No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/04/24 - Agenda Packet� >> '�.,. �. ,, �._' . �� r j ,� �, �, ,r% � R �, ,� E ,, _ xr: l- �. S _ ° r �, i I f_ s ;.�-, f �. ' j ii V�� D. a� r CITY OF. RANCHO" CUCAMONGA PLANNING CO3 ,I missION AGENDV WEDNESDAY 7*1IRIL '.14, 1991 7:00 P.M. i RANCHO CBCAMONGi C3:VXC CENTER COUXCIL CHAMBER 10300 CIVIC CENTERiDRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Y. Pledge of Allegiance I2. Roll Call L. Commissioner Chitiea Commissioner Tolstoy Commissioner McPTiel Commissioner Vallette Commissioner Melcher 111, Announcements 2V. Approval of !!mutes•( March 27, 1993 V. Consent Calendar The following Conseni..Calendar items are expected to be routine and: non-controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concexn over any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 90 -19 - FORIA INTERNATIONAL The developmFnt of a 72,000 square foot building consisting of 58,000 square feet of warehouse area and 14,006 square feet Of office space on 4.0''acres of land in the General Industrial,: District (Subarea 11) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the north side Of Mission Park Drive between Buffalo Avenue and Richmand Place - APN: 229 - 263 -_4 and 55. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. VI- Public Hearings � AGk The following iters are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by ., stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5'minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT'! AND TENTATIVE PARCEL' MAP 13693 - LUNA ;- A subdivision of 1.0 acre of land into 2 parcels in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Northridge Drive,, west of Haven Avenue - APN: 2.01- 182 -29. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from March 27, 1991.) C. VARIANCE 91 -04 - LUNA - A request to allow a reduction of the minimum average lot size from 22,500 to 21,540 square feet for a two -lot parcel map in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwellin5_.anits per acre), located on the north side of. `rthridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - APN: ",;01- 182 -29. (Continued from March 27, 1991.) AGIL D. APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF INCOMPLETENESS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERRIT'91 -01 - VICTORY CHAPEL - An appeal of staff's determination that the application for Conditional Use Permit 91 -01 is incomplete. This application is a request to locate a temporary modular multi- purpose ` building of 912 square feet on th- ite of the existing 6,000 square, foot Victory Chapel, located on .74 acres within the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan at 11837 Foothill Boulevard, west of Rochester' Avenue - APN: 229- 011 -21. Related File; Conditional Use Permit 82 -06. E. RFSOLUTION OF DENIAL YOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14211 - Is S. HOME - Resolutions for the denial without prejudice of a tentative tract map and design review for the development of 235 single family lots on 81.2 acres of land within the Etiwanda Specific Plan in the Medium and Low- Medium Residential Development Districts (8 -14 and 4 -8 dwelling units per acre respectively), located on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue, south of the Devore Freeway and west of East Avenue - APN: 227- 231 -01, 09, 12, 16, and 32; 227- 191 -15; 227- 181 -24; and 227- 261 -11. i F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -08 - MAC - A re request to allow retail saps 's , in conjunction with , a light wholesale, and distribution use within an existing 17,384 square fuot building in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) )f the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on, the East side of Monroe Court, north of Mersey l Boulel,ard -JAPH: 209- 144 -42. Staff recommends issuance,of a Negative Declaration. G. EW;IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SFLCIFFC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -03 - CITY OF RANCHn - -. -__ { Ci %AXON SA- A request to amend the Industrial Area SP ;Z ific Plan by ,adding swap meet and extensive irpact commercial use and their development `criteria within the Specific Plan area. Staff recommends issuance of _'Negative Declaration. ii. B MP.QVMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPME, T CODE AXENl;IMENT 91 -02 CITY - OF RANCHO CUCAM7NGA - 1 request to amend various development standards and ' design guideliras fore multi-family residential districts. St�;ff recommends issuance :X a Negative Declarr,Lion. (WO BE CONTIM, ED TO MAY 8, 5.991.) I. ENVIRONMENITAL ASSESSMEIT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02A - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA •- + A request to amend various development standards and des;`gn guidelines fol multi- family residential districts within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Staff recommends issuance Of a - Negative Declaration. O BE (� CONTIbUED To MAY a,-1991.) J. ENVIRON"NT L A °SESSBiEN�' .AND L VISTA —TERRA PLANNED .COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various 1SVelopment standards and design guidelines foL multi- famT =- residential districts within the Terra Vista Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (TO HE CONTINUED TO BAY'S, 1991.) K. ENVIR';'�,� NTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNV11 AMENDMENT 91 -02 - CITY , RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi- family residential districts within the. Victoria Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (TO BE CONTINUED TO WILY 8, 1991.) i� r; L. ENVIRONMENTAL, ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 91 -4t - CITY OF TaANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Development Districts Map from °Op" (Office Professional) to °FBSP" (Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan) for an ± 8.3 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard' and Rochester avenue - APN: 227 - 152 - -18 and 30. Staff recommends issuance of ", a Negative Declaration. M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND F(OTHILL BODULE RAVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 9-01 - CITY -0F N--HO 1 o CUCAMONGA - A request to "amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan to include the ±`8.3' acre parcel at the northeast corner of Foothil Boulevard and Rochester Avenue within Subarea 4 'establish and standards for development - APN; 227 -- 252 -18 and 30. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. N. ENVIRONMENTAL :­,' ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA_ COMMUNITY F'AN AMENDMENT 91 -01 = CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to establish certain streetscape and site design standards consistent with the Foothill �%oulevard Specific Plan for that portion of roothill Boulevard within the Terra Vista Planned Community. Staff recommends issuance of a negative I Declaration. O. _ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to establish certain streetscape and site design standards consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan for that portion of Foothill Boulevard within the Victoria Planned Community. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND IN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -04 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to establish certain streetscape and site design standards consistent with-�the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan for that portion of Foothill Boulevard within the :Industrial Area Specific Plan. Staff recommends _ssuance of a Negative Declaration. ` *3:1. New Business Q• AMENDMEKr' fr TO UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM FOR RANCHO SAN ANTONIO MEDICAL CENTER- An appeal of staffs decision to deny '`a sign program amendment, located at 'the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and( -- 'Church Street - ARN: 22.7- 771 -01. - (&oT'tinued from April 24, VIII. Director's Reports' R. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC _PLAN TO ALLOW " CHTLD CARE /SCHOOL FACILITIES WITHIN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IB. Commission Business X. Public Comments This is the time and place for the general public to address the C mmission. Items to be discussed' here are those which do not already appear on this agenda, XI. Adjournment vw The Plan. g Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 P.M. adjournment time. I%, items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only' with the, consent of the Commission. I G r r. F Y vicInity ma �R ► ►4R1A 44 .asAaRa► M 5 � � a v ...Ram wR 4 ► ►t aq+ + _ 8 _} r ...........:... d A M y �CaNin •p .i 6 Vwn.ne 'bar p ..; city of rancho cacammonga • DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CIl'Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM April 24, 1991 chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Steven Ross, Assistant Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPlU NT REVIEW 90 -19 - FORZA 3NTERNATIONAL - The development of a 72,000 square foot building consisting of 56,000 square feet gY warehouse area and 14,000 squire feet of office space on 4.0 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 11) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the north side of Mission Park Drive between Buffalo Avenue and Richmond Place - APN:: 229- 263 -54 and 55. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.' I I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning- North - Vacant; General Industrial District, Subarea 11, Industrial. Area Specific Plan South - Vacant; Industrial Park District, Subarea 12, Industrial Area Specific Plan East - Vacant; General Industrial District, Subarea 13, Industrial Area Specific Plan West - :Distribution building.; General Industrial District, Subarea 11, Industrial';rea Specific Plan C. General Plan Deaianatons• Project Site - General Industrial North - General Industrial South - Industrial Park East - General Industrial West - !zneral Industrial D. Site Chb,Z43;teristica- The site is vacant with no significant vegetation. The site is bounded by three streets, all of which are fully improved with curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and streetlights. ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 90 -19 -- FORIA INTERNATIONAL April 24, 1991 Page 2 AQh E. Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type ,Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Warehouse 58,000 111000 - 20 - 20 (lot 20,000) 1/2000 10 10 (2nd 20,000) 1/4000 5 5 (over 40,000) Office 14,000 11250 56 56 Total 72,000 91 91 II. ANALYSIS: A; General: The applicant is proposing to build a 72;.,,0 square foot building, consisting of 14r000 square feet of office and 58,000 'square feet of warehouse within the Mission_ Bcrsiness Center. The office area will serwi as the headquarters for PRW Paris International. To complement v'II large amount of office space, the building's architectur;. elements have: been upgraded beyond what has typigally been required for warehouse buildings. The project is in conformance with the regulations and design guidelines of th3 Mission` Business Center r <a well as the industrial Area Specific Plan. Upon approval'of a Negative Declaration, the City Plannp= will grant final approval of the project based on conditions recommended by the Design and Technical Review Committees. B. Design Review Committee: She project' was last seen by the Design Review Committee (Chitiea, Melcher, Xroutil) on March 21, 1991. At that meetinap the Committee recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The secondary entry, mid - building, and lunch court should receive the same popped -out column treatment that is proposed for the main entry. 2. The parapet height should be raised at the secondary entry to match that of the main entry at the southeast corner of the building. 3. The second floor of the lunch court columns should have polished granite to mates the rest of the building. The southerly panel of the garden wall purr- unding the lunch PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 90 -19 FORIA INTERNATIONAL April 24, 1991 Page 3 i ,I courS'should be removed to bLtow accless from the lunch cou=` ,to the surrounding landsc,�pin 4. Paving treatment of the pedestrian areas should utilize washed aggregate bands surrounding sandblasted squares f which ark e�,'tasized by rough finished granite pavers where the aggregate bands intersect. Exposed walls in these areas should match the corresponding horizontal treatment. S. The final accent color should be reviewed and approved by staff once the shipment of granite has arrived. The accent color should be subtle to avoid overpowering the elegance of the polished granite. Revised plans have been submitted which incorporate the above items, with the exception of comment No. 5 which will be included as a condition of approval. C. Technical Review Oemmittee• on December 17, 1990, the Committee reviewed tLa project and determined that >-ith the recommended Standa_d Conditions of Approval r projsct'"is consistent with all applicable standards and ord.;;riances. D. Environmental Assessment• Parts I and II of'the Initial Study NW have been cemPleted and it has. been d6termined that,`no significant environmental impacts will be` created by ,'the project. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The proposed use is consistent with the Geae_al Plan and the Industrial Specific Plan. The building design and site plan, together with recommended conditions of approval, are in compliance with the Industrial Specific Plan and the Mission Business Center Development Design Guidelines and all other applicable glty standards. i IV. RECOMMENDATION: / Staff recommends that the Planning Commission issue a Negative Declaration for Development Review 90 -19. Res tf ly u 1 e Rra B City, lanne BB: SR.alg Attachme,ts: Exhibit "A" - Mission Business Center Master Plan Exhibit "B" Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "E" Elevations A -.3 - J, -- 11 �trr = m• rl 71 -_ Jai CITY OF 13AWCHO, °�UCAMONGA rrEM:l?R PLANMNO DlVISIDN TTrLE: plaL P k;� `y EXHIBIT• A SCALE: i, . PARCELS 1 2 n 3 8 9 10 1i 12 fUBARIIR 13 'NDIAITMX 1 15 5 �.. 16 AMT fT 18 1 VA1REHOUg 2 21 -- 22 VV 23 24 �r 25 cMP 26 a ti %J CITY OF 13AWCHO, °�UCAMONGA rrEM:l?R PLANMNO DlVISIDN TTrLE: plaL P k;� `y EXHIBIT• A SCALE: i, . PARCELS 1 2 n 3 8 9 10 1i 12 fUBARIIR 13 'NDIAITMX 1 15 5 �.. 16 AMT fT 18 1 VA1REHOUg 2 21 -- 22 VV 23 24 �r 25 cMP 26 a ti UR k r � t• � � v W g z ® p djg C Q Q CL J O W' ,z N! Uo ui ' F 4 CD 1 g 14 ot W W e. as i.°o arr �o'g i,e <W�j y 7— cr Z =0R0 C 3 � a .6SIsr-3oII «4>P, i° g5 W g z ® p djg C Q Q CL J O W' ,z N! L ' F 4 CD 1 g 14 ot W W e. as i.°o arr �o'g i,e <W�j y 7— cr Z =0R0 C 3 � a .6SIsr-3oII «4>P, W g z ® p djg C Q Q CL J O W' ,z N! l f\ d L ' F 4 CD ot W W I l f\ d 0 M ' F 4 CD ot W W _ _ V i v F 4 i f � r I" :s a r� gil $npepe{x7� � � i i �• 8 \ � t f o.uc ....n ww oee I 4 s a 2 � p W t a � � v Oc" w «rr U Ll •� �� � �8 I f `' ri � x� � U w• Qf if * r if SII x f lh � w olvAins la i v F 4 i f � r I" :s a r� gil $npepe{x7� � � i i �• 8 \ � t f o.uc ....n ww oee I 4 s a 2 � p W t a � � v Oc" w «rr U Ll IE ..,5m 0 j H!•`r�IZ` o u EJ m J U t- �US fz s ° E��itYt 1 � R i 3AV ..,5m 0 j H!•`r�IZ` o u EJ m t- �US fz s o _F h p W n `t ti O N a� o of elk ONOWHO18 A-7 I � d LL F SS' � [11 � r r i J i YS II y d JiML N N p ,N. U, Eg Q :R+ U I ca LL :2 JP� -j Lu LU n. Fig, WI C6 LU cl� April 10, 1991 APR22 t Chairman and Members, Planning Commission a City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center- Drive Post Office Box 807 1?4nrho. Cuca::tonga, CA 91729 RE: Application for Tenati've Parcel Map 13693 and for vari�arce -Luna Dear Commissioners: As members of the Board of Dir" °4o3.s of the Northwoods Properties Community Association, we we' attendance at the Planning Commission's March 27th meg * ",ng �t which the first public .hearing on the atnve applications wer, rheld.' As you know, we were represented at that meeting by Linda Frost and our attorney, Charles Doskow. We were pleased to be able to report to our members that the Commission accepted our position with respect to access to the two lots being created by Mr. Luna's for split. Although many things were said by commission members in the course of their discussion, it was clear to us that the commission, whatever its doubts, was prepared to assure that access to these lots would be from the north. After having an opportunity to dsacuss the Association's position, the Board again strongly afi: rmt- our position on this key issue. Two aspects of the discussion among the commissioners require coma t_ We were somewhat puzzled by Commissioner Melcherls concern that access to Cobrosa Place from Lot 2 might somehow be jeoaardized in the future. That access is assured as a condition of map approval, by a legally enforceable easement. Many valuable properties in rw Rancho Cucamonga and elsewhere have access in this manner. There should be no issue of the certainty.of access. In this regard, Standard Condition A -4 is the critical item for assuring that the concerns of the member of the Association are being met. We urge the Commission not to alter this standard condition, i is Commissioner'Melcher, in questioning the position of staff, applicant and the Association, made the statement that planning b'y the neighborhood is not neGassarily good planning; he expressed concerns with respect to the area north of Northridge Drive. The Association is concerned as to the affect the _lot split "and - granted easement rights will have in regard to the associations property. The principle of planning for which is 'contended could only strengthen- the neighborhood, at no cost to any other area. We believe that this constitutes sound planning. The interest 'car the Commission in assuring sound planning for a developing, -irea is obvious, and is shared by us, it appeared from the discussion that the four week continuance was adpted solely to allow time 'to formulate a plan which assures that the line between the No= l,46ods Tract and the developing area will be respectc�d- although some remarks of Commission members were not entirely clear in that regard. The Association does not have a vested interest in, -the time frame within which Mr. Luna's project is approved. oL+�` members are, however, anxious that the items which we hav;P-addressed be decidsd as soon as possible. alanniag for the arc, b `cween Wilson and Northridge may go on for some-time. It, appears possible for the commission to affirm Condition A -4' independently -of the: balance of the application. If further delays in the application are in prospect, we urge the commission to affirm Condition A -4: li The courtesy with which our representatives were treated is appreciated. You may rely on our continued participation in the::-, consideration of these applications, �IVVIA, Linda Fros , President NOTE: Five separate copies Art Alvarado, Vice President of this letter were received each with a separate signature. Judy Smith,~ Secretary Ruth German, Treasurer Jim Nichols, Member at Large a:x �� , CITY OF RANCHO CUCA.MONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 24, 1991 T Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Ciea°" Engineer BY: Betty A. Miller, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13693 - LUNA - A subdivision of acre of and Into z parses !n a ery Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units ner acre), located on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201- 182 -29. Rebated file: Variance 91 -04. Staff reconmends issuance of Negative Declaration. (Continued from March 27, 1991) I. BACKGROUND: This item was co :itinued from the March 27, 1991 Planning o�si seting in order for staff to investigate alternative master plans for the area to the north to see if rA better assets could be provided to Parcel 2 of th'; s proposed parcel map. A copy Of the previous staff report is attached for your refe once. II. DISCUSSION: The proposed parcel map and its relationship to the master plan area s shown on Exhibit "H" Note that the Exhibits start with "H" in this report to not be confused with A thru -G contained in the March 27, 1991 report. Several master plan layouts were 2;nvestigated.. The main constraint controlling the master planning effort is that only one street, aligned with Cartilla Avenue on the north side of Wilson Avenue, can serve the master plan area from either Wilson or Haven Avenues. Both of these streets are arterials, with intersection spacing restricted to 600 feet. Even if closer spacing were allowed, an additional street connection would provide secondary access- to the master plan area, but would not solve the concern of access to Parcel 2. The master plan shown on Exhibit `I" is the most straight forward in providing direct street access to Parcel 2; however, it has the following I disadvantages: 1. It utilizes a four -way local to local street intersection which is discouraged because studies have shown that they produce more accidents than "tee" intersections. 2. It imposLes substantially more street improvements and right -of -way upon existing Parcel 28 which already has streets on two sides. 3. The addittonai street right -of -way will precl.ade the portion existing Parcel 28 at the southwest corner of CartilIa and Street "A" from b! +ing subdivided into two parcels. ITEM B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TENT PM 13693 - LUNR APRIL 24, 1991 PAGE 2 WV 4. Lot 2 of the future subdivision of existing Parcel 30 will be dependent upon the devel ^Prznt of Parcel 28 for'aecess. S. It restricts the future subdivision of the portion if ;existing Parcel 30 south of Street "A" to four parcels versus f.ve as shown on Exhibit N". 5. It increases the variance required for the proposed Parcel Map (an additional 600± square feet of lot area lost tc street dedication on Parcel 2). 7. Most importantly, the master plan; does not solve the immediate concern of access to Parcel 2. The southerly extension of Cartilla Avenue, which would provide that access, is on property not owned by this applicant. The second master plan .shown on Exhibit" "J" somewhat lessens disadvantages 2 and 3 of the master plan shown on Exhibit "H ", but introduces a skewed intersection which adversely affects safety. Exhibit "K" is a refinement of the master plan shown on previous Exhibit "C ". It shows that an additional two parcels could conceivably be obtained south,of Street "A" using that master plan street alignment. III. CONCLUSION:' Staff was able to design a master plan that could provide long rm direct street access to Parcel 2, but that master plan does present othlar disadvantages and does not' - provide an innediate access solution. The Commission appaars to have the following options: 1. Approve the Parcel Map_ as proposed with Parcel 2 taking access across Parcel 1 to Cabrosa Place.i 2. Approve the Parcel Map modified t6 require that (a) both parcels or (b) Parcel 2 only take access from Northridge Drive.• 3. Deny the Parcel Map as proposed directing the applicant to refile a new Parcel Map (and variance) conforming to the master plan shown on Exhibit "I' or "J" and to obtain access rights across the adjacent property extending to'Wilson Avenue. Reesr. .;tfultify rsubmitted, Barrye R. Hanson: Senior Civil Engineer B RH:Il w Attachments: Plan Area "t) gg(Exhibit Paster Master Plan - AJt: 3 iibb"qH II "a ") ) Master Plan - Alt. 4 Jizhibit Exhibit "K" ) March 27, 1991 Staff Report a Fm _ h - — '2174Vny 1 ' ' � " 444BB8�i111 ID 1 1 r P ©, i t mss. j r QC -------- � v - i 2 ---- -- -- - - --`- Boa /d a�v�goa 2 tu I r h11� r F� i L_' i �. oet i Y th — J N I P Z •--- - - - - -- - »nod rrro✓grJ _ qb zu a - a_Ji err. O �¢ a `OKaAy - LnA »y C. r -c St Li , 1 J J. I : I i 1 '- - - - - -- _ " - - 2, r 2� �-- - - - - - -- - aDvjd bsargva (- f D WWCtR i tu l(sragt,�, L r 11 kai z eD U z I Y / C.- 4_J t I — 1 i v I I h I 77, 1 k tit E � a e M m '9a - - , ci y g t a i ci W ! _ O W`tt iC W I C) 0 4 I�sr v�� 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE• M h 27 v , MIS , 1� r T0: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: 6arrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer BY Betty A. Miller, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13693 - LUNA - A subu v s on o acre of an Into parcels n t` Very Low Residential District (less thEn 2 dwelling units oir acrti), located on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201 - 182 -29. Related file. Variance 91 -04 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Re nested: Approval of the proposed Ten• Live Parcel Map as shown on x _ "B" and issuance of a Negative Wclaration. B. Parcel Size: Parcel 1 20,580 sq. ft. Parcel 2 - 22 500 sq. ft. Total' VJ', 6sq: ft. (0.99 ac) C. Existing Zoning:- Very Low Residential D. Surrounding Land Use: North - East half vacant; weet half has two single family residences and a third under construction South - Single Family Residential East - Vacant West - Horse Corral E. Sw,rounding General Plan and Development Code Designations: North - Very Low Residential South - Low - Medium Residential East - Very Low Residential 'nest - Very Low Residential F. Site Characteristics: This site is vacant and 'slopes to the south at percent. ere is an existing wrought iron fence along the south project boundary on the north side of Northridge Drive. PLANNING COMIS: °ION STAFF REPOV.—, TENT PM 13693 �. LUNA MARCH 27, 1991 PAGE 2 TI. ANALYSIS: hal purpose a this parcel map f.s to subdivide a one acre parcel into two half. -acre parcels consistent with the Very Low Resdentiau' District designation. Staff initially recommended that both Lots front Northridge Drive, because onto it was felt that the fronts of houses would present a more aesthetic streetscape for the homes would to the south than a rear yard iw,311. There was also some - concern about the master planning implications for vacant parcels Project site: to the north and east of the Staff reconme. ded that the applicant hold a neighborhood meeting on the tentative parcel map, since Parcel Piap` 5996 i generated significant neighborhood interest. n Residentsiniof the development on the south side of Northridge Drive have made it clear, both , during the neighborhood meeting and in subsequent c «:+munications directed to staff, that they object to lots fronting on the Northridge Drive. north side Respecting the neighbor's wishes, the applicant is now proposing to access both parcels off a single drive Place, approach on Cabrosa with a 20 -foot wide access easement along the north property line of parcel 1 in favor of parcel 2. Both access configurations, using .Cabrosa Place versus Northridge Drive, were presented to the Trails Committee to determine what the local equestrian trail requirements would be under the two plans. The optional master applicable recommendations have been included in the conditions of approval. Fire Protection _A District representative has also reviewed the proposed map and suggested a coi►dition of allowing them to review approval the access to parcel 2 upon development. A. Master Piannin Three large vacant parcels remain north and east of the project site. The City's access Policy for arterial-_ streets will allow one additional intersection on Wilson Avenue between Mayberry and Haven Avenues. Exhibit "C" illustrates how W(s area might be developed if the concept of no access to Northridge Drive is also the balance applied to of the vacant property. Exhibit "D" shows how the same area could be developed if up to 5 lots were alI owed- to front onto Northridge Drive. The issues are as follows: 1. In both alternatives, all of the roaster planned cul -de -sacs exceed 600 feet in length. In - "C ", 7xhibi t three cull-de-sacs (21 lots) will utilize a single access In "D an Exhibit point Wilson Avenue. ", two cul -de -sacs (18 lOft) will do so. The Fire Protection District has not expressed concern with either alternative, since all new home construction requires sprinklers. The difference between 18 and 21 lots is nominal. - PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TENT PM 13593 - LUNA MARCH 27, 1991 PAGE 3 Amok 2. Exhibit "D" does allow the local equestrian trail system to he interior to the VL district rather than on the perimeter, adjacent to Northridge Drive. 3. A detail was provided, on the Conceptual Grading Plan (Exhibit "E ") of a north - south cross section (Exhibit "F ") taken through parcel 1 and Northridge Drive, to illustrate the relative position of houses, streets, trails,_ and slopes. Note that sides of houses will be visible from the south side of Northridge Drive in the proposed configuration, unless the height of the perimeter wall is increased. Under the alternate master plan, that view woad be of front yards. 4. If access to parcel 2 is taken from Cabrosa Place, that driveway will be more than 200 feet long. The fire Protection, District will need a way for its vehicles to turn around or have an alternate exit route available. B. Neighborhood Concerns: A neighborhood meeting was held in December 18, 1990. Attendees- included residents of Northwood Vistas, a Low- Riedium Residential development (4 -8 dwelling units,per acre) immediately south of the f project site, and the owners of a vacant parcel east of tote project site. The residents of Northwood Vistas objected to i'„onting either parcel onto Northridge Drive for three reasons: I. The larger lots oe the north side of ,Northridge Drive can accommodate equestrian uses. Use of tie ' neighborhood streets by large vehicles Luch as horse trailers would conflict with the homeowners association prohibition against recreational vehicle storage. 2. The homeowners association currently maintains the park,vay slope on the north side of Northridge Drive. Residents object to driveways disrupting the existing slope landscaping and perimeter fenc%9 . 3. The residents perceive Nortnwoods Villas as a close -knit community and feel that the VL lots proposed would be uncharacteristic of that community. They would not anticipate the acceptance of those lots into the homeowners association, if such a request were made. Subsequent to the neighborhood meeting, the City has received 133 signed form letters (Exhibit "G ") fram members of the Northwood Homeowners Association, objecting to any plans to construct driveways or streets leading into the community from Northridge Drive. They feel this would compromise their privacy and security. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TENT PM 13693 - LUNA MARCH 27, 1991 PAGE 4 11 C. Trails Advisory Committee: The Committee reviewed the project on February 20, 1991, and recommended the following trail requirements: I. If the prop,-sed access configuration is used (access from Cabrosa Place), a 15 foot wide local feeder trail should be provided along the entire southerly boundary of Parcel's 1 and 2, and a 10 foot wide local feeder trail should be provided along the east side of Parcel 2. 2. If the alternate is used (access from Northridge give), a 15 foot wide local feeder trail should be provided along the entire northerly boundary of Parcels I and 2. III. CONCLUSION: The proposed subdivision is compatible with adjacent property on the north side of Northridge Drive and the related master plan (Exhibit "C "'), although not optimal, is workable. Staff' has reservations about providing - access to Cabrosa Place for parcel 2 across parcel IS but given the concerns of the existing residents, %Ai Northridge Drive, believes the applicant has offered a viable solution.. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The applIL.:. completed Part I of the Initial Study. to con acted a field investigation and completed. Part 1I 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: Notice,. of Public bearing have been sent to surrounding properly owners and plac ?d in tN, Inland Vailey Daily Bulletin. Posting at the site has also beet, completed. VI. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all — input anrelements of the Tentative Parcel Map 13693. If after such consideration, the Commission can recommend approval, then the adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration wodld be appropriate. Respectfully submitted, Barrye R. Hanson Senior Civil Engineer BRH :BAM:dlw Attachments: Vicinity Map (Exhibit "A ") Tentative Map (Exhibit "B ") Area Master Plan (Exhibit "C") ltern telM�st�r P1 �E�i�t "Dull„ oncep ua ra Ing a x bit ) North -South Section ( Exhibit "F") Sample Homeowner Letter (Exhibit "G°) Resolution and Conditions of Approval � t CL CL ul •' /'W It i � .o m •.^e\ of �f j .? cg cr "it t � � v /�' tiU C�i �� i� � � _ Y• �' Q t •.. �8 rr y_, � �uhL / - CL naan y uaAny CL o 3 LS MI Ilia E arr�ny� uaer� : Cl. cc too, I r i CJ i� r .s ;(F' 0'^ 1. 1 L2' V Lti F -,�'•+�' ^� ; j' •_ _ � \ •T I yea =r N,LiNola ION W 1 7 _ vq g CL IL ce I it - t 11� _jam � s * •. � � '� -4# J14 TI LIDa � wl� _ f 0 ®' At m � \ 1r i . N Q Bid p��� .February o9, 1991 City Of Rancho Cucamonga CUN.4o np Post Office Sox 807 ,� DbYiStGN Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 ATTN: Steve Ross, Assistant Planner Dear Mr."Ross, I am a Homeowner in the Northwood Community; I strongly object to any city plans to construct driveways or streets leading into our community from Northridge. The privacy and security of Our community are of great importance to me. As a member of Northwood Homeowners Association anil having a shared interest in all Northwood;Community affairs, I atr, entitled to receive information and notification concerning hearings or meetings affecting the Northwood Community. Sincerely, RESOLUTIG ?1 NO. AUK A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL ,MAP NUMBER 13693, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF NORTHRIDGE DIVE, 'WEST OF HAVEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN 201- 282 -29 WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 13693, submitted by Mr. and Mrs. S. Luna, applicants, for the purpose of subdividing into 2 parcels, the .real Property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, identifi -'_:,.a APN: 201- 182 -29, located on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue, and WHEREAS, on March 27 and continued to April 24, 1991, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above - described map. FOLLOWS:. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO 'CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES' AS SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plana 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision end improvements will not cause substantial' environmental damage or public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting properties. SECTION 2: This Commission 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 Declaration. SECTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map Number 13693 is hereby approved subject to the attached Standard' Conditions and the following Special Conditions: 1. Building setback lines shall be plotted on the Final Parcel Map, to the satisfaction of the City Planner, as follows: a) Front, yard setback.'_` shall be measured from the west property lines of both parcels; PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PM 13693 - LDNA April 24, 1991 Page 2 b) Rear yard setbacks shall be measured from the east property lines of both parcels; c) Interior side yard setbacks shall be measured from the north property lines of both parcels; and d) Street side yard setbacks shall be measured frcm'the face of curb along Northridge Drive for both parcels. 2. The following shall be constructed prior to release of occupancy for either parcel: a,,- P_ decorative screen wall along the south\w;'•operty IL,.a of both parcels, the design of which shall be reviewed and approved by the _City Planner; b) The driveway across Parcel, l to serve Parcel 2; c) A 15 -foot wide local feeder trail along the entire southerly boundary of Parcele 1 and 2, and a 10 -fc._ wide local feeder trail along` the east boundary of Parcel 2; and d) Private drainage devices -to direct flows from both parcels to the existing catch basin near the southwest corner of Parcui 1. 3. A Grading Plan shall be approved by the City for both parcels which incorporates the driveway, screen wall, equestrian trails, and private drainage facilities. 4. Access to Parcel 2 shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, including adequate turnaround for fire vehicles or acceptable alternate. Any gated access shall require a knox lock. 5. Pursuant to provisions of California Public Resources Code Section 21089(b), this application shall not be operr;tive,; vested or final, nor will building permits be issued or a map recorded, until (1) the Notice of Determinatioa (NOD) regarding the associated environmental action is filad and poeted with the Clerk of the Hoard of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino; and (2) any and all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 911.4, together with any required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. The applicant shall provide. the Engineering Department with a stamped and conformed copy of the NOD together with a receipt showing that all fees have been paid. I i I PLANNING COMMISb7~.1N RESI*,*,UTION NO. PM 13693 LUNA ' April 24, 1991 Page 3 In the event this application is determined exempt grog such filing fees pursuant to the provisions of the California Fish and Geme Code, or the. guidelines promulgated thereunder, except for payment of.any required handling charge for filing a Certificate of Fee Exemption, this condition shall be deemed null and ,void. _i APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY rr APRIL PLANNILG COMDiISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO GUCAMI!NC \ BY: Suzanne R. Chitiea, -Vice- Chairman ATTEST. Brad Buller, Secretary j 1, Brad Buller, 4acretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do 'hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was, duly and AMk regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Manning Commission held on the 24th day of April 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS* NOES: COMMISSIONERS: I ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: r P j i t� • �r A \--"I A �,. ' ffi ► 1 41 i r ®_ 19 6` hi �. b Y O 1, e��Vy.Y�L !r~ �j• V O M � i � � _f r ►. d,r My Y. q yr = =I �.� fit;, 121- e VM Rs te\ Ry Y Z Eew C�y Y � V r.P t p w y r N M. j MY`• " ova„ _e � = i a is r r �_rg, r� • P. 7i � W� e DR ys g C a1Yif ArM MMd tP sit A �,. ' ffi ► 1 41 i r ®_ 19 6` hi �. b Y O 1, e��Vy.Y�L !r~ �j• V O M � i � � _f r ►. d,r My Y. q yr = =I �.� fit;, 121- e VM Rs te\ Ry Y Z Eew C�y Y � V r.P t p w y r N M. V 4 e CZ V^ ^ Ev = r o o$ kg 0 0 ■yC � L O W it 6u O pyCM Vr ^ N n e nX E,�V gr - : V M Hf V i. p�'G 1 YV1C a -its izi lit M � 1 E 3C s yy S mF o C$ Vim$ =JE$ Q a� 1 I q, I l • S.0 N^ OIL 0 e2 v s " � Vi O P �^ 7 E� r �z p � V i a^ iZZ Dt t a$ !t >el' o 2 -1 9 of �l t� X X. o o °° r VV 0 r c s " " � i Z Z C COP. 1 1''� V — •s �:`'� VCY V rL.4 1y V VEN � �J � � r za c ` L y VV c Y p `.NV L 0. i 4 pp 4 it 6u O pyCM Vr ^ N n e nX E,�V gr - : V M Hf V i. p�'G 1 YV1C a -its izi lit M � 1 E 3C s yy S mF o C$ Vim$ =JE$ Q a� 1 I q, I l • S.0 N^ OIL 0 e2 v s " � Vi O P �^ 7 E� r �z p � V i a^ iZZ Dt t a$ !t >el' o 2 -1 9 • S.0 N^ OIL 0 e2 v s " � Vi O P �^ 7 E� r �z p � V i a^ iZZ Dt t a$ !t >el' o 2 -1 9 CIT` OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 24, 1991 I TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner,. BY: Steven Rose, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: VARIANCE 93 -04 - LUNA - A request to allow a reduction of the minimum average lot size from 22,500 to 21,540 square feet for two -lot parcel map in the Very how Residential District (leas than 2 dwelling units Par acre), located on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201- 182 -29." (Continued from March 27, 1991.) I. BACKGROUND: This item, in conjunction with Tentative Parcel Map 13693, was continued from the March 27, 1991, Planning commission meeting in order for staff to investigate alternate master plans JAI for the aYaa north of the proposed parcel map and to determine if a better access could be provided to Parcel 2. ' II. DISCUSSIONc Variance 91 -04 must be approved or denied in conjunction with Tentative Parcel Map 13693. Respe ly su ed, Br er ..`. City Planner BB:SR:sp Attachments: Exhibit "A" = March 27, 1991 Staff Report Resolution of Approval ITEM C DATE: TO: FROM: BY; SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCA��M7`ONGA a AMA March 27, 1991 Chairman and Memberu of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner' Steven Ross, Assistant Planner VARIANCE 91.04 -- LUNA A request to allow a re3uction of the minimum average lot size from 22,500 to 21,540 square feet for a two -lot parcel map in the very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201 - 182 -29. Related File: 'Tentative Parcel Map 13693. T• PR0JEC2 AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: - Approval of a Variance. B. Project Density: Two dwelling units per acre. C. