The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991/10/09 - Agenda Packet "'0 ORER '9 1991 P,C,I-,—AG,EN'DA 0 Ol7-q2,,,,,, CT 0.—� "" , , I — e'l I r . oicn yp,� f; r ip Goo �9 CITY OF RANCHO CCJCA.MONGA 3Z AGENDA' ' 1977 `WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 9, 1991 : 7:00'P.M, II RANCHO CUCAM©NGA CIVIC CENTER " COUNCIL CHAMBER> 7I 10500 CIVIC�CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONLA, CALIFORNIA 1 I. Pledge of Allegiance ` IF. 'Roll 'Call Commissioner Chitiea Commissioner Tolstoy,'�'.i Commissioner McNiel CommijY,_Joner°Valletta FCommissioner Mel'aher III. Annovmcements la.; - - IV. Approval of Minutes September 11, 1991 V. Consent'dalendar, II The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial.- They will be acted on by the Commission at one time, without discussion. ` If anyone has concern over/'�ny item, it should be removed for discussion. A. SUMMARY VACATION OF ORCHARD AVENUE A request to vacate Orchard Avenue from Terra Vista Parkway` East to` approximately 220 faet south westerly - APN: 227-151-27. VI. Public Hearings > The• following items are ,)ublic hearings in ;which! concerned indivi.ivals`may voice their opinion of the related project. r�ease wait to be recognized by the ' Chairman and 'id%Tgss , the ' Conitissioil by stating your name and address. All such op lions >shall be limited to ',5 ,,minutes per,,indiviai ai for each project- Please sign iH after s�eakng. r n t° B. ENVIRONMENTAL I71PACT REAP RT , FOR ,VZKQ1 PLAN. 90 DM1 TY EN I OF :RANI H0 CUCAMONGA A public` ng to comment"on_ the draft final environment.• '}npact report prepared for the Etivanda North .�, rcific' �- Flan and General Flan Amendment 90_� to pre<,one;; }proximately 6,840 acres of ti itory in the izLhcho .Vcamonga sphere of znf�' e to ' provide for 3,J')f, single family dwel units on 2,473 acres< of vacant land, 28 ,,,�ep of neighborhood commercial use, Al, schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, eza preservation of 4,112 acres of open space g�Ait.ally located north ,77�f Highland Avenue (Stag Route 30), south of the San Bera;ar.dino-National Forest, west of the City; "' tontana, and tart of *Mil ken Avenue. (7J'Atinued from September 11; C. ENVIRONMENTA"L ASSESSMENT 'AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-QI�CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMUNGA A request to recommend approval of the Etiwanda North ,,Specific Plan, pcezoning.,,approximately 6,840 acres of territory A tc.e Rancho , Cuc.am„o.,nga sphere of,'ir_fluence to provide for 3,613 sincle family d4ell3n%,,omits- on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres pf neighborhood commercial use, Aft 4 schools, 5 ),Arks, an equestrian center,,; and preservation f6f 4,112 acres of open space generally ; located north of highland Avenue {State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest ;-Test of th�_YCity of Fontana, and east"of Milliien Avenue. ('Continued from' September 111 1991.) D. ENVIRONMENTAL, -ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN ?1MENDMENT 90-038 - CXTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA request to recommend approval of a General Plan .Amendment to provide consistency with the draft`' Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoxling approximately 6,840 acres of territory in U's Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence fi 67 provide for2,3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres tf neighborhood commercial,; use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation .of 4,112 acmes of open s;�,�ce generally located north of Highland _:venue:; (State Route 30) south,�of the San Bernardino National Forest; 'west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken _Avenue. (Continued from September 11. 1991.)' i k l E. CONDITIONAL, US5 PERMIT 91-29 - DR. SHIMSELDIN GOUDA: 0-.N.M. A request to establish; a veterinary hospital in a leased space of 2,;673; square feet wiUxin the existing: Vineyards `.M marketplace on 11,79(---icres of land 1n the village Commercial'i District - of the"Victaria. it Community Plan located at; the southwest cornea of Woodruff and Highland APN: 227-011-25 ' F. CONDITIONAL USE PER'KIT � 1--28 - 6TASHTI�SGTON A e, request to establish-,aa furniture -ref;inishing husines::'within a leased space of 3,475 square feet within an existing multi-tenant industrial complex within, the General Industrial -District (Subarea '3) of the Industrlal',, Area Specific Plan, located at 9497 9th Street, Suite A - APN: 209-032-24. G. VARIANCE 91-10 ', 71ANCHO: SAN ANTONI(3' MEDICAZ, CENTER A request"'to allow a third monument Sign and`.a* combined t�tal'of four sign$, within the existing Rancho S", Antonio Medical Center, located at the; souti gist "corner of' Milliken Avenue and Church Street within the Terra Vista Planned,,Comminity - APN: 227-711-01. H. MODIFICATION TO CONAITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-42 PITASSI-DALMAU -A', request to modify the previous ;approval to provide for the phased development of a 45,150 square foot YMCA fac:Uity on 4.83 acres of;, land in, the Recreation commercial'designation,-of of the Terra Vista Planned Communitn located` on the east side of Milliken Avenue north of church 'Street [ - APN: 227-151-13. I. ENVIRONIMi TAL .ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL VSE PERMIT 91-20 <- SHELL OIL - . A request to establish- a gas station, mini-market, and car leash on a 1.083 acre parcel in the Medium Residential designation, ;8-14 dwelling units per acre of _the Terra vista Planneo(,Communit located at the southwest corner e, . Base. Line Road and Rochester Avenue - APN: �,�227-151--17. Staff recommends issuance of , a Negative Declaration. Related file: Tentative Parcel Map 13987. Alm ,t 4 s` J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AIM TENTATIVE PARCEL'- MAP_ 12987 ,-` LE14IS aIEL'OPMENT COMPANY The, crAtL eti6n c'( a single,,it,0S3 ,acre parcel for the .: developmer'f of a gas station, mini-markat, and car wash in.the Medium Resid,!�ntial designation ( -14 dwelling units per ao e) of th Terra vista "Planned Community, located at,,, the suthwest , corner of Base Line .Road' and Ruchaster Avenue -- APN. 227w151-17. Staff recommends issuanc& ofoa Negative Declaration. Related file: Conditional Use 'Permit 91-20. `: Ktt ENV ASSESSMENT 'AND 'DEVEI,OPNENT RE VTW 90 20 1 RANCON >'RF ALTY` FTRID r TaI - i2TI;' w� a velo i iient ,of I a 31 acre office-park mast6r\' clan wkthiil the Industrial Park IN stricfi'' (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area °Specific. Plan, located on the north side of Civic Center Drive between `57tite Oak Avenue and Red oak. Street APN: 208-352-23, 24,- 25,.;' 49, and , 50,,- 'Staff recommends issuance of a` Negative De aration. L. ENVIRONMENTAL` ASSESSMENT ANDS -`ENTATIJE PARCEL M13 11 "ON REFJ, 'Y'I,` FUND III -A divisi=_of 31 acres of larjj t-Into 18 parcels - he Industrial .Park D= Lstrit t '(Subarea `7) of the Iuclustrial Are Specific (flan, located on,, the north 's der, of Civic::.CFinier DY �ve' between ` Aft White :Oak Avenue and Red , Oak Street - APN: 208-352-23, 24, '25, 49,' and 50. Staff recommends issuance- of a. Negative Declaration. M. ENVIRONMENTAL F ASS'ESSMENT XID}'` - GENERAL PLAN AIrIENDMENT 91-03 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal 'to amend f--e�Gener�&l Plan: and Use. Map within the victoria., Plirned Community as descr v,ed belc4f. r 1 From Medium ii4h Residential (14-24 1. dwelling units per acre) to Medium Residential r8-14 dwelling .units per`acre for'tlie following'subareas: f z A. For 10.0 acres-cif land located -on tha ` northeast'corner of Base Line ,Road 'and' Milliken .avenue - . APN: Portion of 227-691-01.' VI For 19.3 acres of lard located on the north side of Base Line Road, west of Victoria Park Lane, and east of the, recreational vehicle .'self Storage- facility - APN: 227-092-14 and 15, C. `For 21.77 acres o; land 3,ocat,eq, on the' northwest corner of Base Line I�aad and the .future bay .Creek Boni esrard ', APR: Portion ckf ,�_�,27-091-18 ' and 227-091-20 tbrough 22, and 227 I9, • '--0bl-43. rN . D. For 7.895 acres of land locatea�itc.een _ _appr.,ximately 1;000 feet and 1,300 feet' south of Highland .Avenue on the, *,nest side,; of the future Day Creek Boulevard APN: Portion of 227-021-03 and'13. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units'' per acre) as an alternative land lse 1„ designation for the preceding four w subareas. 2. From, Medium Residential, (8-14 dwelling unit, per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling unitt:)per acre) for the following subareas: R. For 10.1 acres of land ' ocated on the e: t`side. of Milliken Avenue., south 'of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of- way - APN: Portion of 227-681-01. • F. For 18 acres' of land located on the�� east side of Milliken Avenue betweenff Victc?z.ia Park bane and Kenyon Way APN:- 227-011-17. , ' G. For 11.87 acres ,of land located on the. northeast corner ' uf Kenyon Way and Woodruff Place -. 3T I: 227,1-0117-26. H. For 23.03 -acres`dk�land ,located on the,, southeast ,cornea of Victoria Park Lane and Rochester Avenue '- APN: 227.-091-51. I. For 32.14 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Base,t ne Road and. Rochester Avenue - APH: 227-091=45' and`. 46 and A portion of 227-091-44. J. For-20.895' acres of land approximately 892 ,feet north of the 'future Victoria' Park Lane extension on the west side of the future Day Creek Boulevard. - APN: Portion of 227-021-03 and 13. X. For 7.895 acres of land located between approximately 892 feet and 1,200 feet north of the future Victoria Park Lane extension on the west side of the future Day Creek Boulevard APN Portion of 227-021-03 and 13. The Plarix;ing Commission will also consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation, 'efor the ;preceding 'seven subareas. 11 3. From" Medium High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to.Civic/Community for the following subarea:: L. For 2.46 acres of land approximately 406 feet south,of the Southerrp Puc"ific Railroad right-of-way and approximately. 321 feet west of the future-Day Creek Boulevard - APN: Portion of 227-091--18 and 19. 4. From Medium Higr Residential (14-24 dwelling units per 'acre) to Neighborhood commercial for the following subarea: M. For 7.895 acres of lan,A. located between approximately '600 feet: and 1,000 feet south of- Highland:; Avenue on the west side of the:__fu(66re Day Creek Boulevard - APN Portl.u;� of 227-021-03 and 13. The :Planning Commission will also consider Medium Resa,,Aential .(8-14 dwelling units per X acre) as an alternative land use designation for the preceding subarea. Staff ' recommends issuance of a.' Negative Declaration for the entire application. N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSriENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED - COMMUNITY 4ENDMENT 91=03 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - 'A proposal to amend the ''General Plan Land Use Map within the V3ptoria Planned Community as'described below: 1. From Medium 1€ig2i Residential (14-24 dwelling':; units per, acre) to Medium Residential (&-14' dwelling units per acre for the 'following subareas A. For 10.0• acres of land. located on the ,northeast corner., of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: Portion of 227-691-01. `(B. For. 19.3 acres' of land located cm the {� north side of Base Line Road, west of Victoria Park Lane, and east of the tj recrlational vehicle rself , storage:: faci/a;ity - APH: 227-091-14 and 15. C. ' For,21.77 acres of land located on the., northwest corner of Base Line Road and the future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: Portion of 227-091-18 and 19, 227-091-20 'through 22, and °227-091-43. D. For 7.895 acres of land located between; - approximately 1,000 feet and 1,300 feet south' of Highland Avenue on the crest" side of the future Day- Creek Boulevard - APN: Portion of 227-021-03 and 3,3. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per , acre) as an alternative land' use designation for the preceding four subareas. 26 . From Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling`, units per acre) to Low Medium Residential.,, (4-8 dwelling'; units per acre),-)for the fallowing subareas: Ip; k` For 10.1 acres of land located on the,;,: east side of Milliken Avenue south of , the Southern. Pacific Railroad right of way -APN: > Portion of 227-691-01. Y�r r ' F. For 18 acres of land located ,on the . east side of Milliken Avenue,"between Victoria Park Vane and Kenyon Way - APN 227=011-17 y' G. For 11.87 :acres of land located on.the northeast corner of Kenyon flay and ' 'Woodruff Place APN: 227 011-26. H. For 23.03 acres :of land located on the southeast corner of .Victoria Park lane and Rochester Avenue APN: 227--091 51 I. For 32.14 acres of land located on t 4" northeast corner of Base Line Road Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-091-45 i 'd``' 46 and a portion of 227-091-44. J. `-For'20.895 acres .of land approximately' 892 feet north:`of the future Victoria.: Park Lane extension on the west side of the future. 'Day , Creek_Boulevard. APN '"•Portion "of 227-021-0.3'and,13. K. For 1.895 acres of land located between approximately"3892 feet and 1,200 feat northof the future Victoria-,, Park Lane extension on the west side of the -TuturR;i Day Creek Boulevards APN: Portion of'277-021-03 and 13.11 The Planning Commission will,alsltq consider Low Residential (2-4 dwellingunits per acre) as an alternative, �snd use designation for the _ precediing seven subareas. 3. From 'Mediilm High ;,Residential (14-24 ' dwelling." units per acre) to :k Colp-il#fity Facilities for the following subaj{lea•. L• , For 2.46 acres of land app�iprinately. 406 feet south of the Southerin 1lPacific Railroad. right-of-way and appYo:cimately '-` 321 feet west of the feature ,flay Creek Boulevard - APN:' Portion oE 227-091-18 and 19. 4. From Medium Bigh Res dentiallf� ,�(14=24 dwelling units per,, acre) /to,U,�Arillage Commercial for the following sa barie�:' R. . Far 7.895 acres of land lo ci eh,;'between approximately 600 feet and 1;'C0 9 .feet south of Highland Avenue on 'thee west side of,;the future Day Creek Boulevard. APN: Portion of 227-921-03 ;ids 13. The Planning Commission will alsdo.po��isider Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) as, an alternative 1,,'nc't use designation for the preceding subamfiadr ' Staff recommends issuance of a tis4ative' Declaration"for the entire applicat :ox r� a p ENVIRONMENTAL ASSES9jFNT AND DEVELOPMENT `CODE AMENDMENT 91-04 CITY OF RANCHO CU ON^�A - A request to amend Section 17.12.040' �egarding bicycle storage requirements and ^Section 17.08.070' regarding trail maintenance' «equirementa.'.'. Staff recommends iasuanee ,of a Negative Declaration. P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSUTAL .P EA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-=U5 '- CITY,OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Part III, Section ' IV.F regarding bicycle ;storage requirements. Staff, recommends issuance of a Negative Dec1aration. .. V 11. Old Busiusss. Q. AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM FOR RANCHO SAN ANTONZO MEDICAL CENTER - A request' to amend the sign "program to add--)& third ' mprniment sign within the existing 'Rancho San Antonio Medical, Center, located, at the southeast corner. of Milliken Avenue'and. Church Street 'withn the Terra Vista Planned Community APK: 227-7-71-01. Vill. commission Business R. MEETXNG WITH COMMISSIONERS (oral Report) AML TX. Public Comments This is the time and place for.the general publicf to address the commission, _ Items •to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. X. Adjournment The _Planning Commission has`adopted Administrative :, RegiAations 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. t r i i i y fi i� y VICINITY MAP L a ► • .. son;+.d ... L t �p�r t Helade ` et:mtm FromaY - .. ® S 8 ag s ?qq Bar L... :. Y AS,1 ShNiE.FE•. r * CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA I — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF RPTOR I , � A Jr �,. DATE: October 9, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer BY Lucinda E. 14Eckett, P.E. SUBJECT`: SUMMARY VAL.ITION OF ORCHARD AVENUE A request to vacate Orchard Avenue from Terra Vista Parkway ast to approximately 220 feet south westerly.`- APN: 227-151-27 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: On December 9, 1987, TR 13303 was tentatively approved by ;�P_ _P]anning Commission. This tentative' map included the proposed `Orchard Avenue alorry-Lae southerly tract boundary west of Terra Vista Parkway East, A change in the Terra Vista [?Tster Plan has deleted Orchard Avenue from Terra Vista Parkway East to Church'Street. On February 7, 1990, the City Council approved a time extension to the tentative map. The fit al map was app),�oved by the City Council on December 5, 1990, and recorded-with the dedicdtion of Orchard Avefigq, Since the map has recorded, the street needs to be vacated and thin dedicated in fee by Lewis Homes to the City for the purpose-'of constructingthe Fast Greenwa• .Corridor. I f Lewis Homes, the developer, has filed an application requesting the vacation of Orchard Avenue. The subject street 'right-of-way is approximately 220 feet long and 96 feet wide and is located West of Terra Vista Parkway East. Lewis Homes will re-dedicate the property in fee for the East Greenway Corridor by a grant deed concurrently with the recordation of the vacation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the finding that—the vacation conforms with the General Plan and the Terra Vista Community Plan. This finding will be forwarded to the City Council for further processing and final approval. Respectfully submitted, Dan James Senior Civil Engineer DJ:LEH:jh Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhi bi:t "B" Site a.p ITEM} A:, AWOL 3 BASEWME ROAD o s a CC a w car4ale ,�, D f s0 Ql cc (Proposed ale Dr.r. cc (Proposed Park) All Am �l. l IT (Proposed Park) uj t FOOTHILL. 6L BLVD. OF CIS' rrrs VICI'�+IITY MAP-7 RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGR ' ' ,WG DMEON EXHIBIT "A" 7 I` r�--- TRACT Na �3.�3I Joti • � r Ems.,,` i EAST GREENWAY i CORRIDOR !1 PROPOSED VACATION ORCHARD AVENUE w CITY OF � 111 = 2�' i � RANCHO C 3CAMONG k SITE MAP EXHIBIT „$„ ENG� � II�T�tE G DIMMON CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA rf OFF `REI'4�R'� Ah qW DATE: October 9, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission II FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Miki Bratt, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFI 90= 1 C. PLAN 0 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to comment o:ii the draft final environmental 1 impact report prepared for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and General Plan. Amendment 90-03B to prezone approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere;of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4' schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation' of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (.tate Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from September 11, 1991. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A request to recommend approval of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of -territory' in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere- of, influence,to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4;schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and- preservation'of 4,112 acres of open space generally,located', north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National: Forest, west of the City ofFontana, and east of Milliken 7Wenue. (Continued' from September 11, 1991. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AIM GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment to provide consistency with the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestriaix center,;+and preservati.onrof 4,112 acres of open space gene�eally located north or Highland Avenue (State Routa 30), south of the San- Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of"Fontana; and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued.: from 1eptember 11, 1991.) i! ITEN B,C D PLANNING:'COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SP 90-01,a GPA90-03Br - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA; October 9t� 1991 Page 2 C, BACKGROUND: On September 11, 1991, Planning Commission continued the subject items for ,four weeks.' The purpose of the continuance was to provide titre for mandatory "good �Eaith" negotiations:-to occur between the County, the applicants, and the City in the City's lawsuit based on the California Environmental 'Quality Act adequacy of the County's University Crest project approval. The September 11, 1951, 'staff report, along with revised Resolutions recommending approval' of the subject applications, are, attached. Attachments to the September 11, 1991, staff report have been delivered , tc the Commission under n)parate cover and are- available to the~public.., _ In the Planning Departmmt as follows. o Draft'rinal Environmentahlmpact Report, September 5, 1991 0 Revised draft Et .wanda North Specific Plan (ENSP), September ` 5, 1991 o Recommended Consietoncy Changes to the City of Rancho Cucamonga's General Plan (GPA 90-03B) F A revised Statement of Overriding Consideration was also delivered to° the Commission under separate cover and appears as Exhibit'W to the Resolution recommending certification of the EIR. One additional document`, the Mitigation ,Monitor,:,4;, Plan, has been forwarded to the Commission under separate .cover= for information purposes and is available: to thepublic in the Planning Department. The plan establishes timing and xesVonsibility for mitigation measures. - Please note that three documents listed in the appendix of the ENSP are necessary for implementation of the Specific Plan and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration following approval of the Specific Plan and prior to approval of the first application for development in the ENSP area. The documents are: o Draft Rancho Cucamonga Fire .Protection District Fire Protection Study, January 1990.E ' o Draft Etiwanda North infrastructure Phasing Plan, Part 1, Timing (preparation in process, screen check received) o Draft Resource Management Plan, (preparation in process, (D screen check received) i I PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT,R (11� SP 90-01, GPA,90-03% - CITY Or^ ANCHO CUCAMON`�V r October 9, 1991 " A Page 3 1p COPMESPONDENCE: Two'letters, received at the September 11, i9gi, public )iearin -�tin'the subject applications, 'ai;: attached together with staff discuss�on. One' oral 'comment received,,, by staff on September I1.,' 1694, is also discussed. (See Correspbudence Received September 11j 1991.) ;F CONCLUSION: , All the necessary documents for decision making on the Etiwanda North Specifie flan have been prepared and made"available of attached Resolutions it Public review. Staff re,�:oma,��gds approval a the ta._ which recommend Ceiiification of the Environmental ,.Impact Report, approval to amend the Gei sal Plan, .and approval of tho Etiwanda North Specific Plan. r� Respe ly s tt , w i' rs li i Brad er Ci,(,;P annex BB:MB:js Attachments: Correspondence Received September 11, 1991 Staff Report, September 11, 1991 Draft Minutes of Planning Commission, September, 11, 1991 Resolution recommending`certif3.cation of the Etiwanda' North Specific Plan EIR, including a statement overriding considerations., Resolution recommending approval of General Plan III Amendment 90-03B Resolution recommending approval of Specific Plan 90-01 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED SEPTEMBER 11, 1991 Staff discussion of written and oral comment received on September 11, 1991, follows: A. James des Laurier:,, Chaffey College, Department of Biology (See Attached "Letter A"): � 1 Following is a discussion of the key points raised by Mr. des Lauriers. , \ . Comment The bog predates, water development in the area. Response TThe provided citations are added to the record and support the analysis in the draft EIR. Comment , AMk The knoll is of tectonic formation. Response The provided citations are added to the resod 'and`suppgrt` k, ralysis in the draft`EIR. / Comment Support, stated for lan3 use "modification."` Response The Hillside residantial designation is liste(11-,in the.City's'General,. Plan as an open ,space. designation and not a residential 'desi.gnation. The purpose of this designation is to place t)"�,burden on the applicant of proving that a gi•*=n site in the hillside area is buildable. The level of environimentai review for the ENS7 indicates that the are'alnorth. of the 'n� wern, branch rf the Cucamon%a ..fault is not, suitable for building because cf. t), ,he(zard of groun3 `ru&nre associated with the fault which resin., ,in a'hi-gh risk of cutting o f emergency access, as. well as :fire 'hazar-di ' slopes,' and environmentally sensitive habitat including the_'hir oarian habitat, 'and alluvial fan scrub habiteit, Correspondence 1teceivea Epptember 11, 1991 Page 1 B. Richard Douglas, Landmark Land Company. of California: rollowing.is a discussion of key points raised by Mr. Douglas, for Landmarkc (See f, attached "Letter BIj "). Comment f 4, 7raft Final EIR was not available for review' and comment in time for 'eotember 11, 1991, public hearing. Response 'J CEQA provide opportunity, for public participation. during comment period and does "not requs e-Pprmal hearings at; any stage of-,the environmental review process." Ho' fre environmental review is part of the hearings for the subject 1 > ,Further, since- the item was continued; there has been ample tat review all pertinent documents. � � I Comment The City's sphere of influence is inaccurately described. Responses_ An application is pending with .LAFCO to,expand. the City's sphere of influence. This application does not requir& property owner consent. Until the City's sphere is aggnded, the maps in the Specific Plan shall I ' be revised to :indicate "proposed" sphere of ;influence, and the text' shall be clarifi,�d. However, it should be noted that the` "proposed" sphere is a logical extension,of-thm`Ci`ty's sphere of- influence and can be legally Planned and re•.Zoaed by-,,,,ne City,Comment Landmark opposes annexation into the City. r Response Landmark's current opposition to annexation 'has beer.,previously stated' and noted.`, " Comment Designation of "resource conservation area/open space" is radically different than the historical designations for residential development. Correspondence Received September 11, 1991 Page 2 /J ` f gob Res op nse Please refer to the previous 'discussion notincl that the Hillside residential designation is an Open Space designation under the General Plan rather than a Residential Land Use_designati,an. Although, Y:% Oak, Summit application for, development which has been filed wit;- the is uaty is not under review at,these ,proceedings, for clarificat:.on, it should be noted that Landmark owns' 761.8"acres, of., which on1Xl450 acres have had previous environmental review. Landmark is nYa_sing open 'space, limited residential development, and is course development north of the northern'branch,of tha.Cucamonga� Fault, including residential development or, 54 acres:north -and.aorth-wfat of the bog and residential development on.a smaller site northead5. of'the bog. Based on the environmental review for the ENSP, the�land use change recommended for the ENSP permits a number of uses;-`including 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres, agricultural uses, and r .I-a Conditional'`Use Permit allows recreational uses including a g1r;f course. However,, the underlying designation is Resource Conservation,- which means the t intention is to seek a dedication for wildlife habitat preservation for ` the bog and alluvial fan` scrub habitat north of the aforementioned fault. Comment No mechanism to acquire conservation easements has been identified. ` Response- Mechanisms for establishing Resourc:� Conservation areas are discussed in the draft FEIR and the ENSP. Establishing a program for acquisition of conservation easements is an implementation measure. it is conditioned to be established prior to the fiao't project approval following adoption of the ENSP. Methods of acquisitio c includes o Dedication as a condition of development, for example the 38 'acre dedication in.the case of the Caryn Company's Etiwanda Highlands project and the 200 acre dedication by County Flood ,Control District's nay-Creek as mitigation for the debiks `basin '`ard -channelization project. o Tranfers-of-development rights o Establishment of a fee program for alluvial fan..scrub habitat with, contributions from all applicants for development, within the'ENSP territory with alluvial fan scrub 'habitat mitigation obligation. Correspondence Received September 11,. 1991 Page,3 Comment Pl�lic safety concerns have not been adequately addressed. az Response !r Public safety concerns have a long history in the Etiwanda North area. The entire ENSP area originally was not incorporated into the City because of fire _hazard and other public safety concerns. Historic surfacc,r:"Ipture and the risk of future surface rupture along both branches of the Cucamonga Fault between Day Creek and Etiwanda Creek has been a source of cow inuing concern to the: Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. a comments to staff): d Pacific' (oral C. Standard )Mike White, . f Comment The ENSP ,still does not adequately address the fact that Standard j Pacific has a Development Agreemnnt. Response I l Regarding the relationship of Development' Agreements to, Land Use regulations, reference to State 'Planning Law, Government Code Section 65866, shall be added as a footnote to Table 8, Basic. Development 01 Standards - Residential Districts, as follows: A. Parcels governed by a Development Agreement shall be subject to these standards:in so far as they conform to California Government Code, Section 65866, as follows, "Unless otherwise provided by the Development Agreement, rules, 'regulations, and official policies governing permitted uses of the laud, governing density, and governing design, improvement, and construction standards and specifications, appli-,n?-Je to development of. the property subject to z Devuv..,iaaat Agreement, shall be those rules, regulations, and official policies in force at the time of executions of the,agreement. A Development Agreement shall not prevent a City, County,, or City and County, in ;subsequent actions applicable to the property, from applying stew rules, regulations, and policies= which do not conflict with 'thew rules, regulati•a , and policies applicableito the property as set force, herein, nor, shall a Development Agreement .