Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/08/28 - Agenda Packet0701_02 o AUGUST 28, 1991 P. C. AGENDA o ( 1 of 4 AGENDAL .' WEDNESDAY August 28, 1993, 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC 'CENTER COUNCIL CZ MBER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGh, CALIFORNIA I. Pledge of All nianccs 11.. Roll Call Commissioner Chitiea Commissioner;.Tolstoy Commissioner McNiel CommissionerVallette Commissioner Melcher III. Announcements IV. Approval of .Minutes July 24, 1991 V. Consent Calendar The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non - controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time withoixt discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discuss] ;',%. A. A P79OLUIIION OF APPROVAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -08 - MACIAS - A request to allow`- retail sales in conjunction with a light wholesale, storage, and distribution use within an existing 17,384 square foot building in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the`- 'Industrial Area Specific Plan, locato4 on the east side of Monroe Courti, north �,of Jersey Boulevard - APN.• 209-244-42.,,-, Staff recommends issuance of a Negative , ^�claeation. B. RESOLUTION FOR USE DETERMINATION 91 -01 - EUGHES 'INVESTMENTS A resolution to add Animal Care Facilities as I a conditionally permitted use within the via ;lage Commercial Distr ..t of the Victoria Community Plan. C. VAGATIONvO° SIDEWALK EASEMENT - A request to vacate l" t� sidewalk easement, located between 9435 anc� 94125 Palo Alto Street, vkt the terminus of Layton :itreet. `�l l = U_ VACATION o oJF A RECORDED OFFER `t,.. `- 'OICA'i'ION FOR A _ t.iR OI! O_ s^ NtIGNONETTE STREET , ,,, (' request to Y acate a recorded offer of 'di ''a.cation of ttignonjit6e Street from Hellman AV 'e westerly, includizig the partial cul -d� F -- APN: 20i- °041 -57 and 58. j J Vin Public Hearings TY. following items are hearings in which tpubUc cancer-ied individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the 2,,hairman and address the = Commission by stating jour name and address. All-, such opinions shall bp limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project, Please sigh in after speaking. NViRO149ENTAL ASSESSMENT ANU DMMLOPMENT COD AMENDUN^ 91 -o1 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA — A rudest to amend. Title 17, Chapter ,, ,1 7.1.2 of the .. Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to eliminate compact,'t parking spaces. Staff recommends as,`dance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued fr',)m August 14, 1991.) F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTIRIAL SP PLAN AMENDM,7NT 91 -01 -- CITY OF RANCHO GLJCAMONGi. :� A request: to amend Part III of the Industrial Area Specific Plan to eliminate compact parking spaces. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from August 14, 1991.) G. MODIFICATION TO TENTATME TRACT 1'1351 -- LEW1S HOMES - A request to modify 4i, previously approved Tract Map to ncreas;e tUd number of multi- family lots from one and five numbered lots to one lettered and seven numbered lots for 118 condominium units`;on 11.2 acres of land in the Low- Medium Residential { designation (4-8 dwelling units per acme) of 1 C the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the so;rhwsst corner of Milliken Avenue land Terra Vista Parkway - APT: 1077- 091 -37. I 6; -a � �y f H. MODIFYCKTION TO VARIANCE 91 =04 LUNA - A request te! modify a previously approved variance to i allow a reduction in the minimum average lot size from 22,500 to 21,240 square feet to - comply with the ,City Councill's approval of the associated Tentative, Parcel Map 13693 which created two to -t in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2' dwelling units per, acre) on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - AP4:' 201- 182 -29. I. FNVIRONMENTAL ASSESS2MT AND- PERMIT--91-01 - VICTORY CHAPEL •- Ai: request to locate a temporary modular multi- purpose building of 912, square feet on the site of the existing 6,000 square foot Victory Chapel, located on .74 acres of land in the industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial' Specific Plan at 11837 Foothill Boulevard, west of Rochester Avesmue - APN: 229- 011 -21. Staff w recommends 4• -,uance of a Negative Declaration. , U. VARIANCE 93.-::.0—, VICTORY CHAPEL - A request to waive the recaulrement for a master plan for permazzent buildings in conjunction -vi,rh the request to, locate a temporary modular multi- purpose building of 912 square feet on the site of the ex-ating 6,000 square foot Victory Chapel, located on .74 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of tiie Industrial Specific P }an at 11837 Faot-k ll Boulevard, west of Rochester Avenue - APN 229- 011 -2I. K. ENVIRONMENTAL- ASSESSMENT AND __ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -02B -CITY OF RAP5CHO CUCAMONG7 - A , proposal to amend the General Plan_ hand Use Element 13ap from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units_pdr acre) for the following subareas within the Et_.wanda and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan areas: 3. Approximately 27.89 acres bord6red on the northwest by the Ontario ( -15) ,Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue alzd exioting Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south. �y commercially ,idesignated land bordering Foothill Boule�MArd. The City will consi-ler how Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative. d^signation .for this entire avea - 'APN: 227 - 211 -02 04, 05, 09, 10y 15, 20 and 29 Approximately 30.72 acres bordered on the =' northwest by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the east by Ea,�t Avenue and existing Low; Medium Residential - designs ted land, ; nd on i, .the south by Miller Avenue. The City wild, consader, Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use for this entire area - APR; 1100- 03'1. -0£�, 1100- 041 -04 through 10, 1100- 051 -03, and 1100- 061 -02 through 64 and portions of 1180- 071 -01 ana,02. 7. Approximately, 10.09 Mres borderel on the north and west by existing Law Medium Residential designated land, on the east by existing Office designated land, and'on the south by Base Line Road. The City will coil -..der Office as an alternative. land use- for this entire area - ` -�APN: 227- 1.31 -34 through 36, 52 through 54, and 610 7 8. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by tha Soltbexn Pacific railway, on the east by the *ario'(I -15x Freeway, on the south by el:'ist:ing Office .designated land, and on tl� , west by existing . 7,aw. Medium designateiI, land and divided a' ,'in north - south direr ion by East Avenue," The Csty will consider Low Residential, (2 -4 AOL- dwelling units per rre) as an. alternative - land use for this' °., entire area .' M 227- 131-05 and 227- 141 -14 and 66. Staff recommends 'issuance of a Negative Declaatiun. . _ASSESSMENT AND RTTFr A SPEC?FIC 'PLAN A1 -JpMW!, 91 -03 - CITY r% RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the- Etiwanda Specific Plan sand Use Nap from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling '�,unita per acre) to Low Medium UesidentiaW, `4 -8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas within the Etivanda Specific Plan: 1. Approximately 27.89 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by commercially designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard. The City will consider Low Residential., (2 -4 $` dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use for this , entire area - APN: 227- 2'11 -02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 20, and 29. 3. Approxiliately'30.72 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing, Low ' Medium Residential dEaignated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative, land use for this entire arc' ­:..- APN: 1100- 031 -081 ' 1160-041-04 through 10, 1100Wo51 -03, and 1100 - 061 --02 through 04 anal portions of 1100- 071 -01 and 02. F 5. Approximately! `.'+.0.09 acres bordered on the north and west by existing Low ;Medium Residential dssicanatetk land,'on the east by existing Office designated land, and on the south by Lase Line Road.. The City will ! con -ides office Professional as ' an r alternative land use for this entire area - APN 227- 131- 34'through 3 -6, 52 through 54, ar3'61. 6. A� proximately 20.34 acres 'bordered on the north by the Southern Pacific railway, on the east by tha,,Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the south by existing office ;designated land, - and on',:; «he west -'by , existing Low Medium designated land and divided" in a north -south direction Eby East Avenue. The City will consideritow Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per i "re) as an alternative land use for this entire area - APN: 227- 131 -05 and 227- 141 -14 and 66. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 91I. Director's Reports M. CONSIDERATION OF FORMAT RESPONSE TO ROUTE 30 EXTENSION . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIR %EIS) VIII. Commission Business IX. Public Caaments ' This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. - Items to be discussed i here are those'which do not already appear on this agenda. X. ! • Adjournment l The Planning Commission has "adopted A0,,ministrative Regulations that set an 11:00 P.M. - adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. I t vicinity map V LZ 4; CITE' OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA wQrVAIWI' % +'PnRT DATE: August 28, 1991 TO: Chairman and 'Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Steven Ross, ,&Ssistant Planner SUBJECT: A RSSOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR =VIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -08 - MACIAS - A request to allow= retail sales in conjunction with a' light ',wholesale, storage, and distribution use within an existing 17,364 square foot building in the industrial Park 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. BACKGROUND: At its mseting on August U, 1991, the planning Commission conducted a public hearing and voted. 5-0 to direct staff, to prepare a Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 91 -08. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the commission issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the attached Resolution of Approval. Resp lly to , Bra le City annex BE -SR :j& Attachments. Resolution of Apiir "ovai" RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION 'OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,. CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91 -08 FOR RETAIL SALES IN CONJUNCTION WI ".`H A LIGHT• WHOLESALE, STORAGE, AND DISTRIBUTIGN USE LOCATED AT 8711 MONROE COURT IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT (SUBAREA 6) Ox THE INDUSTRIAL AREA _SPECIlIC PLAN, AND MAKING, FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209- 144 -42 A. Recitals. (i) Raymound,a O. Macias has filed an application for the `..,%nuance of the Conditional Use Permit No. 91 -08 as described is the title` of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit requost is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 24th ofripril, the 8th of May, the 24th of July, and the ! 14th of August, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Ii conducted daly noticed public hearings on the application and concluded said q hearings on the 14th of August. r i (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. E. 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 substa�itial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public;hearitigs on April 24, May 8, July 24, and August 14, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (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 wl;,.b an `industrial building, parking lot, and landscaping:, and (b) 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; and (a) The building i9 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. PLANNING COHHISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 91-08 - MACIAS August 28, 1991 Page T (d) The application contemplates, 3,330 square feet of retail sales and 14,072 square feet of warehouue and related offices; and (e) The site was designed and intended for manufacturing and light distribution uses; hence, a depzaesed loading ramp faces the street frontage which separates the public entrance from the main parking lot.- Ar proposed, the site plan would require customers to traverse through the loading ramp area to access the public entrance. Therefore, the loading ramp area will be radesignsd to incorporate additional landscaping end parking wb -ch is typical of a retail -type ueer, resulting in a pleasant and safe operation. A new loading ramp will be constructed on the north side of the building to serve tte warehouse. 3. Based [pon the substantial evidence presented tE;thie.Ccmmission during the above - referenced public hearings 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 proposed "use is ir',accord A. h th ®`General Plan, the objectives of the Industria-` Area Specific Plan, or th's purposes of the district in which the site is located.,. (b) That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the r 'lie health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to propertiew or improvements in the vicinity. ;? (c) That the proposed use does comply with each of the applicable provisions of` the Development Code. 4. This Commission hereby finds <.and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered £: comEs£anc: %with the California Environmental Quality Aut of 1970, and further, i1hix Commission hereby issues a Negative Declaration. S. Based upon the Findings and '-conclusions sat forth in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hor2by approves the application subject to each and every condition set ,fortri below and in the attached StandArd Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Division: 1) The amount of floor space devoted to retail sales shall be reduced to 3,330 square feet (19 percent of the 14,070 square foot building). 2) The existing roll -up doors on the west side shall be replaced with an architecturally integrated panel of a material and color ; consistent with th& building's design. J L dim .43 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 91 -08 - MACIAS 15 August 28, ?.991 Page 3 3) The loading ramp on the west side of the building shall be filled in to provide landscaping and parking spaces at the same grade as the remainder of the lot. A new -. ). loading ramp shall be constructed on the north, ' side of the building to serve the existing roll -up door. 4) An enriched walkway 'shall be provided to connect the northerly parking lot to the main entrance. The enriched pavement material shall be approved by the City Planner. S) All conditions of approval shall be satisfied withfn 90 days of this approval subject to ert.wision by the City. Planner. Failure to comoly with ` Conditions of Approval or applicable City Ordinances may cause suspension of the Conditional C> P-imi 'U r n Planning Commission. -' 6) . 7!. The approval shall run with tre applicant and shall become void upon; a change of nwnershipc,cr if the business operation ceases 7 )_ The building shall be repainf.6d. If a change in the color scheme is desir -3, a color board shall be submitted to the ',;.Ay Planner for review and approval. Building and Safety Division: 1) The following conditions must be met by September 1, 1991, unless an extension is granted by the Building Official: a. All existing work constructed without permits shall be verified. b. The fire sprinkler system shall be extended ; Into new areas so that all areas are protected. Plans for construction and sprinkler work, proposed or existing without permits, are to be submitted for approval and permit issuance. c. Lighted esit signs shall be installed to serve the retail area. \l' PLANNING COMMISSION RE;SOLUT'tION NO. �.1 CUP 91-08 — MACIAS rA August 28, 1991 Page 4 d. A fire protected corridor shall: be installed to an additional exit door to provide a secondary exit from the retail area. 8. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPAWED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 1991. i PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCFO CUCAMONGA I BY: Larry McNiel, CW :irman ATTEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of tho .City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duty ...,.. Aft _ -! regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the, Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular mostinaA^ the Planning Commission held on the 28th .lay of August 29JY, by the followih"ote --a -wit: AYES: COMPT°SION$RS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ,r i Jt CQTV OF DEPARTMENT OF RIP&MO G aucaUGUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ....... ]I TO PROJECT #: CUP 4I j° O 8 SUBJECT: DEL, REY TEUNIS SNor L)A1tCMbV% APPL +CANT: _KAYAUUbo 0• VhPCra,s LOCATION: 2-711 ►ilorie - Care,T Those items checker are Conditions of Approval. APPLICANT SMALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (714)969-1861, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. Time Limits 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. 2. Development/Dr.. gn Review shall be approved prior to r c 3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the approval of 4. Tnedevelopershahcommence, paritotein, andeonsummateorcausetobecommenced, participated in, or consummated, 2 Mello -Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance constniction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The station shalt be located, designed, and built to all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the DPstrict's property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be forted by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. S. Prior to recordation of the final map orthe issuance of building pemilts, whichovercomes first. the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello -Roos Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of ri ecessary school facilities. However, if any school district has previously a xabiished such a Community Facilities District, the applicant shah, in the alternative, consent to th ► annexation of the project site into the territory of such existing District prior to the record Von of the final reap or the issuance of builtPng permits, whitiftever comes first. Further. if the affected school Am district has not formed Meiio -Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and priorto the recordation of the final map or issuance of•buhding permits for said p;:sject, this condition shah be deemed null and void. QQ SC - 2/91 1 or 12 J J� _/_.! eM,ert C�ndetl -o ter 4l'0�1 Dale This condition Shall be waived if ine City receives notice that the applicant and all affected schooldistricts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts as a result of this project. 6. Prior to niburdation of the final map or prior to issuance of building permits when no map Is involved, written v artification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued ay the water district within 90 days priorto final map approval inthp case of subdivision orpriortoIssuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. B. Site Devslopment ✓1. The site shalt be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which inch!de site plans, architectural elevations. exterior materials end colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file In the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and Specific Plan, a 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all J� Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Clay Planner. 3. Occupancy of thefacirdyshallnotcommenrauntilstichtimeasal ltlnflormEWIidingCodeand State Fire Marshall's regulations have been compiled with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Disteict and the iBuilding and Safety Division to show compliance. The building shag be inspected for compliance prior C occupancy. t/' 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to Issuance at lxriliing permits. v 5. All site, grading, landscape. Irrigation. and street improvemeht plans shall be coordinated for consistency priorto Issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, enetoaehmeN, building , etc.), or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, H approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. ✓ S. Approval of -this request shall not waive cot �ptisr ce with all sections of the Development _!�! Code, all other applicable City G:dinances, and applicable Cormnuagy Ph= or Specific Plans in a "ect at the time of Building Permit issuance. 7. A detailed orKite lighlbrg plan shalt be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and SherF,i s Department (989.6611) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely Mect adjacent properties. -8, If no cei;:mfised trash receptacles are provided, alt trash pick -up shall be for Individual units with all receptacles shielded from puVic view. 'f 9. Trash receptacfa s) am requirtod and shag meet City standards. The final design, kleations, -- i--1 -- and the ruumber of trash receptacles shall be subject to City PiannGr review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. r 10. All ground - mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shalt —�-- -� be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, andfor tandscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. SC • 2/91 201`12 11. SS. het names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Pelicy prior to approval of the final map. y- 12. All building numbers and Individual units shall be Identified Ina clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 13. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes. physical conditions, fencing, and weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City Plannerreview and approval priorto approval and reoordationot the FinaiTract Map and prior toapprovalof street improvement arvJ grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and construct all trails. including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements. 14. The Covenants, Conditions and Restftlons (CC&RS) shalt not prohibit the keeping of equine animals where zoning requirements forthe keeping of said animals have been met.. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animalswithoutfhe necessity of appealing to boards _t di.Wors or homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&Rs. 15. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City AComey. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. V 16. Allparic ways, open areas, and landscapi ngshailbe permanently maintained bytheproper4 owner, homeowners: association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall to submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review arc approval prior to issuance of building permits. 17. Solar access easements shaft be dedicated for the purpclse of assuminfl that each lot or dwelling unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use a a solar ene:jy system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions to the subdivision which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the final map o issuance of permits, whichever comes first. The easements strap prohibit the casting a shadows by vegetation, structures, fi tuaas or any other object, except for utility wires an similar objects, pursuant to Dwetopment Cafe Section 17.08.060 -Cr2. 18. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. The slte shall be developed and maintained in a000rdan;e with the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit No. . Any further modifications to the skfl inckiding, but not wed to, exterior alterations and/c interior alterations whichaffectthe exiarforotthe twiidingsorstnlcturas, removal of iandmai trees, demolition, relocation, neofonstnrction of buiid'mgsorstructures, orchanges to t v sdi shall require a modification too the Historic Landktark Alteration Permit subject to Histoil Preservation Commission review and approval. C. Building Design P,e,er..10 cu 14 ql'G� Completion D.w J_.f_ Jam- J__J J--J— J---/ —J--J- -J--J- 1. An alternative energy system is :eWl red to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units and for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other alternative energy systems are demonstratedtobeofequ iva*rO,capadtyandetticior . All swi kningpoolsinstaeed atthe time of initial deveiopr lnt shalt be supplemented with solar heatkng. Details shalt be included in the building plans and shalt be subm:�ted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of lX41ding permits. 2. All dwellings shall have the front. side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural ol—J treatment, detailing and increased delineation of sudacO treatment subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of bud irg permits. SC - 2/91 3' of c2 Q�i cue A1-08 O me lmon 3. Standard patio cover plans (cruse by, the Homeowners' Association shalt be sutimffted for City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. AM 4. Alt roof appurtenances, indudirXI air ,xmditioners and other roof mounted equipnnent and/or projections, shall b+ shielded f rorn view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be art ;hiteca •ally integrated with the building design and construrted to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shalt be included in building r tans. D. Parking and Veftular Access (indicate details on building Mans) 1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the-parking stab (inckiding curb). 2. Textured ; edes'.4an pathways aM textured pavement across circulation aiskvs ;hall be J� - prov'dedthroughuutthe development to conned dwellings/ units/buiidirgswith open sp.acesf ' plazastre'4)eationai uses. 3. f- parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, 1L .J entrances, and exits shall be striped per City stand,,-A. ✓4. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 feet in i depth from back of sidewalk. 5. The Covenants, Conditions and Restri, t ions shall restricithe storage of recreational vehicles --- � ----�— on this site unless they are the principal source of transporiatlon for the owner and prohibit parh;ag on Interior circulation aisles other than In designated vLghor parking areas. 6. PI3ns for arty security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and ---1 —I Rancho Cucamonga Fire ProtectionDistrictrevlew and approval priortoissuance of building permits. E. Landscaping (tor publicly maintained landscape arses, refer to Section N.) ✓1 . A detailed landscape and Irrigation plan, inckOV slope plark.ig and model home landscap. -1—! Ing in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architectand submitted for City Planner review &ndapproval priorto theissunceotbuifding permits or prior final Wrap approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. Existing trees required to be preserved In place shall be protected with a autstructlon barrier in accordanceviththe taunA*W Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted onths Wading plans, The location of those trees to be preserved in plate and new locations fortransplanted trees shsri be shown on the detailed landscape plants. The applicant shall follow all of the atborisrs recommendations regarcifrg preservation, transplarriirg and trimming methods. 3. Aininimumof treespergmssscm.o ompdsodofthetotlawirgsizes ,slt3ilbermvided �-1- -_ within the project:_ %- A9- irtchbox orlaWr,_ % -36- Inch bozorlarger, %- 24- inch box or larger. %-15- gallon, and % - 5 gallon. 4. A min'tntwm of _% of trees planted within the project shall be specimen tae trees - -J�f 24•indt tox or lq..rgor. ✓� 5. Within pa,kiing lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 1i'- 0ion tree for every three parking stalls, sufficient to shade 506/6 of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. SC - 2191 i cf 13 Psai «� va. up 41-08 D]L: U !:--:,6— Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. l CftID�lUOti --J--J- 7. All prwate slope banks 5teetor less In vertical height and of5 :1 orgreaterslopo, but loss than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped vdh appropriate ground cover for erosion control, Slope plaiting required by this section st ciU include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 8. All private siopesinexcessof5f set, but less than 8feet in vertical height and of 2:1orgreater --�—� slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15 -gallon or largersize tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon orlarger size shrub per each 100 sq, ft. of slope area, and appropriate groundcover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5 -gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area, Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plans. Slope planting requirad by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by thG taveluDer prior to occupancy. 4 9. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation stall be eontinu- ousty maintained in a healthyand thriving condition by the developeruntil each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Priorto releasing occupancy for those unds ,aninspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 10. For multi- family residential and non - residential development, proporty owners are respon- sible for the continual maintenance of al landscaped areas on -site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right -of -way. All landaraped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, and she9 receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damr,49d, dead, diseased, or decaying plant materiai shall be replaced within 30 days frorzn Cae date of damage. 11. Front yard landscaping shall be required per the Deveit" ant Code and /or . This requlmmenj i a in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 12. The final design of the perimeter parkways, wafts, la- f,� a,. and sidewalks shall be included in the required Landscape plans and shad be subject to City Pknner review and approval and coordinatO forcorsistency with any parkw3y landsc«rs'AVplanwhlohmaybe required by the Engines, In Division. 13. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial mck. specimen size trees, meander- in!, ;idewaks (with horizontal cha-4e), and intensdied landscapin o, is required along 14. Landscaping and Irrigation systems requ'rrm..3 bo installed within the puWic d9ilt- of -way an the perimeter of this project area shall toe, continuously maattained by the developer. ✓ 15. All waI6;ihailbeprovidedwit 1decorativetreatment.0located in,,;,;w"r.,maintenanceareas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. I-� 16. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City ,Planner review and approval prior to -stuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth ra`,ura.4: of the selaeted tree Wecies. i✓ 17. LarZscapdrtg ar_-3 iffVatlon shall be designed to conserve water throe (jh the principles of XeriscaW. as defined in Chaptor 19.16 of the Rancho Curarf .jga Municipal Cade. AM Sc - 2 /91 s ar m �J— I 1 7 H. Other Agencies !` 1. Emergency secondary act; r' as shag bsprovidadIn accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire —J--J- Protection Dist(, Stuns.,- :ds. ✓ 2. Emergency access shall be provided. msintenme free and clear, a minimum of 26 feet wida —J- --1- -- at all times during construction in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District requirements.. 1 3. Prior to Wwance of built& permits for combustible cons'ltvchon, evidence shall be —J—J- suhmi! led to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection 01069 that termpoTarywater supply for tire protection is available, pending compWon of requirediire prctection systs: 3. 4. The applIcant shall contact the U. S. Postal Servico to determine the appropriMe type and —J-1— location of mail boxes. Mufti tami4 residential deveioWis-.4s shall provide a solid overhead structure for nzif boxes with adeWate tl Irg. The final bcatian,of the mall baxos and time design of the overhead structure shall be subjent to city Plariner review and approval prior to the Issuance of buiiding permits. S. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptar, - incanding all supportive information, shag be obtait*d from the Sari Semadrio Courtly Department of Environmental Health and subm'Mod to this Buildirg Official "rto that issuanrA of Septic I Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of buildg'V permits. sc - 2/91 so( fl Sa�invm�.e�: F. Wong 1. �hesigns indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and mt apart ofthisapprovat. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with 'he Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by She: Planning Di sbn pi --,r to installai�.j, of ary signs. 2. A Unillorm Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner rreview and J-1- - approval priorto issuance of building permits. 3. Directory monument sign(s) shall be provided fore.,>artmsnt, condominium, ortownhomes prior to occupancy and shall recrire separate a" -1tion and app:oval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of buikiir g permits. G. Environmental 1. The, rlxve%per shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Roar ._!___I, Crusher project in a standard format as determined by We City Planner, priori! i accepting a :,ash deposit on any property. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer wrtiten no:ica of the L`up Adopted --�- -f —2. Special Studies Zons i e Fled bill Fault, in a standard format ( s determined by the City Planner, prior to a^as a c,� h deposit on any property. 3. The developer sha each prospective buyer wr'�Ren notics of the Foothil' Freeway project in a scan& d to.. as determined by the My Plsriner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any i, Marty. 4. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval pdoe to the issuance of twilling permits. The final report shall disMss tits level of interior raise attenuation tobe; ra45CNEt _, the building moterialsand constn3Ctk)nteChniquesprWAded, and if appropriate, verify the adeagracy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be chocked for conformance with the mR+gstion measures contained In the final report, H. Other Agencies !` 1. Emergency secondary act; r' as shag bsprovidadIn accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire —J--J- Protection Dist(, Stuns.,- :ds. ✓ 2. Emergency access shall be provided. msintenme free and clear, a minimum of 26 feet wida —J- --1- -- at all times during construction in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District requirements.. 1 3. Prior to Wwance of built& permits for combustible cons'ltvchon, evidence shall be —J—J- suhmi! led to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection 01069 that termpoTarywater supply for tire protection is available, pending compWon of requirediire prctection systs: 3. 4. The applIcant shall contact the U. S. Postal Servico to determine the appropriMe type and —J-1— location of mail boxes. Mufti tami4 residential deveioWis-.4s shall provide a solid overhead structure for nzif boxes with adeWate tl Irg. The final bcatian,of the mall baxos and time design of the overhead structure shall be subjent to city Plariner review and approval prior to the Issuance of buiiding permits. S. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptar, - incanding all supportive information, shag be obtait*d from the Sari Semadrio Courtly Department of Environmental Health and subm'Mod to this Buildirg Official "rto that issuanrA of Septic I Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of buildg'V permits. sc - 2/91 so( fl Pro,ctt So.: (Ve ql eornylt6ga D APPLICANTS SMALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY RIVISION, (714) 989 -th63, FOR OMPL1ANCE WITH YME FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: ..Site Development The applicant shallconpiywhh the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, uniform Mechani- —J—J— cai Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and reolations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. _ z. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unii(s) or major addition —�—� toaxistlng unit(s), the applicant shalipaydeveloprrientfoes.-itthe established rate. Suchfees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainago Fee, Systems Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and Schocd Fees. A. Prior to issuance of bolding permits for a new commercial or Industrisi development or --J--J- addition to an existing development, the applicant shay pay de -,�iopment fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, belt are not limited to: Systems Development Fee. Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Pier, Checking Fea,. 4. Street addressas shall be provided by the Building Maicial, after tracUparcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building pennies. J. Existing Structures ?. Provide compliance with the Uniform Ouilding Code for the property line clearances Jr/i considering use, area, and Tire - resistiveness of existing buildings. ✓ 2. ExistirM buildings shall be made to F*mpty with correct building and zoning regulations for J—J the intended use or the building shat be demolished. —3. Existing sewage d1spes2! facilities shall be romoved, filled andforcapped to comply vrlri. °_he I rlJ Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Building Code. 4. Undeiground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for I J�J building permit application. K. Grading 1. Grading of the sublact propsriy shall be In accordance with the UnW nt Bulldl.-Q Code, City --J--J- Grading Starldards, and accepted grassing practices. The Waal grading plan by all be in substantial conformance wil . the approved grading plats. --2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer kertsod by the State of California to --�—�- perforrt such work. —3. T he development is faceted within the soli erosion control boundaries: a Soil Disturbance J—I_ Permit is required. Please contact San Bernardino County Dspaalmei sof Agrfcuture at (714) 387 -2111 for pernit application. Doctimerkatlonofsuch permit shall be aubmtted to the City prior to the issuance of rough grading peril. 4. A geoiogleal report shelf be prepared by a qualified engineer or geokVisit and submitted at � --- the time of application for grading plan check. 5. The final grading plans shall be completed arid approved pr iorto Issuance of building permits. —J—J- SC - 2/91 701' 12 p•o, ct �o. ('U'P gI-0rb Cumylvim Dam- 6. As a custom-lot subdivision, the following requirements shall be met: a. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all on -site drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division priorto f !net map approval and priorto the issuance of grading permi!S. b. Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage water that aro cAnducted onto -J—J- or over adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division,; °! for to issuance of grading and Itruiiding permits. c.On -site drainage improvements, necessary for dawatering and protetiing the subdilided -- properties, are are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for conslaiction upon any parcel that maybe subject to drainage flows ontering, leaving, orwithin a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested. d. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety —J—�- Division forapproval priorto issuance of building and grading permits. (This may be on an Incremental or composite basis.) e. All slope banks in excess of S feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses J� or planted with ground coverfor erosion control upon completion of grzding or some other alternative method oferaskmrontrol shall be completed tothesatisfactlonofthe Building Official. In addrion a perm=,ient irrigation system shall be provided. This requirement does not release the applicant/developer from compliance with the slope planting requirements of `3ection 17.06.040 i of the Development Code. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGiNEEiINO DIVISION, (714) 989.1862, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. Dedication and Vehlcular AGtsaa 1. Rights -of -way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for as interior public streets, �--�— community traits. public paseos, public landscape areas. street trees, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. private easements for non -public facilities (cross -lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans andlor tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be made of the folieowimg rights -of -way on the perimeter streets J—�- (measured from street centerline): total feet art_ total feet on total feat on total feet on 3. A?; -.;evocable offer of dedication fur_400t vM9 madway easement shall be made for W1 private streets or drives. 4. Not vehicular access shall be dedicated to the City for itto following streets: �—J— - 5. Rec =rocal access easements shalt beprov49d ensuring access to all parcels by CC &Rs or by by :deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whore no map is Imrolv6d. . 5C - 2/91 B of t2�/� 6. Private drainage easements for cross -lot drainage shall be provided and shall be oelineated or noted on tho final map. 7. The final map shall clearly delineate a 10 -foot minimum bulljnq retiriction area on the neighboring lot adjoining the zero lot line wall and contain the folizv.,'ng language, °!/! le hereby dedicate to the City of Rancho Cucamonga the right tie prohibit the construction or (residential) buildings (or other structures) within tt>[se areas designated on the map as building restriction areas.' A maintenance agreement shall also be granted from each lot to the adjacent lotthrough the CC&R's. 8. All existing easements lying wiihin future Otthts -of -way shall be quitclaimed or: delineated on the final map. 9. Easements for public sidewafte and/or street trees placed outside the public right-O -way shall be dedicated to the City wherever they encroach onto private property. 10. Additional street right -c [ -way shall bo dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. It curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn lane, a parallel street *veer maintenance easement shall be provided. 11. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off -site property interests necessary to construct the required public improvements, and it he /she should fall to do so, the Cavek)per shall, at least 120 Bays prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter Into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 65462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests requitedfortheimprovements. Stich agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of ali costs incurred by the City to acquire the off -site property interests requited in connectionwith the subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the fors of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the devekrser, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. M. Street improvements x- 1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, comiaunity, trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the OAns and/or tentative map shalt be constructed to City ;standards. Interior street improver tents shall Include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approactnt sidewraiks, street fights, and street trees. 2. A minimum of 26- toot wide ptriemera, within a 40 -foot wide dedicated tight- of-way shall be constructed for ail half- section Wtetr . 3. Construct the following perimeter street improvements irtc&lyding, but not MIA to: Pd4i Z%'o.. COVO 41.08 Q� notecoa Date. ___/_J JJ— _l_1_ J_J_ I I J__J_ pm,ed SO: CUP AI'Od fg{jyleaon ihte Notes: (a) Median Island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be'Jetermined during plan check. (c) it so marked, side- walk shall be curvilinear per STD. 304. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction tee shall be provided for this item. 4. Improvement'plans and construction: a. Street improvement plans including street tree3 and street lights, prepared by a regis- tered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion o? the public and/or private street Improve- ments, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. 1 b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office In addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic, street name signing, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installedon arty new construction or reconstruction of major, secondary or collector streets which intersect with other major, secondary or collector streets for future traffic signals. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BC9. ECRoramrotherbcations approved bythe City Engineer. Notes: _J�1 (1) All pull boxes shall be No. 6 unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3 -inch galvanized steel with pudrope. e. Wheel chair rams shall be Installed on ah four comers of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring constuction shall remain open to traffic at as times with adequate detours during construction. A street closure permit way be roquirad. Acash depr,sn shall be provided to cover We cost of graft and paving, which shah be refs x4ed upon completion of the constPaction to to a satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrateddrainaga flows shall9itraoss &Mewaiks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, exo%A for single family lots. h. Handicap access ramp design shall be as sped; by the City Engineer. L Street names shall be approved by the City Planner priorto submittal for first plan check. e/J S. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all private streets shag be provided for Jam` review and approval by the City Err sneer. Prior to any work belrg performed on the pri- vate streets, fees shall be paid and cormtnrction permits shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Off ice in addition to any other permits required. 6. Street trees, a minimum of l5- gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in _J__J accordance with the City's street tree program. /5_ SC -2 91 loaf S2` E Pr ' ' -,.. GDP q l -Gy 7. Intersection line of site designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance, with myleaon Dwc adopted policy. a. On collector or larger meats, lines of sight shall be plottad for all project intersections, —� inc"Ar- , idriveways. Walls, signs, and slopes shall be located oulside the lines of sigh',. Lai, ,ling and other obstructions within the lines of sight shall be approved by the City Engiiircr. b. Local residential ::,greet Intersections shall have their noticeabiiity improved, usually by moving the 2 +i- cleseststr^et trees on each sides awayfromthe street and placed in a street tree easement. 8. A permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any work within the following right -of -way: 9. All public improvemen,s on the following streets shall be operationally complete prior to the issuance of building permits: N. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works StaraJards shall be submitted to the City ,Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landsce 9 parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails, or other areas are required to be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: 2. A signed consent and walverform to join and/orform the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Er+jineer priorto final map approval cr issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 3. All re+quirecipublic landscaping and, irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the r ;ity. 8. Pai' iy landscaping on the tollowing street(s) shall oorAorn to the results of the respective Beautification MasterPfam O. Drainage and Food Control 1. The project (or portions thereofl is located within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood Protection measures shag be provided as certiflad by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. 2. It shall be the developers responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone designation removed from the project area. The developers engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plarz, and hydrologicthydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shag be obtained from FEMA prior to'rtnal °°+si-` approval or issuance of building permits, whicheveroccurs first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shalt be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvament acceptance, whichever cccurs first. 3. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 91 1416 SC•2 1 l or 12 _/ —/ WHAM _/ —/ J--J— J� i JJ --J_J_ _J_ /-. \o. GuP -11 -Ob 4. A permit from the County Flood. Control District is required for worst within its right -ef -way. . QM214 MDJ J__J_ _ _ Y s. Trees are prohlbited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. —�—�— 6. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey o- tlt+f &0s in the evert of blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street. P. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility: services to each parcel 'inckiding sanitary sewerage system, water, _J_ gas, electric.power, telephone, and cable TV. (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required: _ 2.The developdr shall be responsibie tor the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 3.Water and sewer pins shall be designed and constructed to meet the requiremerde of the —J--�— Cucamonga County Water District(CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection district, and the Environmental Health Department of tit! County of San Bentardim— A letter of compliance from he CCWD is required prior to final map approval ortssuance of permits, whichever occurs first. 0. General Requirements and Approvals 1.The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into one parcel prior to issuance of building permits. 2. An easement for joint use driveway shall be pmvK;ed prior to final crap approval or, —1-- -� issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, for: 3. Prior to approval of the final map a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District among the newly created parcels. 4. EtnvandalSan Sevaine Awa Regional Mainiine, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan Drainage Fees shall be paid prior to final map approval or prior to banding permit issuance if no map is involved. S. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way: _JJ_ 6.A signed conser . and waiver form to join andtor form the Law Entomemem Community Facilities District shall be hied with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits. whichever occurs first. Formation cast"haq be borne by the Developer. 7. Prinr to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shag be court- -1- pleted beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot I•utes shown on the approved tenlative -map. ,J SC - 2191 12 of 12 1417 R ,,CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT i DATE August 2B, 1991 TO: r- haizman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Plan6er BY; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner SUBJECT. RESOLUTION FOR USE DETERMINATIM 91 -01- HUGHES IWEST14ENTS A resolution to add Ani Care Facilities as a conditionally permitted usev�1. the Village Commercial District of the Victoria Coma'. P 1 Plan. BACKGROUND: On August 14, 1991, the Plannixi�'AComm ssion considered the above referenced Use Determination. Following,,Commission discussion, it was recommended that Animal Care Facilities in the Village Commercial Zone of Victoria, be considered on a site specific basis through the Conditional Use Permit process and staff was directed to prepare a Resolution to this effect. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Casaisaion adopt the attached Resolution to add Animal Care Facilities as a conditionally permitted use within the Village Commercial District of the Victoria Community P `1an. y `td /Ceitlanner i BB:SH :is Attachments: Resolution of Approval for Use Determination 91 -01 ?1 !t�1 B i 0 E RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, FOR USE DETERMINATION 91 -01,, A REQUEST TO ADD ANIMAL ,, {CARE FACILITIES AS A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE WITHIN THE VILLAGE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OF THE VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN. 71. )recitals (i) WHEREAS, to Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga reviewed the above referenced request at its meeting of °Aulut, 14, 1991; and (ii) WHEREAS, the Commission determined that the above referenced use may create site specific cgncerns- -such as but are not limited to noise, internal circulation and safety conflicts - -which should be reviewed on a case by case basis; and - (iii) WHEREAS, the Commission determined review under a Conditional Use Permit is appropriate since Animal Care Facilities in other commercilal zones within the Victoria Planned Community (,tegional Center and - Regional Related Office /Commercial) also require review unair a Conditional Use Permit; and (iv) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed use is mL.it similar to pet .stores, which is currently a permitted use within the Village Commercial District. S. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of- =''Rancho Cucamonga an follows: 1. This Commission heral_-�y, specifically finds as follows: a. That the proposed use in question is of a similar intensity to other permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the same district. b. That the proposed use in question masts the purpose and intent of the district in which it is proposed. c. That the proposed use in question meets and conforms to the applicable goals and objectives of the General Plan. 2. This Commission hereby approves Use Determination 91-01 to allow Animal Care facilities as a conditionally permitted use within the Village Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption cw :hie Resolution. 1� �Y., PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIAN NO, USE DETERMINATION 91 -01 \ `1 August 24, 1991 = Page. 2 APPROVED AND ADOP422D THIS 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 191D . 1, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA n d BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman i ATTEST: Arad Buller, Secrat"-y. 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 hid on the 28th day of August 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERSs, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSr AML �I d, i 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 28, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Vicki Day, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: VACATION OF SIDEWALK EASEMENT A request to vacate a sidewalk —ea—s—effi-e—nt, I oca ed between 9415 and 9425 Palo Alto Street, at the terminus of Layton Street 1, BACKGROUND Property owners, Steven and Teri Sokoloff, 9415 Pilo 'Alto Street (lot 18 of Tract 6939) as shown on Exhibit 8 ) have requested the sidewalk easement on the east of their property to be vacated (see letter attached). The easement was dedicat- -d ;prior to the City's incorporation, in May 1964. The walkwkv is 8 feet wide, 114 feet long and is a pedestrian connection between Palo Alto Street (at the terminus of Layton Street) to the northeast corner of the Cucamonga Junior High School property (refer to Exhibit "A"). I1. ANALYSIS In recent years the neighbors have incurred numerous problems with the use of the walkway. Occurrences of vandalism to their b properties, loitering, s littering. te eafiti and a recent fire started y Cucamonga Junior High'School prefers to cl ose the access and does not feel it would be a ma3or inconvenience for the students to proceed to Hellman Avenue instead (see letter attached). The City has received complaints from residents about parking on Palo Alto Street by spectators attending events on the schools sports fields and using the walkway for access. The City maintenance crews have the continuing nuisance of litter and graffiti removal. Once vacated, the walkway area will be added to the Sd'yi off property. Normally, with a vacation of this type, half e,# the property would be given to each of the adjacent properties; however, in this case, the easterly property owner prefers that it all go to ITM c PLANNING COMMISSION START REPORT VACATION OF SIDEWALK EASEMENT August 28, 1991 Page 2 the Sokolaffs. The precise method of blocking off the access and removal of the sidewalk has not been decided as yet, but will be at' the Sokoloff's expense. V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the 'Planning CommissVjn wake the finding through minute action that the subject proposed vacation conforms with the City's General Plan. This finding will be forwarded'to the City Council for further processing and f±nal approval Respr:tfully submitted„ 6" Barrye R. Hanson Senior Civil Engineer ;i BRH:VD:dl w Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhit t "B" - Location Map Appl'ictn'�'s Request Letter Cucamonga Jr. High School 'Letter I i i >!3 -c 15 71? O 66" h N tp ' . 52.00 53.00 PA —1 0 ALTO .� 5TP,E f cw 38 os.0o 72.00 69.12 .0LOF� 8' EASC1 ENT TO Q SAN BEPNARO: O COUNTY A e SIDEWALK PURPOSES 17 19 Pn a I`0 V° 119 VACATION -�, C OF � ENT RANCH CUCAMONGA n 1..(XAT1QN _�__� EMMMEMG DrMON • E E I V.E D JUL 0 3 1991 00 Ri q0 CUCAMO.S6 EMIWfE N G DIVIS10t Mrs. Teri Sokoloff 9415 Palo alto S. hancKd C/u{/carongp,, Ca. 917:1M 73 N Mr. Joe 01 Neil City Engineer 10500 Civic Center Drive ;rancho Cuca„ Tanga , Ca.91730 7 -1 -91 Vear Mr. Joe O'Neil, i an writing to yqu about a ratter concerning a piece of property:(the easement; walkway). The address to'ry property is 91115 Palo Alto,in rancho Cucamonga, and the walkway that i am refering to is east of re At one time this walkway was most likely an asset far the neighborhood,. However, ,iiti this day and age of juvenile crime the walkway is a nightmare to my neighbors, and to myself. 1 hau., a letter from the Cucamonga Jr. High School principal; Mr.Keit , ( enclosed is a copy). about the the closure of the walkway. The problem's; and there are many. We have teenagers loitering in the walkway during schoo- Cutting class, smoking cigarette's, and who knows what. Sometimes, the walkway has gotten so bad as far as filth and garbage, i have cleaned it up, and in the process i have found pantie:; and a few unmentionables. We see all kinds of people drive up and park their cars, go into the walkway, stay in there. for a few minutes get back in their cars and driv& all.,- sakes you wounder, does''t. its.'? There is graffiti on the walls, and yes, the city has removed some all ice. gut as you well know graffiti is endless. The maintenance crew cares out and gets rid of the grafi•iti and the next da' -I- graffiti is back on tale walls. 'i his is an ey °, 50'•e for the -aivaility of the community, and My: elf • A couple of months ago we had a fire in the walkway.( due to th e Ip trash left fromm the baseball . games'.. Due to extreme luck, l was home a that d% y Had 1 not eer. c-me, my ne ghboo s an! i, Would pao`uaziiit'y ue rebui1cInjg at Mgis time due to i2re iv =3. A minor sot t,:e fira> aauE yiaiLj'uir.Iiig., I 1 have found out . .hat tnis minor, lives ZeIow t. a sctooii. and 6os no root "iiC:cu o Lac `yiE. :Join «oy. :c ha.JE had cgg3, f C I and who knows what thrown at our homes from the wall, ay. We have replaced troken windows. Who pays for the doiangsi to our .ores frr3r„ things thrown from the walkway ?? Surely, not our insurance company +..