«sal- e,apacity could hand•e. lie stated that the combined capacities of t1,,e otitlets would exceed the maxinum they were allowed to drain if the Conxnissioners wanted the area to he tAtaliy dry within 4 hours. However, it could drop to 6 inches within a 2-hoacr period. F1e stated revised ealcuiat k ions were submitted N t:ic City on December 22, which reduced the maximum depth from- 27 inc{res to 18 inches.. commissioner Era®rick asked whd, reporting station was used for the 100-year storm calculations.. Mr. Sens responded they used San 3ernardino Hyerology Manual, based an the Noah Atlas rainfall, which was around a fLet 3 inches in 24 hours. Chairman MHis1 asked the height of the building doors in the area. Mr. A�rphy stated the buildings awl had dock-high doors, 48 inches. Mr. Nestling stated water would lap against the side of the building, but would not go in the doors. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. t:ommissionPr Tolstoy stated he had no problem if the depth was reduced to S leek inches or less within 1 hours. Decembe- 28, 1988 Planning Coaabission Minutes -4- Mr. Hanson suggested adding wording to Special Condition 3. tc`t to allcl the city Engineer to approve equivalent syc�ms in place of an interim berm, ditch and retention basin on the north o!,de a; Arrow Route. Motion: Moved by Slakeslex seconded by Emerick t adopt Environmental Assessment and Parcel Nap I189I with modi;;cations to allow 4i h City Engineer and retention to approve ecu valent systems in place of sn interim aerrf,, basin an the north side of Arrow Route and to indicate the pondino aepth would not exceed 6 inches for more than 4 hours. Motion carried is; iie following vote: AYES: COK4ISSIONERS: BLAKE:�l Sy, L>+iEkICK iiCNIEI TOLSYCi NOES: CO►MISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -ca ried Motion: Mond D veld 4ment @Review D$ -36 bwith mod fi ato ticnopto ind %Rte tithe Assessment t exceed 6 inches for pc-iod of 4 hours or water retention level would no less. Motian carried by the following vote: AYES: COMISSIONERS: BLAKULEY, EMERICiC, MCNIFL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMISSIONERS: - NONE f.. AB itT: COMMISSIUNERS: CHITIEA -carried OIpLLTOR"S REPORT 0. coNSIOERPTION TO ` NsTRUCT STAFF TO STUDY A444I INITIATE A GENERAL PUN s epQr Otto Krautil, prestn d the tafi: report. HO stated the City would lute to { change the density in an are whera the old aneral Plan density of t�kium { represented 4-14 units per a '` isNhen the it-diun particula black was notctl&nged1w Low- changed to 9,14 units per arort was rr, Medium.; sow e? the surroUfidi3g a is developed with Single family units. He a^egaestrd ±'latiniag Commission d lion to instruct staff W tnti�t an amendment to chango the designation to ow-4Aedium. rommissioner Emrick asked. the density of sting developmnt in the area. Mr. Krou".ii stated the Barosa project was units ,ler acre. Other single !, family homes were approximately S units o- the acra- The General Plan theoretically al'ows up to 14 units per acre. Minutes December 2$, 1,938 Planning Ca;3mission . i RESCLUT109 00. 88-249A JI A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNIt C COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW $8-36, THE DELETION OF RAILRQ4D SPUR SERVICE TO PARCEL 24, THE INCREASE IN THE ?�AUNT'OF ON SITE INUNDATION AREAS, AND THE ADDITION OF Afi ON-SITR RETENTION BASIN FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED OM THE SOUTH SIDE OF ARROW ROUTE AND MILLIKEH AVENUE n APN: 229111,'-23, i AND MAKING FINDINGS 1N SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals, (i) O'Donnell, Armstrong, Brigham $ Partners ;has filed an application for the approval of Development Review No. 68-36 (modification) as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to at "the applicatior,". (ii) On the 14th day of dune, 19B9, thf. Planning Commissicr of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting off the"appl-cation and concluded sai* meetirj on that dats. (iii) All le al i have occurred. 9 prerequisites to the adoption ai•' this Resolution Ask $. Resolution. f NOW., THEREFORE, it is hereby ford, determined and reaolied by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as felldws= y I. ThU CoWission hereby specifically finds that all or" the facts set forth in Recitals, Past A, of this Resolution are;true an' correct. 2. Based vpoi,, substantial evidence present°£d to this Connission doming the above-refer ,ced meeting on June 14, 19891, Including written and or41 staff reports, this Commissinn hereby specifically finds as soilows (a) Tho applic Sian applies to pr per*ty locates an tr.e south side of Arrow Route at Milliken Av«ue with a frontage of 2,167 fpgt along Arrow Route. Tke avleperty is peess:irvly vacant; and (b) The prorarty to the north, south, east and a.•pst are designated for industritil uses. T+e property to the south and west is developed with industris,l building2. The nroperty to the north is vacant. The property to the Oast is partially developr:d with industri,,l bitildYnq:7; and (c) Thy? •^ojett, with the recommer;ded Conditions of Approval, complies with all minimum development standards of tivi City- of Rancho Cucamonga; and PLANNING COMMISSION�RMM'TWN NO. 86-249F RE, MOD. TO OR 88-36 June 14, 1389 Page t Ank (d) The development of the industrial complex :s consistent with the Minimum ?mpact/Hea�iy Industrial designation of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the General Plan; and (e) The requester nodificatia-I applies' to the expansion of on-site inundation areas, the deletion of the rail spur south o1 Building 24, and the'additiof, of a permanent on-site retention basin. 3. Based upon the substutial evidence presented to this C(%,kission, during the above-referenced meeting 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 proposed project is consist.°nt with the objectives of the General Plan; and (b) That the prcposed use is in accord with the objective of the Industrial Specific Plan and the rurposes of the district in which, the site is located; are (c) That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the :ridustri4l Specific Plan; and (d) the proposed 13seq ta:gether with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public. health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. TNrs Commissior hereby, finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental duality Act of 1.970 and, further, this Corcmission hereby issues a Neaative Declaration. {� 5. Based t!pon .he findings and conclusi,wr-s yet. north in j 7 Naraaraphs; 1, .2, 3, and 4 above, this :Comission 'tereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below. Planning Division 1) All pertinent conditions of Resolulecuiz'y,. 8vn249 approving Develcpment Revieo 88-36 sliali Apply. 