- prevent 6:City, County* or City and County frrm denying or conditionally approving any subsequent development ` Correspondence Received September 11, 1991 „ ( 'Page 4 project application on the basis of such existing or ne_v` },t '} / rules, regulations, and:,policies.'" l a I� Comment The Laid Use '.)esignation for Etiwanda Highlands should be changed to Low Density, because of lot sizes. II Response Under its PUD regulations, the County permitteG clustering of residential development and accepted a,:fee dedication of 39 acres of /wildlife habitat in San Sevaine wash. ` The grass dertity of the project was deemed to meet the City's ver; I,ow density requirement of 2 dwelling units per acre and a General Plan Amencjment 'was no=p required. The foregoing statement shall be added to Section 13.6 of the ENSP. i 4 I� V A Correspondence Received September 11, 1991 Page ,5 1 ' Chaffey College J Department of Biology TO: Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission. SUBJECT: Comments concerning Staff Report dated 11 Sept.' 1991. 1. Landmark Land Company seems to take issue with the identification and description of the;"fresh water bog. (Page D,E,F 25, item 3 and D,E,F 29, item 15). The geological causes of the bog can be found in Matti, et. al. (1952) and Morton, et. al. (1982). sThe Historical presence of such formations in*zhe immediate area has been documented (Clark, 1979). Various readily accessible documents describe the structure's character, soil type, mechanism of formation and biological significance, (West Valley Foothills Community Plan E.I.R. p. 46-52. S&u Bernardino County Office of Planning; Brandman Associ.Ates, 1988). Blanchard (1979) provides a detailed description of the water projects developed 'in Day Canyon. Nzme of those U projects seem related to the presence of the bog. An Stiwanda Water Company map ' dated 1916 shows the presence of a "cienega" at the site of the bog at a time When no substantial water d®velopment had occurred in the inao-CAate vicinity of the bog. In any event the nature of the bog should no longer be in question. What should be seriously considered is the enact nature of the water supply to the bog ad well as the exact nature,and location of water discharge from the bog. The development company's comment simply avoids that issue N. Landmark Land Company evidently disputes the assertion that the "Knoll" was formed by the 'fault; (page D,E,F, 28, item 14). May S refer interested readers to Matti, et. al. (1982, p 36-43) and Horton, at. al. (1982) The tectonic origin of the knoll is carefully described in their analysis. III. Staff recommendations regarding the modificatilor of land use designation (page D,E,F 5) Will result in much greater cenfidencLii for the long-term preservation of the bog and its water supply. Tkis recommendation has my unqualified support. Sincerely, imam &,a Lauriers, Prof. _1 'Sa4t, 1991. RBFMMCES. Blanchard, G.B. 1979_ Development of gravity water sources for the Cucamonga County Water District. 54 p. HS (In the files of the Cucsmonga Water Company, Rancho Cucamonga)- Brandman, Michael and Associates. 1988. Final Supplemental Environmental' Impact Report: Rancho Etiwaunda Planned Unit Development. San Bernardino County Clark, A.O. 1979. Quarternary evolution 0ZL the San Bernardino Valley. Quarterly of the Sean Bernardino County Museum4asociation. 145 p. 5885 Haven Avenue,Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91101-3CJ2 7141941-2354,941-2355 �, � LETTER A Matti, J.C., J.C. Tinsley & L.D. McFadden.'1982. Holocene faulting history as recorded by alluvial stratigraphy wt thin the Cucamonga Fault Zone:, a preliminary view., IN:-J.C. Tinsley, Iet. al.' 1989._Guidebook: Field trip` #12. 78th Annual Meeting, Cordilleran Section, .Geological' Society of America. p 29-44. �K Morton, D., Jj'+atti & J. Tinsley. 1982. Quarternary history of the Cucamonga Fault Zone;'So Calif.: 78th Annual Meeting,_Cordilleran Section, Geol. Soc.' Amer. 14(4). 218. n 1 1 `L I �l �i:• I J ' LET i ERA A September 11,1991 Mr.Brad Buller' City Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O..Box 807 Ranchos Cucamonga,CA 91729 Honorable Chairman Larry T.McNeil j And Members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission' RE: Planning Commission Heargng of September 11,1991 on subjects; Staff report and associated exhibits for ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01,AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01.ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B-CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. Dear Brad and Members of the Commission, This letter is intended to serve as coil veyance of our public comments for the above referenced projects. In the disposition of this obl:'aation we feel it important to also convey our considerable dismay at the methods czritpl,yed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the formulation and management of the planning of Etiwanda North. The City is in possession of our previous comments regarding the Etiwanda North DEitR/SP. We had not been informed that the Final Draft EIR was available for analysis until•we received the staff report for this meeting. Therefore,at this time we are unable to analyze'the responses to the technical areas in which we originally commented. We do.reserve the right to comment later.We are also on record expressing confusion,with the management of the information crmirising the ENSP/DEIR. However„ none of this frustration approaches that level which i546ii when we review the history associated with this planning endeavor. Let us first provide our technical comments before returning to discussion on the city's handling of this project. 1. On the cover page of the staff_rc-- rt from City Planner, Braid"Buller to the Planning Conurussion,the first,second and third paragraphs describe the projects and reference the request to approve the"prezoning;of approximately 6,840 acres,of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere-of-influence... As is stated later in the staff report; on page D,E,F-10,reproduction problems(which were mentioned by us in earlier correspondence)made annexation areas Imorly distinguished from sphere areas. While not underemphasizing the fact that these exhibits are unchanged and continue to be confusing,tla*point of the matter is that a considerable area of the property owned by Landmark Land Ca•npany,Inc.,is not within the sphere of influencg of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. We stro gly object to it being referenced as such and oppose efforts to annex the property in the futwe. \I E It is important to note for the record that the City is designating areas own4by Landmark as in the Cityof.Rancho Cucamonga sphere-of-influence when it is not. Further,the City,as we will expand Jn later,is redesignating our property and that portion of our property not within the sphere-of-influence of the City,as(RC)or.resource.conservation area/open space. This classification is radically different than the historical designations for residential development as provided by the City and the County of San Bernardino. LETTER E LANDMARK LAND COMPANY,INC.,110 N.Lincoln Ave.,Suite /1�00,/Corona,California 91740, 71'4.-472-9970 _ice We will provide comment on what we feel to be the poorly articulated methods for ® achieving this redesignation below. 2. On page D,E F 2,under the section Response to comments prepared: the repurt describes comments by wildlife agencies "which indicate a need for change in the Specific Plan" These agencies "requested" that the:limit of development be dropped southward. The report goes on to'clescribe the entitlement which is held by Landmark Land Company,Inc. and then states: \. 'The feasibility of moving the''limit of dei�elopment would require a mechanism to acquire property. However,there is a substantjr{I body of evidence, including public health and safety issue_.,that the limit of. evelopmeht should be moved'&below the northern branch of the Cucamonga Fault between Day Creek and Etiwonda Creek. Therefore a mitigation measure has been added to revise the;Specific Plan accon3mgly. 7�a Specific Plan Land Use Map has been revised and the`number o4 potential dwelling units rediced by 145." This section and these statements cgmpel us to ask the questaorpsince the land use designations for this area have been dfivoted to low intensity resid6%'n_ land uses for over a decade by both,;the City and the County, whether previous cityi`staff members and commissioners were aware of the designation of these larJs? Th same question would also necessarily be made about those'staff members at the respecti Y,waldtife agencies. No doubt these agencies`comments were solicited witl+i the same vigc"b�\,nd conviction at the time of the formulation of the Ohe,i general plan as they were for t \specific plan. What makes this step by the City staff even more remarkable is That the city would abdicate creative advanced planning and site planning tecluliques due to'a"request"by the wildlife agencies. If all staffs of)il agencies woe to heed,such"requests"very,aittle,need for city planning staffs would eili t. Equally inconsistent with solid preplanning is`the fact that no mechanism to acquire these lands is articulated. 1"his leaves little doubt that such a mechanism has failed to be cgnsidered. 40 Perhaps the most telling feature of thip section of the report falls within'its last paragraph. Amazingly,the .:;equest"from the respective wildlife agencies along with the substantial body of evidence" (which has not been provided)of public health and safetta issues converges to provide a mitigation ineasure that*would eliminate thi,"threat" to th-" "Bog". Apparently,the city staff has chosen to ignore tine substantial bodiof evidence that fails to agree on the originfind nature'o�the bog and in the process fo k, g p, rsa es all future stud ' and the deliveryof em nfcal evid n ° for y p , e ae o this feature; We cannot help but express:our concem with the close in ided and:seemSIy manufactured app roach to ttus issue. 3. Page D,E,F-5 provides�irther discuision on the radical change in land use designation for the property owned by'Landmark,,'and-Company,Inca This section exhibits inconsistency when it cites the presrZmed watersupply for the bog.' The haphazard thanking that rihas been present throughout these sections is again manifest when sugg=scion is made that "a mitigation measure be added in the"EIR to investigate the feasibility of acquiring the area, in fee -a easement, for resource conservation use." It defies logic how the city staff could"couple these alternatives. On the one hand, while implem%sting a radical change in historic land use,no compensato., mechanism is articulated. ,:Additionally, suggestion is made for aneasement, a device which would r&iuire dedication or would be acquired by a proceeding in eminent domain. Landmark would view either mechanism as a taking,and would contest any,attempt to acquire this property. AMk LETTER B The most remarkable aspect of this measure is that the ity staff would propose radical, poorly articulated methods to protect;features which demand further study. Landmark has continuously proposed measures, which are intended, to'protect these features while suggesting future study is needed based on the conflicting evidence in the record. The company has a national t,--,k record for designing its projects with features that protect the environment. The,city s-taff,_on the other hand, refuses to acknowledge that conflicting' information exists'for the feature they seek to protect. In neglecting,thei professional obligations to'ascertain the true nature of the features they seek to protect j City staff Compounds the problam by suggesting,that tax payers dollars be - blindly committed to costly litigation in the pursuit of acquiring a iesou'i eP°or resources whose nature is not fully known. K 11 4. The staff report,although it correctly cites numerous instances of property owner objection to , annexation, fah. to provide reference to correspondence'from James M.Ro�dy,Executive Officer of the San Bernardino County Loral Agency Formation Commission-.to Ja,'Lam,City Manger for,the City, Thies• letter strongly recomrrtends that the City rGifhdraw its applications for annexation. 5. Page D,E,F-10,while admitting to problems in the reproduction of maps fails to mention that a portion of the property i� f +�:tin they City"s sphere-of��ifluence. Further, corrections have nof'been made to any the:exhibi which follow. In summary,we feel it important to provide some perspective on the long process which brings us to the hearing on the subject projects. Public controversy and complexity in tka itature of large scale master planned development is the express purpose for the environmental review-process and public comment. Unfortunately,it is our view that the controversy existent in this project has caused the Cii staff to emotionall•circumvent'thoughtful,objecti,+e anal`sis of man of theproject features. Y 5 g 1 ii' y Y In 1990, Landmark Land ompany provided written and oral testimony on the City's Hillside „ Gracing Standards. These'Lbinments were developq%{in conjunction with experts in the engineering field. These standards,which the city admitted tq"be stringent were also described as"a starting point"from which reasonable alternatives would be considered. It now appears the City has failed to develop a reasonable alternative other than no,,-,development. Throughout 1989,1990 and 1991,the City was 7n active participant in the formulation of Etiwanda North by the consortium of landowners. Ho7kever, instesa of taking the active role early in the process,the city waited until conflicts reacheJ a high IdQI and then took the unfortunate role of reactive planning: The best evidence is that':vWch we cif?�n;our discussion on the City's.proposal to provide the costly mitigation measure of,,exploring me&`Wsms to acquire open spa,`e;land that has for so long been designated as residen'nal area. It is here that the evidence is most apparent that an otherwise capable and talented a ty staff has given way to emotion'and reaction and forsaken creative planning in harmony with the environment. Sincerely, Richard P.Douglass,AICP Landmark Land Company of California,Inc. RPD/rpd' C.C. Valery Pilmer-County of San Bernardino Mike Kerney LETTER B l 1 i CITY OFIUyNCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 11,, 1991 To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Miki Bratt, Associate Planner SUBJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPL-)Z REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - j A` ublic hearin tea receive commant on the draft t environmental impact report prepared for the Etiwanda Nor`. , Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to prezone approximately 6,840 acres of territory in_t.ie Rancho Cucamonga sphere-of-influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 21473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools,' 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north. of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. ANIL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF . RANCHO CUCAMONGA -.A request to recommend approval of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of :territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere- of-influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 :.acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Hi¢':land Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernal, o National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and eas of Milliken Avenue. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT.90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to. recommend approval of a Gene,Val Plan Amendment Sco provide consistency with the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acieis of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere-of-influence to provide for 3,,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighbo ,,iood commercial use, 4 schools,' 5 parks, an equestrian center,` aat'-preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of 'the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue.. ® 1� PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 September 11, 1991 Page 2 c INTRODUCTION: The draft Final EIR (Part II) has been completed. Also, recommendations for revisions of the General Plan needed for consistency with the Specific Plan have been completed, and revisions recommended by the Planning Commission to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan have been completed. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the attached Resolutions recommending approval of the project. to the City Council. BACICGROUND AND ANALYSIS; A. Environmental Impact Report: Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated. On January 9, 1989,` a NOP of a. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Etiwanda North project area was circulatede in that notice the projectarea was defined as-5,640 acres of land. The project area remains the same; but the acreage figure have been changed to reflct more accuSa£e measurements now available. Accordingly approximately 6,840 aces are included in the plan area. The number of proposed dwelling ,units was statad as 6,000 'to reflect the application submitted-by the Consortium of "Etiwanda North Landowners. The number of proposed dwelling units ha0:been reduced to 3,619 to reflect the City's alternative as the preferred milk alternative. In response to comments on the draft EIR, additional- land use changes discussed below have further reduced the proposed dwelling units to-3,157. Draft EIR circulated. Accordingly, in ?A-y 1991, the draft EIR was circulated for comme - `The notice of completion of the draft EIR -was forwarded to the`,etate Clearinghouse on May 3, 1991. The 45- day comment period of the State Clearinghouse ran frca-May 6, 1991, through June 20, 1991. The City extended the comment period in order to receive public testimony on the draft EIR at the Planning Commission hearing on. June '26, 1991. The notice of availability of a Draft EIR was mailed to property owners and interested parties on May 7, 1991. The notice of availability was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on May 10, 1991. - The notice was received by SLAG on May 7, 1991, and published in the May 29, 1991, Intergovernmental Review Report. Response to comments re ag red In response to comments, mitigation measures have been revised. See attached Eiiwanda Mrth Draft Final EIR (Part II), Executive Summary. Changes in the mitigations from the Draft EIR are indicated in bold for additions and. I evers"rike for deletions. E Generally, the changes are technical, reflecting comments by f V responsible agencies. However, as discussed at the June 26, 1991, '( meeting of the Planning Commission, comments by wildlife agencies- including the California Department of Fish and Came, U. s. Fish_ r' �o-/-5- PLANNING COm issioN STAFF REPORT`'' SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 September 11, 1991 Page 3 and Wildlife Service, and U. S. Forest Service--indicate a need for a change in the Specific Plan. The agencies have requested that the northern limit � development be dropped to the Los Angeles Department of Water and power utility corridor. There is an existing approval in the County for 450 dwelling units on 453'acres north of the utility corridor on the Coussoulis property since purchased by Landmark Land Company. The feasibility of mpving the limit of development would require a,a mechanism to,- acquire property. Howev4_r, there is a substantial body of dAdence,' including public health and safety issues, that the limit of development should be moved to below the northern. tiranch ,of t:he_ Cucamonga Fault between Day Creek and Etiwanda Creek. Therefore a mitigation measure has been added to revise the Specific Plane accordingly., The Specific Plan Land Use leap has been revised and the number of potential dwelling units reduced by 145. The aforementioned agencies have also requested that flood rTows of velocities adequate to maintain alluvial fan scrub habitat be restored to Day Creek spreading -v�+r-.nds Turnouts to release flood flows to the spreading grounds--'are in place; 'therefore, a mitigation measure to determine' the necessary velocity of flow and, if necessary, the feasibility of alteration of existing turnouts and/or flood control structures. The County Flood Control District has raised objections to zh_o alteration of structures, but only the alteration of the east-wd'st diversion dike and/or additional turnouts from Day Creek Channel would be,-.considered. Additional spreading and conservation of ground water could also be achieved by this mitigation. Therefore, a feasibility study is reasonable. Based on the mitigation measures, a mitigation monitoring plan will be prepared and forwarded to the City Council Of the environmental impacts identified, most have been mitigated to a level of not significant. One item, Threat to the Bog, is shown in the E:R as not having been reduced to a level of not significant. However, because the .plan proposes, reducing the limits of development to the southsrn 'boundary of the northern branch of the Cucamonga fault, the. level has been reduced to not significant. Other items have bean mitigated to the maximum extent feasible, but still have not been mitigated to a level of not,._, significant, including: Substantial alteration �f existing open space land use character: Almost all of the total project area of 6,849 acres is currently in natural open space. Of the total, 4,442 acres will La designated Zs open space. Nevertheless, 2,112 acres are proposedt;wr, development .and will result in the loss of the existing open space land use character. /7 LO j/ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SPECIFIC PIAN 90-01 September 17, 1991 Page 4 4_ city transportatio?` policies and Traffic: Applicants for development will mitigate all on-sizeW"impacts ' and contribute to the City's Traffic Nexus Fee pro '4in for off-site impal_f,a. Nevertheless, as a result of incremental increases to cumulative traffic impacts, off- site impacts will occur even after aitigation Landform.modification:. =Applicants cor development will comply with the Hillside Development Ordinance and"City i Development standards. Nevertheless, grading, for development within' 2,112 acres will modify the existing character of, the alluvial fan and po;;tions of the hillsides.' #ildlife habitat .tt:oacts: The project is designed to retain large, defensible areas of open Space Which will maximize the habitat value for the ,project area. A total of 4,442. acres will remain in open space ..land use designations. Nevertheless, development of 2,112 acres will diminish on-site wildlife density and diversity and �f fragment the remaining wildlife habitats. Alluvial fan scrub habitat loss: Applicants for development will be conditioned to preserke one acre of alluvial fan scrub habitat for one acre of alluvial, fan scrub habitat >lost. There are significant areas of natural alluvial fan scrub habitat within the project area which are available ,for preservation or which can be rehabilitated. Nevertheless, almost all, of the 2,112 acres planned for development, are al lu vial fan scrub habitat which will be lost. Threat to riparian habitats: Applicants for development ,wi ll be co nditio ned to retain existingra '.,' arian corridors as well as to provide a buffer,,-zone to protec' �e riparian corridors from d%gradation,associated with,_ ein development:' Also, conditions will be enforced to protect: the Resource Conservation`areas including restriction of human use to designated trails, exclusion of domestic cats and dogs, exclusion of'off-road vehicles, and techniques to divert urban irrigation run-.-off and polluted storm flows. Nevertheless, urbanization of the area will remain a threat to riparian habitat. �I Short term fugitive dust: Project applicants will be conditioned ::o implement actions to reduce fugitive dust during construction to the maximum extent feasible. ! Nevertheless, some construction :ust will occur; l/ OF- }f < PZANNING 'COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 September 11, 1991 AEk Page 5 Solid waste: Project applicants will be conditioned'wb .Participate in City, waste minimization programs.' Nevertheless, there will remain an impact on landfill capacity as a result of: solid waste generated by development of approximately 3,157 dwelling units, as well as up to_28 acres of commercial development:. y Accordingly, a statement of overriding considerations has been prepared and incorporated into the Resolution recommending tt� certification of the EIR. (gee attached). i Changes in the Specific Plan to Reduce Environmental impacts. In response to environments` impacts, minor` revisions in thee. :r Specific Plan have been made. First,"the County Flood Control : District has advised the City that their fee "owned lands east of Milliken Avenue and west of the western levee of Day Creek Regional Spreading Grounds are not available for development at this time. Accordingly, the land use status will remain, under' the "flood control use designation until such time as the Cour_ty.General Plan Map,is revised anA a similar application request is `made by the County. However, the potential designation is shown as residential. Approximately 137 dwelling units are estimated to eventually be approved on this site; therefore, the infrastructure ,needed for this area should reflect the mxpected build-but - conditi_j. - Second, in response to recommendations by responsible agencies, staff is recommending that the area north of the northern branch of the Cucamonga Fault west of Etwanda Creek'and east of Day Creek - channel be changec, from Open Space and Hillside Residential use to Open Space use only. The site includes the bog, the presumed water . suppl_'" for the bog, substantial amounts of alluvial fan scrub habitat, and the prominent knoll on which the U. S..Forest Service fire station, site is located. Staff further recommends' that a mitigation measure be added in the EIR to investigate' the feasibility of acquiring the area, in fee 'or easement, for resource conservation use. It is expected that a reduction of up to U5 dwelling units could occur in the Oaks neighborhood as a result of this change. This reduction in units is not expected to substantially reduce traffic impacts identified in the traffic study for the Oaks neighborhood or the Specific Planarea. B. General Plan Amendment 90-03B: r Resolution of Intent to 'Amend General "Plat;. and Preparation-of Amendments. On November, 7, 1990', the City council passed a AVh P.Qsolution-of Intent to prepart amendments to the General Plan as r needed to provide consistency with the Specific Plan. At the June 26, , 1991, meeting, the Commission proposed ,amendments to the ( ` �X t\ PYANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 September 11, 1991, Page 6 ei General Plan for,the purpose of consistency hetween the Specific Plan and the General Plan, A list of Proposed Amendments to the General Plan will be prepared and distributed under separate cover... C. Specific Plan 90-01: Resolution of Intent to Prepare a Specific Plan A resolution of intent to prepare a Spec fic Plan was passed June 20, 1990. i-he plan hac been prepared in accordance with the California Gove_amen r +- Code:. 2ecific Plan Review. Including workshops preceding the City's Resolution of Intent to Prepare a Specific Plan, twelve Planning Commission workshops and. three community meetings have been'held to review the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, as well as meetings of the Parks and Recreation Commission and meetings of 'tithe Trails Committee. 'Comments have been 'received from the public and from the Commissions The Specific Plan has been reviewed to reflect the direction of th,> Planning Commission. On June 26, 1991, the PlanningT Commission held a public hearing on the Plan. (See attached draft Specific Plan, September 5, 199. ) - Planning Commissior_ Hearing. At the June 26, 1991, meeting the: Commission directed staff to proceed with the documents recommending approval of the plan. (See attached Minutes, June 26, 1991.) CORRESPONDENCE: Seven letters .'-ve been received. The letters and stafV°s responses are attached under Correspondence. CONCLUSION: Following substantial -,public review and comment, the draft Final Environmental ImpaC't Report he been completer_ Also, a final draft LP the, City's Etiwanda North Snecific Plan has alsc`been prepared. As a result of land use changes, as well as the level of detail available through the review process, changes in the Land Use and Development, Environmental Resources, and Public Health'and Safety Elements of the General Plan will,be made for consistency. t• RECOMMENDATION:' Staff recommends that the Plan commission make the following recommendations to the City Council: 1. Approve a resolution recommending,certification of the Final Environmental impact Report, including a statement of overriding considerations; t � r PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 September 11, 1991 Page `1 JIM 2. Approve a resolution recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 90-03; 3. Ppprove a resolution recommending approval ,of Specific Plan 90-07. :t Respectfully submitted, ge Brad Bul er CiC} Planner BB:MB:js. Attachments: Etiwanda North Draft. Final EIR, September 5,. 