+ . I have over 70 rase bushes in -y yard, a good L1'.: along, the fence,on the same side as the walkway. t have seen teenagers take large sticks, pipes and smash my roses. Makes my, stomach turn. I've Called, tiSa sher4l"sidepartment and by the tine they gat here, the teenagers are gcne.'t'he list is enCi��ss. How can we feel �... the pride of our neighborhood when this goes ,on right ne;:t . to us. Paint our ho �na�. do we dare? I .feel this problem, has to be stopped'. My r I'Shbors and I would like to see this walkway closed. I am not sure who this property belongs to. I have spoken to the Cucamonga Jr. High, They do not wan to be respoos —Ibie for the minors who use the :walkway. Whera I have called them. ir. the past to 73cplain about the loitering they have teld ..me to just call the sheriia'.s. And that poses another problem, because this takes the See? iai:'s department away from something, mare important. The city, well, that is another question. I have spoken with Uary Varney, Bob detterburgg, and a few others, about the clean up. tax` a while, 'the clear. up was great: a short v Siie: o::, i realize, that the oily can not come, and Cleaan everyday_ And that posses a problem.! am sure you would not want to live next to filth.. I have spoken to Judy Acosta who has been of great e,elp.. I am enciosing. a Ceieck for the amount. a"' Z125 -110 so the city can research the problem of abandonment. I hope -there is a solution to all this maddness that we have been dealing with. nc, J .. . Sokol i�.:....Juay ^cos La;.Engineering Technician - M �� Sonia L Yates' ADN15NIST uTdON ". Central School District Ingrid Vogel Sri 1 Church Street, Suite I T•2 / Rancho Cucamongi, California 91730! (714) 989 -8541 Ass'uanr superintendent eurimss services 1. Sharon L Nagel , February 7, 1:991 Assisanrsopvinrendcnr a Eduratia+u! Services Mr. Barry Hansen City of :Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center drive e; Post Office Box SO Rancho Cucamonga, California 91929 Dear Mr. Hansen, I have been contacted on several occayionss by neighbors of Cucamonga Junior High, complaining ab'stit the walkway that connects our school with Pals Alta Street.. When I have inspected the area it has been in geed of cleaning, weeding and grzfiti removal. Accordinr to neighbors it is also an area that attracts loitering _ and other activities detrimental to the neighborhood. Because of tzese problemsr neighbors are requesting that this walkway be closed. We have approximately forty -five students who use this walkway when arriving at school in the morning and departing in the afternoon. However, I do slot believe that it would be a major inconvenience for them to walk to the corner of Palo Arlto.and Hellman, and then use the sidewalk to get on our campus. Closing the walkway entry to our school would also give us one less point of entry to worry about it terms of strangers coming onto the campus during school hours. Sincerely. Randall R. Reath, Principal Cucamonga Junior High School RRK : mm c: Mrs. Sokoloff BOARD OF TRUSTEES i Debra K. Baker Richard A. Music Antonia L Rogersw Dolorm L Russell Andrew 8, Taylor, E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 28, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning'Co. mission FROM: -Dan James, 'Senior Civil- Engineer BY: Joe Stofa, Jr., Associate Enginpet OF SUBJECT: VACATION OF A RECORDED OFFER OF DEDICATION Full A PORTION request to Vacate &' recor e offer of e ca on F- 71.gnonetxe Street from Hellman Avenue westerly including the partial cul -de -sac - (APN: W- 041 -57 and 58) i BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The final map for Parcel, Map 3189 was accepted by San ernar no oun y on November. 24, 1976, and a§ part of the conditions of approval for said map, a 34` half- street offer of dedication was made for Mignonette Street from Hellman Avenue westerly including a pdrtial cul -de- sac.. On May 15, 1991, the homeowners of Parcels I and 2 of 'Parcel Map 3189 filed a request to vacate said offer of dedication. A gray.;: of easement for ingr,es5 /egress from Hellm^niAvenue to Parcel 2 will be recorded c6heurrently with :.e vacation of the dk er of dedication. The owners to the south of the subject dedication prefer to develop their property in a configuration not involving the development of Mignonette Street. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission mace the }'findings through minute action that the subject proposer vacation conforms with the General Plan. This finding will be forwarded to the City Council for further processing and final approval Respectfully submitted, Dan. James Senior Civil Engineer DJ:JS:jh Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" - Site Map ITM D �� f f` 6d o �a .6 HELC111 : __ N d i u Ar l� i ! i Ro 0 % r n � rt �fir, • s'1 � H tv ��0 y � r DO n C.ZD CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 28, 1991 I TO;; Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner j\ BY: Bruce - Buckingham, Planning Technician SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91 -01 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA — A request to azand Title 17, Chapter 17.12 of the Rancho Cucanong Municipal Code to eliminate compact parking spaces. Staff recommends issuance of a negative Declaration. (Continued From August 14, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAI ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIE'IC —, PLAN AMEND.+fENT 91 -01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Part` IYI of the Industrial Area Specific Plan to eliminate compact parking spaces. Staff recommends issuance Of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from August 14, 1991.) These -items wer ,continued to the August 28, 1991 Planning Commission meeting in orw to amend the Resolution. Attached is a copy of the August 14, 1$0i %staff report. Respe ly ted Brad ler City Planner BB:BB /jfs Attachment: Exhibit "A" - August 14, 1991 Staff Report Planning Commission Resolution for DCA 91 -01 City Council Ordinance for DCA 91 -01 Planning Commission Resolution for ISPA 91 -01 City Council Ordinance for ISPA 91 -01 r ITffiKS S i F' DATE., TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT August 14, 1991 Chairman and Mambers of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE laMOMENT 91 -01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A request to amend Title 17, Chapter 17.12 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal. Code to eliminate compact parking spaces. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 20, 1.991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Part III of the Industrial Area Specific Plcn to eliminate compact parking spaces. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.. (Continued from June 20 1991.) .1 ABSTRACT: This report presents amendments to the Development Code and Industrial Specific Plan to eliminate compact parking standards by creating a standard size space of 8 1/2 feet by 18 feet. BACKGROUND: The City's current parking regulations provide for two sizes of parking spaces: a 9 -foot by 19 -foot "Standard" space and an 8 -foot by 15 -foot "Compact" space According to the Development Cods, all developments (existing or proposed) which have 25 or more parking spaces may devote up to 35 percent of its total parking to compact spaces. Further, the Industrial Specjf,o Plan SITAres that 20 -35 percent of all partying spaces shall be size. Cin April 10, 1991, the Planning Commission heard publ$� testimony regarding the City's proposed Development Coda and Industrial, Specific Plan amendments to eliminate compact parking spaces and use only 9 -foot by 19 -foot standard spaces. Subsequently, the Planning Commission held a workshop on June 20, 1991, ." discuss alternatives to this proposal. It was the consensus of the Planning commissioners that attended that an 8 1j2 -foot by ,19 -foot parking space would be adequate to acco^-nodate the majority of automobiles. The attached Staff Reports amd Minutes provide detailed analysis concerning this issue. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff has completed Parts "I and II of the Initial Study and I d not identify any adverse environmental impacts which could result from this amendment. Therefore, the issuance of a Negative Declaration is recommended. [` PLANNING C0101ISSION STAFF REPORT DCA 91 -01 & SSPA 91 -01 q CITY OF R.C. August 14, 1991 Page 2 Y } CORRESPONDENCE: These items have been advertised as public hezrings on an 1/8 page ad in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adtpt the attached Resolutions recommending approval of the Development Code and Industrial Speci €ic. Plan amendments to eliminate compact spaces and down -size the standard spa je to 8 feet; 6 irthes by 18 feet to the City Council. Respe y sub Brat1 r City lanner BB:BB /jfs Attachments: Exhibit °A" - planning Commission Workshop Staff Report and ,Minutes elated June 20, 1991 Exhibit "B" - Existing Development Code Parking Regulations Exhibit "v" - Existing Industrial Specific Plan., Parking Regulations Resolution Recommending Approval of DCA 91-01 City Council Ordinance for DCA91 -01 Resolution Recommending Approval of_ISPA 91 -01 City Council Ordinance for ISPA91 -01 ra ... i Al DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT June 20, 1991 chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ON COMPACT PARKING A. ABSTRACT: The purpose of tonight's workshop is to review the data and alternatives regarding compact parking. B. BACKGROUND: On April 10, 1991, tho Planning Commission heaad public testimony regarding the City's proposed Development Code and Industrial Specific Plan Amendments to eliminate compact- ,pa::xing spaces. At the request of several developers aid _'Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce, the Planning Commission' gave the parties the opportunity to C..mit possible alternatives on or before May 15, 1991. The Planning Commission then agreed to hold a subseque,,:t work ttop to discuss these alternatives further. C. SUMMARY OF SUBMITTED DATA: Lewis Homes Management Corporation, Hughes Investment and the Economic Development Committee of the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce have jointly submitted several studies and articles regarding parking, which were previously distributed. Based on this information, they have concluded the following: o Approximately 80 percent of all cars currently in use are 5' 9" wide x 15' 7" long or less. These are defined as small to mid -size cars. o Approximately 20 percent of all cars are "large cars." Most of which (85 percent of this category) are no larger than 6* 1" wide x 17' 2` long. o Parking space widths are generally determined by adding. 21" for long term parking and 28" ftr high turn -over parking areas. The most commonly used is 240. o Parking space lengths are generally determined by adding 6" to 9" to the leaath. The most commonly used is 90. ,i V (JF-F,� �I ., PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT' WORKSHOP ON COMPACT PARKING June 20, 1991 Page 2 Therefore, they ,conclude that approximately 97 percent 80 percent + (20 percent by 85 percent)) of all vehicles on the road today could fit into a parking space 8' 5" wide (6' 1" plus 2811) x 17' 11" long (17' 2" plus 9 "). Thus', they propose a "one size Fits all" parking_ space of 8' 6" wide by 18' long. (The above conclusions are based on Exhibits "A " - "D" and Attachments 3, 4 5, and 8.) To further support the parking space alternative of 8' 6" wide x 18' long, a survey was conducted to determine vehicle size In multi - family residential projects within sip apartment complexes within Terra Vista. The information was based on lease /rental applications of existing tenants. TABLE 1 CONFIRMED POSSIBLY* 611" wide x 1712" long oversize or smaller Evergreen Apts. 96% 4% Mountainview Apts. 94% 6% Parkview Place Apts. 97% 3% Sycamore Terrace Apts. 90% 10% Aontecito Apts. 94% 6% Del Mar Aptsi 93% 7% * Due to the lack of specific vehicle descriptions for trucks and vans (i.e., "ford truck ") the possibly over -sized percentage represents a!-, vehicles over 6' 1" wide x 17' 2" long and all vehicles in which the sine could not be determined. Lewis Homes concluded that residents who park far the entire day and /or night are more likely to take,, the time to park in the appropriate parking space since they are fariliar with the parking arrangements. Therefore, they feel that the proposed alternative parking space of 8' 6" x 18' long in a commercial setting applies even stronger to residential projects. A second survey was performed by Xunzman Associates to determine the percentage of the small /medium (5' 9" x 15' 7" or less), large (6' 1" x 17 1 /s` or less) and oversized vehicles in commercial centers within the City. The survey was conducted at the following times: Thursday, May 23, 1991, 12 noon to 3 %00 p.m. (all sites), Thursday, May 23, 1991, 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. (sites 1 and 3), and Saturday, May 25, 199'1, 12 noon to 3 :00 .p.m. (all sites). The following table provides a summary of vetacle sizes at the four centers: J.i _ r PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT WORKSHOP ON COMPACT PARKING June 20, 1991 Page 3 TABLE II Vehi ^les Small/ Sites Medium Large Oversize Motorcycle Totals Lucky Center 518 80 8 3 609 Sunrise Center 284 81 15 1 381 Terra Vista 1,017 194 5 8 1,224 Village Terra Vista, 997 216 1 1,219 Town Center _ TOTALS 2,816 571 33 13 3,433 They concluded only 1 percent of, vehicles were larger than 6' 1" wide x 17' 2" long. Therefore, based on this survey, Rancho Cucamonga does not appear to have a greater number of oversized vehicles than the national average. D. ANALYSIS: 1. One sizfx fits all. The benefits of a "one size fits all" parkiny e Y space ar as fellows: • Site planning - simplified. Dilemmas such as where to locate compact parking spaces are eliminated. • Conflicts are minimized. Over 90 percent 'kf cars /trucks will be accommodated. • Availability will be equal for all vehicles. There will be no segregation based on vehicle size. The disadvantages are that there will be less room to maneuver vehicles into /oat of stalls, less zoom to open car doors, and less roomm for shopping carts. This will also exacerbate the problem of over -size vehicles protruding into circulation,aisles. 2. Parking space width and length. 2lia space between cars for nigh turn over areas of 28" in width and 9" in length appears to be commonly used among seaeral parking experts. Howrver* no scientific data was submitted to substantiate these numbers. In addition, none of the information suhmirtad is based on driver preference for ease of parking. 3. Area used for parking. Thk issue of parking arer b4s been discussed in the past. The following table provides a breakdown of the total square footage for 100 parkkag spaces assuming landscaping and aisle size are fixed: El 0 a PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT WORKSHOP ON COMPACT PARKING June 20, 19x1 Page 4 TABLE III Stall Size Total Square Footage 8.5' x 18' 15,300 9'' x 18' 16.200 9' : 19' 17,;100 8' x 16' (?:OB) + 9' x 19, (808) 16,240 8' x 16' (35%) + 9" x 19' (65%1 15,595 Simply eliminating compact_ parking altogether would increase the size f parking lots (assuming building area,remained the same). whereas, the proposed 8.5' x 18' parking space would decrease the size of parking lots. It does not appear based on Table III that a larger parking area would be necessary when compared to the current standards using a mix of 65 percent standard and 35 percent compact spaces. 4. Are cars getting smaller /lar er? Based on data submitted (Exhibits "A" and "C "), the percentage of small cars (classes 5 -7) sold in each class has rev-'-Ad stable from 1980 to 1988 while the perce�_Age of large Ea.a t lasses 8 -11) sold in each class has shifted. Vehicles in classes 8 aq3 9 have increased, subsequently shrsr -,ales from classes %U and 11 ( over -sized vehicle.). These -vehicles (classes 10 and 11� accounted for less then 7 percent of auto sales in 1988. Though it seems these over -sized vehiolea gill always have a small segment of the market, the gr�n'„ 11 trend is that vehicles are being down - sized. 5. Parking Space Sizes in other Cities: The following cities have adapted the 8.5' wide x 18' long parking stall: AAaheim, Oceans. j, Santa A, .L, Long Beach, Escondido and Los Ang>_les. Exhibit "E1 -2" also lists several local cities and their current standards. Based on this inibrmation.. tb�za appears to be no consensus as to what gasking size works Zest. E. OPTIONS: The Planning C- RUlssi= - --may wish to consider the j following alternatives to a cdmpete elimination'of compact parking spaces City wide: 1. Reduce the maximum percentaipe of allowable compact spaces. 2. Allow compact spaces only for larger employers in the industrial area yihich require over 104 spaces. The ellowable percentage could remain, up to 35 percent or reducod- to a j smaller percentage. This could be considered since ?mployees , coming to work every day are more familiar with the parking a- igement; whereas, customers frequenting a commercial i 4 -4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT C WORKSHOP ON COMPACT ?AW.)ING June 20, 1991 Page 5 cent._,: are unfa,,tiliar with the locatibas of the appropriati., parking Stalls. . , Further, e,iployees . who park for the entire day are more Nicely to ,`*cake the time to park in, the appropriate size parking space, 3. Da not allow compact, parkinl.' spaces to satisfy minimum parking reciuiraments for the use. in 'other words,,, compact spaces could only be provided in addition to those spaces required by Code, 4. Down -size parking spaces +,o a univ=val size of 8.5' wide is 18` `ong. 5. Dawn -size parking spaces to a universal size of 9' wide x 18' long, espe ly s tted, ;City r Planner BBzBBs.nlg Attachments; Exhibit "A" - Classification d Vohicie'Signs Exhibit "B" - Annual Aitomit Is Sale, Exhibit "C" - Annual Automotive Sales .by :Class Exhibit I'D" ° Design Vehicles Ann•1a1 Salem: Exhibit "E" - Parking Stall Size.Survey i j l F'0 The f6undagan upon which this d SMSSIOn Of pa NP 99ecmefts1.1 basedisthadsiitlif€ondfaarn800ar In compaison to the standard or tube car. For purposed of titta tepOrt. -wd to �gtabgsh a' ungarm and reacMy cdapiui�:Jeraanaiogy. al +iMMO, bMs and htmift win bs _ � Otgr;,°+pd 'sr+.&o two comes s0 aM tam. TWs 64,, noma' bra is lntond� to simpffy the pmcsss of VO Ala cda � .err and subse quent pmWrC `day design. Extansw , siderdan W- , bean Qivsn'to th* cksOWanof Womcbgstind ugift C aowm In i to they ...,atprtrtt ®ths'giaunda=emm y 7�10de fidonler% inta�v►�dthressbtirtirt�atsq�aara . feet (SF) or sure maters (Skq. `he syMm l2ads tO s�nmernofvdo�iici�3tOC�rra�!' .basaf30rr dw V*N ds wva k Ynitsm &MM t" Onlast erartste�Qf�:assti�n6�stsrs.tris ;oCWa& sErytits3s efdi6 asstta 91e SVA 11 Om 3- 600 to MOM am io 64.67 SF . Clow 6. 6.00 to sm sm, Farm& to_'75 34 SF Clus l • 7A la 7.53 GU 'x.36 Is �l% �0 SF LAM CA" Ma 6 • U0 am , f'.W SM f &t' fv OUG 10 -10.00 WO.99 i .64191 -ILi93 �a� w SF I Fod � fross (te a as tau l Pasi�lsa iF�a,eat .� IY a !u&sa�t� A9Elo Rrcianrl � Aise�istlerai► �� Pariiar; cons altsMi Le Grunt r QnG Scums 61u chn�ed *m*0 leaf iJIM9,mr S�93 In Ga carsir'4ar year gma Imo. baud of abquna, of - 11 "XSWbatt ansae BWWIgge cam W Mr ea." bourtmd amaW In as noVs baltw"n 14% And 25% tr=1973 to tM. as sic inFfp,,o F— Aeta* rlso in srnall car Was grad thrcaagh 1.981, s rt&g than, with an average of 52% Cats sold e8ch ysIr from 1983 thou 19� Uft data fMm F.L Folk Come parry on vehide rcIsMans, Ods :dm reiOMM W, mit ®a that 44% of the va les on the carat &S of j'anuary 1,11386 arew- 71•xv-V orsmadar. PCOMM. ing'thm the pertrentaga of smd cart scald each yow I than read VAR r4m t us fa ins:' pia d an mstlrmated MIG of f� aboaa'l 2% psayear. I .-..� Annual Automobile Salmi as aosc �- �•I-- 1-- k�- I�- i-- �-- -1�-�- Wit'° °I° 4 1 1 Ll f jj l 1 l! I l l 1! 1 eon • aa�e®a ►,�es'� aor Figum F r 116 f °gtflMtaossa�d�d t�dnl[1.n or' Karst. 1989'.1 8aeammst a!aSkIn Aesoelaelora /Parkic COSIMIe -nts comccii • sL e pa=ent�%80 re►adel s t®poRed by Auta=*n Sews have been tabulated fay the duses pmvj*u* defined (FIB F} Class 90 and Gass 9ti "hides, wWJch are Den® over 17-V In lerigth ande-4°inwft, have dedngt from as much as 14Y*afamusisalh in4982,to7%ofthemattetin1988. In a i..Jy of annuaivehicissa iss.thG 85€tt Pgtoan vie vehicle among Classes 5 to 7 has been �bie since 1960 at 1I4'-8"x5 -8", similartoa1965 FordTempo. White the 65th percentile vehicle among Gasses 3 to 11 l defined fmm 16' -T x 6' -6" to 9 7.r x (m. (Figure H). While this data does not Include pre -198a model ve- hides, it is reasonably consistent previous sludla- The previously referenced study m Which used vehicle, registrationsna onwideasatjarluary1 .1983•feundthe 66th percedfle vehiclesto be 14'-r x5' -T forsmall cars and ISW x 6* -r for large cars. The design vehicles for thE:national mix of Mdo- mobiles an the read as of .te-11JasL' 1,1989. have been consemativeiy estimated to bet df follows: Small Cars td'-V x 6'- " Large Cars 16°-0' x 6°-6" h -is interesting to note thet, during this period (1963- 19,88), the design vehicle for small cars has re- maineti a iiite stable, but that the design vehicle for large cars has deeGned. especially In length. DESIGN VEMCL83 St' CA(r DARYFJA-R SALES.° emit 09-iiii, Styr& 6w ;6.71 Year Laro ywft'' &Vft Vim' -- AM 109Q 1t 7 6i 1k1i1 1t.�':. 67 q,® 997 i.6 91d 3 low 1t.7 67 US 1i2 U 915 IM 18.6 S? ii!.7 :` 703 6t tA56 MA M7 V OU 1F.7 63 111.E INS 161 bS on 1 %x :3 tA65 if" ta.7 ; " %7 19@3 14.7 s7► 1i7� i 19Y 1a 7! GiZ a7.1 Al • it�as a.0raacs ar [� �+aras sorsnraaNs� � FIGURF J1 i €sce=pted front "Recommended Gj't6tlifies: for Parking Geoxetriks "! August, EXETBIT 1) 1989; Rational Parking &ss,, : Parking Conanitads ,'CoUnCl! CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting June 20, 1991 Vice Chairman Chitiea called the adjourned meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 8:40 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Centb. Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Joh.► Keleher, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Walt Stickney, Associate Engineer I. PRESENTATION OF 2r3INEERTNG DIVISION'S FISChL YEAR 91/92 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, presented the 91/92 Capital Improvement Budget. The report was received and filed. II. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91 -01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request, to amend Title 17, Chapter 17.12 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to eliminate compact parking spaces. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12: 1991.) II.[. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENa:`(EHT 91 -01 - CITY OF F.ANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Part III of the Industrial Specifi^ Plan to eliminate compact parking spaces. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12, 1991.) Vice Chairman Chitiea stated that the workshop for both items would be taken together. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, indicated ';hat the purpose of the workshop was to provide an opportunity to review the information supplied by the development community and Chamber of Commerce and review their recommendations regarding the z7ompact parking issue. This workshop hai been specifically requested by the developers and the Chamber to allow for discussion of this important issue. In addition, the developers had raised a second issue regarding the- parking requirements for shopping centers. Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician, gave an oral staff report. 1" r, John Potter, Hughes Investments, asked if there could be discussion regarding the secondrry issue of parking ratios for shopping cepters. Mr. Coleman indicated that, if the Commission desired, .;his issue could be added to the Planning Division work program. Vice Chairman Chitiea stated that thLa isa•,te would be dls;;vssrd after the compact parking issue. ' Rance Clouse, Chamber of Commerce representative, questioned how the new packing requirements would affect existing development. Mr. Coleman responded that staff's intention would;be to ,apply only the new standards to new development; they would nrt apply tc, restriping or repaving of existing parking lots nor would they be applied to 4dditions. He said property zvi,ers would have the option of using t"'new standard when restriping their parking lots. Joa Oleson, Lewis Homcs, indicated that they hired a traffic engineering consultant to survey vehicle sizes at actual projects within Rancho Cucamonga. Ho stated that the survey data provided for the Commicaon showed that the City is comparable to tzo national averages. Commissioner Melchor stated that the universal size parking stall seemed to be the optimal solution. He supported the development '`omnunitylw recommendation of down - sizing all parking spaces to a universal siza'of a 112 feet ride by 18 inches long. Commissioner Valletta agreed. Vice Chairman Chitioa indicated that, in her observation, the trend seems to be toward bigger cars, trucks, and vans in Rancho Cucamonga because of the y�iing families. She stated that although a universol size parking space had its advantages, she preferred either decreasing ie length, but nor, the width, or reducing the percentage of compact space allowed. The puLkic nearing was closed. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, stated that the consensus appeared to be a *one- size - fit' -all's parking space and the only outstanding issue was the size of the stall. He int'scated that staff would bring this item back on August 14, 1991 for Commission decisicl. in addition, he stated that the secondary issue of shopping center parking ratios would also be placed o�� the sass* agenda for consideration on whether to place them on the work program. The meotUM was 4journed rt 900 p. M. r e�+r Otto Xrou it Deputy S cretary planning Commission Minuted 2 - Jun* 20, 1 991 „.�, E-1- Section 17.12.030 Design, Standards Design Standards are established .y this section to set basic minimum dimensions and guidelines for design, construction, and maintenance of parking within both the - residential and commercial districts. A. Gen_, eral: The following starAards shall apply to both the residential', and commercial districts. C. Standard stall 'size. Each standard .parking s-pacc shall consist of a 'J rectangular area not less than 9.0 feet wide by 19.0 feet long. All parking spaces should have a vertical clearance of no Jess than 7.5 <eet. ;1 1 � •- a i� . � e e , r 2. Compact stall size: Stalls designated for use by compact ears may be ® reduced in size to a srinimum of eight (8) feet In width and sixteen (16) feet in length. tic 3. Handicapped stall size: ; Erch parking space ftsignaZed for use by the handicapped shall coesistaf a rectangular area not law than 14 feet wide by 19 feet x;tg, and shall be locetad in an area not exceedi?$ 2 percent slope. All spaces St, +�i be located near or convenient to a level or ramped entrance, not exceeding a 5 ,percent alopvt. 20 the fr- ility_ served by the parking space. Parking spaces. for the handicappeu shalt timed and restricted for use by >, the handicapped only. Section 17.12.030` 13. Maneuvering: Parking and maneuvering areas shall be arranged that any vehicle enterin a public right -of- way -,i a major or secondary street can do so traveling in a fot,ard direction. B. Residential: The followir�', design standards shall apply to the residential districts and developments: 1. Covered off- street parking spaces in a garage or carport sbgll be a minimum of nine (9) feet in width and nineteen (19) feet in depth ofr �Iobstructed area provided for parking purposes. The requited minimum mearurement3 may not include the exterior walls or supports of the structure. 2. Driveways providing acce.c�S to garages, carports and parking areas serving three (3) or less dwelling snits shall be a minimum of ten (10) .eet in width for one -way traffic, and twenty (20) feet for two -way traffic. 3. Driveways providing access to garages, carports, and open parking spaces serving four (4) or more dwelling units shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet in width for one -way traffic, and-,twenty-four (24) feet for two -way traffic. _ 4. Dr °_veways serving multiple dwelling units with garages or carports an either or both sides shall be increased a minimum of five (5) feet on one side curly, thus providing a twenty -nine (29) foot wide accessway between garage or carport-spaces for two -way traffic. 5., No property owner shall sublease, subrent or otherwise make available to residents of other properties, the off - street parking spaces required by this section. 6. All required covered off - street pakedng spaces shall �1e located conveniently accessible to the dwelling unit served by 'such parking apace. 7. :' esidential developments which previ&, prrvate streets, shall be planned, designed and constructed to meet the minimum City- engineering requirements for private streets. S. Any secondary paved driveway or extension of the primary driveway shall not be used for parking unless: (1) it connects the primary driveway ae-cess to a second access point with the street or public right -of -way (i.e. circti,ar driveway) with a continuous pavement width not exceeding twelve (12) feet; (2) it is an exteision of the primary driveway toward the nearest side or rear yard area; or 0) ld constructed pursuant to an approved Minor Development Review. C. 0 — areial, Institutional, Cr-mmunity Facilities: The. following design standards shag ai rly to commercial, institutick al, and community facility uses. 1. ose areas designated for V by motorcycles shall consist of a minimum able area of fifty -six (58) sq..are feet. Revised. 875/88 r �' 2 Parking bay wi( the shall be computed according to the specifications set forth in Table 1' 2.030 D .7* �C 17. Two-way access driveways with no parking shall be a minimum of twenty -four (24) feet. One -way access driveways with la parking shall be .a minimum of twelve (12) feet. D. Parking Facility D . Following are charts' and diagrams to which all parking facilities shall be designed. 1. Parkir' Ba IVidths. Each parking facility is designed with harking bay un T® its. he size or width of thi., unit, is dependent on one or two-way traffic and single or double loaded aisles,. Use the following chart to determine the yl overall width of the parking bay design which is being used. The dimensions listed are the amount necessary to contain parking stall depth and aisle width. Parallel parking may be permitted; however, they .lust not be counted as part of the require 3 driveway width and must .r fintain four (4) feet between spaces. �T�tble 17.12.030 -D -Ovid Pctlld�ng Bag Width` 3. Parking bay widths for two -way traffic %Ad double loaded aisles: a. compact stall 481 52' 54' 56' b. standard stall 61' 56'' $9' 62' 4. Parking bay widths for two-way M traffic and single loaded aisles: a. ecmpactstan 34' 36' 3; °pd.4t+ b. standard stall 36' 38' 41' 43' . • : Wit:,_ �~ de __Parking Angle (in degrees) 3` 30 �; 45 60 90 1. Parking by widths for one -way traffi,: and double loaded aisles: a. compact stall 40' 44' 49' 56' b. standard Stall 431 49' 55' 62' 2. F irking bay width for one -way Traffic and single loaded aisles; a. compact stall 26' 28' 32' 39' b. standard Stale 28' 30' 35' 43' 3. Parking bay widths for two -way traffic %Ad double loaded aisles: a. compact stall 481 52' 54' 56' b. standard stall 61' 56'' $9' 62' 4. Parking bay widths for two-way M traffic and single loaded aisles: a. ecmpactstan 34' 36' 3; °pd.4t+ b. standard stall 36' 38' 41' 43' . • : Wit:,_ �~ de Section 17,11.030 2. Planter tlesi i. All parking lot planters shall be designed to meet the following minimum requirements. (a) Planters shad be separated from maneuvering and parking areas by a &" raised concrete curb or equivaent. (b) Tree planting wells located at the front of parking stalls shall contain a minimum of 25 square feet and the smallest outside dimension shall not be less ,than 5 feet, AZIt tirs Of amLt- zv (c) Landscape planters alorg, the; sides of parking stalls shall contain a minimum of 90 square feet aiA the sme'iest outside dimension shall not be less than 6 feet. (d) Pedestrian walks shall be provided in lcrtdscape; g2an ;era along t;. i sides of parking stalls as shown below. it shallr -',!at of a minimum lZ inch concrete paver, adjacent to the cu - (Tcluding curb,,vidth). 3. Parking Lot Str ^ ^q Markings, Parking stC l stripinitr, ci -t onal arrows and parking stall .identification shall meot the follow suutdfu&. (a) All parking stalls shall be painted with double 'or hairpin. 4 -Inch wide continuous lines with the two (2) lines ?ocated a, etrinl nine (9) inches oa either side of the stall sidelines. (b) All aisles, entrances, and exits shall be clearly / marked with directional ar rows painteiion the parking surface. ,c1- ® j fc) All compact parking stalls shall be individually labeled vdth the words ,e b.o "compact car" painted on She parking surface of each stali. (d) All handicapped pai`,ing stalls shali be individually lcbeled and Signed in accordance %Ith Uniform Building Code and Cali:'ornia Vehicle Code standards, F Sectica 17,12.040 Parking Ehmireperts Tie following sections list the required a=unt of parking for Each cat�;"ory of uses, special requirements: and optional requiresnerts. A. Residential 1. Single- fanily detached dwellings (conventional). TA* 12) parking spaces within a garage. 2. Cluster deveiop;tent , (cordaninium, t.&,tb rre, etc.) v-vni� detached single fanny (acrd log line, patio home ,'duplexes,, etc.) and mobile home parks: (a) Studio: 1.3 off - street parking space per unit of which one space shall be in a garage or carport. W Cne (1) bedrogm. 1.5 off - street parking spaces-, per unit of which one space shall be In ,,,a garage or carport, (c) '140 (2) bedrocrns: 1.8 -oft- street rkl4king spaces per unit of which one space shall bc�n a garage li carport. =- (d) Three Mar rcwre bedroame. 7m off- street larking spgees per unit of which two spaces shall b iT -a garage or carport.. (e) Four (4) or tibre bedrocm,i o.3 off - street p eking spaces per uni, of wnirh two spaces shall be In a garage .r carport.: (x) It, addition -to the required nuiber of parking; spaces foci each unit, one off - street unce-vered parking space shdil bgvflrovided for eact four units for visitor parking. for single fanily zero lot 1;ne, patio stomas,, and duplexes, on- street parking resay ba substi_ned for visitor parking, whuie sufficient Street paverert width and distance between driveways has been provided. (g, Fifty preent (50%) of the total required covered spaces shall be within enclosed garage strmAuras. (h) For developments containing five yr rise units, up to thirty- five (33) pereont of time required uncovered spaces „may be caMaet car size. (i) the use of carpor 4 requires approval from *he Resign Review f3Ytntittee. ;,; B. Camtercial /Office 1. Ga;tnercial, retail and s mice uses: rr��125 (g) Churches an(j;oth -r places of a:.sembly not saeciiied ctaove: FOne..ze each four (4) fixed seats within the main auditorium or one !or eeen thirty -five (3,5) square feet of septing.aarea within the main audito;WIV where taer� are no fixe& seats; eighteen (18) linear inches of !)erica;" shall be considered a fixed seat. e 7. Other wits: i (a) Day horseries,- including preschooLs and nursery schools. `j:�F_, =ts11 or each st.* -!f member, plus one for each five (5) children. C. Speeia: Rev yirements. The following parlang ::requireneents arc applicable to all commercxn: l o oe land ustis. These special stalls shall t`e aiosest to the facility for - thich they ara designuted in oeder to encourage their Use. 1. liandicippads 'Those ;scilities with twenty-f' v - (25) or more spec, shah desanate two (2) percent or one' 1) spa -ze, whichever is gre -.ter, of the tats? numL_r of stalls fot, use by the handicapped. The designaciRn andAasip shall conform to stato standards \ 2. Motorcycle: Eacii:d6l$ u iith twenty -rive (25) or mare parking speces shall provide r.t lewrt one designated perking «aa for use by moto!'10cles. Developments with over one hundred (100) %tiact% shall prw,side rotor ycie parking at the raw of one percent. Areas delineated for use by motorcycle.: shall mtmc standards set forth in subsection 7.7.12.030 -C -1. � . compact ears: F'irilities with :tveltw -five (20 or nitv6 ;9arking spaces may provide up to thirty -five (35) per nt if its V,rlri,,pg for use by rampart 4.L cars. Spaces delineated for compact car toe th- u- n;cct stXIdards set forth Aft it su'ssection 1i :12,4130 - -2: Bicycles: ".0 coinmeriial =;--office areas shall provide adequate %)ckinrg facilities for bicycle parking at any loe; -tion convenijnt to the facility for which they designated. Whenever possible, weatherproofing or facility covering should be used: 5. Gar pooh tiff- street pul ing previded for ceOmmereiaVoffiee taeiliti(-- .-.isll provide at least Cbn (iQ' percent of thx total perking area as desittipted for use Uy car pools. 5. Drive -Tlwu Fa--ilitias: Dtive -thru facilit is require special onsideration fu- their design once si$iiifisantly Impact the vehicular cireulat :cn' on a Otte, the following requirements app)ci to any.uuse with dri-:e- thru-facilities. (a) Each drive -thru lane shall be sapid •ed from thhe eirculaticn routes necessary for ink or eVowns fK -a Lie pcicptrt�,, or P-eciss to any parking space. (b) Each drive -thru i^`Zk'e shall be stripad,: z. 'is= distinctly c '.inected: \, -129- Ash s i via Q `� 1U71i:W.YdNL - c�j,�,C 12� 9tPSElk. Cf A(.CCS]Idt:FPq L L 4TAGis 1.'.IZ6 4. Aisle dimensions; Each psrkh;g and? lca. 4 q space shall have adequate drives, aisle and turning and maneuvering areas for aceass and usability, in accordance w ':h Table 17.1-. 3.030 -D. 5- f axing: Parking and 1(.).-4;ng facililes.shall be surfaced and maintained with asph%ltle , concrete, c2,' other permenegt, impery -,ous surfacing material sufficient to prevent mud, dust, ? ? j material, and other nuisances. Alternate surface materis-t can be coclsi&red by the City Plad.ierg if shown that such ciateriv,` will not cause adverse off cts and :hat it will re mein in a , usable condition. - 6. Drainage:. Ai) par; role and loading facilities sha:4l be graded and provided with permanent storm drainage facili ie:. Surfacing, curbing, and drainage ,:nprovements still bs. suffic'eut t+ ' preclude free. flow of water alto, e ijacent properties or public: ^trftts or alleys, 'and to praclude standing pools of water within the pars ng lacility. 7. Safety features: Barking and loading faciLties shall meet the foUowivg standards: (a) Safety barriers, protective bumpers or curbing, and directional market ;hall b�, provided to assure peds strianlvei,zcular safety, efficient utili den, protection to landsc8_ling, and to prevent encroachment oWL s adjoining public or private property. (b) risibility of peOastmens, bicyclist-, and motori.ats shall be u,sured when entering individual parking spaces, when circulating' within a parking f ^iMy, and when anterirg and exI ting a, parking facility. (e) Internal alrcuiaaticn patterns, and the ;,� aticn and traffic direction ref f' access drives,'shafl be esigied and maintained in arcurd cth aC mptedi principles nf. traffic engineer ng and traffic safety: • -11fl- � = Section t"DICAVeD r -fiW11 fy 5iCM9D�! --A �E IOfiNVnr A 01.\?�� , ►. "GIs " i via Q `� 1U71i:W.YdNL - c�j,�,C 12� 9tPSElk. Cf A(.CCS]Idt:FPq L L 4TAGis 1.'.IZ6 4. Aisle dimensions; Each psrkh;g and? lca. 4 q space shall have adequate drives, aisle and turning and maneuvering areas for aceass and usability, in accordance w ':h Table 17.1-. 3.030 -D. 5- f axing: Parking and 1(.).-4;ng facililes.shall be surfaced and maintained with asph%ltle , concrete, c2,' other permenegt, impery -,ous surfacing material sufficient to prevent mud, dust, ? ? j material, and other nuisances. Alternate surface materis-t can be coclsi&red by the City Plad.ierg if shown that such ciateriv,` will not cause adverse off cts and :hat it will re mein in a , usable condition. - 6. Drainage:. Ai) par; role and loading facilities sha:4l be graded and provided with permanent storm drainage facili ie:. Surfacing, curbing, and drainage ,:nprovements still bs. suffic'eut t+ ' preclude free. flow of water alto, e ijacent properties or public: ^trftts or alleys, 'and to praclude standing pools of water within the pars ng lacility. 7. Safety features: Barking and loading faciLties shall meet the foUowivg standards: (a) Safety barriers, protective bumpers or curbing, and directional market ;hall b�, provided to assure peds strianlvei,zcular safety, efficient utili den, protection to landsc8_ling, and to prevent encroachment oWL s adjoining public or private property. (b) risibility of peOastmens, bicyclist-, and motori.ats shall be u,sured when entering individual parking spaces, when circulating' within a parking f ^iMy, and when anterirg and exI ting a, parking facility. (e) Internal alrcuiaaticn patterns, and the ;,� aticn and traffic direction ref f' access drives,'shafl be esigied and maintained in arcurd cth aC mptedi principles nf. traffic engineer ng and traffic safety: • -11fl- � = c. Research and Development: i space per 3tO square, (research services only d. Wice and Administration: 1 space per 250 . square feet. e. Multi -use tb.lawt buildings 'where office use does not exc ed 35% of building area: 1 sp.-^e per 400 square feet. ? f, Following interior 'building areas can be deducted from the overall parkins requirements, electricallmechanical radmz, elevator shafts, stairwells, and multi - -< story lobbies. Bicycle and Other Two Wheel Vehicular Facilities F. Wycle storage facilities shall be pY.vided within -all developme;%t and' ilate to planed and exining bicycle routes.;,` F.S., Required on -site parking may be reduced at a rate cf one automobile parking space per 4 spaces of' bicycle or other two wheel vehicular par Incg u� to thceP automobile parking spaces or 5% of total required . on -site parking, whichever 1s less Compact daces F.6. 20% to 35% of all required parking stalls shall be devoted to compact t Ir use, Minimum stall KOP dimension shall be S' in .w 'th and 16' in length and marked for compar' .ors. F.7. All Parking areas shall be screened from public view thrgugh the.: use of bermes, landscaping material and low walls. Loading Facilities F.B. All TAding facilirie:z and maneuvering areas must oe eq site with the use. F.9. All loading facilities shall be permitted :,niy ....ems) ,�,®..... in the rear and interim, side yard areas ex.ept .� within the Heavy Industrial category and rail j served buildings. F.10:` Aisle width to loading docks shall be a minimum of 50' width plus additional width for truck parking (typically 40 to 50 feet), F.11. Leading docks shall be set back a minimum of a 70' frw street property line. 1 P<12. P4i"ki¢rg stab °>:i for trailers shall be 50' '^ 14' mm1d provided at ratio of 1 stall per truck loading dock door, III -43 EY1�16i'r C RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI'T'Y Of k'tAMCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEW%OPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91 -01 AMENDING TITLE 17, CHAPTER 17.12 -OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ELIMINATE COMPACT PARKING SPACES AND REDUCE THE STANDARD SIZE PARKING SPACE TO 8.5 FEET BY 18 FEET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THE:(EOF. A. Recitals. O The City of Rancho Cucamonga has initiated an application for Development Code Amendment Ko. 21 -01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the sub -set Development- Code Amendment la referred to so "the application. (ii) on the 10th day of April 1991, and continued to the 12th day of June, the 20th day of June, the 14th day of August, and the 28th day of August 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) A11.1 legal prerequisites prior to the ado tion of this Resolution hrve occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby foundi.dstermiae•'., 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 pare true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence preser,ted to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearings on April 10, June 12, June 20, August 14, and August 28, 1991,, including writtsn' and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as i follows: (a) The application applies to all properties located within the City; and (b) The proposed amendments will not have a significant impact on the environment as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Initial Study, Parts I and II; rnd 3. Based upon the- _substantiaL erldence presented to-this Commission during the above - referenced public hearings and upon, the sped.- 'kindings of facto suet forth in paragraphs 1 ,.nd 2 above, this Commission hereb, -Anda and concludes as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DCA. 91 -01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 28, 1991 Page 2 (a) This amendment does not conflict with the Lard Use Policica of the General Plan and will provide Por development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and -'with related development; and (b) That the proposed amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Development Code; and (c) That the proposed amendment wx.11 not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materiLlly injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and (d) That the proposed amendmen, will not be det.:imental to tho objectives of the General r_an or the Pecelopifient Cede. 4. This Cormnission hereby finde that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California'EPvironmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Comnias,aon hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth In pat,agraphc 1, 2, 3, and 9 above, th.a Commission hereby resolves as follows: (a) That the Planning Commission_ of tha City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends of Devela=--nt Code Amendment 91 -01 to modify the Municipal Code per the attached Ordinance. ANAL 6. the Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED TIIS 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: L27ry T. McNiel, chairman ATTEST:_ Brad fuller, Secretary 1, Brad aullej , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho 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, &t a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28,ch day of August 1991, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIDNERS: �I ABSEW: COMMISSIONERS: fl _ €ORDINANCE pia. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C:TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,. APPROVING DEVELOP14ENT CODE AMENDMENT 91 -01, AME4-)ING TITLE 17, CIVPTER 17.12, OF `THE RANCI;O CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, ELIMINATING COMPACT PARKING SPACES AND REDUCING THE STANDARD SIZE PARKING SPACe TO 8.S FEET BY 1S FEET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF' THE CITY CuUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOSS HER asY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: ,Yeetion 17.12.0-30.A.1. of Chapter 117.12 is hereby amended Ito read in words an3 fiqures as follows: 1. Stac.�urd stall size: Each patking space shall consist of a rectangnlai, area not less than 8.5 feet wide by 18.n,:,-feet long. 'In measuring the length of paving required for a parting space, allowance may be wade for up to a. 1-foot vehicle projection beyond;thp blmper or tire stop if such projection dt19s not interfere w:th le:idacaping or pedestrian use. All parkins spaces saa.1 have .a vertical clearance of not less than 7.5 feet. e. e uz� SECTION 2: Section 17.'.:.03DA.Z. of Chapter 17,12 is hereby amended to read in words and figures as follows: 2. When a side of any parking space abrts a building,. walls support C01= 0r or othex obstruction which interferes in ;any %ay with access to a motor vehicle, the space shall be a - nini.m= of, 2 feet wida° than otherwise required by this eection. ff I I CITY COUNCIL ORDIN&NCE NO. DCA 91 -01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Page 2 �I SECTION 3: P-ction 17.12.030.0.3. of Chapter 17.12 is hereby amended to read in words ani figures as follows: i i 3. Two -way access drivevays with no parkit ,,shall be a minimum of 24 feet, except 26 feet shall be provided where necessary for emergency vehicle access. One -way access driveways.. with no parking shall be a minimum of 12 feet. SECTION 4: Sertiun 17.12.030.D.1. of Chapter 17.12 is hereby amended to read in words and figures a.8 follows: 1. Each parking facility is designed with parking bay units. The size or width of this unit is dependent on one- or two -way traffic anet single or double-loaded aisles. Use the following table to determine the overall widtta of the 'parking bay design which is being used. The dimensions listed are the amount necessary to contain . parking stall 1 depth and aisle width, without overhang. Parallel parking may be permitted, to�2ver, it must not be counted as part of the required driveway width and must maintain 4 feet between spaces. I Table' 17.12.030.D - Overall Parking Bay Width Alk I Parking Angle (in degrees) 30 45 60 S0 I 1. Aisle Widt'f a. One -Way Traffic 121 141 181 241 b. Two-Way Traffic 201 211 221 241 2. Single- Loaded Bay Width One -Way Traffic a. Wall -to -wall 2864" 32TO" 37110" 4210" b. 0•.ierlap 2418" 2919" 3518" 421011' 3. Double- Loaded Bay Width One -Wry Traffic a. Wall -to -Wall 4418" 5116" 5718" 6010" b. Overlap 3714" - 4516" 5316" N/A I 4. Single - Laded Bay Width Two -Way Traffic a. Wall -to -Wall 3614" 3919" 41,101, 4210" b. Overlap 3218" 3619" 39tV 4210" S. Double- Loaded Say Widti. Two -Way Traffic ' a. Wall -to -Wall 5218" 5816" 51'8" 6010" b. Overl &p 4514" 5246" 5716" N/A i CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DCA 91 -01 CITYIOF RANCHO CUCARONGA Page 3 F ' a A = ANGLE 8 - AISLE IVIDTH I I C . DAY­ WIDTH ONE -WAY SINGLE LOADEr, WALL, TO -MALL fr = BAY WIDTH ONE -WAY SIHGLL LOADI D OVERLAP E - BAY WIDTH TWO -WAY DOABLE LOADED WALL-TO-WALL e F - PAY ,Y IDTH TWO -WAY DOUBLE LOADED OVERLAP SE(710N 5: Section 17.12.030.D.3. of Chapter 17.12 is hereby deleted in its'entixaty and all subsequent sect zns renumbered accordingly. SECTION 6: Section 170 L.040.A.2.(h) of Chapter 17.12 is hereby da -leted in its entirety and all subsequent sections renumbered acc.ardingly. SECTION 7: Sectior. 17.12.040.C.3. is hereby delered in its entirety and all subsequent - -ctions renumbered accordingly. SECTION is Section 17.02.036A.3. of Chapter 17.12 is hereby amended to read in words and figures as follows -i Handicapped stall size: Fact; parking space desgnatea.'for use by the handicapped shall consist of a rectangular area not less than 14 feet wide by i8 feet long, and shall be located in an area not excet.4ing 2 percent singe. All spaces shall. be located near of convenient to a level or ramped entr`;��*N, not exceeding r 5 percent slope, to the facility served by the parking space. Parking spaces for-the handicapped shall be signed and restricted for use by the handicapped only. qW j f ,t. i iE _ f CITY' COUNCIL ORDINANCE X10. , DCA 91 -01 - CITY OF RANCHO'CUCAMONGA Page 4 �'' irvJ .�a..wuewo ,fin urcaa ar 1 : 'I 44 �C 4 � o � i' wu •� II �lyy�T •�tOHU744%. Muft, Ate '311"W 4- r'l=*S -Ofi Tt SE0.eION 9: This Council fronds that this amendment will not adversely affect the environment and hereby issues a Negative Declaration. SECTION 10: The City Council declares that, should any provision, sscti Clks paragraph, s tence, or word of this-ordinance be ren,ddred or declared 1, - `alid ',1fy any final court action in a court of ' jurisdiction, or by reaso\ of . -may preemptive legislation, the remainin provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain'in full force and effect. SECTION 11: 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 once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletins a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. amass RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTIOC: OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TILE Ci:Ty OF RANCHO CULAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPRO7AL,.OF INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -01, ELIMINATIIr,_ COMPI.CT. PARKING SPACES, AND k1AKIN- FINDINGS IN 37,PPORT THEREOF. A. Rec;*_als. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga hds ir.itiated an application for Industrial Specific Plan Amendment ho. 91 -01 as deecrf.bed in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the sub)ect industrial Specific Plan Amendment is referrzd to as "the application." (ii) On the 10th day of April 1991, and continued to 'he 12th day of June, the 20th day of June, the 14th day of August, and the 29th'1hy of August 1991, the F',anning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ro,Nducted duly noticed publ!.c hearings on the application and concluded -_zid helnria7s on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. !sk H. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby xound, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. Thim Commission hereby apecificaliy finds t1m -` 1 of the fact3 set forth in the ' acitals, Part A, of this Resolution are ti6,m and correct,. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented _d. this Commission during the above- releronced public hearings on April 10, Jure 12, June 20, August 14, and August 28, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application appl! aA' to all properties located within the Industrial Area Specific Plan;isnd (b) The proposed amendments wit:, not have a sitnific:nt impact on the environment as evidenced by the conclusions and findingdof the Initial Study, Part II; and 3. Based upon the substantial evidence pre,,ented t= -this Comm 6dion. during the above- referenced public hearings and upon the specific findings of facts act forth in paragraphs 1 rand 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) T4is amendment does not conflict with the Lana Use Policies of the General Plan and :rill provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan aft(A with r..lated development; and PLANNING COMMISSION 1v2iiOLUTION NO. ISPA 91 -01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOYGA , Auguct 2S, 1 91 Page 2 (b) That the proposed amendment is consistent with the objectives .3f the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and '(c) Th "�t the proponed amendment will not be detrimental to the public hei_Ith, safety,, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or imp:4vements in the vicinity; and (d) That the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the Wijectives of the General Plan or the Jadustrial Arua Specific 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 Commieson hereby recommends issuance of a Negative, Declaration. S. Based upon the findings and conclusions set aorth 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 -01 amending Part III, Section F.6 per the attsched Ordinance - 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOP'T'ED $HIV 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 1991. PLANNING CO&NISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiai, 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 caul} and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of August. 991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMKT s1011EF,s: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: v ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SNDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -01, ELIMINATING COMP. -JT PARKING SPACES, AND MAK =NG FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, ` THE CITY COUNC?L OF THE CITY OF RANCH61 CUCAMONFA DOES HEREBY ORDgtN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Part III, Section F.6 is hereby deleted in its entix'::y and all subsequent sect,`o s renumbered,accordingly., SECTION 2e This Council ZJ=3 that this amendment will not adversel' affect tbs environment and hereby issues a Negative Declaration. SECTION,3. The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a .;.ourt of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the, maininq nrovisiors, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and eff4.1t. S'. "ION ds The City Clerk shall certify to the (}option of this Ordinance anc shall cause the same to be published withiaiS days after its passage at, least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation publisizd 3n the City o£.,Ontario, California, a1.i circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Ceifornia. CITE'' OF '.ANCHO Ci, 6C AMOPr GA STAFF R ERCYPT DATE: August 28, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Scott Murphy, Associata Planner SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT '13351 - LEWIS HOMES A request ro �unfy a praTious'iy approved Tract Map to increase the nu ")er of multi-familS, lots from one lettered lend five numbered lots to one lettered and seven numbered lots for 118 condominium units on 11.2 acres of land in the Low- Medium Residential designation (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the gcuthweT- corner of Milliken Avenue and Terra Vista 11 'kwav - AT11% 1077- 4191 -37. BACKGROUND: On July 12, 1989, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract 13351 for the development of 8 single family residences ane 118 condominium units. The single £arily '*.otr were recoeAed is a separate tract, Tract 13351 -1. from the condt,vin:um project and ore u:ad r construc,,i%un. The %pplicant is now in the p' -teas of 1!m liz�a9 Lhe Tract Map for tilt multi - family portion of the project. ANALYSIS: Under the Planning Commi.ssiou'a Original - )p.'val of the Tentative Tract, one lettered and five numbered jot- would have been created for the condoms ._a project. The a»plicant a now requesting that the numbered lots 4.1 increased from five to se-<en with the one lettered lot remaining. Under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, the number of lots vi, 'iin a subdivision cannot be increased unless approved by the Planain=. t -,mission- As a re3u1t, this item has been brought before the PI &v- 4le"tJ Cormission for consideration. Ai►11e the number of lots is increaxLnKg, sa alterations rt::ll occur to the numbiar of unitz or the design of the prof& -t.. ENVIRONMENTAL FSSESSW, - <Z: in approving the project in 1989, the Planning Conmission ndoliZed a Negative Declaration for the project. In staff's opinion, no additional impacts will be created by the additisn of two neiabered lo'.:.a, in that the number of uniit9 and design of the project remain uncharged. Therefore, no .3dition?%1 environmental review is required by the Planning Commiasion. GORRESFONDENCL: , its item hao been Daily Bulletin newvtaper as a public posted, and notices have been sent 300 feet of the project. advertised in the Tnland Valley t hearing, the roperty harp been '.o all property owners within ITEM, G 0701-02 o AUGUST 28, 1991 P. G, AGENDA o 2 of 4 ) PLAWRING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 13351 - LEWIS HOMES August 28, 1991 Page 2 / J,( RECOMMENDATION: Staff reccnmends that the Planning Commission approve the modification to Tentative Tract 13351 by adoption of "the attached Resolution. Respe ly submitted, B Cer BB :SM:m lg Attachments: Wlibit "A" - Location Mai Exhibit "H" - Revii.,2d Tract Map Resolution of Approval No. 89 -90A s i n L- . ~ 53ittl3dOtld NN3153M �i, sssocan> - f . vlslnvlresf NYa INWUVVM v3l3 '! •i r a ialf; e (. � #fit "��• F V, � if e �. • - gf fquw Y.p...i +it x0.•N!M Y 3M � 0lx t o. lltLi PVJT'Yi N ^fLGl .� r�[� 2 riHx waMlbtt MLYO KY. j 1 • .•••• ntwoen» +o s3wo>r swal . y V1S1A dl4t31 ddW.t'JV2LL3ALLVINRL uuor u.u.w e.�. t f i - --_ -- -- _ —_ --- - -- — _- -- - -- -------------------- —.•• --- g €`� afvranv y : � _ wlvrmc -t4 AdUk NO a S fs0 �_ _1 .�. • rte' � r- / •\ y�\ % f \ `� �i �� — `' r�C / \, ♦ \?l' �%�,4 \\ �� iii � � I y�i �' // �` � •\ 9 KI F7, w s�mat VJS1A Yl:1.M d7W lOW>;iL amvmB �m t' a s€ `zEet11 0 3t 5 tr_i rrr- �i! Sz=: 9ltlii s. r: sti I' II ' f1' — — — — -- --- = ��— — - - °— — '- - -- =�— — _ pp — _— ---- _. —�-.— _ - S r j 4i ��� �i �' 111 I l 1 °' -. l •i �I 1, V• x ! ITS/ -F• S . 1 ° j � � � ■ -�i� A 117 jai 11 �i... ..' — INN S � � �ryp� -�1• lit � �` �. '. t.,l �r it', i fsl : r`z j.11 g= et itz. l ( !Brpp it E. 1{ E °ejpx -tz J :re ! j0 rfifi! Fis — i� }. iL it ; — 1 {. i ! • 1 �- 111i:r!? jl=xc liflie , �_..� 6 -6 RESOLUTION NO. 89 -90A A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MODIFIZATION TO TENTATIVE ,,AC'P 13351 TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TRACT- MAP To INCREASE THE NUMBER OF MULTI- FAMILY LOTS FROM ONE LETTERED AND FIVE NUMBERED TO ONE LETTERED AND SEVEN NUMBERED LOTS FOR 118 CONDOMINIUMS ON 31.2 ACRES OF L-1ND IN THE LOW - MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE TERRA VISTA PUNNED COMMUNITY, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVENUE AND TERRA VISTA PARKWAY, AND KING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077 ^091 - -37. A. Recitals. (i) Lewis Homes has filed an application for the approval of a modification to Tentative Tract Map No. 13351 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in ,his Resolution, the subjert Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "th- application. (ii) On the 28th of August 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed pul7lie,° hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. ('Li -) All legal prerequisites prior to the adopt an of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. i WOW, 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 August 28, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Terra Vista Parkway with a street frontage of _790 feet on Milliken Avenue presently unimproved; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is a condominium project, the property to the south of that site consists of single family homes, the property to the east is vacant, and the property to the west is single family homes. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Gammiesion during the above - referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of fact,® set forth in paragraph 1 and 2 above) this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: w PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 13351 MODIFICATION - LEWIS HOMES Augast 28, 1991 - Page 2 (a) The tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plane; and (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; and (o) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with an; easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 4. This Commission hereby Unda and certifies that the project has been reviewed and ronsidored in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 3.970 aa:, further, that a Negative Declaration was issued on July 12, 1989. i S. Based ppon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 abovw,, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below: 1. All pertinent conditions contained in Resolution 89 -90 shall apply. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ?ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary 61 PLANNING COMMISSION RESMUTION NO. TT 13351 MODIFICATION' - LEWIS HOMES ' August 28, 1991 Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Cummissiony of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting rf the .Planning Commission held on the 28t1i day of August 1991, by the following vote -to -wit; AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMHISSION,4S: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 3 d CITY'OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 26, 1991 TO: Chairman and :Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Steven Ross, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: MODIFICATION To VARIANCE 91-04 LUNA A request to modify a previously approved variance to allow a reduction in the minimum average lot size -zom 22,500 to 21,240 Square feet to comply wit1t the City Council's approval of the asaociaced Tentative Parcel Map 13693 which created two lots in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) c:n the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201 - X182 -29. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Action Requested Approval of a modification to a previously approved variance in order to be conzistent with the City Council's approval of the related Tentative Parcel Map. BACKGROUND: At their public hearings on March 27, April 24, and May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed a number of parcel map layouts which explored various means of providing access to the two parcels created by Tentative Parcel Map 13693. At the meeting on May 22, the Commission approved the parcel map with the condition that Parcel 1 front on Cabrosa Place and Parcel 2 front on Northridge Drive. Related Variance 91 -04 was approved to a.Tlow a reduction in the minimum average lot size, and a reduction in the,:ainimum lot depth for Parcel 2. The Planning Commission's decision was appealed to the City Council by the Northwood. Properties Community Association and Peter Fan, a property owner east of the Lunas. The Community Association was opposed to allowing either parcel to access Northridge Drive, and Mr. Fan was concerned that lots created by his future tract would be required to front on Northridge Drive, au-- to the precedent set by the Luna parcel map. At its meeting on August 7, 1991, the City Council upheld the appeal and approved the Tentative Parcel Map with a temporary access to Cabrosa Place for Parcel 2 across Parcel 1, to be removed once alternate access to Parcel 2 becomes available from the north. The applicant was conditioned to provide an offer of dedication for a portion of a future cul -de -sac (the extension of Cartilla Avenue) at the northeast corner of Parcel 2. Therefore, a modification to the variance must be processed to account for the -additional dedication required. ITEM H PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT` MODIFICATION TO VA 91 -04`- LUNA August 28, 1991 Page 2 I ANALYSIS: - When the Planning Commission approved Tentative Parcel Map 13693 on May 22, 1991, a variance was required to reduce the minimum average lot size from the required 22,500 square feet- to 21,54Q, ,square r.. feet. The parcel map also required a reduction in the minimum ldt depth from 150 to 1:0 feet because Parcel 2 fronted on Northridge Drive. A variance for the minimum lot depth is no 'longer necessary, but the dedication of approximately 600 square feet for a ml-de -sac at the northeast corner of Parcel 2 will leave it with 21,900 square ,feet. Parcel 1 has an area of 20,580 square feet, which leaves the parcel map w!,:th an average minimum lot size of 11,240 square feet, 1,260 square feet short of the required 22,500 square feet. The minimum lot size allowed within the Vary Low Residential District is 20400 sgV'`e feet. The minimum average lot size requirement was adopted in 1983 to foster and encourage more creative subdivision layouts (i.e., more cul -de -sacs and curvilinear streets). The standard w4s not lntendF-' to, prohibit the subdivision of smaller oatcels of land into lots col fient with the Very Low Residential District. A number of the parcel maps which created the surrounding lots in the Very Low Residential District do not have a minimum average lot size of 22,509 square feet. The adjacent Parcel Map 5996, which created four' lots on the west side of Cabrosa Place, required a variance (Variance ' dUM 87 -08) to meet the minimum aaerale lot size' requirement. The average lot size for that Parcel Map is 21,750 square feet. Located along the east side of Mayberry Avenue and adjacent to Parcel Map 5996 is Parcel Map 7902, which creates four lots with an average square footage of 21,257 square feet. Approved in 1983, Pad granted an extL-nsion to 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 lot ;Mize will not create an unusually small lot because both lots will meet or exceed the minimum lot size, lot width, and lot depth requirements. Both lots meet or exceed all other applicable development regulations," It does not appear that the approval of this variance will constitute a special privilege, nor will it impact adjacent properties ism anyway, FACTS FOR FINDINGS. Before granting a Variance, the Planning Commission must make all of the following required findings: A. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement ' of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Development Code. t. e' PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MODIFICATION TO VA 91 -04 - LUNA' August 26, 1991 Page 3 B. That there sre 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 zone. C. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of, the privileges c,-tjoyed 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 on the other properties classified in the same zone. E. That t:e granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public- health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties, er 3mprr tents in the vicinity. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as :a publin.hearing in thL Inland 'Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper ,; ";the property.hr..a been posted, and notices have been sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project. PECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission f approve the modification to Variance 91 -04 thral.h adoption of the attached Resolutiot. of Approval with findings. Rasp Y subm rd, Brad Buller City Planner BB:SR:js Attachments: Exhibit ^A° - Site Plan August 7, 1991 City Council Staff Report and Resolution of- Approval for Tentative Parcel Map 13693 May 22, 1991 Planning Commission Staff P rvrt for Variance 91 -104 Resolution of Approval J 0 , 01S. r n eQ w� •+ 'v ,'� � it �.�_ i ti a, t lac In Is �v i s d 0,11R 1.. I .. X Q 4 oe Q' C!1 N F U DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CLC ANIONGA y STAFF REPORT August 7, .991 Mayor at,d Members :of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Managrr Wm. Joe O'Neil, City Engineer Betty A. Miller, Associate Engineer ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP_13693 LUNA — AN'APPEAL Ut' I t FLAKNI`TW-VVrMIJJIVro J Ut5.131uN iu 1W RE THAT PARCEL 2 TAKE ACCESS FROM NORTHRIDGE DRIVE FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF ONE ACRE OF LAND INTO TWO PARCELS IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LOCATED ON THE; NORTH SIDE OP�NORTNRIOGE DRIVE, WEST OF HAVEN AVENUE - -APN:' 201 - 182 -29 (RELATED FILE: VARIANCE 91 -04) RECOM ENDATI0is Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ReW o".on to uphold the appeal. BACKGROURD /AMYSIS On July 17, 1991, the City Council heard the appeal by adjacent property owners of the condition of approval requiring Parcel 2 to take access from Northridge Drive. The attached Resolution reflects the Council's decision to grant the appeal and approve the tentative parcel map with a temporary access to Cabrosa P) ace for Parcel 2 across Parcel 1, to be removal once alternate access to ParceV, 2 becomes available from the north. The applicant shall provide an offer of dedication for a portion of a future culdesac at the northeast corner of Parcel 2, process a modification to Variance 9L-04. and submit a Design Review for Parcel 2. Respectfully submitted, Wm. Joe O'Neil City Engineer WJO :BAM:jh Attachments: Exhibit "A ", Vicinity Map Exhibit "B', Tentative Map Exhibit I, Master Plan Alternate 2 Resolution �11 wllw"64h ZSi N f..j cr CL dc CL itc Li -K 11Z tlr I o�� cr ® in ., vJ - $ �--- $� - - -- - oavjd ®sar4aa,7 VAW RESOLLYEICri NQ. 91 °182 �•J • • - � at ••' i. tit•: • ♦ K • ^ .w .• a v� :w = I: a• • � lar i• t • .•a A. Recitals. (i) Par. and ire-. Steven I m have filmed ars application fw the approval of 3aitative Parcel Map No. 13693 diescribed abc:� in tix :s of this Resolution. HIS in this AMOluticn, the subject Tentativie Parcel Map request is referred to as "the Tentative Parcel Map." (ii) an Mardi 27 and cor*jnued to April 24 and May 22, 1991, the planning omission of the City of Ratxcimo cuc=cnga corxbwted a duly not%oed public hearing cn the Tentatiim Parcel Map and follaairq 'tee =w1usion of said heariTq, Pdcpt'.ed their Pesoluttian No. 91-41 thereby approving the Tentative Parcel MAP. ( iii) iW. Peter Fan, an adjacm'.- propmty owner, and the Northwood Properties Cmmu ity Association have filed a timely appeal of the approval rented in ^aid Resolutiol No. 91-41 on the basis of the req9ireMent that Parcel 2 take access from No abridge give. (iv) on July 3 and conti=nued to J"7,- 17, 1391, the City C=wil of the City of R-aw o Oac=nga cmxb cted a d)' *Ja!B i public hearing on the subjsct matter of the appeal of dw TMtM -oA bsI p arA on said date cortciaded the public hearing. (v) All legrl prerequisites to the ad*tiat of this Resolution have oor w=d. B. Resalut?.90. 13W, MOM=, the City Cwiail of time City of Mn: ho O==cnga does he%—aW resolve as follows: 1. She Cmm9cil hereby sp_ sfxcany finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resoluti m a;L a trm and o=rect. This Ca=il hereby ieinds and oertific- that tha project has baan rPVie�aeci and co msidet+ed in coapliartioe with tine C.alifeLTda Mwircrmwntal gta;.:.ty Act of 1970 and omcurs with the issuance of the Nagative DwAaration issued e . My 22, 1991. Z. C-- , upon ttw mftit=L,W levicienca Dmewnted to this C=oil during tj o 1!; ifererced July 3 and July 17, 1991, h3arirtg. including written staff€ r..Wa ts, the tisanes of the abum- rlefesew3d March 27, Xril 24, and May 2%:, 1891, P?l arating C=Rissicri mwti M' public tesE i:mMir, and the of Pk ;urg Cx=3ssion Resoiuticn No. 41-41, this t.'t .il speaifi- crally fL-ds as follorae° Resolution No. 91.382 Page 2 (a) The 7entative Parcel Map applies to Amper -y locntted on the �roi north 'aide of Northridge Er v+e ,.if %aver AveRl4- within ,,�z Very Ff: Residential DisIxict. (less than 2 dwelling units (b) The Detplc+pment District and dmv gpme tt. spa 4 of tie sLmTcu cbx* property is as follows: North - Very Wd Pmsa:k ski.al,-- Partially DwjelcpeCa South - low -Me dirim Fasidin t ° I)w-le c Eist - very law pesidentia' - eicaslt West Very law Horse. C +&r (c) 2W rve Patel Yap co.elates the dWmIcPNW& of a 2 -lot subdivision. on 1.0 acre ,of ]ands (d) Variance No. 91-04 was• apw.s=j;O in cmjtm icn with the Tentative Parcel Map to allow re&Ictions in the mkm- a• e_lot size and minimum lot depth, ��3t. be modified: to al%w a ft,112%er ;+ cn of 300 square feet to the mw A av+arage lot Size; (e) T `w4uiremM*3 of P1anai:Tq t .issicn Resolution NO. 91-41, which rela( aL^ae1 2 trkirb3 txxiss frca Nartbri&ja Drive ara ummoessary to for ruby:.. _'-ziori of the vrc�perty; (f) Parcel 2 shall instemd ba deSignFAI to 'ultimately take aooess from a fu`s= street at the rrJttheast corner of the site, with a Notary ass env ,& across Parcel 3 to c orosa Place; (g) Van develoLp-aft as mcdi,fied `yin not omtcadict the c_oWs or objeutivas of the seneral Pim or DeveUtpment toe of the City of F=tfio Oxumava aid wOA riot pr*w e a detrimental con: iticn to the persons cw I=CVerties in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. 4. Based upm the su"stitantial evil to this Cla=U C-axim i2-A abmveY'efez*- vd public hearing and q= the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 abon, V A" C=Cil herSky firdB 291 =3 cortcludw as follam: (a) gia 'Imtatt3ve Areal Map, Upcn aQ*Ovza of thD revised variances will be cmwbft&- with the "viral. Plan Trite NNacgoent Qxb of tkA, City of Rangy `(b) The design or bWMmNrft C2 the Taeitat :W Paa=11 I3ap, 3s f consistent with the Gaa=al Flan ant Mwelopment, Code cif tha City of P n=v" i (c) gn =bjwt site is ptysicany adtable for ths, type of davelcpmeft Aft 1110 'Fesolution No. 91 -182 Page 3 (d) MY-. design of t W Prq=sOd d ivlopienzt is not likely to cause subetant al e=qj=zental d 3voL ble injury to humans or wildlife or their habitat; (e) The ` develqxW-11t i:,. not likely to c s-at * seriaus health problem; (f) MhA design of thw: davelcp ant- ' will not conflict with a1T ear ,t acgair l by the public at lat", MW of record, for ar,=W th=x -i a or u—., of the property within the p=VPwed develc t; and 5. Based upon the fitxjuigs and ca wlusiceas set forth in at+. s 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this COnxil hsxe► appaawes tt ?motive Parcel. Map subject to tk4- attached Standa'd CWditiWA and th* I tallo i g Special Conditions: I. An irrevocable off6r of deaiaatign sell be provided at the -,AWLI� coiner Z!f par,-el 2 s.;�t!. Mont to provide 50 feet of frm%tage c=iztent with tastes planning altemte "I ", which involves the fu'ti to of Cartilla Avenw due south of Wilson. Aver.; 2. A lien shall on Parcel 2 far the futU =wtr c , tion of straet 2q=Mv=ts within the offer of Medication; AMOL 3. A ificaticn Of varies= 91-" shall be � uluc3 rHt2l7t:M the miv9itrtan average lot arm by the amount of the offer of dedication; 4. The acoass easemwst across ;Paz 1 its fay of Parcel 2 Shall be teqxwaW, to be remz'vad crm alternat ; acoess to Parcel. 2 x3 at la fUM tha -- MM local feeder trail bahman Pwoaas I and 2 doll to caTle`..ed Or,= the drivemy is removed; 5. Ass to Parcel. 2 sball be design83 to the satisfacti m Of the pa=bo Cu==Ip -&ire mt&:tian. Disirict, ircluding 4��a for fiyr��e�y vdsic3 le ,,�.,t& f �., alto .aa te. Any gated a +%�,@..Yi6�ll equine krxz ;;,,,q g R• ya k �,ay Da sign aWlicatacn fcr he WrSmi�e±Epmen*� of CA'i�Cy,,.i� 2 ��ew 1;Wdd W Shall �3iiiAi for by ti -i . ^b to a' 'tea � a rajal. � 6he lCitsy Pla R'd. o that the t1A h= is prepwly oriented ,ta4a d the ft =e cul -tae at the nar`rrt t comes Of the site 7. MWAJM setback li.e' stall be platted cn the Fiml PMM1 I"p, to trA satisfy of the hi{ r Planzr; ._ ?besalution No. 93.-IB2 Page 4 the a. MW following shel The constructed prior to release of Y for either parcel* (a) M%e driveway ac: oss Parcel A to eve Parcel 2 (b) K-4-no native screen wall along the south propwty line of ltnth parcels, the design of which shall be reviewed and an=o;, ad by the City Planrses. Prime to tint of the screen wall, the develop.' shall word with the Narthmod Cow=nity Association to allow regsla s:t of thet existing wrought iron ferm With the street► wall; (c) A 1s -foot wife local. : eedet trail alcm the e'tire . smtberly taasdary of Parcels 1 and 2, and a 15 -foot . aisle local feeder t affil between Parmis 1 arri 2 from the southerly trail to the nth Wgmrty line. 7be patti cen of . the trail which crosses the twP0rarY ��s easement shall be constructed when the driveway' is 2e ; (d) Private drainage devices to cc:::R+sy flan f= the site and ft= the property noMth ag the site to the existing public facilities alert tha west and /or south boundarics, irgtalled to the satisfaction of the Buildirq official" Private drainaqs- ass is shall 1 be ehicrm on the Final. parca Yap as reqaired by the building and Safety Division. 9. A GTadirxg Plan shall be apprmed ,byt he City for both parcels 'which incorpozates the driveway, scxeees wall, e*mrxian trails, and private draitaga facilities. 6. Ise Co4tssail bereiry prova-das atstice to It. and Ms. UM, Teter Fan, and the N=thwM d Pries Cvmn;tity Association that the tip within "be "bias judicial review of 'the daci ion represented by tha PAsoluticn myst sought is governed by the .'pttn►isicne of mlifornia Cede of Civil. Pao Saeticr 1094.6. 7. The City Clerk is hWVbY directed to: (a) certify to the ado€rcicn of this 1*9zlutiisss, and (b) fwMwitch traMit a certified copy of this Euoluticn, by Corti�°ied bail, leis Receipt Requeted, to Mr. and Ms. unsa:, Peter Fan, anvd the ftMmod Prcpea qty at their address" ant per city !ffi1lt4$�. pASSED, ARWW, and AMP= this 7th day of Wit, 3991. ,i G 4 O $ C d a o qY °^ Y SiA'`Yr a. tit M 6. CG .rnr uyy i °W ¢O p~ x80! n6 »y y all ° °!mot l� cri �W y w r ; ■Y �$ Y <C Vc Mp Ye O.Y r �G�O YC - p i +p pppp ji VVV u W E V Y n C bI L VNG tON u^ 4JLZ. L`> Z.- a 4_0 � M�N � y1Vbpp� ® E NNYM di0 Y� i ^ AC ^ C 0 m %gam It st �V «t 's IL Us Yd1 e$ S a ua g�S E iM o_ a—*15 �sr � e+r.� aos — �a y ` _ J N 4 Y o X. a H/41 qw a o O ^ o is ` a p" ng n 6O J 4 C. n °E J O.;P cv� Mw o « O P T OX !eC Y.00 L CC tl� O Ayw �e •°•i 7- uv -B r? p �V° ego ca�Y= CLO C C •eyrr Y � � ° °a r° D ^_pc■� �u O�� «s Y w ffi� gat •G CCV C• ■ i 6i S �a b e OO .L o Or0 u�_pe.tl yppw �op=01 aqw o� c j4 `bLQg. nn w L• w ► L G v fC « ' pr N Y c.^o sip ., �Cw R vvve if O ■w M _ ce� °POm pp �°'g cT�Y�OQ<�Ae� C LY 6NJ 20< <9 n��e >YYYO mMY MY Y 2JCC°M�iN O qw a o O ^ °a rt0 I1 VY • — p= .2 P w C �e m c o a: i a e4 � ° °a w$ n a° p r w ffi� a 9g.4 C f 6tl S �a b e o g Yg o� c nn w L• w ► L 4 w � O y ,A N of a ■ .V p�33[6 � ..O y Oyr! Si O cai :Oe M S. . Y — _ cw c v o ` `a 0 LV N `� C• vL. L QrZ ,, O r a. yyG Y Y Sz Y O OCRY ,Y'rE +L QYY P `�a ^�S «e I�a pae� ° b 'c o -a:30 �ga w r�i C �.Y N x-$— - G x tl « ttM'L.yb �ZuaO� °s ��u ����v�se$i «"e• •` agcy �c leNC 6�F6O�Y�. i'O✓ FM =� 1 AL �� � A CO °a rt0 I1 VY • A� p« bd �e Fs.� 2 O US Sal 3b= 1 a 9g.4 g$ •° ¢g e� =C 9L nn w 2 � « a 3g i eZ f^`t � s` o Y V e L w C e ass a 6 u W %yyam e H l a a Q;vi e ug. a. a^ bo c� c.A 76t L6 `a awl cg ace a acc �^ c �a !s. ^98 oar. 2 a + g .'AS + � s 0 as 6 If e.+ $ Y.l D 3Wi oil DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: FE II. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA' STAFF REPORT 7. May 22, 1991 Cbairman'and Members of the Planning Cammission Brad Buller, City Planner f Steven Ross, Assistant Planner VARIANCE 91 -04 - LUNA A request to allow a reduction of the minimum average lot size from 22,,500 to 21,540 square feet and a reduction in the minimum lot depth from ISO to 130 feet for a two -lot parcel map in thr Very Low Residential District (leas than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on tho- north aide of Northridge Drive, 'west of Haven Avenue - APX: 201- 182 -29. E1&LJECT--W'.D SITE. SCRR Inw. A. Action Recue t� ed: 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; Vary Low Residential (less than 2 dwe3;13ng units per acre). South - Existing single family resident'$a)'i Low - Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per East - Vacant land; Very Low Fesidential (less than 2 dwalSling units per acre) West - Existing single family residential and vacant land; Very Loy °:uential (leas than 2 dwelling unitd gar acre) D. General Plan Desionationa:` Project site - Very Low Residential North - Very Low Residential South - Low - Medium Residential East - Very Low Residential West - Very Low Residential E. Sits, Characteristics:_ The site is vacant and slopes to the sloth at approximately 7.5 percent. A combination of native and intv)duced plant species are located on the site. RND�; %SIS• I A. general: The purpose and intent of the Variance is to provide flexibility from the strict application of development standard's when special circumstances pertaining to the property such as size, shape, topography, or location deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same distri,t 1-114 PLANNING COMMISSION ST }. REPORT VARIANCE 91 -04 - LUNA ' May 22, 1991 Page 2 inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. In reviewing individual cases for Variance, the following criteria must be considered: I. Special Circumstances: a• Is the property unsgue with respect to size, shape, topography, or location?' b. Are there exceptional ar extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property or propased use that do not apply generally to ether prorrties in the same zone? 2. Preservation of Property P.ight,irirdship): a. Can reasonable use be maco'e >>f the property without this Variance? b. Without this Variance, 1s t}ie applicant denied privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the area? C. Is the hardship 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 properties in the same zone? B. 21ckgr20dx At their public hearings on March 27 and April 24, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed a number of alternative parcel map layouts. These alternatives presentees different ways of fronting the two p- oposed parcels. On April 24 the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval for the Parcel *lap as shown in Exhibit "C" with both parcels fronting onto Northridge Drive. ' Thic orientation created the need for an additional variance regarding lot depth. See related staff report for Parcel Map 13693 for further information. C. Specific: 1. Lot Size: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a lot, approximately cite acme in size, into two parcels.. Parcel 1 is 20,58'0 square feet, and parcel 2 is 22,500 square feet. The Development Code requires a minimum lot 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. However, PLANNING COMMISSION &FF REPORT VARIANCE 91 -04 - LUNA May 22, 1991 Page 3 �1 2. Lot Depth: Thr „proposed Parcel Map also requires a Variance from the lot daLth requirement due to the requirement to front unto Northridge Drive. The minimum 1�.t depth allowed by the Devolopment Code within the very Low Residential district is 150 feet. The lot depth for both parcels, when access is taken from Northridge Drive is only 130 feat, which is 20 feet less than the minimum allowed. However, Parcel 1 is approximately 160 feat wide and Parcel 2 is approximately 170 feet .widpt. Both parcels exceed the minimum width requirement, 90 felt average, by a considerable amount. The previously mentioned Parcel Map $996 required a Variance from the lot depth requirement as wall as the minimum average lot size. The average depth of those four lots is 129 feet. The lot immediately north of the subject property is also lase than 150 feet dsep« Allowing a reduction in this average lot size or minimum lot . depth requirements will not create an unusually small lot because both lots will meet or exceed the mieimum(_,ct size and lot width requirements. Both lots meet or exceed all other the parcel map falls '960 square feet short a: meeting the minimum average lot sizr,: requirement of 22,500 square feet. The parcel map is bounded on the south by Northridge Drive, on the north and west by larger single family lots, and on the east by vacant land. Present and future lots to the north, east, and want of the site are within the Very Low Residential District, and must maintain a miniu✓wdjot size of 20,000 square feet. The minimum average lot size requirement was adopted in 1983 to foster quid e;,ccurage more creative su"ivision layouts (i.e., more cul -de -sacs and curvilinear streets). The standard wars not intended to prohibit the subdivision of smaller parcels of land into lots consistent with the Very Low Residential Dis Zict. A number of the parcel maps which created the surr9undin7 lots in the Very Low Residential District do not have a gini.mum" -' average lot size of 22,500 sgYara feet. The adjacent `Parcel a 5996 which created four 16--a on the west side of Cabrosa M P Place, required a Variance (Variance 87 -08) to meet the minimum average lot size requirement. The average lot size for that Parcel Map is 21,750 square feet. Located along the mast side of Mayberry Avenue 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 extension.. in 1985, Parcel Map 5745 is located on the wrest side of Mayberry Avenue and is a mirror image of Parcel Map 7902. 2. Lot Depth: Thr „proposed Parcel Map also requires a Variance from the lot daLth requirement due to the requirement to front unto Northridge Drive. The minimum 1�.t depth allowed by the Devolopment Code within the very Low Residential district is 150 feet. The lot depth for both parcels, when access is taken from Northridge Drive is only 130 feat, which is 20 feet less than the minimum allowed. However, Parcel 1 is approximately 160 feat wide and Parcel 2 is approximately 170 feet .widpt. Both parcels exceed the minimum width requirement, 90 felt average, by a considerable amount. The previously mentioned Parcel Map $996 required a Variance from the lot depth requirement as wall as the minimum average lot size. The average depth of those four lots is 129 feet. The lot immediately north of the subject property is also lase than 150 feet dsep« Allowing a reduction in this average lot size or minimum lot . depth requirements will not create an unusually small lot because both lots will meet or exceed the mieimum(_,ct size and lot width requirements. Both lots meet or exceed all other Li PLANNING COMMISSION STe, RETORT VARIANCE 91 -04 - LUNA May 22, 1991 Page 4 applicable development regulations. It d. 2s not appear that the 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 following required findings: A. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of phis Development Coder 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 zone. C. That strict or literAl interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of the privileges enjoyed by the ownors 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 on the other propertiee classif;ed 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 .t-^ properties or improvements in the vicinity. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices have been sent to all 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 with findin(j�.s. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:SR:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit "B" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "C" - Parcel Map Exhibit "D" - Minutes from March 27, 1991 Resolution of Approvai City o! Ranch � Planning Deptartnt.,t 10500 Civic Center Drive _ Rancho cucamionga, CA. 91729 5s RE: Tentative parcel Map # 13693 MAR 51991 �s�sds�s��us1s�s�s46�s6 To Whom it May Concern, e The purpose of this letter is to fulfill the second requirement under sr.ction 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 t1re provisions of the subdivision being requested the individu�i lot size has been exceeded in the case of both lots, however, the minimum average lot size is just barely below the required level. It is felt 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 size would not adversely affect any of the home or land owners in the area. If you have any questions or !concerns regarding this application plepse feel free to contact me at (714) 987 -2868 between 6 A.M. and 5 P.M. Thank you for your time and consideration in this mattor. sincere. ► f --- Steven R. *Cana CITY CAF RANCHO. -C- UCA ONCA Trr PLANNING- DMSI ®N EM .''A SCALE: ic U ! L____ WdyM Ae",%* rj, A- ' I� P!6 a eOe,rym�� ff feel «r f` �IlTe4 f" t t fty nEM: a►- OF k C&66 �UCAMONGA lTrru:9lclpj%m� lrYl r�� fN PLANNING- DIVISION Ssi � } . } t i Z h +_ w i i►l �� J o" � fl C � O J( /% � /1 R t � � [[rte � iC�� �� �`f• f.T °�' � � are �'•b�:/ � � i��. �e*® A`. yt � � to /.� •• i �� ,: r, RESOLUTION NO. 91 -42A V A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO' VHRIANCE NO. 91-04 TO ALLOW ,A REDUCTION OF THE MINIMUM ' AVtRAGE ,LOA' SIZE FROM 22,500 TO 21,240 S¢UW FEET FOR TEN"ATIVE PARCEL MAP 13693, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF �1 NORTHRIDGE DRIVE, WEST OF HAVEN AVENUE IN THE VERY LOW ' RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -rAFN: 201- 1H2 -29. 'A. Recitals. (i) Steven R. Luna has filed an application for the issuance of Variance No. 91 -04 as deecribed in the title of this Resolution. HereisAfter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is-,referred to as "the' application." (ii) On the 27th of March 1991, and continued to the 24th of April and the 22nd of May 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamongn conducted duly noticed public hearings on the application and the re.Iatee. Tentative Parcel Map 13693 and following the conclusion of said hearing adopted their Resolutions Noe. 91 -41 and 91 -42 thereby approving the application and the Tentative Parcel Map: (iii) Mr. Peter Fan, an adjacent property owner, - and the Northwood Properties Community Association �ilod a timely appeal of the approval represented in said Resolution No. 91-41 on the basis -..of the requirement that Parcel 2 take access frgm Northridge Drives. (iv) On July 3 and,continued to July 17, 1991, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conductd a duly noticed public hearing an the subject matter of the appeal of the Tentative Parcel Map and on said date concluded the public hearing. i (v) On August T, 1991, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution No. 91 -182, granting the appeal of Tentative Parcel Map 13693 and approving the Tentative Parcel Map with a temporary access to Cabrasa Place for Parcel 2 across Parcel. 1, to be removed once alternate access to Parcel 2 becomes available 2rom the north. (vi) 311 legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by, the Planning commission of the City of Rancho emcamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby.ipecifically finds that all of thR facts sat forich in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. i 1 PLANNING COMMISSION,RESOLVTXON NO. 91 -42A VAR 91 -04 - STEVEN A. LUNA August 28, 1991 Page 2 2. Based upon' evidence presented to this Commission at the above referenced public hearings on March 27, April 24, and May 22, 1991, and August 28, 1991, and presented to the City Council on July 3 and July 17,- 1991, - and the contents of the Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 91 -41 and 93-42, and the contents to the City Council- Rosolution No. 91 -182, this commission specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to Tentative Parcel r_ap 13643, a vacant, undeveloped property located on Cabrooa Place, north of Northridge Drive with a depth of 130 feet, a street frontage of 330 feet along Northridge L`rive, and approximately 40 feet of frontage along Cabrosa Place, - and (b) The property "o the north of the subject site Is residential, the property to the south of that site consists of single family homes, the propercy to the east ie vacant, and the ,property to the west is also zoned for residential use. (c) An offor of dedication f -r a portion of a future cul -de -sac at the northeaat corner of Parcel 2 will reduce the area of that parcel from 22,500 to 21,900 square feet, thereby reducing the average lot size to 21,240 square feet. (d) The application has been submitte.; to allow a reduction of the minimum net average lot area requirement contrary to Section 17.08.040 of the Development_ Code within the Very Low Residential District. (e) Both parcels most or exceed the minimum lot size requirement of 20,000 square feet. (f) Existing subdivisions immediately north and west of the subject site have a minimum average lot size of less than 22,500 square feet. (g) A varies -nce to allcx a reduction in the minimum average lot size and minimum lot depth requirements was granted for a four -lot subdivizion adjacont to the subject site. 3. Bassi upon the substantial evidence presented <_a this Commission during the above- rsfsrsn sd public hearings and upon the specific'findinas of facts not forth in paragrapho 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby find and concludes as follows: (a) That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the.Development Cods. i (b) That there are exceptional or extraordinL ,,,; 3cumstances or conditions applicable tb the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. r I � PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91 -42A { . 'T 3144 - STEVEN R. LUNA I� August 281 1991 I Page 3 (c) That strict or literal interluatation and enforcement of the specified ragulation would deprives the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the cwnars of other'propertles in the same district. - (eY) That the granting of the Variance will nbti! constitute a._ grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other l f properties classified in the same district; `4 (e) That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, vafety or welfare or materially injurious to properties '1 or improvements in the vicznxty. 4. Based upon the _findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application. S. She Secretary tg this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 1991., PLANNING COYXIS91ON OF THE �'ITY or RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. t*?_el, Chairman ATTEST: JrSd Buller, secretary 1, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of _tha 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 r£ the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of zuguat 1991, by the f,3— Uowing vote -to -wits AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: (; � } s i CITY OF RANCHO CIJCAMONGA DATE: August 28, 1991 T0: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Steve Hayes, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE POSIT 91 -01.- VICTORY CHAPEL �- A request to locate a temporary, modular. =multi-purpose building of 912 square feet on the site of the' existing 6,000 square foot Victory Chapel, located on .74 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Specific Pl,1n at 19837 Foothill Boulevard, west cf 'Rochester Avenue - APN2 229- 011 -21. VARIANCE 91 -07 - VICTORY CHAPEL - A request to waive the requirement for a mt.;ster plan for permanent buildings in conjunction with the request.to locate a temporary modular multi - purpose building of 912 square feet on the site of the existing 6,000 square foot Victory ;C: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91 -01 AND VAR 91 -07 - VICTORY CHAPEL August 28, 1991 Page 2 D. Site Characteristics: The site currently contains existing Victory Chapel building, 63 parking spaces, and: a landscaped area on the nc-:theast portion of the ,!rite. The entire southern portiat, of tre site is an asphalt area striped for parking; it cor ",1111s" no landscaping. Also, the modular building in question is currently on -site in an asphalt area behind the chapel building, not conflicting with any parking areas. The Fcothill Boulevard frontage serves as the primary access to the site. Dirt access to Rochester Avenue south of the Cowgirl parking lot provides a secondary point of ingress /egress.; The site slopes from north to south at approximately 3 percent. E. Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Space3 of Use Footage Ratio Rea: ?,red Provided Church 6,000 1/4 fixed 63 63 (250 seats) seats in auditorium APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Temporary modular buildings are permitted in tie City subject to review and approval of a Conditil,ual Use Permit 1 All pro-ided a master plan,far permanent buildings be reviewed and approved cc. =irrent with the temporary modular_ building. j BACKGROUND, On June 9, 1982, Victory Chapel received Planning i Commission approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 82 -06 to occupy the existing winery building on -site. oince that time, the church has grown to the point where the existing building is no longer sufficient to serve their needs. - Therefore, the applicant moved a modular trailer on their property with the intent to use it for children's classes, youth ministries, and various social functions prior Jra filing a Conditional Usz Permit application. Since contacted by the city, the applicant has been actively processing this application.. On April 24, 1991, the Planning Commission directed the applicar.i;' to file a Variance application to waive the requirement for a mu.4ter plan - .and for permanent buildings. i ANALYSIS A. General: The applicant is proposing to utilize the 912 square foot modular building for youth ministries and Sunday scho -1 classes ;in its current location on-site. Module hours are prposed fr5m 10 :30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on Sundays and 7:39 tai 9:00 p.m. on ' Wednesdays. All daily office activities will still take place in i the main building. Thy applicant is proposing to use the modular building for approximately 2 years or until such time that the church finds a new facility off -site or within the future Industrial Park proposed for this parcel and adjacent properties. J ''pLMING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - ,E CUP 91 -01 -AND VAR 91 -07 - VICTORY CHAPEL August 28, 1991 t1 Page 3 B. Issues: Typically with this type n,E request there are two primary land use issued, compatibility wit#, adjacent land uses and parking availability. ii Currently, the only adjacent land use is the Cowgirl, immediately east of the church. it is anticipated this use will be vacating the premises in the near future and the buiidiag potentially demolished.' No compatibility problems are antiipated by the installation of this modular trailer. The issue of park..;'- availability is commonly associated with ng expansion of churches in this situation, !the area of the main sanctuary or number of fixed seats within the Banc -unary (which is . the means by which the parking, calculations are derived; )for churchesi is not chanr3ng. Furthermore, t;;he existing number of parking spaces meets the' current miniw= code requirements (see Section 1.n of this report). Therefore, parking availability problems are not anticipated with this request. C. Variance: In conjunction with the Conditional Use Permit, the applicant Has submitted a Variance application (per the direction of the Planning Commission) to waive a Development Code requirement for a master plan for future permadnt buildings." The request for the Variance stems from the inability of the church to prepare such a master plan. They do not own the.property and the owner intends to build a new 27 acre industrial park.'•= Please .refer to Exhibit "E" for further justification of tbSs issue. i At this time, staff is working closely with the owners' ` representatives to develop the above - referenced industrial mark. The industrial park could be under construction prior to the proposed Z -Near expiration period for the modular ur t. At such time the church will be required to vacate the facility. Therefore, staff agrees that the justification for the alleviation of the master plan requirement for future permanent buildings is warranted for the above - referenced reasons. D. Design Review Coa�ittee: On July 18, 1991, the Committee (McNiel, Tolstoy, Coleman) reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to the Following: 1. A wood sided exterior skirting closely resembling the siding on the trailer should be utilized: 2. The trailer should be painted to match the existing chapel builOing as close as possible. 3. A drip irrigation system: should be used within all tree pots. The irrigation system should be on an automatic controll*r system to insure proper watering. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91 -01 AND VAR 91 -07 - VICTDRY CHAPEL August 28, 1991 Page 4 4. Catalog cuts for the proposed tree pots should be reviewed and approved by staff prior to approval of the final landscape %irrigation plans. a -: All of these corvaent?-bave been incorporated as conditions and I, approval within the' attached Resolution of Apprnvsl for the Conditional Use Perms`'. E. Technical Review Committee: On July 17, 1991, the Committee reviewed the project and determined that, with the, recommended standard :conditions of approval, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. No grading is proposed or,, required oe_:the site for utilization of the temporary 'modular building; therefore, the Grading Committee was not required to review this particular project. F. Environmental Assessment`. Upon review of Part I of the Initial Stud.7 and completi;6 of Part II, of the Environmental Checklist, staff has found no significant impacts related to lacr-ting a temporary modular building on the subject property. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: In order for the Planning Commission to approve Conditional Use Permit 91 -01 and Variance 91 -07 facts to support the following findings must be made: A. Conditional Use Permit 91 -01: 1. Th.t the proposed use ii Ja accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Industrial Specific Plan and the purpof; s of the district in whi -h the site is located. 2. That the proposed together with the conditiows applicable thereto, will not Be detrimea'tal to the 'public health, safety, or wel:6re or materially injurious' to properties or improvemenV�'in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Industrial Specific Plan. S. Variance 91 -076 1. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified re «ulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecesi�ary physical, hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. 2. That because the 'applicant does not own or control the property in question there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstinces 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 zone. cL PLANNIN9 COMMISSION STP„FFj4SPORT CUP 91 -01 AND VAR 91 -07 - VICTORY CHAPEL August 28, 1911 Page 5 3. That the master plan to be processed by.the property owner 'is- an acceptable alternative to the required master plan for future permanent buildings on the church parcel. 4. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or i conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the r intended use of the property that do not •apply generally to j other properties in the same district. '\ S. That strict or literal interpretation a_d enforcement of the ` specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the %i same district.; 6. 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 zone. 7. 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 vipinity. CORRESPONDENCE: 'these items have been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland VaY --Z Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and .R vices have been sent to all property owners within 300 feet of.;af i Project. � RECOMMENDATION: Stasf recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 91 -01 and Variance 91 -•07 through adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval. Res p Y submi d, i i Brad 11er City Flanner BB:SH:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "e - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Sits Plan Exhibit "C" - Conceptual Tandscape Plan Exhibit "D" - Building Elevations Exhibit "E" Letter from Applicant Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit 91 -0 -1 Resolution of Approval for Variance, 91 -07 ti I :3 ttt IE t 's ITS ell t :TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING- BpnSION TTPi.E: Srk txr t,�a#,e N SCALE.::'- r - �• �' —� .� 49.�Jib • rr1 �. e r ka ri3 ' a 46 O ? AY .� L� « WTI C { o� a- LA x 'f -ITY OF RAPCAG -C CAMONGA ITVM; CUP 51 -al yo_ -+ .,�vcll•07 PLANNING- DIVISION Tit a 5r1- EXHIBIT- " SCALE: � Modular Wried With matching Wood siding and entire huildinn P; LANDSCAPE -WEST SIDE Pine trees pf 7d along West side of 41 and on east side modular. sp pa an�+Ksi ;" /+I,. LANDSCAPE -EAST SIDE 11 CITY OF RANCEIG- CUCAMONGA PLANNING, DIMION 81 "K' CVP 41-oi : ';XHIBt7 ' C SCALD: -- - Open Feild .xisting Parking Lot � 0 W06cl ,41 aril Siding Existing Concrete Slab CITY OF RANdRO.-lCdCAMONGA CVP 91-11 a 6,c.,,9107 PLANNING DIVISION N Ili Pa-m-1 1w Fck%wiv IF r C-1--t South :ITY OF RANCHO, CUCAMONGA rra& C 91-o i PLANNING' DI.MION 7MF---Iz, N misrr Z)-a:lscALF-. DI Existing Church Building --- Existing Awnin- l .Panel / - l IR' EMT __W__ , t Existing SbPanet Au 4 P . Existing 6" concrete Slab 17" - �rhlfIDRIR�LLtt VOOA----------- R24" x 24" reenforced concrete pyrans, with 2x pressure treated lumbnr between �e4 steel I-beam and concrete pylons & slab. Fajhre Modular Skirted With fthwirmm And Fainted To Match Existing Building. BASF ,f tVfii�'. , OF $ ' �:t.CTCA�ViONGA �:/1� �-S 1• ^.)r e -114' •ae "� 7 I'-b �' e ;- 'TiIZ.: 2sa L r .� PI.AN� '"' i3F ION cel • a c v-r- . N * Existing Church Bttiljing ,Existing Awning �..:�,.,, 1 1R' EMT F IExisting It 1!111 a llW SN .Sub Par IT EiisUn Sub Panel i f1 {fii I� 11 A- m$ —► i t i! i1.�1 t �.: { t t�(y,�.. t I �7 f I� `t�i suppun Exising 6 cunerete slab f t I 17' Entire Modular Skirted With, Apkmtinvtrt 40--i And Painted To Match Existing Building. F V �l S ii ' CITY or- RANCHO- CUCAMONGA rrEm. �,��P9l�tJCrV�v:anLA�g! -fit% I=LANNIIQ"G- DrmION ?Y, . i%LE:��ivttl,an , E?CkYTBff.� ® -y 'SCALE: �' 11837 FOOTHILL BLVD. RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA 91730 (714) 980 -5116 • (714) 990 -9694 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho? Cucamonga, CA 91729 SUBJECT: Petition to appeol. planning division decision of incompleteness concerning contltiona� use permit 91 --01. To .Whom it May Concern: Victory Chapel requests an appeal to the ,planning divisions decision of_incompleteness in regards to dui+ application for a conditional oe permit .for the additions of a ,.bdular building at our present location. As stated in our initial application, -the justification for this modular involves several heeds: 1) Room for children and youth ministries. We have outgrown our present facilities and need..;, additionasl, space to properly facilitz_�e our growing corgregasion....., 2) The present building -is verr• and we ate currently ca a month to month lease kith our lanedlbrd due to than fact that he intends to demolish it.. His plans awn to, build a bum °smss park on 'p this property in which we have negotiated to lease a new building near our present '®cation. Therefore it is both impractical and impossible for us, to build a permanent addition, thus necessitating the need for a temporary one. The planning divisions decision of incompleteness is based upon our inability to provide ra master plan for a building to replace the modular. We obviously cannot do this since the entire property is elated for demolition and reconstruction by the owner, thus preventing us from meeting the city's requirements for the placing of temporary buildings. We therefore respectfully request an exemption to City Council ordinance M__ 211, such as the scho -s in our city currently havo. We are able and more than willing to meet the requirements for the setting up of a modular building, both safety and appearance vise. Sincoftl, Aolvert Word Asst. -Pastor, `victory Chapel Ex� ►bt.,� . . T- T i RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE , PERMIT NO. 91 -01 FOR A REQUEST TO LOCATE A TEMPORARY MODULAR MULTI- PURPOSE BUI DING OF 912 SQUARE FEET ON THE SITE OF THE EXISTING 6,G00 SQUARE FOOT VICTORY CHAPEL, LOCATED IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT (SUBAREA'A OF THE INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AT 11837 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, WEST OF ROCHESTER AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229 - 011 -21. A„ Recit&18- (i) Victory Chapel has tiled an appli::atiou for the issuance 'of "the Conditional Use Permit No. 91-01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter it this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 24th 1,,"-,April 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing to datermine the completeness of the application, at which time the Planning Commission directed the applicant to submit a Variance application to potentially alleviate the Deeolopment Code requirement for a master plan for permanent buildings. (iii) On the 28th of August 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. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, " is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as £ollowaz 1. TEiis Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Fart A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Bas-,d upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- reforenced public hearing on August 28, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifteally finds as follows: (a) The application appUes to property located at 11837 Foothill Boulevard with a street frontage of 173 feet and lot depth of 200 feet and is presently improved with a, 6,000 square foot building, parking areas, and landscaping; and PLANNING,COMMISS:PN RESOLUTION NO. CUP 91 -01 - VICTORY CHAPEL August 28, 1991' Page 2 (b) The property to the north of the subject site is vacant,: -,, the property to the south of that si+e consists of vacant land, the property to the east is an adult business, and the property to the west is vacant; and (c) The site is within the Industrial Park District of the Industrial Specific Plan, (d) The modular building will be utilized for youth ministries and children's classes on Sundays and Wednesday nights only. (e) The modular building wj- 1. be upgraded with an architecturally consistent skirting material, st4. on a permanent foundation, and be architecturally upgraded and screened ny landscaping, consistent with the intent of Section 17.10.030(4) oc the Development Code (Temporary Office Modules.) 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 herlby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the ob;;4ctx:ves of the Industrial Specific Plan, and the purposes of the district in which the site iv located. (b) That the proposed use, togeni.::.,,e with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the'4icinity. (c) That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Industrial Specifir,.Plan. ;r 4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project ban been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California. Environments: Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby issues a Negative Declaration. A_ Based upon the findings and conclu'oions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby app,'oves the application subject to each rind every condition set forth; below an(, in the attkehed Standard conditions, attached hereto and incorporatbd herein by this reference. i' Planning Diversion: ,1 1) Pursuant to 1,zovisions of California Public Resources Code Section 21,89(b)r this application shall not be operat;tve, vested or final, nor will building psrmite:.5ve issued or a map regarded,' i until (1) , the, -. Notie.o -- of Determination (NOD) regarding the associated ,r. PLANNING COkL issI0N REST "'UTION NO. CUP 91-01 - VICTORY CHA$i August 26, 1991 -Page 3 environmental action is filed and posted with the Clerk of the Board 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. 711.4, together with any required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of i San Bernardino. The applicant shall provide the Planning Department•:. with a stamped and conformed copy, of the N`tice of Determination together with a- receipt showing that all fees R have been paid. In the event` this application is determined exempt from such filing fees pursuant to the provisions of the California Fish and Game Cide, or the guidelines promulgated thereunder! exeept. for payment of any required handling charge for filing a Certificate of Fee Exemption, thi3 condition shall be deemed null, and void. 2) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, Industrial Area Specific Plan, and all other city Ordinances. 3) If the operation of the modular building causes adverse effects upon adjacent businesses or oper4�� ions, the Conditional Use Permit shall be brougl "t before the Planning Commission for consideration and possible termination of the Use'. 4) 'Occupancy of the modular building shall not - commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshall's . regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Srotectior, District and the Building, and safety Dili4iion to .show compliance. T The building shall be inspected for compliance prior to "utilization of the building.', 5) If any safety problems or other adverse affects ...arise in relation to the placement and size of the modular building, the Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission 1Eor consideration and possible termination of use. �t PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ' CUP 91 -01 VICTORY CHAPRL August 28, 1991 Page 4 6) operating hours for activities within. ,`the temporary modular building shall be limited to the activities and hours described. in the application as follows: Children's classes and youth ministries from 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on Sundays and 7:30 to 9-co p.m. on Wednesdays. Any modification to these times and uses shall require approval by the Planning Commission. 7) Approval of this use shall be for a maximum of two years from the approval date of this Resolution or issuance of building permits for any alterations, e2pansions, or demolitions of any, structures on the property, whichever occurs' first. 8) A wood Sided exterior sMxting closely xesemblinC the' Biding on the trailer' shall be installed, to :•• „he satisfaction of the City Planner, prior to occupancy. 8) The trailer shall be painted to match the existing chapel building as closely as possible, to the satisfaction of the 'City Planne:,,,prior to occupancy. , 9) A drip irrigation system shall be installed to water all tree pots prior to occupancy. The irrigation system shall be on an automatic contr'aller system to insure proper watering. Details of these requirements shall be shown on the detailed landscape /irrigation plans, which „ shall be reviewed dnd approved by th(s Planning `' Division. 10) Catalog cuts for the proposed taQa pots sha•1 bee rviewed and approved by Division prior to approval of,`�% the final landscape /irrigation plans. 11) Prior to occupancy, specimen size- trees (24- inch box size or `larger) sha`nl cbe provided Within the parking,., *rea at kffiZ', locations to Increase shade potential for vehicles, consistent with the intent of parking lot landscaping within Section 17.12.030(Cll:A of _ the Development Code. The trees ehall,.,be planCed , within the decorative ,pots: as mentioned. in Planning Division Condition No. - PLANNING rOMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 91 -01 VICTOR' CHAPEL August 28, 1991 Page 5 10. The species, location, size, and number of parking lot trees shall be indicated on the detailed landscapefirrigation plans, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division.' 12) All roof equipment associated with the office modu a and all ground mo"teA equipment for both buildings shall be c(>mpletely screened from view, by means of low wails, landscaping, and /or berming, to the satisfaction of the City Planner, prior to wcupancy. t 13) A trash enclosure shall be sonstrd,Cted Il consistent with City Standard No. 901 prior to I' occupancy. , The exterior of'-the enclosure shad be consistent with the architecture of the If chapel building, as determined ,�y the Planning f Division. Structure and architectural details of the enclosure fall be included within the building plan package, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Sscret ry 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 introdumed, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of Rugust 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISS::YERS: ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: PROJECT #: %,..,. J � �, � _ 1 tls� t Lrr- � 47l -U I SUBJECT: APPLICANT: 1,1L Z: t LOCATION: I' 11 l � •`I G( VA, W -T "-4 4Vt u Those items checked are Conditions of Approval. APPLICANT SHALL C©NTACY THE PLi 14NING DIVISION, (713) 959- 11361, FOR COMPL1aNCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDRF °CIS: A. Time Limits QwmIsdm Dag 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, If building permits are -J--� not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. 2. Development/Design Review shag be approved prior to --J--/— 3. Approval of Tentative Trect No. Is drarded subject to the approval of —J--J- 4. The developer shag commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, �—/— participated in, or consummated, a Mello -Roos Community Facilities District (CFO) for the F;ancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction arxllor maintenance of afire station to serve the development. The station shall be boated, designed, end b jilt to all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall became the Districrs property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in a=rdance with its needs. In roeily building of a station, the developer shalt comply with all applicable laws and reputations. The CFD shag be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation cA the final map ocaum. _ 5. Prior to recordation of they final map or the issuance of bulMing penTits, whichever comes r,1--J- first, the applicant shag consent to, or parti*V.e in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community F&JTdies Okstrict for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. however, if any school district has previously estabgshed such a Community 17,=ilities District, the aRgicrrt shag, in tho alternative, consent to the an+, sxation of the .•,rroject site into the territory of such exM g District prforto the recordation of the final map or the issuar,v of building permits, whichever comes first. Funnier, I the affected school district has not formed a Mello -Roos Cammuniry,,7xffitfes District wiihintwelie months from the date of approval of the project and prior to the .scordation of the final map or issuance of building penTAs for said project, this conditfan shall be deemed rr.3g and void. -X— 7 SC - 2/91 1 of 12 P., ya.._ J= ` -J Comdeuen Date- This condition shall be waived it the City receives notice that the appiiicant and all affacted school districts have entered into an agreement to privately aW;r, mmodate any and all school impacts as a result of this project. 6. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of building pr: >*mhs when no map is �!- involved, written certification from the affecedwater district that adegjaf -ewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issu d by the water district within 90 days priorto final map approval inthe case of subdivision orpriortoIssuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. e, Site Development V_ 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which J —J include site plans, architectural elevations, exterf it materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and i ,•J.,,, +,- t a Specilio Plan and - — Planned Community. 2. Prior to anv use of the Mudv ar b%., LAW) y all j _J__J_ Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. I Sr. - 2/91 2 of 127 `� 3. Occupancy of the facility shall not commence until such time as A Uniform l3t:ilding Code arid State Fire Marshall's regulations have been complied with. Pier to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fite Protection District and the Building ant+ Safety Division to show compliance. The building shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submftt&d for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. V' S. All site, grading, landscape,lrrigation, and stree + lr' - rovement plans $hall beMrdinatedfor consistency priorto issuance of coy permits (such as grading, tree removal, lincroachment, building , etc.), or prior to final reap approval In the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. V_ 6. Approval of this request shall not waive cornpriance wrai all sections of the Development JJ Code, all other applicable City ardhaances, and applicable Community Plans or Specific Plans firm effect at the time of Building Permit issudnca. 7. A detailed on -site lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and J� Sheriff's Department (9139 -6611) prior to the issuance of building pm [ruts. Such plan shall indie.^te s"yle, illumination, location, heighd, and r method of shielling so as lotto adversely affect adjacent propert'ss. 6. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick -4p shall be for Individual units with all receptacles shielded from public year. 9. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet Coy standards. The final desig:t, locations, JJ and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. ^� 10. All ground - mourned utility appurtenances such as transformers. AC condensers, etc., shall J Mir be located virt of public view and adequately sectored through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, andlor landscaping to the satiMacrion of the City Planner. Sr. - 2/91 2 of 127 `� 1G. 4llparkways, oDenisea,, andlandscapingShallbepermanentlymaintainedbytheproperty —J—J- r, oer, horrar,wvn -ors' association, or other means acceptable to the City. PMMt of this lar,-�scape maintenance shall W submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 17. Solar access ea sements shat.. be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or dwalting unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots nr units for use of a solar energy system. The easements may be contained In a Daciaaailon of Restrictions for the subdivision which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the final map or issuance of permits, whichever comes first. The easements shat prohibit the casting of shadows by v6getatlon, stru tur,3s, fixturas or any other object, except for utility wires and similar objecis, pursuant td Development Code Section 17.08.060-C-2. 