21 Landscaping and fencing around the permanent or site retention b;;in shall be proV.ded to the satisfaction of the Design Review tohnittee. V Rail spur service will not be requited for Parcel 24. �-" p _. �c PLANNING COMMISSION PESOLUTION' NO. 88-249A RE' MOD. TO DR 88-36 June 14, 1989 Page 3 '1 APPIOVED-AND ADOPTED THIS I4Th DAY Or JbNE, 1989. ' PLANNING COMMISSIGN OF THE CITY OF RANCHO P'4ARiONGA BY: Larry T. WLN c C airman ATfiES7 `• 3r�� a`�C BuTSeY, Secretary � I, -Brad 8ulier, Secretary of the Planning Commissions of the City cf Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foreping Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the. City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of June, 1989, regular following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ASSENT: COMMISSIONERSt 1 - i i a (,—11111111111J1AM1111 STAFF REPORT DATE: June 14, 1989 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller; City Planner E BY: Brett HornLr, Assis+-int Planner SUBJECT; MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-3f, NELSON - An appeal of the City Planner's decision to deny the reques. to delete a condition of approval requIring the payment of an in-lieu fee for landscaping within the 1-15 Freeway right-of-way along the project frontage for 1.55 acres in the General Industrial District (Subarea 14) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located on the east s•?ue of Hyssop Drive, north of 14th Street APN: 229-331-02� i. BACKGROUND: T`ni: projer= an industrial building at the southern end of Hyssop Drive ' - ;forth of 4th Street, was approved by the City Planner on Senuary 11, 1989. One of the conditions of approval, Engineering Division Candition 5, required the payment of an in-lieu fee for landscaping within the I-1.5 Freeway right- cf-way. { II. ANALYSIS: On May 4, 1989, the City Planifur received a request to elete this freeway landscaping condition. The applicant seated oppositiot tn the condition fov cost considerztions (see the attached le',,.' from the applicant), The City Planner denied the request based on the established City policy and past development review actions. The Panning Commission determined that the I-15 } (Devore) freeway right-of-way is an important regional transportation corridor through the. City of Rancho Cucamonga. In this sense, :ran, any property which adjoins the freeway should be landscaped in tA_, same way that all development is requiru:i to landscape tt:eir "frontage', along public rights-of-way. Cal trans did not have pleas to landscape this corridor, but indicated that they would allow others to landscape it subjecF to their review and standards. The policy requiring landscaping or payment of fees in-lieu of construction was established try tme Planning Commission in October 1987. All new development projects ainng the -15 Freeway corridor rove since been conditioned accordingly. The policy requires "ail new development adjacent to the I-15 (Oevore) Freeway" to lardscape and irrigate the freeway,right-of way which adjoins their property, The subject ;property has over _J�.._ ITEM M PLPNNINS COMMISSION STAFF REPORT OR 88-32 - NWON June 14, 1989 Page 2 f 1,000 feet of freeway `rontage which is required to be landscapeO. This; 1,000 feet consists entirely of the northbound on-ramp. linwever, the lower two-thirds of the site are undevelopable at this time becau" of a flood control detention 3 basin. Therefore, the portion of the site which is actually being 1 develop-id has a freeway frontage of under 300' feet. Development of the southern (basin) portion of the site can occur only after Day Creek Cn3nnel is improved. Ti applicant has proposed to construct additional parking it this r)rtion which would potentially add 200-300 feet more of deve'ipfed land Wich "front•;" ontL the freeway. U1. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Staff notes the Following findings for the Commission's cons etatF'ioh:_ 1. All new development along the I-18 (Devote) Freeway corridor has been conditioned to require landscaping or pay ^-lieu fees. 2. The current policy applies universally to all properties -"ch. adjoin the freeway right-of-way. 3. The sate is unique with re*pect to the ratio of freeway frontage to the site of building because of the unuse}, elongated shape of the property. 4. The site differs from most properties due to the narrow shape of the southerly third, and other easements, which makes development of this portion of the site impractical. The current policy does not provide ciny latitude for staff in now to apply the condition for landscaping. However, the Commission may modify its policy to clarify how it should be applied under certain circuldstances, si►rilar to their utility undergrounding policy. �J. RECOHNENDKfION: if the: G4mmission feels that the freeway an 51�� cape policy should be roviewed, it is recommended that staff be directed to come back with suggested language at your next meeting and continue this item to -the same t:oecina. If the Commission does not support. the appellant"s recuest, then .staff should be directed to prepare a Resolution of Denial with findings' for adoption on the consent: calendar at your next meeting, 1 _ . ,I i PLAMINO COMISSION STAFF REPOPT OR 88-38 NELSOR June 14, 1989 Page 3 gift Resp #�lly s ted, mod" L City P ar..ner 88:BH:ratg Attachments; EAlbit "M rett4w frnr Applicant Vxhibit 11V Site PlaO I i i i John W. Nelson NS 0"urclAt.''nw !;a:'avd,I'd 4i i+8 ;.9�L ri,P3 r i June %ty of Rancho Cucamonga "Iann:ng Caaaission ga1C 9ssi 'nt Road Rancho Cacamonga, CA 91730 Attn: Larry McNeil Dear Mr. McNeal; II I am presently in Use process of obtatniuV permits to construct • industrial building an Hyssop Avenue, under your Design Review number DR 82-32. I would like to request a modification be the conditloe.r of approval for .his project. Specifically, the enndition requiring in-lieu tees to br paid to the City for landseaping within the 1-15 Freeway right of wo.. ':`,e III justification for this requt l is primarily one of economic bar&ship. P Ila The calculated area for determining the fee is so largo relative to the size. of the parcel being developed it renders tl�e� , parcea economically unfeasible to develop. The project will cost $650,000.00 to construct. City, ANUL fees other than the in-lieu tee ar, about W AC0 00. The in-lieu fee alone :s an additional $315,000.00. This brings total fees :o approximately f" 5355,000.0] or 55 percent of the construction costs. Because of the unique con.'iquration of the subject property, this condition olares an unsanoaable a4zand on the owners for developing their property. It 'his condition is, a1c; 74 to regain in effect, the protect will have to be aba: ned at great cost and hardship to the owners of the property. L This could fr , inverses cuadmanation litigation involving the City. It is for theca resaav, I to respectfully requesting a -icdification to f the conditions of 4.toval. l J Yours truly, Y Y' Y ' IV John V. N 1pwlt ( YY 1 I cc: Dan q&3rra Y� f Derbish, goam Faroe Y Barry Hasou I Young, Semis, fur