1991 (Provided to Commissioners under''sepa)�,,ate cover). List_ of Proposed changes to the'o General .Plan,' September 11, 1991 (Provided to Commissioners under ..separate cover) Etiwanda North Specific Plan, Draft, September 5, 1991 (Provided to Commissioners under separate cover) Correspondence uune Planning Commission Staff Report June 26, 1991 Planning'Commissien Minutes Resolution recommending Certification of :.the Etiwanda -"�+��, North ;Specific Plan EIR, inc°.siding a statement of overriding considerations, 11, 1991 Resolution recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 90-0313 -' Resolution recommending approval of Specific Plan'90-01 !.l 0 ri1 i A. ✓ i ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN (PRE-ZONE) RECOMMENDED CONSISTENCY CHANGES TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA'S GENERAL PLAN (GPA 90-03E) The following changes to Rancho Cucamonga's General Plan are recommended. There are two categories of changes: one is changes to the General Plan"s maps' and plans (see figure references below) and the other is chr�iges to text. Text changes are short additions'-to clarify objectives or policies brought into focus by the Specific Plan. Land Use Map and Circulation Nap changes reflect policy changes. Other map changes reflect 'additions of details in the Etiwanda North Sphere-of-Influence area.. (Note: Recommended text changes are in bold for `additions' 'and, strike-out for deletions. I. GENERAL PLAN LAND U5E ELEMENT General Plan Text Revision The Etiwanda North. Specific Plan (ENSP;) is consistent with the Objectives and Policies of the General Plan Land Use Element. General Plan Land Use Map: Figure III-1 Refer to attached Fxhibit GP-1; modify as indicated.; II. GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT General Plan Text Revision The ENSP is consistent with the objectives and Policies` of the General Plan Circulation Element. To Page III-26, Policies, regarding Etiwanda Avenue, -add the followings "Implementation strategies to discourage the use of Etiwanda Avenue for through traffic should be developed and used for improvements to Etiwanda Avenue north of Highland Avenue." General Plan Circulation Mav: Figure 111-3 Refer to ENSP Circulations Map, Exhibit 11, modify to indicate backbone circulation system as shown, including, but not limited to, the following: `J �e 0 - 21 ri� CONSISTENCY CHANGES - GPA 90-b3B September 10, 1991 PagP 2 Day Creek Boulevard: Eliminate curve at Banyan Street. Day Creek Boulevard from Highland Avenii4: to ` Wilson Avenue: Special Major Divided Arterial. ' J * Day Creek Boulevard from Wilson Avenue to SCE utility corridor: Secondary Arterial. Day Creek Boulevard north of SCE utility corridor: Collector. Wilson Avenue from Day Creek Boulevard to Cherry Avenue: Special Divided 'Secondary Arterial, * 'Wilson- Avenue from Day; Creek Boulevard to Milliken-Avenue: Secondary/Arterial. Etiwanda Avenue north of Wilson Avenue to north side of SCE utility corridor: Secondary Arterial. * Etiwand-,= Avenue at north side of SCE utility corridor:: .Ends in a T-intersection., I East Avenue north of Wilson Avenue: Collector. Wardman Bullock' Road north: of .Wiljyon Avenue: Collector. * San Sevaine Drive north oi,'tWilson Avenue: Collector. Vintage Drive from Rociester I Avenue to Bluegrass (Hanley) Avenue;"; Collector. * Lower East-West Loop ,from East Avenue to Day Creek Boulevard,. Collector. Middle East-West Loop from East Avenur) to.Day Creek Boulevard: Collector, Middle East-West Loop from East !Avenue to Wardman Bullock: Collector. Upper. East-West Link from Day Creek Boulevard to the extension of t'ast Avenue: Collector. CONSISTENCY CHANGFS - GPA 90-03B September 10, 1991` Page 3 III. HOUSING ELEM' V7 l � i The ENSP is consistent with 'the Objectives ,and Policies of the General Plan Housing Element. No changes are- recommended. IV. PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT PARKS AND RECREAT;CON " General Plan Text Revision The ENSP is consistent with the Objectives _ and. Policies of J the General Plan Pakiks and Recreation section. Make the following text changes for clarification: To Page III-56, Policies, regarding location of parks and school to facilitate joint use, add to the. last. paragraph: "However, each facility sS�all be of 44equate size to be a stand-alone facility. $ General Plan Parks and Recreation Man: Figure IIi-6 Refer to ENSP Open Space and Trail Plan,I Exhibit 10,, and modify as indicated`, including the following: , * Five proposed neighborhooc park sites * Four proposed school sites adjacent,to park sites, including three elementary 'school sites and one high school site * One special use facility Community Equestrian Center, site TRAILS General Plan Text Revision The ENSP is consistent with the Objectives and Policies of the General Plans' Riding, Hiking, Bicycling and ,Trails section. Add the following text revisions for clarification: To Page. I11-60, regarding the keeping, of horses and consistent with the General Plan's Land Use policy "to ensure that development can accommodate equestrian activities," add text as follows: �, 23 10Where lot sizes within the Equestrian/Rural Overlay District are insufficient for the keeping =; of horses, public and private boarding facilitica, should be encouraged. Land dedication and/or. 'in- lieu fees should be established in order to acquire laui?for a public boarding facilitl in the north-east''' area of the City"s Spbere-of- Influence.10 To Page I1I-71, regarding the'E:questrian Overlay Zone, add text as follows: "As areas within the Equestrian/Rural District annex into the. City, they;should be incorporated into the City's Equestrian Overlay Zone and appropriate mechanisms IstabliskAd for . trail maintenance." General Plan Master Plan of Tralils:` Fiaure. III-7 Refer ENSP Open Space and Trails Plan, Exhibit 10, modify as indicated, including but not limited to, the follt,wing, * East-West Community' Trail link along the middle of the SCE utility corridor. * East-West Community Trail ?ink along .the lower branch of the, Cucamonga Fault seismic corridor, * East-1 Community Trail link along the upper branch of the Cucamonga Fault seismic corridor. * East-West Communit�r Trail link along the' upper branch of the Cucamonga Fault seismic corridor. * North-South Community Trail link along Day Creek Channel/SCE corridor. Delete Etiwanda Avenue Community Trail at Etiwanda Avenue T-intersection north of tha middle SCE Corridor., i V. COMMUNITY DESIGN ELE"NT General Plan Text Revision The ENSP is consistent witt! the Objectives and Policies of the General Plan Community hesign Element. Add the foklowing text changes for clarificat,lon. Regarding Special Boulevard Treatment: To Table III-9: Special Divided Secondaryl Arterial, add: 11Wilson Avenue between Dag Creek Wash and Cherry Avenue." To Page 'II1-85: Regarding special Boulevard Treatment, add discussion of Day Creek Boulevard `.and gWilsor Avenixe a as C1 follows: "Day creek Boulevard: Because it\ddjoins a330- foot SCE utility corridor, has value as a 'scenic corridor and a major north-south viewsbed, and serves as a major north-south arterial street, Day l Creek Boulevard should be :designed and construpted as a Special Boulevard to enhance its ' scenic opportunities.!' "Nilson Avenue: Because it follows the 120 foot MWD R.O.W, has value as a scenic corridor and a major east-.west ,viewshed, forms the northern boundary of the historic' Etiwandaccommunity and serves as �? major east-west, arterial arterial street, Nilson Avenue east of Day Creek Boulevard should' be BesJjnated as a special Boulevard and designed and/�,,;'structed to enhance its historic and scenic oppirT�unities.'l i To Page 1 III-96,, regarding scenic corridorsr add ., the following: "The County has also designated Day-_ Creek Boulevard and Wilson Avenue, in 'he City's Sphere- 1, of-Influence as scenic corridors. To Page III-97, regarding vista points at thn terminus of major north-south arterial streets, add the following: "and Day Creek Boulevard at the prominent 1 '.l adjacent to the bog." General Plan Community Design Resources Figure'III-10 Modify as indicated below: (J ZS Land .form Refer to ENSP View Potential Map, Exhibit A7, and indicate prominent knoll west of 'the bob as` a prominent land form,. r Creeks and Charnels } * Refer to. ENSP' Existing. Conditions Map, Exhibit ?, and'ind�lcate current alignment of DaiD Creek. Also—:indicate channelisation where constructed. Refer to ENSP Constraints Map, Exhibit 8, and indicate main branch of San' Sevaine .Creek, Wardman Greek, and Henderson Creek; also for the latter two creeks, indicate channelization.whare constructed. Special Vegetation Refer to ENSP Constraints Map, ,Exhibit 8, and _ indicate 'Riparian Vegetation x`br Henderson, Wardman, and Morse Creeks within the hillside areas. * 'Refer to ENSP Constraints Map, Exhibit 8, and 0 indicate bog and its hydrologic source. Major Arterials, Secondary Arterials, Collectors- Refer to ENSP Circulation Map, Ex'gibit i1, 4, and indicate arterials and enllectoar streets x, S as shown. Transmission Corridors #` Refer to ENSP Existing Conditions Map,, Exhibit a, and add existing utility- transmission corridors as shown. LandmaC.°ks and Focal Points *' Refer to ENSP Property ownership Map, Exhibit 4; FNSP View Potential Map, Exhibit 7; and Constra .nt; Map, Exhibit� and add the U.S. Forest Service'Ranger =Stat n Site, prominent knoll, and bog, as focal points. 1 'I I1 Scenic Corridors - * Refer to ENSP View Potential Map, Exhibit 7, and indicate Day Creek and Nilson Avenue as scenic Corridors. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES LAND RESOURCES The ENSP is consi.stent�,with"the 01�ljectives and Policies of;. the General Plan Land Resources Section. PLANT AND ANIMAL RESOURCES General * .an Text Revision fl The E?SP is consistent with the Objectives and Policies of the General Plan Plant and Animal Resources Section. Add the following text revisions for clarification: To Page IV-15,,. regarding objectives for lands of. biological significance,. add the following: 0 "Help to preserve lauds having, biological significance especially riparian (stater stream,- related) arras and their associated L woodland vegetation, and alluvial fan scrub .habitat.- The latter habitat once predominated on alluvial .fan landforms in the region, but is a rapidly disappearing habitat resource.` To Page IV-15, regarding policies, revise as fol,h,�rs: "The City shall consider h6r'streamside Woodland associations along the Cucamonga, Deer, Day, Etiwanda, Henderson, Morse, Wardman, Lytle-eree7g, and Ban Sevaine Canyons 'as areas of natural significance and limit the encroachment o , development into these 'areas (see Figure IV=3) ." To Page IV-16, regarding natural areas which can be used for educational or other scientific purposes, add the following example: '4Another example is the peat bog to the east of the U.S. Forest Service site, the last example of a habitat which was once -abundant in the region."Ank -' fi, General Plan Natural Resources, Figure IV-311 { j i ` ! l Refer to ENSP Constraints Map, ENSP Exhib�/ � 3, modify-- as follows: / l4- Wa, .erways Indicate San Sevaine, Morse, `Wardman, ' ',and Henderson Creeks.. Indicate the current alignment of Day Cre7c. ]Major Recharge Area Revise to be -consistent with existing recharge capacity for San Sevaine wash. Streamside Woodland * Revise to be consistent with strea-inside woodland association in hillside,, :rq?; for Morse, Wardman, and Henderson Creeks., Open Flash Association;:.:�� * Revise Day Creek to be consistent with channelizatlon. Hard Chaparral and Alluvial Association * Revise boundary; as indicated. OPEN SPAiCE SECTION �i ?eneral ?Plan Text Revision The ENSP is 'consistent with the objectives and policies of the General Plan Open Space Section. No changes.to the text are recommended. Ge neral Plan Open;Space Plan, Ficrure IV-4 a Modify as follows: Streamside Woodland & Water Recharge Area Refer to ENSP Constraints Map, Exhibit 8, and revise to be consistent with Natural Resource Map, Figure IV-3,&) ir... d Z ' especial Vegetation * Refer tcr� ENSP Landscape Theme Plan, Exhibit 19, and indicate ,special vegetation for Day Creek Boulevard from north of Highland Avenue ° to Wilson Avenue and for Wilson Avenue from Day Creek Wash to Cherry Avenue. Hazard Prevention * Note that the ENSP . identifies seismic setbacks for the purpose of esta.}Ixshing-open space easements, but lio change is recommended to the General Plan Open Space Plan, Recreatipr i Opportunities * Ezier to Ease Parks and Open Spade Plan, Exhibit 10,4. and indicate five (5) proposed park sites. Fa3od Control Land and Utility/Traiisportation Right of Way * Refer to ENSP Constraints Map, Exhibit 8, and indicate utility corridors. * Refer to ENSP Existii.g Conditions Map, Exhibit 3, and modify, flood control easements as a i1fresult of channelizat op work on Henderson and Morse Creeks. X Refer to ENSP Land Use Map, Exhibit, 17, and modIPT floodway area shown withir, San SovAeine Wash. Refer to ENSP Constraints map, Exhibit 8, and indicate flood control easements above the LADWP utility corridor. Limited Development * Refer to ENSP Land Use Map, Exhibit 17, and modify hillside residential area. VII. GENERAL PLAN HEALTH AND SAFETY ELEMENT The ENSP is consistent with the Objectives and Policies of the General Plan Health and Safety Element. Modify ,the following text for clarification: yt � �-2- 9 To Page,V-11, regarding seismic policies, add the following; G? "* For residential tract derAelopment of 4 or .more units wht%ce fault traces are well identified (fcrexample the Cucamonga Fault east of Day Creek and north of the LADWP utility corridor), residential development of IA or more units -should require a: Se-toot setback q from the identified fault and f establishment of a 100-foot seismic _ open !'t space easement for the ' 'resulting setback area." fr m At COXJF SJSu , MIX L cc M Jot 0 W S C 2cc D Q eq m .JIN LU� C6�rrr E AY AW3 m •.'LL V ;3fIN3AY 'YONYlAIF3 W oon CA � o 0 3nN3Av NTAIIIN + Front Line-Fire Road\ � VACANT LAND-jNATIONAL FOR 3 T AREA `� `ust i Feree Ewati V:Z'pria9a 1 rdmen Crealt :Morse 6i1pek i Existing / Bog, i Existtttgldle Existi�tgOuBSaildr;l Fes _ s .2 R"ider _ Sprir�s -r ; µ _ Day aek Dam \\ St+a H thte t�Eatit�\~ Re-114 Ranger StationX. r rCr ek Chenne! .yi t• JJ v s`+ Set+ O 1� l5a r ,Ti Rotlio T C:e k Chasmet tv t Spi.,4dGtg Grounds. .li�aarewA e y S raa i{C*ounds 6 Plant "•`- arng Bas"In �`• �a Fxistft-*X..i.. ` ut Fsdat° Levee z :: ' ` .:::. , .,t• rllsaion lAnt . •. ter Terri _ - �•!� k -tea.. , ltencsl�3Ylt : ; - - i �. L —�� aatnaent Pfrm ;JY' aging utdtion i n. R�ee _ '— f�tilnmit �� -•-�J+�ffR�"�_ Creek 71 no tatien" `' J 'H nd• _ J YSP4S��— __ — — Ma. indicates Property Previously Annexed to Rnneno Cucamonga , �' •'® LI Existing fridge Crossing ttagirostatien - F '\ ,,,,,,.,,,r neetrlcsl Tranen•.i.adon LetstCofrldor _ :I i lM Water Tnimmission Line + i 1 Major Recharge Area 6rowdrater - r EXIS SING CONDITIONS AND USES 0. 1000' 2000' 40W €t'icsram'3 North Specific Mari ;I 1 City of Rp 'SPA' 0.\'. �3 13RAFT /3 6/0 32- r 'I San Bemardlpo National Forest 1 3. 39 i l 31 - 36 32 41 :mot •.. � 32 3. 40 i "66 i 2 3 29 —d 3.. 29 22 5 5 _5 25 26 38 p !I 23 24 33 1 3 - -- �...._•,--_ . _.. 263D.;.6- 1 25 T J4 35 36 37 37 2 22 a22 '. 4.. ..-—„_ _ _ 22 5 36;- 36 6- 27.29 i — 25 2Y_ 2b 27 d2 27L 27 y 4 i 42 2 2 4— 5 5 q 5 21 45 21 :.2 37 42 5 i s ( i 2 — — _5. __ _ --- 38 2 i � 2 - 2 2 4 43 43 43" 1`! 5. 6 2 2 _2 43 '4. 1 57 2 2. t o i -- -- 2 47 60 -� 'a _ 4 ` e`. — ss 2 ae I 17`c64 4,4 a 1T 57 2n 49 t6 ,2 g�5 i g 2 2 2 �4i..__.--_— __:.'5 52 ss. 2 39 i a 9 4 C8 18. 2 5 2- _!1S_�_ Avenge 19 J`, l 8 RAHCHaAtBONGActiY LIMITS, = m' 59 fi Samar nn i i 60 4 5'1� -Sumph 60 �� 48 as . Etiwanda Highland Prop. 23 Terich 45 Barwick. ' 2 San Bernardino Co.Flood Control. .24 Stansheny - 46 Remington Properties r.....e.man s anc rug -3 Landmark Land Co. 25 Webster 47 Praetzel \ .,' ••• 4 So,California Edison Co. 26 French - 48 Zandla ' 5 Caryn Development Co. 27 City of Los Angeles 49 Tragh - Gapirtp Station 6 Lewis 28 Morales 5o Sherry 7 Smih 29 Ethranda Heights Dew. 51 Madrid 8 Flemington Prop, 30 Clark. 52 Venti 9 Repents of the Univ.of Calif. 31 Jorison 53.Lyon i 10 Soumom Surplus Realty `32 Klepper 54 Joshua 11 Laken.. -33 Bloomer 55.6yer 72 Battieste 34 Chen 56 Rodriguez 13 Klanian 35 Sheep 57 Ahmanson _ 14 Little 36 Cordetro 58 Watt Inland Empire t 15 Sudeta 37 Hayward Family Partners 59 Moya 16 Metro.Water Dist.W.So.Calif. 38 La Pointe 60 Di lodo 17 Cucamonga County Water Dist. 39 Ramsey " 61 Kolo . -.� I l 18 Inland Empire L:4 40 Howard Harrell Poore 62 Chun v Nd ((3TT: 19 Stanford' 41 Pearson 63 Chang 20 Angell s 42 Countp.of San Bernardino 64 Rusted p 21 Huhas investments 43 Mctliy' 65 Watt lniend.Empire 22 Chen- "44 Roach 6S Unhed States Government Land Note:P(g7erryOwnersarectrrenras01 Jane 1991 Q Indicates.Property Previously Annexed To Rancho Cucamonga PROPERTY ®!�I/NE RSHIP EXHIBIT 4 0 ioDo' 20tn' 41=1 At.. ` Etiwanda North apezific Plan G13A.96.03B City of Rancho Cucamonga DRAFT f`S Son®ernerdino tion.1 Font m i WN.. Avenue l; Wilson t' Avanua �.%''� r"� =• - a I _ mr u � n an greet _ •6ua'Hav � �CA`venua _ r ,/ n0 'Avenue r,' e 1. sM.,n.-vl., LEGEND .�•.® Major Mewshed (aging Station fr Major Yew t 14 M4tot View 'I view C."Idor _ VIEW POTENTIAL MAP'' EXHIBIT 7` 0 10p0' 2000' 4000' ^ Etiwanda North Specific Plan city of GOA.90 031Q giiAFT'` Rancho Cucamonga -r Fi I San Bernardino National Forest. I. .. 1. :. jj I' IIh'1 r!r't; I t-IP t t I: lilth, t t'iu. r, Bop Hydrology Sludy Area \ awe. t -•• = - \ .. y. LEGEND v,o,•••ftft tNaterwaye oni nD Station Nestor Recharge Area- / - (RecharpeCapaet✓ ' 0SMALWO Nard Chaparral Greater Than 50(.VS) ,III \ - Strearoside Wand ' M Alluvial Association - Open Wash AssOraatlon d LLW11111L111lJlitl Eaoesswe and Unstable Sopes ®i® 00 Costal Sage Assouahon 1 Setsmie Areas l4qutst-PnoloSpeaal SlWies Zane to®rr®a City Adopted.Speeral Stud.Zone- - CONSTRAINTS MAP EXHIBITS ' 0 111a0' 20W 4000" Et wanua N&AV. tmcific Plan - _ ;- City of ' GFA.90.038 Rancho Cucamonga ©RAFTP l k,^J San Bernardino National Forest - OAKS C I 1n'TIWANDA HIGHLANDS � s UPP ETIWAPli3il ! 1 r:• i i • i WOW CHAFFEYDAY cRUK- - -_ ice'-• � � � _ W_..- LEGEND - Tu.OAItSe.tpaorrooa r e enu.t ru.e kT—1 11.1d n... t nuns rw pea t.t ra u O ne cifif—feet a n..a�M.di Pt,n �c rrP r. ,affirms a .I.J.unt 1r note Easa'ryp!us Windrow v...ETIWANOA NIGMAROM e.ro'am.oe.r o. 4"'• ' C•.a t e er I... ..k llro.arm pain . 1 t•41m1Y Oamary island GinslRedbud zre.m.r. a a su—wam. na .t Knox aw Gaging Station wa t n•.rnn.. �9 Oa'Ahataa SycamomlAustragan Willow Yta'DAY CIIEEB[.e rpne .e I.p ennaeuxuea oT t n" ✓ Pinyon Uwe OaklGrefonUa Buck Oak tar straw eatrrp•ra o+snp....'m w rem mown .AM— swm eta swt.oft I aranner Day crew. ■u,n•a r I:aatorras si Tour./Oartyon Uwe Oak I.Mr..Yon at c—ft , e t•ear roan pu t.— t 1 - 4 coo Oa®ualAlrican Semsc T"UPI MA ETIWAMOA man!r•.pe r a.t. t per y i _ r.twm are a pa t m n w n a ao.r oa Tltobia Rstl 8udl8raoterd Pearll:ns MG pyrtla ewrY Y am.pe..a tne aec•mn otpeat p o mw+w •-�i x FapOa.LeC4 iFl►.•R+.P Caaiomla Palen w n.,r.Iola�r rn.Cit—a wramwwq su. t nee �'�•I . none antra.ana W. m r.1 Ma.•..mn z�pamel.s ana WOM a.o oat w ny..a et yr•. rn n.epm NOTE aatpCD p'eNrtY•Fu4.40 bar.apm.at►r6ela, ® NEIGH30RHOQk) THEME PLAN EXHIBIT 9 o lOOD' 2000' AODD' Eti%vanda North mph. Ific Pkap Sped - f I� Clt)iYl't% Qt3nCho Culmon i GPA.90.03B Di%k AFT f zo `•3 ( f C% To Gaging Station$ dog,Hydrology array Ate* Bal•ting Front Lin•Ff.Trail . - San 8am.n no NeUonel MoreA mar— e / 1 In tni $ A n 3 ` ^ •••eo•c • N — I _- m 1 c. Ban 3 Avn � Av n it HJghla){Sl, .Avenues y_r .m,r..m�M.,rK n•. I LEGEND` cacl s® �Gl1111!!!d Open Space I=11111111111112 Regional Trail ••.•..• 1•Community Equestrian Train l t y Recommended Underpass _ 'Bicycle La re,it.v.r.me t-Class tij I ----—Bicycle Path pn Vs"ay•claa.1) Trail Head is."M kill*%) /( ( 2 Park[School NOTE The sits.shown may not us cumntty ownod P,,t� ,, ...,School sit.epecille.The d•pletlon of•al.z is enJntlicstlor.of a d.pcUtl uture ne.tl that may 6s etlju.tw3 over l.m.so Ah.,Olty'antl_lh.School Jlstriel VP develop. OPEN SPACE AND l", ILS PLAN EXHIBIT 19 o too.' zoo.• :xo, ®, Etiwanda North Specific Flan City of GPA.90.038 DRAFT Rattclw Cucatta.nga' ' San eeme •no Wtional Pordt — n 8_ 0T CURVE RADIUS ` -�►�®��'�®`®off vo®®®s�ns�A j Wilson Avenue A3 A'I .A1 �Mison Avenue —t La Banyan Straet -- _ c,l l� .��c— e �•.`�Ya■n�_:Rvanw W 11 f to ure S.R •D LEGEND r...v�.N..m.y.rrW rl.n ®Major Divided Arterial.. Al Typical Seaiion ' =�,• •® -Day Creek Boulevard _ 1 Gaging stationF. .. — a" aasw Special Divided Sdcoridary A7+=rial •Wuron Avenue(east of Day Crtek&:.`,, l i r t ®.Secondary Arterial ' 1 _ 7 -Wilson Avenue •Etivranda:venue e •MilBken Avenue•Upper Day Creek Boulevard -01*rry Avenue ®v®rCollector •Sanya-Street itochesterAvenue , • •Vintage Drive 4L ardman Bullock Road 444 •Summit Avernte•E,.t Avenue -San Sevaine. -Other Loop Streets _ CIRCULATION PLAN i EXHIBIT 11 o 1000' 2000 a000' •.; -Etiearanda North link, Specific Plan , city as GPA.90.03B DRAFT ��Cucamonga San Bernardipo Nations!Forest 0S FC 03l (Fit OS S oa Ro (RC) FC 4� 0 0S HR= ME � 0S I OS �S OS NR DOM FZ HR FZ F'Md 90 F C O< HR Storage ( -� . C RC T- FZ HR oy' cap FC OS R FZ 1 S F2 FZ F T- ` UC UC FC RC tlL YL FC(RC Cil.,` RC (VLE) RC OS- VL - t. VL yL n t• VL `.. } FC UC 11 UC UC PROPOSED �.�}.,.i�. FC :REGIONAL PARK �i tl(. f •st^ ° m qC t7 (VL) FC ! O > ..'FY _.... VL FC r "=, FC (RC) OS ®S L (RC) 'r (RC) oil on Av n FC i L Av n We) FC (L) FC (RC) U L L �. e �e m kyt _ d n -Street +- Svmmit Av614 JL ---e ._—•.t u --� - Nt stand Avenue uture.S.R:3O). r LEGEND L Law Density Restdentiai(2-4 DU/AC) " .® VL - ..r,'!.cMj Density Residential(<2 DUrAC) ® Proposed Trail Head Gaging station VLE Very Low kesx)ential Estate(i DU/AC): UE Proposal Equestrian Facility`k t i; ---,�� `` -'Hillside Residential oz DU/Net Buildable Acre) Proposed selwol site 11EE Hillside Residential Estate(ci W/Net.Buildxde Acre) FC-- Flo**Control/Riparian. R Proposed Perk site'k ..� UC Utility Corridor P Existing Park.Site •*, y r OS Open Space st- NOTE IN Institutional TM t +^•�.�xr a .-it e.*•a i � Yi¢ to btet t fe I T FZ Fault ZQnqi s•pen.n or r• ma n•n to r I� o tcc a mtwk a rtit mg s•wwu•e RC Resource.Conservation{1reL e••r-.a.Ott••.1M.It—,ontnet r� (MC)Neighborhood Commerc ai,* (L,VL,VLE,RC) voTEUTIAI•IRURZ�.4:M use DZWQNAT ON LAIC'® USE PLC EXHIBIT 17 O low. 2000' 4100' ;%wanda North !� �®i `^Specific,Plan city of GPA.9Q.Q3B DRAFZ Rant ho Cucamonga U ❑ W L173 F ui U a¢. V C'.G i�. OLL- �1J) Q� H�=� �tLV®�� pn3��itCxN7. gQW ��QLL a � Qv� U0 � w sCad E. ulN 0 -,L -I acZz ' au ¢�zurrw w . 2ws—a Lu 00Mly Cx : �x0ILL UwLLat.�®� irc I • Z/`i—� . p s � i 2,LA�UULLt tlrJt �• �h q{ �f i ��]�7�. ••�`�l Alt�I{.i r.: !t€�.�taescrfl id��ti�luJFj`!`F��a �;tr:,a (f e •.. f~^ e •s L y �\ ji • , ' w•ep e� GPA90.03B lag w Maastw'3 � Cwlf Y rl Z C7 � E � P S p �2Q @� IU ®C � LL� Q _ l zao3ow - ' ® Q pw w V m o , ® w w ® "> w m� a a S z O 0. W Cl FN W W - ®�o XU.•0¢ s Oaaa F — •� �. ,. , I U. lJ I 1 i t i { w.irmn I rrN.W, GPA90.03�i- "•' `�` f3 fib.� �/� � C QY N dR a 1 ` Z w _t4 N n c�9 Y ON O (Al_ 10, fill IA tag a maw ,�' p�IL - VY LL LL OR. Lis r . -- 0 Ir -- . GPA90.038' i(t i _ a r o a-� w a z z Y Z QQ �- a Uf (g :C < U O.�* N VZ V W 4i Pa Qp CO) VGA ®C;, LW� H UO N 30 z " z IL ILEll W aC N G CO) n = CWj Q sO1 U. ulLm } N ME o DDDD!"pOCDDGDC saaS p DD= 1 .- � ° ;. iDODODO Q OCOOOOOOODOOO� � '- - F DO O •O DDpppPpp`•p Dp II � •Y-`O �iw((� 1 y M000000poogoopoorwq,.y • v ._.� �_, Y; �. II _ a , � °oDDOODDODO.00O�iOOOJODOp„ppOpC 1 rrV {. : i��+•.Iw• 1 DDODD !-- 1 O , c a ifo _ i 1 ,D V• _rrB41' a ® z o ' � : ��. II L G o00 •.rnul j _.1 D E 1 1 o00000 WE vr.urn Drury �. 1 0� G/i!D DDO .000a. w W W 1 1 D GELM .. t � Er s _ 4 nr{me k .. ,.•.e GPA.90.03B IOU y m = Z 0 � oc�� aq � o 1 �c� uao�cM � �C > � � u5cr � ocn Qoa o a � a Q � 0) x _Z � C �p - 0LL 0 ma� wzaeliLl 5 -r § crmou UE- 2080 -a0 ¢ a O cn • ;•sue., Adlkk Ask } GPA.90.03$ a © a a LLI IN V ! ♦ -�� IIF FF • r ea I a e- y cc LU 0. IT LU w Lu r tu � IMF ®' s = 110 ®� fc Xi :a L1— i\�- 1 �tt1 it 9�� s• •�13 ) ohs■e}�nea�l •�.......� � �.�'�, f - .�i f, l y CORRESPONDENCE Camments on the Draft Flrt are kully responded: in the i draft Final SIR distributed"under separr"l-^over`. The following�_,correspondence offers cot-mentari on the draft%.,, cific Plan. Since, £or--be,most Fart,,•:the J. letters repeat issues raised by comment letters .to the EIR, only selected issues are discussed below, >nsing a comments and response fo--mat. 1. Chino Basin Vatermaster, Letter of Cdugust--12, 1991: In support cif "City.'s effort to protect and .maintain existing "natural" recharge areas witbAn the Chino Groundwater -Lasin zs oell as your own (.'�ncamonga Groundwater Basin." 2, Standard Pacific of Orarge CountY,,;Letter of 3uly'2, 1991: = - u Comment l Request for clarif,cation of potcintial. conflict between Development Agreement for Tract 13565 and Specific Plan. Rcspons e ` - I No c nflicts are aoected' to occur, bacause established,City 0avelopment Code ordinances and implementation t procedures recognize that a Development Agreement takes preceder.e aver a Specific Plan, and the i Development Codes.;; In instances where the ;Development Agreement 3' i silent, the Speciff Plan and the'Dsvelopmeni;,Code take pr5,aedence: The existence of Development Agreement-.. and approved Tract Maps is recognized in the Specific Plan. mart IV, S.;etion 13.61 Etiwanda . Highlands Neighborhood; subarea 5, states:` This subarea has beet, anne.�ed into the City and is controlled byan alpsoved 'San Bernardino: County Final Plan of Developmen`, for Tracts ;13564 and-'- 13565 ' A Development Agreement with the CJl.ty of Rancho Cucamonga further conditions the use of this subarea. 3. Land Plan Desigi Groin Aucjust 14, 1991: t"do Comment This represantatiye of the property owner requests an indefinite continuance, or ',it least a four-month:iiciatinuance. The reason given is that no _c€ion should be taken dthi4e. the.lawsuit alleging ` non-compliance with CEQAj which was fixed �n the`City against th_ County of San Bernardrro and The ownsr6-"o¢ '-Se University/Cres,` property, is resolved. Respons=_ Staff does nut support a contin,,.ance for the purpose stated by the Land Plan Dezign Group. " Further,'the aforementioned Zawsuit is caly indirectly related to: this project. The purpose in moving forwsTd with the -City's Etiwanda North Specifiq _lan is `td establish an environmental record and the City's avelopment guidelines' for a sigrlficant portion` of the City': `,phere-of-Influence. _ Once tY� .envroniaental record and devel6pment1/guidelines are approved, they will provide a standard of comparison for applications,pending the County. Llso, certification of the EIR and adoption' of the Specific Plan (pre-zoning) is a prerequisite for annexation. The-City, supports annexation lr. outstanding issues -can be resolved and annexation applications are pending before LAFCO. " df Citi staff recognizes" that at this tiQe.-;there is, considerable c property oannr oppa.,ition`_.ro annexation, because of the widespr:ad per,:eption that 'higher denzity, lower develcpment., standards, anti fewer processing requirementsi, such as Ino de',.;;gn revi�w, are advantages available by remainingit the County.Y• Carment if. the above-request for a continuance ia'not, granted, a, request is made for a -,ontinugnce to September 25,1991 in order to review and comment on the drays. Final Environmental Impact Raport and the revised draft Specific Plan. Rea Sonse Staff does not support a continuance for further public review and comment, because the revised EIR` and Specific Plan ''are not substa.'.Ially different from the documents rsviewed by the Plan-,ing Commisscn on June 26, ;991. I: Comments and Responses to tht draft EIR are intended to mire fully inform decision makers on,'_'raVacts' addressed by tha. draft' EiTt. CE-QA guidelines do not require an additional public c omment'period on the C;imments and Response. Proposed changes to t1:e draft ;.Specific Plan resulted faom �„iput from the Trails Committee meeting, January 160991; Planning Commission workshop, 7a=ary 17, ;1991; Neighborhood 'meeting, January 28, 1991; and Parks Commission Public Hearing,. -February 21, M1. Further changes proposed to the Land-Use Map as,:a result of comments on the draft EIR were discussed at the.Planning Commission public hearing on aun;> 26,, 1991.- Other minor changes',-, to the revised draft ,Specific Pl'un have been made;to incorporate mitigal'on m:asures from the EIR. r. ( ^ Comment The Universt.ty/Crest r project approved, by the County Pis significantly different from the land use and circulation proposals in the Specific Plan. Response The Planning Commission and the City Council reviewed the project submitted to the County and'recommended denial to the Board of � Supervisors. Further,': the project approved by the County is in - conflict with the City''s General Plan. If 'annexation to he City `^ p?^oposed in the future by:the property owne_, a General elan Amendment must be processed. _Further, if any project approved in _ the County is in�.conflict with an approved Specific'-Plan, and " annexation is Proposed, the General Plan and Specific"Flan Amendments would be processed with an annexation,application. i 1 4 Landmark Land Company of California„ June 27, 1991 In " general, the comments in this letter have been responded to in the draft Final EIR. Comment This property owner objects to inclusion off-theiS property within the Specific Plan and opposes annexaton. Response Regarding inclusion of; parcels in`;the Specific Plan, the City's goal is to provide for comprehensive planning rather than continue project-by project, piecemeal planning for the Ci'iy's Sphere-of- Influence area north of Etiwanda. " Further, as stated agave, City staff recognizes that at this time i there is property oweier opposition to annexation. , Comment Exhibits indicate t2;e Landmark prolr>rty has already been a�exed' into the City. Response Because of reproduction prolaxesas in the December 1990 draft Specific Plan, annexation areas were poorly distinguished from Sphere areas. This problem has been corrected, for example refer to d,-aft Etiwanda North Specific Plan, September 1991, Exhibit 6 Comment The Specific Plan does not reflect the property,...owner applies --n for development on file in the County. Re-')onse ^i Staff has reviewed the property ownex application for development on file in the County,and ha; made rfommendations in the Specific Plan which differ from,-,the aforemen�aoned application. As stated above, if a property owner obtains project apprp„rals in the County which differ from the City`s General Plan and P'a approved Specific Plan, and requests annexation. then, applicrcions -would 'also be filed for General Plan and, Specific Plan amendments. 5. Deborah A. Webster, August 8, 1991 Comment s This owner opposes an open space designation for portions of this property. Response Portions of ,+his property ire' proposed as Hillside Residential aria po tions as open Spa_`e. Theo proposed land use:for,•this prgpe'-ty 'has, not changed substantially`txom the existing City andi County designations. (See attached Exhibit,,' CORR-,3 for the location of i this,aropierty.) The primary difference is application of the Couxity-;;Hazards overlay maps for seismic hazards, flood hazards, and slop_ Hazards in order to conceptually distinguish the pottntiai for resi,ential development from open trace uses required` because 1.avardous conditions exist. The open spice=designation permits development of 1 residence per 40 acres, as-well as agiacultural uses, and may conditionally permit cocmercial and.recreation uses This pmoerty is not, planned for mitigation for any tther property.', However, a fl�ad control.Ariparian designation has been applied to Morse Canyon to recognize_ the riparian corridor which is existing. If future development is proposed for the Webster parcels,, then a conservation vr3ement would,be sought to protect the year rcund'stream and related vegetation in,Morse Canyon. Such a designation would not interferp with existing water rights for the property. 6. Netta Shannon, July 26, 101 and ;r 7.. Reb4cca Mills, July 30, 1991 _ _ �1, Comment The above letters are identical; by co-owners wba' oppose a "permanent" open space designation. //j 3U Response ' J Ci A "permanent" open space dsiyrieation is :iot p�aposed far tTiis property. (See :Exhibit CORR-1 for Socation.)';7 In the Specific,,- Plan the Reiource Conservation designation is/,,used`to identify land for �ehich "permanent"'wildlife habitat pry eraation easements have been obtained. .A habitat preservatiom,easement has not been identified for this property. Ho,4ever, bei�ause several hazard conditions overlay the property, an open apace'designation appears t better` describe the `davalopmeiYt than a Hillside Residential designation. y Lek MP AM I r� : e iJ San Sernardi)lo Nallonal Forest 44 OS PC Fiench j a OS PC OS _ .. ®5 RC FC . US a OS OS r PZ NR Debris E6 05 F d P8 F8 F uc WebSter FC Re FC VL FIC. FC ~ PC J • PP.OPOSEI) - •-.- �fJ !!C QC FC REGIMM PARK (VL) PC (E �A. r RC 0S IVL m PCw' FC FC L ;sr X ° it Av n� _M'H A on .) '•�.s'1r.�a�{'^ FC PC Be _A a L :�.H:i mend Aranue UtUt!SR;80)~ LEGEND, 'I _ Lop.Density Residential(2-4 DU/AC). Very taw Density Residential(c2 DWAC). T Propontl Traa$aaG:�' .; Gegi.v Station- Zr-L� Very taw Residential Estate(i DU/AC) Proposd Equaatrlan FecWty Ifdside Residential(c2 DU/Nel Suildable Awe) : >.