18. The project contains a designated Historical Landma& The Me shall be developed and mair,lained in accordance with the Historic Landmark Alteratim Pomtit No. _ . Any further moddications to the site Wuding, but not limited to, exterior alterations and/or interior alterations which Med the exteriorof the buildings orstnWures, removal of landmark trees, demolifan, relocation, racomiructlon of buildings orstructures, urchanges tothe site, shall require a :nodit'ication to the historic landmark Alteration Permit subject W Historic Preservation Corse t" olon rW,.w and approval. C. ric "'Sing Design 1. An allemative alto rgy system ,.; required to provide dom stir tot water for all dwelling units and for for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other alternative energy systems are demonstrated fo'beof equivalent capacity and efficiency. AD swimming ppt5installed at the time of initial development shall be supplemented with solar Walling. Delia'ls shall be included in the building plans and shall be submitted for City Manner mview and approval Auk prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. All dr-cilings shall have tree front, side and rear elevOons upgraded with crchitedural - -�--�— treatmort, detailing and it :,eased delirlaatic.t of surfw,- treatment subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building pettmis. SC - 2/91 3 of 12 �/ !;qm ieum Date- 11. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review anti approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. i% 12. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 13. A detailed plan indicating trail widths. maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and wea-J control, In accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval priorv. , approvalandrecordationoftheFinalTractMapandp rior to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developershali upgrade and construct all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street incrovements, 14. Ttre Covenants, Conditiins and Restrictions (CCBRs) shall not pruhibl3he keeping of equine ..J_.1— animals where zoning requirements fortheleeeping0. said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the nscessfty of appealite; to boards of directors or homeowners` associations for amendments to the COBRs. 1 .. The Covenants, - onditions. and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Innorporation of the Homeowners' Asst :iation are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisir ns and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the Issue= of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided tc the City Engineer. 1G. 4llparkways, oDenisea,, andlandscapingShallbepermanentlymaintainedbytheproperty —J—J- r, oer, horrar,wvn -ors' association, or other means acceptable to the City. PMMt of this lar,-�scape maintenance shall W submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 17. Solar access ea sements shat.. be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or dwalting unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots nr units for use of a solar energy system. The easements may be contained In a Daciaaailon of Restrictions for the subdivision which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the final map or issuance of permits, whichever comes first. The easements shat prohibit the casting of shadows by v6getatlon, stru tur,3s, fixturas or any other object, except for utility wires and similar objecis, pursuant td Development Code Section 17.08.060-C-2. 18. The project contains a designated Historical Landma& The Me shall be developed and mair,lained in accordance with the Historic Landmark Alteratim Pomtit No. _ . Any further moddications to the site Wuding, but not limited to, exterior alterations and/or interior alterations which Med the exteriorof the buildings orstnWures, removal of landmark trees, demolifan, relocation, racomiructlon of buildings orstructures, urchanges tothe site, shall require a :nodit'ication to the historic landmark Alteration Permit subject W Historic Preservation Corse t" olon rW,.w and approval. C. ric "'Sing Design 1. An allemative alto rgy system ,.; required to provide dom stir tot water for all dwelling units and for for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other alternative energy systems are demonstrated fo'beof equivalent capacity and efficiency. AD swimming ppt5installed at the time of initial development shall be supplemented with solar Walling. Delia'ls shall be included in the building plans and shall be submitted for City Manner mview and approval Auk prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. All dr-cilings shall have tree front, side and rear elevOons upgraded with crchitedural - -�--�— treatmort, detailing and it :,eased delirlaatic.t of surfw,- treatment subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building pettmis. SC - 2/91 3 of 12 �/ t CQmcgeton Due, . 3. Standard pa ?Fi cover plans for use by the Homeowners, Association shall be�subm'rtted for satyr Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Jack 4. MI toot appurtenances, including air conditioners and other root mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and tS1e sound buffered from adjacent propenies and streets as required Ir_ the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. 0. Parking and Veh!cular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of stow -nd shall contain a 12 -inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (includrrg curb). 2. Textured pedestrian pathwfi ;.i and textured pavement across circutation asles shall be --J --� provided throughout the development to connect dweliirgstursit&WIdings with open spaces/ plazas/recreational uses. _ Z 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrames, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 4. All units shall be provided with garage door openers it driveways are less than 18 feet :n –�--� -- depth from back of sidewalk. 5. The Covenants, CondlWns and Restrictions shall restftthe storage of recreational vehWes —J-- on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for tha owner and prohibit parking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas. S. Plais for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, arid --� Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval priorto issuance of building permits. E. Landscaping (tor publicly maintained landscape :seas. Hier to ;mot ion H i. Adettiled landscape and irrigation plan,includIOgiso—"planting and model horne iandscap- --�- -- ing in the case of residential developmers, simll be prepared by a a�ensed landscape architect and submittedforCkyPlannenrevfewand approval prlortot ?ieassn0411ofbuilding j permits or prior final map approval In the case of a custom kill subdt i5ion. 2. Existingtreesrequiredtobe preserved ktplacesl aabeprotectedwkhaconstnxttkinba .crier in accomkwewiththe MunicloCede Section 19.08.110, and sonotedonthe grading FanS. The location of those tress to bs preserved In place and new locations fortranspianted tr1 es shag be shownca the detailed landscape pkm. The appkant shaVollow all of the arbor )St's recomnyux ations regarrdL q pre }Nitration, transplanting and trimn>arg methods. ?. Amfnimumof tre3spergrosswo. compdMofthefoaowingsizes , shag beprovided w 0hin the project: %• 48 -inch box or larger, — %- W Inch box or larger, % - 24 inch box or larger, % - 1S�C,-dbn, and % - 5 gallon. 4 ', minictum of %Wtreer `anted within the project shale be specknen size trees - -inch box orlarger. _J-_.J —J--J— Nr,Nn parking lots, trees shall be planted a° a rate of one 15-p lon tree for ever," three Harking stagy'° sufficient to shade 30% of the parking area m solar noon on kigust 21. SC - 2/91 4 of 12 � �gydetian D�a: _ ✓ 6. Trees shall be p.anted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. I --�— 7. All private slope ba&,, 5 feet or less In vertical height and of 5,1 orgreaterslope, but less Man 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, Irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground covertor erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 8. Allprivate slopes inexcessof5teet, but tes$ than8 feet invertical height andof2 :1o. greater - -�-- -� slope shalt be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to softentheir appearance as follows: one 15 -gallon or larger size tme per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, l -gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of s" area, and appropiiategroundcover. in addition, slops banks in rycess of afeet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater singe shalt also include one 5 -gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent Irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior occupancy. 9. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation r'Al be oontinu ouslymaintainedina healthy andthrivIrCconditionby the developerunti lench individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Priorto ,eleasing occupancy forthase units, an inspection shall be condu,:ted by he Planning Divisi�,n to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 10. For mrt8i- family residential and ton - residential dst'elopment, pro A owners are respon- sible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas 1)n -sito, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right -of -way. All landscaped arias shall be kept tree from wads and debris and maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regui4 pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged. dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of e+amage. 11. Front yard landscaping shall be required per the Day-hpmerlt Code and /or --I--J- . This requiremem-shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope plant&g. 12. The final design of the perimeter ph ikway 1, ways. to xUaping, and sidewalks shall be J__ -_/— included in the required landscape plans and Shall be subject to City Planner review and emmat andcoordkWedforwmisteneywkhanypadmay 1"scapingplanwhichmaybe required by the Engineering Division. 13. Special landscape features suit as mourx", alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meander j —f--J ing sidewalks (with horizontal change), and Intensified landscaping, ie WIVIred along 14. LandscapkV and falWim systerns required to be Installed within the pjbk right-zi-way on J_I the �tedmatar of this project area shall be coMhurously maintalned by the developer. 15. AD walls shall be provided with decorative treatm m. if located in public maintenance areas, --J--J. _ the design shall be coordaiated with the Engineering Division. rv-' 1s. Tree maintenance criteria shall be deveIW.J and sOrnified for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building gitirhiit3. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. Alk V. Landscaping and Irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of —1-1 -- Xeriscape as & .1fted in Chapter 1'8.16 of the RwWn Cucamonga Mun'tcipai Code. SC 2/91 5 oC 12 77 'Tas F. Signs 1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conc, rptual only and not apart ofthisapproval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Diviolon priorto Installation of any signs. 2. A Uniform Sign Program for this developmen! shall ba submitted for City Planner reviewand approval prior.to issuance of building permits. 3. Directory monument sign(s) shall be provided for apartment, condominium, ortownhomes prior to occupancy and shall require separate applicatom and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. G. Environmental 1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer =- jfftten nol�-,e of the Fourth StreetRo,,,k ';rusher projoct in a standard format as determ ned G *the City Planner, prior to acceptinr a cash deposit on any property. 2. The developer shdil provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special Studies Zone for the Red H4 Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 3. The developer shall provide each pros; - Active buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway project in a standard format -s dctermined by the City Platuter. prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 4. A final acouslicsi report shall be sutnhted for City Pla.,iter review aid approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of Interior noise attPrivacionto below 45CNEL ,thebuiiding materials and constr ntt.chni;uespmvi led and if appropriate, verity the adequacy of the astigation measurzA "is building plans will be checker+ for conformance with the mitigatlon measures contaLieu In the final report. H. Other Agencies 1. EmergencysecosxJaryaomssrhalibeprovk ledinaccorda., iwi<hRarl WCucanongaFin Protection District Standards. ,V 2. Emergency access shallbepmvided, mainienance free and cW- T.arr�.nhnume26feetwkt at all tiaras during o6.%-"Ion in axordattce with Ran0v Cucamonga Fir,& Protectio District requirements. 3. Prior to Issuance of buiKM pernxts for combustible construction, evidt:ttcri shall b submittedtothe Rancho L'Aicamonga Fire Protection Distnfctttuatteansorsry water supply fire protection is avaFlab,,e, pending completlon ei regtlked fire prote6on system. 5. SC - 2/91 smtw so, tr �.4+wiSt•en Date: i The applicant shall cofit :t t It U. S. Postal Service to determine W3 alppropdate type and ' location of riai! boxes. WkWamlly residential developments shah pmvihie a solid overhead structure forr;iail boxes erith adequate Nghttng. The MW locellon of the mail boxes ad the design of the overitelr.J structure shall be subject to City ftnner re•,riew and approval prior to the issuance of twilding permits. For projrcls using septic tank facilities, written cert ficalt'd of accaptatiky, ittcl'ading all supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Semardina G wnty Depaiment of Environmen:,,i Health and submitted to the Btlkc rG Off; iIal prior to W1 fssUt9.stce of Septic Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits. 5 of 12 .3— —j—.? 'z/ ._/_/e.. APPLICANTU SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (714) 989 - 1863, FOR Ct•2liAPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Site Development 1. The applicant shall - ompiywith the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Naohani- cal Code, Uniform Plumbirog Code, National Electric Code, and all c> ter applicaMo odes, ordinances, and regulations in ettact at the time of issuance of re;ative permits. P'aasa contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption O!dinancc ,und app cable handouts. f 2. Prior to issuancc of building permits fore now residential dwelling unit(s) or maW adyiiton to existing unit(s), the applicant shall paydavelopmentfees at the eslab.4shed rate. ichfees may :) Clyde, but are not limited to. City Beautification Fea ,Paf.: Fee, Drainage ystems Developmodt Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fess. 3. Prior to issuance of twilling permits for a rare commerciek or industrial developtr ant or addition to an existing devetopm m. ,he applicant shall .i. .7 development Zees at the estahfis:ted rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Systems Gevelopme ht 1, ee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. 4. Street addresses :hallbepiovidedbydre Building Ow dial, afieetrartlparcel .myprecordation and rrior to issuance of building permits. J. Extsting Structures ✓ 1. Provide compliance with the Un +<-rm Building Corfa fo: the property line &,arances considering use, area, and Piro- resistivenass of existing buildings. 2. Existln EulUings s' -A be made to comply with correct building and zon!na regulations for the i'Rended use o. the building shall be demolished. 3. Existing sewage disposal facilities sr all be removed, filled andforcapp d tir� comEVy with1ha Uniform Piumbicg Code and Uniform Building Code. PM." %o.: _ .r- CoMpIccon Dar:. 4. Underground on -sate utilities are to he located and shown on-building plans submitted for l building permit application. K. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shag, be id accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and armed grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial caigoirrimrce with the approved grading playa. 2. A soils report shall bs prepared by a qualiflid rroneer ficansed by hw State of Calih,mta to gerform such work. 3. The developmmrit is located will1hthe soil erosion control boundaries, a $oil Disturbance Permit Is reWimd. Please court 5anBemardinoCouVIDepartmentot Agriculture at(714) 387 -211 i forperrnit appflcation. Docunlentationof wch pewit shall be suW'Med tothe City price to the aasuaitie of tnegh grading permit. - __--J- 4. A geological report shah be prepared by ai quarAied engineer orgeotogist arw; N -pitted at r. the time of application for gia ling plan check. aslr 5. The I inal grading "s shall be oornpleted and aporovedpriorto irmance of building permits. SC - 2/01 7 Of 12 i 6. As a custonriot subdivision, the following requirerme s shall be m6i* a. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all do -site ! �J e facilities necessary 'ror dewateriN all parcels ?o the satisfaction of the Building and Smaty Division priorto final map approval a� Id priorto the issuance of grading permits b. Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage water that are conducted onto --J - -- or w-er adjacera parcels, am to be delineated and recorded to the satisfacli -n of the Building and Safety Division pror to issuance of grading and building petmits. c.On- sitedrainage improvements, necessary for dewatering and protecting the sutsdlvidecr -- —r--- properties, are., to be installed prior to issuance of buildirrij permits for construction upon any parcel tt it may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or whNn a parcel relative to wr ch a building permsl is ret uested. d. Final grading pUrtr for Bach pa:cei are to be submitted to the Building and Safety t Division for aMmv2t 30orto issuance 0 building and grading pxntts. (This may be on an incroments, or composite basis.) e. All sfopa banks in excess of 5 .aet in vertical height shall be seeded watt native grasses - -�—�— or planted whh ground cover ?or upon completion of y.-ading orsome other alternative mettxxl of erosion ovntrot shall be oomWedto the s a:w action of the Building Official. In addition a permanent irrigation systcm shalt bG.*wvided. This requirement does not release the epplicanWeveloper Sro,m campiiarxa with the slope planting I requirements cf ;section 17.0x.040 I of the De`rekopment Code. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENf'iol EERING DMS5GX, (7111) W4.1a62. Fa'3 LIMPLIANCE I WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1 L. D;adicatior. and Vehicular Acosta j 1. Flights -of -way, and eass paints shall Do dedi, -MW to the City for all Interior puofi�. stmet's, community trails, pubic. -seas, Fubro -, lands ape Mae, cireet trees, and p uM drainage feciii<,k9s as shown on the plans andlar tentative map. Prtvate easements for non - public facilities (cre s -lot drU-rmgc. local feedertralis, etc.) shall be reserved as shown ontdhe plus andicr tentative map. 1 ✓� 2. riedieation shall be made of the * :lbvArn, ri;jhls- of -raay on ft perimeter streets � ---� (measured, from street canterfir ascstotal foot on L r :/ vivo(.•; r6 w+;�+'frar —total feet on t0al feat on dotal feet on 3. An irretiocabie ^car of dedication f- _ 400twideroaca._, -Ci3dR for all all p: vato stmats os drives. 4. Non - vehicular accou shag be dodicated to tit9 Cky for ttz !4iiowM* strut: -,- J--/ -- S. Fecipwal access easameras shale *tie pmVeded ensuorg assess n all parcels b-1 CC&Rs or by deeds and shale be recorded wfWurrerlG"y acid the map or prior to tha kwEr 14 Of builz6nq petty ts, whefe n—, map is Invoked. sc -Z /J1 Oaf 12 77_._T wJ 6 _ i. All puoiic i:nprofemon:s (ifiterfor streets. d:air W fa ; iRls5, Cobt=n4 traps. paseos. _J__/_ lands sped areas, etc.) shown cn the p; c is ansliar teraativa ;nab sty){ tle con -ft c tod to City Standards. Interior street imisrmre stars shah Include, Out are not air.ftd to, curb and g0ter. AC pavement, drive approaches, sklewatics, stroat sights, arW street trees. —2. A minimum of 26 -foot wide pavemem. within o 40 -fW wide dedicated right-of-way shall be _,_/ constructed for all haM- s*:ficrr Wets. 3. consitu6C the foiioxft peirifneter Wet-A lm;x*v®mftnts kiewng. bLd not Ur„ ited to .J_J_ sc -219i 9 GFt2 _ 6. Private €Irainageeasernentsforcross -tot drainage shall be provided and sti311be delineate d% . Notes: (a) N.ei;ian islar d Mtu& , tandscapint; and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavamem Comprecrn, Due: reconstr'.:v�,n and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) if so marked, side- walk shall be curyilinearper 7D. 304.. (d) If so marked, an In-lieu of construction fee Shall be provided forthis gem. >� r . `f n =; c gib•,: -�f 4. improvemt , fans and const uctinn: a. Street improvllrrient plans including street trees and ,treat lights, prepares by a regis- ---� —� tend Civil Engineer, shall be submitted le, and approved by the City Engineer. Security ,gall be posted and an agreermnt executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public andlor private street improve- ments, priortn -Y aai map approval orthe issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shalt be paid and a constriction ce,,mif sha!' 47a obtain d from the City Engineers Office in addition to anv oth(,r permits raquiired. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic. street name signing, and intemtinect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City (Engineer. d. Signal co ftitwithpuliboxesshalibeinstal0donanynewconstruclonorreconr-truction of major, secondary or collector stree2s wM=h intersect with other major, secondary or collecior streets for future trsfficsignals. Pull bones shag be pieced on both sides of the streetat3feetouts.deofBCFi ,' CR* rariyotherlOW !onr?:WovedbyiheCityErgineer. Notes: (1) A¢ pull boxe4 shall bo No.6 unless otherwise specified t y ate Cit{ �:rN r'neer. (2) Cork jft shall be 3 -irtch gaivaniaed steel with pugrope.. e. Whoel chair ramps shag be Installed on a!I four Comers of intersectizna per City " Standard;: %, as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads rec uiring corignbctian shag remain open to traffK at all times with adequ ,zedetoursdurirgoonstr^i:Wn. Astrsetc1osumPerrreiim8yve 1equ4-M. Acash deposit shag be p<covided t0 cover tb _ oast of grdlng and paving, which shag be refunded upon completion of the coirstnaxian to the satisfaction of ttr.:.ity Engineer. U. ConceMf ateddrainage flows shalnotciasssidewait. Undt,,r idewaksdrains shall be instltged to City Standards, yr opt for skrple family Into. h. Handicap access mM design shag be as speSfled by the CLI}t Engineer. I. Street names sW be spproved by the City PWm priorto submktal for firstpian check. S. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all pdvats streets u`ag be provided for review and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any trurk bWq performed on the pri- vale streets, fees sR all be paid and corau.Aion perrr4s shall be obtained from the City Engineers f3, $ )n Wditi0nto any Other permits requM, l 6. Street trees, a minnimm of 4 galion t:se Or larger, stag be inotap®d per Cloy Standards in accordancu ivith the City's street tree proseam SC • 2/91 10 cr 12 ..J O 7. Intersection line of site designs shall be reviewed t:ythe City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. a. On collector or larger streets, lines of tight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Walls, signs, and slopes shall be located outside the lines of sight. Landscaping and other obstructions within the lines of sight shall be approved by the City Engineer. b. Loccl residential street intersections shall have their noticeabiiity improved, usually by moving the 2 + /- closest street trees on each side awayfromthe street and placed Ina streal tree easement B. A pemrt shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any work within the following right -of -way: Sr. mil pblic improvements on the following streets shall be operationally complete prior to the issuance of building permhr;: N. Pubis: Maintenance Areas 1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shail be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior tofinal map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscape parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails, or other areas are required to be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: 2. A signed consent and walverform to join andlortorm the appropriate Landscape and t fighting MW Qhricts shall be filed with the City Engineer ptiorto final n) approval or issuar4a of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shelf be borne by the developer. 3. All required public landscaping and Irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained bythe developer until accepted by the City. a. Parkw,.y landscaping on the foik+wing street(s) shall contort to the results of the respective Beautification Mast® Plan: n1 O. Drainage and Flood Control 1. The project (or portions thereof) is located within a F *d Hazard Zoned thenlfcre, flood protection mJasures shall be provided as certified by a registered CM Engineer and approved by the 04'i Eromr. 2. it shall be the developer's respori3lbilfty to have the current FIRM Zone designation removed from the project area. The developers engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans, and hydrologbWoraulic calallatbnts. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMfi," shall be obtained fcem FEMA prior to final mks wproval or issuarm of building permits, whicheveroceurs first. A Letter of Map Revis. ,. 'WR) shaii ba issued by FEMA prior to occup icy or im rovennertt aomptance, whichever ",.arts first. Aft 3. A final drainage study shall be submitted ro and approved by the City Engineer prior to final VW map approval ar tho issuance of building permits, whictmver occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as requires; by the City Engineer. SC - 2/91 11 or 12 Corn �leuon Dare: —1 —j— IfAiltl11111111 _feJ— I l 4. A permit from the County Flood Control District is required for work within its right- ot•way: 5. Trees are Ir -Wbited wiihir- .. reeif bl Rta cutside diameter of any public ; rnrm drain pipe measured fdom the outer edge:of a mature tree truni�: °f ---�— l ` 6. Public storm drahi easements shall be gra -ded to corr:ey overflows in the evont of a �--� blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street,: P. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each paical ineludirr sanharv,, sewerage system, water, gas, electric puwer, telephone, and cablo TV (all undargn)und) in accordance with the utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required, 2.The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of a� Isting utilities as necessary. ,J 3. Water and sewer plans shO ee ;..signed and constructed to meet1he requiretsmgnts of the -1—� oucamnga County Water District (CCWD), Rawl'jo Cicamonga Fire Rrmteclion District. and the Environmental health 041artmnt of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is req lred prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever Occurs ftrat. G. General Recrdsrerrcnts Shr APprovafs'" _ 11 The separate parcels containedwilhin the pw4ect shalt be legallyrvmbined into onE- parcr' prior to issuance of Wilding permits. 2. An casement for a joint use driveway shall b: provided prbrto final !map apporii or —J—� issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, for: 3.Prior to approval W the final map a deposit st ,:Ill be pasted with the City covering the estimated ca c ppo a! arlbrKng the assessments unctr Assessment Distfict atnmr j the newly created parcels. 4. EitwandatSan c tvaine Area Regional Mainline. Secondary Regional, and !master Plant �--i Drainage Fees shall b3 paid prior to final Map apWovai nr prior to building permh Issuance 'rf no map is involved. S. Permits shall be obll,%h we from the following agencies for work w- Ithhin their right-of-way: J� - 6.A signed cow, rd and waiver form to jots• an &or foam the Law E401-Mmmertt co nity Facilities Disci shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final tnap• approval or the issuance of building permits, whilchever O=rS irst. Fots.Wbn costs shall be borne by the Developer. Prior to finall ation of an; development phase, sufficient improvement plans V,2 all be cortt- — -- �-- "'f plated beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage prytedion to the satisfaction ad the City gnin w. P1125e bOuftdarfes shaft carrespOnd to 10; lines shown or the approved tentative map. It Sc - 2 /8t 12 of 12 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTIGN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFC1NIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 91 -07 FOR A 'REQUEST TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT 76R A MASTER PLAN :OR PERMANENT BUILDINGS TN 'CONJUNCTION WITH THE REQUEST TO LOCATE F TEMPORARY MODULAR MULTI - PURPOSE BUILDING OF 912 SQUARE FEET ON THE SITE OF THE EXISTING 6,000 SQUARE FOOT VICTORY CHAP:2L, uOCATBD,ON .74 ACRES OF LAND IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARR DISTRICT (SUPJAr:Zh 7) or THE ZeXDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC X AN AT 11837 FOOTr%Ii,L BOULEVARD, WEST Or', ROCHESTER AVENUE, AND M1MNG FINDINGS IN SUPPORT T_HEREOP - APIi: 229- 011 -21. A. Recitals. (i) Victory, Chapel has filed an application for the issuance of a Variance No. 91 -07 as described in the title of this Aesolutior.. fpzeinafter`'. in this Resolution, the subject Variance r ©,zest is .referred to_as "the ' application." (ii) On the 24th of April 1991, the Planning Commissi.:on -of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly notice,i public hearing to detormine the completeness of the application, at which time the 71anning Commission directed the applicant to submit a Variance application to potentially alleviate the Development Code requirement 'foT a master plan for permanent NW buildings. (iii) On the 28th of August 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing an the apd1%.'at.ion and concluded said hearing on that date. (iv) All legal prerequisitde prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it ie hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of'Rkncho Cucamonga as follows: � 1. This Commissiod hereby specifically :Inds that -,Al of tha facts set forth in the Recitals, Fart A, of this Resolution are true and earrect. 2. Based upon eubstantzal evidence presented to this Commission during the abov& eferanced public hearings on April 24 fad Augv.ot 28, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, togather with public testimony, this Commission hereby speci,fi >cally finds as follows; (a) The applicatior_ applies to" property 'Located at' 11837 Foothill Boulevard with a street, errotage of 173 feet and lot depth of (� 200 feet and is pramentlyg improved %4ith,A 6',040 re;quare foot building, parking areas and lardecaping; and it 111 PLANNING COMMIC,SION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 91 -07 - VICTORY CHAPEL August 28, 1991 Page 2 (b) The property to the north of they subject s:.te is_ vacant, the property to the south,;of that site consists c-f :vacant lan1, the property to the east is an existing adult business, and the property to the west is vacant. (c) The property owner is currently processing a master plan ; for an industrial perk on the parcel in question and all surrounding parcels, thereby satisfying the intent of the Development Code of providing a master plan for: future permanent buildings in conjunction with a temporary modular building. (d) The applicant is leasing the existing, building on -site and does not have authorization' from the property owner to provide a sspazate master plan for future buildings an the parcel in question. (el The modular building will be upgraded in its appearance and landscaping buffers provided, coneAstent , with Development Code requirements for temporary modular_ buildings. 3. Based Upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public herring and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission h4rsby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That ) etrict or literal interprarAtion and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practice :. difficulty or unnecessary physical rardship' inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. (b) That there are exceptional or extraordinary . circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved car to the intended use of the property that do not apply ganersily to other properties in the same' (c) That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement cf the specified regulation Mould Caprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by { the owners of other properties in the came district. (d) That the granting of the Variance will, not constitute a -1rant of spacial privilege inconsistent e,'th the limitations > on other properties c1as sifie d in 'she same li.atrict. (e) %at the,grantino If the Variance Mill not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare Cr materially in;uriaus te4 properties or improvements in the vicinity. A. Based upon the findings and conclusions, set forth in paragraphs 1, 2,. and 3 above, this Commission isreby approves the; application. r i1 { PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. L. VAR 9107 - 71, CTORY CHAPEL ., r August 28, I §91 Page 3 S. The Secretary'to tinss Commission shall certify to the adoption''- i ' of this ReaalutYon. -- APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF'AUGU,:T 199L. PLANNING COHMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA H• } Lamy T. HcNiel, Chairman i l� XXTEST• 1 B ad Buller, Seczetary i, Brad Buller, Sttcretazy ef. the Planning Commission o the" City of Rancho esolu�`on, was duly anti Cucamonga..: do he;�eby certify that the foregJing R � y regularly introducad,, pasrid, and adopted by the Planning 6"�Ai.ssion of t City of Rancho Cucamcpgr_, at a regular m6eting of they Plunning,�'Qommiasion held , on the 28th day of August 1995, by the following vote -to -wit: ' . AY-Est COMISSIONERS: HOES: COMMISSiC^NERS: ; _ ABSENT; COMHISSIONE..�S: 31 _ �� , V irl RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMKISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCV'1 CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIF, APPROVING VARIANCE NO„ 91 -07 FORA REQUEST "_'7 WAIVE THL' REQUIREMENT FOR A MASTEF. PLAN FOR PERMANENT B;,LDINGS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE REQUEuT TO LOCATE A TEMPORARY MODULAR MULTI- PURPOSE BUILL,;" OF 912 SWNRE FEET ON THE SITE OF THE EXISTING 6,000 SQ[IARE FOOT VICTORY CHAPEL, LOCATED ON .74 ACRES OF LAND IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT (SUBAREA 7) OF THE INDCSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AT' 11837 F00 EIIT_3 AOULEVARl1, WEST OF ROCHESTER AVEMM, AND M24KING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN; 229.011 -21. A. Recitals• (i) Victory Chapel has files M. application for tae issuance of a Variance No. 91 -07 as described in the title rf this Resolution. Hereinafter In this Resolution, the subject Variance: reglest is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 24th of April 1991, the Planning Commission of tha City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted s duly noticed public hearing to determine the'. completeness of the application, at which time the Planning Commission directed the applicant to submit a Variance application to potentially allevia °ce the Development Code requirement for a master plan for Permanent buildings. (i' ) On the 28th of August 1991, the Planning Commission of a Cit;- of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a 41, >ly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (iv) 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 Cihy 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 .rue and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evid+.nee presented to this ' COmmission during the above - referenced public hearings on A,%pril 24 and August 28, 1991, including wri2to',c and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The' appication applies ' to property located at 11837 Foothill Bouleva'd with at street frontage of 173 feet and lot depth of. 200 feet and is pr"ently'improved with a 6,000 square foot building, parking areas and landscaping; and PLANNING COWISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 91 -07 'VICTORY CHAPET, August 28, 1991 Page 2 Y, (b) The property to the north of the tubjed :-site is vacant,, the property to the soltth of that cite consists of v:ctnt lani,- he property, to the east is an existing adt-1t bzsiness, and the property to the r:ast is vacant. (c) The vroperty owner is currently processing a master plan for as industrial park on the parcel in question and all surrounding parcels, thereby satisfying the intent of the Development Corie of providing a master plan for future permanent buildings in coajunct'_on with a temporary modular building. (d) The applicant is leasing the ex:lsstin9 building on -site and does not have authorization from the property owner to = irovide a separate master plan for future buildings on the parcel in questic,a. (e) The modular building will, :be upgraded in Its appearance and landscaping buffers' provided, consistent with Development Code, require:eents for temporary modular buildings. 3. Based "upon the substantial: evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing and upon fhe specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission bereby finds .nd y concludes as follows: (a) That strict or literal interpretation ,nd enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical diffi,{e4zy or unnecessarj physical hardship inconsistent mitt the objectives of ,thv eveloiment Ccde. (b) That there are exceptional.. or extri/ ,.!din&ry cireumstar._;es or conditions applicable to the property involved or'ca, the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. (c) That strict or li" r aI into and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprk x the arolicant of privileges' - njoyed by the owners of other properties in tb -1 games district. (d; That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the liilitations on other properties classified in the same district. (e) :sat the granting of the Variance will not be do'-- iment+Al to the public health, safety, or welfare or mater- ally s:jarious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon tt.: findings and conclusions sat forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application= ' PLANNINC- COMMISSION RESOLUTION -NO. VAR. 91 -67 - VICTORY CHAPEL °- t Auyast 28, 1997 Page 3 S. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption Of th%s Resolution. APPROVED IND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 1991- J PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA' - rY: -- Larry T. McNiel,.Chai=an f ATTEST- Brad Buller, Secretary 1, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City 7f T-ncho 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 _ Z on the 28th day of August 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: _ AYES: COMKISSIONRRS :-; NOES: COMM SIONERSe :. ABSENT: CO&MISSIONERS: r ::r—.T3 TO IFU MAGI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP NERSHIP 8b7, S ATLA t8j a �7s0 PARK, CA 91754' 023 � 818) 2g5 -1 g8 August 28, 1991 Mr. Brad Buller,_ Planning Director city of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: RANCHO e,"UCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROPOSL.S Dear Mr. Builtr: We wish to present the following argument regarding Sub -Area No. 5 at the City Council meeting oil August 28, 1991. Sub - Area No. 5 should remain Medium Residential for the following reasons: :. The freeway, serves as an .at'tractxve nulaance to prospective homebuyers., in facts subdivisions developed 'adjacent to a freeway usually have to apply a negative lot premium to homes which are in the environs of the freeway. 2. Single family homeowners typically equate a freeway with a variety of nuisances including noise, air and visual pollution. They are less likely to undertake a long -term commitment by investing in nom >ownership in juch instances. 3. Medium Residential development is better able to buffer residential usage from the. existinS, freeway and, therefore. provide or' compatibility of land uses. a. There is greater dosign flexi�llity when planning a medium density residential use. For example, project required open space ,an, be integrated as a noise and air pollution buf. jr �etgeen the freewAy and the resi4ences. Further.desi {!n devives such as street geometrics, lasidscaping placement, non- residential element such as garages, and the massing of building- walls can br used i.,i a variety of ways to.reduce•the adverse impacts of the freeway whil;:. avoiding the stereotypical subdivision ':a2out of a low density residential development. we thank you i•r yngr attention in the ma4ter,, and any assistant from ynu is depreciated. If you have any question, please call me at 018- 289 -V223. sine -iy yours, Gerry p-en, Gener al Partner "— CITY OF R.ANQqO G,JCAMONGA ARL ..� 1 DATE: August 28. 1991 TO: chairman and Members of the Planning Commi.ssior. FROM: Brad Huller, City &lanner BY: Alan Warren, Associate Planner Vince Bertoni, A.nsistaxt Planner;. SUBJECT: 17MIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AVD GENERAL PLXi P%M DMENT 91 -028 - CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMON &A A proposal txr Cj eneral B1an Land Use Element Map from M dium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre), Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acres gtor the fallowing witareas:-within the Etawands and Foothill boulevard Specific �*3.an a, -ens: 3. Approximately 27.89 acres bordered on the notthwest by the Ont"io (I -15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium Residelstial design -ited land, =6 on the south by commercially designated land ',nr.tering Foothill Boulevaz'd• The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative designation for ::ilia entirfP a0a - APN: 227 - 211 -02, 04, 05, 09, 10 15 20 and 29. S. Approxi nately 30.72 acres, lbor • �tted on the nom'- :5wett by the Ontario (1 -15) Freeway, an' the east by East Avenue axd existing Lox Medium Residential design >ted land, .-id on the south by Mille Avenue. " 7ity wi l consider Low Residential (2 -1 dwellnA%-,-uu3ts per acre) as an \'` al; iative land use far tk_._ entire area - APN: 11tt...631 -08, 1100- 041 -04 through, 10, 1100- 051 -03, and 1100•$51 -02 through 04 and _-portions of 11A0- 071 -01 and G2. 7. AST n. =tely 10.09 acres= bordered on this north and west y }: a.,sting Low Medium Residential deli hated land, on th.+ 443t by existing Office designated land, and on the Routh by L ^se Line Road. The City v3.il'conside. Office 6,: in b.lresnative land use for this entire ar ^a APii: .'.#- 131 -34 through 36, 52 through 54r and 61., R. AprYAxiatmly 20.34 acres bordered E� the north ry the Southern Pacific' railway, -M tihs 4%ast by tbc; tlntarZ<, (I -15) Freeway, on the south by__ existing Offis,g:` designated land, at , on the vest by existing Law Mediuia ewl.gnated land and vivided in a nor; hh- sou4,b direction by East Avenue. The City will consider Low 'Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre), 'AA an alternative lead use for this entire area APN- 227 - 131 -05 and 23:,- 141 -14 and 6S +��1 j ; ITF1iS 1C a T3 0701-02 AUGUST 28 1991 P. G, AGENDA 4} PLANNING CO_MISSION ,STAFF REPORT GPA 91 -021 - CITY OF RANCHO'CUCAMONGA August 28, 1991 Page 2 Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. - This action will be':forwarded_to the City Council for final action and the. date of the Pubic Hearing before City Council will .� separately noticed. ;NVIRONMENTAL ASSFSSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the' Etiwanda Specific Plan Land Use Map from_liedium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas within the Etiwanda Specific Plan: l 1. Approximately 27.89 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and en tle south by commercially designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard. The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4% dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use for this entire area - APN: 227- 211 -02,' 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 20, and 29. 3. Approximately 30.72 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the east by Eati; Fvenue and existing Low Medium Resid'�-aciial designated land, and on the south by Miller Averui� The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwellint, units per acre) as an alternative land use foz, this entire area - APN: 1100- 03,1 -06, 1100- 041 -04 tt c; ugh -10, 1100- 051 -03, and 1100- 061 -02 through 04 and Fort U,',us of 1100- 071 -01 and 02. 5. Approximately 10.09 acres borcerad on the north and west by existing Low Medium Residential Aesignated land, on the east by existing Office desi"ed land, and on the 1.iuth by Pasa Line Road. The City-4-111 consider office Professional as an alternative land use for this entire area - APN: 227- 131 -34_ through 36, 52 through 54, and 61. 6. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on t' le north by the Southern Pacific railway, on the east,�'by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the south by existing 'Office designated land, and on the west by existing Low. Medium designated land and divided in a north -south direction by East Avenue. The City w311 consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use for this entire area - APN: 227 - 131 -05 and 2271- 141 -14 and 66. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. This action will be forwarded Ta the City Council for find action and the date of the_irliblic_Hearing before City Council will be separately noticed,,... _ Ia MINING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91 -02B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 28, 1991 Tage '3 BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:�)On July 17, 1991, the City Council held a public haaring �:n the eigh.l subareas of General Plan AAendment 91 -02B and convidered the Planning Commission's recomme:? ^';tons. ` The Planning Commission had previously reviewed the staff's recoaa., fcEis,on 74ay 22 and 29, 1991, and had made the following recommendations Subareas 1 & 6 Deny the proposals to change z land use designations atom Meer uwj Residential (8 -14 dwelling up' 'per acre) to Low- Medium Residentiai (4-8 dwelling units per acr, J Subarea 2 - Approve changing the land use "esignatl.." `rom Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre),;, to Commercial (Community Commercial) and Office (Commercial Office] )•or those parcels not a part of G?A e0-02B and 91 -01A. Subareas 3 & 5 - Because of a 2 -2 tie vote t.1:e issue of changing � the desicnation from Medium to Low - Medium Residential was forwarded to the Council withe,.t a Planning Commission recommendation. Subareas _4 D 7 - Approve changing the land use designation from Medium to Low- Medium Residential. Subarea 8 - Approve changing the western half of the subarea to Low- Medium Residential and deny changing the eastern portion, leaving it with the Medium Residential designation. s The City Council concr ^red with the Planning Commission's findings for Subareas 1, 2, 4, .md 6 and adopted the recommended land use designations. Regarding Subareas 3 and 5, the Council did not wish to make a determination without a recommendation from the full Planning Comm- dssi.on. In addition, the Council nohed that Subareas 7 and 8 exhibited many of the characte istics and conditions of Subareas 3 and 3 and also wished to have .recommendations from the full Commission on these Subareas. ANALYSIS: Copies of the Planning Commission Staff Reports of May 22 and 29, 1991, for Subareas 3, 5, 7, and 8 are attached for the commission's review. Exhibit "A" provides a chart o% the recent_ City Council /Planning Commission land use actions in the Etidanda area. Environmental review recommendations are contained in the aYcachad :Staff Report of May 22, 1941. CORRESPONDENCE: These items have been advertised as public hearing, in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the properties have Tien posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet.of k the project sites. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91 -02B -- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 28, 1991 11 Page 4 milk RECOMMENDATION: It is rrcommended'thq't-:3ubareas 3 and 5 be changed from Medium Residential (9 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Low- Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre ). Resolutions of Approval and Denial are included for the Commission's consideration. Additionally, if the full Planning Commission concurs with the day 1991 .1 finding? for Subareas 7, and 8, it '`would be appropriate for the:' Commission to reaffirm its decisions and approve Low Medium Residenti,; }1 for Subarea 7 and the west portion of Subarea 8 by the adoption of the attached Resolutions Nos. 91 -63A, 91-- 64A,'91 -65A, and 91 -66A. Respe y su d, Brad er City Planner BB :AW: VB /j fs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - GPA Recommendations Exhibit "B" - Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 1991 Exhibit "C" - Planning Commission Minutes of May 29, 1991 Exhibit "D" - City Count -1 Minutes of 3t -ly 17, 1991 Exhibit "E" - Planning 'Commission Staff Report of - May 22, 1991, sections and correspondence relating to Subareas 3, 5, 7 & 8 GPA 91 -028 Resolution of Approval 6r Subarea 3 ESDA 91- 03.Resolution of Approval for-5ubarea 1` GA 91 -02B Resolution of Approval for Subarea 5 ESPA 91 -03 Resolution of Kpproval for Subarea 3 GPA 91 -02B Resolution No. 91 -63A ESPA 91 -03 Resolution No. 91 -64A GPA 91 -02B Resolution No. 91 -65A ESPA 91 -03 Resolution No. 41 -66A (,r ,X t t �t 6 7 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATION LAND USE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED. , Office APPLlC,4 . IONS Low Low - Medium Medium Commercial Office GPA 90 -028�� exist. ✓✓✓ �7 GPA 91 -04A exist. ✓✓es E GPA 91-028 Subarea 1 ✓✓✓ Subarea 2 exist. ✓ ✓ar' ✓✓ Subains 3 Subarea 4 %—�— ✓7 exisk. Subarea 5 �-- Subarea 6 ✓7d✓ ; l.� Subarea exis4. Subarea 8 east portion west 1mr1lon Planning £or., fission Recommendations, Mcl '91 ` Fatnnin Commission vote was lied regarding staff recommendation.', 9 ✓�✓ City Council Iwoprovals, July 191 �Z : :GPA914)2B.ESPA91.03 i 17f OF RANCHO Cl%TCAMONGA TPi3 �: GF O►Reca+mmenafatiaas ;� , i iD E EXK1 rr—. "A" SCA[ E: :. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90 -02B — GROUP 66 gARTIlEESHlp -- A request to amend tha Land use Element Map of the General Plan from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Commercial for 10.89 acres of land located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard east of Etiwanda Avenue. The Planning'" Commission will also consider Low Medium Residential 14 -8 dwelling units per acre) and Office as alternative designations - APN: 11CO- 161 -04. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. J. ,rNt•IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AtaD FOOTHILL, _BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 90 -03 - GROUP 66 PARTNM1,HIP - A request to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Use Hap in Subarea 4 from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwollino units per acre) to Community Commercial for 10.89 acres of land located on the north aide of Foothill Boul -,ard least of Etiwanda Avenue. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre), Commercial Office, end Spocialty Commercial as alternative designations - APR: 11n0- 161 -04. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Aeclaratior:. E. ZnZ1 2MNT& ASSESSHF.ST AND 9ZrZ L MAN 9 I -QYA - MT uww NG N°- 'TWORR A °equeet to amend thR Land Use $lament Map of the General Plan from Medium Residential (8 -1f dwelling units per acre) to Commercial for 2.0 acres of land located ca the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenues. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per 9crr.) and Office as alternative designations - APN: 1100 - 161 -02. Staff rheomnands issuan %Q of a Negative Declaration. L. $KVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL HOUL ARD $'£CTFIC FLAN AMENDMENT 9-� 03 PL A request to amend he Foothill Boulevard Specific Flan Land Use Map in Subarea 4 from Mt-iula Residential (8 -10.. dwelling units per acre) = Community Commercial for 2.13 acres of land :.coated on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulsvare: and Etiwanda Avenue. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre), Cocmau:rcial Office, and Specialty Commercial as alternative designations - APB: 1100 - 161 -02. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. M. MTRONMENT . ASSESSlidNT AND 039RAL PLAN AME112M6NT 91 -029 - CITY OF RUCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to "and the General Plan Land Use Element Nap from Sodium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acres) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas within the stiwanda and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan areas: I. Approximately 14.20 acres bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the oabc by the eastern City limits, on the south by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the.west by a utility corridor - APN: 224- 041 -10. 2. Approximately 18.46 acres -'ordered on the north by the Foothill Boulevard Specific P1bn boundary, which is approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; on the east by a utility corridor; an the south by Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The City will consider Commercial and Office as alternative land use designations for this entire area - APN': 1100- 161 -01 through 04 and a portion of 1100- 201 -01. Planning Commission Minutes 19- May 22, 199: /� f f _ EXHIBIT •B' 3. Approximately 27.89 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (1 -15) Frenway,.on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by commercially designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard. The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling unite per acre) an an alternative land vne designation for this entire area i APN:_ 227- 211 -02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 20 and 23. 4. Approximately 87.52 acres ialdered on the north by Hiller Avenues on the cast by East Avenue and a utility corridors on the south by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Flan boundary, which In approximately 530 felt. north -," FcotbiLL Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) an an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APH: 1100- 131 -01 and 02, 1100- 141 -01 and 02, 1100- 151 -01 and 02, 1100 - 181 -01 and 02, rind 1100- 191 -01. S. Approximately 30.72 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the rust by last Avenue and existinj'Lcw.Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by Hiller Avenue. The =:y will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative Land use dasignat�on for this entire area - APN: 1100- 031 -09, 1100 - 041 -04 througLb, 10, 1100- 051 -03, And 1100- 061-02 through 44 and gntti=m of ilAm- Q7L-01 and 02.' 6. Approximately 11.09 acres bordered on the north by Base Line Road, on the southeast by the Ontario (1-15) Freeway, and on the west by existing Low Medium Residential designated Land. 'The City will consider Office and Neighborhood Commercial as alternative land uoe designatioxgt for this entire area - APN: 1100- 051 -01 aid 02 and 1100- 061 -r. 7. ApproxivtAtely 10.09 acres bordered an the north and west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, on thm eatat by existiaj7 office designated land, and an the south, by Base Line Road. The City will. consider office as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APH: 227- 131 -34 through 36, 52 through r, and 61r. 8. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered an the ncrt6 'by the Southern Pacific railway, on the east by the Ontario (1 -15) Freeway, on the south by existing Office designated land, and an the west by existing Low Medium designated land and divided in a north -south direction by Zast Avenue, The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) an an alternative land use designation for this entire area - AP(ds 227- 131 -05 and 227 - 141 -14 and 66. Staff recosssands issuance of a gagative Declaration. N. • ENVIRON![SNTAL- rSSNSSHZNT AND FOOTHILL BOUI.EVAhD_SpECItId PLAN RMENOMFNT 91 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUgAKQ A - A proposal to amend the, 'Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas within tho Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan: Planning Commission Minutes -20- May 22, 199: ,/'), 7 [•21 1. Approximately 14.20 acres bordered on the north by Foothill. Boulevard, on the east by the eastern ,Iity limits, an the south by AOL existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the west by a utility corridor APK: 229 - 041 -10. 2. Approximately 18.46 acres bordered on the north by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Boundary, which is approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; on the east by a utility corridor; on the south by Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The City will consider Community Comnercial, commercial Office, and Specialty Commercial as alternative land use designations for this entire area - APB: 1100- 161 -01 through 04 and a portion of 1100- 201 -01. Staff recommends issuance of a magati.ve Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL A$SESSMENI MO-STINAND M21M. P - OF RANCHO gygAMOHGA A proposal to amend the Etiwanda specific Plan Land Use Hap from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per, acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwolling units per acre) for the following subareas within the Stiwanda Specific Plan: 1. Approximately 27.89 acsras boxdaxed on, the a=thwast by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the east by 3tiwande Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated lead, and an the south by . Commercially designated lend bordering Foothill Boulevard. The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land u -Fe designation for this entire area - APN: 227 - 211 -02, 04, O5, 09, 10, 15, 20, and 29. 2. Apyx& --4 --rely 87.52 acres bor:^, iaread on the north by Miller Avenue; on the east by East Avenue and a utility corridor: on the south by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan teurdary, which is approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; and on thl► west by Etiwanda Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling emits per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APR: 1100 - 131 -01 and 02, 1100 - 141 -01 and 02, 1100- 151 -01 and 02, 1100- 181 -01 and 02, and 1100- 191 -01. 3. Approximately 30.72 acres bordered an the northwest by the Ontario (I -16) freeway, on the east by Cast Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue, The City wii.a consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APH: 1100- 031 -08, 1100- 041 -04 through 10, 1100- 051 -03, and IIQO- 061 -02 through 04 and portions of 1100- 071 -01 and 02. 4. Approximately 21.09 acres bord3rad an the north by Base Line Road, on the southeast by the Ontario (I-113) Freaway, and on the west by existing Lava Medium Residential designated land. The City will consider Office Professional and Convenience Commercial as alternative land use designations for this entire area. APK: 1100- 031 -01 and 02 and 1100- 061 -01. S. Approximately 10.09 across bordered an the north and west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by existing Office designated land, and an the south by Rana Line Road. The City will consider Office Professional as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 237 - 131 -34 through 36, 52 through 54, and 61. Planning Commission Minutes -21- le-)- e May 22, 199: Mr. warren replied that the Etiwanda Specific Plan has larger minimum and ,o average lot sizms than require+° in other areas of the City. He said the optimum standards allow more flexibility, but require significantly more open space around developments. Mr. Buller stated that the neighborhood meeting regarding the amendmQnts before the Commission included a discussion of the Low Medium standards. He indicated the owners requested that the standards be relaxed to permit Low # Medium standards similar to the rest of the City. He felt the Etiwanda Specific Plan would probab7'0 yield at most a 4 -6 dwelling unit per acre product 14 whe 4 -8 Lew Medium area. Commissioner Melchor stated that the Baseline Economic Analysis prepared prior to the adoption of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan determined there was a surplus of commercially zoned land along Foothill Boulevard, but the applicants for Items I, J, R, and L had submitted a new economic analysis Planning Commission Minutes -22- May 22, 1991 6. Approximately 20.314 acres bordered on the north by the Southern Pacific railway, on the east by the Ontario (I -15? Freeray, on the south by existing Office designated land, and on the west by existing Low Medium designated land and divided in a north -south direction by East Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternat$ve land use deaLgnati.oa for this entire area - APN: 227 - 131 -05 and 227 - 141 -14 and 66. , Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Alan Warren, Associate Planner, and Vince Beatoni., Assistant Planner, preaantad the staff reports. Commiusiomsr Melchor asked if the perception it that all multi - family uses are making the community feel overwhelm d by multi- family or if it is rn,%Ily the higher - density apartment projects which proliferated in certain aee,itions -of the community which caused the alarm. He wondered if developing at 11 -12 ; units per acre, which should produce town _home projects, ie viewed as i problematical. Mr. Warren --esponfte that concerns were originally raised because of the d higher density projects beinq developed. He said however when the build -out peresWcages were presented to City Council, the Council wanted more single- family uni_a built to ensure the character of thR community. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the City Council direction was that all attached -type products would be considered multiple family and would be of 0 concern. He maid therafore, the density ranges of 8 dwelling anits per acre or greater are being considered. c �( Commissioner Melchor stated that in the area under consideration, there are currently no) high - density projects. He asked if single- family densities of j 3 -8 can be achieved in the Etiwanda area which will treat the standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Mr. warren replied that the Etiwanda Specific Plan has larger minimum and ,o average lot sizms than require+° in other areas of the City. He said the optimum standards allow more flexibility, but require significantly more open space around developments. Mr. Buller stated that the neighborhood meeting regarding the amendmQnts before the Commission included a discussion of the Low Medium standards. He indicated the owners requested that the standards be relaxed to permit Low # Medium standards similar to the rest of the City. He felt the Etiwanda Specific Plan would probab7'0 yield at most a 4 -6 dwelling unit per acre product 14 whe 4 -8 Lew Medium area. Commissioner Melchor stated that the Baseline Economic Analysis prepared prior to the adoption of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan determined there was a surplus of commercially zoned land along Foothill Boulevard, but the applicants for Items I, J, R, and L had submitted a new economic analysis Planning Commission Minutes -22- May 22, 1991 which indicated there is not a surplus of commercial land. He asked if the - new stud, had been prepared by a disinterested party. Mr. Warren rerlied it had been prepared under contract to the City by the same con9ultant who prepared the Baseline Analysis. Commissioner Helcher felt that although that informatira was encouraging he was still concerned, given the level, of development occurring along Foothill. He asked if the traffic study uas performed under City auspices. Mr. Sertoni replied that the traffic study was performed at the request of the Engineering Divisi.on and was accepted by Engineering as adequate, Conuninsioner Melchor asked why staff considered Low Medium residential as an alternative when the applicant wan requesting a change to Commercial and Community Commercial. Mr. Warren r3piied .hat staff felt a change to Low Hsdit.i should also be considered because of the Council's direction to 1w1c a,'- all undevoloNd multi- family P=cela. Comissioner Melchor asked if it was staff's inteatio>; At development should be themed like the potentially historical asry cs state= Mr. Warren responded that it is anticipated that the historic value would be in relation to Route 66. He thought perhaps adaptive reuse of the structure would be a possibility and future deatiopment may emulate the archite" -`lral design. Commissioner Melchor commented that the application's justification proposed removal of the narvice station. Hr. Warren stated that if the stxVoture in determined to be historic, accommodations would have to be mae.4 by the applicant. He said if the Specialty Commercial ware granted, . -ho, ";ty would expect that the historic feature bp considered with the development. Larry Henderson, Principal planner, reported that the applicant's proposal was dated prior to staff's completion of the ti_Istoriczl analysis of the building. Commissioner Melchor asked how a chan%a from Medium to Low Medium Residential would affect the City's affordable housing program. Mr. Warren responded that thera is no' 'Policy In the housing, element that specifies a certain number of multi- family housing units trust be built. He Indicated multi - family housing will still be built. He said the money for low -cost housing can be used for single - family as well as multi - family units. Mr. Henderson stated that the number of necesuary affordable units in the housing element will jhange periodically based on regional numbers generated by the Southern California Association of Governments (Sao). He said the Planning Commission Minutes -23- May z2. i94: * L /0 r] LI 4 J City is also gF an the optit'n of challakeing tha''numbers if they do not fit into land use g ins. Ha atated that currently alders are not prod ling low - cost housing �m their own .initiative t,^_luse land corns have grown so rapidly. He felt the City would probably have to participate directly through the Redevelopment Agency's set -aside fund. Commissioner 9*lehsr asked for some background on Mr. Banks, letter. He said it appeared there had been a compromise to permit higher density in the area south and east of the freeway because of pressure from the developers. He stated it appeared the developers of the plan were more concerned with keeping low density north of the freeway. Chairman McUiel stated there were two large local groups: a Residents' Association of Etiwanda and a Landowners' Association, which had a number of absentee landowners with rather large parcels, mostly in the north area. He said the primary concern of the residents was to maintain the existence and character of Etiwanda north of Base Line. He said their interests were not as strong south of Base Line and particularly south of the freeway. Commissioner Melchor commented that the higher - density zones were' placed around the freeway n a manner tending to buffer lesaer dmwitkee and more sodsitive acme from the freeway environment. Chairman MCNi*l stated that some of the area was demig-nated Medium Residential when there were efforts to make it all commercial: Mr. Buller stated that based on the information presented and d$,scussed during the Etiwanda Specific Plan hearings, the best .planning docis:fon at the time was r6aohed. However, he said now information Fas been considered by the City Council and a new direction has now been receivvl from the City Couc;.'il. Commissioner Melchor asked what would happen txo the U. S. Homes project if changes were made to the designations. Mr. warren stated that if the City Council adopts a Low medium designation, all development would ba subject to those standards. He said there are drainage issues involved which have delayed th6 U. S. Homes project. Mr. Buller stated that U. S. Homes had indicated to the Planning Commission that they have made a significant investment in their application and did, not wish to drop, the application. He reported they were represented at the Neighborhood Meeting and had requested that the Low Medium standards be reconsidered to be equivalent to Low Hadium Vithin the remainder of the City. He said they have indicated they could not build what they feel is the appropriate Medium development, but instead they want to build tingle - family homes with a request to modify the Etiwanda specific Plan to parmit standards that would give them that option. He stated if the land is redesignated Low Median, the developer will have to reconsider their application. He felt it would be prudent for the Commission to discuss whether they would consider changing the Low Hedium standards in Etiwanda. Planning Commisgion Minutes -24- R May 22, 1991 ii commissioner Melchor asked if the Southern Pacific right -of -way may not become a light rail corridor. �. Henderson stated that if the Santa Fe line is not purchased, it will be several years before the Southern Pacific line can be used because it is in such poor condition. He stated that no matter what type of housing density is built, a noise anaLysis would be required based on the use of the railroad and mitigation mea ures would be required. Chairman MaNie1 opened the public hearing. van Stephens, Forma, 10790 Civic Center drive, #100, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is the agent for Group 66 4artnerehip. He appreciated stsff,o work on the application and indicated he felt than requested amendment to Commercial is warranted. He did not think the area is conducive to residential development because of he - -ry traffic on Foothill Boulevard. He felt an activity canter would be we1L- served by master ,planning. He coeaaented that additional commercial uses would bring additional revenue to the City- He showed a graphic of the proposed street alignment and the addition of a collector street. tie• thought the size of the p-NrcrA would be good for Comma^" dial uses. Because of the deep site, he indicated it would not be developed with strip commercial, but would be consistent with the roothill Boulevard Specific Plan,. Commissioner Melchor asked if Mr. Stephens felt that Subarea l to the south of Foothill Boulevard would also be inappropriate for Low Medium'Residsntial. Mr. Stephens replied that he had not reviewed Subarea 1 in det »4.3, 4 indicated it may have different mapacts, but he generally did not 'fees rnat\ single family residences should be so close to Foothill Boulevard. Charles Cu-.. -ins, 1645 North Laurel Avenue, doiand, raapectfully requested that the northeast corner of Foothill and Etiwanda be changed to Commercial. Chairman HChiel asked if Hr. Cummins agreed with the recommended designation of Specialty Commercial. Mr. Cummins rmated ha would prefer the regular Commercial designation because he felt Specirlty Commercial would restrict the uses. Commissioner Melchor asked wlt_t he planned to do with the service station. Mr. Cummins responded that he was willing to do whatever the City wants; however, he believed the service bay canopy will extend into the right- cf --'�:my. Lloyd Zola, Planning Network, 9373 Archibald Avenue, 0101, Rancho Cusamonga,r, stated that the outside canopy pilars will stand in the right -of -way. He ' indicated the original desire was to xomov- the service station as such a use? would not be permitted in the .area. He ,eked that the area not be Specialtyl' Commercial because it has not been determined that the building s historicall7 significant. He reported that the latest study indicates a leek May 22, 1991 rl Planning Commission Minntea -25- E I of commercial uses in thu area and he felt the commercial la-..d use is compatible with surrounding uses. Donald Phillips, 8011 Etiwanda, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he ownu a houtAa immediately north of the vacant service station. He requested that his property be zoned commercial. Gary Womack, 5366 Evening Canyon Way, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he works fior Grubb & Ellis and he feels the community needs more commercial property. Father Fred Caglia, Pastor, Sacred Heart Church, 12704 Foothill Boulevard Rancho, Cucamonga, stated the church requested that the amall portion of their property in Subarea 3 ba rezoned Commercial toa:r the came as the remainder of their property. He did not feel the area is conducive to residential development. Li Li Hwang, Fu Mai, 7168,,Archbald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated �,ay purchased the property with the intention of developing ni- _,: certain criteria. She felt downzoning would create a financial hardship. She said the trl•ffic generated by Price Club and the future regional mall would not be appropriate in a single - fancily arrea. She requested that the Medium density Na, maintained. She felt that Best Aveauee will also: have a high density traffic volume. She said that U. S. domes specializes in single- family units, so they were in favor of the change, but her company is At a small corroan�;: Robert Larry Arcinage, 7650 Cal '_;Camino, Rancht Cucamonga, stated he was involved in the adoption of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He said Jim Hanks was a leader of the residents' group. He indicated the Piedium Residential wawa trade -off to require one -half acre lots north of Base Line and one acre lots further north. He felt that any major commercial site should have a buffer zone of Medium Residential before changing to Low Medium. He felt the utility corridor should be buffered by an apartment house. He thought apartment dwellers have more flexibility to move if they decide they are not happy with a surrounding area. He opposed the change from Madium to Low Medium, but felt that, if the City should decide to change the designation, consideration should be given to requiring a buffer zone around major shopping centers and major arteries. Pete Pitasei, Pitassi- Dalmau Architects, 9267 Haven Avenue, 0220, Ralncho Cucamonga, stated he represented Gramercy Properties, and they opposed the zoning changes to the property. He felt that hiller will be the northern access for the regional mall and will be linked to the properties to the east. He thought Medium Residential will permit better mitigation of the noise from the elevated freeway. He said they had submitted an application for development, but it has been stalled because of a drainage issue. He did not fool it is realistic to presume that all Medium Residential is automatically multi- family. He said that staff has - indicated thty are not sure single- family detached homes could be developed j *t a yield of greater than 3.25 per acre because of the minimum 10,iJO square foot lots, even though the Low Medium Residential equates to 4 -8 dwelling units per acre. He thought the proposed zone changes would only equates to a lf!a■ of 2,800 multi - family i Planning Commiesion Mitlutes -26 - Hay 22# 1991 i A4/_/3 units as opposed to the 61;000 ahown in the staff report and the increase iii single- family unite would equal 1,500 instead of the 2,600 indicated in the raoort. .fie did not feel the area is an appropriate market area fog Y,ow Medium zoning. ',..V also requested that Low Mediv;q standards for chc> Etiwanda area 266 studied.. Jeff Sceranka,,10068 Copper Mountain Court, Rancho Cucamong_n, stated he was on the task force which etudied the Etiwanda area. He felt. that Medium Residential permits preservation of th q rural character better than cookie - cutter single - family homes. He thought that mu_,ti- family allows larger setbacks and paseos. He felt Medium Residential is an appropriate designation adjacent to freeways and arterials. He said .neighborhood commercial business is going to Fontana ,because there is none available along Base Line on the •astern part of the City. He indicated the City 'has an opportunity to permit a neighborhood shopping center adjacent to the freeway which would permit an Interesting entrance to the City from the freeway. Richard Dahl, 5444 Carnelian, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was representing I. S. Properties, who own property adjacent to the freeway off /on ramp. He felt there should be a special designation undor the Commercial zona. Agatha Kleinman, 2500 North Suel£d, Upland, requested that their property In � Subarea 8 be separated from the remainder of the subarea because it has a 20 foot eaaament along the freeway which..cannot be used.. She said a 20 -foot high wall will be required along the freeway off -ramp. She reported that the parcel is only 10 acres, and will be even smaller when East ?►venue is widened. she indicated their parcel is bordered by the freeway, the railroad, and East Avenue. Shi thought that if the property were downzoned, it would effectively preclude their abilit +r to either build on or sell thair property. She said she had been prevent at the onset of the Etiwanda Spec fic Plan and she felt is had been a commendable job. John Fowler, 7198 East Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owned the 10 -acre parcel to the west of East Avenue in Subarea S. He thought e.hat if the property were changed to Low Medium he would not be able to deve,np. -or sell his property. He felt that the high drainage system cost would s':i %support Low Medium Residential development, and the area would bb an ideal neighborhood commercial center. Dr. Ralph Kleinman, 2500 North Euclid, Upland, stated they have owned the property for 30 years. He did not feel the area should be Toned Residential, but should be Office or 'Commercial. He said traffic is too noisy for Residential development. He also indicated East Avenue will be a major artery.. Mr. Scsranka felt Office /professional should not be considered as aim alternate designation because he thought there is an overabundance of office /Professicnal in the City. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNial closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -27- 'e' / /V May 22, 199: Mr.-karren stated that the numbers indicated in the staff report regarding the reduction of multi - family units and the increase of single - family units referred to a cumulative effect of the amendments under epnsidmiration along with other anticipated amendments. I. ;ND Gf f�EML ELAN hHEt?QMENT 90 -028 J. ENGIRONNENTAL ASSESE= AND F'Qg2L BO!JL 17�Iilt SPECIFIC PLAN NZNDkZ 90 -03 Commissioner Chitiea supported Commercial on General Plan Amendment S0-028. Commissioner Tolstoy concurred. Motions Moved by =?lstoy, seconded by "Icher, to racovaknd iea_iance of a. Negative Declaration -and adoption of the resolutions recommending approval of General. Plan Amendment 90-018 and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 90 -03 changing land upa designttions to Commercial and Community Commercial respectively. Motion carried by the following vote: AYM,- COMISSIOMMt culTIBA, MCN=L, HMCMM, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOBS: COM133I0MMT- NONZ ABS RT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE —carried •xl =+ x@. ... !. -il! .. xl' i...:Y 4, 2 h.C• 4 _..x :1 xl•.� • Chairman HCNiel asked if it would be possible to change to Specialty Commercial until such time as a determination in made regarding the historical significance of the service station but then automatically revert to Community Commercial if the services station is determined insignificant. Mr. Buller stated that a Specialty Ctom"reial designation iT itself would not cause the building to rmata- Commissioner vallette suggested recom®ending Community Commercial and requesting that the City Council dsterdsine if the building should be saved. Commissioner Melchor asked if Community Commercial would be injurious to the service station. Mr. Buller s`aatsd that the value of the service station mould be the same whether the area were changed to Community Commercial or Specialty Commercial. to Planning Commission minutes -28 May 22, 1991 Cammi'sioner Melchor commented 1:hat the scale of the service station is so small compared to the Thomas Winery, that he thought Community Commercial to be an appropriate designation. Commirsioner Tolstoy concurred and pointed out that the canopy would have to be removed because of ita proximity to Foothill Boulevard. Motion: Moved ty chitisa, secondLd by Tolstoy, to ra._?mmsnd issuance of a Negative Declir=ion and adoption of the resolutions reuomc-errItng approval of General Plan Amendment 91 -01A and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91 -03 changing land use designations to Commercial and Community Cp:nmsrcial rospactively. notion carried by the following vote- AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHEk, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONB _ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried M. °'^ NMSNTAL ?,,Msq AND gZXM a PLAF ANm=MNT 91 -028 (Subnreaua 1 through 8) N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASS 4MENT AND POOTNILL 140..:'_AR)F SPECIFIC FLAN Ati>rNL1HENe 91 -02 (Subareas 1 and 2) O. ENyIRONNf`Z& ESSESSMNT Add NI"IMMA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -03 ( Subaroas 1 through 6) General Plan Amond_mant 99 -02B (Subarea 1) and Foothill Boulevard' InAcific Plan ,�jgnrimwnt 9Yr02 fSubareall: Caamissioner Melchor felt that in light of the testimony about how inappropriate the area on the north side of Foothill ,would be for Low Medium, it would not make sense to change the area on the south side of Foothill Boulevard to Low Medium. Commissioner Valletta asked if the Commission could recommend Office/ Professional or Commercial_ Commissioner Chitiea suggested the Commission may wish to recommend the dp:ignatior not be changed from Medium. Commissioner Valletta suggested the Commission propose M set of options. Mr. warren stated that staff did,not perform any in -depth analysis ocher than for Low Medium Residential. He indicated staff found no evidence to indicate support for either Commercial or Low Residential uses at the location. He suggested that if tithe Commission felt aomathing other than the cur rsnt Medium or the propaaod Low Medium were appropriate, the matter should be returned to staff for further analysis. Planning Commission Minutes -29- Mry 22, :99 Commissioner Melchor stated he would prefer to recommend denial of the amendment. Chairman McNiel indicated that the area to the west is developed with single- family homes in a Low Residential designation, Mr- Bertoni - statad a utility - corridor separates the area from the Low Residential to the west. Commissioner Tolstay felt staff should preparx an analynis. Mr. Huller suggested that the subarea could be returned With the next COneral Plan cycle. Motion: Moved by Tolatoy, seconded by HwIcher, unarkiuloui >t carried,, to continue Environmental Assessment and General Plan! Amendment 9i ="2B ,(Subarea 1) and Environmental Assessment and Foothill Boulevard Specific Pla;' Amendment 91 -02 (Subarea 1) to the next General Plan cyole. Ganorel Plaza Aexndme::t 91-028 teubaree � *�v 1P�tis£l� 9oeslsx+rgrd saac##je P4att A�_n�'Tlent `�: -tl2 aSuba ra 21: Commissioners Tolstay and Valletta thought the area shaulti bar Cb msrcial- Commissioner Melchor commented that staff recommended Office in th -)i eastern portion of the eubarea. Motion: Moved by Melchor, seconded by Chitisa, to recomend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adoption of the resolutiC' zrocommending approval of General Plan Amendment 91 -02B (Subarea 2) ohanginr Und use designation to Commercial and Office and Poothill Boulevard Si Plan kmanddsnt 91 -02 (Subarea 2) changing land use doeigiAttion to ity, commercial and Commercial office. Motion carried by the following viceao' _I AYES: CGHMISSION&RS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCIIER, TOWNZY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMSSSIONE;SSt NONE ABSENT: <0WISSI9NRRBs NOW - ca=ied w * r e c cerie^al Plan &andment 91 -02B (SUbarsa_�). and FoothilY Boulevard Si+ee itic Plan Amendment 9'j=0., 'LjW2area 1t z 3r. Buller suggests(% that the CoemisoLan forward Subarea 1 iio thS CitX Council with a reo6�xaendxt on of denial rather than continuing the item to tF,e next General Plan cycle.. i fPlanning Co=issian Kinutea -30- May 22 1991 '1 Motion: Moved by Melchor, seconded by Chitiea, unanir..ouely carried, to raconabder. Environmantal Assessment and.Canaral Blau Amendment 91-02B (Subarea Now 1) and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91 -C3 (SW) area 1). ;, Motion: Moved by Melchor, seconded Iay Chit ea, to racomend denial of Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 91 -02B (Subarea l) and Foothill Bculavard Specific Plan Amendment 91 -02 (Subarea 1). Motion carried by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNZ:EL, a•T.LCKER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NO ?S: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ASSENT: COMHISSIONERSs NONE - carried Genera' plan ndmant 91 -028 Subare 1 a,�d°iwands , <nr,cig,p Amendment l Commissioner Valletta stn that this subarea includes the triangle of land which the church request(, as n xnged to Commercial. iir. Buller suggested t anurch be permitesd to pur:,sue the matter as a separate application, Commissioner Tolstcy stat." it is always "hard to tza"itioa commurcial to single- family residentirl. Me felt there should be a buffer of higher density between the two usse- Chatman McNiel fwli: the transiti,= is not an insurmountable problem and had been succomofully dealt with in the pant. Cc=issioner Tolstoy felt that than buffering effect is needed for good planning, =xMissioner Melchor concue.,td with Cosmisoianer Toletoy and felt them should alsts be a buffer from the frseway- Cosam_issioner Valletta asked why the area should be conside.ed inappropriate a for single - family reaidential but the damn consideration should not be given j to multL- fasswly. She ,wondered why more people ehau;'d be subjected to the i noise a! the frdway. 1 Gt+virmsan mcXLel reopened the public hearing. ! Mr. Pitasri stated thkt multi - family development allows more tlOxibilitla to G mitigate the surroundings, by 'increasing setbacks, allowing additional lAndscaping, and including architectural featuree which can screetg the tenants from adjacant usem. Planning Commianion minutes -31- Hay 22. 1 %91 -'6•- 1 \ 1't commissioner Melchor stated that in multi - family development the back of a building facing the freeway "would permit buildings to be placed clamor to the freeway. Mr. Pitassi asked if it is appropriate to have reseidential uses adjacent to a freeway. Mr. Buller suggested the arms, may call for a mixed -moo development. He indicated it io a difficult site because it alts down 20 - 30 feet below the frsawa°. Mr. H*=;,trson suggested that since it was almost 2:00 a.m., the Commission may wra;n to continue the balance, of the discussion to their next meeting. Hr: Buller thought the Commission may wish to adjourns the meeting to Wednesday, May 29, 1991, as that would be the fifth Wodnssday 3..n the month. f Motica: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallet °.b, uns inausly ,carried, to continue the balance of the ageria to May 29, 1991,i -', 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chasbr. f_ j Motion: Moved by Melchor, seconded by dimities., to adjourn. I 2 :00 &.m. - Planning Ca=ission adjourned to lhy 3g, 1991, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council. Chamber to finish thv balanaa of the agenda. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullor�;, Secretary Planning Commission H nutea -32- May 22, 1991 i u CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting May 29, 5991 Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Driv:,, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the-pledge of allegiance. ri,1LZ CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melchor, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Vince Sertonir Assistant Planners Miki Bratt, Associate Plannox, <lrad Buller, City Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorneys Larry Henderson, Principal Planners Betty Miller, Associate Engi.neerr Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary, Alan Warzen, Associate Planner ANNOUNC3MENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that item D be continued to permit Principal Planner Dan Coleman to make the presentation. OLD BUSINESS D. TRAILS IMPLEMSNTATION PLAN Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melchor, carried with Tolatoy absent, to continue Trails implementation Plan t guture date. rJBLIC HEARINGS A. HN{Tl'RONMEh T1 RANCHO CUCAMONGA A proposal to amend the General Plan x.ana use z;aemenz Map from -%dium Residential (8 -1C dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residentia° (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas within the Etiwanda and Pcothill Sotr,levard Sptcafic Plan areas: 1. Approximately 14.20 acres bordered an the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the east by the eastern City limits, on the south by existing Low AML Medium :Residential designated land, and on the west by a utility corride :, - APN: 229- 041 -10. —'t EXHIBIT *G' w U 2. Approximately 18.46 acres bordered on the north by the Foothill' Boulevard Sp(,=ific Flan boundary, which is approximately $30 at north of Foothill Boulevard; on the east by a ,:tIltay corridor; on the south by Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by F.tiwanda Arenue. The City will consider Commercial and Office as alte,native land use desigraticns for this entire area APN: 1100- 161- 0+,through 04 and a portion of 1100- 201 -01. 3. Approximately- 27.89 acres bordered. on the northwest by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the east by £tiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by commercially designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard, The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative rand use designation for this entire 4rea - APN: 227 - X211 -02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 20 and 29: 4. Approximately 87.52 acres bordered on the north by Miller Avenue; on the east by East Avenue and a utility corridor; ' on the south -'b� the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which is approximately, 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; a,,i on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The Cityiwill conaider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 1100- 131 -141 aria 02, 1,100- 141 -01 and 02, 1100- 151 -01 and 02, 1100 - 161 -01 and 02, snd 1100- 191-01. S. Approximately 30.92. acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (1,- 15) Freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated laA3, and on the south by Miller Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre),as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 1100- 031 -08, 1100 - 041 -04 through 10, 1100 - 051- -03, and 1100- 061 -02 thY:ough 04 and portions of 1100- 0�, 1 -01 and 02. 6. Approximately 11.09 acres bordered on the north by.Pase Line Road, on the southeast by the, Ontario (1 -15) Freeway, and on the west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land. The City will consider Office and Neighborhood Commercial -an alternative land use designations for this entire area - APN: 1100 - X051 -01 and .01 and 1100- 061 -01. 7. Approximately 10.09 acres bordered an the north ';'and west by existing Low Holium Residential designated land, on the east by existing Office designated land, and on the qy ;uth by Base Line Road. The City will consider Office as an alternatf:ve land use designation for this entire area -, APN: 227- 131 -34 through 36, 52 through 54, and 61. S. Approximately 20.34 acres V6rdered on the north by the Southern Pacific railway, on the ss by the Ontario (1 -15) Freeway, on the south by existing Office de Agnated lard, and on the west,by existing Low Medium designated land and divided in a'north -south ji.rection by East Avenue, The City wii,t consider Low Residential ('2-4 dwelling unira per acre) as an alterative lane use designation for this entire area - APN: 227- 131 -05 and' 229- 141 -14 and 66. Staff recommends issuance of a'Vsgative Declaration. (Continued from May 22, 1991.) Adft jx Planning CodAnission Minutes -2- May 29, 1991 B. ENVIRONMENTAL, ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Use ,Sap from Medium Residential (S -14 dwelling units per acre) to Lour Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plane 1. Approximately 14.20 acres bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the east by the eastern City limits, on the south by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the west by a utility corridor APN: 229- 041 -10. 2. Approximately 18.46- acres bordered on the north by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Boundary, which is approximately 530 feel: north of Foothill Boulevards on the east by a utility corridor; on the south by Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etioanda Avenue. Thi City will consider Community Commercial, Commercial office, ai,a Specialty Commercial as alternative hind use designations for this, entire area APN: 1100 - 161 -01 through 04 and a portion of'" 1100- 201 -01. Staff recommends issuance of a Negatiee DeChration. (Continued from May 22, 1991.) C. ENVIRON14ENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMCHGA - A proposal to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas within the Etiwanda Specific Plan: 1. Approximately 27.89 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium. Residential designated land, and an the south by commercially designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard. The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 227- 211 -02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 20, and 29. 2. Approximately 87.52 acres bordered on the north by Miller Avenue; on the east by East Avenue and a utility corridors on the south by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which is approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard: and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The City will consider L---- Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative laq& use designation for this entire area - APN: 1100 - 131 -01 and 02, and 02, 1100 - 151 -01 and 02, 1100 - 181 -01 and 02, and 1101 - 491 -01. 3. Approximately 30.72 ev res `:ordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I- 15) Freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the' south by Miller Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area APN: 1100- 031 -08, 1100 - 041 -04 through ` 10, 1100 - 051 -03, and 1100- 061 -02 through 04 and portione of 1100- 071 -01 and 02. 4. Approximately 11.09 acres tirdered on the north by Base Line Road, on the southeast by the Ontario (Y -15) Freeway, and on the west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land. The City Will Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 29, 1991 i L_J consider Office Professiop,,l and Convenience Commercial as alternative land use designations frr this entire area - APNe 1100 - 051 -01 and 02 and 1W, `6.1 -01. 5. Aoprox, �ly.10.09 acres bordered on the north and west by existing Low Med_, . .'Residential designated land, on the east by existing Office designated land, and on the south by Base Line Road.: The City will consider-Office 1=fessional as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APNe 227 - 131 -34 through 36, 52 through 54, and 61. 6. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by the Southern Pacific railway, on the east by the Ontario (1 -15) Freeway, on the south by existing Office designated land, and on the west by existing Low Medium designated land and divided in -a north -south direction by East Avenue. The pity will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 227- 131-OS and 227 - 141 -14 and 66. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from May 22, 1991.) Alan warren, Associate Planner, presented a recap of the actions rt the previous meeting, indicating that the Commission had recommended denial on General Plan Amendment 91 -02B (Subarea 1) and Foothill Boulevard S!recific Plan Amendment 91 -02 (Subarea 1). Be said the Commission had recomaes_ad approval of General Plan Amendment 91 -02B (Subarea 2), changing :he laid use designation to Commercial and Office, and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan , Amendment 91 -02 (Subarea 2), changing the land use designation to Community ' IE Commercial and Commercial Office. I Chairman McNiel opened the public, hearing, and upon hearing no testimony, -,the closed the hearing. Commission,- Melcher stated he was not convinced about the viability of single - family homes adjacent to the freeway. Be questioned the use of sound walls on other properties near the freeway. Commissioner Chitiea felt the effects of the freeway would be easier to mitigate if the property were developed under Medium standards. Commissioner Vallette felt the Commission shou,id follow the City Council's direction to lower the multi- family ratio. She agreed with staff's recommendation to redesignate the area as Low Medium Residential. Commissioner Chitiea felt perhaps some Low Residential should be lowered to Very Low Residential to reduce the number of multi - family units. She questioned the advisability of placing single family homes in the area with regional relented uses nearby. Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 29, 1941 Commissioner Vallette did not feel the City would be capable of providing all lift the necessary services if densities are not reduced. She felt that a 32 percent Multi- .family density goal is desirable. She thought multi;- family ! densities may make good planning sense for some isol :ea areas, bv.t that the designation should be lowered in the interest of good plann.ng for the 'City as a whole. Chairman McNiel commented that there will always be a greater number of multi- :1 family properties in the eastern portion of the City because'thut is where the i most available land is located. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the .other Commisaioners felt the area has enough exposure to be successfully used fur Commercial, purposes. t Chairman McNiel stated some Commercial is already located immediately south of the subarea and he felt a Commercial use could be made viable. � Commissioner Melcher stated that the church had only requested Commercial for a small triangular portion of the subarea. He did not feel the entire subarea should be Commercial. He indicated that a consultant had provided a report justifying Commercial "r Subarea 2. He felt there appears to be an overabundance of Community Commercial in the City. However, he thought the area appeared to be an undesirable place to live because of the proximity to the freeway and he did not feel individual single - family homes would be appropriate. a Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, stated that it the Commission wished to i consider Commercial, it would be necessary to readvarti.se. Commissioner Melcher felt it may be appropriate to parkl"' 1 the freeway with a, buffer zone, similar to Subarea S. He was concerned about isolating the present Low Medium. Commissioner Valletta felt th- '_'Urch should apply separately to designate their property as Commercial. Brad Buller, City Planner, reported that along the Interstate 30 freeway corridor there is a predominance of Lox and Very Lox designated land uses. He i stated that a Low Medium Residential designation does not preclude clustering of houses and buffering from the freeway. He said that staff had studie,j noise contours and felt that the noise issue could be mitigated. He commented,. that if it is determ:a¢d that none of the land under consideration should redesignated it would ,. be unlikely that the City could meet the goal set by City Covr.cil. 4 i.t Commissioner Vallette felt that in keeping with the goals set by the, City Council and recognizing the input from the public, Subarea 3 should be redesignated as Low Medium. Commissioner Melcher felt social goals were being considered in addition to planning philosophy. He thought Subarea 4 to be better suited for Low Medium Residential, Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 29, 1991 ;? Chairman McNiel agreed that Subarea 4 is obviously better suited for 'Low Medium Residential, but he did not feel that Low Medium would work for Subarea. 3. Commissioner Vallette commented that the Commission was acting under the direction of City Conneil to indicate those parcels which would be appropriate to redesignate at lower densities. She felt quality of life issues are relevant to planning. She thought the Council was reacting to concerns of the community to lower the multi- family ratio tw 41. percent at build -out. She dial not feel the 32 perctint goal could be met with(aut lowering the designation on Subarea 2. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that the 32 percent`'�Val is appropriate, but she felt that lowering the density may be more approp�r3ate in other parts of the City. I Commissioner Vallette questioned if the City wou);:3 IY able to meet the goal if Subareas 3 ann 5 were not reduced. Mr. Warren responded that it would be possible L6,reach a 35 percent goal if n available land were reduced at the following ratio: 75 percent in Etiwanda, 50 percent in Victoria, and 25 percent in the remainder of the City. He said it was felt that Etiwanda would give the best opportunity to reduce multi- family acreage because there is more open area. He said that in the areas where the acreage is surrounded by more development, it will be even more difficult to lower the density. Commissioner Vallette indicated that a planned community offers more amenities ouch as parks, passes, etc. and she felt it would be more difficult to lower the densities in 'Azteria. Chairman McNiel stated he was not sure the 32 percent goal is achievable. He thought the problems of proximity to the freeway could be successfully mitigated. He commented that there is other Low Medium adjacent to the freeway in the community. Commissioner Melcher commented that Subareas 3 and 5 have a combined acreage of approximately 59 acres. He said planning staff's projegti ,.s are based on build out at 62.5 percent of the range, which would mean a` difference of 5.25 units per acre, which would equate to a total of 300 units. He asked the impact of 300 more multi - family units on the percentage. Mr. Warren stated that the total projected number of units In the City would be approximately 53,000 to 55,000 if the multi- family ratio is 32 to 35 percent. He commented that 300 additional multi- family units would equate to a 600 unit spread between multi - and single- family units. Mr. Buller commented that the Commission had already recommended denial of the change for Subarea 1 (approximately 14 acres). � Planning Commission Minutes -6- p A -ate May 29, 1991 , Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by McNiel, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adoption of the resolutions recommending approval of. General Plan Amerdment 91 -02B (Subarea 3) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91 -03 (Subarea 11 changing the land use designations ro Low Medium. Motion received the following tie vote: E AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, VALLETTE ! i t 1 NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITSEA, MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY nt- action Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that under, the Planning t Commission's regulations, a tic vote on an action which involves a recommendation to City Council is forwarded to City Council with no action. s r : e • General Plan Amendment 91 -02B (Subarea 4) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment Mr. Warren qave a brief synopsis of the reasoning,,, behind the recommendation for Low Medium and the request for a master plan. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Pete Pitassi; Pitassi- Dalmau Architects, 9267 Haven Avenue, #220, Rancho Cucamonga, commented that the staff report indicated a total unit reduction of 1,400 to 1,500 would need to be reached city -wide, and said the staff'a recommended changes in Etiwanda would equate to a reduction of 1,267 units. He felt other areas of the City should have to reduce their percentage as well. Mr. Pitassi stated he represented a client on the south side of Miller and he showed some preliminary plans for a amIti- family project. He discussed clustering of units and the ability' to create open space in such a multi- family project. He felt the project:Yould result in a 10 to 11 unit per acre product with the units being ownership type on Pee simple. lots. He felt that even though City Council had issued a mandate to lower the number of multi- family units, good planning would dictate multi- family zoning because of the major ,nd secondary arterials bordering and traversing the site. He did not feel a Low Medium designation would give the ability to mitigate the traffic and commercial impacts. He indicated that because of the elevated freeway, the noise impacts would intensify as the distance from the freeway increases. Jeff Bnrum, Diversified Pacific Development Corporation, 6057 Della Avenue, Ranchb Cucamonga, referred to a letter he had submitted at' the May 22 meeting. He said he had been following the affordable housing issue and how that relates to the Housing Element in the City. He agreed with the City Council's directive to down -zone, but felt it should be economically viable for the property owners in thu area. -He said if the existing standards in the Etiwar,U Specific Plan are changed to the norval Low Medium standards, the housi, product generated would probably rssul, in houses selling in the Planning Commission. Minutes -7- 4IQ 4 May 29, 1991 LA $250,000 range. He suggested an overlay district allowing for the development of smaller lots with corresponding lower prices. He said that staff had indicated that elsewhere in the City developers have merely put larger houses on smaller lots and the smaller lots have not resulted in: lore affordable homes. fie suggested a development ratio of house size to lot size. He felt that would be economically feasible for the developers. He said he had considered some different locations 7.,n the area and felt if new standards were adopted in an overlay district it 'would be possible to buffer by placing 8 units per acre next to the freeway (duplexes and triplexes) and situating the smaller lots on the exterior. He said that would not hurt the property owners and would forward the oY " *,ctives of the City Council. He requested the Commission direct that smaller lots should be considered. Chairman McNiel stated the Commission recognized that 10,000 square foot lots would not be viable if the areas were redesignated. Mr. Eurum staled that it is an idea used in other citioc® when a'Ieveloper uses optional development standards to cap the size of homes placed on lots. He said that if people are not willing to adhere to the capped ratio, they would simply build under the normal standards applicable in the area. Commissioner Vallette suggested the idea may have merit because she felt that developers have definitely placed larger homes on smaller lots to maximize profitability. Commissioner Melcher asked if Mr. Burum felt the loss of B -14 designation would be potentially detrimental to the affordable housing supply and was suggesting that the land could be utilited for a more affordable product subject to some optional development standards. Mr. Burum responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher felt the idea may deserve further exploration, butt he did not feel that development standards ware part of this evening's agenda. Mr. Buller stated that the issue wan broudt up at the neighborhood meeting and staff felt there is merit for further'3iscussians. He said the Planning Commission could direct staff to obtain the City Council's direction regarding the issue. Hearing no further testimony, Ghairsmt McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitioa felt the Low Medium designation is appropriate because of the size, location, and mitigating factors. She felt further study of how to achieJe a lower priced product is xorthy of consideration. Chairman McNiel said he thought it was a great concept but he had doubts about achieving anything under the heading of affordable housing. He stated the community now has 3,000 to 4,000 square foot lots in the community which do not satisfy the affordable housing requirements. Planning Commission Minutes -B May 29, 1991 -. Commissioner Melchor stated that even if the houses do not meet the official affordable housing guidelines, it would be delivering housing that people can more easily afford. He felt that considering Mr. Burum's proposal may help the lower middle income worker. Chairman McNiel commented there was a consensus of the Commission to seek City Council direction on whether to further study a modification to the development standards for Etiwanda. Commissioner Melchor felt that master plan xegLiroment could address the issues raised by Mr. Pitassi. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Valletta, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adoption of the resolutions recomicnding approval of General Flan Amendment 91 -02B (Subarea d) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91 -03 (Subarea 2) changing the land use designations to Low Medium and requiring a master plan. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: C=MISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, V=ET-,E NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT- COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY - carried. General Flan Amendment 91 -028 (Subarea 51 and Etivaand& Speci%c Plan Amendment 91 -03 (Subarea 3): Mr. Warren outlined staff's rea3oniag on Subsria 5. Chairman McNiol opened the public hearing. Hearing no testimony, he closed c;he public hearing. - Commissioner Keleher stated his position was the same as on Subarea 3. 1 Commissioner Chitiea concurred. ! Commissioner Valletta felt the area should ba Low Medium. � Chairman MoNial asked the use designation across East Avenue in Fontana. ) Mr. Warren. responded that it is in the Heritage Village Comunity Plan and is designated Office along Bast Avenue. i s Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner, stated that Fontana is also considering an amendment to allow a variety of Commercial uses in the area. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Valletta, to recomend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adoption of the resolutions recommending approval. ­f General Plan Amendment 91 -02D (Subarea 5) and Etiv*nda Specific plan Amendm(,it Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 29, 1991 ' � On ? 91 -03 (Subarea 3) changing the land use designations to Low Medium., Motion received the following tie vote: 1 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, VALLETTE 1 NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -no action General Plan Amendment 91 -02B (Subarea 6) and Etiwanda S acific Plan Amendment 91 -03 (Subarea 4): Mr. Warren gave a brief presentation regarding the reasons staff did not recommend a change from Medium Residential for Subarea 6. He indicated Babe Line Road is heavily traveled and the southern border is a freeway on -ramp, which would generate significantly more noise because of vehicle acceleration. He stated that because staff did not have an in- depth traffic analysis it had to be presumed that any use other than residential would generate significant amounts of traffic above what was pL;tined for at Medium Residential. He indicated it was felt that increased traffic could effect the central core of Etiwanda; and ber-;;use the philosophy of the Etiwanda Specific Plan is to retain a rural chax:_ter, staff did not feel comfortable with suggesting a Commercial or Office use. He indicated the property owner had proposed Office and Convenience Commercial.. Chairman McNiel opened t!%--public hearing. Jeff Sceranka, Century 21 Dahler, 10068 Copper Mountain. Court, Rancho Cucamonga, showed a map of the area depicting the Village of Heritage adjacent .o Subarea 6. He indicated a significant amount of housing will be developed in Fontana. He presented a letter proposing that the subarea be designated Commercial and suggesting that the area is heavily impacted by commuter and shopping traffic flows. He thought the majority of Etiwanda residents will go to Fontana to shop as soon as a neighborhood shopping center is built in the Heritage Village area. He thought the proximity of the freeway on/off ramps would assist in making the center viable. He thought the City should opt for Ccmmercial in ordur to keep tax dollars from going to Fontana. He said he understood a traffic analysis would need to be conducted. Chairman McNiel asked how many feet,of frontage is located an Base Linea Mr. Sceranka replied 339 Yeet. Commissioner Valletta asked if Mr. Sceranka was considering the already designated, under construction commercial sites on Milliken and Highland and on Base Line and Milliken. Mr. Sceranka thought those centers would only address the needs oC a localized area. He indicated the area east of M.Illiken should support additional Auk Neighborhood Commercial. Planning Commission Minutes -10 May 29, 1991 Commissioner Melcher asked if Mr. Sceranka's clients control all of Subarea 6. Mr. Scaranka responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher felt the site wouln be an awkward configuration for Neighborhood Commercial development. He thought less than 400 feet of frontage in an area which may haves traffic congestion would -,_� difficult. He asked if the Commission were to direct staff to study the feasibility of Commercial for deliberations d-,'ing the next General Plan cycle# if Mr. Sceranka's clients would be prepared to underwrite the cost of a traffic analysis. Mr. Saeranka stated the clients were in the audience and could answer that question. Chairman McNiel felt an 11 acre parcel may not be large enough. Mr. Sceranka thought the designated 5 -acre site at the corner of Base Line and Etiwanda would not be able to attract developers to develop Neighborhood Commercial. He etated several developers have expressed intsrest in a Base L2.nelfreeway :location. He said the developers will go to the first aites available along thg freeway, whether it be in Rancho Cucamonga or Fontana. Dick Dahl., representing I. S. Properties, Inc., 5444 Carnelian. Rancho Cucamonga, stated that if the property is designated Commercial, the owners do not plan to de,relop as Commercial in the immediate future. He said they propose an interim use of developing =:3 recreational facility, such as a golf driving range aed potentially t miniature golf course if the driving range proves to be successful. He ".nought the City lacks sufficient recreational facilitids. He said the site has been renewed by one of the major companies who develop golf driving ranges and they considered the site to Nava good potential for such a use because of its Mrorimity to the freeway and the future church on the west. He said there would be no impact an existing residential. He reported that the Yong shopping center at 19th: and Carnelian is only a little over 10 acres. He said his clients would be willing to fund a traffic study when they are ready to develop the sita car commercial uses. He did not feel a traffic study would be necessary for a recreational facility because it would operate-at off -peak hours. He thought the area will have to grow more before it can support a commercial use. He comtaented that the shopping tenter -t Ltivanda and Base Line is only 3.2 acres. Commissioner Melcher asked if the client ,would be willing to fund a traffic study, at this title. Mr. Dahl responded they did not feel .a. traffic study should be necessary at this tisad. Commissioner Melcher stated the Commission had recoamanded commercial applications along Foothill Bouleda;ed based Won studies indicating that additional commercial could be supported. He said those studies had berm. Planning Commission Minutes •.11- - May 29, 4141,, r funded by the property owners. Ye comnent!�i that without a detailed traffic study, staff t`elt that commercial use in Subarea 6 would not only :increase the traffic in the immediate rrea, but also increase the traffic along Etiwanda Avenue. Bernie Svalstad; Partner in 1. S. Properties, Inc., 1811 Westcliff',Drive, Newport Beach, stated that most of the property in the area cannot, be 1ev.1rped for prr, "ably two to five years because of the cost associated`w4th 'UA,F°,_ling the necessary storm drain and the need for an assessment d.s_- ^_st. He staid they were suggesting an interim recreation use in ordea Z' alleviate having the property sit vacant until the storm drain is oastructed. He said they wanted to assist the ,City in deleting 156 multi -' :y units and would dlso bring sales tax revenue to the 'City. He felt an _,ya >Awt ;ally pleasing Neighborhood Commercial center could eventually, be c- fl vped. He asked that the matter not be continued to another General Plan cycle. He did not wish to perform a / taffic study based on commercial use because the property Mould not be developed as commercial for another. three to five years and the figures would then be outdated. He said a similar interim use had been developed in El Toro in a retention basin. Commissioner Melcher commented the prt,?erty crmers had requested the Commission consider Neighborhood GDmmercial even though staff had indicated thet without a detailed traffic study, Neighborhood Commercial would not be the most appropriate land use. However, the ownerg have indicated an " unwillingness to underwrite the cost. " He was therefore reluctant to postpone t;- decision to another cycle without more indication of coo;eration from the property owners. Mr. Svalst,;d indicated they did not object to conducting a study when they are ready to develop the site as a commercial use. Commissioner Chitiea stated that in order for the City to consider a land uNie change, a study would have to be provided indie$ting that the area could support additional commercial uses, even if theme implementation were to be in the future. Mr. Svalstad suggested a study be conducted in relaticaship to a driving range because that would be the only imminent use. Hearing no further testimony, Chai --mm McNiel closed the public hearing." Commissioner Valiette comsenteo that to the west the area is already designated Low Medium residuntial. Chairihan McNiei commented that Mr. Dahl had indicated aa- church had purchased the property an order to build a church Mr. Buller stated the zoning is for Low Medium and a church world require a Conditional Use Permit. Planni..-i CozzO scion Miautes -12- May 29, 1991 Commissioner Valletta questioned if sites have been designated for commercial sites in the Etiwanda Non-,h area. Mr. Henderson responded that other areas is the plan are already designatod r..r commercial aci the City h >3 already received a request for expansion of those areas. He felt that even if a shopping center is built along East Avenue in kontana, not all Etiwanda residents will necessarily go to Fontana to shop. Chairman McNiel felt that eventually the site may be commercial but commented that without a supporting traffic study, he was not prepared to recommend commercial. He indicated the applicant could approach the city at a later time to change tha area to Commercial. Commissioner Melcher agreed. Commissioner Chitiea felt the proposal may have merit, but without the necessary supporting information she arso was not willing to rcecommend the change to Commercial. 'She thought that looking at the proximity te the , freeway, the site would appear to be desirable for a retail use. She was uncomfortable with leaving a Medium Residential designation if the City did not really want residential. She thought that commercial may be thii best use, but commented that the owners were not willing +.:s fund a study at the present time. Motion: Moved by Melcher, saconded by - Valletta, to recommend denial of General Plan Amendment 91 -02B (Subarea 6) and Etiwanda Spe ific Plan Amendment - 91 -03 (Subarea a). Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: C.OMKISSXONERS* CBXTIEA, MCNtELe, MELCHER., VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT* COMMSSSIONERSa TOLSTOY" - carried The Planning Commi.saion recessod from Bi45 p.m. to 8:55 p.m. t a • : r General Plan Ananoment y1 -02B ;Subarea 7) wind Etiwarda Specific Plan Amendment 91 -03 (Subarea S)a Mr. iisrren gave a brief synopsis of the reasoning for recommending Low M3dium Residential. Chairman M. -.Niel opened the public 'hearing, but thdre was no testimony. He closed the hearing, Planning Commission Mirutec -13- May 29, 1991 !'' I L 8 D action: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Chitiea, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adoption of the resolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 91 -02B (Subarea 7) and Etiwianda Specific Plan Amendment 9 ? -03 (Subarea 5) changing the land use designations to Low Medium. Motion carried by the following tire: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MEGCHER, VALLETTE NOES.* COMM.TSSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMQSSIONERS: TOLSTOY - carried General Plan Amendment 91 -02B (Sui*4rea 8) and Et Wanda Specific Plan Amendment 91 -03 (Subarea 5): Mr. Warren presented a review of the matters discussed at the previous meeting. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Agatha Kleinman, 2500 North 3ucli3r Upland, presented a copy of a letter she had sent to the City in April regarding her property. She felt the railroad tracks to the north of the property, the freeway to the east and south, and East Avenue to the west wo, ild wake the area unpleasant for aesidential uses. •' She requested that tze eastern portion of Subarem 9 be changed to Commercial or left at Medium Residential. She indicated that the props ty could not be viably developed as Residential, particularly if the developer were required to pay for the freeway landscaping. She felt the proximity to the freoway presents a safety hazm,cd. She indicated that the property would not be developed for at least five years because of the aasesament district needed to finance the drainage facilities. Ralph Klti!,i an; 2500 Etorth Euclid, Upland, felt that their property is aii entrance 1-co Rancho Cucamonga. Be said they would not sell their land Ror industrial use. He commented that they are interested in Rancho Cucamonga because they have been in the City for a long time. He felt a Residential zone would be inappropriate.. He indicated East Avenue has a lot, of traffic during school hours. He did not feel the property could be economically developed at Me4ium Residential because of the requirement for a 30 -foot sound wall. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel' closed the public haaring. Commissioner Keleher agreed that the Kleinman property is separated from the remainder of Subarea 8. He was not sure that a Commercial desifpation would be the bast use. He questioned the projected traffic count on Bast Avenue in the future. r Planning Commission Minutes -14- May 29, 1991 3 Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, replied that it would depend upon where the freeway off -ramp is located. Commissioner Melcher asked staff to comment on the Kleinman's comments. Mr. Henderson felt there was not much difference north or south of the Santa Fe railroad tracks. He felt there would be less traffic if there are no Route 30 freeway ramps at East Avenue. He thought the parcel to be a smell, awkward size parcel located on a secondary arterial street. He suggested the Commission may wish to leave the Kleinman's property at Medium and recommend f that the remainder of Subarea 8 be designated as Low Medium. He commented that the western pottion of Subarea 8 is adjacent to low Medium Residential. f He said similar condirions exist in Los Angel v County where single family residential is adjacent to the freeway, but has :,.J access to the freeway. Commissioner Chitiea felt there was some merit in considering separation of the two portions of Subarea 6. Chairman McNiel agreed the Kle nman's property should possibly be separated from the remainder of Subarea 8. He did not `,agree that the site should be Commercial. He indicated that Last Avenue will be four lanes, and will be heavily traveled. He said it also may have a freeway off -ramp- He thought the western portion of Subarea 8 should be Low Medium and the eastern portion zhoule remm -n Medium. Commissioner Chitiea concurred. Commissioner Melcher commented that the only access to the property will be Ah East avenue. He asked how many points of ingress /egress would be permitted on the approximately 600 feet of street frontage. Ms. Miller replied that on an arterial there is a dilference between a street and a driveway. She said that only one street %hula be permitted, but driveway standards permit one for every 300 fact. She indicated deceleration lanes may be required. i Commissioner Melcher felt a singles- faaily designation would make the parcel particularly inefficient. He preferred to see the property west of East Avenue be redesignated as Low Medium, and the property east of East Avenue remain at Medium because of the property configuration and constraints. Commissioner Vmllettg felt that Low Residential would endanger fewer people if the p °oximity to the freeway truly represented a safety hazard. She supported Low Medium Residential for all of Subarea S. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to recommend isauancz of a Negative Declaration and adoption of the resolutions. recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 91 -928 (Subarea 8) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91 -03 (Subarea 6) with a modification to recoaimend changing the land use designations to Low Medium fzr the portion of the subaroa west of East Avenue and recommending denial of the Amendmanta for the portion east or East Avenue. Motion carried by the follow -ing votee 29, 1991 Ip Planning Commission Minutes -15- May Al- �! AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITZEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -- carried ,r DIRECTOR'S REPORTS E. COUNTY REFERRAL 88 -05 UNIVERSITY CREST - Preliminary Plan of Development, Master Tentative Tracts, Tentative Tract Mapa, and Final Plan of Development for 1,239 single family units a >nd commercial, school, pars, and open space on 1,111 acres in the Rancho Cuzamonga Sphere areal request for review of the City's requests to the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Miki Bratt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the Canty Council had recel ved a copy of a letter Mr. Dilorio Bent to the Chairman of the County P' cuing Commission protesting that he did not .feel City staff's comments '.'.o the County Planning Commission represented the position of either the City %ouncil or the Planning Commission. Mr. Buller requested clarification as to whether the comments made by staff reflected the position of the Planning Commission. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Joe DiioxiL, President, The L „_sat Company, P. O. Box 9216 South Laguna, presented a letter stating that the University Crest is an integral part of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. He thought the County's Etiwanda North Specific Plan to be superior to the City's. Mr. Dilorio indicated the County plan has reversed density to draw it to tLe north. He said County staff had determined the project warrants a 10 percent density bonus, but City staff does not agree. He said the project will preserve 675 acres of open space. He stated the project is proposed with higher than the County's minimum standards. He reported that the project is committed to. paying more than the City's requirement for parks, schools, roads, and fire puotection. He uaid a 50 foot right of way on cul -de -sac streets (versus a City standard of 60 feet) does not increase the density. He reported the pro:.ct employs reverse lot grading with pads only immediately under the houses. He said the remainder of the lots will have natural grading. He stated they had supplied a report from a registered geologist stating there are no fault problems in the area and there is no Red Hill fault. L's reported the project will provide 3 acres of local park for every 1,000 residents an dite plus an additional 2 acres per thousand residents, on either Southern California Edison surplus property or at two other locations. He said their traffic studies show there will bi insignificant traffic on Etiwanda Avenue. Hai felt the City shout a not have approved other tracts already in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan area. He stated the majority of the landowners in the area have protested the City's AdDL proposed annexation. i Planning Commission Minutes -16- May 29, 1991 City Council Minutes July 17, 1991 Page 4 There being no further response, the public heuring was closed. Counailmember Williams stated she felt whit camof out of the workshops is what iaae being proposed. She felt there should have W en a continual audit of the ten in the past, and that it should continue in: the future. She suggested to' Williumr that he bring his handouts to the City Council sooner rather than the night of the meeting. She felt the City's goal was only to recover 100% and no more. Cauncilmember Alexander stated if there were overcharges made because of the proposed increases, there would be a roll back. RESOLUTION? NO. 91 -194 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIR, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NOS. 79 -1, 79-1- - A, 79 -1 -8, 79 -7, 79 -31, X81 -66, 81 -66 -A, 81 -ill, 82 -168, AND ESTABLISHING A NEW COMPREHENSIVE FEE ECH$9ULE FOR PERMITS AND SERVICES PROVIDED BY ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS, THE .QANCifO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA "LICE DEPARTMENT MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Buguat to approve Resolution No. 91 -194. Notion carried unanimously, 4 -0 -I (Wright abse�at). w w w w w w Mayor Stout called a rocess'at 9:00 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 9:30 p,m. with all members of Council present (Wright absent.). items F3, F4 and FS Were considered at time. F3. ENVIR NTAL ASSESSMENT A - GROUP 66 PARTN B HIP - A request to amend the General Plan Lane use Nap from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Commercial for 10.89 acres of land located an the north side of F.etb£21 Boulevard east of Etiwanda Avenue. The City Council will also consider Low ia!�dium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) and Office an alternative land use designations - APH: 1100- 161 -04. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Commercial designation and issuance of a Negative Declaration. CONSID$RaT *ON OF EirJONMENTAL ASSESSMENT = FOOTHILL 121LMM ,3S,IFIC pLW &=MSNT 20-03 - 0OUp 66 FAA SH P - L request to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Use Nap in Subarea 4 from madium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Community Commercial for 10.89 acres of land located ont he north side of Pbothill Boulevard east of Etiwanda hvenue. The City EXHIBIT "D' City Council Binutea July 17, 1991 Page 10 Council will also consider Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre), Commercial office, and Specialty Commercial as alternative land use designaticAs - APN: 1100= 161 -04. The Planning Commission recommends approval, -of tho Community Commercial designatj ,)e and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Staff report presented by Alan Warren, Associate Planner. Mayor Stout opened the meeta<g -sor public hearing for General Plan Amendment 90- 02B and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 90 -03 - Group 66 Partnership. Addressing the City council were: Van Stevens, Forma, Civic Center Drive, stated they supported the staff report and the Planning Commission's decisive. Andy Gurney, 12924 Chestnut, asked what would be bi4,lt there. Mayor Stout stated there were no specific buildings proposed at this time, that this was only a zoning designati on. There being no further response, the public hearing was closed for CPA 90 -028 and PBSP'A 90 -03. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -195 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GSNERAL'AAN:AM 'DMZNT 90-028 AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROH MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING,UNITS PER ACRZ) TO COMMERCIAL (WITH A MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT DESIGNATION) MR 10.89 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDS 07 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, EAST Or ETIWANDA AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDIS:GS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100- 161 -04 RESOLUTION NO. 91 -196 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY° COUNCIL OF TIM CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FOOTHILL, BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN' AMENDMENT 90-03 AMENDING THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN LArD USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (WITH A MASTER PLAN R� :PmmNT DESIGNATION) FOR 10.89 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDS OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, EAST OP ETIWANDA AVSNUS, AND NABING f3NDjiM5 IN SUPPORT: THEREOF - "N: 1100- 161 -04 MOTIONr Moved by But uet, seconded by Alexander to approve Resolution Noe. 91 -195 and 91 -X96. Notion carried unanilmusly, 4 -0 -1 (Wright absent). I i A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -01A_ AMEENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MSDIUH RESI DENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS >PER ACRE) TO A COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIC -N WITH A MASTER PLAN RE4UIREMENT FOR 2.0 RCREE OF LAND LOCI ON TH2 NORTHEAST CORNER OF_FOOTHiLL BOULEVARD AND ETIKly AVENUE, AND MAKING. FINDINGS IM SUPFORT TRZREOF APR: 1100 - 161 -02 RESOLUTION NO. 91 -198 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FOOTHILL BOIMnU A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -03 AMENDING THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLW LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS l sea i City Council Minutsa July 17, 1991 Page 21 F4. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMEND NT 91 -011 — PLANN1N0 NET:M - A request to amend the General Plan LaA4 Una Hap from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Commercial for 2.0 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda ?venue. Thai City Council will also consider Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per aerm) and Office as alternative land use designations - APN: 1100- 161 -02. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Co=mt.cial designation and issuance of a Negative Declaration. CONS IDEP'riON OF ENVIRONMENTAI ASSESSMENT &V FOOTH. F.arle PLAN AMNDMENT 21-03 PLANNING NETWORK - A request to 'amend the oothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Use Map in Subarea 4 from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre),to Community Commercial for 2.0 acres Of land located . on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Ztiwarla "onus. The City Council will also consider Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre), Commercial Office, and Specialty Commercial as alternative land uba designations - APR: i100- 161 -02. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Community Commercial designation and issuance of a Negative Declanrat 6m- Staff report premented by Alan warren, Associate Planner. Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public hearing for General Plan Amendment 91- OlA and Foothill Boulw -ard Spr:;ific Plan Amendment 91 -03 - Planning Network. Addressing the City Council Was: Charles Cummir�1,; owner of Property to be rezoned, stated the Planning staff was very.,,00perative, and helpful. He stated they are in support of what is being proposed. There being no further response, the public hearing was closed for CPA 91 -OIA and FBSPA 91 -03. RESOLUTION No. 91 -197 I A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -01A_ AMEENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MSDIUH RESI DENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS >PER ACRE) TO A COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIC -N WITH A MASTER PLAN RE4UIREMENT FOR 2.0 RCREE OF LAND LOCI ON TH2 NORTHEAST CORNER OF_FOOTHiLL BOULEVARD AND ETIKly AVENUE, AND MAKING. FINDINGS IM SUPFORT TRZREOF APR: 1100 - 161 -02 RESOLUTION NO. 91 -198 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FOOTHILL BOIMnU A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -03 AMENDING THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLW LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS l sea City Council Minutes July 17, 1991 Pago 12 PER ACRS) TO A COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION WITH A P"ASTER PLAN RE4oIREMS3T FOR 2.0 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNIER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ETIWANDA AVENUE, .AND HARING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100 - 161 -02 MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Alexander to approve Resolution Nos. 91 -197 and 91 -198. Motion carried unanimously, 4 -0 -1 (Wright absent). F5. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENIE& PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -028 - CITf C? RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Xodium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas within the Etiwanda and Foothill Boulevard Specifle Plan areas: 1. Approximately 14.20 acres bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the east by the eastern City limits, on the south by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the west by a utility corridor. The Planning Commission recommends denial. APN: 229- 041 -10. AML 2. Approximately 16.46 acres bordered on the north by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which is approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevards an the east by a utility corridors on the south by Foothill Boulevards and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The City Council will also consider Commercial and Office as alternative land use designations for this entire area. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Commercial dessgnation for the properties from ltiwanda Avenue to approximately 1,277 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue and the Office designation for the rest of the properties in this sabarea. -- APN: 1100 - 161 -Ot through 04 and'a portion of 1100 - 201 -�1. 3. Approximately 27.89 acres border -ed on the northwest by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, an the east by l'.'-. ,.nda Avenue; and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, Ind an the south by commercially designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard. The City Council will also consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as xn alternative land use designation for this entire area. The Planning Commission has no reccm®sndati.,n. - APH: 227 - 211 -02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 20 and 29. 4. Approximately 87.52 sores bordered on the north by Miller Avanum= on the east by last Avenue and a utility corridors as the south by the Foothill Boulevard 4petsific Plan boundasv..which is agproxLmately 530 feet north of Foothill 9ouls,Ntards and an the, `.by Etiwanda Avenue. The City council gill also cons$Aer Low Residsnti�.. (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area. The Planning c:_,mmidsion recommnds approval. APRs 1100- 131 -01 and 02, 3100- 181 -01 and 02, 1100- 151 -01 and 02, 1100- 181 -01 and 02, and 1100 - 191 -01. K -L39 City Council Minutes July 17, 1991 Page 13 Ll $. Approximately 30.72 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated &and, and on the south by Hiller Avenue. The City Council will also consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area. 'The Planning Commission has no recommendation. - APNs 1100- 031 -08, 1100- 041 -04 through 10, 1100- 051 -03, and 1100- 061 -02 through 04 and portions of 1100- 071 -01 and 02. 6. Approximately ii.t,° acres bords O on the north by Base Line Road, on the scuthaast by the Ontario (I- 15)`Freaway, and on the west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land. The City Council will also consider Office and Neighborhood Commercial at alternative land use designations for this entire area. The Planning Commission recommends denial. - Ar , 1100- 051 -01 and 02 and 1100 - 061 -01. 7. Approximately 10.09 acres bordered on the north and west by exieting Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by existing Office designated land, and on the south by Base Line Road. The City council will also consider office as an alternative land use designation for this entire area. The Planning Commission recommends approval. - APNs 227 - 131 -34 through 36, 52 through 54, and 61. S. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by the Southern Pacific railway, on the east by the Ontario (I -JS) Freeway, on the south by existing Office designated land, and on the west by existing Low Medium designated land and divided in a north -south direction by East Avenue, The City Council will also consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area. The Planning Commission recommends approval for the propertina "rest of East Avenue and denial for the properticas east of East Avenue. - APNs 227- 131 -05 and 227- 141 -14 and 66. Ths Planning Co=issia4'recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.. BhJIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT_ AND- "I • BOMOt W SPECIZIC Pun AMENDMENT 91 -02 - CI=, OF RANCgo CU N A - A proposal to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) for the fo`:lcving subareas within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plans 1. Approximately 14.20 acres bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the east by the eastern City limits, on the south by exiot3,ag Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the west by a utility corridor. The Planning commission recommends denial. APNs 229 - 04110. 2. Approximately 18.46 acres bordered an Ohs north by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Boundary, which is approximately 530 foot north of Ptothill Boulavardl on the east by a utility corridor; on the south by Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by 8tiwanda Avenue. ';,he City Council Aft will also consider Community Commercial, Commercial Office, and Specialty IF Commercial as alternative land use designations for this enti:rs area. The -/. -t' 11 E city council Minutes .Tally 17# 1991 Page 14 i Planning Commission recommek�is approval of the Communicty - commercial designation for the properties from Etiwandn Avenue to approximately 1,'[77 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue and the Commercial Office designation for the rest of the properties in this subarea. - APRs 1100 - 161 -C1 through 04 and • portiorr'of 1100- 201 -01. The Planning C'c.mmimmioa recommends isauance of • Negative Declaration. ZNVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIHMMA SPECIFIC PLAN_ AM &NDMENT 91',;03 - CITY OF RANCHO CVCAHONGA - A proposal to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Los Medium Ittsidential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas within tP.a Etiwanda sxxscific Plans 1. Approximately 27.89 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I -15) freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated Sand, and on the south by commercially designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard. The City Council will also consider &ow Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area. The Planning Commission haw no recommendation. - APMs 227- 211 -02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 21,_and 29. 2. Approximately 87,52 acres bordered an the nox;ti` by Miller Avenue; on the east by East Avenue-and a utility corridor; an the south by the roothill Boulevard Specific P " boundary, which is approximately 530 feet north of foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The city Count,a wlU! also consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area. The Planning Commission recommends approval. AM: 1100- 131 -01 and 02, 1100 - 141 -01 and 02, 2100- IS1 -01 and _02, 1100- 181 -01 and 02, and 1100 - 191 -01. 3. Approximately :0.72 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I -15) freeway, on Lho east by East Avenum and existing Law Medium i'xsidential designated land, and on the south by Miller Aveaus. The City G:: +until will also consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire; area. The Planning Commission bas no recommendation. - APHt 1100- 031 -08, 1100 - 041 -04 through 30, 1100 - 051 -03, and 1100- 061 -02 through 04 and portions of 1100 - 071 -01 and 02. 4. Approximats2vy 11.09 acres bordered on the north by Same Line Road, on the southeast i+y the Ontario (1 -15) freeway, and on the west by existing Low Medium Residential designated Sand. The City CouncZ1 will also consider Office Professional and Convenience Commercial as alternative land use designations for thia entire area. The S-ilnning Commission reconmends denial. - APII 1100 - 051 -01 and 02 and 1100 - 061 -01. City council minutes July 17, 1991 Page 15 S. Approximately 10.09 acres bordered on the north and west by existing Low Medium Resineritial designated land, on the east by existing Office designated land, and on the south by Base Line Road. The City Council will also consider Office Professional as an alternative land use designation for this entire area. The Planning Commission recommends approval. - APN: 227- 131 -34 through 36, S2 through 54, and 61. 6. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by the Souths,•n Pacific railway, on the east by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, an the south by existing Office designated land, and an the west by existing Low Medium designated land and divided in a north- south direction rt East Avenue. The City Council will also consider Low "Asidential r1 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area. The Planning Commission recommends tpproval for the properties west of East Avenue and denial for the properties east of East Avenue. - MPH: 227- 131 -OS and 227- 141 -14 and 66. The Planning commission recommends issuance of a Negative Declarition. Staff report presented by Alan Warren, Associate Planner. Mayor Stout cpenW the meeting for public hearing for General Plan Amendment 91- 01B, Etiwanda specific Plan Amendment 91 -03, and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91 -02. _ ,Subarea 1 of Item F5 Tuere being no response, the public hearing was closed. Subarea _2 of _Item FS Brad Buller stated the city council had'a letter of support regarding this matter. There bel.,¢ no response, the public hearing was closed. Subarea I of Item FS There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Subarea 4 of Item FS Pete Pitessi, architect at 9267 Haven, representing Gramercy Properties (owner of Subarea 4), st }tted he felt if this was approved, it would be an unfair burden on the City towards its goals. He felt the mall also would impact this area. He felt the 1-15 noise and traffic would affect this area. He felt an "M• `designation would be such more flexible for the private sector, and that the "LHI deoignation would decrease the number of units for a residential project which would raias tho cost to purchase a unit. W city Council Minutes July 17, 1991 Page 16 John Peterson, attorney, 351 S. Lake Ave., Pasadena, representing Gramercy propertlea, stated he nas sent two letters to tiie City Council stating their position on this matter. He pointed out to the extent this proposal was carried through, the resulting displacement of development that would occur on the balance of the City was an item he felt needed to be addressed as far as ;environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He mentioned that by stating there was no impact was an incorrect analysis with regards to traffic and drainage. He stated he felt the Council should review what was being done before approving this. He felt tho Council should discuss this with the City Attorney, and because of the ramifications to the City, the potential for inverse cont,emnation before proceed;ng. Richard Werner, owner of property in 5ubatoa 4 (20 acres), felt there would be a great cost because of drainage needed for this area which would ba passed onto the home buyer, from 5500.00 to $1.,.100.00 per unit because ?f tt:j down - zoning. Ho felt there might be trouble gettinc underwriting for the drainage. He also felt there would be affects Frady the mall and the I -15 Freeway. He felt the rezoning of Subarea 2 to commercial would have a negative impact to his property if it was approved. Jeff Burum, 6057 Della, stated their concern was how the down - zoning would affect the housing element and the affordability issue. Be stated they had discussed a plan with staff, .:rich he felt they were in agreement, and the Planning Commission felt it should be looked into. Their plan was the development of rx. overlay district that allowed the development of lots that are single family datachrod (4 -e units per acre) which the Stiwanda Specific Plan does not allow. There heing no further response, the public hearing was closed. Richard Warner, owner of 1S acres in Subarea 5 stated he did not think there should be single- family housing units near the I -IS Freeway. He noted that the Planning Commission split their decision on this item. He felt there should be multi- family units, along •.nia corridor. There being no further response, the public hearing was closed. Subarea 6 of item 75 Barney Svalstad, c�wnar of property in this subareas felt the City Council should reconsider the Planning commission-* decfi on and felt it should be designated freeway related commercial for ccu 2reial uses. He felt it would benefit the City greatly. He stated as an option he would suggest the City council leave it as is and allow for recreational -;ass as he previously mentioned- He stated they "ould like to have a golf coursejdriving range situation for hie' property. Mayor Stout stated he felt a traffic study was needed. He stated he felt it would be better to find out if there were going to be any problema now. -/_ -0 City Council Minutes July 17, 1991 Page 17 Mr. Svalstad stated he did not agree. Jeff Sceranka, 10068 Copper Mountain Court, stated he did not think it should be left at 8 -14 unit = -oer acre, but should, be made NeighborhC:d/ Commercial and designated as such so that Rancho Cucamonga residents do not go to Fontana to shop. There being no further response, the public hearing was closed. Subarea 7 of Item FS Thctre being no - ®sponse, the public hearing was closed. _ ,g.4rea 8 of item FS John Fowler, 7198 East Avenue; did not think his property sihould jbe changed to Low - Medium, and that it should be left at M^dium because of location. He felt the City would lose revenue if it were down -ey rded There being no further response, the public hearing was -dosed. RESOLUTION NO. 91199 A RESOLUTION OF: -THE CITY COUN&'Tii 010' THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING gsENERAL PLAN AMERAMENT 91 -02B, SUBAREA 1, A 10QUEST 5' _ " ;a `I1 TNB GENERAL PWdt 'Y.AND USX MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -44 DWCLLING UNITS PER ACUE) 1"J LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMAT3W 14.20 ACRES OF Lab SQADER8D ON THE NORTH BY FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, ON THE EAST BY T.- 'EASTERN CITY LIMITS, ON THE SOUTH BY EXISTING LOW MEDI']iS RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, XHD ON THE WEST BY A UTILITY CORRIDOR, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN9 229- 041 -13 RESOLUTION N0. 91 -200 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUL:CIL OF. THE -CITY OF RANCHO CUCX4ONGA, P.ALIFORNIA, 3)EHYING FOOTHILL- BCULBVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMNDPd M 91-02, SUBAREA 1, A ;REQUEST TO :AH2140 THE FOOTHILL BOSLBVArg''SPL t° PLAN LAND USE MAP FROK NEIDJUX RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 VMLLING UNITS PJR ACRE) TO LOW Pi -DIUK RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROEIMATS&Y 14.29 ACRES CF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY FOOTHILL BOULZVARD, ON THE V.4T BY TIM EASTERN CITY LIMITS, 017 THE SOUTH BY EXISTING LOWiMDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE WEST BY A UTILITY CORRIDOR, AND 14MaNG FINDINGS IN SUPPORT TS%REOF - APN: 229- 441 -10 City Council Minutes July 17, 1991 Page 18 RESOLUVON NO. 91 -201 A 'RESOLUTION OF : -"FR CITY COUNCIL OAT THE CITY OF M-CaO CUCAT:ONGA, CALIFO.41A, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 41 -02B, SUBAREA 2, AMEN IdG THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESID.BNTIAL (8• -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO A COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION WITH A M.NSTER PLAN REQUIREMENT FOR APPROY7H.ITELY 4.25 ACRES OF LAND 430 FEET NORTH AND 200 FEET EAST - JF THU NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BO=EVARD AND RTIW:ANDA AVENUE (APN* 1100- 161 -0:1 ANO 03j, AND TO AN OFFICE )ESIGNAT`Jti WITH A MPZTER PLAN REQUIREMENT FOR APMOXIMATELY 1.5 ACF.JS BORWIRED ON THE NORTH AND WEST BY EXISTING MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, ON THE EAST BY A UTILITY CORRIDOR, AND ON SHE 30UTa BY FL.ITHILL BOULEVARD, (WESTERN PORTION OF APBs 1100- 2G1 -0s), AND MK';ING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF ARN: 1100- 161 -01 AND 03 AND A PORTION OF 1100- 201 -01 RESOLUTION NO. 91 -202 A RESOLUTION bF THZ CITY COUNCIL OF TER CITY OF RANCIO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FOOTHILL VrLEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AME.`lDMKMT 91 -02, SUBAREA 2, AMENDVgG THE FOOTHILL AEL 1p BOULEVARD StTC7FIC PLAN LAND USE HAP FROM MEDIUM RBSIDiENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO A COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION WITH A MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT FOR APPROXIMATELY 4,25 ACRES OF LAND 430 FEET NORTE WD 200 FEET EA4T OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF F007HILL 7AULEVAm AND ETTtANDA AVENUE (AP.:: 1100- 161 -01 AND 031, AM TO -A COMMERCIAL OFFICE DESIGNATION WITH A MASTER. PLAN REQUIREMENT FOR APPROXIMATELY 1.5 ACRES 3ORDZRZD ON THE NORTE ANJ WEST BY EXISTING KZDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, ON THE EAST BY A UTILITY CORRIDOR, Ax;i ON THE :SOUTH BY FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, (WESTERN PORTION OF APNs 1100- 201 -01), AND SING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100- 161 -01 APED 03 AND A PORTION OF 1100- 201 -01 RZ80LUTIOU NO. 91-203 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITZ OF RANCHO CUP-MO MA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -028„ SUERM 3, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN L -yc D USZ MAP FROM MEDIUM RNSILANTIAL (6 -14 D'tit!'LLING UNITS PEP. ACRE) TO LOW KZDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APP20XXMRTZLY 27.89 ACRES OF LAND BORIVARD ON THE MORTHHBS't 3Y TEE ONTARIO (I� -15) TRESWAY, ON TIM EAST BY ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EXISTING LOW MZDIUK RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE..SOMM SY.LXISTING COMMERCIAL DESIGNATED LAND BORDERING FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS 71 SUPPORT "HZREOF - APN: 227- 211 -02, 04, O5, 09, 10, 15, V(j, k= 29 I i City Council Minutes July 17, 1991 Page 19 ORDINANCE NO, 450 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE 'CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -03, SUBAREA 1, AMENDING THE ETIWANDA SPSCIFZC PLAN LAM USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 D=, ING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW PlE,DIC-ira nSIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING- UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 27.4-1 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON TI'8 NORTHWEST BY THE O?TARIO (I -15) NREEWAY, ON THE EAST '.iy ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EXISTING LOW .lMDZUH tt3SIDMITIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE SOUTH 2f BXISTISG COMMERCIAL DESIGNATED LAND BORDERING FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, ACD "MKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - i.PNs 227- 211 -02,r 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, '20, 29. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -204 A ,OLUTIOR CF' THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH8 CITY OF RANCHO 4 ;6-:sMONGA, CALVi ,')UTA, DENYING GENF"AL. PLAN :# MENDMENT 91 -028, SUBAREA 3, A REQUEST TO AMEIiD THE GENERAL PLAN LAND nSE l£P.P MOM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -1A DWELLING WHITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 27, 89 ACRES OF LAND` SOIQDEM ON THE NORTHWEST BY THE ONTARIO (I -Ly) FREEWAY, ON THE MAST BY ETIWANDA A':IENUE AND EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE SOUTH BY ZXISiING COMMERCIAL DESIGNATED LAND BORDERING FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APNs 227- 211 -0l,, 04„ 05, 09, 10, 13,= 20, AND 29. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -205 A RESOLD% - -,W OF T'.IE CITY COUNCIL OF TITS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA# CALIFORNIA, DEN ZING ZTIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -03, SUBAREA 1, A RIQUZST TO AMEND TEX BTIWANDA SPECIFIC PLA.1 LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PEP, ACRE) FOF A.PP=IMATBLY 27.89 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE WJRTHWEST BY THE ONTARIO (1 -15) FREEWAY, ON TH2 EAST BY ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDEIiTIM DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE SOUTH BY EXISTING COMMERCIAL DESIGNATED LAND BORDERING FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS %N u�UPPORT THMOF - ApNs 227- 211 -02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 20, AND 29 RESGLUTION NO. 91 -206 A RESOLUTION of Tn CITY em em Of' THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIh,, APPROVING GXMt; t PLIM AMENDMENT 91 -026, SUBAN:.A 4, AMBNDZNG = GENERAL PLAT! LAND C SZ MAP FROH MEDItI:t RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWSLLIOG UNITS PER ACRE) TO A Lahr MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DtMIZING UNITS PER ACRE) DISTGNATION WITFI A MASTLR pLAX REQUIRW= FOR APPROXIMATELY 87.52'ACRES or UM BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY MILM AVENUE) ON THE EAST BY Im AOL City Council Minutes July 17, 1991 Page 20 EAST AVENUE AND A UTILITY CORRIDOR; ON THE SOUTH BY THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 530 FEET NOTaH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD; AND ON THE WEST BY ETIWANDA AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS xN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100- 131 -01 AND 02, 1100- 041 -0_ AND 02, 1100- lil -01 AIM 02, 1::00- 181 -01 AND 02, AND 1100- 191 -01 ORDINANCE NO. 451 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THR CITY COUNCIL, OF TSE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -U3, SUBAREA 2, RENDING THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC %W. LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL ,(4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) DESIGNATION WITH A MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT FOR APPROXIMATELY 87.52 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTF BY MILLER AVENUE; AN THE EAST BY EAST AVENUE AND A UTILITY CORRIDOR; ON THE S-- -TH BY THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 530 FEET NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD; AND ON THE WEST BY ETIWANDA AVENUE, AND MAILING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100- 131 -01 AND 02, 1100 - 141 -01 -AND 02, 1100- 151 -01 AND 02, 1100- 181 -01 AND 02, 1100 - 191 -01 RESOLUTION NO. 91 -207 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,_ APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -028, SUBAREA 5, AMENDING TLA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 30.72 ACRES OLD LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTHWEST BY THE ONTARIO (I -15) FREEWAY, ON THE EAST BY EAST AVENUE AND EXISTING LOW M DZIM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE SOUTH BY MILLER AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN °UPPOI�T THEREOF - APNs 1100 - 035,-08, 1100- 041 -04 THROUGH 10, 1100 - 051 -03, AND 1100 - 061 -02 MtOUGR 04, AND PORTIONS OF 1100- 071 -01 AND 02 ORDINANCE NO. 452 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF; RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALMRNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC P*.,e.`: AMENDMENT 91 -13, SUBAREA 3, AMENDING THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE HAP FROM MEDIUH RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM REBIDENTM (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 30.72 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE *ORTMOST BY THE ONTARIO (I -15) 8"amy, ON THE EAST BY EMT AVENUE AND XXISTIM LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE SOUTH BY MILLER AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APNs 1100- 031 -08, 1100 - 041 -04 THROUGH 10, 1100- 051 -03, 1100- 061 -02 THROUGH 04, AND PORTIONS OF 1100- 071 -01 AND 02 city Council minutes V, July 17, 1991'' - Page 21 RESOLUTION NO. 91 -208 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -020, SUBAREA 5, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL ,(4 -8 DWELLING UNITS, PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 30.72 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED"ON THE NORTHWEST BY THE ONTARIO (I -15) FREEWAY, ON THE EAST BY EAST AVENUE AND EXISTING LOW MEDRUH RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AWE` ON THE SOUTH BY MILLER AVENUE, AND HARING FINDINGS IN SUPa OEL !HEREOF - APNs 1100 - 031 -08, 1100 - 041 -04 THROV 10, 1100- 051 -03, AND 1100- 061 -02 THROUGH 04, AND PORTIONS Oi -1100- 071 -01 AND 02 RESOLUTION NO. 91 -209 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO I CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -03, SUBAREA 3, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE ETIVANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL !'�8 -14 DWELLING VAITS PER ACRE) To LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING uRxT$ PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 30.72 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTHWEST BY THE ONTARIO (I -15) FREEWAY, ON THE EAST BY EAST AVENUE AND EXISTZNG LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED UM, AND ON THE SOUTH BY MILLER AVENUE, AND MAKING SINDINGS'IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APNS ;1100- 031 -08, 1100- 041 -04 THROUGH 10, 1100- 051 -03, 1100- 061 -02 THtODt,u 04, AND PORTIONS OF 1100 - 071 -01 AND 02 RESOLUTION NO. 91 -210 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY' - `COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, tiALjFORNIA, DEHYIHG''GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -02B, SUBAREA 6, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14-DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 11.09 ACRES OF UMD BORDERED ON TAP, NORTH BY BASE LINE ROAV;, ON THE SOUTEMAST glY THE ONTARIO (I -15) L-ZMY, AND ON THE REST BY EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAUD, AND VMING BINDINGS IN ivrPORT TBBREOF - Am 1YOO- 051 -01 AND 02 AND 1100-061-01 RESOLUTION NO. 91 -211 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF T�% CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING ETIWAN9{R SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA 4 A RKWMST TO 104ZND ETIWANDA SPECIpSC PLAN LAND USE MAP :YROX MEDIUM ''.RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRB) TO LOW TEDIUM Rl',3DENTIAL (4 -8 I �G City Council Minutes July 17, 1991 Page 23 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 11.09 ACRES OF LAND ,., BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY BASE LINE ROAD, ON THE SOUTHEAST BY THE ONTARIO (I -15) FREEWAY, AND ON THE WEST BY EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND,- AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100 - 051 -01 AND 02 AN-' 1100 - 061 -01 RESOLUTION NO. 91 -212 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AP?'ROViNG GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -02B, SUBAREA 7, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 10.09 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH AND WEST JY EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, ON THE EAST. BY EXISTING OFFICE DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE SOUTH BY EASE 4INE ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THI-ImOF - APH: 227- 131 -34 THROUGH 36, 52 THROUGH 54, AND 61 ORDINANCE NO. 453 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE► OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETINANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -03, SUBAREA 5, AMENDING T�M ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE M" FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLIN3 UNIT'S PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 10.09 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH AND WEST BY EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, ON THIZ EAST BY EXISTING OFFICE /PROFESSIO.NAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND Oil THE SOUTH BY BASE LINE ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT 1,REOF - APN: 227- 131 -34 THROUGH 36, 52 THROUGH 54, AND 61 RESOLUTION NO. 91 -213 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCRMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAT! AMENDMENT 91 -028, WEST PORTION OF SUBAREA 8, AMENDING THE GENZRRL PLAN LAND USE MAP FI`M MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APYROTiIMATELY 10 ACRES OF LAND BONS. =HRED ON THU NORTH BY THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC,, RAILWAY, ON THE EAST BY EAST AVENUE, ON THE SOUTH BY EXISTT1AG OFFICR DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE WEST BY EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND APN: 227 - 741 -14 AND 661 AND DENIAL OF THE LAST PORTION OF SUBAREA 8, REQUESTING TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP IN TEE SAM MAiMM AS THE NEST PORTION FOR APPROXIMATELY 10.34 ACRES OF rao BORDERED ON Tax NORTH BY THE sOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY, OM THE EAST AND SOUTH BY THE ONTARIO (I -15) FREE'rm, FIND ON THE WEST BY EAST AVENUE - APN: 227-131-01-55, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF try, 1 i City Council Minutes July 17, 1991 Pare 23 ORDINANCE No. 4S4 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE, CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CPS.IFORNIA, APPROVING BTIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -03, WEST PORTION OF SUBAREA 6, AMENDING THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM' MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 10.00 ACRES OF LAND BOACERED ON THE NORTH BY TES SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY', ON THE EAST BY EAST AVENUE, ON THE SOUTH BY EXISTING OFFICE DESIGNATED LVIDs AND ON THE WEST SY 1EXISTING LOW MEDIUM: RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND - APN: 227 - 141 -14 AND 66 AND M M117G FIEDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF RESOLUTION NO. 91 -214 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAT AMENDRENT 91 -03, EAST PORTION OF SUBAREA 6# A REQUEST TO AMEND THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND US? MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWEL.R.ING UNITS PER !ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 -DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 10.34 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC F.AILWAY, ON THE EAST AND SOUTH BY THE ONTARIO (I -15) FREEWAY, AND ON ThE WEST BY EAST AVENUE - APR: 227- 131 -05, AND HARING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF Subarea 1 of Item F5 it Councilmember Buquet asked James Markman, City Attorney, to comment on 5Om9 of the statements previously made, i.e., Inverse condemnation, Uhich he ,continued to explain to the Council. ':OTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Alexander to approve Resolution Nov. 91 199 and 91 -200. Motion Carried unanimously, 4 -0 -1 (Wright absent) . MGPSON: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Alexander to appRove Resolution Nos. 91 -201 and 91 -202. Motion carried unanimously, 4 -0 -1 (Wright absant)t_ ' pybareas 3 and MOTION: Moved by Stout, seconded by Buquet to refer this back to the Planning t CommissiQn for a recommendation to come back to the City Council when there could j be five Councilmembers present. Motion carried % umnilously, 4 -0 -1 (Wright absent). Councilmember Buquet clarified this would not come back before the next General Plan cycle which would be in about four months. IE K 11 City Council Minutes July .;7, 1991 Page 24 Sy�baron 4 of Item PS Councilmember Williams stated she felt it should be loft alone and not take the reco6mendation because she dirt not think it was an appropriate ,place for single - family dwelling units and that it should be multi- family units. Councilmember Alexander stated he did not have any great opposition to the Planning Commission's decision. Mayor Stout stated he does not agree with the Etiwcada Specific Plan because it was at ,Dosed to be rural, and it was not, He felt; thorn was too much density in this aya. He felt this was the last cl.ance for the City Council to do somothing about this area. He added he agreed with the Planning Commiesipa'e decision on this matter. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Oxdinance tip,. 451. MOTION: Moved by Alcxamler, seconded by Buquet o waive full reading of lydinancm No. 451. Motion carried unanimously, 4 -0 -1 (Wright). MOTION: Moved by Alexander, secondsd,by Stout to approve Resolution No. 91 -206 and set second Leading of Ordinance No. 451 for August 7, 1591. Motion carried 3 -1 -1 (Williams no= Wright absent). Brad Buller, City Planner, added even with the vote made, it was still staff's and the Commission's ?ntention to work with the property owners to develop standards that would aLl wt them to reasonably bsild within the 4 -8 dwelling units per acre, and to maintain the quality of development as mentioned ty the Mayor. Subalrea _6_ of_Item FS_ Councilmember Buquet stated he was rot sure the designation should be changed tonight and folt it should be deferred to the next cycle. Mayor Stout and CouncUmember Williams :felt they would like to get additional information on this matter before voting. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the Planning Commission's understanding was that the applicant wished purars commercial designation or the temporary use because they did not indicate they world be opposed to that. The Planning Commission asked that the applicant- prepare the necessiary application analysis that would support that recommandatioa'n as opposed to sending staff off to do the analysis to suprpzrt commercial designation for the property, or :ook at tta Btiwanda Specific plan to come up with language that woult come up with that use. The applicant indx,c;ated he would be consulting with a planning first to develop the proposed ianguaga` for that, and then ttte planning Commission would consider that. Mayor Stout stinted he did not feel that was unrensonable. r -L -V city Council Minutes July 17, 1991 4age 25 Brad Eviler, City Planner, stated with that in mind the Council could leave it at Medium designation until the applicant submits an appl:.cation to change it to somethSng else, MOTION: Moved by Alexander, weconded by Williams to approve Resolution Hon. 91 210 and 91- 211. - Motion carried unanimously, 4-0.1 (Wright absent). S bares 7 and Subare{A 9f Itsm Ps Councilmember Buquet stated he was not comfortable with this a'ld his tiros and would like a more firm recca<mendation before he makes a decision. Councilmembers Alexander and Williams agreed that Subarea 7 should go back to the Planning rAmissicn- Mayor Stout stated he tiould als!a like a better recommendation on Subarea S. He also suggested that proponents submit their comments in wrlti�g for the Council to review ahead of the meeting. MOTIONS Moved by "-aquet, saeondod by Alexander to defer Subare,,'a 7 and 8 to the Planning commission. Motion carried unanimously, 4 -0 -1 (Wright absent). c��tPDL�C P�E11ttiNmN Gl. NO. 88 -2 tDRAY±? wt Staff report presented by Jim Hart, Administrative Services Director. Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public hearing.• Addrensing the City Council was: Jeff Hollis, 13948 Crescents, thanked the City Council for sending out the notification and infoLvAtion for this matter. He stated hi.s concern was that ones the new Districts were through forming, he would litre to become part of the City and atop paying for their own services. He stated the C=U"t he got today when he asked that question of staff was that It was an indefinite assessment- Mayor Stout commented on the Law Eniorcament Tax stating the intent originally was that all of the Etiwanda North area would be included in this to include possibly even a substation. He stated in the event the City does not go further with the annexation process, this ta,- .would be deleted. There Ming no further response, the public hearing was closed. City Council Minutes July 17, 1991 Page 26 RESO_UTION.iNO. 91 -215 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE 3ITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX E,tOR C"HMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88 -2 (DRAINAGE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT) MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by WillisIms to approve Resolution No. 91- 215. Motion carried unanimously, 4-0 -1 (Wright absent). G2. CONSIDERATION TO SET ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMQNITY FACILITIE2 _21STRICT NO. 84 -1 (DAY CREEK DRAINAGE SYSTEMI IN THE AMOUNT Or S350,00 PER ACRE Staff report presented by Jim Hart, Administrative Servlcec..Director. Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. i? RESOLUTION No. 91 -2d6 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO Amok CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 84 -1 (DAY CREEK DRAINAGE SYSTEM) MOTIONt Moved by Williams, seconded by Alexander to approve Resolution No. 91- 216. Motion carrLad unanimously, 4 -0^ {Wright absent). 03. CONSIDERATIOW OF AN ORDTNANCE FWBI§jTjNG SXA_'EBOARD RAMPS, AALF PIPES AND OTHER SIMILAR PHYSICAL STRUCTURES ON POS,=D PUBLIC PROPERTY _ Staff report presented by Jos Schultz, Community Services Director. Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public hoL-rinq. Addressing the City Council worst Marcus Solomon, 914 Placer, Ontario, stated he did not agree that the City should be able to take away the ramps. He did not think the City -jhculd prohibit them from skateboarding in the parks.: Hs stated he wished the Council would use soma equilibrium that 1s they take something away they would give something back. i CounciLmsmber Buquat stated he did not think the City Council was taking something away. j Mayor Stout asked if Mr. Solomon gives skateboarding classes. Mr. Soloman responded yes. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REFORT DATE: May 22, 1991 TO: Chairman and of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, 'City Planner By: Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner Alan Warren, Associate Planner SUBJECT: 7WZjRM=NTAL ASSESSMENT AND PEHE1LaT. FLAN AP9`.T7nNAENT_ Q1 02n rimy of EMCHO CUCAMpX - A pc.,posal to amend the Ge "ral Plan Land Use Element Map from Mediums, RaSideFpial (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Lov Medium- 1tesidetitia1 (4 -8 &`elling units per acre) for the following( subareas within the Etiwanda and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan areas: : 1. ' < Approximately 14.20 acres bordered on the north by foothill Boulevard, on the east by the eastern, City limits, or_ the south by existing Lox Medium Residential designated land, and on the west by a utility corridor - APN: 229 - 041 -10. iz. Approximately 18.45 acres bordered on the north by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which is approximately 530 feet north o_ Foothill Boulevard, on the erst by a utility corridor; on the south by Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The Aity will consider `Commercial and Office as alterm'ttive land use designationa-ror this entire area - APN. 1100- 161 -01 through 04 and a portion of 1100 - 201 -01. 3. Approximately 27.89 acres bordered or the northwest, 'by the Ontario (5 -15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenu,, and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by commercially designated land bordering roothil. Boulevard. the City will consider Lot. Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area APN: 227- 211 -02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 20, and 29. 4. Appra.-imately 87.52 acres Lordered on the north by Hiller Avenue; on the east by `Last Avenue and a utility corridor; on the south by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which is approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevar& and on the west by Etiwandi Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units p(6w acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 1100 - 131 -071 and 02,1100- 141 -01 and 02, 1100 -151 01 and 02,-1100- 181 -01, _ o ?; and 1100- 191-11. 5. Approximately ;30.72 acia4 bocdiered on the northwest by the Cntario (I -i15) Freeway, on the east uy East Avenue and existing 'Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue. The City w ;11 consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire arsa.J APN: 1100- 031 -08, 1100- 041 -04 through 10, llao- 051 -03, and 1100- 061 -02 through 04 and portions of 1100- 071 -01 and 02. ' Exhibit 9 , PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91 -028, FSPA 91 -02, 4 ESPA 91 -03 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMW9GA May 22, 1991 Page 2 6. Approximately 11.09 acres bordered on the north by Base Line Road, on the southeast by the Ontario (1 -15) ' Freeway, and;`, on the west by existing how Medium Residential eesignated land. The City will consider Office and Ne!Vmborhood Commercial as alternative land use designations for this entire area - APN' 1100 -051 -- 01 and 02 and 1100 - 061 -01. 7. Approximately 10 .09 acres borde ' on the north and west by existing Low Medium Residcn *ial designated land, on the east by existing Office designated land, and on the south by Base Line Road. T.,$ City will id conser Office as an alternative land use designaticu for :.nis entire area - APN: 227- 131 -34 through 36, 52 through 54, end 61. 8. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by the Southern Pacific railway, on the east by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the south by existing Office designated land, and on the west by existing Low Medium designated land and dividad in a north -south direction by East Avenue.­-The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 227131 -05 and 227 - 141 -14 and 66. 'ENV:[RMM=AL ASSFSq= AD1S) FOOTHILL R!'1tiT1`VAR11 CPRCTC PLAN AMF.AiP)MF.NT. -07 —A2 — /_ =ZTY OF RANCHO GCYGAMyA A pi '1 P I La:. . amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan: 1. Approximately 14.20 acres bordered on the north by Toothill, Boulevard, on the <�east :�f the eastern City limits, on L ?.z south by existing Lou Medium Residential designated land, and on the vest by a utility corridor - APN: 229- 0+41 -10 2. Approximately 18.k6 acres bordered on the north by the Foothill Bcul:sva.d 3pecific Plan Boundary, 4hich, approximately 530 feet north of vootti-IIl- Boulevard, t the east Uy a utility corridor,-' on'-the south + Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue, The City will consider Community Commercial, Commercial Office, and Specialty Commercial as alternative land use designations for this entire azea - APH: 1100 -161- 01 through 04 and a portion of 1100 - 201 -01. ,,MRQHWCBL Ass AM FTrWAMA SPFC4 F s PLAN AMENUMM ? gg o1 a -- y> , si ucxa _Guranu�x -A - A propesal to amend the Etiwanda Specific ]Plan Land Use Map from r3edium Residential (8 -14 iwelling :+a; is per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -6 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas witkIn the Etiwanda Specific Plan: 1. Approximately 27.88 r.tlre3 bordered on the northwest by the Ont_tio (1 -15) Freewsty, on the east by Etiaanda Avenue 1 d existing Low Medium Residential desigmaiad land, a s'oa the south by commercially designated land borderl 4 Foothill Boulevard. Th"ity will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per arse) as an alternative lane use deaignatiaa for this entire -,area �L;, APR: 04, 05, 04, 10, 15, 2ur,.and 29" . 227 <211 -02. PLANNING C010I7SSION.STAFF REPORT GPi 91 -02B, P3PA 91 -02, & ESPA 91 -03 - CITY OF RANCHO COCAMMQA May 22, 1991 Page 3 2. Approximately 87.52 acres bordered on the north by Biller Avenue; on the east by East Avenue and a utility corridor; on the south by the Fsothill Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which is approximately 530 feet north of Fcothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units par acre) as an alternative land use designation for th4s antire area - APN: 1100 -131- 01 and 02, 1100- 141 -01 and 02, 1100- iS1 -01 and 02, 1100- 181 -01 and 02 and 1100- 191 -01. 3. Approximately 30.72 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative laud use designation '.,r this entire area - APN: 1100 - 031 -08, 1100- 041 -04 '.Trough 10, 1100 - 051 -03, and 1100- 061 -02 through 04 and portions of 1100 - 071 -01 aid 02. 4. :.pproximately 21.09 acres bordered on the north by Basm- Line Road, on the southeast by the Ontario (I -15) or, the west by existing Low Mediu Freeway, and Residential designated lend. The City will conside . Office Profession . and Convezience Commercial as alternative land use designations for this entire area - APN: 1100- 051 -01 and 02 and 1100- 061 -01. 5. Approximately 10.09 acres bordered on the north and west by existing Law Medium Residential designated. land, on the east by existing Office designated land, and on the south by Base Line Road. The City -will consider Office Professional as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 227 - 131 -34 through 36, 52 through,'},, and 61. 6. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by the Southern Pacific railway, on the eases by the Ontario (1 -15) Freeway, on the south by ext;stiag Office designated land, and on the crest by existing Low Medium Residential designated land and divided in a north- south direction by East Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units pen acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 2'.'