Aries, r,manon CITY OF I I CUCAMONGA Tillm LETTER FROM APPLICANT FUMING I DINT a _ eves �1 PROJECT OITE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OFAREA TO BE LANDSCAPE® u • ; 1 I i I 0 15 I SITE � K W tt NORTH r OFaPPeal of declWon to ITEM: —. md.to IM 14-32 RANCHO VUCAMO GA TITLE: SITE PLAN PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: SCALE: none CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -•r STAFF REPORT ti-xl Z r DATE: June 14, 1989 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner 6Y: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner SUBJECT: DISCUSSION-OF POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MOE t1MENDMENTS RELATING I. ABSTRACT: The City Council referred this matter to the Planning F omC"mission for consideration and recommendation. II. BACKGROUND: The City`s existing zoning regulations define a car wash as a Conditional. Use within the office and commercial zones. � This is a land use activity that is not permitted by right, but one which requires a special permit (Conditional Use Permit). At a recent City Council meeting, a resident regr�ested that the City's code, be modified to prohibit car wishes altogether ir., the Neighborhood Commercial District. This request caste about as a result of public Concern involving a design review applicetiort for a "coirt-up" car wash at Lemon and raven. III. ANALYSIS: The basic premise of all zoning is to distinguish between Appropriate and inappropriate uses of land in a given area. To a Neighborhood Commercial District, some uses, such as retailing, att clearly appropriate and are permitted by right. Other aces, such as manufacturing, would not be considered appropriate and are prohibited. Howevrrr, some uses, because of the nature: of their bosiness activity, capnot be so neatly defined as appropriate or inappropriate for a given district. These are uses that require special considera}ion in order to operate in a manner comps-tole viith a surrounding neighborhood. Automobile service stations, churches, or day care facilities are uses that would typically not be permitted by right within any district, but would require special review and consideration. Tote Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is the process used in most cities in Callfornia to determine .if an activity is compatible with surrounding uses. the CUP process is intended to afford on opportunity for broad public review and evaluation, and to provide QF mitigation of any potentially a4verse impacts. ITEM N . PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT RE: CAR WASHES DCA June 14, 1989 Pag: 2 The Neighborhood Commercial District is intended to provide areas for immediate day-to-Cjy convenience shopping and services for the residents of the immediate neighborhood. Typical uses would include such activities as, food stores and supermarkets, general retail (clothing, florist, beauty shops, pharmacies, offices and banks. Coin-operated car washes and automatic car washes fall under the category of automotive services in the zoning regulations. Other auto-related uses include, gas stations, repair shops, and parts sales. All automotive service uses require a CUP within the Neighborhood Commercial District, except for sales of parts and supplies. A major consideration in reviewing the compatibility of a car wash with surrounding res-idential land uses is location and orientation to the neighborhood. More intense uses, such as a car wash,, can be "buffered" from less s-itense uses through a. combination of 1 elements, includ4 ng, se ;ck, building orientation, screening by other buildings, screer, walls, and heavy landscaping. Ask Fast food/drive-thru restaurant is another land use that requires a CUP. In 1988, because of the number and frequency of new applications, the M&.ining Commission esta blished de sign guidelines elines the for fast food restaurants which address compatibility riith u�c sarrounding neighborhood. These guidelines may providr., some assistance in addressing the compatibility of car washes with residential areas. For example, f;st food drive-thru restaurants must be a minimun of 200 feet array 7rom any residential use or residential district. IV. OPTIONS: The Planning Commission may consider the following options: 1. Am d"Development Code to establish standards similar to the fast food,/drive-thru guidelines. 2. Develop intc-rim guidelines, 3. Amend the Development Code to prohibit car washes from the Neighborhood Commercial District. 4. Make nu changes. V. RECO,MMENDATION: Staff reconsn,nds that the Commission review this issue an prov de staff with appropriate direction. PLANNING COMMISSO STAFF REPORT RE: CAR WASHES.,OCA June 14, 1989;% Page 3 Res, lly s ed, Bra 5u er Ci zy P r:ner,• I BB:DC:ka e 9 t y i _ i, am rqN aiaa CL CL ME Ali t i i .i. 1 1.•—! :.;.ti11 —_. ..3A -N.A1dN'•—'.. c :� 71 VoINOW -p M VA N A 'i: a — -- — CITY OF RANCHO C�TCAMONGA MEMORANDUM Ask Date: June 7, 1989 To: P2annYna Commission . From: Joe Schultz, Community SerVices` Manager By: Dave Leonard, Park Project !coordinator Subject: Review of community Services Department capital Park. Improvement Budget for 1989-90'and 1990-9I. Information Only No Action Required BAC GROUND To communicate the pending goals established with the 1989-90 and 90-91 Capital Improvement Budgets for park lands, the Commission is provided witU a tentative copy of that portion of the Community Services Budget. Items shown requia^,e City Council review and approval and are IV subject to changa. ANALYSIS They Park Land capital improvement budget has four categories of development: 1. Construction Improvements 2. Design Development 3. Land Acquisition 4. Misc. The budget development under those categories is as follows: i CONSTRUCTION Lion Park Renovation of two tennis courts Beryl Park Renovation of four tennis courts West Beryl New Construction ten acre park Old Town New construction five acre park Don Tapia (Creekside) New construction three acre park I ITEM 0 park I:aprovement Budget June 7, 1989 page Two NT f. JE5IGN DEVVv"O Development second phase Design Conceptual Design Central park park Construction Design N.E. Community NaI Community Park Construction Design sports Complex �ITYON N.E. Community park- Sp Orts Complex Central park �[ISCEi �CS school play£iald Upgrading court/picnic Table Retrofit Hard Heritaga BalifiGld s shielding Red Hill/ iHe-itage Ballfl,,ald renovation, a Red slope planting Heritage7P-e Rer00%ing heritage/ summarizing the budget rovem«rit Project ReC},uest forms of the Budget Detail. Warksheet sum% evievt• Copies the Capital ?;%provided for e I i�ssion r allocations and ee Cal a at a P detailing the exp JS.DL:bs COST CENTER DETAIL WORKSHEET 89/90 Decarcmenc/Division; Program: account Number Community Services Park Development 20-4532 Object Ho. Description of teems & individual Dollar Amounts Budget �y n.