� Hillside Residenl.:t Estain M DU1Ne1 Buildable Awe) S Proposed School Slte Y Flood Control P Proposed Park 5tie* .: Utility Corridor F E.0tft pack Site t b:a Open Space * NOTE IN Institutional TStEns a..n. y 'ts n+tsAr Vn.`4 1 to I." �- FZ Fault Zone srrctiea r n.. .ro.atwa ar r . — - -Re Resouree.Consenalinn Area r.rr rrne..m.cpr an.r.m aenco1 r on a.rncl a..anP. (NO)Neighborhood Commercial (L.VL:V4E) P.ifnaarP.-It..u.(Sly o.aronw.. OF C UCAIVIC�NGA PROPERTY OWNER p, TION r �' FT"rrLE.*_WE6STER,FRENCft(OCA '�PLc'�T1 Nd-I M;' SION �-�---L- {)){ iIBTT;corn-i S .d:6 NONE _. _._.�. W 4TERMABTER C)^Z` , �iL DONAU)R.=e-_RS.CN f CWIGHT F,FRENCH, Chxi'M e t': WatetrasterV�amces GEORGE A.SOR@A,VierChsrtmaa JOHN L.ANDERSON,Seaetaryiraaaurer rr s« '�?uSpa. \' TelePnano (714)987• r ANNEY✓.OUNIHUE.Hamner ( {l SILL HILL.Mamba, -cis Q` — R E C E 1 V D_ _'(, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAta',ON()A FP M A5 PLAMClING DIVISION August 12, 1991 AUG 1G41 FM ° City of Rancho Cucamonga �;E�e10e11�12A.2j$�4�5(G Planning Department P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, .CA 91729-0807 SUBJECT: LAND USE PLA'1.! r ANDA NORTH SRECIPIC PLAIT EIR LETTER OF SUPPORT Gentlemen: ` Please accept th*s corresporder..:e as our letter of support frr your Etiwanda North Specific Plan EIR, . specifically,the section d4voted to land use as it relates to dedication of a significant a3I'ea for groundwater recharge, purposes As you may be aware, drought conditions ;within the chino Groundwater Basir, area has caused considerable concern due to _ cutback of replenishment water deliveries thick are normally available throughout the winter and spring months from,Metropolitan Watrr,District. We are`a11 hopeful;hcwever, weather patterns will charkti. :_this winter, and provide the rain we so desperately need. These open spaces designated and "reserved as basin recharge areas are -vital to W.* `•ermasl-er Is basis recha�9rge program. Therefore, please accept this letter as support to the`City°s effort to protect anO maintain existing "natural" recharge areas within the Chino Groundwater Basin as ;fell as your Gvn Cucamonga Groundwater Basin. r sincere Donald R. 5- srs, ief -<"� Watermaster Services DRP/cgs cc: Mark Kinsey Diana Leach L., CHINO 855SARCHISALD+.VENk:F RANCMC:CUCaAtON6A CALIFORNIA. MAIL:NZ ACOR'a.3S, P 0 BOX 69%'. SANC110 CtYAMONGA,CAIJFOnNIP 97730.0697 l.ETi'ER 1 STANDARD PACIFIC OF ORANGE COUNTY �A July 2, 1991 1\, Mr.Larry Henderson,, i lanning Department ` City of Rancnt„^ucamonga r P.O.Box 802 -"!ancho Cucamonga,CA 91729-0807 RE: DRAFT ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLP N 90-01 (CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA)TRACT`13565(BREN 1-WOOD COLLECTION) Dear Larry: Pursuant to our conversation last week,the following represents my initial comments with regard to the Drag Eriwanda North Specific Plan(ENS?). Hav�'ng personally written many specific plans.over the years, I hope my comae-nts will assist you in providing the Flaw,;?ng Commission with a complete and accurate specific plan document. I do not wish to comment at length with regard to the status of our project,however,I would appreciate your understanding with regard to my comments, since the bulk of them deal with the existNg approvals for Tract 13565. 1.2 Awh ri "Development plans,site plans,and Tentative Tract/Parcel M i in this area must be consistent with both Specific Plan and the City's Geri�eral Plan." As you know,Tract 13565)1-10 was approved and recorded in the County of San Bernardino(the County). All development approvals for Tract 13565 are governed by a Development Agreement between the City and Standard Pacific. With this,I am assuming the above statement would not apply to Tract 13565 since all of our' approvals were obtained prior to the traces annexation to the City. 1.3 _California Environmental Quality".Act Co lian "Mitigation measures included in this document may be applied to these projects." The following comment applies to both the ENSP and the Draft Etiwanda North Envi4.onmental Impact Report(ENEIR). On Aug�,tst 24,1987,the County Board of Suprvisors apprnved Tentr'tive Tract 13565 and adopted a Negative Declarafion. All recommended mitigation measures were included in the projects Conditions of g P l � 1565 West MacArthur Boulevard LETT ER R2 ra ;,`'osta.Mesa,California 4?ry26.71g1o68-4300 �' Mr.LarrI Henderson Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga " JuIy 2, 1991 r Page 2 of 6 Approval. These Conditions of Approval fall under the authorityr,of the Development Agri.:ment which was in place at ;he'time of the ar►.iexation. Therefore,any mit ;ation measures proposed by the ENSP and/or ENEIR I would assume would not pertain to Tract 13561. Exhibit 4 Property Ownership: This exhibit denotes Tract 13505 as under the ownership of the Caryn Development' Company. We would request that this exhibit be revised to reflect the correct ownership. Exhibit 10 _QDgIn.Space ant, rails Flan: This exhibit shows a community equestrian trail to be located north of Tract 13565 within the SCE"Corridor. Tract 13565 was conditioned as a part of the County Development Plan W138-49 Etiwanda Highlands (the Development. Plan) to construct an equestrian trail on the north side of Summit Avenue and along the east side of San Sevaine Avenue. The Development Plan,however,did not provide for the construction of an equestrian trail along the SCE Corridor. I have attached a copy of the approved County trail system map for your reference. Exhibit 12(1:; Street Sections: This exhibit,which illustrwes the cross-section.for Wil.ai Avenue(Summit)adjacent to Tract 13565 does not reflect those plans as :approved by the County. I'have enclosed a copy of the exbibu with thi correct cross.section dimensions per the approved street plans. Exhibit 12(E) Street Sections: Per this exhibit,I am assuming that the top cross-section refirs to Wardman Bullock Road west of Tract 13565. I have enclosed a copy of this exhibit with the couect cross-section dimensions as indicated on the County approval plans: Exhibit 12(F) Street Sections; This exhibit,is not nec,":sarily incorrect,however,it does not apply to Tract 13565. I have enclosed a cony of the Specific'Plan exhibit with the cross-seelion dimensions that apply to Tract'13565. The two LToss-sections provided occur,at various locations within 'Tract 13565, and,.are shgwn on the County approved soot mpro,,ement plans. S- LETTER 2 mom Ems Mr.lam Henderson I_ Planning Department City of Rancho Cu3monga duly 2, 1991 - Page 3 of 6 9.1 Water: „ Exhibit 13, Water Master,Plan shows an eight inch waterline to be installed in ' W,rdman Bullock Road and,along the north boundary of Tract 13565. Standard Pacific has approved;'cater plans from CCWD which do not'show the construction l of waterlines as illustrated in this exhibit. 9.2 sewer: Exhibit 14,Sewer Master Plan shows an eight inch trur..k sewerlinc�to be constructed in Wardman Bullock Road. Tract 13565 has already received approval from CC1VDI with respect to on and of-site sewer improvements. Our improvement plans do not, show the construction of a trunk sewerline in.Wardman Bullock Road. 9.5 Flood ControlJDrainage: As stated previously, Tract 13565 received conditions of approval and a negative declaration from the County,durf`ig the Development Plan mid Tentative Tract Map approval proce:,., It is rhy assumption that it,is the Citf s intent to reflect the San Bernardino County Flood Control District(SBCFCD)Master Plan and where this exhibit and the SBCFCD Master Plan are in conflict,then the SBCFCD Master Plan shall prevail, I also want to confirm that the Conditions of Approval with regard to the flood control obligations for Tract 13565 shall take precedence over the SBCFCD Master Plan illustrated in the ENSP„ This would include ar_y associated conditions and mitigation measures with regard to;flood control'improvements. Exhibit 16 Storm Drairi Master, Plan: As a*- Carrof the development of Tract 13565,Standard Pacific constructed.a 24"RCP and a 60" RCP in 24th. Street.. In addition, we 'f understand that act 13564 constructed a 66"RCP on the south side of 24th'Street. Both storm drains ever_tually F empty into the San Sevaine Spreading Basin No. I,.,With regard to the SBCFCD i Master-Plan Exhibit, I am assuming that the actual site and location of the storm drains are conceptual in nature,since they are not based on approved plans. LETTER 2 Mr.Larry Henderson Planning Department City of RanchosCucarAonga July 2, 1991 Page 4 of 6 I 11.4 landscape Architecture; y Currently Standard Pacific has appibved landscape plans for th,Jandscape, areas along 24tb- treet and a portion of the MWD easement. Both,of those'areas have been lands aped and are ready to be accepted by the LMD for maintenance. I am assuming that the landscape cross•%ection shown in the document are co:Lept�ual in nature and do not necessarily depict future IandscaPe treatments for those areas. For your information,I have enclosed copies of those cross-sections which impact Tract ti 13565 with my comments. Exhibit 22 Community Theme Walt:/Entry MonumPa j i This exhibit doeb not accurately reflect our current approv�-Is r-or our proiect. First, the wall plan shows a view fence located along San Sevaine Avenue. Our current DRC approval is for a six (6)foot high tucco wa.i with w brick pllsster Iocated at every other property line. Y am assuming that our previous City approvals will trkle precedence should the ENSP be epproved this way. Second,the entry monument plan shows an entry'monument'located along Wardman Bullock Road into our tract. Standard Pacific does not-),,,w Wardman Bullock Road as .a major entry road deserving of an entry statement, as ihow!,on Exhibit 26(A). Standard Pacific has already provided an entry monument similar to that shown on exhibit `�n 24th Street. 12.0 I)eveloTme;it Standard-71. The following comments also refer to Sections'0.1.1 and 10.2 of the Etiwanda North' Specific Plan. As stated pril.iousiy, the r..^elopment Plan for.Tract 13565 was i ap-,roved by the County in September'19Sg` ,The Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map approval, set forth certain ConLaions of approvar, as well as specific ` . development standards,all of which are contained iW the DevelopmentAgreement. In reviewing the EN SP,the General Plan Map and the Specific-and Use Plan have designated Tract 13565 as very low de, ity(VL). T•.nis designruon allows up to two (2) dwelling units per acre and sets forth specific a lopment standards for properties that fall within this category.These developm�ntiiandara,(i.e„minimum lot sizes,setbacks,etc.)are inconsistent:with the Development Plai standards and the Conditions of Approval for Tract 13565.. In ot.j,opinion,Tract 13565,based on it's density am9 Ycct.,ded lot sizes, is more likely 'to be'desig-nated as low denity. How,wer,even th,s d"' ation and associated standards are stir;in conflict with our LETTER 2 Mr.Larry Henderson = Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga July 2, 1991 Page 5 of 6 existing approvals. Inorder to eliminate ary confusion vMU.regard to the applicable standards which apply to Tract 13565,1 would suggest that a statement be adCed'to this section which would-clarify the development standards fay Tract 13545 -L think this would eliminate any confusion with regard to the-eoftlicable stadards,for Tract 13555. 12.2.4.2 rsvelopment Criteria; ~�. I "Any structures or lan&joutside the Flood Control District which is subject to flood inundation, as depicted on tte F,ede-al Insurance Bood Rate Maps or othervnse by the City.Engi:eer khall comply with the flood protection measures as outlined in'Title 19 of the Rancho Cucamonga.Municipal Code. Standard Pacific-has installed flood control protection facilities in accordance with Alk the Conditions i,,f Approval and the standards set fortis by the S�CF?C13. Standard Pacific will comply with all standards.set forth In the Cbndirioru af.Approval and Development Agreement. 13.4 Etiwanda Higntands Neighborhood&1p.-Areas 13.4.1 S b Area 5; Commurnr,,pc,ign Features: "View fencing shall be featured for residential development along San Sevaine Drive to tal advantage of the view of the wa sh and footr,ills." Tract 13565 wN ,iiovide view fencing along the northern tract boundary of the project, however we re..ived DRC approvil to construct a theme wall along San Sevaine Avemi—, ",Paseos should provide pedestrian access to the yan.Sevaia .'V sh..ALo, paseas should provide access to community :rails along tha San Sevame Wash The in-tact improvement plain and landsca ie plans for Tract 13565 dr,not provide direct acc, s to San Sevaine Wash. Our landscape plar;s do,however,provid s for pedestrian and equestrian access along San Sevairte Avenue. Direct access to Sato !`�- ER2` „r 70 . 0 C}GTQBE 9GCfl 2 out Mr.Larry Henderson~ Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga July z 1991 Page 6 of 6 Sevaine Wash is obstructed by SBCFCD right-of-way fencing. Larry,in addition to the above comments,I hope to discuss with you specific issue's within these sections of the ENSP: Section 8,2.2, "Other Pertinent Access and Design Policies"; Section 10.1, "General Provisions",',,,`Section 10.1.2, "Relationship to, Other Regulations"; Secffi i 10.13, "Conflict with Other. 'Regulations' ' Section ,-10:1.4, "Relationship to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code"; Section 10.L10,"Agreements"; Section 10.2, "Land Use Regulations; Section Itd, "Design Guildelines'.' 'I hope my comments are helpful. I look forward to meeting with you and Mild on Wednesday. Sincerely, Standard Pacific of Orange County, a diivision°of Sand d P .ific, ' M chaei J.White Project Manager . cc: Bob Shiota,Standd ard Pacific- Ray Allard,Fuscoe,Williams,Lindgren& Short Greg Sanders,Nossaman,.Guthner,Knox&Elliot �r Joe DiIorio,Caryn.Company Kevin Pohlson,'Caryn Company Mild Bratt,City of Rancho Cucamonga' Brad Buller,City of Rancho Cucamonga s L.MER 2 1 OIN P��AyJ4l GROUP August 14, 1991 Chairman McNeil and Members of the J r Planning Commission CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O.Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga,CA 92729 RE: City of Rancho Cucamonga, 1' Job No.: NOES 876 Environmental Impact Report forSpecific Fian 90..f t and General Plan Amendment 90-03B, Environmental Assessment and Specific Plan 90-0I, Environmep4al Assessment and General Plan Amendment 90-03B Dear Chairman McNiel: Aft Four Montb Continuance: The Caryn Company University of California, and Etiwonda Highlands LTD. agree that an extension of timeY .necessary to allow completion of CEQA documents and adequate time for public review: I�wever,The Caryn Company,University of California,and Eti,wanda Highlands LTD, reque:'t that the Planning Commissiun consider a significantly longer continuance,until January 1992,to allow resolution of the CEQA lawsuit filed by the City against the County of San Bernardino and the owners of the University/Crest property before considering this planning approval. We believ-there are impot.ant legal and practical reasons for this continuance. It is obvious from the draft documents already released by the City that the University/Crest Project is an Important,if not central,element of the Specific Plan, As it currently stands,the;County has already determined that the Project will be developed according to County standards and with County-approved mitigations. The only way for the City to control development of'this territory would be to win the pending lawsuit challenging the County's approvals,--and ultimately,to annex the property. Therefore, development of what we would call the"centerpiece"of t?v� Specific Plan will necessarily be inconsistent with the City's current plans`unless the lawsuit is successful It only snakes good economic and planning sense to wait until the lawsuit is decided,.: before cz uinuing the preparation and consideration of two very'expensive-- and complex-- documents. By these comments we do not mean to suggest that the County's University/Crest project approval is likely to be ovegurned. In fact,if the City does not-,wait,we believe that the more likely remit is ` that the Specific Plan and EIR will be compLle d on the basis of project criteria which are inaccurate. and inapplicable by the time the Plan is adopted. Under these circumstances,completion of the , Specific Plan at this time serves no purpose other than heightening the conflict between the City, Alk the County and the University Crest project property owners. r i MER 3 Z?) �d -AX`r,: .832.20215 �� \ Chairman McNiel CITY OF RANCHO Ct fCWONGA Job,,To.: NES V6 August 14, 1991,Page2' \ L. Wp therefore urg.,the Plannulg`Conir'raission to defer arav further..coosideration of the Etiwanda No,th Specific Flan until cfte�the manaatc Bearing in the t:ity's CEQ'i lawsuit,_These are cases entitind to preference so a heating is likely Before the end bf the year. If the City is unwilling to grant an indefinite continuance kip these 1;-,poses,we suggest jbat this li"e`.aring be continued--not to September,but to mid-Januaryi992 Six-Week Continuance: If.3espiEe the campOlmg re?sons fo1 at'longeeZ otitinuance,the Planning Commission wishes to proceed,we rioquest that this,,tatter be 6owinued until at least three weeks after completiort;and public distribut akt ofthe Final EIR fLjr the jpiojsect. The`,'\-ttrrentschedule calls for Iess than four working days b twom distribut,on of tl\(!Rhal E.IRand r\wised Specifl-c Plan` and the scheduled vublic hearing. ,This:is not eneictgh tti" x,16va11 vy nteanit,gfui review of the documents including the City's responsek)commeriVvIiichR ie hEwC.not yet\.en. While ft may-• meet the minimum legO requirements torpublic revie? jt do(�not'allw art oppjortunityfor us to make substrntive and--we would hope h.lpful co on dv t3� ok;, ping documents.—the final documents are not currently scheduled to be available unh eanber 5,1991,we ask that the matter be continued to September 2S, 1491--if-the Planilin jtntriission rejErts our request'. ' for a longer continuance. Sincerely, to Trevino McZeal Associate ATP%4,-,Iw , cc: chron Corr i.: LETTER,- June27,1991 ;i. RECEIVED — Aukr CITY F RANCHO N DCLIICAM Nca Ms. Mikki Bratt Associate Plannec JUL 151991 Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive AM tn99nl�t3121� i�i� P.O.Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91729- Mr.Larry Ienderson,AICP Principal Planner Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O.Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91729 RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENT.-L IMPACT`REPORT(DEIR) ETIWANDA NORTH.SP Fr7IFIC PLAN STATE CLEARINGHOU z NO.89012314 I Dear Ms. Bratt and Mr.Henderson, Thank you for your notification,of the above referenced DEIR and Loompleted Draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Comments respective to these documents are contained on the following pages and are also intended to act as our public response to the notification we received from the City of Rancho Planning Commission dated June 11, 1991 for the following projects: a EnvironmentaI Impact Report fvT Specific Plan,90-01 and General Plan Amendment 90-03D-City of Rancho Cttcam&aa: Environmental Assessment and Specific Plan 90-01 City of Rancho i Cucamonga. Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 90-03B -City of Rancho Cucamonga. Each of these project were to be+*,;.cussed at the Rancho Cucamonga'planning commission,meeting on June 26,Iy31 at 7.00 p.m. ANNEXATION Landmark Lana Company of California,Inc. hereby enters its objection to the City_ of Rancho Cucamonga for including Landmark's property in any plan whose stated purpose is to create a platform for annexation of Landmark's pr{verty into the City of Rancho Cucamonga. As stated in Section 1.1 of the city's Draft Edwanda North LETTER 4 Landmatr Land Comnany of California.,Inc. Response to City of Rancho Cucamonga ENSP/DEIR June 27,.491 Specific Plan (ENSP),the document would,among other things,"act as a p.7e requisite to annexation of the[plan]to the City of Rancho Cucamonga." Accordingly,we object to our property and it's boundaries being included in a document for this purpose. At the present time Landmark Land Company enjoys property ownership within , the unincorporakted territory of San'Bernardino County-outside of the corporate city limits of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Additionally,mi4 of Landmark's property also falls outside of the:,Sphere of Influence of the City. We believe:the maps contained within the ENSP,beginning with Exhibit 3 on Page I-8 as well as those identical maps copied to the Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR) for same to be incorrect insofar as:they to indicate certain lands owned by Landmark within the'city's Sphere of Influence. These maps},should be corrected.as well',as provided in a scale suitable for proper analysis. La 4 tly consistent with our objections stated in the preceding paragraph��,e`wither object to being annexed into the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sphere of Influencq. COMMENTS ON DRAFT ETMANDA NORTH SPEC',IF1C.PL_'�N�-., 1. As stated previously,all exhibits contained in th&ENSP document which indicate land owned by Landmark Land Company;of California being either ' within the city limits of the City of Rancho Cucamonga or the Sphere of Influence of the City should be revised. Exhibit 4 on Page I-10 contains a small graphic in the lower left.comer which: a. Indicates property owned by Landmark Land Company within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. a. Indicates property owned by Landmark to be in aro"previously annexed to Rancho Cuo-imonga Consistent with our previous requests,maps such as these (including Exhibits 3 through 11, 13 and 14' 15 and 17,19,22, and 34 should be revised and subsequently provided in a scale suitable for proper analysis. 2. Exhibit 3 on Page I-8 indicates an area cutlined in a curvalinear pattern and ' labeled "Bog". We will provide comment on this area later in this letter, however,we feel this area to be out cf scale as well as factually incorrect since the nature and origin of this area has not been established beycind.mere cr inion. Since this exhibit acts as the base map for further generaions,of ;naps we also,by reference to Exhibit 3 on Page l-8,object to these succeeding exhibits. 2 LETTER 4 Landmark Land Company of California,Inc. Response to City of Rancho Cucamonga ENSP/DEIR June 27,1991 `t 3. Contained iF ithin•:Section 4.5 OPEN SPACE AND.T1te;ILS is a goal to "preserve and protect the fresh water bog,along Vaith a;200-foot wide buffer of natural vegetation and the upstream recharge corridor,adequate access to natur.i hydrological resources,and appropriate protective fencing.' The nature and origin of the "fresh water bog"is still an open issue. Accordingly,it may be premature to attach such significance to a feature whose"hydrological resources"have yet to be ascertained. It is equally premature to provide such noa-svecific and misleading language such as "the- ups,FSeam recharge corridor"when such a feature may not exist`. 4. Also contained within Section 4.5 OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS--is a goal to "'preserve the Forest Service site and an adequate surrounding area for parking,trail head,rest rooms,and picnic facilities for public use and enjoyment." The former forest Service site mentioned in the ENSP is little more than one acre in size. The surroundingsrea is owned by'Landmark Land Company who would not consider sale of this property to the City for the purposes of providing such'uses as parking and public resirooms. Landmark is providing nearly 250 acres of open space,much of it in pristine natural area accessible by hiking trails. It is;not clear,,,why the City would provide for such a "goal when superior public use and enjoyment has been incorporated into Landmark's plans.' 1 5. Exhibit 9 provides the boundaries and orientation of,the Neighborhood Themes for the ENSP. We ►ave noticed thrt you designate the area of our property as "Oaks"and state that"the neighborhood will be characterized by native field stone entries and pilasters with native Oaks,and Sycamores.". This theme is consistent with our plans for the area- For further information the City should further consult the OakSummit Development Plan which is on file with the County of San Bernardino and which has previously been provided to the City. 6. Exhibit 9 also provides a curious set of lines indicating,-apparently,the Iocation of trees. These areas do not conform in any way to our development plans or any approved street matrix in the vicinity. The map should be revised to indicate existing approvals and development;plans, It is als--, debatable whether or not it is the City's prerogative-_o provide precise future AOL LETTER 4 '. C, C 614 a S Landmark Land Company of California,Inc'. Response to City of Rancho Cucamonga EN'SF/DEIR June 27,1991 locations for local and collector streets,if that is what these areas are intended' to ccZVey. 7. Table 2- the Land Use Statistical'Summary shown on Page I1-14 provides for 542 acres of Residential Net Acreage with 379 Dwelling Units. This table is ?, inconsistent with the general depiction of the Oaks area provided on-Exhibit 9 and fails to consider land use approvals existent in the area. Landmark Land Company currently has approval for 433 units on 453 acres within this area. Ultimate development within this area will include approximately 620 dwelling units on 761.8 acres. The land use matrix should be revised to,;provide for currently approved plans and a more realistic land use scenario. 8. On page U-19 of the Draft ENSP in the opening paragraph of Section 7.0 OPE V SPACE AND TRAILS CONCEPT states, "the diverse biological and wildlife habitats found in the bog"is mentioned.-'jince it is yet to be determined if this feature is indeed a"bog' this statement is questtonable. 9. Page I1-21 in discussion of the Community Park/Equestrian Center provides that "contribution toward the acquisition and development of the equestrian center shall be a condition of development for all tracts which have a` minimum lot size of less than 20,000 square feet which are in the Gerral Plan Equestrian Overlay District. It is highly`questionable why lots of less than 20,000 square feet should be singled out to bear the impact of`smding a regional facility,when,by the very, nature of their ecow.my,they ar-0 less likely to meet the financial profile to afford a feature which proportionately few will utilize..Further,no {! discussion is provided nor any criteria presented which attempts to illustrate why 20,000 square feet is the correct size to levy fees upon. Other than an arbitrary finding that because the City is committed to equestrian activity lve feel that the City must provide: a. The number of residents within'the extended community which currently own horses and will likely do so in the future. b. Other statistical data which support the aforementioned focus on lots of 20,000 square feet or less. I'I I t 4 LETTER 4 Landmark Land Company of California,Inc, )-'AWL Response to City of Rancho Cucamonga ENSP/DEIR June 27,1991 C. Maps indicating the boundaries of she existing and planned equestrian overlay district. d. The DEIR for the ENSP fails to address the health and safety issues associated with having horses in dose proximity to non-equestrian oriented land uses. The DEIR should be revised to include such a discussion, 10. Exhibit 10- Open Space and Trails Plan provides two:Community Equestrian Trails through property owned.by Landmark Land Company.`This plan fails to consider the fact that this property is under private bi mership with approved land use plans. Further,subsequent plans have been made available to the-City of Rancho Cucamonga which indicate the possible allowance of equE trim trails over and/or adjacent to this property in different locations. Exhibit 10' takes a capricious approach to this private property by ignoring the aforementioned and,directly bisecting Landmark's property with trails which are incompatible with current approvals and Landmarks future development plans. Additionally,the scale of trails depicted an the plan would provide in excess of 300 feet for each sudi trail. Aft The City should seek to place equestrian trails within areas currently designated as easements and again review the plans which Landmark has provided. These plans provide the links which the City is seeking and in land more scenic and suitable for such purposes.' 11. Section 7.3.3 on page II-25 provides that local equestrian trails shall be established as a condition of developmEnt_within the Very Low and Hillside Residential District planning areas where,+ minimum`lot size is 20,000 square.feet. The purpose of the trails is to"provide safe equestrian access to community and regional trails. As stated previously,there is no discussion as to'why lots of less than 20,000 square feet are singled out while no criteria is presented which attempts to illustrate why 20,000 square feet is the correct seize to levy this exaction upon. Other than an arbit;.-ary finding that.because the City is committed to equestrian activitywe feel that the .aity should provide those items listed in Number 9 above: 12. Section 73.6 on Page II 27 illustrates that the site immediately adjacent to the Day Canyon Flood Control area provides a potential trail head location. ARL 5 LETTER 4 Landmark Land Company of California,Inc. Response to City of Rancho Cucamonga ENSIr/DEIR June 27,1991 This area is completely unacceptable to Landmark Land Company. The provision of public facilities'including public'restrooms accompanied by the waste associated with equestrian activities is clearly iincompatiale with upscale housing. As stated previously, equestrian trails are provided in our.Iand plan. The city should exp'.ore other areas more compatible with the keatures of equestrian activities and provide discussion of these alternative within the context of the DER. 13. The Girculadon-Plan.Exhibit 11 on Page U30 provides for a street matrix inconsistent with currently approved plans and the County of San Bernardino General Plan. PTOpeqty owned by Landtnazk Land Company currently includes entitlement fo1 453 dwelling units on 453 acres in the ar"a adjacent to the northerlymost collector streets shown on this exhibit: The`` exhibit,should be revised to indicate the north/south oriented collectors to be 1 aligned generally with Etiwanda and Hanley Aven e-s. !+ 14.. Section 73.3.1 Subarea 4:1 on Page IV 13 requires that"the fault kno,,. a set', aside as a public park contiguous with the bog. Park uses shall include passive recreation,rest rooms,and trails head parking for hikers and bicyclists." Please see our previous comments regardin3 the compatibility of placing a public park in this iocat,on at the expense of other more suitsble.sites. The same section goes on to state that this'knoll was"formed by the fault". Data supporting this claim should be provided within the DEIR. It is further stated that"historii;al1y,the site has bLi'l used by the public as an overlook of the valley with views.on a'elear day to San Gorgonio and San Jacinto to the east,Saddleback Mountain to the south,and the ocean to the west. The knoll should be retained for public use." `'4'his statement is inaccurate and misleading in both fact and context. Since the site is remote from existing urban land uses it stands to reason that only a minu`cule 1 portion of"the public"had "historically'used i,'te site as an overlook. Further, the portrayal that this feature should be",-,,tained"'��s something of a community resource is also inconsistent with the Historical use of the site for fire fighting/watching purposes. It also fails to be mentioned that the portion of the knoll devoted to the previous ranger station is only a very small percentage of the knoll. The remainder of the knoll is,as it always.has been, under,private ownership. LEEI`?'ER 4 { y LandmaTk Land Company of Califomia,lrc. Response to City of Rancho Cucem K J;INSP/DEIR JuF:e 27,199T f l Each of the major attributes of the knoll described in the city's passage in this section can be achieved in a superior fashion,affording,far greater views,in areas made accessible by thespians provided by Landmark Land Company:and currently on file with the County of San Bernardino. A courtesy copy has been previously provided-to you for your reference. 