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Existing single family residential and vacant land; Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling-units per acre). South - Existing single family residentl* :; Low- Medium Residential, (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) East Vacant land; Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) West - Existing single family residential and vacant land; Vtxy Low Residential (less than 2 6welling units per acre) A. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Very Low Residential North - Very Low Residential South - Low - Medium Residential East Very Low Residential West - Very Low Residential E. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and slopes to the south a't approximately 7.5 percent. A combination of native and introduced plant species are located on the site. t-s��� lr " C__z - L t PLANNING COMMISSZC CSTW REPORT 4 r VARIANCE 91 -04 LUNA - March 27, 1991 Page 2 II. ANALYSIS. A. Generale- The purpose and intent of the Variance is to provide Flexibility from _the strict applicat ^•nn of deirelopment i standards when special circumstances ;pertaining to the property such as size, shape, topography, or, location deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties ir. the vicinity and in the same district inconsistent with the_; . objectives of the De f-lopment Code. In reviewing indiLidual' { cases for variance, the lollowirg criteria must be considered: 1._ Special Circumstances. a. Is the property unique with respect of sizi -, shape, topography, or location? b. Are there exceptional or extraorWnary circumst':°n._•s applicable to the property or proposed use that do not apply generalll!, to other properties, -in the 'same zone? 2. Preservation of property Right (Hardsh %e a. Can ;'seasonable use be made of the property without this Variance? b. Without this Va:.ixance, the appli::ant denied privileges enjoyed by owrit?v -;f other properties in the area? C. Is 'he hard__.. , self- imposed or created by the physical constraints of the site? 3. Damage to Others: a. Will the Variance be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare? b. Will the granting of this Variance be a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other prop xties in the samerzone? B. Specific: Tbi applicant is proposing to subdivide a lot, approximately one acre in si_e, into two parcels. Parcel 1 is 20,580 square feet_, and parcel 2 is 22,500 square feet. The Development Code requires a minimum lit size of 20,000 square feet for the very Low Residential District. Both lots meet the minimum lot size "requirement of 20,000 square feet. C_ i PIj NNING COMMISSIC STAFF REPORT' VAkANCE 91 -04 - LUNA Marc : 27,' ` , , ,- Page 3 AWL However, the parcel map falls 960 square feet short of meeting the fainimum average _ lot size requi'.:ement of 22,500 square = feet. 1� The parcel map is bounded on the south by Northridge Droe, on the north and west by larger single family lots, and or. the east by vacant land. ~resent and future lots to the north, east, and we::•c of the„ site are within the Very Lo,-,Re =-?pu; ial District, and mt'kt 'Riaintain a minimum size of 20, 0Lu square feet. a The minimum average lot size requirement was adopted in 1983 to foster and encourage more creative Subdivision 'layouts t .e., more cul -de -sacs and curvilinear streets). The stand,rd was not intended to p_oh bit the subdivision of smaller parcels of lau`i into lots consi -' with the Very Low Resident,_al District. A number of the parcel maps which created the surrounding lots in the Very Low Residential Distri do not have a minimum average lot size Of 22,Bub square :feet. The adjacent: Parcel Map 5996, which created four lots on thc-- west side of Cabrosa Placc, required a Variance (Variancw 87 -18) to meet the minimum average 'lot size requ;tkement. The average lot size for that Parcel Flap is 21,750 square feet. Located along the east side of Mctberry .'_venue and adjacent to Parcel Map 5996 is Parcel Map 7902, which created four lots with, an average square footage of 21,257 square feet. Approved in 1983, and granted an ex ;Ision in 1985, Parcel Map 5745 is located on the west side of Mayberry Avenue and is a mirror image of Parcel Map 7902- Allowing a reduction in the average ln;: size req:rement will not create an usually small lot because both lots will meet or exceed the minimum lot size and ill other code standards. It does not appear that approval of this Variance will constitute. a special privilege, nor will it impact adjacent properties in any way. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Before granting a Variance, the Planning Commission must make all of the f011Ow!m9 required findings: A. Ti, =_ ALrict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the aVecif_ -d regulation would result in practical difficulty cr unnecessary physical hardsh::p inconsisteia with the objectives of this Development Code. 'r PLANNING CO1NIISSIC r STAFF REPORT , ► VARIANCE 91 -04 LQNA March 27, 1991 Page 6 B. That there ;ire exceptional or extraordinary cironmstances or conditions applicable to -the_ property ; ivolved or to the intended use of the property. that do not apply generally to othertproperties in the same zone. C. Tr:at strict or literal interpretation and enforcement °'ol the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of the privileges enjoyed by the owners, of other properties in the same :zone. D. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation cnthe other properties classified in the same zone. 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.' IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has beou advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspape the property has been posted, and notices have been sent tosll property owners within 300 feet of the project. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Variance 91 -04 through adoption of the - attached Resolution of .approval w_th findinEs., • Renpec y submitted, { Br e City Planner 'BB:SR:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit "B" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "C" Parcel Map Resolution of Approval t City of Rancho Cuts 11onga ° February 28,1­991 Planning Deptartment 10;500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga,,CA. 91729 RE: Tentative parcel Map # 13693 MAR 5 931 FN To Whom it May Concern, it The purpose of this letter is to fulfill'yhe second requirement under section B. Filing Requirements of the Variance -. request form.. This item 'requests written justification outlining the reasons for the variance and why this variance is compatible with the surrounding area. This variance is being requested in conjunction .. with tentative parcel map number 13693. Under the provisions of the subdivision being requested the individuz.l lot size has j been exceeded in the case of both lots; however, the minimum � average lot size is just barel y below the required level. It is £ult that this variance would be compatible with the surrounding area. A variance of this exact nature has �- already been granted for other lots in the immediate area along Cabrosa Place. We feel that the small deviation from the required s;.ze would not adversely affect any of the home or land owners in the area. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this application please feel free to contact me at (714) 987 -2868 between 8 A.M. and 5 P.M. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. i i Sincerre''Y. - Steven R. Luna CITY OF RAN CFiCft UCAMONGA rrEm:,_VAZ tPNc F q 1-04 f PIANMN 'r bIVYSION' TIIt,E: } r✓ Fvar. Aoru a,,w- N ERHmm "A "` SCALE: C f t .; .. � Annie F.W. i(!d 5 f!!a. nr -rIr s v vara�i wmd . f rr ask. a FL7 �/� r No�t/r��e p-rre It �U /.Q: V.d UJ UL VG. (!! �1 O © © � O •a Q ©Q.. Q O °0� ® 0® � 77�77 ®11 C., C-) e Q ce w1v rr �i ~� t^ Aldh r' �MSSmtc o), Yn :Gil. � t1� l/ t � �/; %e `jam a A^i� - C/. IiI l!• 7% ✓iS A p p f � a•....... tGpV.[ 1 r tawrpb �.�- 'Flo ®O try T�. �... torrp rfrrrr�rr�_ � � . 00 0 ® © ® © ®�': sg ©a r i C 4 OF R CFi , UCAMONGA MM: PLANMk -I) SII.�ION TITLE:y��„u�rt ' EXFiiBIT':M SCALE; ! o C f L • � / ;CIF � 1 P ti 1 n � r V �; { � ^ti :� � Gam' I ►��- O t"D XN b .9yy� d ` L 7 'RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 91 -04 TO ALLOW A REDUCTION OF THE MINIMUM AVERAGE LOT SIZE FROM 22,500 TO 21,;540 SQUARE FEET FOR A TWO -LOT PARCEL MAR LOCATED ON THE ,NORTH SIDE OF NOYTHRIDGE DRIVE, WEST OF HAVEN ,AVENUE IY THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN 5uppORT THEREO - APN: 201-182 -29. A. Recitals. (i) Steven R. Luna has filecl`.an. application for the issuance of Variance No. 91 -04 as described in the t ±tile of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Varianie request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 27th of Marc)': 1991, and continued to the 24th of April 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings on the application and concluded said hearings on that date: (iii) All legal prerequisites prior 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 upecifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, Of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearings on March 27 a, °,%d April 24, 19932 including written and oral staff reports, together with put:iic testimony, 1,"lie Commission hereby specifically;,fnds as follows: (a) The application applies to pP pp property located on Ca}) rasa Place, north of Northridge Drive with a street frontage of 330 feet "along Northridge Drive and approximately 40 feet of frortage along Cabroe _ ^'race and is presently vacant and unimproved; and (b) The property to the north of the sulljeat site is residential, the property to the south of that site consists df single family homes, the property to the east is vacant, and the property to the west is !' also zoned for residential use. Ct I PLANNING - COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 91 -04 - STEVEN R. LUNA April 24, 1991 Page '2 (c) The application has been submitted to allow a reduction of the minimum net average lot area requirement contrary to Section 17.08.040 of th; Development; Code within the Very Low Residential District. (d) Both parcels meet. , or exceed the minimum :lot size requirement of 20,000 square feet. (e) Existing subdivisions 'immediately northi and west of the subject site have (► minimum average lot size of less than 22,500 square feet. (f) A'-variance to allow a reduction in the minimum average lot size requirement was -anted for °a four lost subdivision adjacent to, the _mbjoct site, 3. Based upon the'eubstantial evidence presented to this commission during the above- referenced .public hearings and upon 'the specific findings of facts set, 'orth in paragraphs l and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes ua follows: - (a) That strict or literal interpretation and enforcemeny.of the specified regulationo would not reault in practical difftculty or unnecessary physical hardship- inconsistent with the objectives o'! 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 rinterpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other prcperi;ies in the same district. (d) That 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. (ep : :Shat the granting of the Variwace will not be detrimental to the public healtn, 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, and 3 above, this Commission hertaby - approves the application. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of tilis Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION No. VAR, 91-04 - STEVEN R. ?UYA April '•4, 1991 Page 3 -, APPROVED AND AU6PTED THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Suzanne R. Chitiea, Vice- Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and, regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by t!u Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th! day of April 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMa3SIONERS: Aft ABSENT: COMMISS':ONERS: I' i 7 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DAT_: April 24, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the i4anning C_:­mission FROM: Brad Buller, C-ty Planner't BY: Steve Hayes, Associate Planner SUBJECT: APnEAL OF DETERMINATION OF INCOMPLETENESS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -01 - VICTORY CHAPEL. - An appeal of staff's determination that the applicat #'on for Conditional Use Permit 91 -01 is incomplete. This application is a request tc locate a temporary m'Aular multi- purpose building of 912 square feet on the 'site of the existing 6,000 square foot Victory Chanel, located on .74 acres within the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan at 11837 Foothill Boulevard, west of Rochester Avenue APN: 229 - 011 -1 Related File: Conditional Use Permit 02 -06. �t I. ABSTRACT- The purpose of this public hearing is to consider the completeness of the above referenced application. The appellant has appealed staff's decision of incompleteness based on the provision requiring a,. master plan-for the development of permanent buildings as specified in Section. 17.10.030.F.4 of the Development Code, (see Exhibit "D "). Please refer to the appellant's letter (Exiti.bit "A ") for their justification for not submitting the required master plan. II. BACxGROUND: Because of the need for additional area for church related activities, the church moved a modular trailer on -site. The Code Enforcement- Division contacted tha_;_hurch and advised them that a Conditional Us- Permit was required. The installation of the trailer violates both the Development Code and the Conditional Use Permit for the church. Subsequently, the appellant submitted an application for a temporary modular building on January 8, 1991. Staff 'formally deterrvined :he application to be incomplete on January 30i, 191)1, (Exhibit "b ") and again on March 1, 1991 (Exhibit "C ").. Oti March 5, 1991, staff received the appeal letter for staff's decision; of incompleteness. Subsequently, start scheduled this item for review of the Planning Commission at the next available public heart ig. III. ANALYSIS: In analyzing the appellant's request, staff notes that two items have yet to ;ae submitted to the Planning Division from the January 30, 1991, incompleteness letter: ITEM D 4� PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF "AEFORT C60 91 -01 - NaCTORY CHAPEL April 4, 1991 Page ,2 1. The master plan for future permanen'. buildings in question; and 2. A conceptual landscape plan. (For clarifications the appellant is will+tg to submit a conceptual landscape plan; the appeal request;•, ems 'from staff's request for the permanent building master r,-,A only.) State law requires he City to determine in writing whether a project application il"'complete, not later than 30 calendar 11" after'/ submittal, pursuant' to Government Code 114(1,tion 65143. Fur #'vier, state law gram authority to the City to establish submittal requirements for projects, which Faust- be listed and:mad_ available to applicants (GC Section 65940). In thirjcase, the zoning regulation itself lists the requirement for '' "a master '1an for development of permanent buildings aha).1 be submitted in conjunction with such request (see Exhibit "D; The applicant Aas the right to appeal the determination that their application is in- omplete .. rie appellant does not challenge whether the master plan is a submittal requirement, but rather, contends that the requirement itsei ,,is not valid given their unique circumstances. The proper mechanism for granting flexibility or relief from a 'zoning �+ requirement. is. :.he variance process -. IV `_I.CO�RFtbaBONDENCE: This . item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper and notices sent to all property owners within a 300 foot radius c the project.; V. RECONI:RNOATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commissioa uphold the determination that the project application is incomplete through adoption of the attacheC: resolution for the denial of the appeal XU. Reslly s r City Pnner BB:SH:js Attachments;, Exhibit "A" - Letter of 1 - =1 Exhibit "B° - inc,?mpleteness Letter dated January 30, 1991 Exhibit "C - Incompleteness better dated March 1, 1991 Exhibit "D" - Development Code 'Resolution of Denial - N 11837 FOOTHILL BLVD. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730 (714) 980.5116 0 (714) 980 -9694 City )f Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center pr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 'ITY OF RANCr.0 GI '•' �. a MAR 51991 SUBJECT: Petition to appeal planning division decision of incompleteness concerning conditional use permit 91-oi. To whom It May Concern: ,:i Victory Chapel requests an appeal to the planning divisions decision of incompletGness in regards to our application cor a conditional use permit for the addition of a modular building at our present location. As stated in our initial application, the justification for this modular involves several needs: 1) Room for children and youth ministries. we have outgrown our present facilities and need additional spare to properly facilitate our growing congregation. 2) The present building is very old and we are currently on a` month to month lease with our landlord due to the fact that he intends to demolish it. His plans are to build a business park on this property in which we have negotiated to lease a new building near our present location. Therefore it is� both- impractical and impossible for us to bui -I'l a permanent addition, thus necessitating the need for a temporary one: the _fanning divisions decision of incompleteness is based uV, our I.nability to provide a waster plan for a builkiina to repla . the modular. we obviously cannot do this snce" the entire property is slated for demolition and reconstruction by the owner, thus predenting us from meeting the city's requirements for the placing of temporary buildings. we therefore respectfully request an exemption to City Co4mcil Ordinance No. 211, such as the schools in our city currently have. we are able and more,than willing to meet the requirements for the setting up of & modular building, both safety and appearance wise. ) ,tea � ' Robe! Wood Asst. actor, Victory Chapel D_ 3 January 30, 1991 10500 Civic Center Drive, Past Office Box 007 (:14) 489.1851 Rancho Cucamonga, California. 91729 Fax: (7171987.6494 Pastor Robert Wood Victory Chapel 11837 Foothill Boulevard Rancho Cu;amonga, CA 81730 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-01 Dear Pastor Wood: Your application for the above referenced project has been reviewed for completeness and accuracy of Ailing. As a result of the reviews. the< project application has been t�%und to be incomplete for processing. , -` Attached please find a list outlit`irg the additional information needed,' prior to finding the applicati&'�. complete, non - conformities with' development standards, and major de5igk issues. Further processing of your project cannot begin until this additional information is submitted and the. application accepted as complete. Ple, »e revise your application per the attached list. Submit four (4) copies of the revised application to the Planning Division. Upon receipt of the revised application pac4ane, this project will then be scheduled for review for completeness 'ot the next available staff meeting. Should you have any questions regarding the review procesr-, ,or i# we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact the project planner, Steve Hayes, of this office. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTNT 7 Nf DIVISION v' Dot re Principal Planner DC:SH:mlg 'e Et �� Attachment lAtom,? cc: Barrye Hanson Jack Masi Joe Torrez, Code Enforcemetat,,Afticer t'• >' William) Alexander Charles j Buyuet it Pena. L Stout Deborah N Brown �" I Pamela) Wnzht tack Lam AK 11 IU f FILE NO.: cup 91 -01 (COMPLETENESS COMMENTS; NOTE; This information is provided tr assist in the preparation of a development package complete for processing. Additional information may be necessary based upon a more thorough analysis during the Development Review Process. I. B Planning Division A. Additional information needed pr 2 to finding the a Wl ication Complete: I. PrWde a master site plan and building elevations for the development of a future building to replace the proposed temporary multi -pu -pose building, per Section 17.10.030 -4(a) of Via Development Code. _ 2. Provide a cover letter indicating all proposed W activities and operating hours within the temporary modular buildiigg. In addition, the cover letter shall include justification as to the need for a temporary buildi,�q and the proposed time ir_ which the trailer is p0 pried to remain on -site. 3. If it is ,, ur f,rtent to split the temporary module into rooms, please provide p-, floor plan indicating. each rooms function.. 4. In order for staff to calculate the ri.quirad number of parking spaces for the site, pls .y provide the following information: a) A number of fixed seats within the sanctuary area; or b) The square footage of the main auditorium area. S. Prov '.e a concepwa l landscape plan for any new area of required landscaping along foothill. Boulevard. tvlease refer to comment B1 for specific requirements.) The following 'ire technical issues which do not meet the City— s pevelotx'ent Code and /or Speci>ic or Community 'Plan Standards 3 Policies: 1. The City's Development Code, Section 17.10.03o, requires that, with the placement of temporary office modules, that e'l nec-es/�sary street COMPLETENESS COMMENTS CUP 91 -01 Page 2 improvements, qrading, drainage, rnd landscaping be completed, per cu;rereJ City Cole requirements, therefore, the Planning Commission may make the following requirements and c(znditiu, *.`s of approval for your Conaitional:._lise Permit request. a) An additional street ded ?ration alo -, Foothill Boulevard, as determivied, by the Enaineeriny - Division3 b) An a,orage landscape setback of 45 feet along Fcot6ill Bf ,'evard (as- measured from the ultimate face'of the curb); c) A minimum parking setback of La feet (from the ultimatf,Yace of d) A elder/ property line parking setl.eck of 5 feet. 2. !liven the te.hnical requirements for pai'ki ng -setbacks and 'street improvsmenk' along Foothill Boulevard, it appears that the parking spaces on the north side of the building, mat need ho be eliminated. If the elimination of these s?:all's prohibits you from meeting current pas kin requirements, (see Item A(4)), rhea r. redesign of t-ne parking lot will be requi -red. 3. Wittin par;;ing lots, trees shall be provided at a rate of one tree per 3 parking stalls. Please' indicate parking lot tree box locations on the conceptual landscape plan. 4. —Any exterior - mechanical equipmer:t associated with the modular building shall be completely screened from k `" is view. 5.. Chain liak fence is not allowed is the Industrial Park District of the Industrial Spocific Plan. Therefore, if practibie, staff would rectiz-mend -that the existing fence be eliminated and replaced with a decorative material (i.e., wrought .ron) or removed altogether. AWL i COMPLE)ENESS COMMENTS l ruP 91 -01 . Sage 3 6. Current City standards require„ parking spaces tfi, >be double striped',�(see attached diagram•) Therefare, the parking lot shall_ be restria -d and dimensioned per current st'"dards prior to occupancy of the office module. C. The _following are deli n issues that ___are recommended to be addressed in the reyis,d }clans: 1. The Development Code requires that temporary office buildings have a look of permanence, a'-- much as possible. Therefore, staff would recommend that the following be incorporated into the design 6f the multi- purpose module to Litigate its temporary appearance: a) A more substantial and aestheciall'y, pleasing foundation treatment (i.e., brick veneer, field !.'tone Etc.); b) The use of overhangs, walkways and stepped roofs. C II. Engineering Division A. Compl a epess • _. 1. Th. project is complete for fprther processing, S. Issues• 1. Additionl right- of-way dedication alone the project tronta -? on Foothill Boulevard.,,-:;,.11: be provided prior to issuance of 'a.buiIding'r_rmit.. nis ..:2dication shall inclti .,a necessary right -nf .+ay for a future right tur;; lane to be determined by the City Traffic =engineer. 2. In -liev of construct=:onv !l st,eet improvements on Foothill Boulevard, a Lien Agreement guannteeing future constructior ,hall ke" submitted by the property owner pry .r to issuance of a building permit. - CITIAOF RANCHO.C11CAKONGA 10 500 Civic Center Drive. Post 9Tce box 30 ` i-ts Jlq.tA_; : ' Ranenoc6CalnOnsa.Ca1(Otna 91.1.9 Fax s1 0.644,1 'tiJ Marc' 1, ,1991 °astor Robert wood Victory Chapel 11837 Foothill: Boulevard Rancho Cucamonga, CA, ^4 30 t SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL.ASSFS3MENT AND CONDITIONAL, UFE PERMIT 91 -0I rear Pastor Wood- Review of our fines indicate that your projeO is still incomplete for processing, since a Master Plvn­-, future buildings and a Conceptual Landscape Plan have not bean submitted to the " Planning Di,isiun. Further processing of your project cannot be.ginluntil this additional inF�rmation is submitted avid the appsicatifin accepted as rompsete. } Please note that a Master Plan for permanent facilities is a Development �+ Code regvi renlent in si tuati ors cohere temporary ',ouil dings are proposed, per City Council Ordinance No., 211. Specifically, temporary structures AWK are prohibited unlsAs plans are approved for a psrmane::a structure. Since it appears that it it. _nt your intention to provide permanent facilities :.`replace the temporary trailer as per' your letter of February 21;, 1991, there. a ^e two sce arios. Firs,`:, you may submit a written request to withdraw yoe r~ Cnndi tional 'Jse Permit application. 'a this situation, you will be eligible for a .,substantial refund of the uriginal Conditional Use Permit fee. 1.!F' s.aff does not receive a written request to withdraw the ap'plicati,'_ _thin 14 days from,the date of this letter, then staff will schedu1,6 your 'project for the next available Panning Commllsion meeting, eocommerdation to deny the proiect as proposed, .cue to insufficient infornation. In ,:_ ither the temporal trailer will 5e regui'r ®d. to be 'removed from the _scenario, site. The decision of incompleteness shall be final following a ten day appeal period beginning with the date of this letter. Appeals must be filed ill writing with the Planning Commission secretary, state the reason for the appeal, and accompanied by a $62 appeal fee. i EX " b_g co<a�rr�.�eer: Maycr William) Mexander Chad's J BtsquetII CnMawer• Dennis L Malt Deborah N. Bmwn pameta I. Wtigm lace Lam. ART Section 17.10.030 (b) The devices shall 'not obstruct or crowd entries, exits, or aisles. (c) Adult supervision; is required and the devices must be placed in an area which is visible to the supervisor at all times. 3. Arccaies. In consideration of a request for an arcade, as defined in Chapter 17.02 the following criteria will be considered and application material requested. (a) The Commission shall consider, but no' I t be limited to, thelneed for adult supervision, hours of operation, proxinity '� schools end other community uses, compatibility with the surrounding neighboibood and , businesses, noise attenuation, bicycle facilities, and interio�� waiting J areas. \� (b) The applicant shall submit with his application, three sets 6f typed gummed labels, listing the name and address of all businesses ii4hin a shopping center and all landowners within a,300 foot radius " f the shopping center or arcade. t (c) Each application shall contain a description of the types of machines, a floor plan, and hours of operation. 4. Tem orary Office Modules. A master plan for develop�me�nXtrmanant buildings shall a submitted in conjunction with (b) The design of the office moduies ; &hall have a look of permanence, as much as practicable. This shat include such things as screaming temporary foundations, screening utility equipment, and - using overhangs, walkways, as -d stepped roofs to mitigate the temporary appearance. (c) The, approval of temporary office modules shall require necessary street improvements, grading, drainage facilities and landscaping. , 5. Showing Centers. To ensure that the goals and policies of the General Plan are implemented, a Conditional Use Permit shall be required for shopping centers. L1 pich a review, the following criteria shall t'e considered: (a) .The transition from more sensitive land use3 and buffering Methods to i mitigate commercial activities such as loading, lighting, and trash collection; (b) The center has beeir planned as a group of ocganWed uses and sLr'uctures; (c) The center is designed with one theme, with buildings and landscaping I consistent in design (similar architectural style, similar exterior building materials, and a coordinated landscaping t wne); (d) The center makes provisions for consistent maintenance, reciprocal a and reciprocal parking; 105- (V t n , RESOLUTION NO. ADA A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITHOU',',' PREJUDICE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 =01- FOR AN;, APPEAL OF STAFF'S DETERMINATION THFT THE APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -01 IS INCOMPLETE. THIS APPLICATION IS A REQUEST TO LCCATS A TEMPORARY' MODULAR MULTI- ,PURPOSE BUILDING OF 912 - 'SQUARE FEET ON THE SITE Or THE EXISTING 6,000 SQUARE' FOOT VICTORY CHAPS.',, LOCATED ON .74 ACRES WITHIN THE 1 V, USTRIAL PARK DISTRICT (SUBAREA 7) OF THE INDUSTRIFL- SPECIFIC PLAN, AT 11837 FOOTHILL- BOULEVARD, .WEST OF ROCHESTER AVENUE AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229- 011-21,. A. Recitals (i) On January 8, 1991, Victory Chapel filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use 'Permit No. 91 -01, as described in the title of this Resolution.` Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Perm: t re,rjuest is referred to as "the application." On- January 30, and again on March 1, 1391, the City of Rancho Cucamonga'dermed the application incomplete for proceseing. ' (iii:) On March 5, 1991, the applicant apra&led staff's determination o.; in,:ompleteness to the Planning Commission. (1v) On the 24th of April, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on t; PLANNINL`cOMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 91 -01 - VICTORY CHAPEL April 24. 1991 Page 2 (b) The property to the north t)f the subject site is vacant, the Property to the south o£ %that site . Insists of vacant land, the property to the east is improved with an adult �% siress, and the property to the west is i vacant. (c) The Development Co4e Section 17.10.030,x,.4- Section G (Temporary- office_ Modules) requires that a waster plan for dev *llopmert of perma.nex't buildings be submitted in conjunction with a request for a temt�rary modular: building,. - 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing and upon the speo�fic findingv -o_ facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, th:.s Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the proposed use does not comply with each of the app,_able prcv`.sions of the Development Code. (b) Information, without which the City'l ,q decision to approve a project would not be supported ,by substantial evidence, has not been provided. 4. Based upon the findings aid canclu.ions set fortfi in -` paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby denies the applie.$tior,' without prejudice. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certif , to the adoption { of this Resolution. II s APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL 1991. PLANNING COMMIRSION OF THE CITY OF RANC210 CUCAMONGA BY: Suzanne R. Chitiea, Vice- Chairman ATTEST: - Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secrr,4:ary of the Planning Commission of chs City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby caa:tify that the foregoing Resolution etas duly and regularly introduced, pase3d, and adopted by ,the Fla:.ning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, St a regular meetinV of the Manning Commission Geld on the 24th day of April 1991 by the following vote- to- T..It: AYES: COMMYSONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: i; ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSc I --- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STA FF REPORT DATE: April 24, 1991 TO; Chairman and Members,of the Planning Commission FROM: Barrye,,R. Hanson, Senior Civil :Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14211 - U. S. HOME Resolutions or the deni a wt_ nut prejudice o a tentative tract map and design review for the development of 235 single family lots on 81.2 acres of land within the Etiwanda Specific Plan in the Medium and Low- Medium Residential Development Districts (8 -14 and 4 -8 dwelling units per acre respectively), located on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue south of the Devore Freeway and ,west of East Avenue - APN: 227231 -01, 09, 12, .16, and 32; 227 - 191 -15, 227 -181 24; and 227 - 261 -11. � A I. ABSTRACT: Staff is recommending denia' without prejudice of the project application l due to the lack of complete information considered :.3sential for a proper evaluation of the project, II. BACKGROUND: This projrzt was formally submitted on May 17, 1989, after being reviewed as a prelimi:iary review in December of 1988 and February of 1989. Following formal submittal the application was deemed incomplete on three separate occasions, inust recently in August 1989. As a courtesy Po the developer•, the project was reviewed by the Grading, 'technical Review, and Design Review Committees in October of 1989 with the provision that the project would be again reviewed by the committees once deemed complete. The developer has been working with staff to resolve all compl etene' ss items. III. DISCUSSION; State law requires that a subdivision application be acted on by the approving agency, within specified time limits which begin when the application has been accepted as complete. Although the application was submitted on May 17, 1989, w;;ich t„ almost 2 years ago, it has not beer, deemed complete by staff., This "completeness" determine tivn is contested ITEM E l ' PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ?, TT 14211 - U. S. HOW` APRIL 24, 1991 PAGE 2 by the applicant and given the excessive amount of time since suNnittal, the City Attorney has advised staff• to submit the appl i catitn-) to the Plantring Commission for action. The main item `not ;yet completed is the drainage report. This re�+rt is necessary tc- determine the size and vocation of the required detention basin for the site and the surrounding area. The design of the retention basin could have substantial effect upon the 'gout of the development, the rel..ated park site, and the adjacent property. ,Secondly, the proposed alignment of the storm drains to be constructed with the project differ substantially from those shown on the adopted City Master Plan 'for the '? area. It is essential that the evaluation of the realignment be completed to determine the economic' and service impacts upon the total area served by the'ttormr drain lines. The latest comments on the project drainage report were returned to the Developer's Engineer on June 11, 1990. Staff had a meeting with the Developer and his Engineer on October 17, 199Di to discuss ea ne'r approach to the basin design whif}a utilizes the area designated for a park site. The developer submitted this request to the Park and Recreation Commission which the Commission denied. Staff feels that completion of this design is essential prier to submitting the project to the Planning Commission for action. ' In addition, the developer has been requested to acquire the of,-site right- of�way necessary to provide infastructure for this project. Staff has discussed the possibility of schedul i <g the project for an advisory City Council hearing for possible future condemnation action to acquire this right -of -way; however, the Developer has not requested! "that course of action. Staff sent a letter to the Developer on February 27, 1991, stating the proje,.t would be scheduled for' a denial hearing unless 'a letter waiving the time limits was provided. Staff met with the Developer and hi . Attorney on March 28, 1991 to discuss the project, but }bey did not agree to submit a al.fver of time limits. The developer takes issue with several staff recommended conditions for the project, but those items are not releverrt to this action. IBc CORIZE:>PONDEECE: This item has been advertised in The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper as a public h,laring. The property ,s been poste an not ces were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. PLANNING COMMIS' ^,ION STAFF REPORT TT 14211 - U. S:, HOME APRIL 24, 1931 PAGE 3 Am t` V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Plannipet Commission consider all input and "pments of Tentative Tract Map 14211. If after such consideration, the � Commission concurs with the staff opinion,that sufficient information has ` \J not been provided to properly eve irate the project, then adoption of the attached Resolutions of r nial without prejudice would be appropriate. Respectfully submitted, Sri %���, Barry6 R. Hanson Senior Civil Engineer BRH•BK.dlrt Attachments: Vicinity Map "(E)Giihit "A") -Tentative Map (Exhibit "B ") Resolution or Denial for Tentative Map Resolution of Denial for Design Review t SASE Ls,JP- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGUMMING DMEON `. i0®®' s 9z: rMu. TT 1 x2.11 ntm. VICINITY MAP* -Brr: `�A �0. A. / I? cs N��x+�iv wa a+t t 7p7 au. ',� i � \ taa ■ tia a+ NO Oy 70a SN 1 its 31S Tp RO .177 T 1as +w 3" sm 121 tit MILLEE .AVENUE i 0 !»w nraxaa + 8'mttT T K ss a aa. G t at win os e 1 �q. .. to +C.7 St J.- „v�,71� a a� s1 r f7 at M n os a,lsa as n t! ca w 138 in .: na Tai 123 n "1 ae 01 tsa tallta �n t n ss b ss as IT >ti f! ao ai as ai N 01 3 7 Tq � ms rsiaf[T lea +Oa +aT D at ,7a 1 � V 1 d 4 +t FOOTHILL SOULEVARi: i� CITY Or TT 1 &f 2_ t.NGi3 CUGON1 TE:'�P4Te�9'°7�11 1�0fiP tli �dr' MGMMUNG DIM, ON FMMIT.- RESCLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE TENTATIVE TRACT 14211 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 235 SINGLE FAMILY Ld'>S ON 81.2 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN IN THE MEDIUM AND LOFT -MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS : -ld AND 4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, REST'F.CTIVELY), LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE: OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, SOUTH OF THE DEVORE L- AEEWAY AND WE` $T OF EAST. AVENUE AND MAKING P:rL'DINGS IN SUPPORT THER -.OF APR: 227- 231 -01, 99, 21 16, and 32; 227- 191 -15; 227- 181 -24; and 227 - 261 -11. A. Recitals (i) on May 17, 198y, U. S. Home Incorporated filed an application. -for Tentative Tract No. 14211 as des.=,Ibed in the title of this Re3oluri6n. Hereinafter in this Revolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map is =efexred to as "the application. "' (ii) The application has been „formally deemed incomplete on three separate occasions (July 2, July 31, and August 30, 1989). (iii) On the 24uh of April 1991, The Planning Commission of thra City of P = -acho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed publ$7 hearin on the application anu concluded said hearing on that date. (iv) all legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEAYFCAE, it is hereby found, determined, and tesolvi,' .0y the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ar, follows: 1. ThiG Commissien.hereby'-apecif.cally finds that all of the factp set forth in the Recizala, Part A, of this Resolution -_,kre true and correc.. 2 Based upon substant ,al evidence greeented to this Commission, dv-r ing the above- referenced public hearinc on April 24, 193'x, including written and oral staff reports, togethe with public ter•timony, this Commise_- >n hereby specifically finds as sbllw +s: (a) The application applies`- to property whicsi +s located 'an the e,Ast side of Etiwanda Avenue, south 6f the . Devore FreeV"', and . . 3t of East Avenue with an Etiwanda Avenue frontage of approximately 668 feel and lot depth of approximately 2,580 feet and is rresentiv vacant; and 1 -w PLANNI:4G COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 14211 - U.. S. ROME APRIL :4, 1431 PAGE 1 (b) The property to the north of the sub ect site is vacant, the property to the south of that site consists of vacant land, the property to the east is vacant, and the props- VUY'to the west is partially developed with single family homes. (C) The application contemplates the development, of 235 single family.y,,tneo in the Low Medium (4 -6 dwelling units liar -acre) and Medium ,f; -14 dwe3;ing units per acre) residential development districts of the, Etiwanda Specific plan; and (d) The application was revswed by 'she Grading, Technical review, and Design Steview Committees as a ,`curtsey to the developer, with the provision that once the application was deemed 'bmplete, it would return to all committees for formal -- (+view; and Ce) A concurrently proposed amendment�to the Etiwanda Specific Plan to allow detached single family atructura�� would be required to be processed concurrently with a complete application.�� (f) The application has bden deemed incomplete due to the lack of an acceptable drainage report which is necessary to determine the impact of the project'c drsJnage iacilitisa upon the project itsels and adjacent, downstr am, and other properties within the watershed served by those facilities. 