-I, 160 1 150 007 Beryl Paak Construc-,:ic•n 232,805 9015 West Beryl Park Construction 2,452,800 3611 Old mown Park Construction 1 613,200 9767 V/E Community Park Acauisition 749,825 c-r t u a ours Picnic Table Retrofit 5 000 Da D De*e oament 622.500: 07-70 Creekside Park Construction Design 477,5001. cc ne, u;tt ./uor;.=ae Ballfield Shielding 76,500f ao t �I E Community Park Concentual Design 82,500 \t v e-Qmmg i*y Paxk Construction Desian 273,2<5' -ant Comnl�x Construction Design 288, 50 8905 sctiool Plavfield Upgrading 505,000 S906 5/-c coirsr.unity Park Debit Retirement 227,900 r x r and Acauisition 2,000,000 e?DAer et-irement 459,30h ni .e ;, - Dark 60.-0 C C, 8910 Slope Planting - Heritage & Red Eill Ej,000, Reroofing - Heritage. and Red Hill Buildinas 120,000 Sub Total 10,009,05 45 .-� 10,509,50 Total -27- it 89/90 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REQUEST Departmeatcommunity Services Fund Division Park Develoo,ment 20-4532-8006 ]Priority No. project Title, Description, and Location: Lions Puri Indicate whether New: F Replacement: or Addition: X "roject Justification: installation of two night lighted tennis courts, picnic area, and monumentation -,ign. (Has this project been scheduled in a prior C.'.P.? ="ez =Ho Other projects or factors directly related to this projects Indicate f13cal year project should be: Started 22J-0 Caapleted 89L90 Estimated Project Cc'ts Amount Suggested financing Amount Design and Construction 225,900 184 State Bond Act 86,250 Administration 4,500 PCPDF 160,150 Contractor Inspection 16,000 Funds available and/or Amount required first yeat 246,400 already expended Amount required subsequent years 0 3alance Required 246,400 TOTAL 246,o0 Recommended By: Division bead For Manager c5 [ t Requested By: (Department Head) EV 90 CAPITAL. IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REQUEST Department community Services Fund ~ Division 20-4532-8007 Fark DeveL6=ent Priority No. Project Title. Description, and L atioa. Beryl Par: ft.:,dicnte whether Nhta; Repkreoment: _nor Addltlon; Project �'uatifit aeion _ Instaliation of four night .lighted tennis cnurts, picnic area, monument signage, restroom rehabilitation and drainage improvement. :Ias this project been schadoled in a prior C.T.F.? Yes No Other projects or factors directly related to this ptoject;� Indicate Fiscal year project should be. fitarted 89891 Completed 89/90�. Estimated Project Costa Amount 8udlistee Financing Amount Design and Construction 375,000 `84 State Bond Act 131,000 Administration 4,500 185-186 R-Zberg 31,69E Contract Inspection 16,000 RCPDF 232,80.5 I i Funds available andlor ;;'wZt ;squired first year 395,600 already expended t Aaeauut required subsequent years -0- alance Roquired 395,500 TOTAL 399,500 R corw2nded By: tnvision Bead For Hv=ges s Usel Requested ny. (Department Vend) i f , $Pl90 CAPITAL. IMRRGvEMEIIT PROJECT REQUEST Deparsment Community Services Fund 2G-4532- ~:+ Division 8015 Park Aeyelopment Priorit�rHa.. Project Title, Descxiptioq, And .Location; �.�..�.�. West Beryl. Park Indicate whether New: X Replacement:-.-�._.e. or Addition: E Project JuatilicAtion; Construction of approved master plan for the ten acre west extension of Beryl Park to include restroom, playground, picnic area and tra lighted soccer fields., I Has this project been scheduled to a pricer c.r.F.? =es t*o Other projects or factors directly related to thia project: Indicate fiscal year project should be: Started i ,�W .�..,,, Coap3etc;t.69/9 . Hatisated Project costs Amount gutussted Financial J momat Construction 2,400,000 aCPDF 2,452,800 Administration 20,800 Contract Inspection 32,000 Funds aysilshla an00r Amount required finst year 2,452,800 already expended Amount required subssiquent yosrs _ _0 Ja1snces Requirea 2,452,800 TOTAL 2 45Z R00 Recommended Sy; Mviakoa He&dT wor Manager's Uge., Requested JD 4, Yt ,BJCpiaR�iAenC NE'adj CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REQUEST Department Community Services Fund 20-4532-8611 C11.viaion Park Deve'opment Priority No. Project Title. Description, and Location: Old Town Park Indicate uhather Nav: v Replacement: ar Addi:tiont Project Justification: Construction of the approved rnaster plan of the five acre Old Town Park, to include restrooms, playground, picnic area, and one lighted softball field Hta :his project been scheduled in a prior C.I.P.? eu =No other projects or factors directly reUited to this pzoject: Indicate fiscal year project should be: Started r,,,.89 90 Completed 8 .L2.q— Estimated Project Coats Axoumt Suggested Financia$ Amount Construction 1,010,000 184 State Bond Act 149,000 Administration 20200 HUD 300,000 Contract Insper_tibn 32,000 RCPDF 613,200 it I I i Funds available and/or Amount requited first year 1462,200 already expended ' ks�wunt required subsequent YCARA glance Requiredd TnrAL 1,062,200 i 062 zoo Recomm endcd By: Division Head)r,Fox P#se7ager s ss: Requested By: (Department Head) r 89/90 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROTECT REQUEST Department Community services Division Park Development Fund20-4532-8767 pW i:oriep No. Project Title, Description, and Locations NE Community Park Indicate whether trove X Replacement: or Addition: X Project Juscificatic,'., Purchase of 15.145 acre parcel to complete the acquisition totaling, 53.205 acres for North East Community Park. Purthase will complete the final general plan community park designation. !lies this project been scheduled in a prior C.T.P.? =es No Othrr projects jr fc.etorr dir=ely related to this project: Indicate fiscal your Dtnject w:r4.;.ld be: Started 89190 Completed 89f90 Esttmated Proj'ecC Casts Amount Su6Eested Financing ft2u at Land Acquisition 7,42,500 RCPDF 749,.925 Administration 7,425 I Funds aysilablm and/at Amount required first year 749,925 aiready expended A:ivnt required subsequent Jests 3alance Required 749,925 TOTAL 74`9,925 Re%ommended By: Division uested II bead for Manager's Use: !te q Y� (Department Neasi) 89J90 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REQUEST Department Community services Fund 20-4532-976$ Division Park Development I Priority No. Project Title, Descriptions and Location; Hardcourt/Picnic 'Table Retrofit indicate whether Newt x Replacement: or Addition: n oject. Justif cation: Retrofing basketball courts into four existing neighborhood pars,itt k . T,ions, Windrows, Hermosa, and Church Street Parks. Addition of individual picnic table pads at Red Hill and Heritage Community Parks and installation of picnic shelter at Windrows Park. i kas this project been scheduled in a prior C.S.P.? L. as =No Other projects or factors cirectly related to this projects indicate fiscal year project should be Started. 