15. Section 13.3.1 Subarea 4.1 on Page IV-14 also states that"a unique bog is located to the east of the knoll and shall be preser_Bd. The bog,was formed by tilted fault blocks whim capture underground and surface rsnoff water in.a shall N depression. ',Ae bog must be fully-identified and preserved. Its water sources shall also be identified and protected. ; This set of opinions should be reassessed with resp ct to the facts associated with this feature. Despite the information circulated about this feature.to date,we were unaware that such hard-evidence existed so as to provide the inescapable conclusions reached above, A reading of the DEJR associated with the project failed to cast any additional light on this subjeec:'' (1 AOL � I, I c i f .I LETTER 4 z' -b� RECE1 E� — CW(dF RA CH '!"AMONGA PLANNING DIvlsioN AUG 131991 PV gAVAIM121814016 City of Rancho Cucamonga August 8, 1991 ' Attn: Niki Bract 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91728 Bear Ms. Bratt: Below are some concerns I have regarding the preservation of 4.112 acres of open space, limiting development from the National Fore' t boundry on the North side to the double powerlin.e corridor on the South side. It has always been our dream to build a new home, set up stables for boarding horses, and set aside a few acres for a•Christmas tree farm, with very little impact to the natural balance. This property is our nest egg. `our retirement plan, our life. As it is now, we live on the property using a natural spring for our water supply._ Preserving this open space and natural springs would cut off our current water supply and deny us the possibility of obtaining power and water from local agencies The City of Rancho Cucamonga has develops-- ap_alarming rate, a rate so fast that Rancho Cucamonga has tieen mentioned in "National Geographies" August, 1991 issue. as one of ten major U.S, cities with the most rapid ,growth rate (expanding by more than 60% in less that a decade). I strongly oppose the use of my land as mitigation for the loss of habitat associated with this development, thus depriving me of my opportunity to develop if. I so desire. Another area of concern I have is the annexation into Rancho Cucamonga, areas identified as- LAFCO Reports #2625 and ;r2626. I have enclosed a copy of a letter to LAFCO from the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, I would especially like to hear your comments on mutual aid agreements. the equipment used' to effectively fight"a wildland fire not being part of mutual aid, the "Wildland Fire Protection Contract", and who gays thg costs of these contracts. Thanks for your time and I am looking fo war:t`to hearing from you. ( ri Regards', LETTER 5 Deborai�- A. Webster P. 0. Box 53, Etiwanda, CA 91i39 Phone: (714) 899-1347 //la / fi CO/ t July 30,1991 Subject: City of Rancho CW",monga, Etiwanda North Speoifi�: Plan Ms. Niki Bratt, Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 1.10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga,, CA 91729 r ar Ms. Bratt, I am a co-owner of approximately 30 aores within the area bordering the national forest on the north and the double power line corridor on the south. I understanding this area is facing �1 the possibility of being zoned as permanent open space. I would like to add my oppositiop to this possibility. Property ;;,hat is now pr:ivateltr awned, if zoned as permanent open space, would be worthless to the owners. A decision more fair to the owners wcdld be to zone it for residential develop- ment on a reasonable ratio conforming to the standards of prudent-, lAnd` use, The property would then retain some vak)e for its ^ fir owners. I plan to attend the Council meeting on August 14, and I request that my voice be added to`those `others-which strongly oppose the zoning of Etiwanda North property as permanent open space. With thanks and my, regards, l Rebecca Mills 2319 Bayside Court — RECEIVED — Westlake Village CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91361 PLANNING DIVISION (818) 889-4267 AUG 961991 AN 048.4 LETTER 7" p i JJ i /3M-70 SA 28&7 Q4£Ch1 ( ay ��iousanil Of., alffoarfn 47362 Ms Niki Bratt,Associate Planner Ju19"26,1991 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P.D.Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91729 Re:City of Cucoaeanga.Etiwanda North Specific Plans Dear Niki Bratt: As a co-owner of approximately 32 acres within the area bordering national toast on the north and the double power line corridor oin the seuth which is facing the possibility of being coned as permanent open space,i should like to add mg opposition to this possibility. Property that is now privately awned,it zoned as permanent open spree,would be worthless to the owners. A'fair decision would be to zone it for residential development on a reasonable ratio conforming to the standards of prudent land use. The property thus would retain some value for its Owners. (J 1 plan to attend the Council meeting on august 14,and 1 request that my voice be added to these others which strongly oppose zoning Etiwanda North property as permanent open space. With thanks and regards tgc' ) 4y2 —� s3 LETTER 6 eW �/ -'� CITY`OF`RANCHO CTJCAMONG�N STAFF REPORT DATE: June 26, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Miki Bratt, Associate .Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL 'WACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01: AND GENERAL PLAN°tfiND4WNT 90-03B - CITY BF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to comment on the draft environmental impact -report prepared for the Etiwanda North Specific., Plan and General Flan Amendment 90-03B to prezone approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere-of•influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling vbLt;3 on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial uses 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino Natlonal Forest, west of the City of Fontana, ( and east of Milliken Avenue. I �I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF _ I RANCHO CUCAMONGA A qublic hearing to comment on the draft Etiwanda North- Specific Plan, prezoning. approximately 6,840 acres of territory in. the Rancho Cucamonga sphere-of-influence toprovide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 ".7ares of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space .generally located north of Highland :Avenue (State Route 30), south of the. San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENa_AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to comment: on the proposed General Plan Amendment to provide consistency with the draft ^atiwanda North 'Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere-of-influence to provide for 3,613 single,, family dwelling units,,,on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, Ask 4 schools,.5 parks,,an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open `space generally located,north of PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SP 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,; Ai June 26, 1991 Page 2 i Highland,,Avenue (State Route- 30),; south of -the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east; of Milliken Avenue. i. ABSTRACT- The ptrpos'-f of this hearing is to recei-ve comment qu the Etiwanda, North-Specific Plan draft Environmental .Impact,' Report, consider the Etiwanda North Specific Plan,and to consider those changes in-the City Is General Plan which will be required for consic;ency with the Specific Flan. Upon receipt of public t testimony and Planning ;,Commission discussiozi staff recommends that this hearing be con£i..ued to July 24, 1991, in order to complete revisions. II. 'BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: A. Draft-Environmental Impact Report: The draft. Environmental. Impact K�2ort has been 'completed and circulated for comment. A copy of the draft EIR was Ustributed to the Planning Commission on May 3, 1991. The official`comment period was from May 6, 1991 to June 20, 1991. Oral and written testimony y received at this hearing will be included-in the final EIR A s�mmtary of impacts and mitigation measures is discussed in Table 1-1, Executive Summary (see attached): Several item cannotbe mitigated to a level of less than,,"Significant. Under the California Environmental; QuaLi.ty Act, 'a reasonable effort must be made to reduce environmental impacts. The draft EIR recommends two approaches. For aggregate resource areas and parks, s change in the Specific Plan' is proposed. These changes are supported by staff. For the remainder of the impacts, a reasonrble- effort has been made, but ,the impacts are still-'significant. Therefore, a statement of overriding consideration must be prepared,and approved prier to approval ofthe Specific Plan (see attached Exhibit "All Discussion: Draft EIR Mitigation Measures). i. B. Draft Etiwanda North Specific -Plan: The Etiwanda North ,Specific Plan .was distli.but'A to ,.he Planning Commission on December 21, 1990. As a consequence of review by the Planning Commission, tre Trails Committee, the Parks and Recreation Commission, 3 community workshop, EIR mitigation measures, and public comment, some revisions to 'the draft �iplan are proposed. '(See Exhibit ^,,B" Discussion, Draft .Rtiwanda+Noitn Specific flan.) AML PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SP 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO'CUCAMONGA June 26, 1991 rj Page 3 Accordingly, revisions are proposed:to the Land Use and to the Park and Trails maps. Ch-3ges have also been made to several of the remaining maps to achieve clarity of preseltation, to make technical Corrections, or to provide consistency with the Land Use Map. (See Exhibits "C-1" through "C-12", Draft Etiwanda Nor, h Specific Plan Maps.) C. Consistency with the General Plan: The dra£t,Etiwanda NaL h Specific Plan is consistent with the overall goals and..intenta of the General Plan..'However, several changes are recommended \ to achieve actual consistency and ,specificity between" the Specific Plan and the General Plan. (See Exhibit 'D", Discussion: Cons'_)stency with the General Plan.) the are recommended to Changes a Land Use Plant Circulation Plan, Parks and Recreation Plan, Master :Plan of Trails, Community Design Resources, Natural Resources, and Open space Plan. (See Exhibits "E-1" through "E-©"; Existing General Plan Maps.) a III. SUMMARY: The Environmental Impact Report identifies a, number of impacts and offers mitigations. Hcuever, because k,500 acres will be changed from an undisturbed natural: area to 4ev-1oped area, a number of impacts cannot ,he mitigated to a lE v;• less than significant. The Specific Plan is recommending 'a number 'cr ,and use designations which are different from existing General Plan land use designations. The Specific Plan. butids on the City's standards for development and provides detailed guidelines for development. I A nurO',r of changes to the General Plan will be necessary to provide consistency with the,,Specific Plan. These charges are consistent with the intent of the General Plan land use policies and with surrounding land uses. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Comments are invited",3 the Environmental Impact Report, the. F'-i.randa North Specific Plan, and on changes to the General Plan necessary;to provide consistency with the Specific Following public >sstimony and discussion by the Planning Commission, the Ca fission should direct staff to ,complete revisions to 'th-r';' + Specific Plan, Prepare' responses to comments on the EIR; and to, prepare a statement of overriding considerations for the final EIR. Accordingly;;'-the public hearing for `.his item should be`'continued to J} r 244, 1991, - a - PLANNING COMMISSION S1AFF.REPORT� SP 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' June 26, 1991; Page 4 r to receive the draft Specific Plan revisions:, the FEIR," the Environmental Determination, and for consideration of Resolutions . recommending 'adoption of the Specific;: Pla>., and consistency amendments to the General Plan. Respe ly sub ted, y Brad ley City Flannar BB:MB;mlg {r t AttacbMents: Exhibit 'A" -3 S an: Draft EIR Mitigation Exhibit "B" =-fD7saussion: Draft Etiwanda North, Specific Plan Map Revisions Exhibit "C" -,-Oraft`Etiwanda North Specific,Plan,Maps Exhibit "D" = �iscuss'on: <Consistency with the General ;Plan Exhibit "8" '- Existing General Plan Maps Executive.Summary Draft Environmental i Impact Rept> t Summary It AMr, y ' a EXHIBIT "A" DISCUSSION: DPAFT EIR MITIGATION MEASURES DRAFT EIR `AITICATION MEASURES: Although mitigation is proposed to.the maximuri a,2-t,nt feasible, several impacts have not been mitigated to a'. level ;f leer than significant, in these instances staff supports` issuance of s statement of overriding considerations. These items' inclu&:' the following: Loss of Open Space: Development will result in 1%,ss of approximately 2,,500 acres of natural open space= A,;' Resource Management Plan will be prepared to provide measures to 'protect , sensitive resources. However,. impacts`will'not L,e .reiiur;pd to a level less;than significant. y ' Circulation: At buildout, and F'th .?' veloper contribution for intersection improvements., the intersections are still .. projected to operate at'less than level C: Cherry at Wardman Bullock t * Milliken at Base Line � * Rochester at Base Line * Day Creek at Base Line * Etiwanda at Base Line * East at Base Line * Milliken at Foothill Rochester at Foothill Day Creek at Foothill'' * Etiwanda at Foothill' Therefore, impacts are not reduced to a level of less than significant.-:' Aggregate Resources: Significant impacts will occur as a result of development on,County Flood Control property west of .the Day Creei, Wash levee. Since the County is nct proposing development in the County's Specific Plan, staff pror-ses to revise the plan to omit residential development on ider_ ,.Iaggregate resource areas. . This is consistent with the Ge Plan policy on Aggregate Resource areas. A floating park/school site designation' will: remain, and will require a separate assessment'if actually located on aggregate resource land. Therefore, the impact will.-be reduced to less than significant. (See Exhibit "B", Discussion: Aggregate -i Resource Areal Parks: Staff originally identified the " neighborhood park requirement as 3 acres, per thousand population per the Quimby requirement standard-in effect. This is not consistent with the General Plan goal of 5' acres per thousand. However, a 'revised EXHIBIT "A" -%Page 1 1651 c' s assessment of the Quimby basis indicates the City can now require 4.689 acres per thousand. Therefore, staff proposes that the project be amended to provide„at least 9..689 acres per thousand. The .sites should be unencumbered neighborhood parks on minimum sites of 5 acres of developable land. Additionally, trail head or other smaller sites for,related park use will be required and may be applied to the 5 ,acres per ,i;oousand General Plan goal. This1" action will reduce the impact:to a level of less than significant. l�� Land forms: Development will result. in loss of approximately 2,500 acres of naturah land forms, mainly prominent - alluvial rJa._a. To reduce impacts, measures that will be taken include: * Development will occnr on gentler sloping terrain; * The Hillside Development Ordinance shall be used; and * The prominent knoll adjacent to the bog shall be reserved for a.passive park. ,r These actions will reduce project impacts, but not to a level less than significant. Regional Wildlife and Habitat Imuact€w Development will result in loss of approximately 2,500 "acres of wildlife: habitat area. Measures will be taken to preserve significant areas as natural open space, including:' * Lards above the National'Forest boundary; Steep slopes,- Riparian corridors; * Wardman, Morse, and Henderson Creek riparian corridors upstream of the.. Alluvial fan; * San Sevaine wash; Etiwanda Wash, An adequate wildlife corridor connecting Etiwanda Wash and San Sevaine Wash; * Seismic setback areas; * Day Creek spreading grounds; * Investigating the feasibility of restoring flood flows to Day Creek spreading grounds, * Preserving natural vegetation within flood control and utility easements to the maximum.extent Seasible;, * Estt251ivhing buffer.zones between development, and natural as,aaE which vary from k to 50 feet in width; Revegetation with native: plants in' buffer zones, cice.N"Astent with the Etiwanda North Resource Management Pl?i,i and Etiwanda North Fire rzotection Stvdy; * Prohibiting .off-road vehicle travel c-ithin open space areas; and, M. + Esiablishing a permit system for pedestrian use of" open arias bordering the National Forest (addition per Ph'uii.ng Commission workshops. EXHIBIT "A" - Page 2 ~ff;/ 0 Comments, from„wildli ffe agerici.es indicate that in addition to the', j� t alluvial fang scrubs habitat within existing sprea:ing} grounds, �f recommended for Preservation in the Specific Plan, the a%L11 Vialn ' scrub habitat north of the double utility corridor,should�i,lso be considered '.or -'�preservation• (See Exhibit .`B", -Dis ussionr. Regional Wildlife andiHabitat'Impacts.) tr Aesthetic: Development will' result in loss of approximately 2,500 acres of natural area with attendant: aesthetic loss. Community Design, Development Standards, and the Design Guidelines of the '.Specific Plan"shall be implemented. View potential'areas shall be oroteated. .'' However, impact.'S' will not be reduced to a t\: level of less than significant. Aar Quality: Construction will cause a" temporary significant increase in particulate tter., Dust suppression techniques shall be implemented. 'However, impacts will not be iedzeed to'a level of less than significant. �(I Ott r� (/ EXHIBIT "A'O _ Page 3 EXHIBIT "B" DISCUSSION, , DRAFT ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN MAP R$vISIONS The following discussion presents an overview of the Land Use proposals of the Etiwanda. North Specific Plan. An overview of the paps included in the Specific Plan are also included. ISSUES: The followingitems set policy for the.Specific Plan: Aggregate Resource Area: In response to"the impacts to the aggregate resource area, the residential designation for the area outside the Day Creek 'Wash Levee will remain Flood Control. However, the potential of the area for resiiH —Zal;use is noted'. and- staff recommends support for appropriate residential use followir.'a a County Land Usd`:Amendment. c: Regional Wildlife and Habitat Impacts: In response to potential impacts to the bog area, 'staff propose, that the limit of development on the alluvial fan north of the bag, be moved to the! south side of the upper branchof the .Cucamonga'�'Eau7;t. This lan4 AdML use designation will protect the bog from urban runoff, protect the existing water sources of the bog, and permit wildlife access. In light of communication from the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California Department of Fish and Game, ;this is a conservative approach. The wildlife agencies indicate that the limit of development should bo the upper power corridor and the alluvial fan north of the power corridor between Day Creek and Etiwanda Creek should be designated as a wildlife habitat and alluvialfan scrub mitigation area. The Planning Commission may wish to investigate the feasibility of designating all the aforementioned alluvial area north of the'upper`gl.ower corridor as a mitigation ardpa. i a Hillside Residential Estate: The Specific Plan also proposes that the developable hillsides east ,�of Etiwanda Creek carrya more` restrictive land use designation. The ' proposed hillside residential estate designation would require 1;unit per developable acre with a minimum 1 acre lot size.' This designation contrasts ' with the existing hillside residential designation which allows 2 dwelling units per developable acre and does 'not' specify a minimum lot size. The proposed designation is responsive to the terrain and closer to the designation of the County General Plan than the existing general,hillside residential designation. Neighborhood Commercial: / The Specific:Plan:proposes two general AML Neighborhood Commercial areas. A site specific market study would be required to support any commercia;; dev,yIopment in the Specific Plan area. EXHIBIT`"B° — Page 1 c� - 7y jr Park Sites: F'�re neighborhood park 'sites are proposed. There are e_ 5 proposed p� xtes, one for each identified neighborhood. The recommended s:, o£ the parks will be adjusted to reflect the 5 per thousand population goal of the General Plan for unencumbered, developable parks. It should be noted that Community Services has reviewed its parks requirem?nts under the State Quimby Act Legislation, and is currently entitled to resource 4.689 acres per thousand. Supporting calculation is as follows: According to the 1990, Federal Census, the current population figure for t ' City of , y Rancho Cucamonga is 101,409. Taking these numbers into consideration, ,the calculated park acres;.7e standard is: 233.75 acres developed 19.0 under construction 222.8 undeveloped 475.55 acres parkland 475.55 acres .00468 x 1000 4.689 acres 101,409 population 1000'population Trail heads will also provide 'park acreage. The 5 acre per thousand goal of the General Plan will be met on-site. Trails and landscape utility easements shall not count toward the neighborhood park goal within the Specific Plan. v` Equestrian Site: A minimum-25 acre; equestrian site is proposed to provide for equestrian boardingZ-facilities within the City's Equestrian Overlay District. The; equestrian facility 'is proposed to meet the intent of the General4`Plan policy to provide lots large enough for keeping horses:north•,of Highland Avenue. A 36 acre site on Southerii:,.:llifornia Edison surplus property has been identified i as the preferred site for an•'equestrian facility with a trail head to be located immed!ately to the west on the other_ side of Day Creek Boulevard. A second trail head shall be located in the vicinity of the Upper Power Corridor and Regional Front Line Fire Road/Trail. School Sites: The Etiwanda School District indicates that three elementary schools are needed within the Specific Plan area. In. addition, Chaffey High School District requests:that a high school site be provided in the vicinity of Banyon and Milliken Avenues. Each school site must be a stand-alone facility, with adequate.open space on-site to serve the student population. Schools shall be located adjacent to parks to facilitate joint use of facilities, and also to provide a neighborhood focal area. . MAPS: The plans and maps prepared for the Specific Plan are briefly discussed below.- Review of these items provides an overview of the Specific Plan: yr EXHIBIT "B" - Page 2 z Land Use Plan (see Exhibit "C-1'�. Single family residential land use with supportinl�, uses :of neighborhood cgmmercial, parksr and school i 5 proposed. Substantial areas remain un,de�'.open space ' , designations. r Circulation Plan (se e ee Exhibit "C-21': See Discussion, Exhibit:"D." Open Space and Trails Ptah (see Exhibit-"C`-3"; Significant areas of open space are expected to remain undeveloped. A Resource Management Plan shall be prepared to reduce the impacts of planning ' urbanization of adjoining areas. Planning Area Yey Map (see Exhibit "C-q"): The Specific< Plan provides for,five neighborhoods focused by a' a ghborhood park and an adjoining schoo7l site, except in the Oaks neighborhood which,-," does not have a propl?sed school site. Constraints Map (see`,Exhibit "C-5")a Maps significant resources and hazards affecting')development. Existing Conditions Map l(See Exhibit "C-611): Maps significant existing conditions such as utility corridors,-existing residences, and other built features within the area. View Potential Map (see -Exhibit "C-711: Maps significant- view potential areas identified within he Specific Plan area. �� = Water Master Plan (see Exhibit "C-S"): This ma is a aated to reflect the_Cucamonga County Water District Master Plan p 4' Sewer Master Plan (see Exhibit "C-911) This map is updated to reflect the Cucamonga County water.District Master Plan. Storm Drain Master P.an (see Exhibit "C-1011): This map is consistent with the City's Master Plan of Storm Drains. City of Rancho C-ucamono General Plan Land Use (see 'Exhibit "C- 1111): This map is informational. San Bernardino County General Plan Land Use, (see Eyhibit "C-1211): This map is informs^,`ional. �I I J� �1>/xxiBa'r Page 3 ✓l �/ DSO/ San Bernardi National Forest as PC (IR OS O$ I RC (IRC) FC �� as MR OS OS OSIs OS HR FT .._ .,� F�7na it F Detx HR -Stara MR _YQR ge FC OS FZ I FZIle F T FC VL ` I VL FC(RC�. ) FC RC _ RC — (VLE) RC OS .--AIVL L,.... l i r--VL. ...VL PC L-� (1(C � v (RC) UC U"L: Uqfl 'PROPOSED FC AEGIONALPARK _ , ) ti RC (VL) FC AO F` t([ �rrrq FC UC L FC sa_'y wil n Av n ;' Av FC FCaU (RC) L ^\ e _.: Av FrI _!R ��HI Mend Avenue UtU[B S.R'30) LEGEND �z,.iy rim EHir.side Low Density Residential(2-4 OUTAC) Very Low Density Residential(<2 DUTAC) Vropoaed Trall HeadGaging Station Very LowResidential Estate(t DUTAG) E Proposed Ewastrion t'ticwty Hillside Res`dentisli(<2 DU/Net Buildable Acre) Proposed Sanoo)Site Residential Estate(ct W/Net Buildable Acre) FC. Flood ControliRlpaNaa proposed Phut Site UC Utility Corridor P Eaia7ht ^ iti .....� 05: Open Space - !r NOTE tr )N institutional .m. uen�n yxncr a.n.e 1 -�:l/ ( Rae twn et f'aib 1 n au.enwn ei a z� F8 Fault Zone aiear+es mmr.n«a wt err ae emNn.a RC Resource Conservation Area m..nee••d.uir ena eu acaem wemct (NC)Neiphbolhood Commercial (L.VL,VLE,RC) rorenttA�rtrtuaautauasoesroiurwe A0 10001 2DOO` 4000• EtliYanda RIOC¢h b, specific Plan City of .. Rancho Cuca(tloaga J �I� EXHIBIT G,9 �r �J - - I San Bamer National Forest I j iaa.assama-mum—Laaaaft, 000—jas® a �f _ Wilson Avenue Al A3. Al f AS Wilson Ibe a e Al 't:: I u. Banyan Streat — - -_ — - afar ar -. xa . �� •w tlandAvarea uturt:S.R: 0 . ' LEGE6VD r a�;;r«vm slvruK rr.a ®®Major Dividet:;`.rierial. Al Typical Section ,,.........® -Day creek SO4_Z d - G09UW StaBan �' -- autass SpW:al Divided Se`condery Arterial i Wilson Awrmm(war of Day Creek Blvd) SSecondary Arterialw"onAvera a •EtivratwaAvenue •-Milliken Avemx•tlppfr Day Creek Boulevard 7 -Chwry AvorweCollectort •Banyanstraet -RoM2sterAvenuekV rtage[Mve -WelWnan.Buikck Road 10. Summit Avenue•East Avenue •San Sevak* •bfMr Loop'Stwils CIRCULATION PLAN o r000 z000 .00a Etiwanda North IL' Specific Plan . r } ciAy Of �z�npcghgo®It�:u ea mi��esga 2 WT L..i v � �' f. To Gaging Station 000 Hydrotosy study:,-eI,J J ,<.,-.. Esiat41l;Froni tore Fire Trail - Ssn 8emar noAat opal Forut i /' / • CC •te a- a I m Wil on Av n • • a a v m _ / L- n a A n A 'I 666h,ii, ice;, ,; �. - �- -- ^:••�^ -10 tmc.:r<eb" LEGEND- ti WORMOpen:Space ' capm9 Station MWgOM Regional Trail *-a.....Oi Community Equestril(O Trail Recommended Underpass Bicycle Lane tmft orhoot-ciaaaq _�-Bicycle Path tm►arknay-basso f r 0 Trail Head (So.NOTE bohno) t r1 Peek/School tH1T0.7M cllea etw�n maq nat N currently ernad rror is 'Vv IM location site aplo{:.C.TN dsptellen of a ells IS an indication of a prol.elad fatWa Mad that may to adjusted over two ea tho City and.Me School District. develop.OPEYIV . ; SPACE AND TRAILS PLAN Etiwanda North ® Specific Plan City of = Rancho Cucattloega EXHIBIT C 3 law �//`jA�r/'r. �. San Mro.rdine NaUort.t Fer..[ 1p i 10.3 - OAKS 7 E�'IWANDA HIGHLAND ' .4.2 3 3.1 3.2 _ 30.2 PI`ER ETI R!A 8 11 ILI CHAFFPElf 12 .1— 2.2� 2 3 Wu.ee —•^� ... wau.ed 11r.nu. umre�'S R: 1��"" ru..w rar"afe�r.ei.Y .. .=GENE) c►a s U) Subarea R4ferente r PLANNING AREA KEY MAP t, O 7000` 7P�pp�. aOM. ® e Etia'anda North Specific Plan � •3�t• f �f City of Rancho Cucamonga r > San Bemargino NatlonafForest i i� `� MY t Eog�YYorotogy Shirty JIM& ` .+,,. _. .._ 1. �t� • a ,` ��{ .•tiYYa�r l�•': •wa..A'. .>��- �r - ,•�•^ r J , "'{R Dr �' n yl ` w , MM •,`•.• E a) Tom' .•.as•.• .. ? ,_ as 000 _LEGEND t Mr,w•.,e t rcur rrrn �.qs.turf•Ythterwaya .•.�,.w.'�.. Malor RaeM%e Area Gaging 5taJbrt F IR Greater aeharOe Ca�aatY tip W Hud Ch=aual �Y� L.•.:•-..�—..... thin 50 CF51 Alluvial ASSOClat*ft. OW WYSK Assxial`rort y ✓ t11LiLUlJ11l1Ltlll!!Exec="and U+StaDla Slgms ■e . Costal Sage Association �..rams Alpuist-SrbbSgxlal 2Mre ®raoarr•r Gry AdrolairSlaecial Slrsy2brw CONSTRAIN p O 1000' 20W a0Q0• Etiwanda Nbrth�) Specific Plan city of Rancho CucAmal%na ��44_ EXH0MT-,P 5 ,� l Front Line Fire Road VACANT!ANO-NATIONAL FOREST AREA Nation Existi .Sprfngts� l _ '` sdm0n Creek Morse Craek rExting og p Existi Out!Building , is Springs g- r ---- '2 Residences Day eek Qani \ Two Hnioos an Be Reel Ranger Station SUB, ' Fh ay Cr ek Channei , Y u =` yt f eb • � ,� '""i -`lienaml#6To14'Line 1 � �` r Etiwanda_Cre k Chennel Da�Ypp��g Rc ionaT :.••__:.. _ v Sp%asiin l hounds S rea ir>.Grounds 3 i?IvereFon Bali L f w 'Ezlh ig f gKea .; .Y" —_ ` aging 9asln `x w Exieting Levee tar it —o atrnant P _• aging Station r ' - _ u,fin �« tea-Tf r t`�=�r •�. �nrtra� ��;'' -ems~ � r ��• ,-/ ttslna Creek Eatn tnWwoes Promm Previously Annexed to Cucarlonga 2� Existing fridge Crossing Caging station �«Levee - �� Electrical 7ranemtaalen LWalCorndoc ' MWD ftterTransmissw LUe Major Recharge Area erovnd.ater • r_ ,L' EXISI> +G CONDITIONS AWiliam ND �J��S oZ000• - Ettevanda°i+i[fr'dh Spectfu''Phin City of Rancho Cucamonga 6 � �� i -�-��— ^ ;_ Son Bsmsrctm,:Istlonsl Forest , 7 f ! "�j v Wilson Avenue•. Wilson. C, . .Avenue. N Mir LEGEND agweS,_� MalorYwse dE G Ciapin¢Stalton . Maier Via. t^7�I m1w I my ' Olio'M: Via.Curtldor „T VIEW POTENTIAL MAP 0 ,OWE 2OW 4OW lEtiwanda North Specific Plan City of R*Mto cueamorga EXHIBIT C 7 �~y Pipeline from Day Canyon - - San BM'netnlna Nati.-I oraa! E Pipal ne rrom Smith Twnel a P Pipeline from B TunnefNk •• - a yPipeline from East Ethrande Can on Res.No,BC E ll 12. es. No.5C B 12• Royer-Nesbit W.TP..• - Res.No.4C _.t2 I IF �F WI son Avenue 27• YVlDConneenon c®`ae ��s�aaY6®.0 w u.aaa aomm.el2ia.® IL - u Fs.S.9C ..Lloyd W.Midfla `WTP- .-�.-, _ .{n •. Y2• _ 'r Ban n Sfr LdL..—ss7� Summlt 'veoTli- _ 1. -�=7 ram— •lrt� �J H19hdPd!_ AYCaue_ w� LEGEND Proposed CCWD Boundary Existing CCWD Boundary Day.V station .:-12s®Pipeline and Diameter o Reservoir ` j w Metropolitan Water District(M.W.D.)Connection o Soosrer Pump Station WaterTreatmert Paint(N.T.P.) _ _ r v Pressure Regulator Station Ink f I Pressure Zone Bou-iary .lax ' 4 Pressure Zone Number t ' ®va®Existing Pipafine Sour".Cucamonga County Water District:(C=)ulisfar Plan June 1987 WATER MASTER PLAN 0 •fxtD 2CDD' 400a "miiI'a North Specific Plan AUL.;tD 0tv or Rancho Cucamonga ,I l` I San eemergino Nstionm Farest ..... __ _..0 1 C ' W ! y ✓ m r -WilsonAvenue '241h Street /✓✓ `� cl aanyo. tre t n i ._SLLm�1.