3. Based vron the substanti..l evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing and upon the spe,r fic findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 abcge,' :his CCOMineion 2iereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) The Tentative Tract 13 not consisttr,t with the Gen&,al Plan and the Etiwanda specific Plan; and (b) Tta de"gn or improvements of this Tentative Tract are not consistent with the General Plan and the Etiwand &'Specific Plan; and (c) That the proposed use is not in compliance with each of the applicable provisiInc :f the Development code; and (d) That the proposed use will potentially -be detrimental to the public health, safety, f.r welfare or materially injurious to: properties or improvements in w= vicinity; and (e) In= ormation has not been supplied ty the applicant 0�z;: is necessary to prepare -a legally adequate enviironmental document; anc. (f) Information without which the City's aec3sion to approve a project would not ba supported? by substantial evidence hap nct been provided. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 14211 U. S. HOME APRIL 24, 1991 PAGE 3 I i 4. Based upon the findings apd conclusions set forth in paragraprs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby Genies the Ar licatien without prejudice. I it S. The Secretary, to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this ROsolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY• . Suzanne R. Chitiea, Vice- Chairman ATTEST: Bzad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission o: the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning COmmission of the City of Rancho'Cucamongu, at a regular meeting of the P xanictgt oammisaion held on the 24th day of April 2991, by the following vote to"W. -'c: AYES* COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: I. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: i RESOLPTION NO. A R950LUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCRMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE `�ESIGN REVIEW OF TENTATIVE TRACT ,14211 FOR THE! DEVELOPMENT OF 235 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.; ON 81.,2 AC1,ES OF LAND WITHIN THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN ,t IN THE MEDIUM AND LOW- MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS (8 -14 AND 4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, RESPECTIVELY), LOCATED ON THE BAST SIDE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, SOUTH OF THE `DEVORE';FREEWAY AND WEST OF EAST i AVE'I{UE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IF }. SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227- 231 -01, 09, 12, 16, and 32; 227- 191 -15; 227- 181 -24; and 227- 261 -11. A. Recitals (i) On May 17,,1989, "U. S. Home Incorporated filed an application fcl^ the issuabce of the Tentative Tract 14211 and Design Review thereof as describz�? to the title of this RNSo2,,tion. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." (ii) The application han been formally deemed incomplete on three separate occxaions (July 2, July 31, and August 3D, 1989). (iii) On October 19, 1989, the application was reviewed L-,' a courtesy basis by the Design Review Committee, with the provision that formal` review would occur following completion,';of all application materials to the satisfaction of staff. (iv) On the 24th of April 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearin 4 on that date. (v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Flanning 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 during the above - referenced public hearing on April 24, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: it PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 14211 - U.S, Homes April 24, 1991 Page 2 (a) The application applies to property which is located on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue, south of the Devore Fre2way and west of East Avenue with an Etiwanda Avenue frontage of approximately 668 feet and lot depth of alp-roxim at sly 2,580 feet and is presently vacant, and (b) the property to the north of the subject site is vacant, the,, property to the south that of site consists of'_acaat land, the property to the east is vacant, and the property to the west is existing single family homes; and (c) The application contemplates the development of 235 single Family homes in the Low Medium (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) and Yedium (G -14 dwelling units per acre) residential development districts of the Etiwanda SPecific Plan; and (d) The application was reviewed by the Grading, Technical Review, and Design Review Committees as a courtesy to the developer, with the Provision that once the application was deemed complete, it would return to all committees for formal review. (e) on October 19, 1989, the Design ;view Committee directed the applicant to revise all plans for further''eview with the following recommendations: (1) Two -story homes should be avoided on all corner lots, particularly on those adjacent to the perimetir,`streets. (2) Homes facing perimeter streets and interior streets should be oriented so that the flat wall (non -entry or gal.-age side) does not face the street. All side, and rear elevations along these streets should also be substantially upgraded with additional siding and roof, fascia, and rafter detailing. (3) A minimum 4 -inch cap should be used on the perimeter walls. The stone veneer columns should also be upgraded in design my extending them beyond the wall height. A stone cap similar to the entry monumentation walls should be utilized. (4) Tho perimeter wall along Etiwanda Avenue should be kept visually open where cul -de -sac streets side onto it. Wrought iron fencing should be utilized if the acoustical study permits it. Paved pedestrian walks should be provided to the Etiwanda sidewalk. The pad elevations along Etiwanda Avenue should be kept as low as possible. (5) Details should be provided on the design of the •Freeway sound wall to be permitted by Caltrans. (6) Siding and additional detailing should be used more extensively on all Ash side and rear elevations. Add!.tional upgrading of all i' , PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 14211 U.S. Homes April 24, 1991 Page 3 street faciaq elevations, including siding and band boards on the ocF_ond story of two -story units znd additional roof, fascia, and rafter detailing should be provided. (7) ' 'Porches should be expanded in size for most of the homeu. The porches should be extended in length along garages or living areas. (B) Chimneid detailing should be revised so that the entire chimney is constructed of stone or brick. The "patches" of brick and stone should be deleted. (9) The applicant was instructed to ei More design alternatives on side elevation of Plan 3378. Additional stone work was recommended for the front elevation of P1F..1 3234. (10) Walis should terminate at least 5 feet behind all sidewalks or at side yard'�,zeturn fencing locations. These items were never addressed by the applicant, or subsequently reviewed by the Design Review +.ommittee, hence the proji-pt never received a recommendation of approval: from the Design Review Committe (f) A concurrently processed amendment to the Etiwanda Specific Plan to allow detached single family structures would be required to be processed concurrently with 'a complete application. (g) The Design Review for this project cannot be processed prior to the application for the Tentative Tract 2gap since 235 single family homes' cannot be built on eight recorded lots.' 3. Based upon the substantial avide3_ "presented to this commission during the above- referenced public haaring and ution the specific .findings of facts set forth in paragraphs l and 2 above, this commission hereby finds and concludes as follows3 (a) That the prop6;o,4 project is not consistent with the objectives of the General Plano and (b) That the proposed design is not in accord with the objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the purposes of the district in which the site is locatad; and _. (c) That the proposed design is not in compliance with each of the applicable_ provisions of the Etiwanda Specific Plano and (d) That the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, may be detrimental to the public health, 'safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. PLANNING COMMISSION,RESOLUTION NO. T 14211 - U.S. Vomea April 24, 1991 Page 4 4.- Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2; and 3 above, this Commission hereby denies the application without prejudice.,-, S. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoptien of this Resolution. APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL 1991 :. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCWiON.>A BY: Suzanne Chitiea, vice- Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretsry I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution: was ,duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of April 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: RYES: COMMISSIONERSo NOES COMMISSIONERS: A'3SENT: COMMISSIONERSe I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG_A STAFF RE, PORT DATE: April 24, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the,Pla.aing commission FROM: Brad Buller, city Planapr BY Steven Ross, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -08 MACIAS - A request to allow retail sales in conjunction with r, light wholesale, storage, and distribution uss within an existing 17,384 square foot building in'tne Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific' Plan, located on tie east- s�-:de of Monroe . Court, north of Jersey Boulevard - APN: 209- 144 -42. 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION^ A. Action Requested: Issuance of a Negative Declaration and approval of a Conc;itional Use Permit to allow retail sales in conjunction within an existing Light Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution Use,: B. surrounding Lj�ld Use and Zoning: North - Vacan't; Industrial Park (Industrial Area ,Specific Plan, ",Subarea 0 South - Light ;nistributon Building (attached); Industrial Park (Indu Trial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 6) East - Vacant; Industrial Park (Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 6) West - Vacant; ,Haven Overlay District (Industrial Area. Specific Plan, Subarea 6) C. General Plan Desicnatigns- Project Site Industrial Park North - Industrial Park South Industrial Park East - Industrial Park West - Industrial Park D. Site Characteristic— The site is improved with an existing warehouse building, parking area, and Landscaping. To the south, the building shares a common wall with a building on the adjacent property. ITEh1 F rLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91-08 - MACIAS April 24, 1991 Page 2 M. rY -i_ng Calculationsa Dumber of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Warehouse 12,000 1/1000 12 13 Retail 4,000 1/250 16 16 Office 1,000 1/25U �4 4 Total 32 33 11. ANALYSIS- A. General: The Industrial Area Specific Plan remits retail sales in conjunction with Light wholesale, Storage, and Distribution operations with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The primary issues to be concerned with would be compatibility of uses and traffic conflicts. Retail sales are normally discouraged within the industrial area because the uses typically create more traffic. Also more signage is generally preferred than office and industrial uses. 'Other forms of retail are permitte^; with Conditional Use Permits, including Automotive Sales, Convenience Sales and Services, and Food and ,Beverage Sales. B. specific: The applicant is proposing to use approximately 4,000 square feet of his 17,000 square foot building for the retail sale of shoes and accessories. The building primarily serves as a warehouse and light distribution center for the owner's two other stores which are located in the cities of Walnut and Corona. The warehouse operates between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., while the retail business, which is already in operation, is open from 10'a..m. to 7 p.m. Deliveries are made an average of twice r4r week. The building is located on its own parcel and hao its own driveway and parking lot; therefore, it does not appear that traffic or parking problems I1 will result from the additional traffic which is typically I; created by retail uses, The Building and Safety and Fire Divisiona have conducted inspections and determined that several modifications dealing with fire separations and proper exiting are necessary in order to meet the occupancy requirements for a retail use. Prior to allowing the retail use, these modifications will be required to be completed to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety and Fire Divisions. Three parking spaces are located in front of the entrance, one of which is a handicapped space. The remainder of the parking is located on the north side of the building is separated s P from the entrance by a below -grade truck loading ramp. A F- PLANNING COMMISSION STAFI'.'REPORT CUP 91 -08 — MACIAS April 24, 1991 Page 3 AOL small concrete path through the landscaping allows pedestrians access from the northerly parking area to the entrance by way of the loading area. C. Property Maintenance: The building was constructed in 1980 and, in staff's . opinion, could use some maintenance.. When the site was visited in March, several items were noted. Staff recommends that the 'Planning Commission require the applicant to correct the following items: 1. Storage of lumber and pipes on north side of building; 2. Painted signage on western windows; 3. Unpainted roll -up doox on north side of building; I� 4. Access door should be painted to match building; l S. Pink neon paint crash poles at the building entrance; 6. Hand painted "Store Parking" directional sign; 7. Ducts on roof of building; 8. Peeling, flaking paint on the building walla. A number of suggested conditions have been included with the attached Resolution of Approval to address these issues. D. Conclusion: Because of the large proportion of floor area devoted to storage and the use of the building as a distribution point for other stores, it appears that the industrial area is an appropriate location for this type of mixed use. If the technical And maintenance issues can be resolved, staff has no aerioud 'concerns with the proposed land use. j E. Environmental` Assessment: Upon review of Part I of the Initial Study and completion of Part II of the Environmental Checklist, staff has found no significant impacts related to the propsaed use. III. FACTS FOR ! "70.jINGS: The Commission must make all of the following findings in order to approve this application: A. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea in which the site is located. 1. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91-08 •- MACIAS April 24, 1991 Page A B. That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the, public '. bealuh, safety or _welfare or materially injurious to- prc,—_r±_es or it nrovements in the vicinity. C. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the,InduaLnial Area Specific Plan. IV.. CORRESPONDENCE: The item has been advertised as a public hearing in the inland valley Daily, 'Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices have been pent to the adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the project. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commiss on conduct the public hearing to dctarm ne whether the land use;,tis appropriate. If the Commission can support the necessary findings, conditional approval may be granted through adoption of the attached Resolution. Howevar, staff would recommend that approval of the Use Permit be deferred pending resolu# of the Building and Safety issues by the applicant. p' �2espe ly submitted, Bra ulle city Planner BB:SR:sp Attachments- Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit "B" -'Location Map , Exhibit "C° - Floor Plan,: Exhibit ^D" - Site Plan Resolution of Approval lJJECT PROPERTY: 011 Monroe Ct Rancho Cucamonga, M 91730 APPLICANT: Del Rey Tennis Shoes Warehouse 8711 Monroe �,t Rancho Cuaamonga,CA 91730 -he intended use of this builjing is primarily warehousing and light distribution tennis shoes. The total square footage of this building is 18,536 sq ft. Approx- imately 13,000 sq ft will be used as warehouse and offices. Approximatew..4,000 sq ft is intended for use of retail sales for the tennis shoes. Business hourscfor our distri�;.-tion are from Bam to 5pm. The,retail store would be from 10am to 7pn. The number of employees at this location would be a 10_ pproximately u, Del Rey-Tennis Shoes has two other retail outlets one in the city of Walnut and another in Corona. ?arese stores need to be restockedAlmost daily, so this is wh'yre our distribution canes in . The reason we are requesting CUP at this location, is that the retail business would help out in our lease payment. In checking the area tie see no other footwear business that we would betinterrupting. We also have ample Parking sp.ces - a total of 32 including 1 handicap ,arki.ng space and 2 truck delivery wells. ! i UEM, G.0 Al -o6 G OF AF=T. � :, UCAM ONCiA TULE._Lci+cr F, Arrw A N PLANDVI DM —SION EXHIBIT: A SCALE: rpl 771.9n., �-. H F�r�•` ♦ 0 a C1 3i 1 4 11j a 5� a ® ♦ 84 85 p ' oOaCa Por.3 Por.4 ^� i Por.l ka Port N �$Por.3'c +�t 1 'ate :e Wr.Por. Il z.00zae, t7oaaa"I W 2A3Ar. N- 1,60AnA� 2.55Ac• rfre•. s�•�' 2.986 AC '!= rrz.7o sr o .ss zria p 133.00. Je•7s �k1.W Por.2 • "''Ij� I JTi, Parl For.2 Mor.3 Por.16 �" FM rbi 19 For. 20 Po® f M 2.526 AC. POr - 1'. 4 fm VAL 1278ae. i- Ms4.Y• --EP- 3 °EDfS _ .-.- I A'rt �? *� 7, 6^ ® ® PCr l Por.2 b Pt C' 3 �O \ 1 7 '� �: K', °cr.8 Por.7 Par.6 Wr.5 Par1 Por, Por,4 18 13 20 •' d' A7f..l e• y a • rr kPor. "6•�x, aassz 3ra ' . a 2.517 Ae. AL4844e .fA' Fbc9 .7( '2�. k \•� �± 26 •* Par. E. l a7�.or r7 :as A a �. 7 e AC © Par. 5 a 3, SPor3 0 2l�or. \`" 2447AG Porto' %, Fcir.lC Q 2514 Por.6 22 2,182A +v 2AG 1.0 Pe� ® © 0 p Der Par.$ P. : P /.!2 f +�4AC, "� Porlt Poi _ rl P r.I Por Por.B Por.7• I 24 25 26 t u26 Zu.O�. ;.3a7Jt .fw Lr• p •� ARr° POR. PAR,4 ^ PA/^RIf � _�° ) L�• I P RJ, ZtD wr r41. sr FPAR B. • 4; S 14C n I 1T ^ 11 c nl ; h PAR. 0.85AC� Par w QPARJ2 a PAR.13 (.PAR,14 ° S 16 M I a PAn.2. L9TAC: A I PA�R 10 a i d ^ o � M P R2„e 1 42 P : i J LAC + M'� �� h Ar / 12 R : /� h t u P. IX 17.38AC' Ap �oj }C- ^245AG ` PAR .3 l2yPA PARQ.7 6 PA4R6.9t 28 Pg R.4;PA1 Sw. SITE 4 441ACC cR. O A0. "•L� g xi.7: rx.s ,� D�e.ee 2r. arm C" 0. K: aia t�'c 014. 8° ZOBSL sc4.o/ •¢ST.S SLY 1 736 AC. 4.7 AC. . � 4.7 AC. 3.18AC 1 1447 9.21AC.M A U -as4. gar .g�6 j 4.44AC. 4 c 1 p I ^ ON CITY OF TPEM :i�UP X11 -OS T3E3�1'CHf� ';��U��,IVIOIVGI� PLPNNIN -Cr F�.IVISION 'i°ITLE:_ - x^, -1�N MaP N E.Xmrr: 13 SCALE: -Irr_ 40o' F -6 AWL _ s . (9 O m •' 7 �+ ��•�!'� 1�� 18G' Iii. „,�.' �. a.`�V`"S`'� i " +oo ►� 4 O a ENTR`{ O� y 9 C oc l.0P%DlnlCr DOGKS P o 0 A 2eLL., A� a A m LO v O A $ a v s.,x3 rrEM: CUP ql -0 CI.I Y OF RAINCHf � a C3 �U AMONGA TITLE: Fc�� PIfiNNING- DIVISION EXHIBIT: D SCALE: r� 1WSOLUTiON WO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITX OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91 -08 FOR RETAIL SU S IN CONJUNCTION WITH A LIGHT WHOLESALE, STORAGE, AND DISTRIBUTION USE LOCATED AT 8711 MONROE COURT IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT (SUBAREA 6) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING' FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APNz, 209- 144 -42 A. - Recitals. M Raymoundo 0. Macie,� has filed an applicttion for the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit by 91 -08 as described in the title of this Reeniution. Hereinafter in this' Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referrel to as "the application.. (ii) On the 24th of April 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application a-ad concluded said hearing on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the 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''Cucsmonga as follows; 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts net forth in the Recitals, Part A, of :his Resolution are true and correct. 2. Bassi upon substantial evidence presoented to this Commission during the above - referenced- public hearing on April 24, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as followsz (a) The application applies to property which is located at 8711 Monroe Court with a street frontage of 170 feet and lot depth of 236 feet and is presently improved with a building, parking lot, and landscaping; and ,1b) The property to the north of the subject site is vacant, the property to the south of that site consists of a warehouse, the property to the east is vacant, and the property to the west is vacant. (c) The ruilding is located along the south and east property lines and has three parking spaces, a loading ramp, and landscaping on the street side, as well as 30 parking spaces on the north side of the building. '- Ct PLANNING COHMIS$ION RESOLUTION No. CUP 91-08 - ,MACIA5 Apra] 24, 1991' f ^ Page 2 i (d) The proposed retail sales of shoes ar.1 accessories is faccessory to the primary use of .light wholesale, storage,;and distribution_ j (e) The hours of operation for the retail use will be from ` an a.m. to 7 p.m. and the warehouse will operate fr:;m 8 a.m, it) 5 p.m. j (f) 'the building was built in 1980 and 'ie in need of maintenance including repainting of walls and doors; removal of outdoor storage, and elimination of nonessential roof- mounted equipment. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced publi': bearing and upon the specific findinC�,, of i facts set forth in paragraphs l and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds" and !f c!.ncludes as follows: (a) That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development code, and the - purposes of the district in which the site is located. (b) That the proposed use together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimentai to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injuricus to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (c) That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable i provisions of the Dsvelopwert. Code. 4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Enviroz:%tal Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby issues a Negative Declaration. S. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject i- to each and every condition eat forth ,below. 1) The following items shall be completed within three months of the date of this approval. a) All outdoor storage shall be removed from the site. b) The building, including doors 9 P shall be repainted with the original colors or now colors as approved by the City Planner. c) The hand-painted "Store Parking "' directional sign shall be removed. PhANNINC- OMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 41 -08 MACIAS April 24, 1991 Page 3 d) The pink neon crash poles at the building entrance shall be repainted to ratca the building. e) The nonessential roof - mounted ducts shall be removed. If new roof- mounted equipmeiit is needed, 'it shall be screened from public view. 2) Failure to comply with the Conditions of Approval or applicable City ordinLnces shall cause the suspension of the Conditional Use , Permit and possible revocation by the,Planning commission.' 3) Pursuant to provisions of California Public Resources Code Section, 21089(b), this applicatit'n anall not be operative, vested or final, nor wi)S building vermits be issued or a map recorded, until (2) the Notice of Determination (NOD), regarding the associiaved environmental action is filed and 'posted with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino; and (2j any and all required filing fees., assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section '713_.4, together with any req�iired: handling charges, are paid to - the County Clerk of the Cr ­my of San Bernardino. The applicant shalt '-}vide the Planning Department with a at one conformed copy of the NOD togethei, ;a, receipt showing that all fuse have been pr In the event this application is determined . exempt from such filing fees pursuant to the provisions of the California Fish and Game Code, or tae guidelines promulgated thereunder, except for payment of any required handlinc charge for filing a Certificate of Fee ` Exemption, this condition shall be deemed null E: and void. 6. The Secretary to this Commissio shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. E jl PLANNING CCkNHISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 91 ^08 April 24 1991 Page 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY Ot APRIL, 1991. . PLANNING.COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Suzanne Chitiea, Vice- Chairm+in ATTEST: i } Trad Buller, secretary ' -T, Brad Buller, Secret'rxy 'of. the Planning Commission of the City of Pancho' Cucamonga, 'do hereby 6o,reify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the :Planning Commission of the City of Ranch-.,t Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th -day of April 1991," bl•,the following vote -to -wit: � jAYES: CO`3MISSIONERS: � C NOES: C0MMISSIONERS ' ABSRNT: COMMISSIONERS:- r I An iI CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFFREPORT Alm DATE: April i,4, 1991 TO; Chairman and Hembere of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Anna -Lisa Hernandez,- AssistiintG Planner SUBJE(;T: ENJIROMP'ITAL ASSESSMRNT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAPi AMENDMENT 91 -03 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCIA A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan by adding Swap heet (outdoor) and Indoor Tholesale /Retail ',Cocmerci ojl use and their development criteria within the Specific Plan area. Staff recommends issuance of Negative Declaration. I. ACTION RE UES EDt,.Review and apprnva!,r�'the land use definitions for outdoor Swao Kee+ and Snd_ >_ Wholesale /Retail Commercial within various subareas of the Induhtrial Area Specific Plan (ISP) and associated development criteria. II. BAiKGROUDID: In recent months, the Planning Division has been approached by several companies interested in establishing swap meet facilities within the City, Swap Meets are currently :listed as a typical use under the "Extensive Impact Comwirci.al" category,' which is only allowed within the Heavy Industriai -zone; 'Subarea 15 (See Attached Exhibit, "A "). In .addition to the lack of definition of the term "swap meet," there were no specific development criteria identified within the!ISP: On January 9, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved staff's request to initiate a modification to the Industrial Area Specific Plan to include provisions and ;standards for the "swap meet" use. The Planning Commission also directed staff to include the following information within the Amendment: A. Clarify the definition of the swap meet use, B. Identify other industrial subareas where the use could be conditionally permitted. C. Establish standards and regulations for the swap meet use. The following report and proposed industrial Specific Plan Amendment has been prepared for the Planning Commission's review. TTU1 G PANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ISPA 91-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA April 14, 1991 Page 2 IIL. ANALYSIS: A. Swan Meet History: Traditionally, swap; meet facilities have,,, oparatad outdoors by the grouping of a number of independent " sellers of both new and used goods within drive -in theaters, ball fields, and raceways li.e. Saugus swap Meet, and the Rose Bowl). Such uses opr^,:_ted periodically„ on weekends or seasonally, but primarily on set weekends if the facilities were not in normal use. An their popularity has grown, so too have swap meets evAlved, changing the character of "swap meet" facilities. The latest trend of indoor swap meets or "discount malls" has appeared in cities such as Carson, Los Angelee, and Santa Ana. In most instances, these uses involve "adaptive re -use" of industrial buildings. B. Definition: The "Swap Meet" Use is currently listed under the Extensive Impact Commercial use within the ISP. Extensive Impact Commercial is defined es the following:, "those whiey: ',ap ` ,produce a substantial iitipact . upon the surrounding area. Usea typically include but,are not limited to amusement p5sks,, drive -in /iovie theaters, flea markets, outdoor auction sales, or swa `meet activities..." The inclusion- of swap meets, -flea markets, and outdoor auctions together within the Neavy <Industrial subarea of the City appears to be based on the traditional view of swap meets as an: outdoor use characterized by temporary "portable" vendor stalls that operate on weekends. However, staff's opinion is that an expanded definition of such commercial acti+rity is needed to address indoor operations, including those which may be semi- permanent or permanent installations.' The following new land use type definitions are recommended:; swan Meet GOutdcoift: Activities typically include, but are n6t limited to: the retail, wholesale, discount'` sales,, or tradeI of new or used goods within an outdoor area by multiple vendors. Such activities may be operated year- round on a temporary basis, -such as on weekends, or may be a special ` <. v y event.,, Uses typically include, but arls not limited to: swap meets, flea markets, and outdoor auctions. i i j'� I PLANNING _COI3MISSION'STAPP REPORT' ISPA 91 -03 - CWZ OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA April 24, 1991 Page 3 Indoor olemale /Retail. Commerrial: Activities typically include,, but are limited tm- retail, wholesale, or`-ziticount sales. Thee tyccs of l buainesees exclusively involve multtple vend -,re selling new goods in separate, permanent dinE.Gay structures. Uses typically include, but are,not limitWif to: discount outlets and indoor swap meets. `1 The first definition, Swan Meets (Outdoor), adds'; sses the traditional. 'activities and characteristics of the use. The second definition, Indoor Wholesale /Reta_il_- _iCommercial, addresses the activities and demands: associated with the emerging discount commercial activity of consumers. Both land .�. uses are similar in that they ;both attract a high cor:entraticn;of people to the site and may generate similar concerns regarding circulation, par "­Ing, security, and maintenance. It is important, however, to recognize the two as distinct uses, whilR, establishing the same criteria for both. C. Location Recuirgoents: There are a number of customer dynamics related to this use. Whether held indoors or outdoors, such a use wi31 attract a high concentration of pepple to the site based upon observations of existing operations. A concern expressed by the Commission was incompatibility with residential areas. The direction of the Plznning Commission was to explore the location- of this type of use within the 'General Industrial, Minimum Impact heavy IN Industrial, Industrial, and heavy Industrial subareas within the Specific The General Industrial-category provides for the widest possible range of light and medium industrial type of.activity including manufacturing,'fabr(ication, and office uses. The Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial group is an area intended for heavy industrial uses with minimal impacts to the'surrounding area and includes a range o?"', activities from woodworking facilities to heavy machine,1/shops. Finally, the Heavy Industrial category is intended to accommodate the heaviest indusfrrial uses. swap Mast (outdoors: , Az- outdoor swap meet' is likely to have a number of aesthetic concerns related to general appearance, ,signer refuse, and the display of products. Typically: these uses cater to a more t6nsient vendor, such that displayu and goods fare independently arranged. Because of the phylAcal characteristics of an outdoor swap meet, this use would be more .r PLANNING. COMMISSION STAFF 'REPORT ISPA 91 -03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA April 24, 1991 Page 4 Industr' +1 and Heavy industrial areas to mitigate any dignifi.cant ueathe:lc effect on the surrounding area. Staff "recommends allowing outdoor swap meets .in Subareas 9 and 15 through the Conditional Use Permit process. Indoor .Wholesaie /Retail Commercial- Because all activities re?ated to this type of proposed use wesld take place within an enclosed building, aesthetic considerations are limited to signs and property maintenance (i.e., trash). Such a use could be appropriate within the General industrial, Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial, and Heavy Industrial areas of the industrial Area Specific Plan. Staff recommends ^hat this use be allowed in Subareas 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15 through the Conditional Use Permit process. D. Parkina Standard: Another concern expresseulby the Commission re Ated to the issue.., of parking. , Staff surveyed Southern California cities regarding the parking requirements for swap meet uses. Staff received 'a variety of responses to the survey. The most conservative parking standard requirements were reported by Pomona, which requires 6 stalls per vendor, "! and Santa Ana, which requires 1 parking space per 100 square feet. Los Angeles has the most liberal requirement, l parking space per SOIL square feet. Municipalities such as Ontario and the City of Loa Angeles maintained the typical commercial requirement of l space per 200 or 250 square feet for the swap meet use. In formulating the parking standard, a number of key issues were recognized. In cities with operating swap meets, the largest complaint was the shortage of parking facilities. The Orange County Indoor Swap Meet, located in the City of Santa Ana, which maintains a par?zing:ratio of 1 space Fsr 100 square feet, harj'si-,perienced numerous negative. !--pacts to surrounding land usei as a result of the sbcr',age of xiarking facilities. Loitering, litter, and vandali_w have also occurred in adjoining land uses as a result`cf swap meet clientele parking off- site. The swap meet u3e is very different from a`General Commercial or Regional Commercial use, which maintains a parking requirement of 1 parking apace per 250 and 220 square feet, respectively. Swap meats typically operate as _'),kends, bi- monthly or monthly. Therefore, the parking demand is heavily concentrated during specific tame periods. Even though this 21--:11 oil "151 A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ISP,A 91 -03 CITY OF RIMCHO .CUCAMONGA April 24, 1991, Page 5 i amendment co {' -plates tb; location of these facilities within the industr! area, which utilizes' fairly standard peak hours of operation- u-- 14onday through Friday, 7;00 a.m. to S:00 p.m., a conservative parking requirement should be required to , ensure that negative impacts are mitigated to maintain the aesthetics of surrounding businesses. Both the Swap Meet (Outdoor) and the Indoor /Wholesale Retail' Commercial uses should meet the same standards. Staff proposes the following: I. Indoor Wholesale /Retail Commercial and Swap Meet (Outdoor) uses 'shall meet the parking requirement of 1 space per 150 square feet. E. Additional Submittal P.ecauirements: - To ensure that surrounding, land `uses are not negatively ,impacted, additional filing requirements shall include a Site ja agement Plan and a .Traffic Impact Study. 1. Site Management Plan: Issues such as security and maintenance should be addressed by the applicant$ to it ensure that adequate services are provided for clientele and surrounding land uses. Items to be addressed wth?;n the Management Plan are: a. Trash collection and site maintenance b. Security and safetX''control measures C. Parking attendants and circulation directors d. Graffiti removal %and building maintenance L.. Personnel management 2. Traffic Imoacr`Study Because of the possible traffic intensity related to the uses, the Engineering Division recommends that a Traffic Impact Study should be submitted to the City Engineer addressing the following items: a. Trip generation b. Traffic volume distribution C. Access analysis d. Internal circulation e. Mitigation measures, if required by the analysis, shall be shown. PLANNXNG COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ISPA 41 -03 - CITY OF 'P- VICHO- CUCAMONGA April 24, 1591 Page 6 IV,. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: _In ensuring that all potential issues are " mitigated in considering these types of uses, the following concerns would be addressed through the Conditional Use Permit process and /or Conditions of Approvals o Building and Safety Department - The Building and 'Safety Department will require plans to be prepared for the plan check review process, prior to the issuance of building permits. The plans must provide compliance with the Uniform Building, Plumbing, and .Mechanical Codes and the National Electrical Code as adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. a Business Licensing - It will be the responsibility of the swap meet organizer to provide the Business License Department with an updated list on a monthly basis of all vendors. If the organizer does not supply the list, they will be responsible for business ;license , payments for vendors. The list should include the mililing addresses for all vendors. o Police and Fie- Department - Once the file has been deemed complatGj both- the police and fire departments will be contacted for written comments regarding any proposed Swap Meet or Indoor Wholesale /Retail Commercial use prior to Planning Commission review and approval. o Code Enforcement - The Code Enforcement Division wid,L be notified of any application prior to Planning Comf6iasion review and approval. e All signage in conjunction'-w-=-in' -..v swap "meet use will be subject to the City's Sign Ordinance and /or any Sign Program in place on the project site. In addition, permanent wall signs ;end /or monument signs in conjunction with this type of Use may be subject to DRC review and approval. o The use will be monitored to maintain the aesthetic quality of the area and compliance with conditions of approval. o Any special event, such as a promotional sale, will be conducted by the management entity and shall bP subject to the -': Temporary Us" Permit process. V. ENVIRONMENTAL AS'JESSMENTe The potential environmental impacts related tc these types of uses are traffic and aesthetics. A traffic study will be required to be submitted by any applicant for this type of proposed use. The study will identify potential problems- related to the use and possible mitigation measures. The second issue relates to aesthetics. Another submittal requirement PLANNING !PDXHISSION'STAFF.REPORT ' ISPA 91-0j"- CITY OF RANCki CUCANONGA April 24, 1991' Page 7, shall be a comprehensive management plan that will address .issues such as site maintenance and trash disposal. , Staff will ensure that the aesthetic character of the industrial area is maf.ntained through conditions - of approval. In addition, Code Enforcement shall be notified of these proposals -early within the review process and shall continue monitoring of the use to ensure compliance with thc,,conditions of approval. Therefore, staff has found no significant impacts as a- result of this proposed text .amendment and recommends issuance. of a Negative Declaration. VI. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The proposed project is\ , �consietent with the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the General' :"Plan. The project will not be detrimental to adjacent protl�erties or cause significant adverse environmental impacts i VII. CORRESPONDENCE.: This item has been advertisedtA!(`k public hearing in the 'Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newrpaperl}:y an eighth page advertisement. p1 J VIII. RE- CO24��;NDATION: Staff recommends that the Pt;6nning Commission recommend approval of this amendment and issuance, of a Negative Declaration by the City Council through adoption "of the attached Resolution. Respe y subm' r Brad E City Planner R j BB :AH:js Atta:1- hments: Exhibit "A" industrial Specific Subareas Map 'F\ Resolution of Approval Ordinance �! - RESOL01 ;:N NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -03, ESTABLISHING F- GULATIONS FOR OUTDOOR SWAP MEET' AND INDOOR WHOLESALEjRETAIL COMDTRCIAL USES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. - A. Recitals y (i) The c,/ity of Rancho Cucamonga has initiated an application for Industrial Specifies- 'Plan Amendment 91 -03 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter, in this Resolution, the subject Time Extension request is referred to as "the application;," (ii) On April 24, 1991, 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 'prior 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 I. 