89/90 Completed ,$aigQ Estimated Project Costs Anoune Sur"3zated Ftaancias Mount ' Construction 100,000 '86 State Bond Parkland Act 50,000 iI Administration 2,000 RCPDF 52,000 i Funds available andlos Amount rtiquired first year 102,000 already expanded Amunt regoieed subsequent Yeats 3alance Required 102,000 TOTAL 10 Z 000 Recommended By: ivision Read par Manager's Use: Requested By,. (Department Read) 6 t 89/90 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REQUEST Department Community Services Fund 20-4532-8769 Oiviaion Pkrk Development =PriorltyNo. Project Title, Description, and 'Location; Central Park Indicate whether New: . v Replacement:.or Addition: x Project Justification: For development of detailed construction and engineering drawings in keeping with. the. City Council approved Conceptual Design. !Has. this project been schedul.ad in a prior C.I.P_Y 1 =as No Other projects or factors directly related to this project: Indicate fiscal yeai project should be: Started 8gli g� Completed Estimated Project Costa A=uu Suglvntad F'caaciias Satis=t Site Design and tngireering 900,000 RCPDF 622,500 Administration 22,500 Funds available and/or Aaownt required first yeas alteady expended - 6,1•2,500 .Law= squired ;subsequ-tt years 300,000 3alance Required 922,500 TOTAL 922,500 Rccammendad 6y: 9iviatos Head For ft%uger d, se.p 1uAtcd - _ ? fG q y. ,VcpartmEnt Head) CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PRO-)ECT REQUEST s 89/90 Depar=ent Community Services Fund — Diviaion 20-4532-8770 Park Develo ment Prioetty No. Project Title, Description, and Locations Creekside Park Indicate whether Nov: a ,� Repl,ceaent:�„�,,,,,or Addition. Project Justification: Development of the three acre Creekside Neighborhood Park located on Alta Cuesta south of Base Line Road. ,Has this project been scheduled in a prior C.I.P:7 L u ayes No Other projects or factors directly related to this project; i Indicate fiscal y, should bee Started 3JJQ _ Completed g in g, Estimated P_oject i Amount Suggested Financlus A mount Design 30,000 RCPDF 472,500 Construction 420,000 Administration 22,500 l Funds available and/or 1�ouat required first y"r 472,500 l already expanded Aooat rrquirad subsequent yeers _ E Glance Required TOTAL 472 500 472 500 Reco� tmo=ended By. tni.Y aloe Head) Fox S�Lzn:sg a s at: tteque«ted Dy: (DapartmcnC Vend) l 1 89/90 CAPITAL IMPROVEPFNT PROJECT ",EQUEST Division Department Community services Fund ' 20-4532-8806 Park Development AWL Priasity Nu. Project Title, Description,- and Lodation: Red HiII/Heritage nallfield Shielding Indicate whether New: Replacement._ or Addition, Project Justiiicmtion: Design Ene,' eering and installation of she-.ilding on sports field lightina cures. { i !Has this project been srhed%lei; in a prior C.Y.P.? =ea No Ocher projects or factors directly related to this project: ,Indicate fiscal ,yesar project should be: Started 8 /90 Completed 09/90 Esti&eted r-rojeat Casts Amdult Sub.Sasted FSamacls:s Aount C Design and Install :,5,000 RCPDF 76,500 Administration 1,500 i f Funds available andler fii-Mivat Tequired fivae year 76,500 a a � already expended Awuat required aubcsqusnt yearn 3ralscze Required TOTaU.. �.., 76,500 76,500 Recommended By, Div!?�ion FSead for tlranagtsr a der loquestad By. (Department Hsadb t a CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REQUEST Department community Services pond 20-4532-8901 4 Divieioa park D:aveZapment Priority No. Project Tit2eti Deucziption, and Location: N/E Community Park Indicate whether Ned: Replacement: c, additions T; Project Juctili:ation: Development of conceptual design for the 53 acre community park., Design to include 20,000 sp. ft. community building, various lighted sports fields and other ammenities as identified by a community design task force, as this project been scheduled in a prior C.I.P.? 9..?t 4e3 No Other projects or factors directly related. to this pro3act: Indicate fiscal_ year projz9;r should be.. feasted Aq/IO Cmpleted EnL=ted Project Costs Amount Suggested financing Amount Design 75,000 1RCPDF 82,500 Administration 7,500 Funds available andl c Amount required first gent 82,500 already expended ^ Amunt-required subsequent years lance Roggired 82,500 TOTAL 82,500 ,Reco=ended By., Aivieion Head For t33;tager s Sco kequestod By. (Department Head) �., 89/90 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 'REQUEST Bepar[mthL community services Fund 20-4532--8902 Division Park `eveiopment Prioricp Project Title. Description, and Location: F a NIB Community Park Indicate whether Nevt Replacement: or Addition: Project Justification: Developv-tnt of detail, construction drawings for the yet to be approved conceptual. design. !Has this project been scheduled in a prior C,2.P,t e..-....:.��es d......�..�No Other projects or factors directly related to tiara project: Indicate fiscal, year project should hei Started-.a2.41.0 Completed - 22J.2 Estimated Project Costs Ameuat Suggested ri a"cinq Recount Construction Design 525,000 RCP0r 548,225 Administration 23,225 Funds svailablf� and/or Amount required first year 273,225 already arpendad ' Amount raquixtd subsequent Years 25ti, salance Required 548,2,n TOTA1. 598,22l Recommend 8p: DSv sicn li�sadl "Ear Nagar s Res; Requested Dy: (Department Head) � 4_ 89/90 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTPROJECT REQUEST , Depa s8entcommunity services Fund 2-1-4532-8903 Division park Development I Pri:,rity 90, ' Project Title, Deacription,pand Location: Sport: Complex Indicate whether Hews X Replacement: or Addition: Project Justification: P! Development of detailed construction drawings for the proposed 28 acre site. Has thie project beat scheduled in a prior C.I.P.? x=ea 'No other projects or factors diractly related to this project. Indicate fiscal year project should ices Stated - 89/90 Ceup'leted, 82Z20 Estimated Yrojiect Costs Amount ausSeated Financintl Amount Constructicin Design 275,000 RCPDE � 288,750 Administration 13,750 Funds available and/or Asi", required first year already gxpen�led 288,750 1 Amount requited subsequent years falance Required 2E8,750 TOTAL. 288 750 Rcco=ended By: Division Head For Manager a, ass f Requested II ' �i Y• (Department Head) $9/9D CAPITAL MPROVEMIT PROJECT REQUEST Department community services Fund 20-4532-8905 Diviaicn Park Development Priority No. Project Title. Uescripr'gn, and Location: � . School Pl,ayfie:d Upgrading Indicate whether New: X Replacement: or Additton Project Justification, Upgrading of selected school facilities for use by various snorts organizations lHas this project been,schaduled in a prior C.I.P.? Lames 9 X No Other projects or factors directly related to this project: Indicate fiscal Year project should be: Started_ 89 93 Completed 89l90 Estimated Project Costs Amount Suggested Financing Aanuut Unknown RCPDF 505,000 Administration 5,000 i Funds available andt r Awuu required first year 505,000 already expended Amount required subsequent years .alancoe Requires! TOTAL 505,000 Rct9mmended By: --Division lead lSs Fat aagcsr s Use: riequKsccd By: (Department Head) 0�� 89/90 CAPITA'L VVROVEPIENT PROJECT REQUEST Department ununity Services Fund Division Department , 20-4532-8906 n meet priAriey No. *tea r4 Il ftPl . Project Yule, r�ocription, and Location: NlE Community Park Debit Retirement Indicate whether New: X Replacement. or Addition. X Project Justification: For retirement of certificates of participation to purchase land for N/E Community Park Her, this project bean scheduled in a prior C.I.P.? =es =No Other projects or factors directlyrelated to this project: Indicate fiscal year project should be: :Started—19/90 Completed 1998 `t Estimated Pvojecc Casts Amount suggested Financing Amount Debit Retirement 2,875,000 RCPDF $227,900 i I I Funds available and/or Amount requited first year already expended Amount required subsequent years 3elance Required TOTAi. 