•131 -05 and 227 - 141 -14 and 66. I, Par aoym & Dr. ^QMTON: The City Council held public workshops on August 9, 1990, and January 31, 1991, regarding multiple family housing development in the City. These workshops arose from the citizens' concerns regarding tha� incretsing development of multiple family dwelling units and the decreasing number of single fancily dwelling unit developments which are gradually changing the community's residential character. Prior to these workshops, City staff reviewed the curra=nt status of multiple family housing. Using various scenarios, sta €_ identified the effects on City revenues and services if multiple family undeveloped land was rezoned to single family or other non - residential design4tions. During these workshops, citiaens and City Council members voiced concern over increased traffic volumes, increased demands on City services, cad overcrowding in local schools, which were all perceived to be linked to the increasing number of multiple family dwelling unit developments. As a result of °'hese workshops, the City 'Council dir3cted the Planning Commission to jevelop PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91 -023, FSPA 41 -02, & ESPA 91 -03 - CITY OF %'RANCH0 CUC:MONGA May 22, 1991 Page 4 recommendations to reduce the community's amount and density of vacant mritiple family land through the City's foul lard use amendment process to a build -out ratio of 32 -35 pereent for multiple family units. An amendment process has been established to review land use changes for Etiwanda, `victoria, and the western general City area. Because of the large amount of vacant multiple family land which does not -have development applications submitted, the Etiwaud3 area is the first portion of the City tbat the Planning Commission will review. There are V properties %sager consideration totalling approximatb�y 220.31 acres of land designated Medium Residential (8- 14 dwelling units per acre). The study area has been divided into eight subareas (ree attached map). The Planning Coumission and City Council may act on the entire stucC area-as a whole, they may act on the subareas.separately, or trey m.y act on properties individually. The Planning Commias;'.on and Ci::y Council will Also consider alternative land uses as indicated in this report. In order to make the proposed changes, three separate City docccnenta must be amended. The�General Plan amendment is necessary to modify the General Plan LandUse Map that provides generalized land uses for the City. The Eti<wanda and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendments will modify �he 1, -ad use zoning maps in those (Wouments to be in conforr'nee witkl the new General Plan designations. On April 23, 1991, staff ;ponducted a neighborhood meeting with the affected property owners and those -LtLin 300 feet of the study area of the City - initiated W aral Plaw Amsndment. The intent of the meeting was to give interested property owners,the opportunity to ask staff questions regarding the amendsiente: Tle main ^oncern expressed at the meeting was that the req:�f'` -d udnimum lot size was too large in the Low Medium Residential o! aiiet for .single family detached products in the Etiwanda $po fie Plan. Au adjustment to the lyt size requirements would s.- -aLre peparata action by the P1ann nY Cou d.ssion or City Council to iait� "<,.in applicr.tion in this regard. II. BUSW;M: Because of the large number-. # properties involved, the analysis will be divided into the following two .2vgments: A. A review of issues which igeaerally apply to all the subareas within the appl cation Area ..-id including cumulative effects of the land use amendment in totat. B. A review of the subarea recommendations, alternatives, aLd land specific issues relating to each proposed amendment. 1. $Psid n•aal Land U s; During the workshop reviews,, ruff's analysis of the unit density reduction revolverk around the premise that most Of the changes should stay withim tho res_dentiul la=rd use citagoriss. It was assumed that rla least amount of Sand use oonfl-rs would result from this approach. Therefore, staif'a initial land use consideration for all the properties is to tine next lower dnnaity range, Law iiedium Residential (4 -8 dwelling 'Nits per acre). PLAMING COMUSSION STAFF AEFORT GPA,91- 02D, .FSPA 91 -02, a ESPA 91 -03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAAONGA may 22, 1991 Page 5 i approach has some = -;added validity due totthe This pp original General Plan density ranges which: included an exg:%nded Medium Residential range o" 4 -14 dwelaing units per acre. Staff be: „teves this previous range clearly indicated that-, within the- hfeWAIM Residential' designation, Low Medium Residential Jdeieia rt Could be allowed and- perhaps bo preferable in certain Rituations. The G°nesa%2 Plan, Medium Residential designation was emended to Q -14 dw;alling un:t' per acre to Conform with the Development D tstrict Low Xedium Residential designation r.inge on ::ov.,.mber 5, 1966 (GPA 06-03 Text). The General Plan and respect' ra specific plan -- 2. Smu"i : amendment proposals are, as previoftilly ,stated:, the City Couno ” di.tection to J insure a multiple result of , famiz�+ unit perceatage• of betweea,21to;35 percent at Therifore,IIjtht: anticipated the City's build -out. future housing unit counts will, I!' significantly lowerad if., approval is given , cor- these land use propo3als and fr>ure anticj- ;;.ted density reductions in = - northern Yricto :.is and the City" ' A „est side.. The cumulative effects of the density reductior.3'city wide) on the anticipated num)aer of, Vew units yet to be developed is as follows': a. The total, reffiuction in multi Ae family units represents a 5 to 6 percent ic.a in the multiple is AWL family unit Percentage at build out than what presently anticipated with the existing land use designations., b. The total unit reduction at build -gut will be between 1,400- 1,,500, assuming 52.5 percent density_ range developmcc,t. The decrease in multiple family unite All be just over 4,000 and the increase in single family units will near 2,600. c. IYa regards to the General P1a.,: Housing Element, the unit seductions should nut. conflict with any s cific policies, goals, or objectives. The Hsing Element provisions provide programs which aid in the development and impzovem€nt:.ot the City's housing stock. Generally, programs which list specific numbers of units to be built or aided fall vithin the anticip &ted number of units kxpRcted under the amended LrUd -out totals- Reductions in total build -out units will result in greater portions of lox and vary 1tiw income units, program -aided units, QLO, .•, * sthin the lower total of units yet to be developed. Also, the t,nit reductions will bring the anticipated.: , '94',- total of build -out units wjzhin approximately the total SLAG �ogional �Housinj Needs percent of Assessment (RMi) -snit numbers for 1994; and about 16 percp -t of the very low, low, '44d moderate ur-its for the a&" period. ,1` PLANNING COVACSSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91 -02B, Fbfa 91 -02, S ESPA PI-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUC'.MONGA May 22, ;:991 Pace \ GZNZRAL PLAN 1iMZNDNEW SUBAREA 3 ETIm a SPRCIrXC PLAN ANENDHZHT SUBARZA 1 1. 5J and Site n stir.' Uen: a, a^ZU�Q}�ntiing .Land 'j;�e and Zoning: North - Ontario (I -15) Freeway South - Church and commercial business, Regional Related Commercial and Community Commercial in the Foothill Boulevard Sce:i£ic Plan cast - Etiwanda Avenue rmd Uaderdeveloped land, Loa` =5dium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) and " Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units pe: acre) West - Ontario (I -15) Freeway b. Gen,era1 Elan i sign^tiens; Project Site - Medium Residential units per acre) North - Freeway South - Commercia., East - Special Boulevard, Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre)., aald Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) West - .Freeway p,c_hg a is ? s The-;�aite is generally flat with a natural average slope of less thran 5 percent, sloping to the south. The Ontario (1 -15) Free fa I emb; ;, xhent borders the entire length of the north and nest b;s adary. A single famill residence occupies the northeKsr,in portion of the area. The plant material consists p.�ivsarily of Eucalyptus tree windows and wild grasses. 2. &abare ,---n a Assnsm2=t: Staff has reviewbd Part I of the Initial Study and ompleted the Environmental Checklisl -, Fast II of the initial Study, and has found no significan"'adverae enviror rental i3apacts would occur �e a result of the proposcl General Plan li Amendment and Etiwanda-$pecific Plan Amendment. 3. loan -Uaf, Analysis: _ a. ARR=Rriatenass of Low Medium Us _,e In thp_ area: The crea in c1nestion surrounds a sizeable Law Medium area to tte east, midway between Foothill Boulevard and Miller Avenue. A field inspection noted that the freeway traffic did not greatly affect one's perception of the rural atmosphere. This was due to tote high elevation of the roadway along the entire northwest border. Therefore, staff believes that the area in question exhibits very similar characteeistics to thR sx$,sting Low Medii= Residential land to the east. the Low Medium Residential land is primarily undeveloped with'a few single family re313ence3 fronting on Etiwanda Avenue. b, mnndn Sr&r an The changing from Medium Residential to Low Medium Residential at thin locaAion raises no conflicts with General Plan. or Etiwanda Specific Plan provisions. The change would PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91 -028, FSPA 91-02, 6 ESPA 91 -0$x- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 22, 1991 Page 17 better help promote the xeten23on of rural chara& "eristics promoted by the Etiwanda. Specific Plan by reducin; £utuze residential density. a. +en If Al" n . ;gnatienR; To provide they Commission with alternatives to the existing and proposed' deaignutiot,a, staff has included an analysis -of Low` Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)., Consideration of it thla site for Low; Residential development should not present any significant I''and use conflicts. However, it would not , seem appropriate to place less density on the site which is \`\ bordered on the east by the - existing Low Medium Residential 1 land. Currently, there is no Low Residential land between Foothill Boulevard and the freeway. if the Planning Commission believes this at::ernative designation is more appropriate, a final determi.netion could be made at this time because. the environmental analysis and conclusions would not differ significantly for Low Residential as compared to Low Medium Residential. 4. E=nmmp-neled Land—UM: Staff recommends the existing Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) land use designation' be, changed to tow Medium Re3identlal'(4 -8 dwelling units per acre) for the properties located in Suba =ea 3 of, this application. Staff believes the following facts for £indi$gs can be made with this recommendation: ;i a. Ths properties located in Subarea 3 are suitable for the'uses permitt4d in,t1he proposed General Plan and Etiwanda Spegific Plan land use designations a'.d are compatible with existing and surrounding land use designations as evidenced by the site's being bt�rdered `on thu east by the same land use designation. b. The proposed amendment will not bavO significant impacts on the environment nor on the si?rrounding properties as evidenced,by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of,�the Initial Environmental Study and the fact that the proposal would reduce the intensity of residential development ,,o:► the subject propeiiies. C. The proposed amendment, is in conformance with the General Plan and - Etiwanda Specific Plan by promoting the tet3ntion of the community's rural atwosphere through zeduceO-tesidential unit de.3sitie3. General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan Resolutions of Approval are f attached for iSle Commission's ceuaideration. PLPIRT MG CM4MISSION OTAFF REPO'lT GpA 91 -02B, fSPA 91 -02, a ESPA 91 -03 —CITY OF FANCHO CUCAMONM May 22, 1991 Page 22 - 1. 2. 3. i Gl27SRnI. PI,7LN SUBARVA 5 " E5�I1TiYh1a SpBCi� SC PS+AR A =A'T SuRaRzA . 3 fl}a_2CZi2 ions: praiacr and Site a. n i O In Jn7 .and r4 1D' P;orth - qnt &rio (I -IF) Freeway and und$ "�peloped'lanci. Medium South - Miller Avenue Reraidential (8-14 dwelling units per acre), lid Low (4 -8 dwelling units per ai =r Medium Resitential tae Etiwanda Specific Plan East - East Avenue and undeveloped land, Office in the Fontana (Weet Sad Specific Plan) City of West; - Ontario (2 -1:) Freeway b. S� Project Site - Ream Residential (R -14 dwelling units Per f " acre) North - Freeway South - Secondary Arterialr Medina ResidentiaL'(8 -14 and Low Medium dwelling units_Jses acre), Residential t4 -5 dwelling units per acre) East - Sewondary Arterial and Office ( :ity of Fontana) West - Freuaay C. Ci Po +� +ar " *_� *icey: The site ? s generally fltt, with to the south. :h�e slope of lass than 5 "=Pint, .sloping -15) Freeway embankment borders the entire length Ontario (I of the north and West:bouadr.ry. Thrga single gamily occupy the southwestern most portion of the area residences The plant ' Aterlal consists primarily of Zucalypcus trer., windrows and wild grasses- staff has reviewed Part I of the Initial Study and completed tae Environmental Checklist, Part II of the significant adaarse enviro=3ntal Initial Studyc and has found no sasult oi. the proposed General Pisa impacts mould occur as a and 2t:!wanda Specific Elan Amendment. Amendment nA iTtn nnfl�vai,y.. +finer • a n che�rea: The area An a.g�nw4 question susa:ounds a sizeable ar!3a to the soctheast which is at the corner of East end uasignattd. Low tsedil= RssidQntidl A field inspoction nutte3 that the freeway' Miller Avenues. traffic did not greatly effect the, PercePtion of a rural This was dur;'. atmosphL -re immediately adjacedt to the zosdway.. elevation of the roadway along the entire to the :nigh nort:iwest border. The frcaway traffic was more noticeable further east into the sx rst'ing Low Mijium Rsaidential band. Therefore, staff believes that the area in question exhibits to the exis inq Low Mediums land very similar charsetmzistias land is ioriraarily ttinc3e Mille r to the cast. The Low Medium with a few single family .Ssidance,i fronting n Miller Avenue. j, ('!r It e PLANNING COMMISSION 6`LA REPORT GPTi 91 -02b, FSPA 91 -02,' & ESPA 91 -03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 22, 1991 Page 23 b. Qnjo=anee_with the General P1a ^Land the Friw�a_y�+ cif � Elsa The changing from Medium Resident al to Law Medium Residential at this location raises no confli:te with- General -Plan or Etiwanda Specific Plan pryvisions. .Thr,, change would better•,`help,promote the ratent L. of rurat'characteristics promoted by the Etiwanda Specific Plan by reducing fvture residential density. c. Cny9 n sa ; on mf Ai =x .ive ne -tZjL tAn = To provide the Cob=i.ssion with alternatives to the existing and proposed ue.nignations, staff has included an analysis of Lora Residentlal 12 -4 dwelling units per acre). Consideration of this'site for Low Residential development should not present any significant land use canflicts. However, it would not seem appropriate to place less denssity on this site :because it is .bordered on the south by existing LOW Medium land. Currently, there is no Low Residential land between Foothill Boulevard and the freeway. If the Planning Commission believes this alternative designation'ia more appropriate# then a final determination may Ize male at this time:,zecause the environmental analysis! and conclusions would not differ' significantly for the .Low Residential alternative compared to Sow Mei.lum Residential. 4, : Staff recommends the existing Medium Residential (8 -14 dwellin3 units per acre): land use designation be changed to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling uni•.s per acre) for the vrogarti -es located in Subarea S of this application. Staff believes the`, following facts for findings can he made with this rectum endaticn: a. The properties located in Subaref 5 are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed General Planyand Etiwanda Specific Plan land use designations and are compatible with existing and surrounding land use designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the sout'neast by the same land usa desiMation. - b. The proposed amendment will not have significant impacts on the environment nor cZ the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of V_ATL irdtial Envir011=3ntal Study and the fact that the propooc;T vuuld reduce the intensity of presidential development on ehe subject properties. C. The proposed amendment 3s in conformance with the General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan br``promotiag the xQtention of the community's rural atmoauhese through reduced residential dsnsitaes. General Plan and Etiranda Specific Plan Resolutions of Approval sre attc --%ed for the Cooni.ssionrr coi sids ation. E O PLANNING COMMISSION oXAFF REPORT WA 9] --025, FSPA,91 -02, 6 ESPA'92 -03 - CITY Or- RANCHO CtTCAMON�t May 22, 1991 Page 29 b. ConfgX=ncs wi b hg - 2nera'. Plan and the RfJwanda_.Sper_ifin' gl=; The change in land use designation from r.edium (1 Residential to Low Medium Residential at this location raises no inherent conflicts with General Plan or Etivanda Specific Plan provisions. C. Cn{ ia±d2ratj on of Ages tiv D "rli a1 t'iona; To provide the Commie. on -with alternatives to the existing and proposed designations, staff has included the following analysis of 1 the office (Office Professional in the Etiwanda. Specific Plan) designationti The site is bordered on the east by existing undeveloped Office land, therefore the office, designation would appear to provide compatibility to the araa by continuing the existing Office land use westerly.- ,As, stated above, office activities are generally considered compatible with most residential development. Again, an expansion of Office ssct in the Etivanda Specific Plan does not ,promote the`-'general underlining theme cf retaining ay mush rural atmosphere as possible. Yn addition, " with Subarea 6, staff believes Office uses would increase the traffic in the area end potentially increase traffic volumes in the core area. If the Planning Commibsion believes that this alternative designation is sore appropriate', then a final determination should be withheld until staff can provide an environmen:,.al analysis for the preferred alternative. 4. RPnn,rmend d Land vas: Staff recommends the exist .ng !tedium Residential (8 -14 dwelling unite per acre) land use designation be changed to Low Medium Residential 14-8 dwelling units per ac t for the properties located in Subarea 7 of this applicatio,i. ytCwaff believes the follo�4ing facts- for findings can be mad% with recommendation: a. The properties located in Subarea 7 are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed General Plan and Etiwanda Specific . Plan land use designations and are compatible with existing and surrounding land use designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the north and west by the same land use designation. b. The proposed amendment will not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Environmental Study and the fact that the proposal would reduce the inteneity;of residential development on the subject properties. C. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the Geaaral Plan and the Etivanda Specsific Plan by t;romoting the retention of the community'a aural atmosphere through reduced residential denatties. Genertil Plan and Etivanda Specific Plan °Resolutions of Approval are attached for the Commission's consideration. PLANNING COMMISSION ST *.FF YSPORT GPA 91 -02B, FSPA 91 -02, & ESPA 91 -C3 - CITY OF RANCHO COCAMONGA May 22, 1991 Page 31 G3NZREIc PLAN NZNT SIIBARPA t! ETINJDWA F.P=cxrxc PLAN Jua mmmT SUGAR= 6 1. Psi i� _ a••a ;a ;t Tl� Par3i��on; a. s, o,n ;nc Land Use and Zon;na; North - Railrcad Line and underdeveloped land, Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda Specific Plan South - Ontario (I -15) Freeway East - Ontario (I -15) Freeway West - Underdeveloped land, Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda Specific Plan, b. Gen - al Plan Deoignat aonr, Project Site - Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) North - Railway and Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) South - Freeway East - Freeway West - Loy: Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) C. Site .ha a- s LAti2a: The site is largely undeveloped with perimeter Eucalyptus windrows and wild grasses as the predominant plan; material. The properties have a natural slopa of .esi than 5 percent and slope to the south with East Av.,nue bii�octi.•Iq the site roughly in half along a north south axis. Thee are two single family residences, one on each side of East avenue, in the southerly portion of the rite. 2. Environmental ate, azmnn Staff has reviewed Part I of the Initial Study and completed the Environmental Checklist, Part II of the Initial Study, and found no significant adverse environmental im?acts would occur as a result of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment. 3. 'end USe Anftl=ia: a. "RroRrlatanass of Low MediwnjULgJAgntJal ul • in thr Are> An analysis of a map of this site could lead to the assumption that the portion east of East Avenue might be subject to significant impact from bordering transportation systems (Interstate 15 and the Southern Pacific Railway). rowever, a field inspection of this area reveals that much of the freeway and the Base Line Road activity is screened by the elevated freeway off -ramp alpng the southern boundary. In,Gddition, research shows that the railway along the n��thern bouadary is a branch line used only by a short local crain, bons sting of a locomotive and a few freight cars which make two or,three round trips a week. In gensral, the site does no* ,seem any less appropriate, by its location, for single family development than the adjoining Low Medium Residential properties to this north. PLmNING COMMISS °ON ;STAFF REPORT:_ G:, 91 -02B, FSPA'91 -02, a ESPA 91-03 - CITY OF RANCHO COCMrNGA Md,, 22, 1991 Page 32 r b. Qnformanew, w4th th- fe±_,, eral$tan and h .- iwanda 5gp. ic�fle Plan:, The change -'in land use designation from Medium Residential to Low Medium Residential a! , this location raisea 'no conflicts w:th General Plan or Etiwanda Specific Plan provisions. C. nnnsid ra ion of Al rna 3ve Dean a ions; To prov.Lde the Commission with alternatives to the existing and proposed designations, staff hai. included the following analysis of Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre). C,asideration cs this site for Low Residential should not present any sit,aificant ,land use conflicts. However, it is ataff•s opinion that =* r.nald not be appropriate to Place i less intense land use of Low Residential adjacent to Low Medium Residential lend which borders this site on the north and west in addition the the freeway and railroad line, Staff did not consider commercial designations as appropri,t due to the problem of introducing more intense land uses adjacent to the existing single family properties. i:t addition, the eastern portion of this site is effectively separated from Base Line Road and its properties and future business activities by the freeway off -ramp. This separation should limit its viabiliry for commercial usos. If the P1al.ning Commission believes this alternat've designation is more appropriate, then a final determination shG_-ld be withheld until staff can provide nn environmental analysis for the preferred alternative. 4. Reconmendlad Land use: Staff reco —nds the existing Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units, per acre) land ussidesignation be changed to Low Medium Residential 14 -8 dwelling units .er acre) for the properties located in Subarea 8 of this applicat on. aff believe-3 the following facts for findings can be made with this recommendation: a. .hey propertaa?& to ted in subarea 8 are suitable for the uses permitted in tie proposed General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan land use designations and are compatible with existing and surrounding -and use desi, nations as evidenced by the sit;,gs being born.ored on the •..rth and west by the same land use designation. b. The proposed amendment --III uat hav4i aignifi4ant impacts on the environment nor on the surnoundina properties as evidenced by the findia4a and conclusions listed in Parts I and IZ of the Initial En�rironmentsl.Study and the fact that the proposal would r&:Iuce the intensity of residential development on the subject properties. C. •the proposed amendment is is conformance with t:,':e 3eneral Flan and Etiwanda Specific Plan by promoting the retention of the community's rural atmosphere ttrough reduced residential eir3n. General Plan' aAd' Etiw'r. - - -da ,Specific. Plan P .- tolutions a:1; Approval are a•`­hed for the Coamission's consideration. PL ANN' C,OWC5SION ;t:TA"'REPORT GPA 91 -02B, s'SPA 91 -64 A'-ESPA 91 -03 M;UITY OF RANCHO CUCANORGA May 22, 3 991 Page 3? :- III. --12S ATXY& ZNVIRfINMFNTaL ASS ..ggHENT: Sf,aff has reviewed Part I of the Initial Study and completed the Environmental Checklist, Part Ii of the Initial Study, and has found no, significant adverse environmental impacts mould occur as s result of the proposed "noral Plan, Etivanda Specific Plan, and rcathill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendments. The issue for zu-- ideratior. is a reduction of proposed land use intensityi therefore, staff believes the irpact of development shQuir: not 'fit more significant :han oriVinally described in the erivironmental ravinw of the Stiwanda Specific Plan. Further, the redu.tion in potont!Al future housing u.ats does net aL .:-a City's ability to implement the goals and 'objectives of the General Plan Housing Element. IV, oR F,SPQNDKXr.E: These items have been ar,certised as a public hearing in the Inland Ve jlgy" - Wady - j%.�j+i 1 e . n newspaper, the properties have been postedj'and notices were so- ^k to all property owners within 300 feet of the project 31tes. V. B=MEhn ,T=: if the Planning Commission Eoncuxa with staff's analysis, and believes the proposed Low Medium Residential and Comme=ial designations use acceptable alternatives to the w.sting Medium Residential designations, it is recommended tLat the Planning Commission rec =end approval of General Plan Amendment -91 -028, Etiwaoda Specific Plan. Amendment 91 -03, and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91 -02, by the adoption of attached Subarea Resolutions. A Resolution of Denial it included for wbarea 6. Respectfull su2mited: Q Brad Ba - , ler City Planner BB:AW :VB /jfs Attachments, Exhibit "A"- General Plan Amend. LocAtion Map Lchibit "B "- Specific Plan Amend. Location Map "*hibit "C" - Lutter from James Banks xhibit "D" - better from U.S. Hc.nee GPA 91 -02B, Subarea l Rasols- }ion of Approval YSPA 91 -02, Subarwl Resolution of Approval GEL' 01- 02B, Subarea 3 -1,-,v Medium lEte elution of Approval Fin 91 -02, Subarea 2 -Low Medium tteaolutioa o:' Approval (WA 91 -02&, Subaru 2- covmrcial, Resolution G`: approval £SPA 91 -02 Subarea 2- Comt'+ercial ssoluti.on of approval C.PA 91 -02B, Subarea 3, Resolution` of Approval ESPA 51 -03, Subarea 1, Rezoluttra of Aprpro,:a dPA 91028, Subarea 4, Resoluti'm of Approval ESPA 91 -03, Subarea 2, Resolutiou sf Approval rCPA 91; -028, Su.Y rea 5, Resolution o2 Roproval ESPA Sit -03, Subarea 3, itevrr�*lutlo' n of Approval GEA 91 -02B, Subarea -5: Resolution of Denied ESPA 91 -03, Subarea K, Resolution of Denial GRA 91-02B., Subarea 7, Resolution of:Appxoval ESPA 91 -03, Subarea 5, Resolution of Approval GPA 91-02B, Subarea B, Resolution of Approval .SPA 91 -03, Subarer 6, Resolution of Approval +•;_ �, r 701 -02 AUGUST 285 1991 R. C, AGENDA 4 of 4 } Bauks & Ritaltie SUITE 120. .. AN AssoclATlom or &"opmcrP , CIVIC CENT.:+ LAW OFFICES JAMES BANKS, JR. 107 4Q CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THOMAS 8. RITCHIE RANCHO CUCAMONOA., CALIFORNIA. 91730. ROBERT E;. KNUDSEN ;(1141 o "e.�sll 23 April 1991 -itV r;s r4... '-j CV:.,... NSA 1 Larry J. Henderson, AICP��,2 %3 i Principal Planner Planning Division AN e Communit} Development Department el31�l�l1�I�i1121�l�lei�Y City or Rancho Cucamonga a, Cucamonga, California 9173 RE: Neighborhood Fleeting for General Plan Amendment 91 -C25 Dear Atr. Henderson: i am a resident of Etiwanda, residing at 13181 victoria. I amt writing in response to your letter to me dated April 17, 1991, regarding a decroase in density in varioas parts of the Etiwanda specific Plan. I will not be able to attend the meeting due to a "back to school night" at Summit Elementary School, I wanted to '1_4 sure say views were expressed so I have included th m :' �thia letter. Although a longer explanation follows, my ci �riusion is that I an strongly in support of the City geaorated proposal to "downzone ". I hope you are ready for the storm of controversy the land owners are about to bestow upon you. in my opinion,the densities deveiopad by the St %:.ands Specific Plan for the areas shaded gray on the map enclosed with Your letter were strong from the start. I have a long winded explanation of why 3 think they were wrong which I will attrch as a supplement to this letter. For the purpose of espreaaing my opinion as a citizen 'or the 23 -Apz1 -1991 hearing, I simply say chat if you are successful, yon: will be correcting soma old mistakes and Improving the future of Etiwanda tremendously. I am delighted to was that this question has come up again. I hope twat it can be reviewed &new, as far away as possible from the factors whicb distorted the results of the first consideration. I wish you the very best of luck in this effort. inc James s, Ask JEJ/dn encl: .Supplement SUPPLW —_NT To, :LETTER TO LARRY HENDERSON POLARIZATION: I was a m=)-er of the Citizens' Advisory Committee to tie Etiwanda Specific Plan. Unfortunately there was a polarization of thoucht at the time of the committees hearings. Many responses to the Committee's ideas were used can an allegiance to the Etiwanda Landowners' Association (headed up by Mr. Dave Plocker) which supported higher densities or by allegiance to a looser knit group ;I homeowners who generally supported lower densities. CAUSES: The polarization was due, in part, to'tho timing of the hearings. Although measured in years, the ESP hearings followed the hearingu, -fin the General Plan and followed the later hearings on the victoria Planned: Community. Thess previous sets of hearings had already positioned many 'Landowners and residents on the density issues. To a le °ner degree the polarizatiopiwas also due, in part,, to some mistakes we committee members made is approaching the density question which a;laro W the landowners. POLITICS': In my opinion the gezeraily high !Level of controveruy about development left over from incorporation, general plan activities and Victoria hearings left certain developers and development laterests with considerable political influence at the time. Pressure was brought upon the Committee (not by the staff) and, I suspect, on the staff to resolve certain iv3u+ae in suggested ways. AM,gDASLE BOUSING /MTEWAY RIGHTS -OF WAY: high's or wrong, among the issues wh-zh fall into this category are affordable housing and freeway rights of way. ftch of the laud which is now subject to chancs wys affected by one or both of theses factors. The economic climate of the time focused heavy amphasie an affordable housing. in addition, we were frequently told that we weeded to allow dsvelopers along the freeway right of ways extra density so that they could compensate for freeway proximity. This was partly correct, of coursrr;m but I still believe much of the impetus for high density iii. these areas was generated by Route,g0 right of wary protectionism, be that good or bad. �l� GEMERAL PLAN RANGES: if I recall correctly, there was another problem °related to the present question:. The General plan, at that time, contained a very wide range of allowable density 'in the middle planning spectrum. It was something like 5 - 14. This was a factor which affected the application of density ranges' in the middle levels of the Etiwenda Specifics: Plan. This was probably a relatively minor factor. CONCLUSION: The polarisation and pressure did not ;stop at the Citixeno' Advisory Committee. Both factors were present during the Planning Commission hearings ;gad later the City Council hearing, In my view these factors skewed the Etiwanda Specific Plan in certain reauects, one zf the principle respects being the`jery question you are now credit addressing. It in a Nino' miracle and really a great to Otto Kroutil's understanding and pataence that the Committee was able to produce anything wortnwhile. s ] K—L ! U.S. HOME CORPORATION WESTERN LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 1400 E. South(m • Suite 700 • 'fampe, Arizona 85282 • (602) 958 -4178 May 10, 1991 Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Dear Commissioner: As the representative for Etiwanda Development Corporation, we wish to express our concerns we have in regards to the hearing on May 22, 1991, on the General Plan Amendment. As you know, U.S. Home is in and has been in the process of designing a Preliminary Tract Map # 14211 in the affected area. Our Tract Map consists of part of areas # 2, # 4 and # S. Our main concern is that if this area is rezoned from medium residential to low n2dium residential, it will change our lo*_ size requirements. In our lengthy process we have worked with staff, with their support, to design single family detached lots at an average of 8,000 square feet. We are requesting the commission to take into consideration our request that this zone change will not roquire U.S. Home to redesign their map an-3 allow us to proceed as starteA. For further information, our tentative Map g 14211 was granted an extension for submittal by this commission on April 24, 1991 If you need any further information, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, U.S HOME CORPORATION WE RN LAND DEV94PMENT DIVISION Dallas D. Paulsen Executive Vice President - Project Manager DDP /rc cc: John E. Hyman, U.S. Home, Western Land Division Sherman Haggerty, U.S. Home, So. California Division Vince Sertani, City Assistant Planner Memo to Planning Commission "er.bers Feview of Constraints on parcels. #227- 141 -14 mind 06 and why we feel that this parcel should be separated from the rest of parcel 8, and should be rezoned neighborhood or specialty commercial 1.) Northern boundary is the Southern Pacific Railraod,( and rlanned future commuter rail line ), 2.) Entire Se boundary along Freeway 1 -15 and offranv 3.) Entire S£ boundary has a 20 ft easement for sewers by CCWDI 4.) Entire SE boundary will require al 20 ft wall and landsca$ina for Freeway noise and pollution abatement 5.) Thm W boundary, East Ave., will be a 4 lane maior N- S.xrtery 6.) Fontana, just S of this, is vianning commercial on similar property, and all Etiwandn Tax dollars will end un there 7.) Etiwanda has lots more development.;�,ow, and a new Hifh School and needs Neivhborhood or spacialty comnkercial there. 9.) It is naturally buffered, all the way around c and , so, easily could be separated from the rest of area 6, and rezoned commercial. i 10) A drainage district has to be formad and paid for by a future developer. And ad a development aunt and un with a larva anougb profit ffor hie to pay for all this up front 11) Any zoning other than commercial of some kind, will make,our • parcel undevelapable and unsalable. Respectfully #Onrat, Ralph S Avatha Kleinman, Owners April 18, 1991 I _ Hr: Jack Lam, Citv Nanaver ' Hr. Buller, Planner Hr. Vince Bertoni, Planner ! ��� D 2 City of Rancho Cucamon6a a w. P.O. BOX 807 Rancho Cucamonva, CA 91729 h,,,, ' P,. �ti Dear Sirs: Pursuant to our telephone conversation `T am writ nR you re: parcel N227- 141 -14 and parcel 0227 - 1.41 -65 located at 7179 East Avenue, in Etiwan4a. These parcels are currently zoned for multigamily bad are in the area which you are considerinR *or down- zoning. Please look at the enclosed man with reward to the par- eels' confivuration•and the nrooerty constraints which are uninue to this parcel.. 1) The northern boundary is the a Pailroad 'tracks. 2) The entire oblicues eastern boundary is the rreewav and the freeway off -ramp which will ranuire huildinn a 30 ft tall wall alon.v its entire length for noise abatempm . 3) The entire oblioue eastern free!wam he%undary hmn also 20 feet of sewer easement on it alone tie entire lerFtir. U) The we.tern bnundar• 5s Fast Avenue, which will he a 4 lane rtaior 11 -S Arter -jr.. In the original :•rnrrv&A1 for ihr rtsarr.e'.r ccrec?f ;c F3an, the Set1w,%y r, r. nYe Cansultertss e- lat.e2 tbl& mr. tur3cal ce:m+hercir+l or 1r•Pe•rrs c.rnrel -cial zna•ina. we feel if 4ou w1rh to Pet ri,: of sor-e r-u? - i- famliv zoning , the best use would be to again tore tt cofir:erciel, es it has n natural boundary in the Rail ?mod tracks and freeway nff- ramp. It is well awav From the high school and there ig already freeway c'oonerciA, zeninq across the ntreet. We enclnsee a rt.ar sl =ovine the above mentSnnod vrooerty and the psor rty constraints. Please contact us i" you would like to Oiscuss this further with us. Yours truly Aaloh C Apatha RlOrran 2500 H. Euclid Ave. Upland, CA 91786 .copies to Kr. I•am, Aullar, Pertoni' RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISJION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDINU APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -02B, SUBAREA 3, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -3 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 27.89 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTHWEST BY THE ONTARIO (I -15) FREEWAY, ON THE EAST BY ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE SOUTH BY EXISTING COMMERCIAL DESIGNATED LAND BORDERING FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227 - 211 -02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 20, AND 29. El A. Recitals_ ? (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 91 -028 as described in _ title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the sc ct General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) on August 28, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed -__,:.blic hearing on the application.. - (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have cccurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby fo0;1d, determined, and reso:.ved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho :.hi -wonga 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 August 28, 1991, including Smitten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby sp2cifically finds as follows: (a) Subarea 3 of the application applies to approximately 27.89 acres of land, basically a triangL'ar configuration, bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I -15) Freaway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by commercial designated land bordering Foothill Soulevard as shown on Exhibit "A," and is ,presently underdeveloped with a.single family residence in the northeastern portion. Said proPerties are currently designated as Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre); and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 91 -023, SUBAREA 3 - CITY OF R.C. August 28, 1991 Page 2 (b)' The proprrrty to the northwest of the`- subject site is designated freeway and is the Ontario (I -1S.) Freeway. The proportion to the east are designated Low Medium Residential and are underdeveloped with single family residenbes and on the opposite side of Etiwanda Avenue it is designated Medium Residential. The properties to the south are designated Cacmeraial and are partially developed with mixed business activities. (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related developments and (d) This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Elements and (e) This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment ncr on the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented k this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing and upon t,e ,speci ic` findings of facto set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a): That the properties located in Subarea 3 of ihq application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed diat;ict and are compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the east by the same land use designatior't and (b) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor an the surrounding proparties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Environmental Study and that the proposed designation would reduce the intensity of future residential development on the subject properties, and (c) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan by £romoting the retention of Etiwanda's rural atmosphere through reduced residential densities. 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 conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 aibove, this Omission hereby resolves that on the 28th day of August 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of General .21an Amendment No. 91 -023, Subarea 3, amending the General Plan land use map frog Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per ,--L 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLU!ZION NO. GPA 91 -023, SUBAREA 3 - CITYjOF R.C. August 28, 1991 Page 3 acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -S dwelling units „per acre) for approximately 27.89 acres of land bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated- land, and on the south by existing Commercial designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard, as shown -on Exhibit "A." 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVES) AND ADOPTED THIS 28Th DAY OF AUGUST 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of F *--"- Cucamonga, do bereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly arid regularly introducede passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Ranc:lo Cucamonga, at ,a regular maetincyf4!-)he Planning Commission held on the 28th day of August 1991, by the following vote - o -wic: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; NOES: CO14MISSIONERSC ABSENT: COWaSSIONERS: `t a i RESOLT' :ION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PAR-iO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ETICt-MA, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -03, SUBAREA 1, AMENDING ,SE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 27.89 ACRES OF 14M BORDERED ON THE NORTHWEST BY THE ONTARIO (I -15) FuEEWAY, ON THE EAST BY ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE SOUTH BY EXISTING COMMERCIAL DESIGNATED LAND BORDERING FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227 - 211 -02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 20, AND 29, A. ]recitals. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 91 -03 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) On August 28, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and also issued Resolution No. _ recommending to the City Council that the associated General Plan Amendment No. 91 -02B, Subarea 3, be approved. (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, Paz3 A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on August 28, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) Subarea 1 of the application applies to approximately 27.89 acres of land, basically a triangular configuration, bordered an the northwest by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by ftotailil Boulevard Specific Plan (F;iP) Regional Related Commercial and Community Commercial designated land bordering Foothill. Boulevard at shown on Exhibit "Al," and is presently underdeveloped with a single family residence in the northeastern portion. Said properties are currently designated as Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre); and E PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ESP 91 -0;{, SUBAREA 1 - CITY OF R.G. August 28, 1991 Page 2 (b) The property to the northwest of the subject site is designated freeway and is the Ontario (I -1S) Freeway. The properties to the east are designated Low Medium Re�)idential and are underdeveloped with single family residences and on the opposite side of Etiwanda Avenue it is designated Medium Residential. The properties to the south are designated FSP Regional Related Commercial and Community Commercial and are partially developed with mixed business activities. (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Paliries of the General Plan and of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related develoMant; and (d) This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment 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 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows% (a) That the properties located in Subarea 1 of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and adjacent land usa designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the east by the same land use designation; and (b) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and 1I of the Initial Environmental Study and that the proposed designation would reduce the intensity of future residential development on the subject properties; and (c) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and the Etiwanda Specific Plan by promoting the retention of Etiwanda's rural atmosphere through reduced residential densities. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considv -Tid 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 conclusions met forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 abova, this Commission hereby resolves that on the 28th, day of August 1991, the Planning commission of the C-Ity of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of Etiwanda Specific Plan Kk:endment No. 91 -03, Subarea 1, amending the Etiwanda Specific Plan land use map from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling unites peb acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 27.89 acres of land )ordered on the northwest by the 1ILANNING COMMISSION tESOLUTION NO. Bsfl 91-03, SUBAREA 1 CITY OF R.C. August 28, 1991 Page _3 Ontario (I -15) Nreeway, on thc�.,east by W.Awanda Avenue and existing Low,Medium Reaidentiai designated eland, and on the south by existing,, Commorcial designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard, as shown on Exhibit "Al." 6. The Sec =etary to this Commission shall q' .y to she adoption of this Resolutions. APPROVED AN1% ADOPTVD THIS 28TH DAY OF AUGUST_1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OD' Th.?,CI;TY'6F RANCTO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry, -, McNiel, Chairnian ATTEST: _ Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancjho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the :foregoing Resolution was duly atRd regularly introduced, passed, and adoptad by thet"?lannang Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular mseting of the Planning Commission held on thw 28th day of August 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES% COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERSs ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSa / � �17 it .r RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 'CITY .)F RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVE-, OF GENERAL PLNN AMENDMENT 91 -028, SUBAREA 5, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 30.72 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTHWEST BY THE.. 114.2ARIO (i -15) FREEWAY, ON THE EAST BY ERST AVENUF T :r'UISTXNG LOW: MEDIUM RESTDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AW C -'XHE SOUTH BY MILLER B.VENUE,, AND HARING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100- 031 -08, 1100- 041 -04 THR09GH 10, 1100- 051 -03, AND 1100- 061 -02 THROUGH 04, SAND PORTIONS OF 1200-071-01 AND 02. A. Rec to s. (i) The City of Ri o Cucamonga has filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as a. plication.' ", (ii) On August 2d, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted L duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iii) All legal prm=aquisi ^es prior to the adorl.ion of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commiasion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission iiureby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are t�,ue and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing on August 28, :.391, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission ➢iereby specifically finds as follows: (a) Subarea 5 of the,application applies to approximatel} 30.72 acres of land, basically a linear configuration, bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (1-35) Freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on uhe south by Miller Avenue as shown on Exhibit "A,* and is presently underdeveloped with three single family residences in the sotitthwestorn most portion. Said properties are currently de®ignated as Medium Residen ±Ual (8 -14 dwelling units per acre); and'' PLANNING COMMISSION'RESOL6:';sTwoION NO. GPA 91 -02B, SUBARE§ 5 •- ciTx DF R.C. August 28, 1991 Page 2 (b) Thrt., property to the northwest of the subject site is designated freeway and is the Ontario (1 -15) Freeway. The property to the east is designated Low Medium Residential and is underdeveloped with single family residences facing Miller Avenue and.on the opposite side of East Avenue it is designated office (OFC) in the City of Fontana's West End Specific Plan. The property to the south on the opposite side of Miller Avenue is designated 3Nedfum Residential and is vacant. (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of tha- :General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a mannor- consistent with the General Plan and with related development, and (d) Tnis amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land use Element; and (e) This amendment we-Ad not be mater AMY injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a si�4.j,sFicant impact on the environment nor the surrounding ' properties., 3. Based upon the substantial evi,',snce presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public heain4 and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs l and 2 above, this Co=iss£oa hereby finds and concludes as follows: Am (a) That th& properties located in Subgrsa 5 of the application are suitable for the uses- permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and adjacent, land use designationo as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the southeast by the ea.- -e lend use desiy. -kation; and (b) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Environmental Study and that the proposed :designation would reduce the intensity of future residential development on the subject properties, and (c) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan by promoting the retention of Etiwanda'a rural atmosphere through reduced residential densities. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and eoneiderad 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 conclusions se= fe--th in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby rsoolves that on the 28th day of August 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment No. 91 -02B, Subarea 5, amending the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per f PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, CPA 91 -02B, SUBAREA 5 - CITY OF R.C. August 28, 1991 Page 3 AIL acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 30.72 acres of land bordered on the northwest by the Ontario ` (I -1S) freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing LOW Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue, as shown in Exhibit °A." U.. _6. The Secretary to this'� Commistsion shall certify to the adoption of this Raaolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 1991• PLANNING COMMISSION Orr THE CITY GF RANCHO CUCeAMONGA BY:— Larry T. McNiel, Chairman i ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary - -- 1, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planing Cotimnisaion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly &rid regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission bald on the 28th day of August 1991, by the fcllzwing vote-to-wit." AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS - I ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs INN"_ it RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -03, SUBAREA 3, AMENDING THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (e -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) POR APPROXIMATELY 30.72 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTHWEST BY THE ONTARIO (I -15) FREEWhY, ON THE EAST BY EAST AVENUE AND EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE SOUTH BY MILLER AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APH: 1100 - 031 -08, 1100-C41 -04 THROUGH 10, 1100- 0E1 -03, 1100 - 061 --02 THROUGH 04, AND PORTIONS OF 1100 - 071 -01 AND 02. A. Recitals. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 9.1 -03 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) On August 28, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and also issued Resolution No. _ recommending to the City Council that the asr.:Dciated General Plan Amendment No. 91 -02B, Subarea 5, be approved. (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. Thfs Commission hereby specifir-a,11y finds that all of the facts set forth in theJRecitals, Part A, of this "Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial �4^vidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced m - -blic , hearing on August 28, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) Subarea 3 of the application applies to approximately 30.72 acres of land, basically a linear configuration, bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on t)m east by East Avenue and existing Law Medium Residential designated land, and on '-ho south by Hiller Avenue, as shown on Exhibit "Al," and is presently underdeveloped with three single .family residences in the southwestern portion. Said properties are currently designated as Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre); and I ,°� 73 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ESPA 91 -03, SUBAREA 3 CITY OF -R.C. August 28, 1991 Page 2 4The property to the northwest of the subject site is designated freeany and in the Ontario (I -15) Freeway. The 'property to the east is designated Low M -dium Residential and is underdeveloped with single family residences facing Miller Avenue and on the opposite side of East Avenue it is designated Office (OFC);_.in the _City of Fontana's West End Specific Plan. The property to the south on the opposite side of Miller, Avenue is designated Medium Residential and is vacant, (c)` This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of th't General Plan and of,, the Etiwanda Specific Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan , and with related development; and (d) This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties.- 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this commission during the above - referenced public hearing and upon %he specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs i and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and link concludes as follows; 1p (a) That the properties located in Subarea 3 of the application are anitable for the uses psrm ,Eted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and adjaaant land use designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the ;southeast by the same land use designation; and (b) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties ae evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Environmental Study and that the proposed designation would reduce the intensity of future residential development on the subject properties; and (c) That the proposed amendmente-Is in conformance with the General Plan and the Etiwanda Specific Plan by promoting the retention of Etiwanda's rural atmosphere through reduced residential densities. 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. r_ '--�- 9il PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ESPA 91 -03, 'SUBAREA 3 - CITY OF R.C. August 28, 1993 Page 3 S. Base d the findings conclusions ° V,, h i upon paragraphs u n ings an � in n � 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission 'hereby resolves that Gn the 284�cay of August 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho'rucamnga hereby recommends approval of Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 91 -03, Subarea 3, amending the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Land Use Bap from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per :lore) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelilug units per acre) for approximately 30.72 acres of land bordered on the, northwest by the Ontario (I -1S) Freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated, land, and on,the south by Biller Avenue, as shown in Exhibit 1 %1. ° 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adopsion of this Revolution. 1 APPROVED AND ADOPTED TFXS 28TH 9AV OF AUGUST 2991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCNO CUCAMONGA ' BY: Larry T. MCNiel, Chairman_ ATTEST: \�J `',, Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certifv ::;ac ._the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held . on the 28th day of August 2991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COZ4HISSIONERS: �\ ABSENT: COMMISSION.'9RS: j xj i k- J RESOLUTION NO. 91 -63A A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENrING APPROVAL OF GENER'%L PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -02B, SUBAREA 7, AMENDING THE PENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TC LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8� DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 10.09 AMES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH AND WEST BY EXIST-INC, LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, ON THE E,AS:r BY EXISTING OFFICE DESIGNATED LAND, ON THE SOUTH M! BASE LINE ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THERLMF - APN: 227- 131 -34 THROUGd 36, 52 THROUGH 54, AND 61. A. Recitals. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed en application for General Plan Amendment No. 91 -02B as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) On August 28, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iii) A!1 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 Rands Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby aVzelfically 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 durin,: t.ie above- referenced public hearing on August 28, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) Subarea 7 of the application applies to approximately 10.09 acres of land, basically a rectangular configuration, bordered on the north and'west by Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by existing Office dssignated land, and on the south by Base Line Road as shown on Exhibit "A," and is presently vacant. Said properties are currently designated as Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is designated Low Meg:.: -,,a Residential and is vacant. The property` to the west is designated Low Medium Residential and is underdeveloped with � single family residence. The property to the east is designated Office and is vacant. The propert7;,to the south of Base Line Road is designated Medium Residential and is vacant: kz_ 97 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NOi >91 -63A GPA 91 -02B, SUBAREA 7 - CITY w ?X. August 28, 1991 Page 2 (c) This amendment does not conflict W th the LL A Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in r manner consistent with the General clan and with related development; and (d) This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) This ark,.dment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor on 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 1 and 2 above, this Commission har4by finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the properties located in Subarea 7 of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and surrounding land use designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the north and west by the same land use designation; and (b) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environmont nor an the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and I1 of the Initial Environmental Study and that the proposed designation would reduce the intensity of future residential development on the subject properties; and (c) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan by promoting the retention of Etiwanda's rural atmosphere through reduced residential densities. 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 Midings and conclusions not forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves that on the 28th day of August 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment No. 91 -02B, Subarea 7, amending the General Plan Land Use Hap from;'Sedium- Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residentiai (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) fbr approximately 10.09 acres of land bordered on the north and west by existing Low Helium Residential designated land, an the east by existing office designated land, and on the south by Base Line Road, as shown in Exhibit "A." 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption is of this Resoletion. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91 -63A GPA 91 -02B, SUBAREA 7 - 01%Y OF R.C. August 28, 1991 Page 3 r 4. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY Larry T. McNiel,`Charman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Omission of the -lity of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution wa�'duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the'�Aanninq Comm yeion of the City of Rar. - -ho Cucamonga, at a rngular meeting of the Planning Comcz-ssion held on the 28th day of August 1991, by tht. following votes -to -wits f AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS. i II' - L RESOLUTION NO. S144A A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -03, SUBAREAS, AM 4DING THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAI- IROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (414' DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 10.09 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH AND WEST BY EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, ON THE EMT BY EXISTING OFFICE /PROFESSIONAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE SOUTH BY BASE LINE ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN 227- 131 -34 THROUGH 36, S2 THROUGH 54, AND 61. A. Recitals. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for Etiwanda Spacifit^ Plan Amendment No. 91 -03 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) On August 78, 1991, the Planning , Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and also issues Resolution No. 91 -63A recommending to the City 'Council that the associated General Plan Amendment No. 91 -02B, Subarea 7, be approved. (i'.i) All legal prcrequxsites prior to the adoption of this Resolution hmvz occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, 4nd 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. L-..aed upon substantial evidence preRented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing on August 28, 1991, including written and oral staff :sports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically winds as fo.lowb (a) Subarea 5 of the application applies to approximately 10.09 acres of land, basically a rectangular configuration, bordered on the north and west by Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by existing Office /Professional designated land, on the south by Bass Line Road as shown on Exhibit "Al," and is presently *vacant. Said properties are currently designated as Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling 4nita per acre); and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is designatei3 Low Medium Residential and in vacant. The property to the want in designated Low Tedium Residential and is underdeveloped with a single family reeidenc4. The property to the east is designated Office /Frofesoional and is vacant. Tits Ju ry PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION :TO. 91 -64A ESPA 91 -03, SUBARF__^. 5 CITY OF R.C. August 28, 1991 Page 2 property to the south of Base Line Road is designated Medium Residential and i3 vacant. '(c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies or :.z General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan and will provide for evelopment, within the district, in a'manner consistent with the General Plan na with relatad development; and (d) This amendment rdoes promote the goals and objectives of the X _ c, 'Use Element; and (e) This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant Jn;act on the environment nor on 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 faint;: set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (3) That the properties located in Subarea 5 of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and surrounding land use designations ad evidenced by the site•u being bordered on the north and west by the same- land use designation; and (b) That the proposed amendment wa}ld not have significant impacts on the environment nog on the surrounding properties as evidenced by th1 findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Environmental Stun:.} and that the proposed designation would reduce the intensity of future residential development on the subject properties; and (c; That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and t:.a Etiwanda Specific Plan by promoting the retention of Etiwanda's rural atmosphere through reduced residential densities. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been rsaviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends insuanee of a Ne -Tatiee Declaration. S. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves that on the 28th day of August 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 91 -03, Subarea 5, amending the Etiwanda Specific Plan,Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (iZ-8 dwelling units per acre) !or approximately 10.08 acres of land borlared on the north and west by existir.,v Low Medium Presidential designate S 1s nd, on the east by existing office /Peofessional designated land, and on the south by Base Line Road, as shown in 2,xhibit "Al." PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91 -64A: ESPA 91 -03, SUBAREA B - CITY or R.C. August 28, 1991 Page 3 'I t JIM �►, 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 1991. ' PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BYe Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary Y, Arad Buller, secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby. certify thou the foregcinq Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning ^ "'immission. of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planniny'Co".- Jsaion held -3n the 28th day of August 1991, by the following vote- tw1wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERSr NOES: COMMISSIONZRSs ABSENT% COMFIISSIONERS: 'r .w�i✓ /63 . .. ,7 RESOLUTION NO. 91 -65A A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -028, WEST PORTION OF SUBAREA 8, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LA_I'+ID USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACPX) FOR APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES OF ,LAND BORDERED ON: THE NORTH BY THE SOUTHERN PA^ -,IFIC RAILWAY, ON THE EAS4 4BY L.9ST AVENUE, ON THE SOUTH BY EXISTING OFFICE DESIGNt' - *iD LAND, AND ON THE WEST BY EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND - APN: 227 - 141 -14 AND 66; AND RECOMMENDING DENIAL ON THE EAST PORTION OF SUBAREA B,, REQUESTING TO AMEND THE r" GENERAL PLAN LAND USE YAP IN TH€ SAME MANNER AS THE WEST pOATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 10.34 ACRES 0_ LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC P WAY, ON THE EAST AND SOUTH BY THE ONTARIO (I -15) FREEiRAY, AND ON THE WEST BY EAST AVENUE - APN: 227- 131 -05, AND MAKING FINDING; IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. O The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 91 -02B as described in the title of this Recolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) On August 28, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. r (iii) All legal preruTtis tes 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. Baesd upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on August 28, 1991, including written and oral ,staff reports, together with public testimony, this commission hereby specifically finds as follows- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91 -65A GPA 91 -02B, SUBAREA 8 CITY OF R.C. A'jgust 23, 1991 Page 2 (a) Subarea 8 of the application applies to approximately 20.34 acres of land bordered on the north by the Southern Pacific Railway, on the east by the Ontario (-I -15) Freeway, on the south by existing office designated land and the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, and on the west by existing Low Medium . Residential designated land and divided in a north -south 'direction ty East Avenue as shown on Exhibit "Al" and is presently underdeveloped with two single family residences. Said proparties are currently designated as Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The property to the north of the subject Bite is designated Low Medium Residential and is vacant. The prope4y to the west is designated freeway and is developed with the Ontario (I -15) Freeway. The - property to the east is designated Low Medium Residential and is vacant. The property to the 'south is designated office and is vacant,. (c) This amendment doss not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan ;nd will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related ';avelopment, but land use incompatibilities may result on the east portion of zbarsa 8 because the east area is adjacent to significant transportationjfacilities; and (d) This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the ;and Use Element; and (e) This amendment would not be materially Injurious or detriment. xl co the adjacent prole, " _.-ties, and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor on the surrounding properties, but land use incompatibilities may result for the east portion of Subarea S. 3. Based upon the substantial Qvidence 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 no followsa (a) That the properties located in the wetit portion of Subarea 8 of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and ;surrounding land use designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the north and west by the same land use designation and that the properties in, che east portion are not suitable for the uses permitted In the proposed district because the triangular site is bordered on throe sides by significant transportation facilities; and (b) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding proportion as L-Videnced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Environmental Study and that the proposed designation for the aisat portion of Subarea 8 would reduce the intensity of future residential development on the subject properties; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NQ. 91 -65A CPA 91 -02B, SJBAREA 8 - CITY OF R.C. l,uguat 28, 1991 1 PE3e 3 r (c) That the proposed amendmen "rr is in conformance with t%k. General Plan by promot n6 the retention of Etiwlnda's rural atmosphere through reduced residential densit_Gn. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviected and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 197^_ and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative l Declaration. S. Bas3d upon the findings and conclusions met forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves that on the 28th day of August 1991, the 21anning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment No. 91 -02H, wcst portion of Subarea 8, amending the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8 -16 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units prY acre) for approximately 10.00 dCces of land and, recommends denial of the 'land uae change for the east portion of Subarea S,,as shown on Exhibit "A." 6, The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF I\UGUST 1991. AOL PLAZMXNG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, 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 the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of Auquat 1991, by the following vote -to -with AYES: COMMISSI04ERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERSt ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: K,L /9 f RESOLUTION NO. 91 -66A P_ RESOLUTION OF TY.E PLANNING COMMISSION OF T8E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -03, WEST FORT :ON OF SUBAREA 6, AMENDING THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS ftR ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 10.00 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY, ON THE EAST BY EAST AVENUE, ON THE SOUTH BY EXISTING OFFICE. DF- TGNATSD' LAND, AND ON THE :BEST BY EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RES,_,'�,NTIAL DESIGNATED 'LAND - APN: 227- 141 -14 AND 66; AND RSECOMMENDING DENIAL ON THE-EAST PORTION OF SUBAREA 6, REQUESTING TO AMEND THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE WEST PORTI'IN FOR APPROXIMATELY 10.34 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC ;MILWAY, ON THE EAST AND SOUTH BY THE ONTARIO (I -15) FREEWAY, AND ON THE WEST BY EAST AVENUE - APN: 227- 131 -05, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT' THEREOF A. Recitals. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for Etiwanda Specific Plan Arendment No. 91 -03 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinaft / in this Resolution, the subject Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment is ref .od to as "the application." (ii) On Auguet 28, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the applicatio.1 and also issued Resolution No. 91 -65A recommending to the City Council that the associated General Plan Amendment No. 91 -02B, Subarea 8, be approved. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the ado; "on of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. I NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved 'w the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts not 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 August 28, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together With public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: � K1,4109 J PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91 -66A ESPA 91 -03, SUEAREA 6 CIT" OF R.C. August 28, 1991 Page 2 (a) Subarea 6 of the application applies to approximately'20.34` acres of land bordered on the north by the Southern Pacific Railway, -on the east by the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, on the south by existing office /Professional designated land, and on the west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land as shown on Exhibit "Al," and is presently underdeveloped with two sing -Zo family residences. Said properties are currently designated as Medium Residential, (8 -14 dwelling units per rcrel; and (b) The property to the north`,Zf the subject site is designated Low Medium Residential anu`is vacant. The property to the west is designated freeway and is developed with the Ontario (I -15) Freeway, The property to the east in designated Lew Medium Residential and is vacant. The property ro the south is designated O.ffice;Pra£essional and is vs.ant. (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan end with related development, but land use Lncompatibilities may result on the east portion of Subarea 6 because this area is adjacent to significant transportation facilities; and (d) This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (,a) This amendment ;could not be materially injurious or detrimantial to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor on the surrounding properties, but land use incompatibilities may result for the east portion of Subarea 6.. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findinga of facts net forth it paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and -oncludes as follows: (a) That the proportion located �. he west portion of Subarea 6 of the application are suitable for the _uoss permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and surrounding land use designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the north and went by the same land use designation and that the properties in the east portion are not suitable for t4 uses permitted in the proposed district because the triangular site is bordered on three sides by significant transportation . facilities; and (b) That the oropased amendment v,•Jd not have significant impacts on the environment: nor on- the surrounding'•,,, `erties an evidenced by the findings and conclusions lit %ed in Plrts I `—.d II of the Initial. Environmental Study and that the proposed designation for the west portion of Subarea 6 would reduce tha intensity of future residential development on the subject properties; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91-66A ESPA 91 -03, SUBAREA 6 CITY OF R.C. August 28, 1991 Page 3 (o) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and the Etiwanda Specific Plan by promoting the retentign of L}' -Snda•s rural atmosphere through reduced residential densities. 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 "d concivaions,.pet forth in paragraphs 1, 1, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves 'that on the 28th day of August 19910 the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 91 -03, west portion of Subarea 6, amending the Etiwanda Specific Plan Land Use Map from Medium: Residential (A' . dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 1040 acres of land and recommends denial X the land use change for the east portion of Subarea 6, as shown on Exhibit "Al. 6. The Secretary to this commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 1991- PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, 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 .arid regularly introduced, passed, and adt,pted by the Planning Commission of the city of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of August 1991, by the following vote -to -wits .-V6, COMMISSIONERS: XIOES: COMHISSTONERSz ABSENT" "mISSZONERS: LZ - f 0 e CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 28, 1991 ;"0: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Larry J. Henderson, Principal Planner S.. SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF FORMAL RESPONSE TO ROUTE 30 EXTENSION V7%?IRONMENTAL IMPACT raPORT /ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIR/EIS) ABSTRACT: The purpose of this report is to consider formulating a draft response for City Council's consideration on September 4, 1991, concerning the drat Route 30 Extension EIR /EIS, In addition to the Planning Commission's review and recommendation to the City Wincil, two other City Commissions have or are considering the draft EIR /EIS. The two Commissions are: the Historic Preservation Commission and the Public Safety Commission. It should be noted that the Historic Preservation Commission has scheduled a. special meeting on August 27, 1991, to consider the cultural resources as contained within this report. Any +banges, alterati<ns, or additions to i_hS± cultural resources portion of this :`eport will be reported on orally to the Piaaning Commission. BACK;ROUND: A. Draft EIR /EIS: The Draft EIR/EIS for the Route 30 Freeway Extension has been released by the Department of Transportation for public comment. The deadline for responding to the Draft EIR/EIS is September 15, 1991. As stated on Page S -4 of the EIR/EIS, the proposed project is intended to achieve Che following obje-- .ives: 1. Establish and enhance a major east -west travel corridor to alleviate projected traffic congestion on parallel routes such as Route 66 and the I -10 Freeway. 2. Reduce travel time on the corridor. 3. Provide an important link in the regional highway system by connecting the existing I -215 and I -10 Freeway, thereby providing more direct access between San Bernardino and Laos Angeles's Metropolitan areas. B. General Plan Consistency: The proposed Route 30 Freeway Extension has been planned for within the City's General Plan since the first formal plan adoption in 1984. As stated in the Circulation Impfementatian Section an Page III -32 of " the General Plan, "Foothill Freeway Corridor. The development of a high speed limited - access route along the FoothiiT Frsz,.ay Corridor is an important component to the circulation �.ystem of the City. ITEM M E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ROUTE 30 EIR /EIS - CITY OF RANCRO.CUCAMONGA August 28, 1991 .Page 2 ;l The City policy stresses the need for the development of an access control high speed facility along this curridor. Should Calt,ans withdraw fsom the development of a Foothill Freeway, the City will evaluate other methods for development' of the high speed corridor. Any changes in the City's policy should be reflected in revisions to the General Plan." With this foundation firmly established, it should be noted that the City's response to the draft EIR/EIS is intended to be supportive of the overall project. The comments generated from the City, therefore, are intended to be presented in an atmosphere of cooperation when clarifying issues and concerns of particular relevance to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. C. EIR /EIS Proje;t Summary: The subject environmental documents contains three primary alternatives. The first is a no project alternative, the second is full freeway development, and the third is a 'freeway /expressway. A no project alternative is self - explanatory. The full freeway alternative involves the development of a grade separated freeway along the entire length of 'ne Route 30 Corridor. phis freeway would provide three general purpose lanes plus one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lLne in each direction. The freeway would connect the existing Route 30 Freeway from its existing terminus at Foothill Boulevard (Route 66) in La Verne, to the I -215 freeway in San Bernardino. The freeway /expressway alternative would be the same as described for the full freeway alternative from the western portion of Route 30 between Route 66 and I -215. However, the eastern portion of Route 30 between 1 -15 and 1 -215 would be an at -grade six lane . expressway with controlled access at signalized intersections. It should be noted that sever, i sub- alternati:nes have been and arg still being studied for the full freeway and fr.ieway /expressway alternatives. D. Unresolved Issues: According to the environmental document, several issues remain unresolved. These issues are of a des.. - *._nature according to the SIR /EIS. The two major issues affecting the City of Rancho Cucamonga a_!:: 1. Interchange spacing, i.e., the provision of one -mile spaces for interchanges as previously planned for in the City of Rancho Cucamonga versus the Federal Highway Administration's s`andard of requiring a minimum two -mile separation between interchanges in rural areas. 2. A request by the City of Fontana to provide diract access to Cherry Avenue from Route 30. Both Caltrans and the Federal Fighway Administration believe ar interchange at Cherry avenue could pose operational problems for the Route 30/1 -15 interchange by providing an arterial interchange within a freeway-to-freeway interchange. As indicated on Page 5 -14 of the subject document, "Further analysis of the above noted design issues remain underway. These issues will 1*s fu?ly addressed and - resolved prior to completion of the final environmental documentation. Other unresolved design issues, such as the location of frontage roads, park and ride lots, and the- identi'.ication of bor=: sites PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ROOTS 30 EIR /EIS - CITY OF :tANCHO CUCAMONGA August 28, 1991 Page 3 for fill material, etc., are being addressed in cooperation with corridor cities. These issues will be resolved in conjunction with the final project design and wt.uld be subject to separate ' environmental documentation." ANALYSIS: A. Full Freeway Alternative: As indicated in the attached August 9S, 1991, Memorandum from City Engineer Joe O'Neil (Exhibit "B "), the full freeway alternative is supported by tae Engineering Divielon and the Public Safety Commission (at it's August 6, 1991 meeting) with the mitigation measu''as - being in the b -at interest of the City of Rancho CuVamonga. The fi-1 fe ieway alternative is shown in the attached copy of Figure 2 -1 frc ' ne E_ ./EIS and shows the location of elevated and depressed segments of` the freeway as well as the proposed '_ntetchange locations,, Figure 2 -2 illustrates a typical freeway section of this alternative. A sub - alternative that is considered within the environmental document !-a a full freeway with a modified two -mile interchange spacing. As shown on the attached Table 2 -3, this alternative would r =moe -: interrhanges proposed at Carnelian and East Avenues. It shouud be noted that with a modified two- mile interchange alternative, increased congestion would likely be experienced on the arterials accommodating " diverted traffic solumes requiring the affected cities. -to provide additaana;, arterial capacity. The arterial lane configurations required__to revive this needed capacity is in excess of their recommene,d guider ' - - established for arterial roalways. These configurations couid create both operational and design ;toble-as which will be difficult to mitigate. In addition, the widening of arterial roads beyond their planned widths may involve. significant impacts upon local communities (e.g., residential and comme-n.;-1 displacement). Further, the aities along the Route 30 Corridor have long proceeded with their general plan programs with the assumption that the freeway would include irate ^hanges proposed in the one-mile alternative. The two -mile alternative w -uld, therefore, b.± inconsistent with land use and circulation elements of local general plans. It should be noted that urban development is proceeding rapidly in the areas of Upland, Reneho. Zuoamonga, Fontana, and Rialto which are the cities affected by thb 'two -mile alternative. Significant future developmen is projected to occur in these areas pursuant to the local general pianb. Therefore, prior to completion,of the Route 30 Extension project, theae areas would most certainly qualify for the urban interchange spacing standards of the Federal Highway Administration. B. Phasing and Funding: Although a ;precise ? hasing schedule for the project has not yet bean established, it is anticipated the final project design would be developed over a two- to four -year period following project approval. it is estimated that the full freeway alternative would most likely occur in stages beginning in areas where travel denand is greatest, the project could, therefore, evolve into a five- to 'en year development: i PLANNING COMMIV310N STAFT'lEEORT ROUTE 3Q,EIR /EIS - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOITGA August 28, 1991 Page 4 { The construct:".i and right -of -way costs for the full freeway slterr.ati is estimated to be approximately $719 r,llion (1989) dollars. This includes approximately $104 million right^:'£ way costs and about $615 million iii construction costs. In additiF:a Ito monies from state and federal }y;ynway construction funds, var_.ous ocher•., funding sources could taclude, Sr:n Bernardino Covsty's Measure I sales tax revenues, developer fees, and the estatlishment of benefit assessment districts. According to a preliminary estimate of potential Route 30 revenue sources included in a 1989 Arthur Young a Compan st�irly'it was indicated that th9se revenue sources could 5e combined to provid?;'sufficient project funding. C. Detailed.. Cc- ts an, Recoa_endations: A detailed lint of comments and, cancerns ergaiized by corresponding EIR /EIS sections is contained in Exhibit "A "- attached hereto for consideration rnd recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: Stair recormends the i'laxu.ing Conmission,consider the attached Exhibit "A " containing detailed comments and 'recomment:Ltions concerning the draft EIRJEIS and make a recommendation to the .City Council for their consideration at their Siptember 40 1991 meeting. RespeScZAntV sub d, f :. Brad B ei City Planner BB:LJH /jfs Attachments. Figure 2 -1 - proposed Freeway Alternatve Figure 2- -2 - Typical Freeway Cross - Section Table 2 -3 - inte.change Spacing Alternatives Exhibit "A" - Detailed List of Comments and Concerns Exhibit "B" - Memo from Joe O'Neil dated August 15,1991 I i - I Al 111 G> .% C .j e z 3 IL�cc C] a Lu =i 0 � a O TABLE 2 -3 Aft INTERCHANGE SPACING kCTERNATIVES "Two -Miley c; "One -Mile" Alternative Modified Alternative Interchange Locations Interchange Locations Foothill Boulevard Foothill Boulevard' Fruit Street Fruit Street Towne Avenue Towne Street Padua Avenue Padua Avenue Mountain Avenue b1 imain Avenue Campus Avenue Campus Avenue Carnelian Avenue Archibald Avenue Arcibald Avenue Haven Avenue Haven Avenue Milliken Avenue Milliken Avenue ft Day Creek Boulevard Day Greek Boulevard' East Avenue I -15 Freeway 1 -15 Freeway $ Beech Avenue Beech- Citrus '# Citrus Avenue _ Sierra Avenue Sierra Avenue Alder Avenue 'Alder -Ayala [21 Ayala Avenue Riverside Avenue Riverside Avenue Pepper Avenue State Street State Street Freeway- 11*,-fr teway intechange Split - diamond inierchanges V i d , EXHIBIT "A" DETAILED LIST OF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS ' 3.9.2 - NOISE SETTING, A. Geuraral As noted in the SIR /EIS Administrative Draft, Technical Report G was not included; therefore, no information was available or location, design, or height of proposed sound walls. Theze£or % the City of Rancho Cucamonga would like to formally request a copy , of Technical Report G. in particular, those sections pertinent tc the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The City reserves the opportunity to further commsnt once that Technical Report has been submitted to the City. 3.10 - LAND USE A. General I The paragraph on Rancho Cucamonga on Page 3 -42 should be corrected to read: "Rancho Cucamonga has completed updating it's General Plan as of th- Spring on 1990. The proposed Route 30 corridor continues to bs shown in the latest circulation element to support plan land uses and to improve access to existing freeway systems. 4.1.1 - ErFECTS A. General Comments It should be noted that although the proposed corridor has been in the planning stages for more than, 30 years and potentially affected property owners along the corridor have long bean aware of the possibility for project construction, the visual impact of that construction is certainly not common knowledge to the population that will be affected by said project. In addition it should be noted that in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (a9 indicated in previous sections of the SIR /EIS) has undergone dramatic increase in resicantial construction and the accompanying new population. This trend in also indicated to be an on -going dynamic situation and therefore, it shoixld be fully notidiln the EIk /EIS that a significant number of new 'members of the population may be totally unaware of the freeway project development. - The correct refer,lnce in the first sentence of the third paragraph on Page 4 -1 should be Figure 2 -1 and not Figure 2 -2. �I Y v 4.1.2. - MEASURES TO MINIMISE HARM A. General Considerable discussion is given to consideratio:'t of the visual impacts of the Route 30 freeway construction as contained in Pages 4 -1 through 4 -7 of the EIR /EIS. In terms' of impacts to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, those'' impacts can be delineated into two categoriees: The first category is the aesthetic view and image portrayed to those traveling on the freeway through the City of Rancho Cucamonga The second category are those residents who view those sections of the freeway which are above grade, primarily residents within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are living near the freeway or traveling on local and arterial streets. It is therefore somewhat disconcerting to see that the mitigation measures contained on Page 4 -8 appear to place all significant mitigation measures upon the local agencies involved. The City of Rancho Cucamonga would like to see two mitigation measures added to Section 4.1.2. These conditions are as follows: 1. Caltrans will be responsible for developing within each local jurisdictior. a Master Plan of Landscaping and in some cases, irrigation for ultimate implementation by both Caltrans and the local . jurisdiction. 2. At a minimum, the genera-_,lariducape theme should utilize large rocks, boulders, and significant masstng of trees and shrubs similar to that found on a mountainside and previously .implemented by Caltrans at the 210 and 605 freeway interchanges in the County of Los Angeles. This Jim mitigation will go a long way in mitigating the loss of view of Rancho Cucamonga Peak and adjacent hillsides. In addition, this mitigation measure would dovetail with mitigations already called out in the EIR /EIS for re =lacement and retenti�.; of biological resources identified in the right -of -way in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (see Figures 4 -6 through 4 -11 of the EIR /EIS). Add the following line VN the first sentence of the mitigation measure -,pn !Rage 4-38, second paragraph from the bottom: "By a qualified arborist wY:. shall document the species and size (i.e., diameter at breast, high crown width, and he,'.ght)." 4.11. PARRS AND RECREATION A. 4.11.1 Effects - Trails Pl,..asc correct Table 4 -12, Trail Crossings, by ad4':ng the proposed East Avenue Bike Trail with a corresponding grade separation at the East Avenue overcrosjing. A copy of the City's Exhibit labeled Figure 7, General Bikeways Plan, is attached for reference. B. 4.11.2 Measures to Minimize Hare The City of Rancho Cucamonga requests that a mitigation measure be added to this neotion addressing the need to design the project to accommodate all trails listed in Table A -12. �m rrm.Qnnsc a. Summary Providing an important east -west thoroughfare, Route 30 wi-.? eventually extend eastward in the City of Rancho Cucamonga along the histoilo corridor of Highland Avenue. This extension has been a part of local and state planning.since its adoption in 1949, ..ts sixspension in the late 1970s, and it- rejuvenation in the mid - 1980x. Although much of the material culture of the citrus industry thich prospered along the foothills has been destroyed or significantly altered, significant elements remain and some stand to be impact,%O by the freeway's extension. Review of such resources to date has utilized Ra'„ional Register Guidelines, per Section 106 and NEPA (National Environmental. Policy Act), to determine five historic resources in Rancho Cucamonga eligible for the Register. Whi. *� the proposed mitigations for these identified sites begin to address the'.,ange and severity of potential- impacts, there are no provisions made for the monitoring and reporting as specified in AS 3160. A number of resources in the Alta Loma and Ytiwanda communities wh:h lie along Highland Avenue anu various intersectlons have not been included in the review process thus far. Per CBQA's (Cali£vrnia Environmental Quality Act) Appendix G, Item J, a project impacting historic or cultural vesoLrces important to a community or group should analyze 1,nd when necessary provide mitigations for such resources. Fu- thermore, there exists no denotation of the location of the eight archaeological sites reviewed for the project, see Section 3.7.1., and thus it is difficult to assess these potential resources per CEQA. A. General Comments Five Rancho Cucamonga properties were identified as eligible for the National Register: the 3-ta and Alfreda Maloof House and Workshop: the Harbert and Evelyn Goeriitz House; the Isle House; the Ernst Mueller house; and the eucalyptus trees of ttue Etiwanda Windbreak Rural Historic Landscape. Some major issues surrounding the ultimate character of the freeway- -such as interchange spacing and full freeway or freeway/expressway--have yet to be finalized. Since the EIR /EIS has been drafted assuming a full freeway configuration with one -mile interchange spacing through the City, subsequent decisions altering these assumptions would require further investigation to determine r:jte^tial impacts. The City of Rancho Cucamonga supports the full Freeway Alternative with complete interehangos at 1 mile intervals as shown in the City�s rGeneral Plana The Alternate Interchange Alternative would remove the Carnelian Street and East Avenue interchanges and therefore is inconsistent With the City's Plan. Although the impact an two eligible resources, the landmarked Palms and Eucalyptus trees and the Mueller House, could be reduced, it is unclear what effects the lack of an interchange would have on nearby streets, in particular on Etiwanda Avenue, and therefore possibly other cultural resources. For all but the Mueller House, the freeway as it is currently proposed would have resolute effects on these five identified propertieo and thus require specific mW- -7ation -aeasures. The "Drift Finding of Effects" found that the freeway's construction would have an "adverse effect" on all of the sites and proposed a variety of mitigation measures. The draft EIR /EIS // explores a variet} of alternatives, including often the most extremes "No Project" and "Comp, ti9 Freeway Realignment." Further analysis which follows suggests further mitigation measures. i q�nC�TAr, yR� " 1►. Nature and Adequacy of Proposed Hitigationa Proparty; -. The cam and Alfre a M'aleof Revid nc a 6 Studio (n Impact: The Maloof property lies directlrJ:_in the proposed path of the extension under both t,'N Ful3 Freeway and Freeway /Expressway alternae';a,,,s, taking approximately 3.8 of the total 5.1<acrt'.lte. Proposed Pitigations: The SIR /EIS suggests possible mitigation measures including the relocation of the structures,: a minor- alignment change and Construction of a .. retaining wall; and H.ASS- t ?uality documentation prior to relocation or demolition of the structures. u Recommendation, Representatives from the City, Calilrans, SANSAG, the MalO4 family, and Federal Highway Commission, others inet during the firs: three mon{ %s of 1991 to discuss a full range of mitigation options to minimiae the freeway's impact on this very -. significant and complete .cultural and aesthetic resource. Most of the alternative3 discussed during these meetings are not presented in the draft environmental documentation, including the combination preferred by the Maloo£'s, of alignment adjustment, relocation of the Maloof <: family, and establishment of_ a museum/cultural center. These kinds of mitigations should be completely addressee: prior to finalization of such documentation and a thorough mitigation monitoring and reporting program developed for the decided mitigations. Property: The H rb rt -nd Eo is agarlitz House (o_ 9 -191 Impact: Most if not all of the site's settia; and contest would be destroyed by the proposed freeway - -3.2 of 4.9 acres. A eucalyptus -lined drive, providing access and a strong historic sense of entry, along with an aged oak, and most of the original citrus groves`wou7.d be removed. Proximity to the southern right -of -way would cause much greater unattenuated noise levels and place the front of the home and I business within 90 feet of the pavement. Proposed mitigations: A proposed realignment affecting both the Naloof and the Goerlita house would reduce the distance between the front. (north) aide`O% the house and the pavement would be increased to ilO feet. A 16 -foot sound .wall and /or landscape buffer - are also proposed as 4e11 as HASS- tquality documentation if significant a teration or demolition occur. KI El Recommendations Every effort should be made to preserve, maintain, and protect during construction the stature oak and Property: Impact: as much of the exiOT,,ing grove as possible. Since the Full Freeway altiernative would eliminate the site's current access):nd- inhibit its current use, a detailed plan for . access which includes appropciate� landscaping 3r'�roring the historic design shoui4 be developed. A-cc4lete mitigation ,monitoring and,reporting proriram should` also be developed for the property prior to 2inali�ation of the EIR /EIS. U James Q. Isle Houma, p, 9 20. Situated on an 18 9 -acre -site, the home lies directly In the proposed freeway path, and the draft E,TR'EIS calls out for its removal or demolition:' Proposed Mitigations: A vaguely worded statement regarding the relocation of the home along wit >a HABS- cuality documentation is proposed. Recor aadations: The effects of a possible realignment did not receive the detailed treatment those for the Maloof residence did (mapaj calculations of displaced individuals, cost, 1) ss of structures). No mention of the existing setting- -the entranoa palms , the windrows -- occurs in the document. These contributing resources should be relocated as well. Furthermore the writers of the environmental document state that "relocation of the house ';anelg result in the removal" of one, or more mature Eucalyptus trees from the perimeter of site," .without explaining this statement. The home and the Palm's relo%`.tion'should be sponsored by the agencies at.- ce carefully and thdroughly adverl4sed with preference given to property owners in the Etiwanda community. R detailed mitigat in monitoring and reporting program should also I :t- completed prior to a' final determination of mitigations. i PSOP&rty:. The Meellvt HoV n_ 4 -57 I impact: The proposed East Avenue eastbound off -rsmp as well as the southern pavement edge will impact the home. Proposed Mitigations: The craftsman hems is not included in the mar_dated 4f Review and no mitigations were proposed, although a standard 16' soundwall would be constructed. Recommendations.- In the "Draft Finding of Effects," measures suggested to reduce the freeway's impact on the Mueller house included the relocation of the East Avenue interchange and the const:-uction of a noise barrier along the northern property boundary. However, the draft EIR /EIS omitted the site from ,? review under Section 4(f), adserting that although the historic character of the property cou'd b2 diminished by indirect noise and visual impact., these effects would not substantially impair the site's historic character. Ater a careful AM review, the City proposes no further mitigations. Property: :The F.tiwanda Windbreak Rural Historic Tandjc= Smpa ^t: The f::eeway as it is proposed would -remove 35 a ^res, about 6,340 linear feet of eucalyptus wi,;- 'rows. Proposed Mitigations: No specific mitigations are proposed in the document, rather relocation r.nu replacement of taken windrow are Said to be "under consideration." Recommendations. With respect to the Windbreaks, he Ci- y's- Rtimanda R^m ;fc.�pl�n calls out for eucalyptus windreus to be replaced at a l,:x ratio -d thus the 5:1, ratio is unacceptable by our City'; standards. Moreover, as designated Landmarks, the Palm tress along Highland Avenue should also be subject to mitigations which would reduce the proposed freeway's impact. It seems plausible to mitigate the retention and relocation of as many palms in the right of way as possible. Any and all mitigations should be carefully detailed and the lead agencies should provide for the environmental review process ss detailed under CEQA, a full mitigation monitoring and reporting plan. ANALYSIS or uNIrrsTIBISD ..00AL RESOM=S AND PROPOSlD MITIGATIONS A . GenQrml L'omatnts State architectural hi,- :orians from CaXtrans and their consultants surveyed each potentially historic site built prior to 1946 within 500 feet of the proposed freeway's ^iontirline, and produced a "Historical Architectural Survey Report." Under NEPA this review utilized National Register Guidelines, per Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and thus sought to determinR potential eligibility for the Register for each of the surveyed sites. A number of the City's local resources, then, fell below the National Register's significance standard used by State historians in their review but still stand to be impacted by the proposed freeway extension. Under CEQA the oro ject's EIR /EIS would have to take into account the proposed freeway's impact on structures deemed significant or potentially significant by local standards. Caltrans officials have claimed that NEPA= can supersede CEQA in projects funded ,: yes:, by the Federal Government: Tie City's legal counsel has concurred with that of the California Prwservatio; eoundatica in determining t',at CEQA standards for cultural resource review apply to this freeway project. The ineligible sui:aeyed resources in the Alta Loma and Etiwanda communities which lie -along Highland Avenue and various intersections are from West to East: the Ellen Loeb House, 9911 Highland Ave.; the Hilieman Residence, 10067 Highland Ave.; the H. W. Minor Residence, 10304 39th Street; the Goaney Ranch,: 6422 Haven; Casaletti's Polka Palace, 12583 Highland Ave.; the Ross House, 6527 Etiwanda Ave.; the hemp House, 13151 Highland Ave.; and the Tibbetts House, 13716 :Highland Ava. 1 8. Whin- significant structures /Sites Aft PSOpeSl y: The Ellen tnp Hoy• 04'x. H ghl ani Ave Im2..act: it appears that the proposed freeway right of line falls jusf; on or directly south of this site. Thus the freeway would have a severe impact on the mite and it ,is probable that the site could be destroyeo:._Koreover, the freeway alignment begina a 1.59% climb from a -0.47 depression at the Archibald intersection and ':he graSe difference between the existing lan; ,orm (noted on the included maps' dross- section wit;t a dotted line) is approximately 35 feet. Therefore if the right of way does not "takes the structures` on the Loeb ^te, the construction of a retaining /sound wall seemingly would alter irrevocah4 the resource. There exists a strong possibility that the freeway will be realigned to reduce its impact on the Maloof and Goerlitz properties and at this time it remains difficult to assess the final impact of the L proposed freeway. Proposed Mitigations: None Reczmmendations: According to the State's research, the Loeb site has undergone, significant alterations., Althougb potentially significant due to the scoCe of .:Yi�3 uses, including workers' housing it is questionable whether the site would meet local landmark criteria. Property: The Hilleman Residence. 10067 Highland Avenue Impact: The proposed right of way biaacts this site and as with thc, Loeb site disOssed psaviously any freeway realignment could alter the site's final shape. \ S =ponied Mitigations: None Recommendations: Staff concurs with the iindtha-'a of Calt As hiato:,tans: "This house hra beam altered- sd substantially that it is difficult to assess its original appearance," and therefore does not recommend any mitigations. Property: The H_ w_ M1nQr Res;'1pn -e, t 0304 14 h S „p r, Impact: The full freeway alternative appears :to mequire a ' major portion of the existing l)mon grove above the , -" Minor ),ome. - Proposed Mitigations: None Pecommendations: The ``Minor family decidedly played a significant roll " ,in the development of Alta Lama a70. the IV �tureTS use as an egg ranch is an example of a use khich is now very rare in our rapidly 'suburban area. Fu"hermore, the house's setting, t let..-an grove, is As the Architectural inventory itates:l}a C. k Proposed Mitigations: Recommendations: Property: impact: Proposed XitigatAons: None Casaiettits is an institution of local importance and a potential, Local Landmark. Access to this complex is currently unclear and should be determined prior to finalization of the environmental_ _v view process. There also might exist archaeological deposits of significance about which the City should be in.ormed. Thp Rasgi House, 6927 Ettlwaada Avp_. The house would air. althin 5G feet of the freeway ar.d approximately 20 feet above freeway grade. The proposed isaeway as well as construction of a barrier /aoundwall Would see."a to impact this site.' Access to the home also is ambivalently definedo as it is not clear how or if Righland Avenue will continue along this section. 0 None very rare example of what w ^s historically the most i common land use pattern along the foothills, We 'encourage the lead agencies to heave as much as possible of the grove intact. Property: Thp ..+an y Ranch_,, 6422 Haven Impact: The proposed freeway would locate this site over 50 feet below the freeway and directly ;north of the westbound on -tamp and directly west of the eastb.iund off -ramp. Proposed Xitigat.ions: None Recommmendations: Further research has determined that the one -time_ ranch does not retain a great level of significance or integrity. Oreperty: The TlbbettA Ha +Sse, 13710 Highland..ygatia Impact: The ho -•e could Sit juat below freeway level directly':t.,south of the off -ramp leading to the north- bourOk Interstate 1S, and thus be impacted) t the freeway?!E, construction. Proposed Mitigations: None Recommendations: The structure has ))ean altered on numerous occasions and its signi.ticance does not appear to be of local Landmark quality at this time. Significant or Potentially Significant Smpacted Structures /Sites AfiRk >ropwrty: Palka% `311ee, 12SAR Highland Avenue Impact: The freeway as proposed would lie;`F-proximately 150 feet north of Casalettl1s; and although not directly impacted, the structures would decidedly be effected by the freeway. Proposed Mitigations: Recommendations: Property: impact: Proposed XitigatAons: None Casaiettits is an institution of local importance and a potential, Local Landmark. Access to this complex is currently unclear and should be determined prior to finalization of the environmental_ _v view process. There also might exist archaeological deposits of significance about which the City should be in.ormed. Thp Rasgi House, 6927 Ettlwaada Avp_. The house would air. althin 5G feet of the freeway ar.d approximately 20 feet above freeway grade. The proposed isaeway as well as construction of a barrier /aoundwall Would see."a to impact this site.' Access to the home also is ambivalently definedo as it is not clear how or if Righland Avenue will continue along this section. 0 None Recpmmendai;ipnat gured`ai ificanil in Etiw>.ndA The Rosef family fi qn y 's " history and dasptte the loss of the front porch and. retlated outbuildings, the family home remains . locally Significant, We concur with St&t* arebitectural historians who found that the Ross home had lost much of the Ross family -era details -- the large front porch, context, the ;outbuildiAgs, citrus gro7es, and other, agrierAturally- related elements. However+ it does fall within the parameters of the City's Historic Preservation .Ordinance, and is listed as a Potential Local Landmark, and deserves mitigations under CFQ2, We recommend that'priok to the completion of this review, proceae, W t.igation language be provided that <oopensatea fox the taking of the properties windrow per a replacement program based an City standards and that matters of access are more clearly defined: A 'mitigation monitoring and reporting ptngram would-also be included, Property: 13151 Rutland Ave_ Impact: The eastbound freewap off -ramp as proposed, would lie 2\1 feet below and abut the property and, thus bring'pe house approximately within 90 feet of the off - ramp., 'The site woW d thus sea= to be. impacted „gignifil`antly it is also unclear at this "'time the ` - ;Itimrt�� configuration of Highland Avenue and "thexafor�,access to the home is ill- defined, Proposed Mi.tigat: ons: None ReoQawndations: Like the Ross home, the Kapp #`udly home st &nds as a reminder of Etiwauda's %,Ptrus legaoy--p�rhaps an incomplete remainder, o:ng lost an elaborate porch and signifi�.'afit ,outbuildinga, but a locally significant struct�-s all thA-sams. Althos gh the State findings ses,aca to domffV =the ivk=r_ance and longevity of the Re� fami.ly` in Etiwanda, it is true that the structux, ,itself and its context have been altered and that these alterations have not achieved any keen hisxw.ical sense of their own: Like Casaletti's and,th- Ross Housa, this home is On the ;City�'a Riot ,,Ac Properti, Survey, We recommend that the elnastions"Of access be defined cle'ei4ly and that a suitably and dense landscape buffer platted to mitigate the visual impact of the freevay> ;, l P i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOI A MEMORANDGUvto CITY OF RANCHO CUCAWNOIA J�. � 11,hN r . D,Vt_Z ON DATE: August 15, 1991 AUG 15 1991 i- AN TO Larry Hender vn, Principal Plann%9191141119414118 I I FROM: Joe O'Neil, City EngineeC BY: Paul A. Rougeau, Traffic- Engineer SUBJECT: Route 30 Free-Way Environmenial Impact Report ii The above - referenced EIR /EIS is now under public review, with comments due by September 15, 1991, to Caltrans in San Bernardino. ' The Engineering Division is. completing its review, of the repor =: and will have final convents available ` by -August 21. The repor`a was gives to the Public Safety Commission at its August 6 meeting, with the request that comments be -.sent to Engineering. The Commission generally supports the`, furl freeway ,alternative with mitigation measures as. best for our City. .The Commission docided not to hold a workshop on the subject due to the short time before tts need to submit comments. While continuing our review for the presence of errors or needed information or mitigations from the circulation standpoint,, it can be said now that the, report, analyzes the option which I�a� ' been the 1 desire of the City Council. This :s the full free aiterokst;ive with 1 complete interchanges at Carnelian Street, Archibald, kavut'and Milliken Avenues, Day Creek Bdulevard and East Avenue. Other alternatives are also examined as required by law and Federal direction. Our comments and any received from others will be reported to you as available. P AUG 2S '91 16-22 SIEMON LRRSEN M-19SH p,= MaXORANDr M g mon, Xarsen & &ulla, 70: Rancho cuoamouga city CounolI Rancho cv- aucaga Plauniag commission Rancho Cucamonga Histolrio COULUissiea FROM: Ma:: 4 Lynn X. Coffee DATE: August 28, 1991 RE: comments on Draft Envira aentmal Smpaxct •*port /Btatsment No. YM- cA- 928- 91 -1-D prepared fav the RoUbs 30 Proposed Project We are writing on behalf of our clients, Sam and Alfreda Maloof, . o offer the following genwral commetitsa on the Draft Environmental impact Report/ Statement No. FHWA -C.A- EIS- 91 -1 -D (4,.he '$draft EIS"). We are currently preparing moLz, in -du th legal comments to zu:nait to the agencies that prepared the draft EIS (the "responsible agencies ") by September 15, 1991. However, we would 1, ke you to cons`der the following comments. As we see it, there are at 1 *aLt two major problems with the draft EIS: it does not appropria,ely recognize the priceless and irreplaceable nature of the -WNloof studio, 'am* and landscape; and it does riot adequately .reference and dis -ass all of the mitigation alternar -av 3 that have been and should be considered for the Maloof prc,, ;rty. As you know, the Maloof home studio and landscape are of the highest architectural, artistir -, historical and cultural value. The house and studio are truly extraordinary in the intricacy and craft of their woodwork and amsign, making the buil�Aingss obje- sy of a:;tt thc�aselver. Further, the house and studio are fi.'� `.ed with a wonderful and valuable collection of art and c:.afct oboe :ts, including woodworking pieces that Sam h&A created, and pieces that San 2nas "traded for" with other woodworking craftpersons of his era. Sam built the house and studio organically with the lemon trees, avocado trees and other landscape features of his property, room -by -room, over the last 40 years. Sam's decisions on the design and materials of the house were rdade in the context of the landscape setting r:. the property. Through this creative and artistic process, the design of the house and studio has become a part of their .landscape, just as the landscape is now a part of the house and studio. The wistire property, the buildings ant the grove, have served as the milieu for Sam's creative efforts. The VAdWP3I%(ARiIY=191MI5 -UBM AuG 28 'S2 IS;23 SIEMGN LARSEN MARSH property as a whole is the only place joined with Sam's lifelong pursuit of art. The home and studio nestled in citrus groves have provided, and should continue to provide Sam with she environment that he needs to perform his craft. All of these factors, the nature of the home and studio, tha importance of their setting, the connection of the entire property with Sam Maloof, and the importance of the property to Sam's ability to continue to work, combine to create a treasure that is irreplaceable. The value to the public of this treasure should be explicitly recognized in the draft CIS. We encourage the city of Rancho Cucamonga to suggest tha: the draft EIS recognize the architectural, historical, artistic, and cultural significance of the Maloof home, studio and landscape. The second major problem with the draft BI:.' is its failure to adequately explain all of the mitigation alternatives that might be undertaken to reduce the destructive impact that the construction of the freeway will have on the Maloof property. While the draft EIS briefly outlines some of the mitigation alternatives available, it does not list all of the mitigation alternatives that have been considered and does not give a detailed discussion of any alternative. of course, we believe that the significance of the Maloof property warrants extraordinary avoidance measures. From our perspective, the best measures would involve an alternative freeway design requiring the freeway to be constructed in such a way as not to impact the Maloof propertyxt all. for instance, the cut- and - tunnel alternatives, the alternatives allowing realignment or redesign of the freeway to miss the Maloof property, or the alternative not to build the freeway as it is currently planned would be ideal solutions. But there are also mitigation alternatives that should be considered which are not outlined in the draft EIS. Specifically, the draft EIS fails to address a creative solution that will provide for the interests or the Maloof family, the interests of the public in the historical and architectural value of the property, and the interests of the responsible agencies in meeting transportation needs. From the beginning, the Maloof's have recognized that the pror*sed route 30 project implicated several interests. The ability to recognize all of these interests is to the Maloofs' credit, because it is difficult to recognize other interests when one's family interest in a home, property, lifelong career and family heritage of 40 years is threatenae�. As a result of their recognition of all the interer:46 implicated in the project, the Maldofs, in good fa'_ s, have entered into discussions with several other agency representatives to explore a creative solution, in which all interests would be me-. m2MXWP51%MA3h,rrv. #109oisJ%OH ALIG 29 '91 1@:23 SZEMON UZZPSEN MAP.SH = i Those discussions covered approximately fourteen ' different mitigation alternatives, only a few of which are outlined in any detail in the draft EIS. One of those mitigation alternatives would provide for a sale of the property to the appropriate agencies, with provisions,;for the- preservation by an apprr�riate historical or artistic foundation of the Mraloot'home and whatever grounds could b saved from freeway destruction. Also, provisions to allow the. Maloofz to continv -a to occupy their property for -the remainder of their I;ives, provisions '= r%locate the Malcofs upon freeway construction, provisions postpzoning colrttruction of the portion of the freeway affecting the - Maloof property for as long as is feasivle'and prudent, and provisions to realign t'w freeway to save as much of the Maloot property as is feasille and prudent, both for posterity when it becomes _,a museum wind for the Ualoofs as long as they occupy and work -o the property, -entered into th-c liscussi,on of this mitigaUan alternative. These alternatives and the discussions that generated them are not adequately described in the draft Efs. We would like the city to encourage the responsible agencies at least to pursue a creative solution to avo3(" destruction of the Maloof property. Wa would also like the city to encourage the responsible agent es to include anti adequately explain all of the miti.gatiom alternatives available, including the alternatives discussued above. Support for either of two types of alternatives wuuld be helpful: 1) the design alternatives - requiring th'4 freeway to be constructed in a manner that would not impact the Maloof property at all; or 2) the mitigation alternatives, including those discussed above,-that would insure the least impact to the Maloof property by preViding for: realignment o2 the freeway so that it is as ftr from the home and studio as possible, a delay, in construction of the part of the freetway that woald impact the Maloof property, they rotertior = the Maloofs of a life interest in their property, the preservation of the Maloof property is en artistic and historical treasure, appropriate consideration for the Maloof family interest in d:.e property, and relocation of the Maloofs should that become necessary. On behalf o:" the Maloot t, thank you for your consideration. mllY'.aYPS1l11AII91P1E1 Dl9'0601S.k.,`1[ 3 HISTORIC pRFSERVAi�`" - itiKr,3SION ACTIONS RELATIVM TO THE ROUTE 30 SIR/EIS A August 27, 1991' MOTION:. 34oved by Prestou,__saconded by Cooper,. ca.:riPd 6 -0 -1, that the Historic Prenervation Commission accept the staff rsnort of August 27, 1991, and forward it to City Council, reiterating the '.4ortance Jf the following: 1) the mitigations measures be mox�e,completsly detailed..and more thoroughly analyzed by CaltraXsr and '- 2) a specific timeline accompany the implementation of each if those measures. e AYES. C0MMISSI0N'ERS: AMR, BILLIi?Gor COOPER* SASKVk", * pREdTON, ECBMIDT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BANKS -cam MOTION, respect to specific mitigation measures provided for the Maloof, house, that furthor d �,=mentatlon be provided in the SIR resaxding the unique historical and architectural, significance of that property>,and that more complete detailing of specific mitic4P1 hi6i- measures 'be �=vided which should include ltt:as listed in the/,ataff report, as we" z . as a life estate, phasing the freeway improvements ,i provide the mr imum amount of time for the property owner, and a more aetaile3 consideration rE the many facets cf the proposed mitigations, especially= .wit`x regard to =he museum cultural center alternatived. ' ? AYES: COMMISS.L'ONERS: ARNER, BILLINGS, CGDPP:R, HASKVITZ, PRESTON, SCHMIDT NC;ES: CW.471` 'r': x".RS: NONE ABS£NIZ- C0MMII,SIO.XRS.- BANKS .Garri.�f ..�- ,