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, during the above- referenced public hearing on April 24, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The proposed amendments will not have a significant impact on the environment as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Initial Study, Part II; (b) The application applies to properties located within Subareas 8 -11 and 13 -15 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. (c) The proposed amendment would be in the beat interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the reasons as follows: 1) That the proposed amendment will distinguish between the Extensive Impact Commercial, Swap Heats (Outdoor), and Indoor Wholesale' Retail Commercial uses. _q PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ISPA 91 -03 - CITY OF RANCHO CriCAMONGA April 24, 1991 Page 2 2) That the proposed amendment will establish a parking criteria of 2, space per 150 square feet for Swap Meet (outdoors) and Indoor Wholesale /Retail Commercial uses within the Industrial Area Specific Plana 3) That the proposed amendment identifies the additional submittal requirements of a Management Plan and a Traffic Study to ensure that surrounding land uses are not negatively impacted. 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 the proposed amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and the purposes of the District in which the site is located. (b) That the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (c) That the proposed amendment is in compliance with each "of the applicable provisions of the Industrial Specific Plan.. (d) That the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the objectives of the General Plan or the Industrial Area Spe�_`riC Plin.. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, .further, this Commission he.aby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. S. Based upo=. findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves as follows: (a) That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 91 -03 per the attached OrdinAnce. 6. The secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL .1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Suzanne Chitiea, Vice- Chairman _!4 m Amik PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ISPA 91 -03 — CITr or RANCHO COCAMONGA April 24, 1991 Page 3 ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Counission of the City of Rencho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing., Resolution wan`'duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commiaoion held on the 24th day of April 1991, by the following vote- to -wit- AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS- c i 1 0 f- ORDINANCis'NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO .I CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91- 03;''ESTABLISHING REGULATIONa.,FOR SWAP MEET (OUTDOOR) AND INDOOR WHOLESALE /RETAIL COMMERCIAL USES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga doeu ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Part 111, Table III -1 is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, es shown it the attached Exhibit "A ". SECTION 2: Part III, Table III - -2, Land Use Type Definitions, Section D is hereby added to read, in words and 'igures, as follows: D. COMMERCIAL USE TYPES Indoor Wholesale /Retail Commercial: Activities typically include, but are not limited to: retail, wholesale, or discount sales. These 'types of businesses exclusively. involve multiple vendors selling new goods in iseparate, permanent display structures. ­.Uses typically include, but are not limited too discount outlets and indoor swap meets. SwaT, Meet (Outdoor) activities typically include, but are not limited to the retail, .wholesale, discount sales, or trzde of new or used goods within' an outdoor area by mu ?,tiple vendors. Such activities may be operated year -round on a. temporary basis, such as weekends, or may be a special event. Uses typically include but are not li --ated =o: swap meets, flea markets, and outdoor auctions. SECTION 3: Part III, Table III -2, Subsection D, land ase type of definition for Extensive Impact Commercial is hereby amended to read, I words and figures, as follows: Extensive Impact Commercial: Activities typically include, but are not limited to: those which produce or may produce a substantial impact upon the surrounding area. Uses typically include, but are not Y iited to: amusement parks, and drive -in movie theaters, i CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCn ISPA " +Q3 - CITY OF RANCUO CUC_AMONGA m _ April 24, 1991 Page 2 SECTION �• Pant III, Section IV Subsection F.� loading r firemen _ -, parking and . :, z hereby to amended add: g. Indoor WholesalejRetail Commerc al and Swap Meet (Outdoor)' uses: 1'space per 150 square feet.' SECTION -S: Part IV is hereby amended to add "Indoor Wholasale /Retail Commercial" as a conditionally permitted use within Subareas 8-11 and 13 -15. SECTION 6: Part IV is hereby amended to;add "Swap ASeet- (Outdoor')" as a conditionally, permitted use within Subareas 9 and 15. SECTION 7: This Council finds `.hat this amendment will not adveiselg affect the environment and hereby issues a Negative Declaration. SECTION 8: The City Council declares that, should Qny.ptovisicn, section, paragraphs sentence, or word of thcs ordinance be rehdered or declared invalid ny any Tina. court action in a court of competent' jurisdiction, or by reason 'of any preemptive legislation; the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 9: The City Clerk shall certify the;' adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least ones in the Inland Valley Dail" Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California: e f: v g{ K ' AM TABLE I11 -1 SUMMARY OF LAND USE TYPE BY SUBAREA a PERMITTED USE + CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE NOTE: Non - marked Uses Not .Permitted USE TYPES Land Use' IP GI GI GI I GI GI IP : IP GI ." 41: GI GI IP. GI GI HI_ IP IP MANUFACTURING Subareas HO' 1 2 3. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14. 15 16 17 Custom - Light I s (e I e'•.• a - •.�• o• I e t• I® o e j•. `a Medium Heavy •. • ea'+e 1 ��'�$I�$1 • �.a• .eye ® e. •1. ! 1 +1•1•l:•i 16Ie101 1:1. Minimum !moact Ne"y I I_ i I I • 101 1 I I I I •) I OFFICE PROFESSIONAL DESIGN & RESEARCH • + Admnmatrative &, of" G. m I+ + I $ i a $ ♦ I ° I ♦ } I s • Professional /Design Services a +i a •, Research Services I • e e e srl a 's o ' o I • ' o j • I n 1 i e l e i WHOLESALE STORAGE & DISTRIBUTION Public Storage J-74-1 � - +1+1 1 +1 0 1 1 1 Light Medium e ° • + a e • o e • • •:s a o• s� ®I °� °1m 1 1•��i Heavy MATERMS RECOVERY E&CILIMES (MRFS) ! Collection Facilities o e ® ®® ® e # 0 Processing Facilities !old, ( I I ,(- F4,P- �, I + I I I Lt- Scrap operation t Animal Care _ Automotive Float Storage Automotive Rental /Leasing Automotive /Light Truck Repair -Nnor Automotive t Truck Repair -Maio. Automotive Sams Automotive Service Station Building Contractor's Office & Yards Building Contractors Storage Yard Building Rtainten,ince, Services Building &Lighting E4uiement Supplies &Sales Business Supply Ret•li & Services Business Support Services Communication Services Convenience Sales & Services Eating & Drinking Establiohmente Entertainment Extensive Impact Commercial Fast food Sales Flnancirl, insurance & Rant Estate Services Food & Beverage *ales Funeral & Crematory Services Heavy Equnpment Sales &Rentals I/ Indoor Wholesale /Retail Commercial t "cal /Festitt Care Service Person5i Services Petroleum Products Storage Recreational Facilities Repair Servlc•o So ap or Swap Meet (Outdoor) Iele is .1 1010 1 1 + I+ + . + 1 +1 ¢< < $�1 +1 +1 + : a. e e �: o• o r e• o�ql �e s • o +• e +•• m¢ • o a • • • ,+ 6, • e • I +.I • 1 • + $ ¢ a. ¢ + . ♦ } � $ 4 $ } + it + + + $ ++ + ♦♦ +$I ♦ $I + ♦ ♦ ♦ + , + + : + ♦ $ �� . a.w�c a•rrlc•s Cultural Extsltsivo. Impact Utility Facilities s e ff • a ¢ • } • gyp. e • • + • {. • f I • + e • Flood Control /Utility Corridor • • do + + Public Assembly Public Safety &Utility + + o I * • + o • ♦ • + • $ • a $ ¢ ® I + • I I +1+1 Services Religious Assembly ¢+ ¢ {+ + . ¢ ¢ ♦ + $ + + , $ + ' $1 ♦+ '♦b' ♦ $ $ Ti 1 +1+1 IP- Industrial Park HO -Haven Ave. Overlay District GI-General Industrial MI /H1- Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial G- - HI -Heavy Industrial j y J -_ - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 24, 1991 TO: Chairman aiY1 Members of the Plann.�cgg Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, ;Senior Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AME NDMENT 91 -02 - -_CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi- family - residential districts. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.' ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA ,SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -02A - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to emend various development standards and design guidelines for multi - family residential _districts within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Staff zocommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND': TERRA _VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend varieuo development atandarda and design guidelines for multi - family residential districts within the Terra Vist -a "Manned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of a Nev_ativ? Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL _ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED dOMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91 -02 -� CITY OF = iNCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi - family residential districts" within. the Victoria Planned Community area. Staf,` recommend s issuance of a Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission conducted a workshop on April 4, 1991, and continued it to April 11, 1991, in order to further review the proposed changes to the multi - family development standards and to provide direction to staff. To allow staff sufficient time to prepare the above described ame r ndments a continuance to the May r 8 regular meeting 4u Y g in is requested. Respe lv s ed, Brad City Planne BS:NFaj ITEMS', I,J,K i K, .1, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 24, 1951 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner Bv: Scott Murphy, ,,Associate Plann, SUBJECT: ADDENmm To oomxm BOULEVARD (DESIGN SUPPLWCWT STAFF 'REPORT (ITEMS 7,,. M, is, O, AND P) i Following preparation of the staff report, - additional comments were received from a representative of a „rogerty owner affected by the incorporation of streetscape and site design standards for the "Missing Link ". The three areas of concern raised in the Yetter (attached) are aimed at the Milliken activity center, specifically the development of the aouth side of Foothill Boulevard at Milliken A,),enue (Subarea 7 of the Industrial Specific Plan). The three areas mentioned are: 1) modification to permitted and conditionally permitted uses within the subarea; 2) allowance for tyro - ,story structures (up to 35 feet in height) at the activity center setback line (25 feet from curb); and 3) provisions for reduced parking setbacks at activity Center areas.> In assessing the comments, staff provides the following information for Planning Commission consideration; 1. Modifications to land uses within the subarea are beyond the scope of the amendments. The amendments are intended to provide consistent design standards for Foothill Boulevard and do not address land use. if the property owner desires revisions to the land use, he sb(inid file an application for an Industrial Specific Plan Amendment. It should also be noted that several of the proposed uses are already parmitted or conditionally permitted in this subarea. They are identified by "P" or "C ", respectively. 2. The activity centers identified in the Foa`_hill Boulevard Specific Plan do not allow two -story units at the front setback; two -story units must be set back 50 feet from curb. Staff suggests, however, that the Foothill /Milliken intersection may be the ,appropriate location to create a more urban setting. As a result, the Commission may wish to consider the use of two -story buildings at the front setbacks. This still allows for uses, such as ground floor resta,'rants or retail, that would promote pedestrian activity, The extent and location of two -story elements should be based on reviEw of specific proposals through the Development Review process; however, the following guidelines would be recommended for inclusion in the Design Supplement: ADDENDUM TO APRIL 24, 1991 STAFF REPORT ITEMS L. M, N, O, P F!OOTHILL.BOULEVARD MISSING LINK April 24, 1991 Page 2 IIl. OLSIGH GUIDELINES A. ACTIVITY CENTERS: it 3. Architectural Concept: i e. Differentiate the ground floor facades from the second floor in. recognition of the - differences in the character'of. activities 6 at pedestrian level. Examples include the use of storef-ont glass =� "step- backs ", cornices, changel,of materials awnings,'and _ other archite'Aural devices. D. GEMKRAL GUIDSLTV9S a 1. Site Planning: d. Buildings should be oric. ;;ed to place retail stores, rest,;aurasxts, services, limited Letail uses ';,as permitted by the Industrial Specific Plan), and other high intensity pedestrian uses on the ground levels of all building$ within activity Centers fronting major streets., -. including parking. structures.. 3.` Allowing parking areas within the activity center to be pulled closer to the street is inconsistent with the intent of the activity center concept. Staff does not feel it is appropriate to reduce the building and parkiig setbacks within the activity center.. Yes tf ly M2. Bra le City Planner BB:SM:sp Attachments: Letter from property owner representative` - ,C ow, U) RICK DEL. I - CATELLU5,DEVELOFMENT CORPORATION stt;\f q u Ho and F Thompson Associates, Inc. TRANSMITTAL _ _ Archner WrrLandPlannmFfnrenor+ sr Lnntr i(F o „e u e no APR 3 1991 hw4po't Bea4h. Cahmmla 4:560 f - ;- w.;JA- _'nrg}'F1y +'tic 5�a252; �I THE CITY OF RAIXHO WC&JONGA 4 -16 -91 8-101-1,'0 f 11500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE )500 RE. CENTRUM - RANCHO CUCAtvIIPGA RANCHO CUCMXZA, CA 91729 NR OTIn KROUTIL WEARETRANS- KITTING: TRANSAt1TTED: _XAMCHED —CHANCE ORDER, _FORAPPROl:1l - _FORREVIBVA. %DcowvE`T _ t %I;ER,tP K ITE WI ER _PLA\5 —FOR YOUR USE _NOTE MARKINGS V _SAMPLES: _.ASREQUESTED _FORCORRFCTIONS —SHOP OR-MI`C _SPECIFICATION,C .. _RESUHCIIT COPIES FOR APPROVAL OP�t)FLt'TkK _C)THER _SUB,MIT COPIES FOR DISTF.IBUTION.. _M%T., _RETURN CORRECTEDPRINTS COP`E> DATi \U, DESCRIPTIO N 1 PROPOSEf3 ADDITIONS TO THE FOOTHILL DESIIN SUPPLEMWr THE GE{QIRUM RANmo CUGAM^,NGA CALIFORNIA ow, U) RICK DEL. I - CATELLU5,DEVELOFMENT CORPORATION stt;\f q Proposed Additions to the,Foothill Design Supplement for The Centrum Rancho Cucamonga. California 1.) Add additional Conditional uses to the Pedestrian Activity Zone within the Centrum. This is consistent with doyeloping a viable pedestrian experience and supporting proposed on -site «sers. PERMITTED USES Permitted uses vary per location. Sub -Brea 7 and Sub -Area 8 permitted and conditional uses are found within the Industrial ,`tea Specific Plan.. The following additional permitted and conditional uses are allowed within the . Pedestrian Activity Zone xllthin Sub-Area 7. I The Centrum Pedestrian Activity. Zone Permitted Uses, `Business The followin g p uses are compatible with the Support Services" pP category: Delivery , Services (i.e. Federal. Express Drop -off Centers) Printing and Photocopy Services Personnel Services Office Supply Travel Agency Deli /Bakery 4 Computer Supplies / Sales Fitness Centers G° Beauty / Barber Shops Florists G' Photo Labs (i.e. FotoMate) Shoe Repair Video Store Greeting Card Store Stationary) Mail Service Stare (i.e. Mail Box Etc.) As well as similar, but not listed, services at the discretion of the 1 Director of Planning. The Cent rum Pedestrian Activity Zone Conditional Uses., Drug Stores (under 10,000 s.f.) Dry Cleaner As well as similar, but not listed, services at the discretion of the Director of Planning. it 2.) Revise proposed building setback requirements to reflect the section below. f This is consistent with developing a more vibrant pedestrian scene. A single story limitation on bringing a structure forward will act to sib zificantly limit the Pedestrian Activity Zone image. A single story limitation will have a tendency to evolve into a "strip commercial" look A second story acts to keep thirzu e'heck while at the same time allowing fora greater spatial variety. Within the Pedestrian Activity Zone, l and 2 sto.,y buildings and 1 and 2 store' building.00rtions up to 35 feet in height can observe a 25' minimum setback line 3.) Revise proposed parking setback requirements to show a 25' minimum with a 45' average landscape setback. This is consistent with the Industrial Area Specific Plan I DATE* TOs FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT April 24, 1991 (`2 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Scott Murphy, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 'M DEVELOPMENT: DISTRICT AMENDMENT 91 -01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Developme;c - JistriCts Map from "OP" (office Pr.,fessional) to "FBSP" (Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan) for an t 8.3 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227 152 -1S and 30. Staff recommend% issuance of It Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC, PLAN AMENDMENT 91;01 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan to include the t 8.3 acre parcel at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue within Subarea 4 and establish standards for development APN: 227 - 152 -18 and 30. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND__TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY FLAN AMENDMENT 91 -01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to establish certain streetscape and site design standards consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan fc- that portion of Foothill Boulevard within the Terra Vista Planned Community., Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -01 CITY OF F;t�gCHO CUCAMC;IGA - A request to establish certain atreeta, and site design standards consistent with the Fcthill Boulevard Specific plan for that portion of Foothill Boulevard within the Victoria Planned Community. Staff recommends issuance of ,a Negative Declaration. ET.'IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT_ INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAit AMENDMENT 91 -04 - CITY: OF RANPFC (LaCAMONGA - A request to establish certain streetscape�, site design standards consistent Vith the Foothill Bou�cvard Specific Plan for that portion of Foothill Boulevard within the Industrial Area Specific` Plan, Staff racommends issuance_ of a Negative Declaration. ITEMS L,11,N,O,P PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT , - DDA el -01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA April 24, 1991 Page 2 I. BACKGROUND- On September 16, 1987, the City Council approved the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (FBSP). The FBSP was enacted to provide a unifi�ld development scheme for the Foothill Boulevard Corridor through the community. A significant element of this plan is the special streetscape desigl provisions which tie together the visual aspects of this major commercial roadway. The portion of Foothill Boulevard between Deer Creek Channel and the I -15 Freeway was not part of the Specific Plan study, and therefore, its provisions do not apply to the development of that "Missing Link por`:ion of the corridor. At the time of FBSP approval, the Planning Comm3,esion aiid. City Council expressed the desire to apply the e::reetocape desijln guidelines of the Plan to the missing section. On April 27, 1988, the Planning Commission reviewed draft regu7 tions for the missing link. At that time, the Commission rec, mended that the Rochester Avenue /Foothill Boulevard in} irsection be included as an "Activity Center. This m,iification has been incorporated into the Foothill Boulevard Design Supplement (see Exhibit "A "). II. FRAMEWORK: The implementation of the Foothill Boulevard Design Supplement is proposed as an amendment to tb "e Term Vista and Victoria Community Plans (TVCP and VCP, respectively), the Industrial Specific Plan (ISP), the Development District Map (DDA), and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (FBSP). The TVCP, VCP, and ISP amendments will create an addendum to the existing design guidelines and development standards for each plan. The DDA and FBSP amendments will remove the northeast corner of Rochester Avenue and Foothill Boulevard from the Gene,�l City zoning designation of "op" (Office Processional) and wilt- include it within subarea 4 of the PBSP within an "office" Cesignation. The amendments to the respective plans, as proposed, will not alter the uses that are permitted or'condirionally permitted under the current regulations. Rather, the Foothill Boulevard Design Supplement contains the design standards that staff believes are essential in maintaining the flow and character of Foothill Boulevard through the City. A brief summary of the da'sign supplement is as follows: III. ACTIVITY CENTERS: Activity centers are points of interest located at major intersections along the Foothill corridor. They are to provide individual identity by concentrating commercial and other activitieu at specified key locations. These activity centers are generally more urban in nature than the rest of the boulevard with buildings closer to the street and a greater emphasis on building design. The current FBSP calls for these "activity centers" to be located at the following locations: lu IN PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DDA 91-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA April 24, 1991 Page 3 Foothill at Bear Gulch Foothill at Vineyard Avenue Foothill at ArchikAld Avenue Foothill at Etiwaiida Avenue The proposed "missing link" amendments would add activity centers in the following locations: Foothill at Milliken Avenue Foothill at Rochester Avenue Foothill at Haven Avenue These activity centers are ,proposed to be developed consistent with the PBSP regulations. The activity centers provide for a pedestrian scale for all buildings while allowing mid-rise levelopment as a backdrop. The main difference in the activity centers will be the architectural style proposed: A. Foothill at Milliken - The Milliken intersection considers a contemporary architectural style as is presently demonstrated on the south side Of Foothill Boulevard. Elements anticipated to be used include, but are not 13mited to, flat roof toper smooth and uniform wall suzfacp'�, and large expanses of glass. B. Foothill at Rochester _ The architectural style propcsed at the Rochester intersection will be eclectic in nature -ktilU ing such elements as low, long buildings, covered Porches, stucco/plaster walls, arches, and clay tile roofs. C. Foothill at Haven - Because of its prominence in the "heart" of the City, the Foothill/Haven Intersection is deserving of an activity center, designation. Howevert because three of the four corners are developed, the activity center improvements will be limited to the area withi ' �j the public right-of-way. This application will permit the intersection to exhibit consistent features of the FBSP including enriched street paving, enriched sidewalk treatment, and special street furniture. The new buildings will be set back from the street an has been done with the developed corners and as is identified in the applicable community or specific plan. IV. SUBURBAN PARKWAY - The properties located outside of the Activity Centers will follow the PBSP suburban parkway standards. , These areas link the activity centers with _ less formal street,,scape design to include meandering/undulating sidewalks and J,,ifbrmal landscaping. Buildings in these areas have deeper setbacks and are often separated from tile street by landscaped parking areas. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DDA 91 -01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA April 24, 1991 Page 4 Owl The suburban parkway standards evolved through similar design concepts created for the TVCP, VCP, and ISP, thereby ensuring continuity along Foothill Boulevard. V. PROPERTY OWNER RESPONSE: Prior to scheduling this item for public hearing, staff distributed cop ;;es of a "draft" design supplement to several of the ,affected property owners along Foothill Boulevard. Staff has received comments from one of the land owners, Lewis Homes, expressing their concerns about implementation of the guidelines (see Exhibit "B "). After having reviewed the various comments, 'staff believes that the two main differences between the design supplement and the Lewis Homes' direction center around the architecture proposed and the concept of "activity centers." While the Commission may wish to discuss the type of architecture that should be provided at each activity center, staff feels it is important to maintain a consistent themf, at the intersection or "node." Staff feels that thee: is sufficient flexibility in the architectural guidelines to allow developers to adapt /respond to changes in market conditions. In addition, staff suggests that the creation of these activity centers will provide developers with mor, flexibility in site planning by allowing buildings to be pulled closer to the street freeing up ,areas internal to the site. Activity centers will "tie" the visual 'aspects of Foothill Boulevard together from one end of the City to the other through the repetition of landscape, hardscape, street furniture, and building setbacks. Also, the centers serve as focal points to draw pedestrians who may then venture into a particular project through connections to plazas, pathways, buildings, or other features. VI- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: In reviewing the environmental issues connected with the proposed planned community and specific plan amendments, staff notes that the amendments will provide design standards to tie together the Foothill Boulevard corridor. There are no changes being proposed to the land uses that are different from those currently permitted. In that these uses were previously addressed in the Environmental Impact Reports prepared for the respective community or specific plans, staff has determined that the amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission issue a Negative Declaration. VLI. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The amendments will provide for the development of comprehensively planned urban communities that are superior to the development otherwise allowable under alternative regulations. The amendments will provide for development of the Planned communities and specific plans in a manner which is consistent with the Genera- Plan and which relates to element and PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DDA 91-01 - CITY OF M'NCRO CUCAMONGA April 24, 1991 Page 5 �l growth managenent policies of the City. The amendments will provide for the construction, improvement, and extension of transportation facilities, public utilities, and public services required within: the planned communities, In addition, the -amendments will 'hot be detrimental to the public health or safety or cause nuisances or significant adverse environmental impacts. 1, %III. CORRESPONDENCE; These items have been advertised as a public hearing in the inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the Development District and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment boundaries. IX- RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends' that the planning Commission review the proposed design supplcnnent and recommend approval of Development District Amendment 91 -01, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91 -01, Terra 'Vista Commun l* ",Plan Amendment '91 -01, Victoria Community Plan Amendment 91 -01, and Industrial Area ,Specific Plan Amendment 91 -04 and i(asuance of a Negative Declaration to the City council. Respe u y stub ted, Bra City lanner II BB :SM:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Foothill Boulevard Design Supplement Exhibit "B" - Letter from Lewis Homes (Dated April 3, 1991) Resolution Recommending Approval of DDA 91 -01 Resolution Recommending Approval of FBSPA 91 -o1 Resolution Recommending Aoprovsl of TVCPA 91 -o1 Resolution Recommending 1pproval of VCPA 91 -01 Resolution Recommending Approval of ISPA 91-04 f F, t13 � I L BOULEVARD IGN SUPPLEMENT Amending the Tarry, Vista Community Plan, Vietc -riar Community Plan, and industrial Area Specific Plan. Im INTRODUCT104N WHI PPi.ERnv:MT A zr%g f-? On September 16, 1987. the City Council approved the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (FBSP), `fhe FBSP was enacted to provide-. unified development scheme for the Foothill Boulevard corridor through the community. Of prime importance to the FBSP are thr 'special streetscape des- ovisions which "tie., together the visual aspects of this cjmmercici roadway: 'Missing Link, Area / Victoria Tet -'a, Vista uQ tiNlED ti3i�itr^_ �k� P iniruairiatI SPeciiic Plan o a a a z z ¢ w m e Y Uj fn x ax2 1O Figure I - Missing Link Area The portion of Foothill Boulevard between Haven Avenue and the Interstate 15 Freeway (1 -15) was not a part of the specific plan study; therefor, its provisions did not apply to the development of this "miss- ing link." At the time of FBSP approval, the City Council and Planning, 'ommiss on expressed a desire to include significant design provisions of the plan in the development of the "missiag, link." This amendment to the Terra Vi ata Community Plan (TVCP), the Victoria Community VU), and the Industrial Area Specific P13n (ISP) is proposed t-T include specific streetsmpe design pmvuions of the FBSP in the develop- ment of &e properties Foothill Boulevard. WHERE DUES IT APPLY? The following provisions ;rill apply to all properties bordering Foothill Boulevzrd within the T ICP, VCP, and ISP. This ,amendment augment- 6e development regulations and standards of the TVCP, Vf Zp, and ISP. R%en an issue, condition, or situation occurs which is not covered or provided for in this amen4•nent or } provi :ons of the TVCP, VCP, or ISP, the regulations of the Development Code of the City of Ranche Cucamonga that are most applicable tc tie issue, condition, or situation shall apply. Page 1 SUPPLUROPw " ,l �jy WI f' — `7 11. COMMUNITY DESIGN CONCEPT The Foothill Boulevard Design Supplement is intended to create a dynamic concourse thati,: attrac- We and of nigh qu! *ly with a unifying community design image reflective of the community heritage and identity, providing an economically viable setting for a balanced commerc. mixture of A and residential uses with safe, efficient circulation and access.: A. Create a community image that expresses and enhances the unique character and identity of Rai -cho Cucamonga. B. OBJECTIVES: Develop a streetscape system which - Pinforces the exisiingsuburban parkways as vehicular areas and designates major street intersections as pedestrian activity center nodes throughor t the corridor. 1 Promote compatible building elevations which provide a transition at pedest, An areas to taller elevations while protecting adjoining residential conditions. Promote contemporary landscape treatments throughout the corridor, particularly those that are low maintenance, drought tolerant, and wind resistant' within intense urban conditions. WM MW Provide for the elimination of visually objectionable views, such as outdoor storage and loading areas, through the, use of design guidelines. C. ROL Develop consistent streetscape and architectural palettes which are sensitive to creating a "heritage" statement for Foothill Boulevard. Require compliance with community design guidelines in plans for new development and expansion or redevelopnr -nt of existing development and make community design a major consideration in site phm rev?ew and approval. Utilize landscape materials which are clean, safe, wind resistant, and. latively low maintenance. Formal forms and configurations should be utilized at activity center nodes while less formal configurations should be utilized throughout the parkway links between nodes. Designate special landscape and architectural features at major intersections. Combine themat; *. plantings with contemporary architectural statements designed to promoter, distinctive character for the t , activity centers. 41=ges in paving materials, lighting, signing, and siting of adjacent structures hould occur rk at major intersections to enhance their distinctiveness. SUKUMENMM Page 2 DESIGN ""�WIDELWES' A. AGl'F�p�T1-.7 ¢$S: Activity centers are points of intersection at major streets along the Foothill Boulevard corridor. As such, they are points of concentrated activity which give identity to the areas in which they are located. The activity centers are located contiguous to the Foothill Boulevard corridor as indicated in Figure 2. ACTIVITY CENTERS { � Q ui ui ui C U1 W Q Y f Figure 2 - Activity Center Locations fi<:cause three comer s of the Haven Avc. ti o intersection are completed, the development provisions of the activity center are limited to those streetscape and landscape improvements within the public ight -of- way. Therefore, many of the following standards apply only to the Milliken.Nvenue and Rochester Avenue activity centers 1. Streetscape: a. All building orientations will relate to the Foothill Boulevard frontage. The building setback areas will be enriched pedestrian zones with special hardscape materials; formal landscape arrange- ments, and pedestrian level lighting. t t Figure 3 - T Ical Street Lam 9 yP p (pedest7ian scale) Page 3 SUPPLEMUIMM ��ryr,clj 3 E chara cter dndlab. Street cape elenents such as bollards, crosswalks, and street furniture should assume a etc.).: r to the activity center's designated style and character (i.e. high-tech, contemporary, eclectic, AOL C. The concept within the activity center is to incorporate a formal, regularly spaced, street tree planting system utd.zing an informally shaped, colorful tree palette. d. 'fire urban streetsrape design characteristic o£ ;he activity center should extend along Foothill Boulevard to a point of logical transition to the suburbanpxrkway. Typically, the design will extend to at least the first driveway or as modified through the design review process. The extent of the urban streetscape shod be able to adjust to changes in public right -of -way conditions and ensure a logical relation III Zhip and alignment of similar features on opposing sides of the street 1. 2' Site Planning: a. At activity center, buildings shall be. placed at or adjacent to the front setback line to create a more appealing, active streetscape. Front yard areas of parkfnglots dominating the streetscene are specl6callyprohibited (Milliken & Rochester). b. Multi-story buildings dlall be designed to relate tc the pedestrian level. Ail ground story facades shall be designed to relate to the numan scale. This can be accomp?; `led through the breaking of facades into bays and the signage brought down in size and location. Further, it is reduction inn -tale can be established through the use of pedestrian arcades and awnings which add horizontal articulation to the facades (Milliken & Rochester only). C. Buildings shall be designed to be visually connected in order to eliminate a fragmented ' strip commercial appearance (Milliken & Rochester anly). d. Architecture and outdoor spaces along Foothill Boulevard shall be integrally desig,S,ed and oriented toward the pedestrian experience. The experience should be visually diverse and stimulating and should include activities that create _tense of variety and interest (Milliken & Rochester only). e. Stru Iure s shall be designed and located to facilitate public.access across sites where important pedestrian cor:.ections occur. f. Building entrances shall be oriented towards Foothill Boulevard as much as possible. 3. Architectural Concept: a. In an effort to promote a richness of architectural cha,-acter, a diversity of architectural styles are allowed within tha Foothill Boulevard corridor rather th,' i one specific style. Within the individual activity centers, the architectural style shall be consistent to provide continuity of design at intersection. b. Milliken Activity Center - A contemporary architectural style is to be followed at the Milliken Activity Center. This style is characterized by use of flat roof tops, smooth and uniform wall sur- faces, and large expanses of windows. Use of color panels and enhanced window and entry detailing is also encouraged. C. Rochester Activity Center - An eclectic architectural style is to be followed at the Roch; ;ter ?activity Center. Characteristics of this style include low, long buildings with covered porches; arches supported t7y piers; stucco /plaster walls; and day tile roof coverings. d. du►: i re story buildings located near the front setl•,ack line should euh ibit a "step - back` of "stair- stepped" form at the lower levels facing Foothill Boulevard, Milliken Avenue, and Rochester. sun atspexru�>a Page 4 g• L8ndSMPe COrtCept: The activity centers will be distinguished from suburban parkway areas through the use of formal, urba'' `ee plantings.'rhese f mlal plantings will border all activity centers and will define these areas as being higher intensity, urban districts. The plantings will consist of an offset double row of Crape Myrtle (i.agerstoemia indica) trees along each road frontage_ sr� w�rrr H.mWs.�:7Yleroae r'fIAL 1Fir :ky� - .�itJr1.'$CEP1i�/o� :DG}7tOCtJ•'O•>�.. -7Y/•E Tdda� Gr,, a Ia a, RIAW-- :.Afrwq[� �• X3c` rrrnk me'FSe�Mnesf� \ I %•WW�xJ6 Ja 7$ .YFl7GH PP+KN6L^ \ I j .'�IyR^ll/�l? �+ cam ruxyr \yJ{ 1 At 1 ijd..(LMY W61l7 :A`MA'iNci-fLY�h'/A/N t � .Yn'. ^iila�. S'YLETVPw° ct�CrWG1; K Iwf t CJ tld:utl4MHd-•.T, YGE / A—~AY 7u1P Z*%- f , 577267D EL3 xarl ""Zr nv7e^'f ,,rir t�`;�GjLCLiA�.}lCS %!% •�(wsjYryG 41xtin:v `i°TLHMNnIGy. FFSFy zei�.r,^- ,Gi.x -lr Em �1 r f a /cam. ^ Figure 4 - A,cidvity Center Landscape Conuept e Page 5 surMrxiw►s B- 1. Strertwape: a. The parkways will be designed with informal clusters of tree, rolling turf berms, and meandering/ undulating sidewalks evoking pastoral, suburban qualities. b. - Streetscape elements such as light standards and street fur-, Iture shall be identical in style and finish to those used in the FBSP area. 14=01111N PAff':'JY6 GOl' (/�`9/tiN /1GGE ppN�i/f A7bYr/N& L/dG'I %Nb 160177Nb { i/ ri I t ' TP-/t�'t RANC ter.- l/fCify y� Figure 5 - Streetscape Furniture I MAateeal palette % i' Note; This streetscape furniture /mah. -al palette depicts the elements to be used along Foothill Boulevard. Ali furniture that is conn.cted to the sidewalk shall be connected with shear bolts and not have„ concrete or other footings. This Matrix applies to all of Foothill Boulevard. it shouid be noted that th - -' furniture selections are for future direction only and are not intended to be a final selection. The Cary may wo.,r to select other furniture as appropriate and necessary, 2. Site Planning: a. Along the suburban parkways, it is encouraged to place buildings on the 45 -foot setback line and avoid '—ge s,ctions of parking lot frontages at the setback. b. Utilize the concept of "tuck untie: ' parking to screen parking from Foothill Boulevarld or from any other side street PU Page 6 -- AOL i , I AL Figure 6 - Tuck -Under Parking, 3, Architectuml Concept I a: The architectural characteristics shall i, governed by the existing standards of the Development Code, TVCP, VCP, and ISP. b• in situations where buildings are hi visible from the side streets and /or adjace►; t Parking areas, blank walls shall be prohibited and emphasis p penal. emphasis. placed on creating architectural mte•2st, 4. fandscapeCOAC opt: The plantings will consist of informal treatments, dominated by - 1 London Plane (Platanus acerifolia), California Sycamore (Platanus racemm), and flowering Plum (Prunus cerasifera) trees. C. PARKWAY TRAM r,�o m ' der to provide a gradual transition from the urban activity censers into the suburban parkways, "parkway transitions' will be introduced along the corridor. Parkway transitions are designed to blend the fo:; nal hardscape and tree plarting pattern of the activity centers w�`h the informal landscape and hadscape trc atment of the suburban parkways. Specifically, the parkway bmtsi- Linn is characterized by a 75 foot zone, dominated by Flowering Plum trees. r �'- ft mss•, , rn.r.., •h.»x -nr, rsa�n •t c'°e�ia j \ 6' Meandariny Sidowait «' ••• y• • •• '• ^c Primary Parkway i Accent Trai :(Ftawarin9 Plum) Figure i - Parkway Transition Tree (Syeareara) MDU dod Turf ` Page 7 swvtE uExnPu D. GENERAL MM ! L Site Planning: a. Buildings shall W sited to create new pedestrian spaces that complement and expand the existing pedestrian rights -of -way along Foothill Boulevard. This can be accomplished by creating plaza:t and allowing wider sidewalks on the boulevard. b. Euildings shall be designed and placed to minimize pedestrian /ve _`cular conflicts and driveways and service areas shall be located to avoid interfering with the flow of boulevard pedestrian movements. public view. C. Auto related facilities (i.e. working bays, storage, etc.) shall be oriented /screened from 2. Parking La s: a. Whenever possible, entries shall be located on side streets in order to minimize pedes- trian /vehicular conflicts. When this is not possible, the Foothill Boulevard site entry shall be designed with appropriately patterned concrete or pavers (behind the public right of -way) to differentiate it from the sidewalks. l;. Parking access points, - whether located on Foothill Boulevard or side sueets,.shalh be located as far from street intersectiors as possible. C. Parking areas shall be designed so that pedestrians walk parallel to moving vehicles and minimize the need for the pedestn �n to cross parking aisles. d. Individual project p srldng areas shall be linked with on -site driveways which are clearly identified and easily recognized as connectors. New development projects shall delineate on all plans where vehicular connections to adjacent properties are located. The applicant must also demonstrate provi- sions for access easements for such vehicular movements to adjacent properties consistent with approved master plans. e. As a condition of approval, the applicant may be required to combine parking facilities to serve more than one individual project. f. Within suburban parkways, parking areas shall be designed in a manner which link the building to'the street sidewalk system as an extension of the pedestrian environment. This can be accom- plished by using design featurm such as walkwayswith enhanced paving, trellis structures, and /or land- scape treatments a. Landscap Design: a. All poles, street furniture, light standards, and similar hardware within 10 feet of the public right -of -way shall be painted a color chosen as the Foothill Corrodor Theme Color. Sign faces may vary and match related architecture. b. Establish a colorful landscape edge at the b ke of buildings. Asphaltedges at the base of structures are prohibited. Plant materials in containers are appropriate. C. Landscaping should result in a low profits image '(i e. use of blade gr..ss in lawn areas, canopy trees in parking areas, hedges and low walls to screen service areas. sUMLEMErlrPM page .8 L mil, a, n " f 1 -11 0 El V d. Internal pedestria , circulation, linking office complexes with neighboring commer- cial or office developments, s ,Duld be lW &, d close to buildings and be partially covered. e. Planting clusters should assume a non- uniform arrangement. The diversity of massing types should be great enough to provide interest but kept to a level which evokes a relaxed, natural feeling to the ob_erver. f. Water conserving plantings and irrigation shall be used in all landscaped area;. (Refer to City Ordinance No. 411- Xeriscape.) g. Add large (24 -inch to 36 inch box) canopy trees to existing landscaping consistent with City standards. 