227,900 Recoumengsd'By, Division HeaU Flat Manarar s Use. Requesccd By. (Department Head) _f f r 89i ar CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REQUEST Department Community Services FundAdMk Division Department Z1-4532-8907 o u. < i p r Priority No. Project Title, Description, and Location: Sports Complex sand Aguisiti,on Indicate whether Haut X Heplacement.,,�,_, or Addition: X Project Juatilicaticn; For purchase of land in industrial area of city for sports complex 1Has this project been scheduled in a prior C.I.P.2 =es other projects or factors directly v"ad to this pOjects Indicate fiscal year projiet should be: Started Completed 2=2D,,.,�. Estimated Project Costs Amount Suggested Financing Amount Debit Retirement ;000,000 RCPDF $2,000,000 t � t +ear Fundy available and/or Issouo,t requi.rmd► first y already ezpendsd fiaouat raquirr ,d subsequent 7aars Balance Required TOTAL S7.,OO C,0of P*cc..andsd By: (Division HeadFor}}�Managers Use. itequescod 6y: (ocpartmsnt Head) ! J ( i? - _ 33J90 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REQUEST Department community Services I Hand Division Department 20-4532-8906 Park- .ps o Prioritp Ho. t> Project Title, Description, and Lication: central Park Debit Retirement i Indicate whether Hew: X Replacement: or Addition: X Project Jusatiftcaation: For retirement of certificates of participati= for purchase of land for Central ParkAIM qW nac this project been scheduled in a prior C,l.s�.? is No Other projects or factors dir*Ztlp r4latate4 to this project: Indicate fiscal yasr project should bez 5t�*ca�,��-'; Cc=ssleted 1994 Estimated Project Costs Asas:,o t Suggested T3natscins Amount Debit Retirement 6,390,000 RUDI' 9a9,300 Futads available andloi Aaacunc taquirad fcitast }sass already expended Amunt required subsequent ,ears 3alanco Required TOTAL. 9591 300 ReccrttaBu4s4 11y: D vls3.aa Head)'Far t!aaager s Utse: itaquescad By. (Atpartmant Head)' `" �� $g/aq CAPITAL IMPROVEMERT PROJECT REQUEST Department Community Services Fund 20-4532-8909 Mvision Perk Development Priority No. Am Project Title, Description, and Location: Hallfield Renovation - Heritage Perk Indicate uhr,der New:_ X Replacement.,_or Additlond Project. Justifications Per the request of the Engineering Department funds to rennovata the Haseball and Soccer Field overlays at Heritage Park i !Has this t.roject been scheduled in a prior G.l.P,2 tee No Other projects or factors directly related to this project: Indicate fiscal year project should be: Started $ 0�, Completed U4129 Estimated Project Coate AAQUUt Suggested Firssucing Amunt kenovat on .60,000 RCPDr 60,000 Funds available and/or Amount required, first year 60,000 already expended Amount required subsequent Y arras 9 �1 Sala a Roquired TONAL 60 000 Recommended By: Division Head Eor B-arsasSsr s Use% itequestod Q;; {Department Head} f CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REQUEST Department Community Services fund ment 20-4532-8910 Division Park Development Priority No. Project Title, Description, and Location: Slope Planting - heritage and Red Hill Parks Indicate whether New: Replacement: k or Addition: Project Justification: Per the request of the Engineering Department, funds to replant the 2:1 slopes at Heritage and Red Hill Community Parkas AML Has this project bean scheduled in a prior CJ.P.2 X=es o�i10 Other projects or factors directly related to this project: Indicate fiscal year project should be: Started 8�_ Completed. 89�90 Estimated Project Costs Amount su"astC4 Financing Mount Renovation •60,000 RCPDF 60,000 Funds available and/or Mount required first year 60,000 already expended Amount required subsequent ytase Balance Roquired TOTAL .60,000 Recommended By: Divxrir,.;head For Masser s uset Requested II q y: (Department Head) ay/yu CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REQUEST Department Commu:-Uty Services Fund DivisionPark Development 20-4532-8911 priority He. Project Title, Daseriptlon, and Location: Reroofing - Heritage and Red Bill Buildings Indicate whether Nov:_ _ Replacement: X or Addition., Project Juatificacion: Per the reauest cf the Engineering Department, funds to reroof the rastroom, maintenance and equistr.ian buildings. 'Has this project been scheduled in a prior C.I.P.? =as =No Other projects or factors "retcsly rralatad to this project. Indicate fiscal year proioc; should be: Started 89/90 •leted 89/90 Estimated Project Cc"* Avaunt Suggested r1wa.itis Areount Renovation 120,000 RCPDF 120,000 J l Funds available and/or Amunt required fSret gear 110,000 already expanded Amduat teouired subsequent esra da snee Required TOTAL 120,0 t Rectimaealded By: 01vis on ficad Got Hawigsr s Pa.- (Department !dead) I 90/93 COST CENTER DETAIL WORKSHEET J Department%Division; Pragram: Accounc :iuwoa;. Community Sesuices 'ark asue1oD:aent 20-4532 Ob eet No. Dgscti¢tion of Items individual Dollar :zouncs 5u9sez " antral Park D . _ �QQ.�Ju --cgntgal.ga Retirement 03 9 - � 89022 ://E Community nark Design 275,000 f� 8906 N/E�Community Land Debit Retirement 38,95C General Liabilit 18,335 i i l i i - l! -27- 90/91 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REQUEST �Departmentcommunity Servicos Fund Division Department nt 20--4563-8903 Frfatitg Na, Project Title, Description, and Location: N/E Community Park Indicate whether New Replece®snt! or :aditioa: Project justification: ��- y Development of detail construction drawings for the yet to be approved conceptual design. loft L I i � I I I �Us this project been scheduI J ',a a prior C.x.P.i X ss � j P Ido other projects o^ factnro daractly related tp 6his psajact: Indicats fiscal year project should be: Started t3. Cmplete4 qg;; Estimated Project. Costs fAwunc 5uar rted &!king A€ =t Construction Design 5,000 RCPGF 275,000 Funds available andlor Asi®uie required 'first year $275,000 already expanded Asounz required subsequent ymvs 3alance Raquired TOTAL 52`15,00 i'.eeommendad 87: ,,ptvision fleadY for PS4ttia�dS R asx Requested By: (Doyartzent Head e -33- 90/91 CAPITAL IMPRQVEMENr PROJECT REQUEST Department Community Services Fund DWision Department 20-4532-8769 D - I Priority No. Project Title, Description, and"Location: Central Park Indicate whether New: x Rsaplscsmeat: or Addition: % Project Justi?ieationz For development of detailed construction and engineering drawings in keeping with the City Council approved Conceptual Design. 