4. Streetscape Lighting; a. It is the intent of strmtscape lighting to add a consistent, planned lookfor Foothill Boulevard during day and evening hours. Lighting can have a dramatic effect on the quality of the stieetscape design b. All lighting fixtures in the public right -of -way shall be consistent and approved by the City Engineer following recommendations of the Planning Commission. Materials shall be consistent and in keeping with the desired theme. Lunimanes, poles, and supporting hardware shall be consistent. C. All development areas outside the public rightDof -way shall use high pressure sodium lighting. All direct light rays shall be confined to the limits of the building site. S ''r IV. CIRCULATION IMPR VEIWENTS A. QGnter Median EM.EA Based upon traffcar -lyses, a contrRuous 14 -foot wide raised landscaped median shall be provided on Foothill Boulevard'. The median can provide beneats necessary to accommodate increased development and traffic demand in the following areas; ® Increased vehicular capacity ® Increased vehicrar /pedestrian sa&7 ® Increased vehicular mobility ® Increased vehicular level of service Median breaks shall occur only at major signalized intersections as determined by the City Enf, ineer. Alternate median breaks may be considered subject to a detailed traffic safety anal} .us and subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. B. Median DeSlt9n - The 14 -foot wide median shall be designed to provide access control and a unifying landscape stater*: n*. The median will feature two basic types of panting. Accent tree planting (Crape myrtle), underplanted with a low evergreen groundcover, will be provided at median noses. Ever- green trees (Rhos lancea), underplanted with shrubs and groundcover, will be planted throughout the balance of the median. (See Figure 8.) Page 9 SUPPLEMEMwM PATHWAY MEDIAN ACCENT TREES (CRAPE MYRTLE) TRIANGULAR r-PACING AT 15' O.C. 6' CURB Wl18' CONCRETE PAVEn MALWrENANCE EDGE .1 RHUS LANCEA 30' O.C. MAJOR EVLF'GREEN TRFiE PARKWAY)MEDIAN ACCENT TREE CRAPE MYRTLE MAJUR EVERGREEN MEDIAN TREE -h (RNUS LANCER!. .- SHRUBS /GROUND OVER S -0' CLEAR',VJNE 6- CURB W118' HARDSCAPE . ° MAINTENANCE EDGE 6 2`-0" MIN. TREE SETBACK FROM s =' EDGE OF MAINTENANCE EDGE €a. ro. SECTION TYPICAL MID BLOCK LOCATION MAINTEHANG EDGE CONCRETE PAVERS IN,( EXPANSION JOINT MORTAR BED -- +TYPICAL 296 I CONCRETE CURB --- apt t- I r - DETZ P L 'SECTION ~^ T.w'r NTS -- FIgure. 8 - Medlars Design SUPPMUD"m Page 10 17 I � 'j�• a f'a"1� f j U� �•, SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. ., SGtbapks- A jjyfj( outer (SUburban PBriQMin g„aranth'92W B.Wding Streetside (b lot Floor 2nd floorF Parking ® Foothill 7a(45') 45' ( ,9 45' (45' av& 30'min) i W Milliken 25 ( ) 45 ( ) 45` OF avg, 30r mt- ` 0 Rochester 25' (�) 45' W 45' (45' av& 30' min) RearproPrily dins Building LiWng E Adjacent to Existing or Planned Residential 25' ( *) 15 E ) Development 0 Adjacent to existing.or Planned Commercia) V W 51(*) Development l Interior Ride PmReM Line 8 Adjacent to Existing or Planned Residential Development 2Y(*) 15' () E Adjacent to Existing or Planned Cbnunercial Development' 5' W 5' ( ) (1) Refer to TVCP, VCP, ISP for subuezkA parkway areas. I Refer toTVCP ,VCP,rr1SP for xegulati oi c, �a ` B Within 50' of street curb face 20' Within 100' of single fandl s Y residential tral district. 25' Other 'Im ions (; ) Towers,campaniles, rotundas W O Refer to TVCP, VC''r, and iSP' (1) Refer to TVCP, VCP, ISP for suburban parkway areas - I l Page 11 suaa,i+emFU . . 17 I � 'j�• a f'a"1� f j U� �•, Lewis Homes Management Corp. 1156 North Mountain Avenue / P.O. Box 6701 Uplan, alilbmia 91785 7141985 -0971 FAX: 7141981- 9799;, April 3, 1991 Mr. Scott Murphy Planning Department City of Ranchi Cucamonga 1.0500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: Proposed Foothill Specific Elan Rancho Cucamonga, California Ask Dear Scott: Thank you for sending me a draft copy of the proposed Foothill specific Plan, covering Rancho Cueswonga's "Missing Link," area between Haven Avenue and Rochester:- ,;A,ter reviewing your material internally I would like to offer the-xollowing comments. Asok We believe that Terra Vista should remain excluded from the Foothill specific Plan and see no reason to amend the existing Terra Vista Community Plan. Instead, we think that both Lewis Homes and the City of Rancho Cucamonga would be better served if we worked together to expand on the existing "Terra Vista Landscape Desigp Guidelines ". These guidelines were submitted for staff review in iioVember of 1990. They could be expanded to 'include architectural guidelines assuring a consistency in site and building design, as well as landscape design along our portion of Foothill. Boulevard. We believe that such separate design guidelines would be the appropriate vehicle to accomplish your goals. The aft plan which you sent appears to be overly restrictive in it ,eerningly arbitrary choice of plant materials and limitation of s, eetscape architectural styles. The eAclosed copy of the "Terra Vista Landscape Design Guidelines,* represents our attempt to respond to the need for a consistent approach to landscape design along our portion of Foothill Boulevard. We believe this will be of help in standardizing the landscape concepts along all of the j Foothill corridor, and feel that expansion of this document to } cover site and building design is the Solution which should be employed to unify this frontage. Mr. Scott Murphy April 2, 1991 Page Two As we are all aware, successful, commercial development is market drivzn. As a result we need the ability to respond to the 'leeds'of major tenants, whether, office or retail, and thus can not limit ' ourselves to any one architectural style that could conceivably put us (and the City) at a competitive disadvantage. We do recognize that a lack of contr]l� can yield a chaotic street- scape, and for that reason we work within the design intent of the current Terra Vista Community P1aw, a plan which we have jointly developed with the Planning Commission and staff, so as to develop projects which we ,an all be proud o€ -, Our design goal will always be to _strers t: meless design themes. I in that con;:ext we have the following peelisW nary observations: I:. Activity centers are fine but should occur naturally and not be forced. If Foothill Boulevard is not predominantly pedestrian, who will use the "Activity Ceiite. s'*? Foothill is' „simply too wide and too "highway- like” to attract intimate, pedestrian activity. Pedestrians are mt going tc sit outside in the hot sun on the north side,_ >f Foothill (which faces into the -sun) 2. Building :orientation needs to b�)multi- sided, not only addressing Foothill front;4ge. Buildings stpuld vary in size both width and height. Some "bu' � c I, 9 a.13n�s s.io`i.id ralate to the pedestrian by stepping .A';k while others L should not step back, in order to give h-sense of scale. 3. Buildings should be separated by.'open specde containing parking areas tirhich give a visual depth to the ptreet i scene.. 4. The reputation and track record of tip Lewis Companies (as evidenced by numerous award = winning designs) support our conclusipli_ that architectural styles should ice left to th'a Developer and his design team, j working in conjunction with the <'esign Review Committee. Unifying elements, sliclh as door height, color, landscape, material selection and scale, will provide the boulevard experience. Mr. Scott Murphy Apr;U 2, 1991 Page Three We should work closely together to balance the needs of` the community with the economic rea-iities of the„ development business.' If we work as a team Z °'relieve that W*� c211 sta eamline the development process and. work with fir the des bgn revi4i,w process as professionals offerirg creative solutions "to, the city's overall criteria within the contsxt of the existing Te:ra Vista Community Plan. Please let me kncw when we can - get trgether_ to discuss these issues. - sincerely yours MMc el L Jos ph Ol4non Commercia ivis on Vi a k;esident /'Sr. Project Menager Project Manager MLL;cs Enclosure cc: Ralph Lewifr, Don Thompson. Dick Mager, Ftan Bell, Joe Manisco Brad Buller City PlanrJer - Rancho Cug3monga, CA J i �L YIBBIL E ®Y V `S •',�N� �a SECTION _ RAGE 1, DESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURE 1 '' A. PRE DESQiGIr' EETING i B. PRELI1tvIIrTARY I..ANDSCA.'E DEaIGiX pj� SSE 1. CONC �:.PTC7?_t SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST C. WORKING DRAWINGS 1. SUBNffTTAL GUIDELINES D. ,-:PPROVET,,k ORM NG DR4 W- INCiS 1I. L�.:).NDSCAPE DI &SIG +i G?UIDELINES 7 A. DEuIGNCHARACTER B. PLANT SIZR AND DDESIG"N, C. SIMEN`1RIES r ' DuEGRA -iio N WITH ARCHrTECT ?..IRE ._ E. SITE Ll(-, '�`'. -G F. PLANT PALETTE G. SI' E FURNISHIN01of II1. S'T'ANDARD LANDSCAPE SPE IFICATIONS 24 t �� / i j T_ DES1G`T, REVIEW THE FCYLLOWING DE?CRIBES THE STEPS IN THE DESI;.GN � 1 EVIEW PROCESS FOR THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES Al vNG FOOTHILL'BLVD. IN TERRA VISTA. ALL $MI SSI ON& SHOULD B-, DELI` 'ERED TO: TOM DELLAQUILA LEWIS HOMES 1156 N MOUNTAIN AVE. P.O. BOA: 670 UPLAND, CA., 91786 .,a PRIOR TO ANY CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE DESIGN, THE DEVELOPER AND TUEIR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST MEET 'ViT IT'rr LEWIS HOMES. TFiE'PURPOS,E OF THI S MEETING I S TO -BECOME m i-:, CQUA I NTED WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINE'S AND THE PR'0CESS THAT ' WILL BE FOLLOWED. TY_ RESPONSIBILITIES OF 'k-x-E. DEVELOPER AND THEIR LANDSt�APE`tARCHITECT WILT �. ALSO BE REVIEWEL AT TRIS� TIME, "FE R ED 3-F- TMINARV LANDS ,bP PURPOSE: TO DEVELOP A CONCE?' T'`JA L LANDSCAPE SITF- "LAN DEPIC�'ING'THE SITE ORGANIZATION, BUILDING SIZE AND TYPE, PARKING LOCATION, ACCESS POINTS, CIRCULATION AND GENERAL GRADING CONSTRAINTS. TO CONFIRM THAT PROPOSED USES AND SITE ARE COMPATIBLE AND DESIGN FOLLOWS GENERAL GUIDELINES, A PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE 3UB74ITTED gyp` TO LEWIS HOMES FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. Win 2 CONCEPTU91, SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST REQ1,ESTED MATERIALS: THE FOLLOWING MATERIALS ARE TO BE SUBM=D TO LEWIS HOMES` j COMMERCIAL DIVISION PROJECT �r MANAGER. PLEASE SUBMIT 2 BLUE�INE COgIES OF EACH '1 1. PRELI,MINARY SITE PLAN AT I " =20' SCALE FOR REFERENCE ONLY A. BUILDING FOOTPRINT WITH �f DIMENSIONS TO PROP EkrY LINE B. PARKING LOT CONFIGURATION, NUMBER OF SPACES, CRITICAL DIMENSIONS C. WALKWAYS D. ACCESS DRIVE E. SITE PLAN ; 2. GRADING PLAN, INCLUDITYG l ELEVATIONS FOR REFERENCE ONLY. J 3. LANDSCAPE CONCEPT FLAN, INCLUDING PLANT PALETTE THE LANDISCAPE ARCHITECT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING - AI+iD INCLUDING THE FOL,OWING WITH THE SUBMITTAL - 4. URADINCe PLANS FROM MADOLE ASSOCIATES FAR THE SPECIFIC SITE 5. BUILDING FLOOR: PLANS, ELEVATIONS, AND GENERAL SPECIFI CA TI ONS OF !-1 3 EXTERIOR MATERIALS FROM THE SITE ARCHITECT. -> ALL PLAITS WILL BE REVIa?W, D FOR COMPLIANCE 'TO THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.. A SECOND CONCEPTUAL PLAN MAY REQiJisSTED IF THE SUP.MITTAL DOSE NOT MEET THE .SPECIFIED CRITE??IA. IF THE APPLICANT WISHES A IVI > EETI N MAY BE 'SCHEDULED WITH LEWI S HOM,, S TO DISCUSS. ANY COMMENTS MADE DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS UPON APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, A LETTER WILT. BE ISSUED BY LEWIS HOMES CONFIRMING THAT ALL REQ,JI'REMENTS HAVE BEEN MET AND APPROVED. THIS LETTER MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT .OF FINAL WORKING DRAWINGS. STEP i' _ WCDiRKiiV�i2 ONCE THE APPROVAL LETTER HAS BEEN OBTAINED_ FROM LEWIS HOMES, FOR THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PHASE, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MAY COMMENCE WITH FINAL WORKING DRAWINGS. THE WORKING =. DRAWING PACKAGE MUST BE PREPARED AT A MINIMUM OF 1 " = 20' -0 "SCALE BY A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT LICENSED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. DRAWINGS ARE TO BE SUBMITTED TO LEWIS HOMES, FIRST FOR A REVIEW AND APPROVAL BEFORE ' SUBMITTING THEM TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FOR PLAN CHECK. ALT,.. PLANS MUST BE STAMPED APPROVED AND SIGNED BY LEWIS .HOMES PRIOR TO CITY SUBMITTAL. THE CITY WILL NOT REVIEW ANY PLANS THAT HAVE NOT �)EEN STAMPED AND SIGNED. THE SUBMITTAL MUST INCLUDE 2 BLUELIN_E COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING: i 4 1. SITE PLAN 2. PRECISE GRADING PLAN INCLUDING lJ DRAINAGE 3. LANDSCAPE PLAN WITH IRRIGATION 4. HARDSCAPE, SITE LIGHTING & FURNI S'HI N isS. IF LURING THE CITY PLAN CHECK PROCESS, REVISIONS ARj'z MADE TO THE DRAWINGS PER THEIR REQUEST, THE APPLICANT MUST PRCVI.DE'LEWIS HOMES WITH A COPY OF THE REQUEST.''THIS SHOULD BE DONE BY PROVIDING A XEROXX ON BOND OF ANY MARKED UP PLANS OR LETTERS. SUBMITTAL GUIDELINES 1 SUBMISSIONS SHOULD INCLUDE `A A_INIMUM OF TWO (2) COPIES, EXCEPT FOR WORKING DRAWINGS WHICH SHALL -BE ", TWO (2). PLANS M) —rJST BE ROLLED. 2. INCLUDE LOT /PARCEL AND TRACT /PARCET, MAP NUMBERS ON ALL PLAL'S AND OTHER DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW. 3. ANY SUBMITTALS NOT COMPLETE AS TO REQUIRED NUMBFR OF COPIES OR I14FORMATION SHALL BE DEEMED NOT SUBMITTED. 4. IN THE EVENT LEWIS HOMES- FAILS EITHER TO APPROVE OR TO DISAPPROVE SUBMITTED PLANS WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER SUBMITTAL, IT SHALL BE PRESUMED THE FLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN APPROVED. 5. IN THE EVENT FLANS SUBMITTED TO LEWIS HOMES FOR APPROVAL ARE DISAPPROVED, THE APPLICANT MAY APPEAL IN WRITING OR REQUEST A MEETING WITH THE f- ROJECT MANAGER IN COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT' AT LEWIS HOMES. T°IE WRITTEN REQU2ST MUST BE RECEIVED NOT MORE THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS FOLLOWING THE FINAL DECI S I ON.I F REQUESTED, A MEETING WILL B .� 5 t HELD WITH THE APPROPRIATE STAFF MEMBERS AT LEWIS HOMES TO DISCUSS THE PLANS. 6­ SUBMISSION OF A MASTER PLAN IS REQUIRED WHEN I;EV'ELOPIVVJ[EDrT WILL OCCUR IN STAGES, THE � MASTER PLAN MUST BE APPROVED BY LEWIS ROMES ,BEFORE THE; CONCEPTUAL SITE PI,AN IS SUBMITTED. LEW HOMES. RESFRV:ES THE RIGHT TO REQUZE A MINIMUM- SIZE FIRST PHASE IN KEEPING WITH MARKETING -AND PROJECT IMAGE GOALS ". wINt:S PURPOSE: TO PROVIDE RECORD OF FINAL CITY APPROVED WORKING DRAWINGS FOR LEWIS _BIOMES' RECORD/ CONFIRMATION. THESE SHOULD BE PROVIDED AS SOON AS BUILDING PERMITS HAVE BEEN ISSUED. PLANS MUST BE XEROX ON POND OF CITY, APPROVED AND STAMPED BLUELIIE PRINTS. AM F !� I II. LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES A D 'SIQN r� HA A-CTER LANDSCAP', DESIGNS SHOULD HELP TO REINFORCE BOTH THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND MASS ALONG WITH THE PLANTING SCHEME FOR F'GI,- THILi, BLVD. FOOTHILL BLVD. IS CHARACTERIZED THROUGHOUT THE CITY BY SYCAMORE TREES BOTH PLAT'ANUS RACEMOSA AND PLANTANUS ACERIFOLIA. WITHIN THE COMMUNITY OF TERRA VISTA, P I NUS CANARIENSIS HtiS BEEN INTRODUCED ALONG FOOTHILL BLVD. TO I-TELP REINFORCE AND SOFTEN THE SITE AND ITS' AMENITIES DURING THE WINTER' MONTHS. THE RATIO OF 5'0:5 0 HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED ALONG THIS FRONTAGE. FOOTHILL, BLVD. PARI,'`VAY SECTION 8 THE CLIMATE OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA EXPERIENCES THE, EXTREIV "S THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. If Is REQUIRED THAT THE PLANT PALETTE BE USED THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR THE COMMUNITY. COLORS THROUGH THE USE OF DECIDUOUS AND FLOWERING PLANT MATERIAL SHOULD BE USED TO CREATE VISUAL EXCITEMENT AND SEASONAL CHANGE. FOLIAGE, COLORS, P ND TEXTURES ALONG WITH ULTIMATE SIZE NEED TO BE CONSIDERED TO INSURE A ` SU"rTSSFUL SI TE TMSI GN, WITH THE EVER INCIEASING CONCERNS OF WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE LANDSCAPE, DROUGH- TOLERAY. r PLANT MATERIAL USAGE IS ENCOURAGED. THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HAS ADOPTED A XERISCAPE " ORDINANCE THAT DEALS WITH THE ASPECT OF WATER CONSERVATION IN LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION. IT IS REQUI RED THA T A COP Y OF THI S GUI DEB OOK I S OBTA I NED FROM THE CITY AND REVIEWED PRI6R TO ANY CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS. i B. PLANT_SIZE AND DEIGN PALM TREE VARIETIES CAN BE USED AS ACCENT..' PLANTS AS WELL AS VERTICAL IDENTIFICATI -aI', IFOR THE SITE - f 117 N PALMS AS ACC -t� 9 SITES IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO FOOTHILL BLVD. MUST CONTINUE THE ES TABL'I SHED PLANT CHARA CTER. ALL TREE PLANTING MIXES SHOULD .:ON'TAIN At 10 % DECIDUOUS - 90% EVERGREEN SPECIES TO PROVIDE BOTH SEASONAL Cll"NGE, AS WELL AS, TO INCORPORATE THE SOLAR ASPECTS OF PLANTING DESIGN. ALI. SHRUBS MUST BE EVERGREEN. qp CANDY GROVE INIPARKIN(f s:0a PARKING LOT PLANTINGS ARE TO INCLUDE A DESIGN AND SPECIES TYPE WHICH CREATE A CANG.Mz' =GROVE AFFECT OVER PARKING AREAS; MINIMUM 15% OF PARKING AREAS SHALT BE DEDICATED TO LANDSCAPE. PLANTE'3 MU,,'! BE A BOUNDARY TO ' PARKING ON THREE (s) SIDES.- THERE IS TO BE A MINIMUM 7' VIDE PLANTING AREA BETWEEN BUILDING AND PARKING. PARKING LOT TREES SHALL BE PROVIDED AT G-&E (1) TREE FOR EVERY FOUR (4) PARKING STALLS WITHIN THE PARKING LOT LIMIT (TREES WITHIN 10' OF PARKING AREA` THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN TEN 10 (10) CONTINUOUS. "PARKING STALLS WITHOUT BEING INTERPUPTED B Y 'A FIVE (5) FOOT WIDE MINIMUM PLANTING ISLAND CON_.AINING A TREE. ALL TREES ARE TO BE A. MINIMUM OF 1 -5 GAL, WITH TREES AT THE END OF A BANK OF STALLS,, BEING A MINIMUM OF 24" BOX. MINIMUM %V' BOX AT END OF BANK RIMI UM 5` WIDE PLANTER MDI UM 15 GAL. TREES ON- SITE ACCENT TREES AT SA TE ENTRY SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 48" BOX, ON -SITE ACCENT TREES AT BUILDING ENTRIES SHALL BE PLANTED AT A MINIMUM SIZE OF _26" BOX. ALL PALMS ARE TO BE A MINIMUM OF 8' BROWN TRUNK IN SIZE. ALL PLANT 'vIATERIAL THROUGHOUT THE SITE IS TO BE PLANTLD AS FOLLOWS: AL?_ SHRUBBERY IS TO BE CHOSEN WITH MAINTENANCE AS A CONCERN. SHRUBS THAT HAVE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 10'-12' ARE NOT TO BE PLANTED 'UNDER A 4' OR 5' AIGH WINDOW. 2 1 12 MINI MUM 5 GAL. SHRUB S SP A CED A T 2( 3 THEI R MAXIMUM SPREAD ON CENTER ADJACENT TO BUILDING AND 'THROUGHOUT PARKING AND COMMON AREAS. ; ! MINIMUM 1 GAL. SHR, ,IBS SPACED AT 2/3 THEI R MAXIMUM SPREAD ON CENTER MAY BF, USED" FOR` -' Iti FOREGROUND MATEFIAL AND MUST B��', BACKED BY A MINIMUM 5 GAL, SHRUB. E MINIMUM 15 GAL. SHRUBS SPACED AT 2/ 3 THEIR MAXIMUM! SPREAD ON CENTER ARE TO BE USktb AT BUI LDI N'_"r ENTRIES AND KEY FOCAL AREAS. MINIMUM 15 GAL. SHRUBS SPACED AT 2/3 THEIP, MAXIMUM SPREAD ON CENTER ARE TO BE USFD,'AROUND f ALL UTILITI%S. REQUIRED CLEARANCES' MUST BE ADHERED TO. MINIMUM PLANTED HEIGHT 42" ALL VINES AND ESPALIERS ARE TO BE A ,MINIMUM OF 5 GAL. IN SIZE. MAXIMUM SPREAD 12" O,-c. ALL PLANTING AREAS ARE TO BE PLANTED WITH GROUND COVER ROOTED CUTTINGS. SPACING IS TO BE APPROPRIATE TO SPREAD AND GROWTH RATE OF ! MA'T'ERIAL. ALL SLOPES ARE TO BE PLANTED WITH PERMANENT GROUND COVER ROG; LL`_ CU T TI NGS FROM FLATS OR CONTAINERS. 301t OF THE SLOPE MUST BE PLANTED WITH SHRUBBERY OF A MINIMUM SIZE OF 5 GOAL. NO TURF' SHALL BE PLANTED ON SI `)PES OVER 5:1 GRADIENT. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE SEPARATED FROM GKOUND COVER AREAS WITH A 6" CONCRETE mow CURB. J rr,, 44,�'� 19 , 3' LAYERED MAS SINGS OF PLA NT MATERIAL. ALL SPACING OF PLANT MATERIAL IS TO BE BASED UPON GROWTH RATE AND ULTIMATE SPREAD. THE INTENT IS TO PROVIDE MiAS!,ES OF PL APNTE9 MATERIAL AND NOT INDIVIDUt. LLY SCULPlJRED SHRUBS. SHRUBBERY IS TO BE PLANTED IN LAYERED MASSED BY INCORPORATING BACKGRtiUNU, MIDDLE GROUND, AND FOREGROUND PLA' WINGS AS WELL AS ACCENT PL_, ,gTING. BACKGROUND, . MDLE AND '`' ► ' FOREGROUND PLAN-iM IG n� J J J J • 13 AOL C• SITE NTR S THE BUILDER IS ENCOURAGED TO DcVELOP AN INDIVIDUAL AND DISjINCTIVE ENTRY STATEMENT BY INCORPORATING COLORFUL SHRUBBERY, GROUND COVER, OR ANNUALS ALONG WITH ACCENT TREES AND MONUMENTATI ON. A STRONG CONTINUOUS USE OF PLANT MATERIAL SHOULD BE USED AS A DIRECTIONAL FORCE THROUGH THE SITE. SOME TYPE OF ARRIVAL FEATURE IS TO BE INCORPORATED SUCH AS A WATER FEATURE, ACCENT TREES, SCULPTURE, ETC. AND THE:PLANTING SHOULD` HELP TO DIRECT ONE TO IT AND- R,EI NFORCE IT, PLAINT MATERIAL AS DIRErTIONAL FORCE .O r AQ iVAL FEATURE PLANT MATERIAL FOR REINFORCEMENT 14 THE USE OF HARDSCAPE ELEMENTS SUCH AS COLORED AND OR TEXTURED PAVING AT ENTRIES AND KEY POINTS THROUGHOU T THE SITE IS ENCOURAGED; ALONG WITH LOW WALLS AND WATER FEATURES, I.I. INIEGRA110N HUJ , ; HITF TURF THE SENSITIVE INTEGRATION OF LANDSCAPE WITH BUILDING MASS IS A MAJOR DESIGN GOAL. CLIMBING FLOWERING VINES, RAISED PLANTERS, PO'T`TED PLANT MATERItiL AND HANGING VINES SHOULD BE INCORPORATED. COLOR SHOULD BE CHOSEN THAT WILL COMPLIMENT AND ACCENT THE BUILDINGS' EXTERIOR COLORS. IN THE CASE OF MULTI -STORY BUILDINGS, TREES SHOULD BE CHOSEN TO HELP (OFTEN THE MASS W-JILE COMPLIMENTING THE ARCHITECTURE. ON THE BACK SIDES OF THE BUILDINGS SUCH AS MAJOR DEPT. STORES, ETC. WHERE WINDOWS AND DOORS DON'T OCCUR, 24" BOX VERTICAL Al TREES ARE TO BE PLANTED AT 12' O.C.` TO SCREEN VIEW. ref _ SPECIAL USE AREAS SUCH AS ENTRIESq r_j'� c� `- „,.`•. ARRIVAL FEATURES, AND PEOPLE- GATHERING °"”" AREAS SHOULD BE HIGHLIGHTED WITH COLORFUL ACCENT TREES, " SHRUBS, AND GROUND COVERS. PLANTING SHOULD REINFORCE THE USES AND CHARACTER OF ACTIVE SPACE WITH MORE STRUCTURED AND ARTICULATED DESIGNS. WATER ELEMENTS, TRELLAGE, LOW PLANTER WALLS, SITE FURNITURE, UPGRADED 1,AVING MATERIALS, ETC. ARE ALL ENCOURAGED TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THESE SPACES. Aim L,a}t,)-to>`_ -3 r� I' S E. SITE LIG 1ENCT I LIGHTING OF SITE AND STRUCTURES SHOULD BE DESIGNED FOR VISIBILITY, SECURITY, AND NIGHT USAGE WHERE. APPLICABLE. STRUCTURES SHOULD BE WASHELY, WITH A FOCUS ON SIGNAGE FOR IDENTIFICATION. LI GHTI NG OF TREES IN FOCAL AREAS IS ENCOURAGED FOR BOTH DFT;I NI T I ON AND DIRECTION. IN AREAS WHERE NIGHT USE is ANTICIPATED, AREAS SHOULD BE LIT WITH BOTH BOLLARD AND POLE LIGHTS TO PROVIDE VISIBILITY AND SAFETY; LIGHTING FOR NIGHT USE C AS IN ANY DESIGN, IT IS DESIRED THAT THE LIGHTING USED COMPLIMENTS THE SITE AND ITS' STRUCTURES. PARKING LOTS AND PEOPLE AREAS BEI NG THE MAI N FOCUS OF I NTENSI TY WI TH STRUCTURES AND SIGNAGE WASHED FOR IDENTIFICATION AND ENHANCEMENT. IT IS ENCOURAGED THAT ANY LI GHTI NG DESIGN IS DONE BY A PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANT AND ALL CITY ORDINANCES ARE FOLLOWED FOR COMPLIANCE. 1,6 F. PY.ARtT PA��' TREES ALBIZIA JULJIBRISSIN SILK TREE ARECASTRUM RONLANZOFFIANUM QUEEN PALM ` BR.ACHYC iITON POPULET,JM I' BOTTLE TREE f CEDRUS .ATLANTICA BLUE ATLAS CEDAR CEDR.US DEODARA CALIFORNIA CHRISTMAS TREE CHORISIA. SPRCIOSA F�IOSS SILK TREE CINNA MOMUM CAMPH( BRA CAMPHOR TREE CUPAN7AANACARDIOIDES CARROTWOOD ERIOBOTRYA D. C OPPSa MNE COPPF.RTONE LOC UAT 1 GEIJERA FARVIFLORA. AUSTRALIAN WILLOW LAGERSTROEMIA MICA CRAPE MYRTLE LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM JAPANESE PRIVET LIQI?TDAN BAR S'!'YRACIFLUTA. SWEET GT_ M LIRIODENDRON TULIPHERA TULIP TREE MAGNOLIA GRANDIFF.ORA MAGNOLIA MAJESTIC BEAUTY I 'MAJESTIC BEAUTY ! MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA SAMUEL SOMMER MAGNOLIA 'SAMUEL SOMNIER' MAYIENUS BOARIA MAYTEN'TREE - MIN. 36" BOX " MELALEUCA LEUCADENDRA CAJEPUT TREE AK i _ 7 17 MELALEUCA LINNIFOLIA fiLAXLEAF PHOENIK DACTYLIFER A DATE PALM RHUS LANCEA AFRICAN SUmAc PILAUS CA VARIENSIS CANARY ISLAND PIN PILAUS ELDARICA ELDARICA PINE PINUS HALEPENTSIS ALEPPO PINE PINUS PINEA ITALIAN ;STONE PINE PISTACHA CHINENSIS CHINENSE PISTACHE I PITTOSPORUM PHILLYRAEOIDES YIILLU dW PITTOSPORUM PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA I LONDON PLANE TREE PLATANUS RACEMOSA VJFORNJA SYCAMORE POLOCARPUS GRACILIOR FERN PINT' PYRUS CALLER YANA ARISTOCRAT ARISTOCRAT PlAiE SCFMNUS TEREBITNTHIFOLIUS BRAZILLIAN PEPPER STRELIT2IA NICOLAI GIANT BIRD OF PARADISE TRACHYCARPUS FORTUNEI WINDMILL PALM TRISTANIA CONFERTA BRISBANE BOX ULMi1S PARVIFOLIA SEMPERVIRENS EVERGREENELM WASHINGTONIA ROBUSTA MEXICAN FAN PALM SHRUBS ABELIA SPP, ABELIA AGAPANTHUS AFRICANUS LILY OF THE NILE B u:YUS MICROPHYLLA JAPANESE BOXWOOD COPROSMA BAVERI `VARIEGATA' MIRROR PLANT DIETES VEGETA FORTI\tIGHT LILY . 18 DODONAEA VISCOSA HOP SEED ELAEAGNUS'UNGENS SILVERBERRY ESCALLONIA FRADESH ESCALLONIA EUONYMUS JAPONICA EUONYMUS EUROPS PECTINATUS EURYOPS; GREVILLIA NOELLI GREVIL,LIA HEMEROCALLIS ROSEIJS PEF.IWnvKLE HYPERTCUM SPP_ < ` . ST. JOHN'S WORT; JUNIPERUS SPP: JUNIPER LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM LIGUSTRUIvT Mai OPORUM SPP. MYOPORUM MYRTUS SPP. MYRTi3S NANDINA DOMESTICA HEAVENLY BAMBOO OSNL NTHUS ILICIFOLIUS FALSE HOLLY PHORMIUM TENAX NEW ZEALAND FLAX PHOTINA FRASERI PHOTINIIf PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA MOCK ORANGE PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA VARIEGAL'A VARIEGATED PITTOSPORUM PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA WHEELERI W',cEELER'S DWARF PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR YEW PINE PYRACANTHA SPP. PYRACANTHA RAPI3IOLEPIS MICA INDIA HAWTHORNE STRELITZIA REGINAE BIRD OF PARADISE VIBURNUM SPP. VIBURNUM XYLOSMA CONGESTUM XYLOSMA VINES CISSUS ANTARCTICA KANGAROO TR.EEBINE CLYTOSTOMA CALLISTEGIOMES VIOLET TRUMPET DISTICTUS BUCCINATORIA RED TRUMPET VINE FICUS REPENS CREEPING FIG GELSEMIUMSEMPERVIRENS CAROLINA JESSAMINE PARTBENOCISSUS TRICUSPIDATA BOSTON IVY ROSA BANKSIAE LADY BANKS' ROSE 19 GROUND COVERS ` C©TONEASM SPP. COMNEASTER GAZANIA HYBRID GAZANIA 'MITSUMA YELLOW` i HEDERA HELIX KAHN'S IVY ' HEDERA HELIX NEEDLEPOINT NEDLEPOINT IVY HYPERICUM CALYCiNMJ ST. JOHNS WORT ROSMARINUM OFFICINALIS ROSEMARY TRACHEL.OSPERM(JMJASMINOIDES STAR JASMINE ADDITIONAL PLANT SPECIES MAY BE SUBMITTED TO LEWIS HOMES FOR APPROVAL .'i mw 20 G. SITE FUgNTSAr' rr� THE FOLLOWING FURNITi'URE ELEMENTS HAVE BEEN STANDARDIZED TO ENHANCE A UNIFIED COMMUNITY TIIEME. THEY SHALL BE USED WITHIN ALL AREAS TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CO. . LIGHTING F-A VAILABLE FROM. RCHITECTURA L AREA GHTING BSIDIARY OF KIDDE; INC. 24.4 ARTESIA BLVD. MIRADA, CA. 90638 link POLE LIGHT CAT. NO. ALR -206 I WITH CUSTOM LOUVERED HEAD BOLLARD LIGHT CAT. NO. ALR8 BENCh AND TRASH / ASH RECD'- *rACLE AVAILABLE FROM: LAWRENCE CASEY & ASSOCIATES 4139 VANETTA PLACE ] STUDIO CITY, CA. 91604 11 818- 761 -06:55 BENCH CAT. P:O. PIC3005- BS-72, XD -E i TRA S H/ A S RECEP'x`A CLE CAT. NO. PK5002 -20 -46 21 ULTRUM MODEL #7700 AVAILABLE FROM: Ii MORRE RECREATION PARK EQUIPMENT P;O. BOX 3337 THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91359 805-375-1324 24 II . STANDARD LANDSCAPE SPECIFICATIONS THE FOLLOW?NG INFORMATION ITEMq,,SHALL BE INCLUDED IN ALL BID SET AND CONSTRUCTION ISSUE LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTS: A . A DDI TI OVA L. TTTRI DI CTI ONA RE(�IJI RFMEN T S 1 . II-11 ADDITION TO ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY WIT11 PERTINENT RECOMMENDATI ONS"CONTAI NED IN: A. ". ;STANDARD SPECIE CATION FOR PUBLIC I WORKS CONSTRUCTION LATEST EDITION L BY THE APWA -ASC JOINT COOPERATIVE COMMITTEE, (GREEN BOOK) ALL PERTINENT SECTIONS.; B. AMERICAN JOINT COMMITTEE ON HORTICULTURE "STANDARD PLANT NAMES ". I i 2. CONTRACTC --; SHALL STRICTLY ADHERE TO ALL TREE PLANTING REQUIREMENTS WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STANDARD DRAWING #601. I B. :"ONTRA CTOR' S SUPERVISTO N THE SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN A QUALIFIED SUPERVISOR WITH COMPETENT COMMUNICATIVE SKILLS ON THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES DURING CONS RUCTI ON THROUGH COMPLETION OF PICKUP W ORK. i 25 C. PROJECT SITE i SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY AND ACCEPT -ALL GRADING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO START OF 'LANDSCAPE, 77 ORK. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL GRADIN'G-AND DRAINAGE WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE AREAS AFTER ACCEPTANCE OF THESE �.REAS. ALL FLAT SLABS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 18 INCHES OF LEVEL AREA BETWEEN SLAB AND ' TOP OF SLOPE (GREATER THAN 3:1)._' D GENERAL REO?TIREM -NT4 1. ROCK REMOVAL: CONTRACTOR SHALL HAUL AWAY ANY ROCKS GENERATED FROM CONSTRUCTION LARGER THAN I " DIAMETER. IwO ROCK EXCEEDING 1" SHALL BE ALLOWED ON SURFACE OF FINISHED GRADED AREAS.' 2. WEED ABATEMENT: CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE WEED ABATEMENT FOR ALL PLANTING AREAS AFTER TOP SOIL IS GRADED ol BY WATERING TEN (I 0) DAYS TO STIMULATE WEED GROWTH, SPRAY WITH ONE (1 ) APPLICATION OF "ROUND-UP" PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS, THEN INSTALL PLANT MATERIAL. 3. SOIL P REF A RA TI ON- TURF SHRUB 8z GROUND COVER AREAS A. 'THE,FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS SHOULD BE UNIFORMLY BROADCAST AND THOROUGHLY INCORPORATED TO A MI NI MUM 6 " DEP TH BY 'MEA NS OF ROTOTILLER OR EQUAL: A MTJ 1 0 0 0 O. FEET 0 6 CU. YDS. NITROGEN STABILIZED ORGANIC AMENDMENT DERIVED FROM REDWOOD, FIR, OR CEDAR SAWDUST 26 0 15 LBS. 1.2 -12 -12 COMMERCIAL FERTI LI MR B. REMOVE "ALL ROCK MATERIAL AS SPECIFIED ELSEWHERE, C. PLANT ALL CONTAINER MATERIAL. D. RAKE OUT ALL SHRUB GROUND COVER PLANTING AREAS (RETAIN WATERING BASINS AS NEEDED) TO SMOOTH EVEN GRADIENT'S OF THE SPECIFIED GRADE DIFFERENTIALS AT THE EDGE OF THE PAVING. 4. FINISH GRADE: FINISH GRADE OF PLANTING AREAS AFTER APPLICATION OF SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE TWO INCHES (2 ") BELOW TOP OF CONCRETE WALKS AND CURBS IN SHRUB AREAS, AND ONE INCH (I ") BELOW IN LAWN AREAS. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL SLOPE TO DRAIN AT 2% MINIMUM SURFACE GRADIENT. 5. ROOT SUARD BARRIERS; CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL ROOT Gi3'ARD BARRIERS WHERE TREES OCCUR WITHIN 5' -0" OF ANY CONCRETE FLATWORK, CURE AND GUTTER, UTILITIES, STRUCTURES, ETC. UNLESS DIRECTED OT:{ERWI SE. AVAILABLE FROM: DEEP ROOT CORPORATION (213) 552 -3337, (714) 646 -4505. FOR INSTALLATION SEE APPROPRIATE DETAIL. 6. PRUNTNG: FINE PRUNE ALL SPECIMEN TREES AFTER PLANTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE .LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ONLY. 7. DETA Imo, REFER TO THE APPROPRIATE DETAILS THAT ARE A PART OF THESE GUIDELINES. L m, tJ, O > -e" lq r 27 8. BA X_EJ L_; BACKFILL IS AS FOLLOWS: THOROUGHLY BLEND THE FOLLOWING: 6 PARTS BY VOLUME ON -SITE SOIL 4 PARTS BY VOLUME NITROGEN STABILIZED ORGANIC AMENDMENT 1 LB. 12 -12 -12 FERTILIZER PER -CU. YDS OF MIX 2 LBS. (IRON SULFATE) PER''CU. YDS OF + MIX AND USE AROUND THE ROOTBALL OF CONTAINER - GROWN TREES AND SHRUBS 9. P LA NT TA B LET S CHEDULE I ALLON CONTAINER RECEIVES 2 -3 TABLETS 3 GALLON CONTAINER RECEIVES 3 -6 TABLETS I` 5 GALLON CONTAINER RECEIVES 6 -9 TABLETS 7 GALLON CONTAINER RECEIVES 8- 1.0 TABLETS 10 GALLON CONTAINER RECEIVES 10 -12 TABLETS 15 GALLON CONTAINER RECEIVES 12.15 TABLETS 20 -24: BOX RECEIVES 14-16 TABLETS ANIL 30" BOX nECEI VES 16-18 TABLETS 36" BOX RECEIVES 18 -20 TABLETS 42" BOX RECEIVES 20 -22 TABLETS 48" BOXRECEIVES 22 -24 TAn,z.ETS 60" BOX RECEIVES 32 -26 TABLn`TS LARGER SIZES- -FOR EACH 1/2" CALIPER 3 -4 TABLETS 10. VINE PLANTING: ALL VINES' AND ESPALIERS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE NURSERY STAKES REMOVED AND VINE RUNNERS ESPALIERED TO THE ADJACENT WALL, FENCE OR POST WITH 3I8" DI A. X 4'' CADM. PLATED EYE BOLTS. SECURE TO MASONRY WALL WITH MASONRY EXPANDERS. WIRE IS TO BE GALVANIZED I' STEEL. ALL VINES ARE TO SPREAD TO THEIR MAXIMUM SIZE. S$E DETAIL. II 11, GROUND CtSVER PLANTINQ: ALL GROUND COVER SHALL BE PLANTED A MINIMUM OF 8 "AWAY FROM TI-€E DRIPLINE OF ANY i 25 SHRUB PLANTING AND Si* FROM ANY HARDSCAPE FEATURE. ' 12. PROCUREMENT OF PLANT MATFn,IALS A. CONTRACTOR SHALL WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) WORKING DAYS FOLLOWING AWARD OF CONTRACT SUBMIT TO LEWIS HOMES AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT A COMPLETE LIST OF PROPOSED CONTAINER AND FLATTED GROUND COVER; THEIR BOTANICAL AND COMMON NAME; EACH REQUIRED QUANTITY AND SIZE; THEIk NURSERY LOCATIONS AND NURSERY SALES PERSON TO CONTACT; THEIR SPECIFICATIONS AS TO HEIGHT, SPREAD AND TRUNK CALIPERS AT ONE FOOT (1') ABOVE GRADE (FOR TREES). B. A POLAROID, 35mm REPRESENTATIVE j PHOTO OR SPEC SHEET IS REQUIRED FOR Adbh EACH TREE AND SHRUB. FOR TREES 48" BOX AND LARGER, A PHOTO IS PrEFERED. C. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHA L. BE APPROVED (TAGGED) AT TH IRSERY SOURCE BY LEWIS HOMES OR ')SCAIIE A RCHI TECT P RI OR TO DELI VEk I E. _ESTA BLI SIIMENT MA I NT EA A N 0 1. MAINTENANCE PERIOD: CONTRACTOR SHALL ALLOW IN HIS BID FOR A SIXTY (6 0) ,JAY MAINTENANCE PERIOD. THE PERIOD SHALL BEGIN FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF WORK AND UPON APPROVAL OF WORK BY LEWIS LiOMES. ALL PLANT MA iERIAL 15 GALLON IN SI:E AND SMALLER SHALL BE GUARANTEED FOR A NINETY DAY (9 0 ) PERIOD "AFTER COMPLETION OF SPECIFIED MAINTENANCE PERIOD, ALL TREES 24" BOX SIZE AND,T ' I?GER SHALL BE GUARANTEED FORA ;OF ONE (1) YEAR FOLLOWING 29 WRITTEN FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORD BY LEWI S HOMES. ,If 2.' EST'ABLISFilvIENT 11:AINTENAI4CF FERTI_LIZA:`i'TON: APPLY S 1 LBS. 16 - -6;.8 PER 1,000 S Q. FT_ TO ALL TURF AND GROUND CO. ER AREAS THREE WEEKS AFTER INSTALLATION AND THEREAFTER EVERY 30 DAYS DURING MAINTENAN!" `,,PERI OD. 3. PRELIMINARY WATERING"SCII LEI, , FOR THE LAST 30 DAYS OF T4 AINTENANCE, THE ` LANDS -A.PE CONTRACTOK SHALL SUB IVIIT A PRELIMINARY WATERING(IRRIGATION) ; SCHED'v "LE'TO LE�TVIS HOMES FOP RE1JiEW. I I l; 1 r I it RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUO MONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOP.ENT' DISTRICT A-HENDMENT NO. W,, -01, REQUESTING TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT DIE"1RICTS McaY FROM "Op" (OFFICE PROFESSIONAL) TO "FBSpo (FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN) FOR A t _8a3 ACRE PARCEL 'LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ROCHESTER AIMIME, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUyPORT THEREOF APR: 227 - 152 -18 AND d0. A. jecitals. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has initiated an application for Development District Amendment No. 91 -01 as descriEied in ti,,e' title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Drsvelopnent District Amendment is referred to as "the appL'cation." (ii) On April 24, 1991, the Planning Commj.. <eion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public h,�;rinq on the _application and concluded said bearing on that date. i (iii) All legal prerequisites prior 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 a5- ,follows: d. This Commission hereby specifically finds t.aat all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part. A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing on April 24, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this, Commission hereby specifically, finds as follows: (a) The amendment pertains to a :i 8.3 acre parcel of lan;r',which k, is located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue with a street frontage of ±900 feet along Foothill Boulevard and 1400 feet along Rochester Avenue and is presently vacant. Said parcel is currently designated as "OP" (Office Professional); and I (b) The property to the north is designated for residential uses and is developed with single family homes. The property to the west ids - designated for office and commercial uses and is vacant. The'property to the south is deaigrated for industrial uses and is developed with a single family residence. The property to the east is designated for utility and flood control facilities and is developed with such; and fS PLANNING COMMIS6..CON RESOLUTION NO. DDA 91 -01 - CITY OF RANCHO cucAMONGA April 24, 1991 Page 2 (c ) e This amendment nt does not conflict with the .Land Use Policies the of General Plan and will provide for development within the district Li a :Wanner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and (d) This amendment will romote the p goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and i (e) This amendment would not be materially injurious or - detrimantal to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environmer_t nor the surrounding properties. 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 i and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the subject'property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the scrroundin,at`ea; and (b) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment no,z the surrounding properties; anu (c) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the AdSk General Plan. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further,, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. S. Based upon the findings and conclusion& set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves that pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 Of the California Governv,Rnt Code, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby;rect�,nunends approval on the 24th day of April 1991 of Development District Amendment No. 91 -01. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL 1991. it PLANNING COMMISSIO.7 L%v THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Suzanne R. Chitia, Mice- Chairman PLANNING COAIMI ^¢YON RESOLUTION NO. D A 91 -01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA April 24, 1991 Page 3 y, ATTEST: r ' Brad 'Buller, Secretary , it I, Brad 'Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of thb`City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby cetrtify that the foregoing Resolution wee duly and regularly introduced, pasa`9d, and adopted by the Planning Cc,%nission of the n City of Rancho Cucamonga, A a regular meeting of the Planni6t174omm esion held an the 24th day of April 1Sil, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: 1 t NOES: COMMISSIONERSe ASSENT: GOMMISSIVIERS: _ h r• 4, I RESOLUTION No. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING G01.< ssION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIn PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91 -01, REQUESTING TO AMEND THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC' PLAN TO INCLUDE THE i 8.3 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ROCHESTER AVENUE WITHIN SUBAREA 4 AND ESTABL.SH STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPgORT THEREOF - APINS 227- 152 -18 AND 30. A. Recitals. (i) The-'City of Rancho Cucamonga has initiated an application for Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment No. 91 -01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment is referred to a3',!