'US this project bean scheduled in a prior Ca,P.Y �00 =No IOthak projects or factors directly related to this project: rndicate fiscal yete project should be: Started 89-90 Couplmd 90-91 Eatimated Project Costc Aasouac Sulgasted Mumeing Aaount Site Design and Engiieering $900,000 RCPDF $300,000 Funds available and/or Awant required first yam: $300,000 already expanded Amwunt required subsequent y6mrs Jalas:te A squired TOTAL $300,000 �Recornanded By: Diviaioa Heg—dT for lStsaag®r a sa: 1 eques� cry;, ` °` (Department Head) r -33- 90/91 ' CAPITAL 1MPROw1",',-,ff PROJECT REQUEST Department ,7ommunity Services Fund Division Department 20-4532-8906 h Priority No. Project litla. Qaectiptian, aad Location: N/E Community Park Land Debit Retirement Indicate whether itsar: RepLGcems:,t:,�„ �or Addition: r Project Justification: For retirement. of certificates of participation to purchase land for N/E Commun:ty Park Has thin project been scheduled in an pz1or C.I.P.? �YX es No Other projects or factors directly related to this project: Indicate floral year project should be: Started 8 Cvopleted 191& Estimated Project Casts Amount �SuUssted fl"ncinO � Amount Debit Retirement $2,875,000 RCPDF $238,950 Funds available and or Amount requited first year already expanded Amount requited subsequent yealss 3alance Required TOTAL $238,95 ` !Recommended By: g oaIMI- head or H=Mge s se: ` f Requested By: (Department fired) -J3� 90/91 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REQUEST Department Community Services Pufld Division Department 20-4532-8908 Da veld mPnt Priority !10. Project Title, Doacriptica, and;Location: Central Park Debit Retirement Indicate whethee New: X Replacement-_or Additiont X�r,��_a Project Justification: For retirements of certificates of participation for nurcha5e of land for Central Park t Us this project been scheduled in a prior C.I.P.? ! X Kea No Other prejects or factors directly related to this project: Indicate fiscal year project should has Started La-90 Completed 1994 Estimated. Project Costs Amount Sunested Financing Amount Debit Retirement $6,390,000 RCPDF $1,019,520 i I I Funds available and/or Amount vaquired f1"t year already expended Amount required subsequent years 341ance Required TOTAL $1,019,520 Recowanded By: Didiaion Haaco for Hawser's us*: ' Requested By: (Dapartsent Head) -33- _ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 14, 1989 TO: Chairmar and Wmbers of the Planning Commission: FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner SUBJECT: VICTORIA GROVES SCHOOL COURTESY REVIEW I. ABSTRACT: A "courtesy review" of the proposed design for the Victor! elementary school locateo on the northwest corner of Fairmont Way and Enierison Street. II. BACKGROUND., The Planning Commission's policy has been to ask for tie cooperation of the local school districts in allowing' a "courtesy review" of proposed school designs. This policy resulted from a State 1a4 which allows schools to exempt AWL themselves from the City's normal review process. Essentially, the City's jurisdiction ends at the pubic (street) right-of-way line, except for on-site grading and drainage. The site is presently rough graded and improved with temporary (modular) buildings andand -parking which are concentrated in the northeast portion of the site closest to Groves hark. III. ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the school plans and prepared the aaoacHeU'list of concerns and recommendations concerning the site plan, grading, and architecture. The City and the school district have been meeting to review these comments and revised plans are being prepared and will be presented at the meeting. Its. RECOWEMATSON: It is recommended that the Commission forward et�ommenits, through minute action, to the school district for consideration.- Res utly 8 d iu er City inner BB:DC':ko f. Attachments: Staff Comments School plans (separate booklet) ITEM P 'I VICTORIA GROVES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, SWF COMMENTS A. rirculation: I� School traffic should take primary access from Fairmor, . The proposed plan takes access from three driveways onto Enersor. Street and Sherbrooke Place which are interior local residential streets Y� with front-on and/or side-on single family horses. Traffic to and from the school should, be oriented from the collector street system. 2. Driveways should be spaced a minimum distance of 150 feet apart as measured from centerlines and a minimum distance of 100 feet from the intersection, measured from the beginning of the curb return to the near edge of the driveway or centered with an existing street. 3. Stacking depth should_he provided at a minimum of'25 feet, Which is the distance from suet face of curb to the nearest edge of parking stall perpendicular to the drive aisle. B. Site Plan: 1. The most recent grading plan accurately shows the location of the school/park boundary.. !V s boundary is delineated by the sidewalk. The Commission should reference the grading pian for the school/park boundary and not the preliminary conceptual Mte plan submitted by the school and included in the Commission's packet. The conceptual site plan is not accurate with r gard to the school boundary. The school's turfed open space area, because of its size and layout,, is not adequate to provide piayfields for active organized sports programs. Any proposal for active playfields in this area will conflictriith proposed hardcourt areas on the school property and with the boundary sidewalk and, therefore should be not be considered without jointly, agreed site plan,modifications. It is the City's position that the existing property line of thF park is not amendable nor is the park land fenceabl'e 2. The location of the proposed chain link fences needs further study. It is recommended that a chain link fence not occur adjacent to the public right-of-way. However, where fencing. ma-y be required adjacent to the pubiic right-of-.way: it is recommended that there be a decorative wrought iron fencenot bo exceed b feet in overall height from finished grade of the sidewalk. i STAFF COMMENTS YICTOttIR'k`$OVES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Page AM C. Grading': 1. The kindergarten play yard at the southwest corner of the site is proposed to be elevated above tha street sidewalk by a 5-foot retaining wall with a 4-foot chain link fence on top, A shrub planter should be provided at the base of this wall, and the combination of wall a;nd fence should not Qxceed 6 feet in ovc-rall height from the finished grade o : the sidewalk. 2. The retaining wall is 'proposed, to be split face fluted block to match lw'e block used on the school buildings. 'Tan slump block is the approved wail material for the perimeter walls in the Victoria Planned Community. Consi4erationshould be given s to whether split face or slump block would be more appropriate for tK3 wall around the kindergarten play yard. D. Architecture: - 1, Commission policy is not to support the placement of metal roofs on buildings, especially in residential neighborhoods where the primary roof material is tile. 2. Any room doors facing the public right-of-way or pi. !!c view should be painted i n colors that are compati bl a with the neighborhood, and not painted in 'bright colors as illustrated on one of the school's colored renderings. { 3. Any proposed parking lot lighting should be hooded and I sufficiently shielded to not impact the 4djoining - neighborhoods. E. Landscaping: I 1. The primary street trees should match the established street tree theme on the opposite iide of tie sheet. 2. A greater degree of landscape buffer should occur between any parking or paved surface areas and the street right-of-way. It is recommended that there be a minimum of 25 feet of landscaping from the property line interior to the school j site, j 1 a.. I 1 � � j I ll,' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAi14ONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 14, 1989 <4 _r TO:, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission I 1 FROM: Russell H. Magus, City Engineer E BY: Laura Bonaccorsi, Landscape Designer i SUBJECT: Status of Foothill Boulevard Median Island"Uesign t BACKGROUND: i In September 1987, the City adopted the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Chapter 8 of the plan specifies and illustrates that the Foothill ,Boulevard median shall incorporate "rolling turf berms". However, since the adoption of the with and tan p h the f Ir st project to prepare construction documents under the provisions of the plan, issues with the landscape concept have suriaced,. The primary issue has been with the .use of turf within the median. In complying with their conditions of approval, for Terra Vista Town Center, Lewis Homes submitted a conceptual Foothill median landscape piun, based on the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan which calls for turf. While reviewing these tans, the Engineering Division contacted Caltrans for rh iv p g 9 , e input. on the concept, as they also must formally approve and issue permits for median landscaping. When 'Caltrans explained over the phone that turfed medians were unacceptable, staff requested documentation of the policy and promptly began, to seek alter--native, solutions with the Planning'Division and Lewis Homes. In the midst nf' reviewing alternative designs, documentation from Calt`ms was received stating that although turf was strongly discourat4d, the locaY agency had final authority as to the design, of the medianf ' Given the nw =tive feedback from the public due to tisrf-oriented' lane ilosures on Haverr :;�,venue, and given Council's interest in water conservation„ Engineering and Planning staff continued to pursue a Gn-turf con+„erpt •which_received a tentati-ve approval from Caltrans.. The ..:t,cept is atter'ed for reference along with Caltrans correspondence. ANALYSIS: The rc»sed concept opts for colorful shrub massing instead of turf and is thus also more sensitive to maintenance and water conservation issues. The proposed hardscape material' is a stamped concrete cobblestone pattern with brick-red integral color. Tree species .,ary in that Prunus caroliniana ITEM Q PLANNING CCMMISSION STAFF REPORT STATUS OF FOOTHILL BLV.D MEDIAN ISLAND,DESIGN JUNE 14, 1989 (Carolina Laurel Cherry) has been substittw'ted with Rhus lancea (African Sumac) leaving the Lagerstroemia indicas (Crapfiy myrtles) near the intersections as originally intended. While staff notes Wt turf as a design feature can be valuable, its use is not without consequences. There are options available that are not illustrated in the concept viewed to date which can introduce similar qualities of turf without the associated water consumption and maintenance. The following plants would achieve-a lor7growing green carpet effect. Botanical name Common Name 1 Festuca ovine 'Glauca` Blue Fescue Ophiopogen japonicus Mondo Grass Hedera hel•:x 'Needle point' Needlepti,int ivy Trifolium frag;ferum O'Connor's Legume Myoparum parvifoluim Myoporum Hypericum calycinum Aaron's Beard REC01#1EMDATION: Shc°jld the Planning Commission concur that an a •ternative concept other °tban that called for in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan should be pursued, direction is requested. Staff would recomand that any amendment to the j Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan be such that flexibility to the dctual design I can be mode without requiring additional amendments to the Specific Plan. Upon Planning Commission direction, staff will prepare an amendment for the next meeting. Respect- i s Emitted, RHM:LB -- Attachments ArIL j 1 ST$TE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS,TRANSFORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN,rowmor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (STRICT 8,:P.O.BOX 231 SAN BERNARDINO,CA 92G TDD{71A)383.4609 March 8, 1989 Q, Ms. Laura J. Bonaccorsi Landscape Designer City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Ms. Bonaccorsi: Turf in Median Areas Your letter of January 7.2, 1989, requested a'capy of State policy regarding median design criteria and bermed turf on Foothill Boulevard (conventional highway) . Final decision to turf medians (Foothill Blvd.) 3- lieu of shrub planting or other acceptable alternatives, will :_JAt with the local agency. Safety and exposure of maintenance personnel to traffic are prime conside tiom. Speed 114mit, width of median and capability of closing adjacent lanes without impacting traffic should also be considered. Drainage onto pavement is not acceptable and safe sight distance will all be part of the design considerations. High water demand for tuLf, especially during drought conditions, will be an ever-increasing issue, along with high maintenance cost. krtached for your use is a copy of portions of The Highway Dea;:gn Manual and the draft revisions of the Permit :Manual. A copy of the Permit Manual will be forwarded to your office when it is finalized. If you have any questions, please contact our District Landscape Architect George Nadow at (714) 383-4519. Very truly yours, F. BOCANEGRA Resign Engineer PS&E Support Att. r� LAVA4133 lit a lmHu4n �rr.wa Lk E it LU cc �. 1t a s t ' N k :,, :4 } �QI v ; ,4: ail ►: -A �n►raa,► M�nr►t �- - ;; i/}91r.S�1lY tf Il,t7ti�1YA -. 8.3 STREETSCAPE DESIGN Center M--dian Island A 14 `(,ot center median ahmll be provided within Foothill Boulevard designed to provWe access control and an unlfyt ig, landscape statement. The median-will incorF orate rolling turf barms dominated by inVormal clusters of Crspe Myrtle and Carolina Laurel Cherry trots. See details below and on nont page. -Y/W .—PA/A~�yliy�'r�aa,..A: V.AW4hVr s7Y�v. BOaz-o/ 6,A.- ~A-Orrwo-JAW pA Aft P-PEW I 40 v 7- 6k"t7 r.o� An A 'T