+ -;he application." (ii) en April 24, 1991, the Planring 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 prior 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 during the above - referenced public hearing on April 24, 1991, i.ncludir_g written and oral staff reports., - together with public test nv. this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The amendment pertains ¢r; a t 9.3 acre parcel of land which is located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue with a street frontage of 3900 feet along Foothill Boulevard and ±400 feet along Rochester Avenue and is presently vacant. S.Lid parcel is currently designated as "OP" (Office Professional); and (b) The property to the north is designated for residential uses and is developed with single family homes. The property to the west is designated for office and commercial' user,and is vacant. The property to the south is des-ignated for industrial uses And is developed with a single family residence. The property to the east is designated for utility and flood control facilities and is developed with such; and i; . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION No. FBSPA 91 -01 - CITY OF',IANCHO CUCAMONGA April 24, 1991 Page 2 (c) This ax, ­ment will incorporate the f 8.3 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue into Subarea 4 of the Foothill Boulevard specific Plan as an Activity Center, and (d) This amendment will maintain the;roame -uses that are currently permitted or conditionally permitted under the "OP" designation of the Development Code; and 4e) This amendment will "tie" together the visual aspects of Foothill'3oulevard as a major commercial corridor through the implementation of streetscape and site deni gn standards contained within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. I 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, thim,rommission hereby finds and j concludes as follows: (a) That the amendment will provide for' developma -', of a comprehensively planned urban community within the district that is srperf2or to the development otherwise allowable under alternate regulations; and (b) That the amendment will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the Gensral Plan and with related development and growth management policies of the City; and (c) That the' amendment Oill provide for the construction, improvement, or extension of transportation facilities, public utilities, and public services required by developmentjwithin the district. 4. This Commission hereby finde' that the project has been reviewed and considered in c", kiance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, %nis Commission bereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. S. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves as follows: (a) The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment No. 91 -01, as attached in Exhibit "A." (b) That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. FBSPA 91 -01 CITY OF RANCHO'CUCAMONGA April 24, 1992 Page 3 APPROVED AM ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL 1991. \1 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA , B 1 Suzanne R. Chitiea, Vice- Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary, of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby terrify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, paseed, and adopted by tho Planning Commission of the city of Rancho Cucamonga, 4t a regu'iar meeting of the Planning Commission held' on the 24th day of April iS:f1_, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: AM ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS. .`V c , IQ'0,V. �'r St9" ` �- .. �.. W � BID .taws ro,+wrs�,vrd•,�tt, � ' � ,a a - astir ° I i Ila -' O A 1J EXHIBIT A -'! ^i CL ut I, cc t z 0 a J 'M'AA .aacvo� vs+aargMyy��, � I J - mtmmmnimir mmtt� =- 1 AIRL gg2ji C 17a-! J `� �atutiltttytttttt itttllltil _ t w� g M 8 EXHIBIT A-2 SUMMARY �AB1 j Ol pFRttsaTr_ (Yt e�� COtiI)[T[Oti4i 7 Y PFRt1ITTFf) r04 t'917 REi A7L COMMFI2 [A tC q Subarea C - Subarea Two Subarea Three Subarea Four St" O MR p CC CC O h"O R"�, SC• r`r ran r „m m r Apparel: a) Boutinues b) General X X X X X X R X x Anphan Ctor s X X X X X x X X �-�� d Rcoatr X X Art, Music, and Photographic X x :.Uto Service (including motorcycl!ds, t boats, trailers, campers): a) Sales (with anrillary repilir , facilities) b) Rentals O 0 O O C c) Minor Repair (does not O O 0 0 0 include major engine work: muffler shops, painting, body work, upholstery, etc.) 0 d) Coin -op Washing O O 0 0 e) Automatic Washing 0 0 0 f) Parts and Supplies _ X X G O 0 only) X X X X X Barber and B X X v v X X X alilV Chore _ X X. X X X X X X 3r X Y Y• v Bell and Breakfast O O O p n Btcvcle Shoos X X v v O n n O Book, Gift, and Stationary Stores x X x X x Candy and Conferr' X X X Y 0 �S_ 6�_ _ X X Y �t nrt sta Lshmcnts X China and CI esw ^rte c.. X X v v X I Christmas Tree Sales Lots ` (operating on t n+nor ry asis) X v Churches O O n n n n X X F. EStahlishments ., O _ 0 v X 1{ X x 0 Cocktail 'Lounge (bar, lounge, tavern) inch,di mated enrettainZ n0 O O A fl n �� (} O O O 0 Commercial Recreation: a) indoor uses such as bowling and billiards 0 rJ G 0 O O b) Outdoor uses such as tennis O O 0 and basketball ^ 3� O _O Convales�Pnt F^ctlm & Hosnitale O n n n 0 0 0 O n n O n n i p O o Curtain and Drap ry Chops X X X X X Dav are Centers O n n n n X X Delicatessens & Specialty Food 4 O O O O O O O 0 - Stores Drug Stores and Pharmacies `.:• over 10,000 sq. ft. X X X X X X a Pharmacies with or without specialty retail under 10.000 50 ft O _Q n Educational institutions, parochial private (including colleges and universities) D L9 as O EXHIBIT A-3 SLi:.L�Lig� TaR[ F OF RFR1tITTFD �t ( tt\ T `lt\.►t L1 RFRM1 TTFtt (ry) IICrc RETAIL Subarea One iubaea Two Mt RCtat rrcFC r Subarea Three S,:barea Fc_- Farmers. Markets x Floor �1R r P Covering X x x X Florio Shoot Hardware Stores Health and Athletic Gyms and W ' x Ice ,("ream Sto�!±da Fnontaine X X X x � r�irorial C�rvr �. and Suooh —� X X X X X� jf�lry Crnr�5 X X ]{ X X X Laundry fc.lf ice x X x Lmthe- X X 6 X Libraries and m;:seums, public and private Liquor Store 0 O O p p M�.SS:S�n Ber and 4Jrr C•.. X x O n O Mortuaries S Cemetaries X x X x x x� Music, Dance, and Martial ` Arts Studios P Neweoaper and *4aYazine Srorer X x X X X x Nitrseries & Garden supply Stores )( X X X X fir• within n )oend area }� trice, Business Machine and CLC4moonent stn— .. �. Parking facilities (com- mercial) where fees are charged Parks and recreation facilities ' 0 - public and private PEI -Iqhnps- ,) Political or philanthropic headquarters Private and public clubs and lodges, 0 including YMCA, YWCA, and similar Youth group uses Reeord a .d Tane ctor s X x 0 — Recreational vehicle x x X x X x X _ storage ards Restaurants (sit down): 0 a) With entertainment and/or serving of alcoholic beverages 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 b) Incidental serving of beer and 0 0 0 wine (without a cocktail lounge, y bar, entertainment, or dancing) X X' 0 �s X X 0 X X 0 Cafe, limited to 20 seats O X X x (including outdoor seating) X X x d) Fast Food; wit;1 drive -thru X X X X x X O X X x 0 With dnve -tnr,• 0 0 0 G 0 J— v'l� y Q.4b —�� EXHIBIT A -4 � O SUMMIARY T•Rf r OF PFU.irr __ fYi 4 \L1 Ct�Dilin+;Ai .Y P :RMiTTFD i0t VSf S Subarea, One Subarea Two RETAIL CQMMFRC_ rtgg5 (coin t SC rr n nra n Subarea Three Subarea Fo::- AUk S r'r n m "cu° °C_CC CQ !_titR 4 Lt Mf' r aRr �tR t U ShoeShoe C�L__cale and R Darr X X SUcial v Retail n n 0 x X X X X v Y Sporting Goods Stores; O n a) Specialty; backpacking, tennis, skiing, moun- raRnsna (china- — X Y X X b) General;. encompassing a X X Y X variety of seortc �e lain nt X X X S n rmarke[c X X X X X Y X �fmmina Pool Suonlies X X X X Tailor Shoos X X X X X X X X Television, Radio, VCR, Stereo and Component mponent Sales X X X X X Tov Cam— X X X X X _ X X Variety Department Stores, Junior X fkrnanmenr Stores O X O X O X Veterinary (domestic): a) Non - boarding X O X O X X X X o b) Ro rdiny Watch and Clack Renair fitores a x X X X X X X X_ X" Y2rd�_ roods Stores X Vocational, or business trade schools Q Subarea One Subarea Two Subarea Three Subarea Four FLlTERTAINMFNT f r'tn rlrRAt USF C Q. MR P -SC CC O_MR h= cC r•r•n r tiro iun tr tirt tz12[ tica [ r Arcades 0 -0._: Cuttur,V: Artist Exhibits: a) Indoor gallery and art sales X 0 X X O X X b) Outdoor art exhibits X O X O X O Discotheauec 0 0 n Theaters: a) Dinner theater 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O b) Movie the?rer n — Q Subarea One Subarea Two Subarea Three Subarea Four OFFICE AL)Mlld[_STRAT {V TC S _ SC CC O MR P CC Cr ri asp t<Rro crr•r CO r �� t o t R (��+ t t Administrative, Business, and Professional Of ice X X x _x X x _X X X X X X• X Banks, Finance Services & - Institutions without drive -thru X X X X X X X X X O X X with drive -thru O O t) O O O O X n BLsiness and Ofjse cervices a X X X X X v Interior Decorating Firms X` X X X X X X X X x x X .iedicalfDcntal Offices & Related Health Clinics X X X O_oh X X X cian and Ootom trtca4 Shoes X X X �� -- X X O t X• Repliers and Rral Ecta a offices X X x x x X X sr x+ _ is Trave'__Aaennes X x X X X X x X X X X X i• X 1r ,Yril�{ �O,qr— EXHIBIT A -5 Iv -y.GC !DENTTrr Subarea One Suba$ Two barF Three Subarea Four rSr Sinete Family Datari,ed Single Family Attached (duplex, - trinlgx. for�rnlexl X •.X - Multi Family DwPil Ancillary Residential. Uses: X X Y X X X X X x X x a) Home -care facilities (6 or less) b) On -site private recreation facilities X X X X X X Y Accessary Uses X X X X X X a) Accessory structures X' X bl Home ac�„++ation X 3L X X 7{ X "x X X 7C x )ilRirIC tr.C>; Subarea One Subarea Two n MR M;m err Subarea Four Subarea Three r rn r rn Fnblic U_ tilttv i��aiions X 0 OTEL USES One Subarea Two SC Cr Subarea 'hree Subarea Fcur -- O MR P CC GAO MR M CC rr rn r ern .an . �tel /lvrot 1 p _Facilities fm ^iofl 0 x � Ancillary Uses: X a) Beauty/Harter Shop b) Cafes g c), Catering Services X d) Cocktail Lounge O e) Conference /Convention O Facilities D Florist Shops p 8) Gift Shops X h) Newspaper/Magazine Stores X i) Pharmacies X j) Resmurants (sit down) X k) Tourist Information x D_ - Travel Aeenc ec x INDUSTRIAL _Ua Subarea One Subarea Two Sr rr 0 P o MIIa Cc Subarea Three cc cO L�^� tam rt x& Subarea Four Dar t„tD r t All industrial uses and development Standards shali be as provided in Sub -area 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan (Iii). ° Refer to RRC note (') Section 9:9.2 IV.4.4a �,t }jvjD,�� EXHIBIT A -6 i t � I 9 C3 — - -- I' 53 I I W d y Y ==5D y � CJAD L-Rjm� g f a Lim W P CD 103 �_ ry X 7� L -1 s�r izrr�x. J — = r ► f ;2 ®ep <s� am Cc* ®3. s g O Q S V F d tu e a �. z A a o 0 cc filt A $ v EXHIBIT A -7, � I I I � rr +�rr�rgararrnr�eur�rr�nor�ac�rr `, pr�rerorearrror�aae�i � 1 I I o n• m e s s - . —. __. rrrarrureasrrrrrrarairrrraAarar � , I I , fG»T`rr1 BoveFya� - i SUB-AREA 4 ACTIVITY CENTER MAP SUB -AREA DESIGN STANDARDS AND LAND USE REGULATION EXHIBIT A -I3 9.9 SUBAREA FOUR r !ARID USE RE&ULATiONS Prima'v FunctionlLocation Loy Subarea Four is located contiguous to the Foothill Corridor, between the Devore I 6 41❑LS EDQIb o 1 -95 Freeway and East Avenue. Subarea - - - I _ �.o... Four acts as a major gateway into the !,� !!�� city of Rancho Cucamonga and is char- �. � - -- — — — — acterized by a variety of commercial, I $ residential, industrial uses, and mixed o I ! S use /residential. Regional related uses will ! d be provided adjacent to the Devare Free- j way, designed to compliment the Victoria i r Gardens Regional Shopping Center. - fmrvi[t Ea.ce,.uo The following matrix establishes the uses -I I —�,!q� - -- which are permitted W, conditionzlly permitted 10), or not permitted in each 1 - -• �— I of the five affected land use subcategories. l ! o I NOTE: Site Development Standards Section 9.9.3`:2 and 9.9.3.3 shall apply to shaded areas only. I �t SU9 —AREA 4 ACTIVITY CENTER MAP ; ' r �' �� is 7TH -J i p E A " �-� Permitted anti Cu nditlonal Uses Retail Commercial Uses - Land Use CC RRC MR LI ** 0 Antique Shops Apparel Stores: a) Boutiques X X b) General X X Appliance Stores and Repair X X Art, Music, and Photographic Studios and Supply Stores X X* a Auto Service Station O p o Auto Service (including motorcycles, beat;, trailers and campers: a) Sales (with ancillary repair facititles) ,b) Rentiais p = p c) Minor Repair (does not include major engine work, muffler shops, painting, body xvork, upholstery, etc.) O p d) Coin -op Washing O D e) Automatic Washing O o f) Parts and Supplies X X Bakeries (retail only) x X Barber and Beauty ,Shops x X* x Bed and Breakfast p Bicycle Shops X X# Blueprint and Photo Copy Services X X x Book, Gift, and Stationary Stares X X (other than adult related material) Candy and Confectioneries X X* Catering Establishments X X China and Glassware Stores X X* SUB -AREA DESIGN STANDARDS AND LAND USE REGULATION -. (c,7 EXHIBIT A -10 Reta31 Commercial Uses - Continued Land Use CC RRC MR Li ** o Christmas Tree/Pumpkin Sales lots Operated on a Temporary Basis X Churches d 0 Cleaning arid Pressing Eaaablishments X X o Cocktail I✓aunge (bar, lounge, tavern) Including related entertainment O U 0 Commercial Recrewtlonc - a) Indoor uses such as bo*rling, billiards 0 0 b) Outdoor 'uses such as tennis and basketball 0 0 0 Convalescent Facilities and Hospitals 0 0 0 ,. 0 Curtain and Drapery Shops X X - Day Care Centers U ® 0 Delicatessens and Specialty' Food Stores X ` Drug Stores and Pharmaa'.es � x X- Educational institutions, parochial, private lincluding colleges and universities) 0 Farmers Markets t X Florist Shops X X x~ ` Floor Covering Shops X X - Furalture Stores i X X Hardware Stores. x X i Health and Athletic Gyms and Weight Reducing Clinics X X* x Hobby Shops X X" Ice Cream Stores and Soda Fountains X X* i Jewelry Stores X X* ' Janitorial Services and Supplies X X* 0 Laundry (Self Service) Leather Goods and Luggage Stores X X f Aft J �� EXHIBIT A-11 Retail Commercial Uses - Commercial Land Use CC RRC MR LI ** 0 Libraries and museums, public and private Liquor Stores 0 Messenger aid ,Wire. Services X X° Mortuaries and'cemetaries Music, Dance, and Martial 0 Ar'is Studios X Newspaper and Magazine Stores X X *'' Nurseries and Garden. Supply Stores Within Enclosed Area X X Office, Business Machine and Computer Component Stores X X Q Paint, glass, an wallpaper stores X X Parking facilities (.com- mercial) where fees are charaec 0 Parks and recreation facilities, Public and private 0 Pet Shops X X* Photocopy (Xerox) X X* Private and public clubs and lodges,, including YMCA, YWCA, and similar Youth group uses " 0 Political or philanthropic headquarters 0 Recreational vehicle storage yards 0 Record and Tape Stores X X Restaurants (sit down): a) With entertainment and /or the serving of alcoholic b verages O 0 o b) Incidental serving of beer and wine (without a cocktail lounge, bar, entertainment, or dancing) X X x C) Cafe, limited to 10 seats (including outdoor seating) X X d) Fast flood (with drive -thru) (Without drive -thru) x 0 O 0 O O 0 i i SUB -AREA DESIGN STANDARDS AND LAND USE REGULATION, EXHIBIT A -12 Retail Commercial Uses - Continued Land Use CC RRC MR Ll * * p Shoe Stores and Shoe Repair Shops X X AMk Specialty Retail O Sporting Goods Stores: a) Specialty; backpacking, X X tennis, skiing,mosa; Lain - eering, fishing, tic.) b) General; encompassing a X X variety of sports equipment Supermarkets X X Swimming Pool Services and Sales X X Tailor Shops X Television, Radio, VCR, Stereo, and CDComponent Sails X X Toy Stores X ' X Variety Department Stores, Junior - Department Stores X X Veterinary (domestic): AOL a) Non - boarding X X b) Boarding 0 p Vocational or business trade shools p Watch and Clock Repair Shops X X* Yardage Goods Stores X X Entertainment and Cultural Uses Land Use CC RRC MR LI ** Arcades O O Cultural /Artist Exhibits: a) Indoor gallery and art males X b) "lutdoor art exhibits O ' Discotheques 0 0 Theaters: a) Dinner theatre O O b) Movie (multi -plex) �j 0 O M)14,,0, 270 EXHIBIT r4 -13 i Office and Adminstrative Uses Land Use CC RRC MR L1 ** Administrative, Business, and Professional Office X X* x, Barks, Finance Services and Institutions (with drive -thru) O d (Without drive -thru) X X o x Business and Office Services X x I Interior Decorating Shops X y Medical[Dentai Offices and Related \ _ Health Clinics X X* x Optician and Optometrical Shops X X* X' Realtors and Real Estate Offices X X* _ x Travel Agencies X X* _ x Residential 'Uses - Land Use CC RRC MR LI Single Family Detached X Single Family Attached (duplex, triplex, fourplex) X Multi- family Dwellings X I) Ancillary Residences: a) home -care facilities (6 or less) X b) On -site private recreation facilities X Z) Acce� Uses: a) Accessory structures X b) Home occupation X i SUB -AREA DESIGN STANDARDS -' AND LAND USE REGULATION s EXHIBIT A-14 Hotel Uses - Land Use CC RRC MR 1.1 ** o Hotel /Motes X o Hotel Facilities fmajoe): X Ancillary Uses j o Beauty /Barber Shop X o Cafes X 0 Catering Services O o Cocktail Lounge V o Conference /Conventt;n Facilities O o Florist Shops X o Gift Shops X o Newspaper /Magazine Stores X o Pharmacies X o Restaurants (sit down) x o Tourist information X o Trav3I Agencies X , * Commercial /Office uses may be located in the RRC district only with the concurrent development of one (1) major regionally related anchor business of at least 15,000 sq. ft. per site or project. This provision is intended to facilitate the development of large regionally related Regionally uses. related commercial uses are typified by large scale businesses which serve a market area significantly larger than those businesses which draw customers primarily from the nelghborhocd or community level. #* All industrial uses and development standards shall be as provided In Sub -area 7 of the industrial Area Specific Plan (ISP). I i I -� j0y1,01 g�.`7 ;: EXHIBIT ,A -15 9.9.3.3 Ask Setbacks ct v ty Center Yard Building P_ arkincg 1st Fir. 2nd. Fir. ,—A Yard (measure from face of�the ultimate curb): o Foothill Boulevard 25' So' 45' o Etiwanda Avenue 25' '504 35' o Rochester AvenuE, Rear Property Line: z5� ^`451 455, o- Adjacent to Existing or Planned' Residential Development 25' 15' o Adjacent to Existing or Planned Commercial F -' elopmont 01 51 Interior Side Proper'.,, Line; a ;Adjacent to Existing or Planned Residential Development 25' 95' o Adjacent to Existing or Planned AMk Commercial development 5' 3o P'vSOLUTION NO. qP A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91 -01, A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH CERTAIN STREETSCAPE AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS CONSISTENT WITH THE FGOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN FOR T),,,T PORTION OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD WITHIN THE TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitale. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has initiated an application ',for Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment No. 91 -01 as described in the titlz this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Community Plan o£ Amend­ _n. is referred to as "the application." (ii) On April 24, 1991, 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 prior to the aaoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, Z:r ermined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows. 1. This Commission hereby specific011y finds that all of the facts - set forth in the Recitale, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hear_'ng on April 24, 2991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (') The amendment pertains to property fronting on Foothill Boulevard within the Terra Vista Planned Community; and (b) The amendment will "tie" together the visual aspects, of Foothill Boulevard as a major commercial corridor through the implementation of streetscape and site design standards consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan areas located to the east and west of the Terra Vista Planned Community; and (c) The amendment will maintain the same uses that are currently permitted or conditionally permitted under the provisions of the Terra Vista Community Plan. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, TVCPA 91 -01 - CITY OF 'RANCHO COCA130NGA April 24, 1991 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above. this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:, (a) That the amendment will provide for development of a comprehensively planned urban community within; the district that is superio_ to the development otherwise allowable under ,alternate regulations; and (b) That the amendment will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development and growth management policies of the City; and (c) That the amendment will provide for the construction, improvement, or extension of transportation facilities, public utilities, and Public services required by development within the district. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 19:0 and, further, this Commission herdPy recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. S. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, th s_Commission hereby resolves: (a) That pursuant tc. Section 65850 to G58Sa `_of the California Government Code, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 24th day of April 1991 of Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment No. 91 -01. (b) The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt Terra ViAta Community Plan Amendment No. 91 -01, as shown in Exhibit ^A" of the staff report. (c) That a Certified COPY of this Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission - shall be forwarded to the City Council. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND AD !aTED THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION or THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA BY Suzanne R. Chitiea, Vice - Chairman E PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TVCPA 91 -01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA April 24, 1991 Page 3 AOL A1TEST• •Brad,,,Buller, Secretary I, Brad lbuller, Secretary of the Planning Commission all the City f Rancho Cucamon ai do y man h g � hereby certify that. the, foregoing Resolution way= duly and regularly', introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the -City of Rllncho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 246 day of April 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: I �s rr RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUT°CN OF TBE ZLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF VICTORIA COMMUNITY ?PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91 -01, A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH CERTAIN STREETSCAPE AND SITE DESIGN c_ANDARDS CONSISTENT W:TH THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN FOR i THAT "PORTION OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD WITHIN THE VICTORIA PLANNED - COMMUNITY, AND MAKING FINDINGS THEREOF, IN SUPPORT A. Recitals. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has initiated an apPlicstion for Victoria Community Flan Amendment No. 91 -01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Community F an Amendment is referra:d to as "the application." Iii) On April 24, 1991, the Planning Commission of tho City of. Pncho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the arplicstior, and concluded said hearing on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites, prior to the adoption of this Resolution' have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found; P4rNING COMMISSION R230LUTION NO. VCP'�_,91 -01:_7 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA April Page 2 3- Based upon the substantial evidence JU4,sented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and u�•on the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs l and 2 above, this commission hereby; finds and concludes eve fQllowsa (a) That the amendment will provide for development of a comprehensively planned k :ban coms7_.ity within the district that is superior to the development otherwise allo•iable under alternate regulationviT,and (b) That the amendmeny will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent Vwith the General Plan and with related development and growth management policies of the City; and (c) T';et the amendment will provide for tiye conctructLon, improvement, ,:tension or a of transportation &- �ilitip -- ,public utilities, and public s_rvices required by development within the 4. Tilis Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Eavironmental Quality Act of 1970 .lid, further, this Commission hate -i recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. S. Based upon *he find -ngs snd conclugions get forth In paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolvers: MM (a) That pvrsuhnt to Section 65950 to 65355 of the California Government Code, that the Planning ­. ^-Aaission of the c tr of Rancho Cucamonga hereby. recommenis Approval -M the 24th 6ay of April 1991 of Victoria Community Plan �s,iendment No. 91 -01.. (b) The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt Victoria Communi +'.y PLlr Amendment lo. 91 -01, as shown i, Exhibit 'Uk" of the staff repczt.., =' (c) That a Certified Copy of thi.. Resolution ' and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the :City Council. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shalx certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AM— ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY :OF APRIL 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RF.NCE0 CUcAgo,4GA aY: Suzanne R. Chitiea, Vice- Chairman PLAiNING COMPASSION RESOLUTION NO. VCPA 91 -01 -'CITY OF RANCBO =TCAMONGA April 24, 1441 Page 3 Lift ATTEST .,' Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller; Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City `cf Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, ,passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission; of the City of Rencho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning commission held on the 24th day of April 1441, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Ask 1 (j J I RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO COCAMOHGA,, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMF.NDING'APPROVAL OF INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91 -04, A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH CERTAIN STPLSETSCAPE AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS CONSISTENT WITH THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THAT PORTION OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IPTt SOPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has initiated an application. fc-, Industrial Specific Plan Amendment No. 91 -04 as described in the title of this" Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the `subject Specific Plan Amendnent is referred to Ea "the application,." (.i) On April 24, 1991, the Planning Commission rf the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing an that date. (iii) All legal prerequi.93tes prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred, B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved' by the Panning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: I. 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 during the above- referenced public hearing on April 24, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public: testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The amendment pertains to property fronting' on Foothill Boulevard within the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and ;b) The amendment will "tie" together the visual aspects of Foothill Boulevard as a major commercial corridor through the implementation of streetscape and site design standards consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan areas located to the east and west of the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and (c) The amendment will maintain the same issues that are currently permitted or conditionally permitted under the provisions of the Industrial Area Specific. Plan. L�Yr7yiV }va V PLANNING COXHISSICIV RESOLtTTION NO. I!PA 91 -04 — CITY'gF RANCHO CUCAMONGP April 24, 1941 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial- evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth' in paragraphs l and 2.above, this COMMission hereby finds and concludes as follows; _ (a) That the amendment will provide for development of t ccmp^-ghensively planned `urban community within the district that is superior to the development otherwise allowable under alternate regulations; and -. (b) That the amendment will provide for development within the district in / a manner consistent with the `General i?lan and with related development and growth management policies of the City; and (r ^) That the amendment will provide for the construction, improvement, or extension of transportation facilities,, public utilities, and public services required, by development within the,,satrict. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the Califo;;nia Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this commission hereby recommends i Declaration. .issuance of a Negative 5, Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves: mink LIM (a) That rnrsuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government Code, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamon a hereby recrvmmeads approval an g pF the 24th day of April 1991 of Specific peen Amendment No. 91 -04.. Industrial 1 (b) The Planning Commission hereby recomnards that the City Council approve and adopt Industrial i Specific Plan Amendment No. 91 -04, shown in Exhibit "A" of the staff report. as (c) That a Certi €iad COPY of this )'esolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission ®hall be forwarded to the City Council, 6. The Secretary to this Commission °shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 'T BY: Su-anne R. Chitiea, Vice- Chairman C,� J. s PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ISPA 91 -04 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA April 24, 1991 Page 3 i ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Renck. 6' Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly, and 1I regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of,�P.ancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of April 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: AOL ii I 1t ref CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 24, 1991 TO; Chairman and Members of `_he Planning Commission rj FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO FOOTHILL BOW W DESIGN SUPPLEMENT STAFF REPORT (ITEMS L, M, H, O. AND P) Following preparation of the staff report, additional comments were received from a representative of a property owner affected by the incorpor&..tion of streetscape and;, site design standards for the "Missing Link ". The three areas of concern raised in the letter (attached) are aimed at the Milliken activity center, specifically the development of the south side of Foothill Boulevard at Milliken Avenue (Subarea 7 of the Industrial Sp(;cific Plan). The three areas mentioned are: 1) modification to permitted and conditionally permitted uses within the subarea; 2) allowance for two -story structures (up to 35 -feet in height) at the activity center setback line (25 feet from curb); and 3) provisions for reduced parking:=ntbacks at activity center areas. in assessing the comments, staff provides the following information for Planning Commission consideration: 1. Modifications to land uses within the subarea are beyond the scope of the amendments. The amendments are intended to arovide consistent design standards for Foothill Boulevard and do not address land use. If the property owner desires revisions to the land use, he, should file an application for an Indastrial Specific Plan Amendment. It should also be noted that" several of t�;e 'J proposed uses are alr_ady permitted or conditionally permitted ',n this subarea. They are identified by "P" or "C ", respectively. 2. The activity centers identified in the Foothill Boulevard Specih`ic Plan do not allow two -story units at the front setback two -story units must be set back 50 feet from curb. Staff suggest ;f however, that the Foothill /Milliken intersection may be the location to create a more urban setting. As a ;jresult, the Commission may wish to consider the use of two - story/ buildings at the front • setbacks. This still allows for uses, such as ground flocr restaurants or retail, that would promote pedestrian activity. The extent and location of two -story elements should be based 'cn` review of specific proposals through the Development Review process; however, the following guidelines would be iecommer_dect for inclusion in the Design Supplement: t ADDENDUM TO APRIL 24, 1991 STAFF REPORT ITEMS L, M, N, O, P t FOOTHILL BOULEVARD MISSING SINK " April 24, '1991 Page 2 III. DESIGN GUIDELINES A. ACTIMTY'CENTSRSr 3. Fu chitectural Concept: e. Differentiate thf, ground floor facades from the second floor iii recognition of the differences in the character of activities at pedestrian level,. Examples include the use of storefront glass, "step- backs", cornices, changes of material, awnings, and Rther architecteral devides D. GENERAL CUIDELINUS 1. site planning: d. Buildings should be oriented to place retail.' stores., restaurants,. services, . limited retail uses (as permitted by the U industrial Specific Plan), and other high 'intensity pedestrian uses `on the ground levels of all buildings within activity centers fronting major streets, including .parking structures. 3. Allowing parking areas within the activity center to be pulled closer to the street is inconsistent with the intent of the activity center concept.- Staff does not feel it is appropriate to reduce the building and parkit;j setbacks within the activity center. Res kly M2. Br a City Planner . r i' BB :SM :sn Attachments: Letter from property-owner-representative f I f{ I c Lt;Ps trr .RICK DEL CARLO - CATELLUS DEVELOPMaNT CORPORATION i SIGNED: r r Houard.F Thummon Assocraies, Inc TIP A lA ICA, ITTAf - !� \/,3 /\i / i l aahrt !ue Ltrd Pamm-glnterw, ne-iR 0­p, 1 tte.h0 X91ii 4 JIMRL \MrAnrt Otacb. Cafaoraiai Sh0 - APR' L n l r'latSaB- :OOtTAXt71a1 i! - TO: THE CITY OF RANCHU CUCAWNGA x GATE 4 -16 -91 is \O. 8- 101 -00 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE REc THE CENTRCw - RANCHO CUCANDNGA. RANCHO CUC:AmoNGA, CA 91729 ATTENTfr?w:.. _. _ NIR. OTTO KROUTIL WEARETRANSMITTING: TRANSM.TTED - -XATTACHEO ,_01ANGEORDER _FORAPPROtAi. _FORW'/M lLND(0%fVh%7 _L\DERS£PAR- VEr()1ER _PU1 \5. —FOR YOUR USE _.NOTE%IARKVGS tih _$ANIPLES _ASREQUESTED _FOR CORRECTIONS _SHOPDRA�tI\GS _5PECIFIC4T10. \S _RESL'3AIIT_ COPIESFORAPFROVAL _COP1OFJTTER _0THE:i _SUBSIIT COPIES Fr 7R DISTRIBUTION _PRI\TS _RETURN CORRECTEOPR1NTS '. COPIES DATE 110 DESCRIPTION i PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE FOOTHILL DESIGN SUPPLaffTJ'P THE CEN'IRLM, RX-rM CUGAM MA CALIFORNIA i RE% 14:t , c Lt;Ps trr .RICK DEL CARLO - CATELLUS DEVELOPMaNT CORPORATION i SIGNED: ... _ 11A t - Proposed Additions to ttn Foothill Design Supplement for The Centrum Affik Rancho Cucamonga, California r 1.) Add additional Conditional uses to the Pedestrian. AcdviW,:?one within the Centrum. - This is consistent with developing a viable pedestrian experience,.nd supporting proposed on -site users PERMITTED USES Permitted uses vary per locatiep , -3ub -Area 7 and Sub -Area 8 permitted and ' conditional uses are found within the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The 4` following additional permitted and conditional us «s are allowed within the Pedestrian Activity Zone within Sub -Area 7. The Centrum Pedestrian Activity Zone Permitted Uses. The following uses are compatible with the `B,'siness Support Services" category: Delivery Services (i.e. Federal Express Drop -off Centers) Printing and Photocopy Services }� Personnel Services P Office Supply C . Travel Agency Deli / Bake--y Computer Supplies / Sales Fitness Centers Beauty i Barber Shcps Florists G Phoiu Labs (i.e. FotoMate) Shoe Repair Video Store Greeting Card Store Stationary /Mail Service Store (i.e. Mail Box Etc.) As well as similar, but not listed, services at the discretion of the Director of Planning. Ask r - _ The Centrunt Pedestrian Activity Zone Conditional Uses: Drug Stores (under 10,000 s.f.) Dry Cleaner As well as similar, but not listed, services at th.: discretion of the s . ,ctor :Sf Planning. 2.) Revise proposed building setback requirements to reflect the section below. This is consistent with developing a more vibrant Pedestrian scene. A single stow , limitation on bringing a stnictu! forward will act to significw tly li. -nit the " edestrian Activity .one image. A single story limitation will have a tendency to evolve ';into a "strip commercial" look: A second story acts to keep this in check while f the same time allowing for a greater spatial variety. �Yithin the Pedestrian Activity Zone, l and 2 story buildings and 1 and 2 story building portions up to 35 feet in height can observe a 25' minimum qu �'tla .k line 3.) Revise proposed parkin., setback requirements to show a25' minimum with a 45' average laudst:ape setback. This is consistent with L.z Lndustrial Area Speciftr Plan. j i DATE. TO: FROM: BY- SUBJECT: CITY OF F.ANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT., April. 24, 1991 Chairman and Members of t;ie Planning Commission Brad Buller, City PlannFx Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician ' Lta poo AMENDMENT TO UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM FOR RANCHO SAN ANTOI..LO MEDICAL CENTER - An appeal of staff's decision to C Sny as sign program amendment, located at the southeast corner of Milliken and Chu ch Street - APH: 227- 771 -01. i I. ABSTRACT: The applicant, Rancho -San Antonio Medical Center ( RSAMC), is appealing the decision of Planning staff which denied an amendment to the RSAMC Uniform_.-Ssgn Program to allow a fourth sign for the business. (see Exhibit "E"). II. BACKGROUND: The RSAMC is an ambulatory health care facility. As with any hospital, there are a number of services provided, including providing emergency walk -in care, medical offices, and a pharmacy. Phase I is existing with approximately 83,000 square feet. Phase II will add an additional 40,000 square feet. The Uniform Sign Program was approved in November 1989. The program was originally approved with a monument sign at each of the two driveway entrances, 4 or_ -site signs ilentifs:ng building entrances, and 14 directional c #gns (See Exhibii'. "A "). In October 1990, the sign program was amended tz,%.add a wai ^, sign identifying FSAMC on the south elevation (See Ex iibit "B "). on February 20, -391, the applicant submitted an ame,�dmtmt to the sign program for a wall sign on the west elevation itlent fying "Uryent,.',Q — ", the emergency walk -in care (See Exhibit "C "). Following a review, Planning staff denied the request to amend the Uniform Sign Program on February 26, 1991 (see Exhibit "D "). ANALYSIS: Within commercial and office areas, the Ranch-•. Cucamonga Sign Ordinance establishes two different sets of sign regulations for: 1) "businesses not within shopping centers, including single .tenant: - -office buildings$" and 2) "multiple professional tenants more; than three" (see Exhibits "G" and "H "). Staff conside,s the Rancho San Antonio Medical Center to be a jingle tenant facility. For single tenant businesses, the Sign - 1rdinance allows a combination of monument and wall sign up to 3 Tittximum. Further, the Sig ;Ordinance is intended to provide for ,iness identificaticn am _iscourages the listing of products Or I ITEM Q PLANNING COMMISSION;STAFr REPOPT RSAMC SIGN PROGRAM April 24, 1991 T Page 2 .3 1. services. Si,7e the b`.,,ilness has several related operations.' on- _. site, the Uniform Sign Prograw allowed for four additional on -site signs identifying the proper entrances. In addition, 14 directional signs were approved on -site, 10 specifically to direct customers to the Urgent Care entrance. The appellant acknowledges that their are a single business with multiple services and th -ot their request exceeds the allowable number of signs for a single tenant. The appellant's letter requests a "variance to the sign ordinance" because- they "are a unique business with unique requirements." However, the applicant ._ never filed a variance application; hence, their request can only be considered as an appeal tonight. The appellant feels that their Urgent Care service, needs more visibility from Milliken Avenue. The sign compan ' r -- eselting RSAMC states that the additional wall sign is :A.,1ed because patients are having difficulty finding the facil'ty (see Exhibit C -1). Consistent with the intent ot",the Sign Ordinance, this Uniform Sign Program allows a maximum ''t:,� three signs to identify the business and draw people onto:;; the' ,site. once the custiomer is wltl;in the site, further on -site signs direct the person to their destination. 5.aff contands that the difficulty is not in finding a 4 -story 'r medical center located at a Major intersection: rather, the problem seems to be directing patientsr­nce they are on -cite. One option would be to modify the existing 10 directional signs for better visibility. These signs could be improved by doubling the lettering height from 3 inches to 6 inches, which -iuld also ' -` double the distance from which they can be read. - Also, the internationally recognizable "red cross" first -aid symbol could be employed to give greater recognition. The directional sign located at the end of thn Milliken Avenue entrance throat could be moved or repeated on the south side of the driveway to improve visibility for motorists. CORNER MONUMENT SIGN: The appellant's letter also requests consideration to install a third monument sign reading "Rancho San Antonio Medical Center" with a loga',.,on the curved wall at the corner of Milliken and Church.' --ftsff notes that this issue constitutes a modification to their original request to ch&age the Unform Sign Program for the Urgent Care signs. Therefore, this issue cannot be considered ten3.ght. PLANNING COMMIPSION STAFF REPORT RSAMC SIGN PAOGRO April 24, 1991 _. Page 3 V. RECOMMENDATION: if the Planning Commission determines that this is a single tenant business under the Sign Ordinance, then the applicant should be directed to apply for a °variance to allpw the :> prq)erly noticed and public hearing. However, if the Planning ; Commission, determines that the Rancho San Antonio Medical Center should be classified as A multiple prokessional tenant facility, then the t`,ommission should review and consider the marits of the appeal tonight. Should this be your direction, the Commission may approve, Approvs with modifications, dr deixy the appeah through minute action. Res, s B-ad u r City, annex BB.-BB:js `i'. Attachments: Exhibit "A" -,,Sign PF'ogram Exhibit "B" 14t A- e�dment 'Exhibit "C" Ttequest ,,tor Uniform Sign Prog::am Amenamen `1 Exhibt "D" - Staff Apj}sal Letter Exhibit "E" - Applicant Appeal Letter Exhibit "F" - Site Plan Exhibit "G" - Sign ordinance for SinoU- Tenant office Buildings Exhibit "W.'- Sign Ordinance ior--r tipls PauFessional Tenants i 4'40 _ Z r NCHO y ' I " RANCHO" ° ° - 36' ANTONIO LMMEDICALCEN TER SA N ANTONIldEDICAL -t, 7 _ CEN` ER � 18, mu onrw � Gr 2 °' " ��' c W - M Shy sic r Medical Ottices 2,yn ! Pharmacy ,•.; .< - Er ° wt If (� s.• �� Urgent Care b� `T —ice• Physical Therapy CeT.munityEducaian' c . ?'•�' Center ^' amn,e+ i �� Urgent Care _ te• � 98• EPITER rn R f m.wm n1) Emn.mLOan �.. + 3 0' iavrmue� l -Fn00 ' l L � �groune Gar 1 grouna aro. 1,.' 7777A mx'J.a bwpuu oQn rarw ..,aa•er�yu wL w to EXIT 50' ( u.mura. 3_' wmwn v wu.rvuy> I gmuno groun0 trne- I f t - - �.1✓A _ I z � 7 r I C f i a � �. L m u � _ I � •� - J _fir• �.. _ -� � `— t Lu 1 'I 4 b, i °uf 14 F� o i is ' d FN Cf i J.T . ' z <1 nz wo 2f Q J4 C as z rj 7Z 1 c 1 o v L _ t -. 1 %H��.' 2 Awn C-C cdra� Lir L d W h a �° ag 8�3�iz ii � 1 _ a 1 II r � •III I C f i a � �. L m u � _ I � •� - J _fir• �.. _ -� � `— t Lu 1 'I 4 b, i °uf 14 F� o i is ' d FN Cf i J.T . ' z <1 nz wo 2f Q J4 C as z rj 7Z 1 c 1 o v L _ t -. 1 %H��.' 2 Awn C-C cdra� ONTAR cIO on 1INJOCH 303" WEST MAIN STREET ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91762 (714) 9864632 + ^ FAX (714) 988.6376 State ConnItc,s License = 268330 City of Rancho Cr_lcamcf +ga ' Comnttri } "'Develr'pmernt Department.. 1050, Vic renter Drive Ranh_ Cucamonga, CA 91731:� t .. .�0 whom it may con '.. � .. On behalf Of Ranch San. Ant'_tni + Medical Ca:ttF r, w? request approval r the installation 0� one el t ctn of tu�'ldina letters reading URCI raT �.n?E' wct the nest fa, e f_the Urgent C :.see � _ S :.re plan.) Urgent 7sre Patients are haying difficulty Yinding the facility. .a. pr-_r _se th S =sgn t„ identify the facili y:-,,f�_.r iitnse in ne=ed of I f .,'gent care' ervices. There are existing dNrzctional signs which di1^ect the way to th= Aff Urns t Care Center-, out they Ara fteti ineffective in getting the patients who are in distress tit the: facility. Tye''directional signs _ d Itvt rrc`-•';de the instant recognitiot.(s which is ne essary f. r these pati= „es. The d1rectional sra,gn ^, are '31so small a' d are often bl,. ck- eG by vehicle traffic. This sign needs to be plininly visi ble fr ,Milj iken Ave, and the intersection �_ f Church and I°l li {;en. &?` `. ctistanc'e of 50U' thy' prc- p d 2-11 letters are the apprr_,pYiate hie�lgt;+'`:rtr readability (see �s ',iit3r chart;. This sign is nctt proposed for advertising, but for identification. The need for this sign is crucial. Your earnest considera;.ic,i in- t!lis matter would be appreciated. Sincerely, y^” Paul raton UesignfSa,es PE: ca fLECTRICAL SIGNS AND RELATE PRODUCTS SINCE 19454 +ii ! If c r i q El ° 4n3� u LU tf C t � 9cu3j NOW CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1050OCivicCentcrDrive, PostOffice Box 807 (714�989-11:'_.l RanchoCucarnonga.Caflfornia 917,19 F.x: (7140V-6499 F0ruary 26, 1991 Paul Eaton Ontario Neon Co. Inc. 303 West Main Street Ontario. CA 91762 Dear Mr. Eaton: The Planning Division has receivc-d your request to amend -the Uniform Sign�, rograin for the Rancho San Antonio Medical Center, located at tha,, southeast co',,�er of MilliVen Avenue ano Church Strpet. Specifically, you have requested the a�,Aition of one wall sign for the Urgent Care facility of the Rancho San Antonio Met.,ical Center. Your request has been denied based upon the following findings: 1. The Rancho San Antonio Medical Center is defined as one business and is entitled to a maximum of three signs which include a combination of monument and wall signs. Currently, the site has one wall and two Awk monument signs. The introduction of an��additional sign would exceed the maximum of three signs.� 2. Urgent Care is well ident-Ifiet; with existing�� on-site signage. They are identified on both monument signs and have a sign in the north parking 1-_�t. The site also contains ten directional signs identifying Urgent Care. 3. The Sign Ordinance provides for business identification and discourages the listing of products or services. Tne use of terms such as "urgent care," "pharmacy," and "family practice" goes beyond this intent. This decision is final unless appealed in writing to the Secretary of the Planning Commissior within ten calendar days from tha date of this–Iletter. Any appeal shall be in writing, together with the $62 appeal fee, and shall state the reasons for the appeal. Sincerely, NITY EVELOP NT VART, "E[T P ING D VISI ±ema Principal Planner DC:BB:mlg cc: Bruce buckingham Harr WiIiiant J Alexander Chafles J B, ti H Cin V­ Dennis L Stout Detionth 14. Bmwn Q—g Pamelai Wngfit March s, 1,,,i91 Brad Buller Secre.lry of Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center brive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730' Flancho San Antonio MP.dicat C,gn-t -r Dear Buller: We recognize that Rauch: Cucamonga has established .guidelines for signage in the cowunity, and that our recent request for an Urgent Care sign exceeds the 1-;nits. However, we are in a unique business with unique requirements. '1 sa" A7tonic. ^-oll6unity Hospital )as been Rancho 'Cucwon9a,`t choice for l medical care fore many years. ceci;use of our interest in the Rancho, Cucamonga community, we built111ancho..San Antopio Medic,a? Center to meet the , coiiiv-alty's needs. Of primary.. concerti is the availability of TV quality Medical care to our community. it is vitally important. that Rancho San Antonio Medical Center and ,its services be easily identified, especially when urgent medical care is .needed. In addressing the Urgent t=are sign, the need is evident; the Urgent Care facility needs more visibility from Milliken Avenue. At, a distance of 500 feet the props,ed Zl inch letters are the appropriate height for readability. Though Urgent Care is on the monument signs next to the entrance driveways, the copy height is 'oniy 3 inches tall and 4 feet from the ground, which is difficult to read while driving hsI .. the. facility. In addition_ we also request permission to-install one elevation of externally illuminated' letters reading "Rancho San Antonio Medical Center" with ,a logo, to the curved wale on the, corner of Milliken Avenue and Church Street facing northwest (See_Enctosed Sketch). The: -` sign will not be visible from the other sign locations, and is attractively placed on the wall. It will be the only visible identification from the intersection. of Milliken' Avenue and Church � Street. t� l 7777 -A Milliken Ave. Rancho Cucamonga. Calliorniji 91730 (71 dl 948.8000 -R � -V� - 'r 3 fr Although these signs exceed the Division, both standards sBt forth by the Planning signs are ne ded to ider,rify Vie availability of medical services. They are aesthetically apprc� date and will have negative effect on the community. no Your reconsideration of our!request for variance to the sign ordinance is appreciated. sincerely, Bill Neumann Administrator i, ` v i III . ;l a i ( `y DiB" - - ! AL tq LU � ft� �tu etii 8� j Fit - -- �¢�� 1 j 1 t� ►W � r�r ►r �r 14.20.100 N i�.l pl •.a �;NBC. yq1 T 6 O M H OO wOC O.6�tJ Ql i'' aWr- bOOt C, G O q. T7 W D`" 6Y C A2.8..0 O'U NO'N C.OiNU�•d0 'O �ZQd .p� Q. -.0.9 . N qS O. SY S'0 4i3. N. C -.1.a qqL'J .0 =, to in JLNO O0+�. Ay f N T d aT J,, m. ` W 6 OY L O'.••NN O.O qC O.. OA YC C C d O'T CJ C q O � EEO'1G Cn 7ONA d 0-L 11 V'dU di-a N O'O W G.Y'p ,tl U q'O qg'O•".0 ' '0 O�+N••t OJ 7ONA W= Y dY O•+Q W= 'a 0 NWN LNY JYUYOY C -r1 I"I O Ma B.OmW CvN q�.J� _OL 02.0 A(d(��CNL ppN f5 »W H U TUn OL EW WO U* Yy 0 01 WO OJ E d p • N N06 OnY W OW.w 2v.Cr .7 =: E'•t 7 .L.nY O C76 1 w -QI. O C YO+1 a'•.1. .~i ))Ad OnOC +Wi 2+W-t L,Y. vq N�Aw 3C GU.0 CVN � C Y +t > d 7 D N� O7�'�lY NCC 6Y G O d 0 8 @^Jq Uy C1E Q' qO tdY It 'M d 4C O.B �'•1 qC1 UO4 AJ...I n C�:G TG C.. Q A O N 0 0 A alti -9 9 -+'OO CqN d'dH.O N. q NY "M N X O d G: q C A a i • C O . i GOB NQ�O20 T1 N..In > YT'OJ N .1 N ti L 4 q :a C J L 1..7 •`I U ++:'O S7 q CgY C YdC4 OMO'Or1q GCdNW@ � m0 NTNYO•IY dO-•16 YW J i•A -•Y�Ip S, B, 0 • > tJ N q d O N 7' O G•+Ct. d O A 4 9N�t NC CCC Od. q N N g O O N 0 O q 1 �YA+wY �1 'Y NO'O .d + .0 o :ti OUr.r •r•n^blOJJY O Nd 2L Ufi N UO Ud'-O 'CO C O O 'tO O C GW d O dO. O • .Tr: tll an C0 gL O .YY Y d NC:. •^'AU 4 'O ' , d N N 4 V ndn7S -0 2 CE CVC '7E A A Jd .O.I1GU6 qOnO S2�0+0+!NLY 2Y . .-.,J.. tO:CE CU 6 CONt14 'p C'6 O C! N •� A � U q U.. C .O n O O U' O N R 9 O A 0� 6Ui A L B A e U Y O + LOid O1.w.A adi IOi OOtIw �. O I-N 6 y C U G C6= O N m oYCrnat .Od.CPIW Q 9. L. 0 7 2 " J o t3 L W e V O -. C O,t NLr. ya 6 On CO O-a =[nYWaT ZAg1pNW 'a t9-4 O N •U 44 0 d d O � a y aY."'.i N rJ p 7 G y ,4 0, e [ .8116 x d A dO N Y O . •. OI N N Y: b Sy On C O C") -0 Ou�i1 O W' O N H W .� jy W Y:••.•Y .'i a E n86 d N 1l1;o LH.A �d X= d qMd W N.. G O A » O O 1Q C (! OAW W O Oyy 0 N .jJ d �W On '.pW' @6 OW On �•�. - .. o a N 4 Go rz C YG6L qN In MW • U NLY O'd U NLJ O E N N N G C Y d a N W O N d N w N O O .5 ri w =. U'O d pn Ga 0 C1 y C N L U.=i O'+Ui C. as -mom c .. E (Rancho Cucamonga 184-2 12/ss) 7' !113 I �m 14.20.100 1 y RI �.4 tan •.t _!O v d N 4 � m'w 10.E 6 � G ..4i 2 O=J d L aDi N � v A.a �� f L O yaaiw L W Jp.�+i y.•l 4++ �: aCn70 �Na al ti.'ODU CJCW @61 >N '0.3 W,v G.w w a.4 d 4 N d r.t 0 N.ul v.Yi O.OtO A9 O.0 6NL iTd y.+9O.wd0 In, H Cm Cti aj O Crt 4.4 y'OY gq4MaNifi 09aiNtid7 4�Ota C•0.Y �u t'+G XN�a't�G .. O3 d G q1 U C a 4 '� U.+ a% • Citi N N 10i y�(C G d N O C. _ Ju aN ON mom dC1.yaLU d.� Cqd duY O+dJ LL qi".0 i`'''la 1 CIl C.y rlHp Co 4 WINOHD OtAv.• fi yC NYfi 07 C,0 11 '~6 iO.l�roa Nw Ny N dC4 0, OY 6adg 4 NC`Ay Y y .a.� N:L•W COtduL mTUULyYO 4 T4'•r O a'N O 0.0 81 �t ptf? O C-. a 61 L C CC!! Otu .r C J a+ CO -a u.rU NdM9wW w A.w aN daL Ot 40 Naha tI yy d. G .n Y .1 @ ti O q� tp 0 • d 0 C N Y O 7C H 6az d K yy�tU 'd ..CaC rt fid Y•.a.•f u0Ci00 N-0 y C a Uty y CE .fib t0d 6�JT- 4uY YY.Oi Ndada O a 41 C y U. E 4 U a Y w L. d w d L C C N M, D G' 4 � t" a Wm--m 'U L a/.� W. Otu 4 f d 4. OfiN C1 ;.Ca@ y+:yN� Nw C LU O.7 d UHu Hgb O d•.1ud - a..� Ot\ U@ a d dUaW fid d .0 Uu d.'.�Lq d•0 aC O�n,gygy'g 1. 23.4 1�1` FqY N4' ZC aY LNL OL Cr.004 d.CL7 p "Y �+ Cd aEm z u Y MCI GNYG U a GL X d f0 t0. m... d_ d L o U W jL y A Yy L.OtadC It fdi }Ui O u b 0 7 7. a a d d y d omYFm�oo ea Na l rl d WN7..t 6Gtft NW MW , 7 d G f dy4 'C aAn 0 p� ee y y C.aY@ M:6A Na0i a4i d4y 09'd0 vW dg� UD N L•aa OGt4 A 1d U••� LY d d C 7-•. xE_ E 4.00 d.Lty dCape dra"•:C 4!I T7 Ta m pLr`°G qX 1iv 4L�.@.t aUC91 -�1 ,0. i�uD FD aO FACdA pH@O+a 0 10 tl C 'O N 4 !Ti O C ti ps 8 MW 4 U d.od aCV a.N 0`0 � w.4i C O qq r+ TG O UIy �yI CJU.OlH dd Gm O 9o� ....udd a GCi R 0 'O=U~a GY q U 7T.'.@ d CL 7 GW dL d Ar• 01 NTD G 184 -3 (Rancho Cucam,.lga ��"Ba.zlas) .� M DATE: TO; ?ROM -. BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT April 24, 1991 ' Chairman and Hembers of the Planning Commission 1hrad Buller, Cit., Planner Larry Henderson, Principal Planner OPQSED TEXT AMENDMENT_ TO THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN TO Ai OW CHILD CARE /Se`HOOL FACILITIES WITHIN WRIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS I. BACKGROUhC: On March 20, 1991, the Planning Department received . the attached letter from Anita Trevino- MaZeal,..,an associate c the Land -Plan Design Group (Exhibit A). The',letter makes two requests. The first request - is the subjer-1 of this staff report: a ml -sire for the PJ- Winning 'Commission to consider a praposed Text Amendment to the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The Text Amendment would allow child care /school facilities as a conditionAlly permissible use within a Neighborhood Commercial Distr -t in the Etiwanda specific Pian area. The second request of cts subject letter concerna the interest on the part of the applicant for the Commission to r=:-ae a reading as to the acceptance of a Land Use Amendinen!- 'to expand the approximately 4 acres of currently zoned cdiwn vial property the southeast earner of 24th ' St diet ar; East Averue to approximately 14 acies total. Staff has -advised the project proponent, both verbally and in writing (letter dated Januar,' 31, 1991, Exhibit B) that it is City ,policy when considering a request for a Land Use Amendment that an %pplic.Ation and appropriate en- ironmental and planning documentation be submitted before the Commission will consider the request. II. ANALYSIS: As previovly stated in staff's letter dated January 31, 1991, if tF'.. Pl.annjnq Commission agrees .z -i hear the request for a textual amendment to the plaa, than a formal application must be submitted along with the appropriate application fees. This application would be required to be treated separately from any ether application3. For example, the application for a Land Use Amendment previously indicated wokild require both a General Plan Amendment and a a'pacific Plan Amendment applications. Both the Text Amendment application and the Land Use Amendment applications wovld" legally have to be processed and treated separately. This is because the textual amendment would have to be considered in the light of all 1'TER R ETIWA2iDA SPEOtFIC PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT April 24,.,'i3991 Page 2 ' 7 similarly zoned properties and wheth, the allowance of child caxe facilities within thst particular zone, subjet >t to a Condx.{.ional Us- Permit, would be appropriate for all such zoned properties. Additioually, recent changes in State law would require the not j ficW on of gall similarly zoned properties within then- Specific -s% Plan ;as well as those properties within 300 feet. It should be noted that the "Community Hub" map referenced in He. Trevino- McZeal's letter is out of date and varies significantly with the moat. recent land use considerations for this area. III. RECOHMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, -after considering all the input on the requests for tho Text Amendment, initiate the application through minute action, subjec! ; t to the project- propogsntz!s payment of all appropriate application fees. I Res lly to i i III I y Bra e Cit Planner BB:LH:mlg Attachments* ExhibA -7A" - Letter from Land -Plan Design Group Exhibit' "B" - Letter from Planning Staff I LAND-PLAN DESIGN GROUP March 15, 1991 VAR g Mr. Brad Buller, City Planner CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Proposed Text Amendment to the Etiwanda Specific Plan lob No.: ESP 9025 Dear Brad: The following is to first request the Planning Commission considat-a ?ropeszd text amendirvmt to the Htiwanda Specific Plan and second, request the Commission P-1ve direction clarifying the intent of the land use designation for approximately 14 acres located at the soutlieast comer of 24th Street and East Avenue. Please reference the attached letter of January 31, 1991 fro Larry Henderson t. Aileen Brown and the Community Hub Master Plan ixh1_1 prepmrd by Larid Plan Design Grcup. The text amendment would allow child cart f school facilities as a conditionally permissable use within a Neigliborhood Commercial (NC) disaict. This proposed amendment conforms to tb -, objectives and policies of the Etiwanda Specific Plan including sections 3A, I! and 6.1 and in some cases reinforces them. Policy 3.53.104,uf the specific plan states a neighborhood commercial center should meet the retail and service needs of residential comm-mities — Vvious Master Plans for dit±60 acre Community Hub planned within the Edwanda 3pecific rian at 24th Street and Fast Avenue have included community service uses sudh as a library, religious facilities, child care facilities, and a fire sW­­ - VVLlile it 1s rzcognized that this master plan exhibit is not an official City document, it does reflect many discussions with the Planning Commission. With the exception of child care, these facilities and other service related businesses are permitted within NC districts (reference &. zicle 5.23.203,scbeAule of permitted and conditionally pem\itted uses). As we understand child care facilities are only Billowed in "V o- VA" residential districts neither of V16ch are planned within the surrounding area of Etiw- , la or Etiwanda Nortbwsa of Day Creek Boulevai.4. firs second request is to have the Planning Commission clarify the land ix;e intent for the 14 acre site in question lecated within the "Conrimunityllub". We agree a review of this )and u&-;should he made in the context of Edwanda North as identified in Larry Hende ekes lette., And after reviewing the draft Rancho Cucamonga Edwanda North Specific Plan (RCENSFN 11here seems to be a potential lanA use conflict. Please consider the following: C3 'V`a S2683 832-4300 - FAX 7141 832-202E Mr. Brad By "Pr CITY Of R x4CHO CUCAMCNGA Job No. 'SP 9025 March 15, 19u1 Paget 1, The 14 acre site located at the south -east comer of East Avenue and 24th Street is urrently split zoned with approximately five acres %xighborhood commercial And nine 9;.res very low density residential. City planning staff has�,on other occasions specified that n ^ighborhood comtnerral sites should be between 10 and 15 acres. Additionally, Section 3.53.100 of the Edwanda Specific Plan, describes •a "tiler; hat would typically take at least 10 acres (15 acres with auxiliary uses). 2. If the site at East Avenue and 2Ath Street were to rent ain split zoned with less than nine acres very low density residential, it is likely that no =or.- than 15 residential lots would be developed. These lots would be bordered by 24th Street, commer; ial use, a flG:)d control basin, and a cow..ttunitypark. Such isolated lots %"would b. undesirable from a living and safety standpoint. 3. The December 1990 draft of the RCENSP included a acre site as Neighborhood Commercial. This site is•also adjacciu to 24th Street less than k -%e -half mile to the k northeast and i; zoned PD 2!1 in the County General Plan. Snot a location would seem to be in conflict with some of the objxtives and policies (3.!i2 and 3.53. 100) of the Etiwanda Spzcific Plan. Prior to our filing appiications to amend the land use maps of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and General i'lan (changing the ±9 z,,ies very low residential designation to neighborhood commercial) wewould like to discuss the above issues. Previous market studies have indicated there is not a sufficient market for both u 14 acre and a 15 -20 acre commercia site and City staff has indicated additional market and economic studies an: likely to be rN tad. A cettainleve? of resolution and direction from the Planning Commission seemsneceq.�ary `before discussing adYtionnal studies substantiatin.r both our 14 ac-e site and City staffs proposr " I5 -20 acre site. `ioa.,Tt consideration and direction L4 these matters is appreciated. Please do not hesitate trn call should you have any questions: —�ariia j the sbova and we look . forward to being sched- -! on the next available Planning � — amission agenda. Sincerely, C A_ to Tre%4110McZtal Associate ATM:cs:lw cc: Miki Btatt, Associate Planntr Joe Dilorio, The Caiyn. Company Larry Henderson, Pdnc'npal Planner chron Corr I° KI T OEBBIS. eASa RESDENTUIL -0 UTLN Y COrRRD W 3 ; i l IE r Y F • �ti � SAN � ta `s W -MMIAL �in } 3 .� - = - :-YIESDENMAt. ENTRr q �A .191 AVENUE 'MUMFR.NI EUTIFERUUTE'10 f3ONCEPTUAL PLAN COMMUNITY HUB �r �rryT•iP W'�$IXff�'LL/ a '� \II• 4 Q71TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 105M Civic Center. Drive, Post O[8ce Box 807 ('lil 989.1957 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 .Fax; (714) 96-6:109 January 31, 1991 Eileen Brown Land P`;an Design Group 34 Exiacutive Park, Suite 150 Irvine, C.N. 92714 SUBJECT: PROPOSED GENERA! PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMEKTS 1,T 24TH STKI r` AND EAST AVENUE Dear Ms. Brown: This letter is a follow -up to telephone conversations thE..t yo6l ve hal with Vince Bertoni of our staff. You have indicated to him that your ca!!pany is considering submitting a request to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan and General Plan land use maps from Very Lori Residential (VL) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) for property on the south side of 24th Street east of East Avenue. In addition, it is also our understanding that you are considering submitting a request to amend the text of the Etiwanda Specific Plan to conditionally permit nursery schools in NC districts. The foll.awing information is provided to AM assist you in the preparation of your applications: 1. The request to amend the land use maps may be initiated by the property owner or his /her designee. The amendment to the text of the Specific Plan, however, must be initiated by the City. Therefore, a letter most be submitted to the Planning Division rp,questing that the•Planning Commission consider the proposed text amendment. Once a letter is received by the Planning Division, the item will be scheduled for the next available Planning Commission meeting. If the Planning Commission agrees to hear the request, then a formal application must be submitted along with the .appropriate application fees. Again, this proposal would require three separate applications; the General Plan Amendment and Specific rlan Amendment applications for the land use chance and the Specific Plan Amendment application for the tez� change. 2. The land use amendments involve changing land use designations from Residential to Commercial; therefrre, Staff anticipates requiring an economic analysis and market study to support the applications. Once a formal application is submitted, staff will prepare the request for proposal, interview, and select the consultant. An economic analysis r and narket study that is not commissioned by the City will not be viewed as impartial and will not satisfy the above requirement. %%ilham f .Alexander Charley I. Buquet11 l tau+ 00borah \ Brm%n �` Pamela I. Wright lack t. ,4 Page #2 3. Due to the subject` .property's location, the land use amendment will be viewed in the context of the Et wat,_._ -North Specific Plan. In other words, we will review the amei inents with all existing and future, sand uses to mittd; as as our normal practice. ,;:e will also consider alternative land, use designations for not only the subject property but also the exist',Ig neighborhood commercial 'site. It is recommended that you familiarize yourself with the overall goals; and' objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan to determine how your request complies. The Etiwanda'Specific Plan should not be viewed in the same light as other regulatory provisions in the City. More specifically, please r6fer to Sections 3.4, 3.5, and 6.1 of the Plan. Our office has mailed your applications and submittal requirement checklists for the above - described applications. If you should have any i Vin S i or ` a further. questions, ease do not hesitate to call Vince erton me t (714) 989 -1861_ , p COMMUNITY DEVELO MENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION L. Henderson, AICP ' Principal Planner cc: Brad Buller, City Planneif Miki Bratt, Associate Planner LH;:VB:js 7 � y felt the site in question would require'extensive mitigation meascices. Commissioner Melcher did not object to the particular use on its own merits. However, he thought that if the use were, approved, there would be no basis for excluding other users. He felt that a large amcaint of retail use in the industrial area would negatively impact the commercial area. - Commissioner Chitiia agreed that a large amount would change the entire Industrial Specific Plan area. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that Archibald avenue was not designed as a retail center, but it ha6'turned into one. Mr. Kroutil Ftated that -the .industrial Area Specific Plan currFntly a ?' ;1 retail to conjunction with warehousing or distribution. He szid; that across 'ZZjtir the street from the ,'sits up to �2 5)percent retail is permitted in conjunction with office space. He suggested that if the Commission felt the use could work out, they could continua the item to allow the project to be corditioned with certain improvement requirements. �,, 4 !�A �- Irad Buller, City Planner, stated the Commission o ar Gi44sag5wv a n yae� n 4* reasonable ratio for retail use. He suggested the applicant may be �wfilling to reduce the square footage to comply with the Commission's desires.[/ V-rze, IS ro,' U- x Commissioner Melcher felt the suggested typo of use damages the ifitegrity of Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 24, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PWNNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting April 24, 1991 Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was heXd,.i,n the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center "Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of alletia�ce. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONEI.3: PRESENT Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tostoy, Wendy vallette ABSENT, None STAFF ?RESENT: Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senicr Civil Engineer; RaYph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve, Hayes, P,uk)iztant Planner; Anna -Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Plannst; Barbara Y--all, Aselstant Engineer; Otto Yroutil, Deputy City Planner; Betty Miller, Associate engineer; Steve Ross, Aasistant Planner; Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS �( Chairman McNiel made a presentation to Gail Sanchez in hsnur of NationalK U Secretary's Day. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that the Commission may wish to consider continuing Items H, I, J„ and K to May 22, 1991, because the Commission had scheduled another workshop for April 25, 1991. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to adapt the Minutes cf March 27, 1991. ` CONSL4T CALENDAR A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 90 -19 FORIA INTERNATIONAL - The development of a, 72,000 square foot tuAlding consisting of 58,000 square feet of warehouse area and 14,000 square feet of office apace on 4_0 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 11) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the north side of Mission Park, Drive between Buffalo Avenue and Richmond Place - APN: 229- 263 -54 and 55. Staff ,recommends issuance of s Negative Declaration. Motion: Moved,1oy Chitisa, seconded by Valletta, unanimously carried, to adopt the consent cal endar. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13693 - LUNA - A subdivision of 1.0 acre of land into 2 parcala in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201- 182 -29. Staff rucomm=ds issuance of a" Negative Declr_ration. (Continued from March 27, 1991.) C. VARIANCE 91 -04 - LUNA - A request to allow a reduction ;of the minimum average lot size from 22,500 to 21,540 square feet for a two -lot parcel map in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling uni +s per acre), located on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Have[? Avenue - APR: 201- 182 -29. (Continued from March: 27, 1991.) Betty Miller, Associate. Engineer, presented the staff report and stated that staff had received a letter from the Northwoods Properties 'Community Associ'ition reiterating their opposition to 'either of the parcels taking access via Northridge Drive. Chairman MCNi-el opened the public hearing. I Steve Luna, 8990 19th Street, 0201, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was available to answer questions. commissioner Melcher asked if Mr. Luna had any objections to Parcel 2 taking access from Northridge Drive. Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 24, 1991 r" I Mr. Luna responded he did not, but would prefer the configuration shown el "she proposed parcel map. Linda Froat, president of Northwoods Propd,,rtien Community Association, stated they had presented their position in the letter and in testimony at the March 27, 1991, meeting. She felt approval of the project should be based on access being taken from the north end of the lots. She thought that the new homeowners would not be required to honor the CC&Rs of the Homeowners' Association. She said the CC &Rs include strict architectural controls and prohibitions on leaving garage -doors open and trash cans but. She reported that the CC&Rs contain monetary penalities to members who do not comply. She thought that allowing any of the lots to take access from Northridge Drive would lead to deterioration of the landscaping. She felti the City has an obligation to the Homeowners' Association to 'rohibit access to Northridge Drive. Charles Doecow, attorney representing Northwoods`Homeowners, Association, 222 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, felt that there had been almost complete unanimity expressed at the March 27 meeting regarding prohibition of access from Northridge Drive. He supported the first option suggested in the staff report. He said he did not understand the concerns .raised by the Planning Commission. He requested that if access were to be granted via Northridge Drive that at least the exterior of the homes be subject to CC&Rs. He thought the issue should not be important to the rest.of the City as there were only two lote in question. He reiterated the 'objection of the residents to having Planning commission Minutes -3- April 24, 1991 access via Northridge Drive. Jim Nichols, Hoard of Directors, Northwoods Homeowners' Association and chairman of the landscape corsnittee, 10257 Coralwood Court, Rancho Cuct,nonga, stated that staff had objected to one of the alternatives because it would , require a four -way access. He said there were several such intersections in their community, and they did not pose any problems. He felt tlgt if either of the lot3 were given access off Northridge Drive, it would set a precedent . for the other three lots to be developed in the future. He said the residents wern concerned that the lots will be equestrian and vehicles would be parked aGToss, . the street. He said the CC &Rs prohibit parking on the - street. He thought -that if access to Parcel 2 were given .across Parcel 1, the owner �s Parcel 1 would not be able to -deny access. Fe showed pictures of the landucaping to the north of Northridge Drive, the community, and horse trailers parked on a street. Commissioner Chitiea questioned the ownership of the landscaped area north of Northridge Drive. Mr. Nichols responded that it is public right -of -way owned by the City. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher stated he was convinced that the proposal as originally set forth was superior to the other scenarios presented. He commented it would allow development to go forth and would not necessarily lead to unsafe Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 24, 1991 Mo streets. He fell Alternative 2 would require more streets. Be st:,ted that Northridge Drive is a public street and he felt the ir'.elligRat ,planning approach would require that at least Parcel 2 take access from Northrido Drive. Commissioner Chitiea concurred with Commissioner Helcher that access should "be from Northridge Drive. She felt both parcels should do so. $be thought the residents would be better off facing tbye front of homes, than the rear. She reiterated that Northwoods is not a prvIllate community. commissioner Tolsioy stated he 'hoped it would be possible for both lots to take access to the nort't, but after looking at the ownership and existing lot sizes, he did not feel -a street system ' could be well designed t$ accomplish that. He thought god planning would dictate thy, the lofts facing Northridge Drive have access to Northridge Drive. He suggested that the owners should, 1 join the Homeowners' Association. Commissioner Valletta stated the item had been continued to allow time to plan for a better street access. She was concerned that proper fire access be , provided. She indicated that although - she would like to agree with the community's wisnea, she felt at a minimum Parcel 2, should be accessed from Northridge Drive. Chairman McNiel thought that ^additional zLtIe* —&E streets sheeld— net ---ha- i ary to accommodate only a few parcels. He did not feel that restricting access to Northridge Drive represented good nlanninq. He concurred with the Planning commission Minute -5- April 24, 1991 _h remainder of the Planni,Ag Commission that the�:kioperties adjacent to Northridge Drive Thou d be accessed from Northridge Drive.` Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that all properties adjacent to Northridge Drive should front onto it. Barrye Hanson, Senior civil Engineer, asked if the Commissioners wished to add a condition to require that owners join the Homeowners' Association. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated a condition could be added that the prop^rty owners cooperate with the Northwoods Properties Community Association, but the Associait would have to vote to accept, them as members. C Barrye Hanson asked if a sidewalk should be required on the north side of Northridge Drive. III - f commissioner`Chitiea felt it would be appropriate to not require a sidewalk. Barrye Hanson stated some additional changes would have to be made to the resolution, such as the elimination of standard condition 4. I Ralph Hanson suggested the Commission may wish to direct staff, -.. :return with a resolution of approval. f Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that if Parcels l and 2 front Northridge Drivo, the Commission may wish to relieve the Homeowners, Association from Planning Commils! --ni Minutes -6 April 24, 1991 i maintainiag that portion of the landscaping. Fie -euggm on 2B an acc ary eVlew of Me s ruc. EUIWB-- by -the Ho neownereJ- MIrm. He .said that typically development of one or two houses is approved at the staff level, but staff the option of referring it up to the Design Review Committee. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask Mr. Luna if he would object to continuing the item. Mr. Lunn consented to continuing the matter. Mr. Coleman suggested that if both parcels front onto Northridge Drive, it may change the variance request.° Ralph Hanson stated that a'change to the variance woulaz;,require the item be readvertised. Mr. Luna agreed to continue the matter to allow for readvertising. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by ZAstoy, to continue Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 13693 and Variance 91-04 to May 22, 1991,, Motion carried by the following voter i AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOwSTOY, VAL XTTE NOES: COMMISSIONERa NONE Planning Commission Minutes -7'- April 24, 1991 rF .� Mr. Coleman suggested that ' both frpnc Northridge Drive, it may orange the variance request. f Ralph Hanson stated that a e,to' the venna would requjze the item be reachv tized. i Mr. Iona agreed to continue the;maVter to al1ow for Y advertising. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seGaix%d ;by Tol toy, to continue Environmental Assessment aryl Ipntative Parcel Map 13693 and Variance 91-04 to May 22, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: r AYE;: OCUMSSICNERS: , Mf33IEI,, MEf ' 710 S y, vA� s. NOES: CCMSSIONERS /t ABSENT: CDNMSSIC 4 - carried D. APPEAL OF DEfEMrJZ ION OF _ - _FqR QONDITICINAI;_USE PER= 91 -01 VICPDRY C�PEL, - An appeal of staff's determination that the application ZC Conditional Use r�lrmit 91-01 ie. �iplete. R application is a request to locate a temporary r--dula;,mw.cI- purpose building of 912 square feet or._he site of the axist rg 6,000 square foot Victory Chapel, located on .74 acres witl^.in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan at 11837 Foothill Boulevard, west of Rochester Avenue - A I: 229 - 011 -21. Related File: Car&tional Use Permit 82 -06. ve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. loner Melcher asked if the applicant would b_ permitted to occupy a temporary modular building if they. applied for and were granted a variance. i,&Hayes responded that the cammission could direct staff to require a ianae to relieve the applicant of the requirm ,at for a master plan. He suggested a variance could be prucessed in connection with the conditional use permit application. Commissioner Melrher felt the trailer would be permanent so long as the use is there. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the Commission policy in the past had been to approve temporary trailers for a limited time, generally two l� years, subject to Cmwassion approval of time extensions. Chairman McNlel opened the public hearing. Bob Wood, assistant pastor, ;Ric' ming Commission Minutes Vit'tory Chapel, 11837 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho —5- April 24,.1991 Cucamonga, stated the er main building is located in an old winery building, which has a limited life, He said they rent the building on a mono. to -month basis. He Lndicated the owner plans to de<ncaish the building and build a business park. He felt it would be impossible for the church to provide a roaster plan became the owner has submitted a master plan. He said the owner of the properly was planning to build a 10,000 Fare foot building for the church and was in the process of subamitting the project to the City. Ha commented that there are many modular buildings in Rancho Cucamonga and said they were wi.11irq to accept a time 31mit. He indicated they were willing t.; make the modular building :attractivet Iie requested a variance to ti= requirement far a master plan. Commissioner Vallette asked if the church was willing to landscape. Pastor Wood said they were willing to nsicall whatever landscaping IS requested. He felt they had Wxeady improved the condition of the overall area. He expressed a w,illn%iness to paint the entire building plus the modular building. Hearing no further testimony, char -Dan McNiel closed the public hearing Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that in the past churches Have been requested to suimit master plans when they request temporary buildings so that the City has ac plan for the eventual removal of the tetporaty building. He indicated that the Development Code establishes time limits for approvals unless extensions are granted. He said the code does not set separate time limits for master plans and :interpretation is open regarding whather a master plan expires if the project it was prerr for expires. He indicated the original master plan was presented in connection with 'a conditional use permit request for a mini-storage project. However, the °mnditional use permit has expired. He said the properly owner has indicated they are in the process of preparing a new master plan and no mention of a proposed church was brouyit up in the site plan which had been preliminarily presented by the property owner. He indicated the Commission could decide that the original master plan still exists, but then they would have to i mr -,ke a determination regarding whether the level of master planning requested ay the City had been met by the original rester plan. Palph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that if the Commission determined that the muster plan submitted by the property owner was valid, the appeal could then be upheld. Chairman McNiel said he had undersi:ood that the previously submitted master plan was not going to be built as planned. Mr. Buller said the original master plan included a mini.- storage facility, which the property owner has chosen to drop. He said the property owner believes the market is different from what it was when the master plan was originally approvP4. He said the new master plan which the property owner has discussed with City staff is different from the nester plan previously submitted. Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 24, 1991 Codiiussioner Tolstoy said that one of the concerns of the Commission granting the use of a temporary building has been how long the teq= building would remain. He felt the master plan should indicate that church will have a permanent facility to move into. He felt a permar scructure should be shown to take the place of the temporary b nlduzj. He not fee: the previously sutmitted master plan fulfilled that requirement. Catmissioner Mel c her felt the applicant should request a variance from requirement for a master plan as the property cmner's master plan would °t prudence over one prepared by the church. He said that world allow Comission to grant relief from the master plan requirement. Commissioner Tolstcy asked how the City would define tegx Cconissioner Belcher suggested it be set up for two years. Cannissioner Chitiea asked if permitting the trailer for a two-year period would hinder the further deve1cpment of the property by the owner. Mr. coleman felt the resolution could be worded to permit the temporary use for two years unless the property owner wished to develop the rwoperty soorwr. Coen ssioner Melcher asked ii the Camission were to approve a conditional use- permit and variance to allow the temporary trailer, if it could be made non - renewable so that the church would pursue alternate arrangements if the developer had riot moved forward with a permanent building. Mr. Hanson stated that the Ctorrm.issien could only indicate t4iat future renewals would be discouraged. Camissi=eer Tolstcy asked what would make the use temporary if the master plan sW tted years ago had not been executed.. Ccooissicner Melcher felt that Victory chapel would occupy the site until the building was demolished for future development. Mr. Duller indicated that the new proposed ma. -ter plan sttmitted by the property owner included the existing structure as remaining. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask who had installed the temporary building. Pastor Wood said that the current building is being' left in the new master plan, but a nerd building would be built by the property owner: elsewhere on the 27- acre site. He said they would relocate and they need a rmr building because they have outgrown the current facility. airman V.-Niel again closed the public hearing. Mr. Buller said the. Planning Cmamussion may grant the applicant the Planning Ocumission Minutes -7- April. 24 1991 s apporbmity to return with a variance request to naive the mater plan condition -jn conjunc►tiion with da: conditional use permit. He said the camai.ssion lien could grant the card tiona? use parmit with a Set tint with the understanding that tims.-extensions may not be granted. W. 'Hanson said that the 'ultimate- da:isionl on whether to ;grant the cm- iditicnal use 'permit for the temporary trailer was nat currently before the coamiwicn fuse staff had :determined"that the application: is inclete. He said the Ccomissimi reedad to dztermi • , the incompleteness Issue only. He said the Commission had basically three options: (1) dew the appeal and determine the applicant needs to submit a master plan, (2) deny the appeal and request that the applicant subnit a variance, or {3) grant the appeal by accepting rhe master plann already on file, , ]mowing that the master plan is probably not current. Wtion: Noved by Meldher, seconded by Cult ea, to instruct the applicant to return with .a variance request if so desired and adopt the resolution denying Appear of Determination of Incxapletness for Con4i ional Use Permit 91 -01. Motion carried by the following vote: it DYES: SSiONFP' aTm, ma=, mam, 'Toi- OY, VA=11, IDES: COMf?ISSI RS: Ii= ABSEW: CO�MWIONERS: 1).:IE carried Me Planni.xxg commiss: cn recessed fran 8130 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. E. IIESOLUFIO;d OF DENIAL FOR TRCMTM- ,'[R%C!r 14211 - U. S. hoME REi: olutions for the denial without prejudi c� a tentative tract map a-A design review for the development 6f 235 single fami3g� on 31.2 acres of land within the Etiwanda Specific P in the ,t�ium Im-Nedium ResidentivI Develcpwnt Districts (s. ^14 and 4 -s dwelling units per acre rcp °pecti:velY) located on the east ,side of Wanda Avenue, 1south of the DX :yore freeway and west of: East avenue .' APN� 227- 23i401, 09, ,, 12, 16 and 32; 227- 191 -15; 22'1 - 151 -24; and 227 251 -11. Barbara YWall, Associate Engineer, presente the ,,staff report and' suggested additional language for the 6sign review 1 on. Chairman 2iopenc the public' hearing. f Charles Schultz I E. RESOLUTION OF DENTAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14217 --U, S. HOME - Resolution for the denial without prejudice of a tentative tract map and deeig_- review for the development of 235 single family lots on 81.2 acres of land within the Etiwanda Spec;l£ic Plan in the Medium and Low- Medium Residential Development Districts (8--34 and 4 -8 dwelling units per .acre respectively), located on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue,• south of the Devore Freeway and west of East Avenue - 3PN: 27- 231 -01, 09, 12, 16, and 32; 227- 19i -15; 227- 181 -24; and 227 - 261 -11. i Barbara Krall, Associate Engineer,_ presented the staff aport and suggested additional i 1 language for the design review resolution.1 -1 Chairman McNiel opened the. public hear > -?q. Charles Schultz, attorney, Reid & Hellyer, 3880 Lemon, Riverside, stated U. S. ti Hone had submitted the project over two years ago. He requested that action be taken on the project, but baid he preferred that the Commission not deny the application. He felt the issue to be whether the applicant had provided sufficient, information to the City. He reported that three separate traffic analy bad been submitted and he felt that all necessary information had been submitted to the Cif.. ;garding traffic and drainage. He said that each time the applicant met` staff, sew information was requested. He requested that the Planning Commission determine that sufficient studies had been submitted because he felt they were at an impasse regarding the traffic analysis. lie said that staff contends that the applicant miscalculated, and staff had not been willing to supply the raw data which the City used for their traffic r -del. He connented that staff had advised the application would not be .- mplete until the project proponent obtained right -of -way .-om 'a other landowners. He indicated t.1he applicant was willing to return to the Design Review Committee. He repotted they had spent over $80,000 on drainage - Planning Commission Minutes -9- April 24, 1991 )1 _ studies and there was a ;disagreement because staff is ,equevting a flow- through system with.a retention basin and their study indicated that a flow -by system would be susf5xient. Patrick Lang, 99 South Chester Avenue, Pasadena, stated the City's computer traffic model for tb,, `'ear 2010 indicated traffic on Miller Avenue wial be 21,000 trips per da, -, -while his study shows 7,000 trips per flay. He :ndica -.Ied he had requested the raw data and the City then reran the model and indicated a reduction to 15,000 trips per day. He stid the strzat currently has only 75 trips. He said the City had not provided the raw data --o him. HP rou u-,ted the raw data be supplied. an ,he could put the raw data into his ct_ ter.. He said he understood the City accepted the traffic studyrs general Ies but there was a disagreeinent over cumulative impacts. Bill Mann, Bill Mann & Associates, 1802, Commerce Center West,- -suite A, San Bernardino, stated he had been consulted regarding the drainage. He satd the site has certain constraints, but he felt they had adequately addrzssed the issues. He said over $85,000 had been spent on the drainage study. He shownd a mss; of the surrounding area and ,indicated the major problem -is the requirement for providing a drainage plan for the area to the north of their development. He reported they originally looked at ,> by -pass aystem consistent with the City's maste:`i plan, but the City was not comfortable with the system. He said they then submitted a new plan with the northern basin as a by -pass basin and the lower basin ab a flow- through one. He indicated they meet with staff in March and June of 1990. He thought they had submitted sufficient data to show the system would work. Planning Commission Minutes -10- April 24, 1991 I, } Chairman McNiel asked if the ,project were being built now, how much of the system would be built. Mr. Mann replied that U. S. Roms,V would only have to excavate one -third of a baoin to provide sufficient capacity for the U. S. Home site and current development to the north. Commissioner Toletcy asked if both, proposed basins were on U. 'S. Bome�sn°�- property, Mr. Mann reepondel that the basin shown across the street was not on their property. Mr. Schultz stated that the first developer is required to design the system. He said that most cities do not ,require the level of sophistication required by the City of R�nchm Cucamonga. Chairman MaNiel said that the City has experienced severe wa eVAh_-d problems in the past. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, said he had not been aware that all of the requested data had not been given to the applicant's traffic engineer. He said he did not bring up the traffic icaue as an incompleteness item because he felt they were merely at odds. He said Mr. Mann had indicated to staff that he was working on a new plan for drainage which had not yet been Planning commission Minutes -11 April 24, 1991 submitted tk' the City. ie- said the City disagrees with the applicant regarding their proposed alternate, _which he felt. would require that the master plan be revised. Ralph - Uanson, Deputy City Engineer, stated the matter had come to hi3 attention and it appeared there was an impasse. He indicated that simply having an application stuck in the process is not acceptable. He commented that the action before the Commission was not o.1 the merits of the application, but - merely that staff did not feel they had 'sufficient infcrmation to eOrA&t+G%the project. He said the Commission was being asked to determine if the applicant had submitted sufficient information to deem the application complete. He said the suggestion for a denial was only recognition that the City must act. He suggested a continuance with some direction as to which way the City would want to go. He thought Engineering might indicate what additional information they would like to see in order to process the application. He requested that if the Commission were to decide to continue the application, that r. S. Homes agree to a 'a-�vier. of the time i limits. Mr. Schultz skated he was prepared to stipulate to a continuance of 60 days. He said the last time they met with staff, staff'- atated that Foothill Boulevard must be improved adjacent to the property in order to deem the application complete. Chairman MoNiel closed the public hearing. He suggested that the Commission direct staff and the applicant to resolve; the problems under the City +` Planning Commission Minutes -12- April 24, 1991 i Attorney's guidance. CL:..iizsioner Tolstoy asked whitt additional information ,staff would ,peed. r' Barrye Hanson stated staff still needs a determination of costs and an allocation of the costs to the'suLlrounding property owners. He said staff's largest concern with the proposed realignment is how the surrounding property ' owners will be affected. Commissioner Tolstoy observed that,the problems appeared to be drainage basin design and size, drainage basin location, and traffic. Paul 'Rougeau, Traffic F,ngineer, stated that the traffic issue revolves around the size that Miller Avenue should be (two or)i four lanes). He indicated that the City completed its traffic model after the project was submitted. He felt the original traffic study submitted by the applicant did not consider outside influences on street volumes. He said he had been satisfied after minor clarifications that minor issues of intersect'.: s could be worked out. Commissione'% Melcher asked if the City had supplied all the raw data to the developer. Mr. Rougeau responded that he had given data many months ago, and becausa he i had not "been app_oached for additional data, he thought it had been sufficient. He said the raw material in the study would be made available to the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes' -13- Ai.ril 24, .991 1� Ralph Hanson asked if staff thought 60 days would be sufficient time to review the new data supplied and condition the project. } Sazrye Hanson did, not feel that would be sufficient time. He said that as a courtesy, staff had preliminarily submitted the incomplete project to the Design Review Committee and Technical Review Committa.e. He said staff had not seen maps in their final form and the project would need to be rescheduled through Technical Rev,'%ew and Design Review because c,7 changes. He felt staff would need 90 -120 clays from the time information is submitted. Chairman McNi:el reopened the public hearing to ask when the applicant could submit the additional information. Mr. Mann indicated the information could be submitted within 30 days Ralph Hanson requested a waiver of time conditions pending xesubmittal. He said the applicant could demand their rights at any time. Mr. 'Schultz stated . th - :did not have a problem with a 150 -day delay. He said they were anx3see to gk-t the project moving. Chairman McNiel suggestO the applicant seriously consider the City's severe trafic and drainage problems. I i Commissioner Chitiea reiterated the item would need to go through the normal I Planning Commission Minutes -14- April 24, 1991 Design Review' process. Mr. Schultz agreed to waive the time limitsy) -ham. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to 'direct staff to work with the applicant to submit additional information. Motion ca_ried by the following voter AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE HOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE sr ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS -, NONE ;Rarried j I Planning Commission Minutes -15- April 24, 1991 Draft 4/24/91 Minutes F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT'.91 -08 - MACIAS A request to allow retail: sales in conjunction with `'i� light wholesale, storage, and distribution ,use within an existing 17,384 square foot building in the industrial .ark District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the east side of Monroe Court, north of Jersey Boulevard - APN, 209- 144 -42. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration: i Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. He suggested that if the C:>mmission wished to approve the projeci ,,,, that they defer action until May 8 to allow the applicant time to meet fire code requirements. Commissioner Valletta asked if the retail use would cease until the building and fire code issues were resolved. i Dan Coleman, Principal Planner,- stated the applicant did not have permission to operate because there was no approv0j'Z, conditional use permit. Commissic -- "'?Xette asked if there is a way the Ci�41 could enforce closing of the operation. CHAIRMAN MCNIEL ASKED STEVE IF ANYONE HAD EVER TOLD HIM HE SOUNDS LIKE A LATE \ \ \�` NIGHT DJ WHO PLAYS JAZZ. STEVE RESPONDED THAT HE FELT LIKE A LATE NIGHT DJ. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Planning commission Minutes -2 April 24, 1991 Sandra Ialcedo, 8711 Monroe Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she was the daughter of the applicant. she said they had been working with Mr.. Ross and had already corrected some of the itrms on the list. She reported they had contracted to modify the fire. sarinklers and paint the building. She indicated they currently lease the building but hope to close escrow shortly. She report ',-they had received a business license from the City and received approval from Planning Division for the use. She stated nothing had been indicated on the business license that a Conditional Use Permit would be required. Mr. Roes stated that whet the business license was approved, it was believed the use was permitted without; a conditional use permit. commissioner Tolstoy expressed concern about, the position of the parking lot ?aecause customers would have to azoss <a loading dock to, get to the main entrance. it i Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, stated that staff originally recommended approval of the conditional use permit with conditions­ but when the building department and fire department noted exiting problem, F,-,# staff then recommended a continuance to allow time to deters ne.Jif the applicant will be able to meet F building and fire code issues. Robert Jimenez, 10317 Holly Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was the real estate broker on the property. He said they had hoped to be able to approve all of the paperwork ahead of time to be sure they could meet all Planning: Commission Minutes -3 April 24, 1991 requirements. He said the applicant had been working with staff and had spent a lot of money trying to meet the requirements. Mr. .- U.Menez stated the building is located on a cul -de -sac street, so he did not feel there would be problems with traffic. Commissioner Melcher thought the, intent of the Industrial Arel'Specific Plan was to permit only incidental retail sales in connection with Vie industrial. use. He-.did not feel 4, 000 squars� feet of retail space iii a 17,000 square foot building should be classified as incidental. He felt the use should not he..pervitted . in the indust=i`al area when there is so much unleased commercial space in the City. He felt granting of the conditional use permit would be unfair to storekeepers who?lease the higher priced commercial space. Commissioner. Tolstoy agreed that he had the same concerns. He also felt the building was not designed for retail use because the parking layout was not oriented properly and customers would have to enter through a loading dock area. He opposed the conditional use permit. Commissioner Vallette concurred. Chairman McNiel agreed, but said there were other warehouse operations in the City with some retail. He did not object, to the use as defined. Commissioner Chitiea felt that a small amount of retail use in conjunction with a warehouse is appropriate. She felt :hat if the main function is to be sales, then appropriate amenities and parking would need to be provided. She Planning Commission Minutes -4- ! April 24, 1991 development in a town designed for retailing. He felt retailing in the industrial area should be limited to incidental. Commissioner Valletta felt incidental retailing in the industrial area could be successfoi, but,it needs to be site specific. She was opposed to requiring 1 custnmers to cross through a loading area. i Commissioner Tolstoy thought retail should be conducted in a building designed for retail use. He did not want to turn the industrial area into a retail area, Mr. Buller stated the provision conditionally permitting retail has always been In the Industrial Area specific Plan, and there have not bsen many applications. He did not feel it would be a common use. He suggested the applicant be permitted to investigate with staff to else if a better layout could be provided. Commissioner Chitiea stated that 20 percent of office /professional buildings are permitted to be etail in the Haven Avenue overlay District, but she felt the permitted percentage of retail should be much less in a warehouse building. She felt that the,_ application should only be approved 3f it include4' less floor area, a total reorganization of the parking lot, and additional laL-- soaping. She felt retail use should only be incidental. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for Environmental Asseseaent and Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 24, 1991 91 -08 for adoption on the Consent Calendar at the May ?,J 1101U, meeting. Motion carried by the following voter ICI AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS. NONE - carried G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTR 7:'- SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -03 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA- A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific, Plan by adding swap meet and 'em';ensive impact commercial use and their r development criteria within the Specific Plan area. Staff recommends Issuance of a Nega`ive Declaration. I i Anna -Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. i Chairman McNiel asked if any cities prohibit swap meets. Ms. Hernandez replied affirmatively. Chairman McNiel opened the publin hearing. Richard Mager, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain, Uplznd, stated that the City Planning Commission Minutes -7- April t., 1991 of Rancho Cucamonga expects development to ba a cut above other cities. He felt swap meats - either indoor or outdoor. - would be an incompatible use for the City. He requested that neither indoor 9tdoor swap meets be permitted. Rance Clouse, Lee a Associates, stated the request for an amendment for indoor swap meet use ha4 been brought before the Planning Commission in January 1991. He said the purpose of the amendment is to establish high standards for development. Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Clouse hdd 'looked at any outdoor swap meets. Mr. Clou "- reepcnded negatively. He said his client's concern was that there is no clear definition of indoor swap meets. Commissioner Melcher asked if any industrial facilities in the City would be able to provide the proposed required parking. Mr. Clouse believed there to be several facilities which would meet the requirements. Ja+E3 Page, Carnival Malls, 6221 warner Drive, Los Angeles, stated he had applied in Rancho Cucamonga becausa he realized his proposed type of an indoor facility is an upgrade over traditional swag meets. He felt the use is more Comparable to a mall . with concerns about parking, traffic, and security. He: indicated regional malls do not eccommoeate small entrepreneurs by having. Planning Commission Minutes -8 April 24, 1991 booths of only 100 to 200 s � guars ;set. He commented that generally traffic problems are created because swap, meets are located near residential areas. He also felt his proposed use was not compatible with retail because of the increased traffic the swap meet use would generate. f Commissioner Melcher asked how the proposed use di5fers from typical outdoor strap meets. Mr. Page responded that he proposed incubator outlet "space for" small` manufacturers.. He Said he would provide amenities for children (such.. as kiddie rides) and passive entertainment for other family members. Hs reported that they would be operating on a $20,000 per month advertising budget. He said they would only be open on weekends and only `52 percent of the total floor space would be retail use with the remainder of the apace used for open space and amenities. , commissioner ehitiea asked if Mr.. Page planned to charge an admission fee.. f Mr. Page replied they had not decided as yet: ` Mr. Mager reportedi his firm had been approached by several swap meet operators f- wishing to locate in the Gemco center. He eaid they had refused to consider the use because they did not feel indoor :swap meets will be successful.. He did not think enough retailers could be attracted to fill the space. Deran Yalian, 9071 Wildflower , Rancho cucamorga, stated he was part I S� Planning Commission Minutes —9 April 24, 1991 t I owner of Carnival Mall. Hn showed a sketch of a proposed mall He indicated they had considered the Gemco center, but the center did not have suf`icient parking. As there was no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He said that the Commission was currently considering standards„ so that if the use were approved, it would be a cut above. Commissioner Toletoy thought that incubator retail opportunities sound like an exciting program. He did not feel outdoor swap meets should be permitted at all except for special fund- raising events. He did not bel ±eve indoor swap meets would be appropriate in the Heavy Industrial area.; He was concerned that any swap meet use, vould create trash generatimi problems, graffiti, and management problems. He felt the biggest- ,problems would be in the area of traffic and parking. He thought parking should be at a ratio of one space per i 100 square feet.` Commissioner Chitiea did not feel swap meets are appropriate within -the City. she suggested that if any swap meet use is to be considered, it should only be indoor. She believed the use should only be in the commercial area, because it is a retail use, but felt that traffic flow and patterns need to be considered. She did not feel the use to be at all appropriate in the 5 industrial area. She said she had never seen any swap meets that have been maintained properly. Commissioner Wallet -te agreed with staff recommendations. She thought the swap Planning Commission Minutes -10- April 24, 1991 p: 1 meet organizer should be required to provide a monthly listing of all vendors ..,including mailing addrssses.. She felt maintenance requirements should be stringent and parking requirements should be at least one apace per 100 square feet. Commissioner Melcher stated he was inclined to agree with Commiseioner Tolstoy regarding -,- ohibiting outdoor swap meets. He asked haw the City would police the requirement that only new goods be sold. He hoped the use would not be factory stores. He was ,concerned that ,eon%toring by code enforcement would be very time consuming and expensive. Chairman McNiel felt �?:at. outdoor swap meet - should only be permitted on an occasional basis under the temporary use permit process. Fie concurred with a,, parking ratio of one apace per 100 square feet. He felt the use could be �r permitted in the industrial area if hours were limited to weekend use. Commissioner Chitiea stated she was concerned about staff "s time in policing the use.. She said she was very uncomfortable with the concept as she did not wish to undercut the retail area. She supported awap meets as a fund raiser for charity purposes with a temporary use permit. ' Commissioner Melcher asked staff's reasoning for selecting a parking ratio of one space per 150 square feet. MS. Hernandez stated that staff had conducted an exhaustive study and Santa Ana was the only city requiring one spaee per 100 square feet, but their use Planning Commission Minutes -11- April 24, 1991 is not in an industrial area. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that staff would be comfortable with a ratio �Df any whFre from one space per 1G' I'll square feet to one space per 150 square feet. Commissioner Chitiea felt introduction of the use may hurt the proposed regional mall. She fe,t that if the use were to be approved it should he in c. the commercial area. Chairman Mcfliel felt the use t -`be appropriate. Mr. Buller recommended that the item be continued for two weeks to allow staff to prepare a resolution addressing the Commission's concerns. He suggested outdoor swap meets could iierhaps be eliminated and the parking could be changed to one space per 100 square feet. He said swap meets that are held on occasion are permitted under the temporary use permit regulations. ; He suggested staff could investigate the idea of instituting ,a fee to cover enforcement. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Environmental Assessment and Industrial Specific Plan,i,Rmendmen *_ 91 -03 to May 8, 1991. Motion carried by the following voter Planning Commission Minutes -12— April 24 1991 r- AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MEMBER, IOLSTOY, VALLETTE' NOSS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA l ABSENT:! COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried I i Planning Comnission Minutes -13- April 24, 1991 L.BNVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DE113LOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 92-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A xequest to amen,',. the Development Districts. Map from "OP" (office Professional) to "FBSP" ( Foothill., Boulevard Specific Plan) fez an * 8.3 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue APX. 227- 152 -18 and 30. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. M.ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL AQU) SWARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMf'NT 91- 01 - CITY_ OF RANCHO CUC ONGA ••• A request to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan to include the t 8.3 acre parcel at they northeast Corner of Foothill. Boulevard and Rochester Avenue within Subarea 4 and establish standards for development - APN: 227- 152 -18 and 3n. Staff recommends issuance of a. Negative Declaration. N.ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT' AND TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to establish certain streetscape and site design standards consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan for that portion of Footbill Boulevard within the Terra Vista Planned community. Staff recommends issuance of--,.a Negative Declaration. O.ENV ?RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 41 -01 —CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A request to establish certain streetscape and Lite design standards consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan for that portion of Foothill Boulevard within the Victoria Planned Community. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative-- nerlaration. P.ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLFN .IMENDMENT 91 -04 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to establish certain streetscape and site design standards ,consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan for that portion of Foothill Boulevard within the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Brad Sullen, City planner, reported that staff would like additional time to further study some information which had recently been received from affected deer- lopers. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented: the staff report. Commissioner Melcher' asked about plans west of Haven Avenue. .e✓ Mr. Murphy replied that three rners already improved.iw the setbacks be consistent with the Industrial Specific Plan and the public- right -of -way area wonW be developed as the activity r" center.✓ 1 Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Richard Mager, Western Lard Properties, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, stated i meetings had been held with staff regarding the amendments and it was felt improvements could be made. J Mark Gutglueck, P. 0. Box 3164, Rancho Cucamonga, questioned if the electromagnetic fields from the power lines near the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue would be considered when the corner is developed. HE SAID, "I DON'T KNOW IF I'M MMINO ANY SENSE." He asked if the power lines: would be moved. Chairman McaNiel stated the action before the Commission was merely to en:4re that future development along Foothill B 'Dulevard would be consistent with City - design standards: Mr. Murphy stated a separate Conditional Use Permit application would be processed for the proposed hotel at the site Mr. Gutglueck was aeking about. He said he was not aware of any plans to move the power lines. Mr. Buller suggested M❖. Gutglueck stop by the City to-'review the plans that lyzd been received ash then contact the developer regarding his concerns. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to continuo Environmental Assessment and Development District Amendment 91 -01, Environmental Ansessment and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91- 01,c,Environmental Assessment and Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment,- Environm -ntal Assessment and Victoria- Community Plan Amendment 91 -01, and Environmental Assessment and Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 91-04. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES:COMMISSIONERS:CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES:COMMISSIONERS:NONE ABSENT:COMMISSIC_- NERS:NONE- carried NEW BUSINESS Q.AMF.NDMENT TO UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM FOR RANCHO SAN ANTONIO MEDICAL CENTER- An appeal of staff's decision to deny a sign program amendment, located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and church Street - APN: 227- 771 -01. (Continued from April 24, 1991.) Bruce Buckingham, elanning Technician, presented the s aff report. Bill Neumann, Administrator, of P —echo- San Anto io Medical Cc zt-. 777 Milliken Avenue, Rancho Cucdmonga', 4ted their p I ary concern,:_ eed for easy identification. He said th. "building 13 separate, independent physicians and an independent pharmacy. He showed pictures � iriftew i" -i erg is+r sign 'on the north side of the building. He indicated thev had two ✓>' driveway signs, but �y co= not easily be seen from the intersection. V Commissioner Chitiea asked where additional signage would be placed. She commented that the entrance for emergency services is through the main entrance of the building. Mr. Neumann indicated these- proposed positu)ns. Commissioner Chitiea wondered if .,�W sign, should be placed on a building when 0-+ the entrance is located through another building. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the monument signs need to be larger. Brad. Buller, City Planner, stated the issue was not the size of the signs but the number of signs permitted. �f Paul Eaton, Ontario Newo /Sign Company, 7777 Mi liken Asenue, Rancho Cucamonga, felt that the directio�j 1 signs within the enter are adequate, but he -felt additional signage needed that be easily identified from the intersection. He showed pictures indicating where the additional signs would be placed. He i`ad,icated --" felt the urgent care sign was theist most pressing need. Commissioner Tolstoy ,asked if the physicians were just leasing space in the building. Mr. Neumann responded that the physicians are entering a limited partnership agreement to be owner /tenants of the buildings and they manage their own + practices. X chairman McNiel felt that visitors would bF.confuser! ifit a wall, sign listed urgent, care, but the actual entrance vw= located in anoth! -r building. commissioner Chitiea agreed that an urgent care sign should clearly indicate where the entrance is located. commissioner Melcher felt that the existing sign program is inadequate. He suggested the applicant re- evaluate the sign program for the entire center. -=- Commissioner vallette felt that more signs are needed. She wondered if the Commission could approve the use as a multi- tenau;t building to permit additional signs. Mr. Buller stated that even if the use ware determined to be multi- tenant, i additional monument signs would not be permitted Commissioner Tolstoy -felt there should be a wall si% �.iad tx ho San , Antonio Medical Centerr�fha cou m Mil�i`ken and Church. He thought tha south end of a building has auf #icient signage. He suggested a well lit mo:a -eint sign to, designate the urgent care entr nces. He also felt the direc iciz�i signs in the parking lot should be enlarged. He thought the entire slgn program should be reconsidered. Chairman McNiel did not want each physican requesting their own sign. He opposed placing an urgent care sign any where that would not direct visitors to the entrance door for emergency care. Dan Coleman, Pri -o pal Planner, stated that appropriate action would be to deny the appeal direct staff to work with the applicant tev redesign the sign program. dr. � Gl(J! ' Mr. Neumann stated ne would like to work with staff to improve the signige. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to deny the appeal and\''direct staff to work with the applicant to improve the sign program. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES:COMMISSIONERS:CBITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES:COMMISSIONERSsNONE ABSENT;COMMISSIONERS :NONE- carried i DIRECTOR'S REPORTS R.PROPOSEI TEXT % AMENDMF,'NT TO THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLATZ ALLOW CHILD jARE SC,OOL FACr�JTIES WITHIN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher commented that if child care /school facilites were permitted within Neighborhood Commercial Districts, tt would ,Rot necessarily mean they would be located within Neighborhood Commer" al shopping centers.: Mr. Buller responded affirmatively. He said the app,4cant proposed to locate a facility on a 4 -5 acre site. Commissioner Melcher stated he understood that the ,Commission was being asked to direct staff to initiate a text amendment if the project proponent ` submitted an application ai.d P--aid`-'all ,fees. Mr. Buller responded affirmatively and indicated that if the Commission directed staff to proceed with an amendment request, it did not necessarily mean the Commission concurred with the applicant's request. Chairman McNiel commented that such facilities are situated in other commercial areas in the City. Commissioner Tolstoy felt day ca -' centers are needed and may be appropriate for commercial areas. However, he commented that if such facilities are located in a commercial center, circulation and other concerns are important.. Commissioner Chitiea felt the use should, require a conditional use permit. Commissioner Vallette agreed to review each an application, but indicated she typically feels the uses are not compatible. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Anita McZeal, Land Plan Design Group, 1250 West Sth Street, Apt, D, Corona, asked for direction from the Commission regarding the City's land use intent for a 14 acre site at the southeast corner of 24th Street and East Avenue. Chairman McNiel thought the purpose of the Etiwanda Specific Plan was to make sure the area retained a country atmosphere. Mr. Buller stated the project propt+nent wished to propose an amendment, but in the past the Commission's policy had been to consider such an amendment only after a project was submitted and environmental and planning documentation is submitted. Ms. McZeal stated her company felt the area deserves special Planning Com, Ission feedback. Commissioner Melchor felt; special treatment was not warrented. Commissioner CUtiea cpnr-arred. She felt it was appropriate for the developer to go through the normal process and indicated staff time is at a premium. It was the consensus of the Commiso$on to direct staff to pursue an amendment if an application is fil3d. COMMISSION BUSINESS Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the City would have to recruit to fill the position of the member -at -large for the Trails Committee because the three former applicants were no longer available. He indicated staff would begin the recruitment process, ADJOURNMENT Motions' Moved by Melchor, seconded by Valletta, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 12:45 a.m. Planning Commission adjourned to an April 25t 1991, workshop at 3:30 p.m. in the Rains Room of the Civic Center regarding multi - family housing standards. i Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary 1 27. 29. 32, 33_ 34. Planning Commission Meeting �1'! C? of RNCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN -UP SHEET ;i Please print your name, address, shank you. and city and indicate the item you have spoken regarding.. NAME CITY ITEM /ADDRZSS I 2. �` i�1 10 y� ilfi,yl G _ I_ 3. C kip y -S' 1�•�� %�!•f/*il� 5. f / lj '_� — 6 • 7. 5 r fs° i r`� l� 0-)4" a a. z?, �1lf /As?3? / Q?. ( "� a'l11�Q��/'tt � 9. Mnmtro, 14. J RI�►� ~�A A,10 tL�FltxtlFa2 (Z JkLo N'lpt G---- r 15. LtnaFUA'Iby'q ?777 )"IL -WKaw /ys, 9Arnu o 16.t J/- e' °` r 27. )25D S�'Avf7 CororoCUtcdr�a►� c o� -t2 is. 19. _ 20. 21. 22. 23. _ 24. 25. 26. i 27. 29. 32, 33_ 34. ITEM 8 ,\ ITEN ITEM SAN AHTtMTn IPER "_CAL CUP 91 -01 P��'93 BRUCE STEVE H. CAUL Ek,.' C3TARIO NEON CO -, INC. 303 WEST MAIN STREET ONTARIO, CA 91762 a , -L NEWMANN Rn,YCHO SAN ANTONIO MED. CENT. 7777 -A MILLIKEN AVENUE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 jiPASTOR ROBERT WOOD ''VICTORY CHAPEL 11837 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD RANCHO CUCAMONGA* CA 91730 IT�I A DR 90 -19 STEVE R. IT= Q, DANNY WANG ISPA 91-03 FORIA INTERNATIONAL ANNA -LISA 11400 E. SA14 JOSE AVENUE' LITY'OF INDUSTRY, CA 91748 JAMES PAGE JEFF HARDY & ASSOCIATES 15643 SHERMAN WAY, #500 27343 JEFFERSON AVE -, 0108 VAN NUYS, CA 91406 If TEHECM A, CA 92390 RICHARD SFENTON 28202 CARROT ROAD, #200 LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677 'RANCE.CLOUSE LEE & ASSOCIATES 10370 COMMERCE CTR. DR., #100 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 SHAHVAND ALYANA 9728 6TH STREET RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 ITBK f T 14211 STEVE H/BARBARA U.S. HOME CORPORATION ATTN:, MR. HAGGERTY 11545 W. BERNARDO COURT SAN DIEGO, CA 92127 rm C VAR 91--64 STIlVE R. KENNETH N. LINVILLE LINVILLE CIVIL ENGINEERS 3035 HAVEN AVENUE, SUITE 100 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 MR. CHARLES DOSKOW 222 N. MOUNTAIN AVE, SUITE 21( UPLAND, C 91786 MR.= & MRS. S. LUNA 8990 19TH STREET, #201 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701 • LINDA L. FROST NOR2HWOODS HOA 10340 MAHOGANY COURT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701 " VALERT :-SCHRWXNER EUCLID MANAGVKEN, P.O. 'BOX 151v UPLAND, CA 91785 OLIVER DAY, AIA' 1325 GLENMERE STREET WEST COVINA, CA 91790 FNEWPORT REST TENNIS S90E WHSE. 1 MONROE COURT HO CUC.YONGA, CA 91730 ARD DICK & ASSOCIATES WEST CLIFF DRIVE REACH, CA 92660 ITEM R ESPA Miki B. STEVEN R- LUNA 8990 19Th °STmmr, 1!201 _ RANCHO CUCAMONGA# CA 91 Arita '<reviuo- McZeal Land Plan. Design! 24751 Plaza Drive, Suite A Tustin, CA 92680