=_ = 10 a Gaging Wallon LEGEND A, ,, � Present CCWD Boundary —T —tos®Pipeline and Diarceter _--ioa.®`Existing Pipeline --$� ®ialliviCiliN Propcsed District Annexation Area Source Cucamonga.County Water District(CM)Master Plan June 1887 0 1000' 2000' 40fp' . Etiwanda North Spgdfic Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga r< EXHIBIT C 9 ,y San seiner no Na0onet Foratt DRY Creorc Drainage Area, -. rainage Area)" aevalne Drainage Area-->1 Upper twanda Intercept.Channel ®�q - Day Crack Dam AE twanda Regional Debris Dam&Bas4 t � f -Ward'nan'Chdrinel spreading HendarsE-jop Channel p 7 Gr ds I i Bog Hydrology Study.Area Mainline Channel + - Upper Etiwanda ® f i - - - - Rsg7onaf NtaENirea�hanna '.<�-•� S►` J4 48•Wree _ ®® 57 6a " rcepA 48 chan"et / Intercept C�anrtat - ---Etlwande-RegfOtla6. , 1 SpreacIng Grounds -A �R _ Wile 60' 63, 72. Day Cr ebk �et'gfn� — - RANa / Spreads g-G�rocttd --� - _ na Ir'e — 6a' 80•.m—.�57"—Summit Pvenvf—W _ — '--t — 60 �'== 57' j Aft SanSevafne Nipland Paenue _ _ �.. _ Regional Mainline Upper Etiwanda Regional M Inline Channel Basins Fti.sndi W:ViM1 SPle.lrPl�n Gaping SUN(. LEGEND :. \ Regional Mainline Drainage Facilitiss t Master Plan Storm Drain L`: aaw ••..ape Drainage Area Limits I� • ) Secondary Regional Facility 5 t FOOTNOTES p)Drainage/area boundaries subject to SSCFCO abproval. 3. (2)All Me sixes are"Im"imate:actual sizes to be determined t".hnat Nyorology1hyftutic study: tSTORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN 0 1OW 2000'_ a000' E iwant3a Nod Specific Plan' city of Rancho Cucamonga }'y SaB BelnSrtli o Nallune:P-St HR: - I r ,r Fl I/—UC FL/lDC _ �' '�,<° Ili. •'i' FL/UC FLA y oI VL - NC ! ' as• crrr GENEaAc PLAN PLAN 1 FL/lDC ® _ L I4��'aa �75 CGC j. t _ I n?- �-�. 0 nOe�. _ --LEGEND r,..a� E Estate Residential o-i DU'amc(Ettwanda Specific Plan) , -+•••® VL Very Low<2 We= Q,!e91np aytatle�n' L" Low 2-4 DU's/AC- LM Low Medium 4-s mrs/Ac a FL/U(; Flood Control/Utility Corridev ! NC Neighborhood;Commerciai , Hillside Residential 2 Dtra4ukdaeb Am E Existing Schools L OS Open Space ! I ® Acquired Park Site / f -I V Proposed Park Site IJ36-TM altar ieotivn may dot be ou Uv ogttid nor is the locauon site apsdtlo.The dapletlon of a Wts Is.an(nd:a0an of a prolact.d future mad dlgt.may Cs adiapted War tkm as Wa Gtyy snti Um SC?WW Dtatfkt Zevslap.. CITY Y OF RANCHO CUCAM, a ON A = EN PLAN LAND USE ; 0 1000"2000' 8=1 ,j i:tiwanda North Specific flan c. Aft City of Ranche Cucamonga C _�2 EMB� T im I �� 7� It 1� mtlxtlonsl Fo:eel FW PD PD1/10 F1�1 PD1 1/10 � PD1/10 PD )f F031 1/2.5 PIN1/10 ?D4/2.5' r FW '�f ;r RS-1 PD1/1 -PD-RS1 RSi/10 S 10, PDrRS /10 P02/1 FW fiN) PD9/10 FW illM) / 3 � _PD2/1 g FW PD - , 2/1 - Pat =m 3/1 x - PM71 Banyan Street 4�! !`w€^Ve_ I _ , }y e n Sm"T Pi.n: LEGEND: „„,.,.., NOTE: N`umericalrelerarteetat"ingth 1414 PD 1/40 F 1 DU/46 ACRES Use designation:represents alt"WOdenstry PD 1/10,=-I Du/10 ACRES Gaging Station or minimum parcel size. PD 1P45=1 DU/2.5 ACRES trori Pm Property Previously Annexed to Rancho Cucamonga PD 1/1 =1 DU/1 ACRE try►p-+ m 4- M Fioodway PD 2/1 =2 DU/1 ACRE r'r'�Ora.ae 1 i•; IN Institutional PO 3/1 =3 1311/1 ACRE }` PD Planned Development PD 411 =4 DU/1 ACRE __ram >Rg Single Residential RS 2Dre1'= 20,000 SO.FT.MIN (IM Inferred Institutional Designation LOT SIZE ' ,A BERNAF>WINO COUNTY GENERAL 'LANLAND USE WEST WALLEY FOOTHILLS PLANNING AREA 0 7000' 20W'..,. dOW Etiwarada North Specific Plawt City of Itancho Cucamonga EXHIBIT "DO' DISCUSSION: CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN The following are highlights of proposed changes in the General Plan which provides consistency rich the Specific P]an. LAND USE PLAN (see Exhibit Residential: The open space designation north of Highland Avenue, south of the upper utility corridor,- and generally east of Day Creek Boulevard will be changed to Low Density Residential, consistent with surrounding land uses. The Low Density designation between_the upper and lower utility corridor and west of Etiwanda Avenue will be changed to Very Low Density.Residential, consistent with surrounding land uses. - Parks: A neighborhood park shall be located within each identified neighborhood. The size will be a minimum) of 5 developable, unencumbered acres. Schools: Three elementary school sites shall be provided. Each site shall be located adjacent to a neighborhood park, but must be a Stand-alone facility. Comme_cial: Two neighborhood conmercial sites are provisionally designated, but tY_� land use designation is conditioned upon completion of a site-specific uar'ret, study supporting the use. Fault Zone: A 50-foot setbac_', is required for each side. of an, identified fau t zone. _ The resulting, 100-foot setback shall bye' retained as pablic open space. A community trail is proposed within the fault zone designation. CIRCULATION (see Exhibit "E-21.) The plan provides the backbone circulation system suggested by the General Plan. Etiwanda Avenue: Etiwanda Avenue ends at a "T" intersection with t, an `east/west collector loop road immediately' north of the;:lower` power corridor. Etiwanda Avenue between the "T" intersection and Wilson Avenue is,changed from a secondary arterial to a collector street. The name of Etiwanda Avenue north of. Wilson <shall be changed. The purpose of these changes is to protect historic Etiwanda:Avenue. - Day Creek Boulevard. Day Creek Boulevard shall,meet Wilson Avenue with a 4-way intersection. The proposed curve shall be deleted. EXHIBIT "D" Page 1 l Wilson Avenue: Wilson Avenue shall be completed across Day Creek Ask Wash to provide one of two east-west arterials needed to facilitate emergency vehicle access to the area. The name Wi:,son Avenue shall t be extended from Milliken Avenue to the eastern city Limit to provide for consistency. The road is currently variously ,! designated 1124th Street," in conflict with another ;24th Street within the City, and "Summit Avenue" with which it now connects Banyon Avenue., Banyon Avenue shall be completed across-Day Creek Wash,, connecting with 'Summit Avenue on the east side of Day Creek Channel: to provide one of two east-west ar. ,ials needed _to. facilitate emergency vehicle access to the area. Vintage Drive: Vintage Drive shall be completed across Day Creek Wash to provide a low-utilization-collector to serve as a frontage road for the Foothill Freeway. Freeway Off-Ramps: Freeway off-ramps are planned for Day Greek Boulevard,and East Avenue. Therefore, the upper and Lowe=loop roads, as well as Banyon and Wilson, shall connect to Day Creek and ' East Avenue to provide part of the backbone circulation system. Lower Loop Road: The lower loop road shall Follow the lower utility corridor in cider to maximize tap use of developable property north of the power corridor. PARKS AND RECREATIIr PLAN (see Exhibit "E-3"): Park sites s)iall be added ;as indicated in the Specific Plan. (Compare with Exhibit "C-3".) MASTER PLAN OF TRAILS (see Exhibit "E-411)'e Trails shall be added as indicated in the'Spe^ific Plan. (Compare with Exhibit "C-3".) COMMUNITY DESIGN RESOURCES (see Exhibit "E-51): Viewshed shall be added as indicated in Specific Plan. (Compere with Exhibit, "C-7".) AGGREGATE EXTRACTION RESOURCE AREAS (see Exhibit ^E-6"); No changes are proposed for this map., NATURAL RESOURCES (see Exhibit ^E-7"): Several technical corrections axe proposed for this map. The spreading- ground areas shall be revised to reflect the 'San Bernardino County Flood Control District Map Designation. Also, the limits of vegetation shall be revised to conform with the vegetation survey map,prepared for the Etiwanda North. Specific Plan. Finally, the bog and Its hydrological study areas shall be qW identified. (Compare with Exhibit "C-6".) EXHIBIT '+D" - Page 2 /3 D, 7,D , ,y Alk OPEN SPACE PLAN (see Exhibit Several technical ebrrections are proposed for this map. The hillside residential area shall be changed to reflect constraints, identified by the environmental review',process ,Also, the j" streamside woodland and water recharge areas` shall be revised to reflect the aforementioned vegetation survey. Finally, proposed parks shall be added. (Gcmpare with Exhibits "C-3" and "C-411.) I i )MIBTT I'D" z r a `COW QQ ra a JJqtr� f )t o e aCS U UOE ¢ H O W Ox- 0 vet a= LLay00 apFA rn 0, Sp ?j W 3 oCCL30�nnU y„ Q aUpw V jrC J � ,�LL 3 , ¢ A . =W CL )o uj IL � r�•aFr�l ,sp 0ww O ouUas0 HE Ucv J 0LU 1 lw-,pfi,p LC F i !.�ti.�• '� ._ h� '•4i�rC .x.l 7 1!].ti' t.�''19.f W 1 ] . 3 ..,� ;t e— 0 p it h ' r n E ,`q � t: w 1, �I❑ L.3 8 EXRIBIT E C40" 97 z t� Ro wo P„ Z ww ¢ ILwv h h a N Q M Z pp za, 8 Yl „ O D W V Q � 1 Jp cc} O 1= q 'a G s N ^ uQ .}�.:N Q NN W-W y ... i i �- a ; cog limb f 1� f li .Y.N 1155 iA �••• AV�Y ar' i y 1 1 EXHIBIT E.2 o, zc `' a Cll 0 � � �, < � a:° �♦�- '� tp�e� � a �&��$�:*�f�3sft�� cox v r I t ER Rig fit�, Q ' Y L.1 ♦ 1 8 i t a „- EXHIBIT E 3 ul Q ° N a z - N N QO.JQ .j I O V a It G10 � � Z 0 si 0 J �a a W1:n Q CJ�Q25 N Nz Z O Z 06 0 N 0- !? N NO0( CL y O j IL O O > LL waawJx 6i. IW tm LL ¢ ' v w u. 2O ° ME �.z_�.ry.,. .�...•._,�.t.... a , ' • • e • c e • • • • • i e • • °ts o a: • P- -11 i••ee•`A°e 3��'Q9Pbi� oq • 'I - r o • e s e e e • aa .\ AdML - j e • ° ° •r• • • rb • r e •••.1� ,�, ;1 • e �°�e°! • • a • • • e. •�) a i• s • • •a• o M °. o il! 1 i • • • •..• • • • • • • •••fin! ° s ° • e dra 0 • s • �� ,• 1 • e s • •� ° a • s � P ... . .nn•n.a ! • • • +ce • a • s • ol. • e 1 • 000 Y •- •o• • •. a ..Mara i e• • •••ra• •e••i•° • °.11 '°°• �• • • •�°• •� • e s • #II ° i • . . . • • .¢. ` D . -•.-. coo 1 • • • e • _ 1. ° • • i•°•*° °O•°•°• °�.L: W. • • e • • s • i W a•na 1•-� " !. .• • • e1 •°�' • ov�� a W W j• • ° • ° - • � ° 1_ Ira!' t • e o • • oe a •° ai 1• • • •. • ° • •• • • • 00 07 • pfoe-�,•��e a � a /3� n-/p0 cct� O Q Z WthR ul 4 —� t(50J=<wA2z � m �LS .j � U O _tp § — = � oU9`y� c� a ® cn �U V z in z wz LU p 4 ¢ �o � o -�"'+`tea zp w IW . r � , - i l r I.. •\ MEN XLHOOD v •1 a. l _ r { r � F AT& r •` R 3 � / _ c • J.R �,b-Joi 4c g 4 CC ti (' . CM W ° o 0 3J. CC 0 C ``p) 0)0 x La a ' { knNs:-1,............ _,� _: 1 , jI 1 EXHIBIT E 6 �c� 3 al GI' } a x LU a QF- 9, in � z 4 --- •-•-- --- -- _2.y . .. ` t • 1 j 1 1 r t a �.u.n•ar 4l 3 �.. i • 1 i 1 t o ; OEL C.1 IL o 0 W W J 2. F- Q � W ZO 00 O beOC ® { ' U if'ccW� w zU) a g s ff S 1 W Z(J a W C.)� .i I m cc U� Co �Cl 1 = wo C) via 1 ; 7 1 — 1 Y ` `tit M}III t I i wws ,I INI aotl O� S- r ' �I�, j : • � I1 j c s ,NI 1 1 • a i - . _ Qa• EXHIBIT E 8 • , Curt Billings, Engineering TOchnicianf, replied that the gates would not be locked unless the residents provide a lock. Commissioner Melcher said he-had wondered about a lock, as the staff report indicated--aeveral residences may be using the,alley .for access to their: lots. (Shairman McNiel invited public comment, but there was none. Commissioner Melcher stated he was in total sympathy with why the alley is to be closed off, but he felt the situation may_lead to problemi . Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1 (Chit:ea absent), to adopt the Consent Calendar. >; PUBLIC 'HEARZS7G5 „ B. EPPIIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 AND ,ENERAL .'PLAN AMENDMENT 90-038 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to comment on the draft environmental impact report prepared for.the Etiwanda`North Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment 90-03B_to prezone approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere-of-influence�to provide for 31613 single family dwelling units on. 2,473 acres of,vac,ant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. C. ENpI:20NMEN:AL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-Ol CZTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to comment on the draft Etiwanda North; Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere-of-influence to provide fQ-; 3,613 vingle family dwelling units on 2,473 acreb of vacant/land, 28 acres of neighborhood !I commercial use, 4 schools, S parks, a9 eq.eatrian'center, and.preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. D. ENVIB0YI+ N,_jASSESSMENT ANL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT '90-03B CITY OF RANG O CT;CLgIM A public hearing to camment-on the proposed General Plan Amendei:,dr 'to provide cons. latency-with' the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan; approximately 6,840 acres of territory in, the Rancho Cucamonga sphere-of-influence to provide. for 3,613 single family dwelling unite on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5,parka, an equestrian. center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of opan space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west.,ofl-ode City of Fontana, and eaot of Milliken Avenue. Miki Bratt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. ANIL Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 26, 1991 d o c4^ process of adoption ofthe Commissioner Melchor sake for clarification on the ro P '. final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Ms. Bratt stated that the comments to-the draft EIR and the written;responses would become the final EIR. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, stated the Planning Commissiori would review the written comments before the EIR is forwarded to city Council for final certification. He said the public_comment process would technically end upon the close of tonight's public heating, 'but staff typically responds to all comments submitted up until the final certification. Commissioner Melches questioned the amount of park land being requested under the Quimby standard. I Ms. Bratt replied that under Quimby standards a municipality can require up to 5 acres of park per 1,000 population if there is .already existing parks at that ratio. She said the current City basis is 4.689 acres per thousand. Commissioner Melchor asked if the 4.E�89 figure is based an developed park acreage. Ms. Bratt resporided that it includes land which is owned or developed including trails and trail heads. Commissioner Melchor asked about the comment that the impact would be less than significant. Ms. Bratt replied that there would be a significant impact if the City required less than the 'General Plan goal for ,parks, but the impact will be less than significant if the proper amount of park land"is provided. Commissioner Melchor asked if the development- standards would change in the future if the Hillside Development Ordinance in changed. Ms. Bratt replied that development would be based upon the standards in effect at the time of approval for such development. Commissioner Tolstoy thought the Hillside Development Ordinance should be strengthened to avoid advCrse impacts. Mr. Henderson commented that the act of grading will cause r.n impact, so - impacts could not be reduced to less than significant. h Commissioner Tolstoy thought the Planni1ng Commission sr 7!A d reevaluate the { Hillside Development Ordinence'based oii experience withh the project now in t process to be sure the Ordinance ish accomplishing ,the objectives of the Commission. Commissioner Helcher agreed that the level of development 'achievable within the Ordinance guidelines is not the same as the goal of the Commission. He questioned if the wildlife corridors would remain viable. Planning Commission mtnuteg- -3- June 2c,,, 1$91 - r � � b ,k Ms. Hratt reported that staff is currently reviewAlhLing the resource management plan to address those concerns. Commissioner Melcher asked if all hiking and equest,c3an trails will be available to all City residents. Ms. Sratt responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher asked the level of development of'East-Avenue. Mr. Brett replied that it will be a collector street.- Commissioner Valletta questioned the upper limit of development. -Ms. Bratt stated the forest station sits on a sreminent knoll and development would be north to that site. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mike Kearney, Landmark hand, 210 North Lincoln Avenue, Corona, stated their 762 acres is located at the northwest portion .of the-Etiwanda North Specific Plan. He said they had been working over two years on the preparation of the plan with boththe City and the County. He stated they are currently processing their development within the County. He said only, the 'lower portion of their project is located wf,!'hin�the City's Sphere of Influence. He indicated they are opposed to anyc annexatiait into the Sphere of Influence or the City boundary until the plan is approved. He presented a package of comments and stated he wished to reserve the right to present additional comments because some of the land uses had.been changed since the* plan they had seen. Mike White, standard Pacific, iao_we4t MacArthur Boulevard, Costa Mesa, stated he is the owner and developer of Tract'13565 in the City. He said that when the tract was annexed into the City in 1989 the.City,Council approved a Development Agreement which sets: forth certain standaraa. He asked for clarification that the Development Agreement ,would not be superseded by the Etiwanda i'orth Specific 'Plan. He,-Rsaid they planned to meet with staff during the -next week. Anita McZeal, Land Plan Design Group, 14751 Plaza Drive, 'A"; Tustin,. submitted a letter with comments. She said their primary concerns regard lap.' -se, open space mitigation, the legality of the open apace mitigation, and ti4 'Sillside Development Ordinance. v She disagreed that estate lets would be 14i6 in line with the County :General'rlan. She said the County does—not ha;ie a minimum S acre lot s:ae, as the City would like to impose. Sh reported that $ they had raked staff for documentation regarding the Quimby'numbers. ' +She expressed concern about the comrperci.al land use locations<L d said it we her understanding the{ .the area is not in the Equestrian Overlay District. She said they would like to reserved the right to reviewstaffs Pater materials and return to comment at a later time. - ALI Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 26, .�991 Richard, Heilman, 5660 San Marino, Rancho Cucamonga, objected to the designa$ion of Neighborhood Commercial in Subarea 6 at the northwest corner of Wilson and Wardman Bullock Road. He thought the des gnatiow' is not consistent with the General Plans of either Rancho Cucamonga or San Bernardino County., He commented there is no. other Neighborhood commercial in the City noffT-t.r: Route 30 except for the Haven corridor,:where it extends to.Lemoq, He felt the n( - ased traffic, noise, and parking lot lighting will create negative impacts'in the residential area. ) He thought the deubity in the area will be too low to support Neighborhood Commercial. He complimented staf2 on the technical preparation of the document but asked why so much taxpayer money was ,k being wasted on a plan when' gt was entirely` possible nothing will ,come of it. He was concerned about the financing for the rest e 'the area"^"and commented he lives within a Mello-Roos ,District. No,thou3ht the County,and City were perhaps needlessly spending money„because or"tt+ickering caused by egos. He suciested the County and City get together ana produce a quality product. He _ }ported that the San Sevaine wish haA-been completed north,of 24th Street and has been completely fen.ed in, making animal movement impossible. He felt that with the vegetation growing in the area it w.kll be a high fire area and he thought the-fence presents a danger to wildlife becaua`e_ of the fire hazard. He wondered wly the City'a EIR 4!ecommended the area be., left open but the County is fencing it off Jim Lynch, 11640'Mt. Vh tney Court, Rancho Cucamonga, Uaid Ue appreciated th6 concerns regarding wildlife habitat and the developman+:t of the foothills. He did not feel development should' be allowed ifAhe impacts cannot be mitigated. He asked why so much scrub, habitat;<e to be eliminated: I:! scrub habitat resources are dwindling. _He was ccnc''' d that the wildlife corridors may not be viable. He suggested that hikip-4 anq equestrian trails:ohould not be included in the wildlife corridors beceuse of conflicts with the animals. Ko �:hought development should be limited'(to south of the utility corridor in the Oaks area to protect agaii�et a, human impact upon the bog. He wondercd about economic and tax liability `for the City and did ,;not feel a lot a residential development is good for the City. He thought the City is approaching ,,a condition of being overdeveloped in the residential area and feared futuve bankruptcy. Chairman McNiel thanked the participants for their,co6PonLto, both written and Oral'. - Motions moved by Melchor, seconded by Vallette, to continue Environmental Impact. Report for Specific Plan 90-01 and General: Plan Amendment 90-03S, Environmental Assessment and Specific Plan 90=01y and Environmental Asseso6ent and General;.Plan.Amendment 90-038 to Julx 2: , 1991 Motion carried by the follciwing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, HELCHEA1 ,TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE $BSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA carried Planning Commission Minutes 'i: _S ,Tune 26, 1991 t +fib l l/ _! d Cp Brad Buller, City Planndr, suggested that interested individuals could,; telephone the City to make an appointment to discuss their concerns regarding the items. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-06 - RICHARD STENTON Modification of conditions of approval to, allow land uses requiring a more intensive parking ratio than the one provided for research and development (I space per 350 square feet) within-an existing industrial complex on 23.7 acres of land in the .Gener:�t ,'ndustrial District (Subarea 11) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, locstt; on the northwest corner of Buffalo and-6th Street - APN: 229-261-78. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12, T991.) <t F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMiNT'AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-03 JAMES PAGE The request-to establish a "mini-mall" ('swap meet) in a leased space of 103,552 square feet within an existing industrial center on 13.77 acres of land in the General Industrial District,; (Subarea 11) of the..,Industrial Area Specific Plan, 'located at 11530 Sixth Street APN: 229-026-28. Staff recommends -:esuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration.% Related file Conditional Use;Permit 86-06. ;; (Continued from June 12, 199i`) Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what would happen if Condition o were>deleted from Resolution 86-78 and the proposed project does not materialize or does not continue as a use. :He asked.if that'could cause a problem. Brad Buller; City Planner, 'stated that when the project was first proposed,' the Commission felr it was important that the lea,:ing agent advise perspective tenants that the parking ratio is 1/350 square feet. He said if the condition were deleted, the applicant would still be subject to the same parking requirements, Commissioner Vallette questioned the justification for requesting a parking rstio at 1/150 for the swap meet use. Ms.` Hernandez r--plied that the applicant had submitted a detailed parking study which was deemed satisfactory to staff. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Rance Clouse, Lee E, Associates, 10370 Commerce Center Drive, 0100, Rancho Cucamonga, reiterated the applicant had provided a parking study demonstrating that a 1/150 parking ratio would be sufficient. He suggested the commission could modify the Resolution to require that the owners notify any :future tenants of the maximum parking ratio of. ij350 after processing of Conditional. Use Permit 91-03 for the swap meet. He requested that the_condi� on requiring removal ct graffiti be changed to a 72 hour deadline to allow time to act because he felt 24, hours was unreasonable. He thought the requirement for a Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 26, '1991 E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-O:i - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of tk,N Etiwand'�North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of tt;'ritor�, in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influenc9' to,prov de for 3,613 4;I-zle family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 2a acres of neighborhood` commercial use, 4 schools, 5'parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,,112 acres of open space generally located north of HighlanO Avenue 4.State -Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Foreat,.west of thet,City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. : (Continued from August 14 1991.) 1i F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ,GENERhL PLAN__AHENDMENT 90-03B - `CITY OF RANCHO_CUCAMONGA - A request- to recommend. ,approval of 'a General Plan Amendment to provide-consistency wian' the draft £tiwanda North. Specifir. Man, prezoning, approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho r Cucamonga aphere of influence to provide for3,613 single family.'dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use,. 4 schools, .5 parks, an equestrian center, and p*:)servation: of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of' 'Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino rational Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Cpritinued from August 14, 1991.) Brad 1•iller, City Planner, annout.ced that the listing of proposed ehanges to the General Plan plus a revised Exhibit A (Statement of overriding Considerations) was being provided to the Commissioners. He commented that a lawsuit had been filed by; the City against the County of 'San Bernardino regarding a development application located within the City's Sphere of Influence. go reported that the court had ordered that discussions be he;:d between the two parties to see if a settlement could be reached. He stated those discussions were in progress and it felt it would bF urematurs for the City to act on the application. He suggested that staff give a presentation an the now information which had just been 'presented to the Commission and the Commission continue the item for two to four weeks Miki Bratt, Associrte Planner, discussed the=revised Exhibit A and the suggested changes to t:Aa General Plan to make it consistent with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (EN5P), Commissioner Melchor stated that the Environmental Impa-t 'Report (HIR) for Etiwanda North lists Michael Brandman as the consultant. He asked if they were also acting as the consultant on part 2.- ` Ms. Bratt responded that they have been acting in an advisory capacity to staff, Chairaian McNiel suggested that the matter be continued to October 9, 1991. commissioner Melchor asked when the Resource Management Plan and the Phasing Plan would be completed. PlanningConniso ,un Minutes 3 September 111 2991 DRAFT �� Ms. 9_stt responded that those plans would not be cc-1ppleted until after approval of the EIR and the EN£P as they are implementation a7easures. She said the ENSP will indicate the ,infrastructure that in needed and the other plans will indicate how the ENSP,will be implemented. Chairman McNiel opened the public heari.`g. Jim des Lauriers, Professor, Dep!,;-ment of Biology, Chaffey College, S385 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, presented a letter regarding the nrigins and nature'of the bog and the ;moll. Be felt the exact nature of the *,rk6r supply to the bog and the nature and location of the^water discharge.iron-the bog should be considered. He ,said the integrity of the bog depends upon the; integrity of the water source'. He supported staffs recommendat9nna regarding the changes necessary to reduce the environmental impact, tie felt the number of units should be,;reduced and the bog should be set aside a&�oper; sp-�ce. Richard ,:ou-'lass, Landmark Land company, Inc., 110 North Lincoln Avenue, Suite 100, Corona, provided-a .letter objecting to the City•s proposal to redesignate some of their l:,nd''as ope,� space. He .said a portion of the Landmark property is outside of the City,a"sphere of influence. He felt the Specific Plan should not be adopted unttil the EIR is adopted. He objected to the proposal to designate half of their land Ae;open space to protect the bog and comply with the request of the wi3,,11ife agencies and said Landmark would oppose any efforts by,,:he City•,.to acquire Landmark land through an easement or eminent domain. He hough` tae City should not rush to adopt the ENSP, AOL Motion: Moved by rhitiea, seconded by Melcher, to`'contln�le Environmental Impact Report for Specific Pli* 90-01 and General Plan Amendment 90-03B, Environmental Assessment and Specific Plan 90-01 and Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to October 9, 1991. Motion cYrried by the following vote: AYES. CCIMHISSIONPRS.- CHITIEA• HCHI`£L, MELCHER, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLS VY carried' G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 28-03 %- SAM•S_,�PLACE - The consideration of suspension or. revocation Of .a Conditional use . Permit allowing the operation of a bar n conjunction with a restaurant located -lin the Faighborhood commercial District , at ,6620 Cs-`nllan Street, northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian StteetD -,APN: 20!-611-166 through 60 H. CONDITIONAL. USE PL'R'dIT'78-03 - SAH;•S PLACE A review of compliance with conditions of applroval and consideration of suer tension. or revocation of the Conditional Use Permit for a restaurant and bar lo�_Iated in the Neighborhood Cordnercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street, northwest corer of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60. (Ci.`Unued from August 14, 1991.) Planning CommissZ6n Minutes;' -4- September ll, 1991 \ ti RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OP,.THE PLANNING;COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO LUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,i RECO1,=NDING THAT THE 'CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL ENc_RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN. A. Ftecitala� y W There has been presented to this Commission in conjunction with this Cormission•s consideration of the recommended adoption of,the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, a final E)rironmental ,Impact Report. (u) The final Environmental Impact Report referred to in this - Resolution -consists of that document dated May, 1991, entitled "Draft. Environmental Impact Report for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan," together' with the draft Final,Environmental Impac£��report dated September 11, 1991, including written comments on the draft EIR and written responses thereto submitted by staff of the City, of Rancho Cucamonga, and testimony presented during the heaxings on the recommended adoption of the. said Specific, Plan insofar as that testimony pertained to the environmental matters, as well as' the revised executive summary, including revisions to mitigations measures, as wel_. as the mitigation monitoring plan. Hereinafter, the above-referenced documents will be referred to as "the final Environmental'.Impact Report." The entirety of the final Environmental Impact Report is hereby incorporated in this Resolution by this reference. (iii) All legal prerequisites Psor to adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. RW,4lution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and ,resolved by tha ` Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Planning Commiasion does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga take the following actions with respect ta;,the final Environmental Report: a. CezUfy that the final Environmental Impact Report. Liao `been prepared on the Etiwanda North SPec?,fic Plan in accordance with the provisiods of the California En-rironmcntal QuL,,Xy Act, California Public Resources Code Secr'.a:;e 21000 et seq. and in accordance with. tha regulations promulgated ther Further, that the Council certifies that it has considered the :=tenth _f the final Envi:ronmentak;Impact Report in considering the adoption j of the ' iwanda North Specific Play b. Find' that the,;' rfi.nal Environmental Impact Report does ides:V 'rhysical environmental impacts inherent in the project and that than a r alterations have been incorporated in the project which'.mltigatiti or ' avoid ail aigrifit t environmental effects thereof other than as follows: f I PLANNING COMMiliSION RESOLUTION MO. ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIPM PLAN EIR - CITY OF R. C. October 9, '1991 Pace 2 1) Substantial alteration'of existing oven soace land use characters Almost all of the total project area of 6,840 acrew is currently in natural .open apaceb Of the total, 4,442 acres will be designated as open space''i Neverthel4se, 2,112 'acres are proposed for development and will result in the •loss of the existing open space land use character. ?I 2) City transportation Policies and Traffic: Applicants for development will mitigate all one; site impacts and Montribute to the City', i j Traffic. Nexus Fee'\ .program for off-sate- impacts. Nevertheless, as a result of incremental increases ',,'t3 -cumulative traffic 1 impacts, off-site impactsN-will occur even after s mitigations. 3) Landform modifications Applicants for development will comply with the -Hillside l Development Ordinance and City Development !` '• standards. Nevertheless, grading for development within 2,112,acres`'will modify Vi- existing character of the alluvial fan and portions of the hillsides. -� 4) Wildlife habitat impacts: The project 2?'. designed to retain large, defensible areas of open space:which will maximize the habitat value for the project area. A total of 4,442 acres will remain in open apace land use designations. Nevertheless, 'development: of 2,112 acres wilm diminish on-site,.,wildlife density,and diversity cnd fragment the remaining wildlife habitats. 5) Alluvial ian scrub habit4j._IoS'a:- Applicants for development will be eonditiored to preserve one acre of alluvial fan scrub aabitat for one acre of alluvial fan scrub habitat lost. There are significant areas ?f, natural alluvial fan scrub habitat within the project ;area which are available for preservation or Which can be rehabilitated. Neverthe esai, almost all of the r 2,112 acres planned for development are alluvial j fan scrub habitat which will be lost. - t, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION H6. ETIWANDA 14ORTH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR — CITY OF R. C. �. October 9, 1991 �c Page 3 6) Threat to rivariau babitate:., Applicants fa'r:. ` development will be 1 Ionditioned's tc� retain existing' riparian core dors,_ as well ;as to provide buffer zone to protect the riparian corridors from degradation associated with urban development. Also, condition's wiil be enforced _ to protect the Resource Con;arvation areas including restriction of human, use ie designated trails, ?,zxciusicn of domestic rats and d(oge, exclusion of off-road vehicles, and techniques to divert urban irrigation, rut:-off end polluted storm flows. Nevertheleaa, ur-3anization of the rrea will remain a threat to riparian habitat. ?) Short` tei^m frsitive dust: Project applicants will be conditioneed to implement actions to kedace fugitive dus\`` louring construction to the maximum extent feaR�ible. Nevertheless, some construction dust will occti . 8) solid eraste: Project applicants will: be conditioned to participate Y h City waste minimi-,ation programs.("�Nevertheiest.� there will remain an impact on landfill capac;ty `4 t. result of solid waste generated by da Yop;uent of approximately 3,157 dwelling units+_�.,:.s well as up to 28 acres of commercial development.: C. Find that notw4thstanding the unmit1gatea aivo. 4renvironmental impacts specified in paragraph b above, ,that. spe^_tfic econoiaia_and social ti consideraons make infeasible an project altsrnativ 'w f Y P j e,__pacified in the final Environmental Impact Report and constitutes an overriding b&Ais for Council approval of the project; and d. As to those'impacts identified In the f3...*l Environmental Impact Report which cannot feasibly be avoided by mitigation measures and project eiternatl-res, adopt a strtement of`-overriding considerations in our:'atan�ial form'to tt:nt set fc-th in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and Incotporated by this referenc►t. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS yTH DAY OF-QCMBER 1991. PLANNING COMMISSIOr OF'THE :CT.TY OF RANCHO CO:AMONGa BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairmtia IJ --, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR - CITY OF R_,46. October 9, 1991 Page 4 ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary 1, Brad Buller,; Secretary of t1im Planniilg " 4ammission of the City of Rancho ! " ;." Cucamonga, do hWreby 'ce:tif� that the--,,.,foregoing Reeolutio i 'was duly -and regularly introduced, passed, and"adopted by-the Planning commission of;the City of Rancho Cucamonga,;,ae a regu`ar meetino?cf`th�r,Plannin; Commissi n held on the 9th day of October 1991.," by the f6l1owing vote-to-wit:, �1fi= A-ESS COMMISSIONERS; .§ NOES: COMMISSIWERS: P9SENTa COMMISSIONERS „ I 'i `5 I } I ID t + i EXHIBIT "M STATZMENT OF O'7ERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The final Environmental Impact Report identifies certain impacts which ca,mot feasibly be avoided by mitigation measure. Impacts' which have been mitigated to the maximum extent feasible, but still have not been mitigated to a level 'of not significant, . include the following:' Substantial Alteration of Existing: Open Suace Land Use character: Almost all the total project area "of 6,840`acres -`.s currently in natural" open space. Of the total, 4,442 acres shall be designated as open space. Nevertheless, 2,112 acres are proposed for development and � 11 result in the loss of existing open space land,,;use Character. City_mr?ys ortation Policifls and Traffic: Applicants for development shall 'mitijate all on-site impacts, specified off-site impacts, and .ontribute tc the tIity's Traffic Nexus i Fee Program for off-site impacts. Nevertheless, as a result of incremental increases to cumulative traffic impacts, off- site impacts will occur even after iuitigation. iI Lamifcrm Modificatign: ApplLiants for development sha comply with the H_alsidc- `^avalopment Ordinance and v Development Standards 715a `the prominent knoll, wher_( ,.,. historic U.S. Forest S67tv3ce Fire Station site is-located, shall be preser�red as open space. Nevertheless, grading for development. within 2,112 acres will moIfy the existing character of the alluvial fan and portions of the hillsides. Wildlife Habitat Impaci:s; The projec:�, is designed to retain large, defensible areas ,of open spat_ tahi"cr shall maximize the habitat value for the project area �) total of'4,4•12 acres will romain in open space lan:c,,use designations, incll...'ing approximately 145 a?^res in tha`vrcin,:�,- of` the bog „B and ,�-th of t:�e noithern kra;cli" of +he Cucamonga Fault, a portion of which was previously dssignated for residential development. Further, a Resource ranagement Plan shall be prepared and implemented, Aevertheless develapraent of-, 2,112 acres will" diminish ..h-site wildlife density an diversity and fragment the remaining wild ife}habitats. Alluvial Fan Scrub M oitat Loss: ppli�:ants for development shall be conditioned One acre of alluvial fan scrub haioitat' for ona, vial fan scrub habitat loot. is intended the shall be designated as opei, :pace and that a�,Z -:rub habitat in Day Creek wasnj r^.tiwanda ^reek waki�, vaine Wash', and 145 acres in the vicinity of the bog ahu _firth of the northern branch of. the-Cucamonga Fault shall be retained .s, open space. Further to the maximum extent feasible, resource f EXHIBIT "A" � STATEMENT OF GVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ` 1 September 10, 1991 ' Page, 2 ,J conser- or. easements 'Llball be obtained for the aforemei ,mooned wildlife habits+ areas.a Ne.'ertheless, almost all of the 2,112 .acres planned £ox development and alluvial fan scrub habitat wh4h will be lost. Threat ..to Riparian Habitats: Applicants for devvelopmenz . will be conditione2; to retain-.existin7 riparian c.Irridors, as well as ,to provide a buffer zone,to protect the'ripar?an corridors from de)radatson dssociated wit!-,, urban development. Faso, conditions will be enforced t ' .protect the Resource Conservation areas, including restriction of human use to designated trails`, exclusion of domest� ,==cats and dogs, and ex; lr:$ion of off-read vehi,�cles•; as well, ,as techniques to di•;e,;,i-•urban irzigation ruri-off' and polluted . I storm £lawn. N':vertheless, urbanization of the area will, reirin a threat;,to riparian habitat. Short-Term Fuaitiv� Dust: Project applicants will be j conditioned- to implement actioi;s to reduce fugitive dust during consrruction to the -maximum extent . feasible. Neverth Aess, soma construction dust 4ill occur. Solid Wastes Prajunt applicants will be_' conditioned to participate in City , waste minirid2ation programs. fteaertheless, there will remain-;;I.an impact on landfill capacity as a rest,it of "solid waste`generated by development of ap'proximately ;3',1B9.'dwell-ng units, as well as up to -28 acres of commercial development=. , Notwithstanding these '_mpacts; project apprhval ' is recommended based upon a f .,rding that ;specific environmental, economic and social, considerations make/'infeasible -"any project.'-ilternatives 11 specified in "the final, ` Environmental Impact" .report and accordingly constitutes an''overriding basis for project'approval. Substantial environmental benefits will ,occur as a result `nf approval of in the Etiwanda North Specif•C Plan, and a sociated General Plan Amendment No. 90-03B, as follows: * Of the tonal 5,840--acre plan area, development will be limited, ito 2,112 acres and ,4r442 acres shall be designati6d as•'open space. L * 1pplicants for deve'?pment' shall cortribute 'to the building of the ci^culatii�zn; and transportation - syys4em of the comm;l`]ity by mitigating all on-site impacts, specifie:i off-site impacts, and ^.ontrL)uting to the City Is Traffic Nexus ee Program_;`or all other off-site impacts. `i * Applicants for development shall comply with the Hillside Development Ordinance and I City Development Standa,c - Also :the,prominent. knob, where . the historic U.S. Forest Service, Fire ;;,:Station site is located, shall: be preserved as open space. * The project —` is designed ti? retain large, „ defensible ar(sas of open space which shall " maximise the habitat value for project area. A total of 4,442 acres will remain in open space land use designations, including ,approximately? 145 acres;in the vicinity of the bock and north of the northern branch of the Cucamonga Fault, a portion of which was previously-designated'(for residential � development. Further, a Resource Management Plan shag'I be prepared'and implemented.., * Applicants for developr"nt shall be-donditioned to preserve one' acre of ;:.chuvial` fan scrub habitat for one acre of alluvial fan scrub, habitat lost. It is. intended that 4,442 acres shall ` be e designaterl as open space and_, that alluvial fan scrub'''habitat in, Day Creek awash-`Etilwanda Creek wash, San Sevaine Wash,,l and 145 aces in the vicinity of the _bog and north of the northern AIMI branch of the Cucamonga Fault-shall be retained as open space. Furche- to: the maximum extent feat:ble resource conservxw` n easements shall be Pbt',`Ined for the aforemenilr ned wildlife habitat areas. a Y * Applicants for development will be conditioned to retain existing riparian corridors, as well as to provide a buffer zone,;to protect the riparian corridors from degradation associated' with urban develrpment. Also,, . onditionsrwill be enforced to protect the areas de�,Ignatsd as !'Resource Conserva-ion,11 including restriction of human use to designated trails exclusion of ;,amestic oats , and dogs, and exclusion of off--r�iad 'vehicles, as well as techniques to divert urban irrigation run- off and polluted storm flaws. * _Project applicants shall 'be( conditioned, to implement actions to reduce,fugitive dust during construt,,tion to the maximum extent- feasible. * Project applicants , shall be conditioned to participate in City waste minimization programs to reduce 'the 'low` of municipal 'solid ' w`aste to landfiyls. fir'. �v✓��r` •" c Also, the Ftiwanda NorthU Specif ic Plan, and associated Gene'al Plan Amendment No. 90-03B, are the?nseliteg measures to 'Mitigate potential adverse impacts of development on the existing. , community which would otherwise occur without a planned and co�uprehensive approach to future development. The Specific Plan- contains provisions tailored to development of the sensitive` 3 alluvial fan and' Sxillside envircipent, and is meant to replace existing Citywide 'zoning regula'�ions that do not adgrese the unique gaalitie `'-and community,traits of that poz*ion oj�l the City _ of Rancho Cucamonga and its Sphere'=of-Influence. Further, the Etiwainda North Sped ic,Plan provides pre-zoning for, tN� Sphere- of-Influence area and for the planning area north of thd��Nationa3 Forest boundary where (wity-zoning ordinances do -hot appls�. Conse � -r quent?y. the adoption of the Etiwanda North Specit\ic-P1an will resu.Lt in potential environmental effects,., thz\ak\� are substantially less significant in scope and-�.Fx ent thar those effects which would otYvrwise occur under the `axist in ?ner Plan and zoning regulations, including each alternative an`al.yzed in the Final Environmental impact Report. p , t i i; J I _ - _ .ESOLVIMON NO. A RESOLUTION OF iE 'PLANNING, COMMISSION OF THE CITY of RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,.; RECOMENDING APPRCVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMcNS NO. 9.%r03B, AMLNDING THE LAND USE AND CIRCULATION MAPS, AND F-WISINC VARIOUS'MAPS. A. Recitals. M On June 26, 1991,%'and continued to, July 24, August'14,`Septembsr 11, and October 9, 1991, *'tie Planning .Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed-public hearings- concerning the, recommended- adoption cf General Plan 6mendment 90-03B. ' (?,.i) 'The General Plan'Amendment is set forth in Exhibit "A" attached. ai) Al) legal prerequisites prior to the adnption_of this Red 6lutian 7 sc have occurred..- . .� B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is°n3rehy, €fund,' determined,./ and resoled by the' j Planning Commission of the Ci y of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:. 1. In all respects as set forth in Recitals,'Eart A, of this Reno!utian. \ r 2. Prior -tc„_the adoption of 'this`'Resolction, this ',Commission has reviewed the Final Environmental impact\Report for •tbw Plan and recommended that the City Council caYtify the Z Port, incicdin:R adoption of a Statement of Overriding Cons deratione, in compliance with t%6 California Environmental!-, Quality Act of`1970, as amended, and the Guide3inen promulgat d thereunder. . 3. The Commi-nsion finds as follows: (a) The Amendment does not;conflict with the Land Use or Circ6lation Policies of the General Plan. (b) The amendment promotes the goals of the Land Use a nr+`circulation. Element. I` (c) ,The Amendment mould nnt,_be matey;ally injurious or detrimental I to the adjacent properties. ' 4. This Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of-it',�e City of Rancho Cucamonga adopt General Plan Amendment 90-033, marked as Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein }2y his reference. S. The Secretary to this Commission shp,ll certify.,the adoption of this Resolution. i 11 �`, ,/ 2 0 PLANDIING't';OMMISSION RESOLUTIOHI NO GENERAL, PLAN AMENDMENT 90-0381' October 9,::199i E� Page 2 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY`OF OCTOSER I991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY;OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T, McNiel, rman 1 Choi f' kTTEST: Bra3 Buller, Secretasti+ I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the_-Planning Count,Iesion a the 44�ty'of RamiI6 Cucamonga, ;do hereby /certify that the 4,foregoing, Resolution,,,.was duly„and regularly introduced, passed, and ado aed by tF+a $Tanning Comm?-ssion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,;�i a _gular meeting of the Planning Co*aaission.heid on the 9th day of October i991, by the -dilawing vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS:' NOES: COMMISkONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ; t.; in s it #r , i+ L'`} i� 0 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMZSISSION OF THE CTW' OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA, CALIFgtWIA,- RE(MMMENDING APPRUyAL of SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01,..THE h`TIWANDA N0,^.TH SPECIFIC PLAN A. Rec ala. (i) On June 26, 1991, and continued to July 24, August 14, Septetol 11, and October 9, 1991, the P1Pnning Commisaion of the, City of :Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings concerning the reoemmende& adoption of the Etiwanda North Specific: Plan, hereinafter referred to as the Plan. (ii) The Plan comprises fipproximate3y-&j 850.acres located generally north of Wilson Avenue (with a portion:north of Higlaand Avenue), 'south of the National Forest (with portions 'within the Nationdl-_Forest), east of the extension of-Mi.11ik_en Avenues and hest of the City 11m ; of ,the City of Fontana, all as referenced in the Land-Use Map, Exhibit 17, of,\,the Plan. , (iiij On file in the-City Clerk's office; and incorpo%ate herein by this reference, is a full, true and co::rect;'opy of the Plan. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of t.,is Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE., it is herq�y found, deteradned, and 1esuived by,the Plan_.%.ng -Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: r 1. In all respects as set forth .in Racitals, Part A of this Resolution; 2. Prior to .the adoption of this Resolutions this Commission has reviewed the Final Environmental'impact Report for the Plan;and General Plan 90-033, and reccmmended.thi.c the City Council certify the report, including.' adoption of a Statement of Over-riding Consideration, in cor+glitn,ce with-the California Environmental; Quality Act, =1 1970, as amended, and the,Guidelines promulgated thereunder. 3. Prior to the adcptiari;of this, Resolution, this Commission has reviewed General Plan AmendmE^t,.,No. 90-03B and recommended-adoption'by"the City„Council,. 4. This Cdanission hereby finds that vhe Plan has..been :drafted to include, in text Art; aocompanying diagrams all`bf,fihR information ae-follows: a."The dienrlbution, location and extent of the land uses, including open space, within the area covered by tha Plan Aft way �Z) 12- Z `} o I� 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. i SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY f R. C. October o. 1991 Page 2 ' \ b. The proposed distribution, location, exriept-arid intensity of major componentL;' `of public and private transportation c,_#,`Dwage, water, _.rainage, Solid waste disposal, ane •gy and other essential i'frastrur,ure proposed to be located within the area,of the.Plan and needed to"support- the land uses described in the Plan. " c. The standard: and criteria by�whi ch develoi pment .will proceed for land uses within the Plan and standards for the'conservation, development and utilization of natural resources where applicable within the area of the Plan; and d. 'A descrpti.,)n of the program, of imlementation measures, including regulations, programs, public works •?rojectsland financing measures necessary to carry out those provisions referenced in subparagraph a., b. and c. above within the area of. `the Plan. li !a. This Commission hereby recommends that t1lip City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adapt Specicic Plan 90-01�. the Etiwa:nda North Specific Plan, on file in the City Clerk's'office and incorporated herein by this referencs.; 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certif, he adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF SF.PTEMBER 19, •2. PWINT_NG COMMISSION OF 1SE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: LiL! y T. McNiel, Chairman ; - J ATTEST: III Brad Buller, Secretary , t I, Brad Buller,• Se:retary' of tb!s Planning Commission of .the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do;`hereby certify;:that the f6xegoing Resolution was duly and regularly ntscauced, passed, and a�7lGpto�l,,by the PlanninR,Commission asi_the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Plann x-q Cov--:Fusion on the 9th day/of September 1991, by the following vote-to-wit.- AYES: COMMISSIONERS: i NOY)S COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ,. 1 a 0 l CITY OF linNC-tiO.CbCANIONGA ' STAFF REPO DATS: October 9, 1991 '< TO: Chairman and Members o£ the 1:lanning CommiaSsion FRC;L: Brad'Buller, C- y Planner BY Anna-visa Hernandez, P_ssistant Planner l t � SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL US$ PERMIT 91-29 DR. S131MSELDIN GOUDA. D.V.M. - i2 request to establirsh a vetsinatry hospital in it leased space cf 2,673 se;uare feet within the existing. Vineyards Marketplace on,52f1y9 acres of land in the Village Commercial District of the Victoria Cormunity Plan located at the .r�»thw.st_ corner of Woodruff and Highland`-- APN': 22.7-011-25. i PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTXO: A. Action Requested- Approval of non-construction 'Conditional Use Permit 91-03 co allow an animal care facility, Within an approved village i commercial shopping center. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Vacant; Future Foothill Freeway �} South - Vacant: Medium Density Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) Fast - Vacant;. Medium Density Resident.ial,(8-14 dwelling units.per acre) West -. Vacant; Low-Medium Density Residential (4-8 dwexlling units per acme) C. General Plan Designdtiona: Project Site - Neighborhood Commercial ti North Freeway right-of-way and Low Density Residential South - Medium Neasity Residential Fast - Medium Density Residential 41est Low-Medium Density Residential D. Parking_Calculationa* Squire 'Parking Number of Number of 3'vne of Use �'ootaae Ratio Spaces Required Spaces Provided'_ Victoria Animal Hospital Retail 89?, 1/250 4 4 Medical 1,782 1/200 4 9; 13 13 Gas Station 2,466 3 plus 7, 7;, 2 der service baY : Retail 3.13,498 "A/250 454 459 ` Restaurant 1,000 1J100= 10 10 r Fast Food 1,94E 1/75 -26 126 Dental Office 1,275 1/200 7 7 Excess parking J 9 TOTAL' B17 '126 I� IEEE tr S f PLRNMING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Clh 91- 29 - DR SHIMSELDIX GOUDA 7VM October 9, 1991 Page 2 ANAL;S,{ IS s A. Background: The 9'.neyards Marketpl4ce'stopping' center was ccnceptuslla approv(33 by the Planning Commission cis Novehgr 29, 1989. Both Phase I of the center ant4'the Mobil station are construc.aan and are near!Ag completion. { On August 14, 1991, the Planning Commission ,reviewed Use Determination 91-01 and 'made the de-ormi.nation that Animal Care Facilities were consistent with the Village Commercial zone. B. General: Before you tonight i,3 the request to locate an animal care facility on the_nartheast corner of the Vineylirds Marketplace ?roject. The applicant is proposing to occupy.2,673 ecuw.le feet, for a "small animal" veterinary hospital and the retail sale cpfi' pet>supplies. The proposed hours of operation are; 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 P.0',, Honday though Friday; 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Saturdiiy, and Q=00 a_h. to 2:00 p.rr. on Sunday. No yore than ._ree-employees wilu:"bo working o1► anv,given shift. 'In sedition, there will be no overnight boarding of animals, except for purpotaer of surgery or medical.` treatment.` C. Issues: The primary issuer) related to .cocating an Animal Care Facility within a Village Commercial development are rompati:oility with surrounding land uses and parking. Comr,atibility: Animal Care facilities are permitted within neighborhood shopping facilities without exterior kennels, pens, or run^ on-site. The adjacent tenant: directly writ is 'a dental office. The hour: of operation are 9:00 a.m. to't:00 p.m-., simi),ar 'F j t11e proposed animal cars facility' and no compatibility problems are,,,,.-. ;'aipated with thee;� LNdjacent users. No compatibility problems have bead experienced with the _animal care facility use in other centers; W' re:`cre, none are anticipated here. Nevertheless, to ensure control over lance use compatibility, the Resolution of Approval contains a condition stab nkls "If'op-r'iicn of the 21acillty causes al�werse effects on ,1d ach,,t busimessc's or opRrationE; the Conditional U_e Perm'.. shall be brought L»afore tka Planning Commission for consideration and pr 4a;i. le tt'4'inatien of 4..e use., ` A total of 13 parking spaces are required for the proposed Animal Care ' Facility (i parking space per 200 square feet,). A total of 517 spaces are required for the whopping center and 526 hav-J bean provided. Tuerefore, sufficient parking exists for the propcs:kd us= and all ot her'`uses within the center. In addition, staff will continue to carefully Monitor all uses se they locate within the center through;the busiY,es liuenee eid tenant' i improvement processes. D. Rancho Cuc�,nnonoa Fire District/Police 72PIrtment2 Both the Fire L strlct- )t a' t:a Felice Department have been notified, of the proposed use. The Police Department has expressed no aign;LV.cant 'concern over the proposal. The Fire D�istricL will require plan check prior to occupanzy.ry. L� ``,j PLANN7.G COMMISSION STAFF AEPORT CUP -ji 29 - DR SHW_,SELF 19 GOUDA DVM October 9, 1991 ` Page 3 r FIWTS FOR FINDINGS: The Commission ;must make all''of°the fol7�.4a ng findings in order to arprove this application: " A. That the 'proposed use is in accordance with tha'GeneraV/Plan, the I objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is loeateti: ? B. That the'proposed,use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety" . or welfare or materially injurious Lo properties or improvements in the ' Vicinity. c C. That the proposed uee complies with each of the applicaL)le provisions of the Victoria Commun `,ty Specific 'Plan and Development Code. CORRESPONhENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the i nd Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been pouted, and notices were sent to adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Conditional,, .yse Permit 91-29 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval., `' Respept ly su ed r Q, !A.l r I .anner HB:ALH:j:1 is Attachments Exhibit "A" Site Plan Exhibit "B" - Floor Plan Exhibit "C" - Lei6r from Applicant Resolution of Approval 97 �-� IN ttj 4 phi Jill! _ i Y f o f a 1 t i j . t � powi ! i eels --- - -"7�RLa7Sv'f3R�S4n 591 f1 i; ,1 d " a i' taGm� c,�sw f � i IMAL ! I I _ r-! ED Ask Jg�'f PAW- CLWAMONGA...GaN� iO ''4AMI ze -u . woa3 srci Yset-tz s BER 9, 1991 R.G AGERDA � ; 11 ILA f August 27, 1991 City of Rancho Cucamonga Department of Community Development . Planning Division 10500=Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 917:10 RE: VICTORIA ANIMAL HOSPITA4. Vineyards Marketplace 11438 Kenyon_W.y, Suite 3AIB Rancho Cucamonga, California 91701 Project No. 88022-16-04 i To Whom It,May Concern:: Pursuant to the direction given me' by the Planning Commission (see-; , attached staff report), i am. submitting an application for' a Conditional Use Permit-Non-Construction for my veterinary hospital.. On IWy rch 6, 1991, 1 signed a lease with Hughes/S you/Milliken Associates" fi or the 'c following described use: The 'operation of a "small anima"' veterinary hos Rail and the retail Aft. sale of pet supplies, food, -medicines and pet' grooming supplies. ffi� There will be no over-night boarding of animals, except' for purposes of surgery or medical treatment. The hours of operation shay be 8:OOAM to 6:00PM Monday'-_'hrough Friday and 9:OOAM to 2:00r'M on Sekturday. NIA mill be closed on Sundays. It Is anticipated that no more than three employees willleworking on any given shift. i 1t was my understanding at the Planning Commission hearing t►fat the ' commission was amenable to having the use in .the center, but w;;rnted to review the specific use so they could impose any conditions which might seem appropriate. Should you need any additional information, .1 can be reached at Alpine Animal Hospital In Ontario, California (714)983-7041. Sincerely,' VICTORIA ANIMAL HOSPITAL Y Y Dr. Shamseldin Gouda, DVM CC: Hughes investments t RRSOLUTION NO..).I A RER,OLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF t RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,"APPROVIN.3 CONDITIONAL USE . PERMIT 210. 91-29 FOR AN ANIMAL CARE FACILITY WITHIN THE VINEYD.RDS MARKETPLACE S11OPPINC.ii CENTER IN THE 'VILLAGE ) COMMERCIAL. DISTRICT OF THE VIi771ORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY J LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST'COPMR OF WOODRUFF AND HIGHLAND, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-011-25. A. Recitals. (i) Dr. Shimseldia'Gouda, DVM, has ,fled an application for the issuance D O.� S { J i e of the Conditional liae ,,ermit%�•i _9;' j�9 a .described in the t�tle of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolt'.:ion, the subject Conditional Use Perni"t request is-referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 9th ,day of October 1991 the Planning Commission of the City of .Zjanch6 Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites prirF to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. i B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, sand resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cr—amonga as foliown: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the .facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution a_c true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented 'to this Commission during the above-referenced 'public hearing on October 9, 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 southvzz'4 corner of Woodruif Place and Highland Avenue with a street frontage of 493.34 feet and lot depth of 354.45 feet and is preoently improved with si.x buildings and 526 parking spaces; and (b) The property to the .:'rth of the subject site is vacant (future Foothill.Freeway); the property to the south of the site coneists of vacant, Medium Residential; the property to the east it. vacant Medium Residential; and the property to the west is Low Medium Residential. Aft The appl'`,ation contemplates the operation of a veterinary hospital and r�.cail sales L._�pet supplies in a leased space of 2,673 square feet. No boarding of animalar except for .surgery or medical trzatmentv is proposed. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION No. CUP 91-29 DR SHIHSELDIN' GOUDA, DMA ~'t October 9, 1991 Page 2 IMF (d) The application proposes hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. to 6;00 p.m., Monday through Friday; 9`.00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m on Saturday, and 9 00 a.m. to 2a00 p.m. on Sunday. r` (e) :��No"more than three employees shall be working on any given shift. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence prenented-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 cc.ialudes as follows: (a) That the propoaed use is in accord with the General plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes"of tha district in which the vite is located. (b) That the proposed use ;iikogether with the conditions applicable'theretor will not be detrimental 't,r the public health, safety, or welfar9 or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (c) That the proposed use complie, �i:th each of the applicable provisions of the:Victoria Community Plan and Deva_.apmsnt Code. 4.` This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project"will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is therefore exempt from the CEQA procoss. S. Based upon the findiaye-`',and conclusions set forth to paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this, Commission'hereby;approves the application subject to each and every cond-tion set` forth below and attached 'hereto' and incorporated herein by this reference. 1) Approval of this 'request shall not waive compliance with the industrial Area Specific Plan and all applicable city Ordinances. 2), If oiler&tion of the facility causes adverse' effects upon adjacent , businesses or operations, the Conditional'Use Permit shall' be brought before the Planning Commission fox' � . consideration and possible termination of toe, use. 3) Occupancy of the facility shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall' be submitted to the Rancho' Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The building shall 'be inspected- for compliance prior .to occupancy. . PLANNING COMMISSXON RESOLUTION NO. CUP 91-29 - DR SAIMSELVia GOUDA,'DVM October 9, 1991 Page 3 ,4) Any sign proposed for the facility shall be dosigned in'conformance with the comprehensive 'Sign Ordinance an(tany Uniform Sign Program for the ;)comnlax And shall require review, and approval by-'the Flannitq Division prior to , installation. S) T.he use.,shall be limited to a maximum of three _ ;employees, 6) ' The*use shall nit have, overnight: boarding of . animals except for purposes of surgery or medical treatment. 7) There shall, be no extbrior kennels, pens, or . ) runs on7otte. 6. The Secretic ,to this Commission shall certify to the 'adoption of this Resolution. i APPROVED F.ND➢"PDED THIS TA .DAY OF OCTOBER-199 j Amok PLANNING COMMISS70N OF THM CITY OF.RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY, Larry T. McNiel Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of' tfit,-Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby cerUfy' 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 }geld on the 19th play of Octobex_1391, by the following vote-to=wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERSe NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSF..NT: COMMISSIONERS: CI T1 Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: October 9,,_1991 TO: Chairman and Membsrs of the Planning Cq-mission FROM:, Brad`Buller,` City'Planner BY: Tom`Grahn, Assistant'Planner SUBJECT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-28 - WASHINGTON A request to establish a furniture refinishing business within a leased space of 3475 square feat within an existing multi-tenant industrial :complex with:_.A the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9497 9th Street, Suite A AM: 209-032-24. PROJECT *,ND SITE ➢ESCRIPTTON: A. Action Requested: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a f-lrniture repair and refinishing use, B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Industrial , buildings; General Industrial District (Subarea 3) South Vacant;: General Industrial District (Subarea 3) East Industrial buildings; General Industrial District (Subarea 3) West Single family residences and citrus grove; General Industrial District (Subarea'31 C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - General Industrial North General Industrial South -- General'Industrial East General Industrial ` West General Industrial D. Site Characteristics: The proposed use is located within an existing, fully-developed, multi-tenant industrial complex. The project site contains two buildings totaling-44,540-square feet and provides up to 20 tenant spaces and '115 parking spaces. AftL ITEM F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT f0 CUP 91-28 - WASHINGTON October 9, 1991 (; Page 2 E. Parking Calculation se �. Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use ' Foota a -,,, Ratio ReouireL Provided Furniture Refinishing 3,475 1/500 7 9 Vineyard National Bank 5,400 1/250 22 24 2,700 1/1000 3 Dee Dee's Dance Studio 2,700. 1/1 faculty 7 7 1/3 student Jazzercise 3,150 8* 8 Auto Body Shop 13,500 1/400' 34 34 Auto Bumper Shop 2,700 1/400 7 7 Garage Door Co. 2,700 71.1500 5 7 Vacant 8,215 1/400 21 20 TOTAL 44,540 114 915** * Limited to a maximum of 8 people during normal business hours. J; ** Because of rounding uff, the number of parking spaces provided far tenant square footage exceeds existing parking by i space (116 versus 115 actual). F. Applicable Regulations: The Industrial Specific Plan conditionally permits furniture repair and refinishing,uses as'a "Repair Service" within Subarea 3. ANALYSIS: A. General: The proposed use entails the establishment of a furniture repair and refinishing business' within the Cucamonga Industrial Park, located at 9497 9th Street (see Exhibit "C"). Proposed hours of operation are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 aam. to 3:00 p.m. on Saturday. There are a total of four employees associated with this use. B. issues The primary issues related to locating this type fi use within;! an industrial park setting' �.e compatibility .with surrounding uses and availability of parking. The following sections address and discuss these issues: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91-28 - WASHINGTON October 9 199ti Page 3 1. Compatibility of Uses: The proposed use' is located within a I! partially occupied industrial park. Six tenant uses currently occupy; tenant spaces including two dance studios, 'a bank administrative office, two auto repair` .facilities, and one 10 garage door manufacturer.- one of the tenant spaces adjacent to the proposed use is occupied by one of the dance studios, f, the other adjacent tenant' space .is vacant. The remaining tenant uses within this building are auto related. Subarea 3 is'intended for General Industrial land uses, such as custou and light manufacturing. Furniture repair is classified as a Repair Service which 'may be ,conditionally' permitted within Subarea 3. Repair Services require' a. Conditional Use Permit because they function similar to retail; because of customer' drops off and pick-up of furniture items needing repair. The applicant proposes to provide furniture repair and refinishing services. -,Repair work, such as 5 repairing broken legs_, wouli9 involve the:use of hammers, saws, and drills. Refinishing, pray' involve the use of chemical solvents to strip off unwanted paint/stain and the"use �£ paints or stains. Such processes wq.-!d be consistent with the industrial rature`of this complex and the surrounding area. Ask For example, furniture manufacturing is a permitted land use MWM Within this Subarea. Therefore, staff does not anticipate any land use conflicts. Nevertheless, to ensure control over ,land use compatibility, the Resolution of Approval contains a condition stating, "If operation of the facility 'causes adverse effects on adjacent businesses or operations, thG Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission for consideration and,possible termination, of the use," 2. Availability of Parking: The.proposed use is located within a { fi 44,540 square foot mule-;-tenant industrial complex designated i at a ratio of I parking space for.,,each 400 square feet o£ gross floor area, providing 111'parking spaces. a previous Conditional Use Permit application was conditioned to provide 4 additional parking spaces resulting in a total of 115 parking spaces within project boundaries. The 3,475'square feet of tenant space was allocated 9 parking spaces. The proposed use is classified as manufacturing and will require 1 parking ;space for each 500 square :feet of tenant space. Based upon this requirement, the , applicant needs only 7 of the designated 9 parking spaces. Therefore, adequate parking exists for the proposed use and staff does not anticipate any parking problems. , PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91-28 WASHINGOtXi-. Octob�r.9, 1991 Page 4 Mori C. Fire District Comments: The City cf Rancho Cucamonga Fire Safety Division conducted a-plan check (see Exhibit "Ell) and determined that the proposed ten&nt appears to be an 1j-2-or H-3 occupancy as defined in the Uniform Building Code and will require the installation: of life safety features prior-.I to occupancy. 11bese items include additional exiting, rated fire separations, and fire` sprinkler modifications.' ' In addition, permits will be required from the Fire District for spray booth operations, storage;and use of flammable liquids, and wood working FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The Planning Commission must.7 make the following findings before approving th$:s application: A. That the proposed use is in accordance with the Generel Plan, the objectives of, the Development Code, and the purposes of .the Industrial Area, SPecific Plan subarea in which the project is located; and B. That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfaze or materially injurious to propertLes or improvements in the vicinity; and C. That the proposed use_ complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Industrial Specific Plan. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, ,and notices have been sent to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. - RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends apy`oval of Conditional Use Permit 91-28 through adoption of the attached'1Yesolution'of Approval. ' ResOB, lly subm ted, Braer City Planner `r BB*TG:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant- Exhibit "B" Site -Utilization Map Exhibit "C" Site`Plan Exhibit "D" - Floor 'Plan Exhibit "E" -:Fire District:Comments Resolution of Approval II a J OL Cc, 9�}3 q GG hl �1Yf � q W f- - L Ou Ct � ; f j� (A:L . % `' 1 I I /I I Zi �--NINTN-- tl M •atl. urn E t Ka$+•� M� ITEM: CITY OF AAX'Q OC ,_CUCAMONGA TPiI.E PLEINNiNG. DMSION ►,�jn EXHIBIY.` If SCALE: E �NIYiX STIIECT� f'�i: �. `� .-mar. .imr ..- �•�: 06 r-- ro O. —. 00 ,` 2 Q' O fr.J 0000 t i .�i > — ' .— too _.00 _1 _ COD 0 00 1 n r� '---'--- O l 00• L 1 `---------- el . K ITEM: TV OFF TCT- ,ACUCAA40NGA TITLE: N PLANNING ,OWI5ION EXHIBIT: G —7-7 E }—_ 7 a � � • I � 4 � U w Cl C i t� Rancho Cucamonp Fire Safety Division -4 Memo rf XO: Tom Grahn, Planning` FROM: Tim Fejeran SUBJECT: CUP 91-28 _ DATE: September 6, 1991 With the information provided, the propose! Tennant, at 9495 Ninth Street appears.to be an A or H,3 occupancy. as defined in Chapter 9 of the Uniform Building Code. At the present time the existing building will require the installation of additional life safety fe�ires to comply with the requirements for this type of occupancy:: Son. of the items that will need to be constructed are: additional exiting, rated fire separations, and fire sprinkler,modifications. - In addition to the items listed'above permits will be required from the Fire District for the following: Spray booth operations,,Storage , and use of flamab3e liquids, and wood working. - If you have any questions or if I can be of any further assistance please contact me at extension 2514 after 9/9191 Thank you. r. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGh, 'CALIFORNIA, APPRGVING CONDITION- 'USE PERMIT NO. 91-28 THE REQUES` TO ESTABLISH A FURNITURE REFINISHING USE IN A LEASED SPACE OF 3,47S,S4UARE FEET WITHIN AN EXISTING MULTI-TENANT INDO'STRIAb COh1PLEX, LOCATED AT 9497 9TH STREET IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT {SUBAREA 3) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209-032-24. A. Recitals. v (i) CorneliuP Washington has filed an application for the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit No. 91-28 an described in the tit1R of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the-Subject conditional Uso Permit request Le referred to as "the application." (ii) on the 9th of October 1991, the Planning commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date, (iii) All, legal prerequiei.tes prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THER3FORE, 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 October 9, 1991, including written and oral staff reports,„ together with public testimony, this Commission .hereby specifically finds an follows: (a) The application agplie� to property located at 9497 9th. Street with a street frontage of 37S feet an4 lot depth of 300 feet and is presently improved with two industrial buildings totaling 44,540 square feet and 115 packing spaces: and (b) The property .to the north and east of the subject alte"! contains industrial buildings, the property to the south is vacant, and the property to the west contains a single family residence, and (c) The application proposas the esi"lishment of a furniture repaa and refinishing use with a maximum of four employees and hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. to �:00 p,m. Monday through Friday and from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Saturday. f/ l i1 4 PLAriNING COM413�SION RESOLUTION NO. ' CUP 51-28 - WASHINGTON October 9, 1991 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this CommiasiorF` rring the above-referenced public hearir.,g and upi�n the spe:oiEic findings of set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above: this Commissio.ihe.Yeby.finds and concludes as "follows (t ' (a) T$'It the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan; the objectives of they Development Code, A�?a the purposes of the district in which the site is located. (b) That thud proposed use, together with the conditions applicable theretd, wi.a.l not be detrimental to the public health, safety,, or welfare or.materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (c) That the pr9ppsed use complies w�a each of the applicable provisions of the Development Coai; ;: 4._ Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above,-this Commission hereby approves the apnlic�tion subject to each and every condition "set forth below and incorporated herein by this eference: 1) Approval of this raZa0st shall not waive compliance with the Industrial ''Area Specific Aft Plan and all applicable City Ordinances. 2) If operation of the facility causes adverse effects upon adjacent businesses or operations, the Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the Planning Ccismissioh'\ for consideration and possible termination of the use. } 3) Occupancy of the facility shall not commence until such tirme as all Uniform Building 'Code and Uniform Fire Code regulations' have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cu=amonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety ' Division to show, compliance. The buil.6ing shall be inep3cted for compliance price to j occupancy. ;r 4) Any sign proposed for the facility shall be r designod in conformance with the comprehensive } Sigel Ordinance and any Uniform Sign Program for j the ccmpler, and 'shall reYvire review and approval by thsi\ Planning Division pi%or to,�; �4 installation. 5) The use zha.1-7 be limited to a maximum oftfour employees. Ir r. PLANNING CO.MMISSIONZRESOLUTION r.0. CUP 91-26 - WASHIT—TON October 9, 1991 ; Page 3 f t j' S. The Secretary to this Commission shall ;certify to the adoption of. this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF OCT013ER 1991, �t PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA_ r� BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman r: rl 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 Planninr'Commission,held on the 9th day of October 1991, by the following vote-torwit: ES: COMMISSIONERS: s-. t COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS. a i, \` 'j } CITY OF RANCHO CUCANiCNGA STAN F REPORT DATE: October 9, 1991 l `1' TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician SUBJECT: VARIANCE. 91•-10 - RANCHO SAN ANTO) j,NfEDICAL CENTER A request to allow a third monumer;;c`sign and a corrib fled total of four signs within .the eri.stinu' Rancho San Antonio Medical Center, located at. the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Church Street within the Terra Vista Planned Community tnN• 227-771-01,. AMENDBWNT TO THE FINIFORM SIGN PROGRAM FOR RANCHO S An^�NIO MIDICAL'CENTER A nest to amend the sign program to add a third monument :j/ wt tin the existing Rancho San Antonio Medical Center, x `eu at the southeast corn---- of Milliken Avenue and Chr" ' reet within the Terra Vista Planned Community - AT" 2L Q1-01. AMA ABSTRACT: The applicant, Rancho San Antonio Medical C--iterARSAMC), is requesting a Variance to the City's Sign Ordinance to allow a. third monument sign and a combined total of four signs for the entire site. In conjunction with this, the applicant is requesting a Uniform Sign Program Amendment to add the •third monument 'sign .if the Variance is approved. BACKGROUND: The Rancho San Antonio Medical Center (RSAMC) is an il ambulatory health care iacil.. `y'. As with any,a n-�pital, there are a -number. of services provided xnc siding emergency walk=in care, medical offices, and a pharmacy. Phase-I is existing with appry i.mately 83,000 square feet. Phase II will add 40,000 square feat. The Uniform Sign Program was approved in November 1989. The"1rogram was - originally approved with a monument sign at each of the two driveway entrances, four' on-site signs identifying building entrances,' and fourteen directional signs (See Exhibit "A"), In October 1990, the"Sing Program was amended to add a-wall sign' identifying-RSAMC on the south elevation (See Exhibit r"B"). On February ,20, 1991, the applicant submitted an Amendment to the Sign Program for a wall sign+on the wes;: elevation • identifying "Urgent Care" the emergency walk-in care. Following a review, planning staff denied the request to amend the Uniform Sign Program. This decision was appealed to the Planning L Commission on April 24, 1991, -at which time the Commission uphel:? staff's decision. The Planning>,Commission determined that_the existing AUL sign program was poorly conceived and directefi the applicant to work with staff on, a redesign of the Sign Program (See Exhibit "S:``') to ITEFT 6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VARIANCE 91-110 - RANCHO SAN ANTONIO MEDICAL CENTER October 9, 1991 Page 2 a� address their needs. The Commission also determined that RSAMC was a single tenant facility under the .City's.Sign*:_Ordinance. . The applicant has since re, evaluated the existing signage on-site and has concluded that it is adequate to idertily the business'except for motorist, traveling. southbound on. Milliken'%Avenue (See Exhibit "D"), AtnjKjY m .The Rancho Cucamonga Sign ordinance permits 'commercial aid offi a users one monument sign per street frontage n6t to exceed t°;'a per development (See Exhibit "E"). Currently, RSAMC has io monument signs, j onP-each at the Milliken-Avenue` and Church Street::entrances, 525'`feet 4Y and 600 feet, respectively, from the intersection. AlthoughtJ,Isa medical center is located at-a highll traveled intersection, neither='of the two existing monument signs with three inch letters arr"-readable to southbound 'traffic on, Milliken Avenue; north o€" Ci:ias'rh Street. Therefore, the applicant proposes a monument sign--on the the existing stucco wall at the corner to better identify tbc,-building, especially in emergency situations. Staff considers the RSAMC to be a single tenant facility. . For single f` tenant businesses,.the Sign Ordinance allows a combination of monument or wall signs UP to three maximum. Therefore, the request to add a third monument sign would bring the total number of si gas"on-site to four. The proposed sign is located on a curved stucco wall at the intersection that was intended for Puch,purpose. Staff believes that this type of busxness 'whicht`Arovides emergeri�ly medical care services to the;City is unique in., its identification '- needs. Further, the extensive'street:frortages on Milliken Avenue and' Church Street, 565 feet and.641.feet respectively, makes it difficult to adequately,identify the business to all motorists. OPTIONS: The Planning Commission may wish to consider the following alternatives to a Variance: �1 A. Remove ..he monument sign from the Church Street entrance and replace with a directional sign at-the Church Street entrance, B. Redesign the.two existing monument 'signs and/or relocate them to be more easily read 'frcm the intersection of Milliken Avenue and Church. Streetc FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Before gran ing a Variance, the planning Commission shall make the following finding A. That strict or literal Y interpretation of the specified regulation would-result in practical difficulty; or unnecessary physical hardship Inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code.` PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VARIANCE 91-10 - RANCHO SAN ANTONIO MEDICAU CENTER Octgber 9, 1991 Page 3 B. That there are exceptional 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 regulations would deprive the applicant of privil4es enjoyed by the owners of other properties -in the same zone. D.' That the granting of ,al.Variance will not constitute a grant of special'privilege inconsistent with limitations on other properties ' classified in the same zone. E. Thai the granting .of, the Variance will not be detrimental to the public. health, Gafe$y, or welfare or ':materially, injurious to properties or improvementsIn-the vicinity. CORRESPONDENCE: This itemrhas been advertised as a public hearing item in the Daily Inland Valley Report Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices//were sent to, all property owner", 300 feet of the subject property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends tha the Planning Commission consider all public input on this Matter. If,;, after such consideration, the Commission can support the requested Variance and Sign Program Amendment, staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolutiozi and amendment of the Sign'Program. Respe y su acted. �] Bra Bu y/ City anner 'BB.BB:js Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Sign Program Exhibit "B" - 1st'Amendment Exhibit "C" - April 24, 1991 Planning Commission,Minutes Exhibit "D" - Applicant's Letter Exhibit "E" - Sign�GOrdinance for Single Tenant Office Buildings Exhibit "F" - Justification Letter'' Exhibit "G" - Proposed Sign �-� Exhibit "H" - Site Plan Resolution of Approval � I i^ F. RANCHO SAN ANTONIO MEDICAL CEN1'ER -Y-- RANCHO SAN ANTONIO MEDICAL •*tea^ ' CENTER^ , a 51 bN Silt slw Medical Offices _: z7�!'t + •.+• Pharmacy -- iVt�DjrlC` zj Urgent Care i Y- (,44 non Physical The f '°°�• .rraaM 2a- m- Comunity Education Center _ww is, a Urgent Care ENTEta aa.#ift- �• ` G, J7777A craw q�wr, ,r EXIT yweryT groera` .giq.ra r. C Vul rT A �126 _) A Z ti LII_... Rk ir FJ N d z ! Np o LU 0 i14 L9 3 � Y . I IL JJi E[ 1 1 i I, Y�" 4 1K II r 1 I to ,:t F- it > d Z u �Q L✓ F F I at �J] L ' M itIL l Nil J71 n _J }� '�d � aZ ' cl J '•1 MI _ o 1 � � J f' S d� iI.a •I leis J m � 1 � �s � Irk ! 11' � ' !F 70 a �� i 9 IL CC u Ask Motion: Moved ?Belcher, seconded by Valletta, to continua E_vironmental it Assessment and, a opment District Amendment 41-01, Environmental Assessment and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91-01, Environmental Assessment and Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment, Environmental Assessment and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 91-01, anti,Environmental Assessment and Industrial Specific'Plan Amendment 91-04. Motion carried by, the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, 'VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE I ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried w w * a e NEW BUSINESS f Q. AMENDMENT TO UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM FOR RANCHO SAX, ANTONIO n ag-L CENTER- An appeal of staff's decision to deny a sign program amendment,-, :ocated at the southeast corner_ of Milliken Avenue and ChurcB: Stre!st APN: 227-771-01. (Continued from April 24, 1991.) Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician, presented the staff report. Bill Neumann, Administrator of Rancho San Antonio Medical Center, 7777 Milliken Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated their primary concern is the need for easy identification.- He said they building-houses 13 separate,' independent physicians and an independent pharmacy. He showed pictures depicting the lac-1 of a sign on the north side of the building. He indicated they had two driveway signs, but those can not eeasily be seen from the intersection. Commissioner , ijitiea° asked where additional ®ignage would be placed. She commented that the entrance, for emergency services is through the main entrance of the building. Mr. Neumann indicated the proposed positions. Commissioner Chitiea wondered if a sign should b�placed on a building When the entrance is located through another building: Commissioner Tolstoy felt the monument signs need to be larger. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the issue was not the size of the signs but the number of signs permitted. Paul Eaton, Ontario Moon Sign Company, 7777 Milliken Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, felt that the directional signs within the center are adequate, but he ,felt additional s gnage is needed that can easily be identified from the intersection. He showed pictures indicating where the additional signs would be placed. He felt the urgent care, sign is the most pressing need. fa ifi Planning Commission Minutes -20- April 24, 1991 Aft Commissioner Tolstoy aaked if the physicians were dust leasing spec® in the MEN building. - "\ u Mr. Neumann responded that the physicians are entering a limited partnership agreement to be owner/tenantm of the, building and they manage their own practices. Chairman McNiel felt that visitors would be confused if s wall sign listed urgent cars, but the actual entrance is located in another building. Commissioner Chitiei agreed that ail urgent care sign should clearly indicate where the entrance is located. Commissioner M31cher felt that the existing sign program is inadequ;c5a He suggested the applicant, re-evaluate the sign program for the entire center. Commissioner Vallette i'elt that,,more signs are needed. She wondered if the Commission could appr&re the,, use as �,a multi-tenant, building to permit additional tigna_ Mr. Buller stated that even, if the use were determined to be multi-tenant, additional monument signs would not be permitted,- Commissioner Tolstoy felt there should be a wall sign that could be viewed from Milliken and Church identifying rRancho,'San Antonio Medical Center. ,.�,HQ thought the south and of the building has sufficient uignags; He suggested,a well lit monument sign to designate the urgent care -vntrarces. He also .felt the directional signs in the .parking lot should be He thought the IV entire sign program should be reconsidered. " Chairman McNiml did not want each physician requesting their own sign. He opposed placing an urgent csrYgp any that would not direct visitors to the entrance door for,- Care. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that appropriate action would be to deny the appeal and direct staff to work with the applicant on a redouiga of the sign program. \\ _Hr. Neumann stated he would like to.work with staff to improve the signage. 4. y\ Motion: Moved by Teol,cy, seconded by Melchor, to deny the appeal and direct staff to/*ork with thr>'applicant to improve the sign program. Motion carried �lr, by the following votes AYES: COHHISSIONERSt CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MLLCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried - /3 Planning Commission Minutes -21- April 24. .1991 G _7' othmT_6-2 ?` CITY OP RAWHO{:U��9QNGA September G, 1991 SEP I! i 91 Brad Buller Pik t . Secretary of Planning Commission � ►�1t�i�t�t2a�Jg€5�6 10500 Civic Center Drive i Rancho Cucamonga, CA 917C0 i 4 Ranch& San Antonio Medical renter Dear Mr. Buller, At the Planning Commission Meeting of April 24, 19Q1;"?�aneho San Antonio Medical Center appealed the planning staff's decision to de 6, sign program amendment, The request was for two signs, An Urgent Care sign to bejmounted to the one-story building facing west, and a monuireant sign to be situated at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Church Street. The planning commission recommended a. review of the sign prograr-with planning staff. After discussion with BF,uce Buckingham concerning on-site signage, I feel that the existing directional"signage on the medical campus is adequate. Therefore, E am withdrawing the request for :additional Urgers. Care signage. However, there is stiff a need for a monument sign at the southeast corner of Church and Milliken. I As stated in the Planning Commission meeting, there is no clear recognition of i the Medical Center from the northern approach along Millman. our primary concern is the availability of quality medical care to the community. wring our first year of operation, we have . admitted and treated several Ommurity members with life threatening emergencies. It is vitally important that Rancho San Antonio Medical Center and its services be easily identified, especially when emergency services are needed. Rancho San Antonio Medical Center, in cooperation with San Antonio Community Hospital, is the only provider of comprehensive medical care in Rancho Cucamonga, We ar-z-r�IIanitted to the health, safety, and welfare of Rancho Cucamonga, and ask that you consider our request for a sign program amendment. Thank you for your consideration._ Sincerely, Bill Neumann Administrator cc: Bruce Buckingham George Kuykendall 7777-A Milliken Ave..Ranoho Cucamonga,California 91730.(714)94B-8000 �ry 14.20.100AOL v+•w O+C C.V NA L 81 yY qC?VV A W C G C 0 20 C. 0 R_O.BC .•Ai�`� a AL '��•8tl a�t'OOUQ..V+,.CW GOw G�+ I wt O •y.N =�LG 0•"1 Nd...NPi GqA .�CY■NJ.LV...aB. 06,^04OY4 wULq0i :_,V!�B'wN.qC0 9000.=qp =U LV VAV G YNwNNPV -cc;�p OA V I VW.Wi O.ijV ~q.n7 r1'90 : .9111W yQU.iL4L G CO YWUO"a 11M. .4 0 i 01 YrC �V 1bGHYa NQ.■dCNV wCAQD:O.i. ..Vw LN N Oq. W R�W.•� e�gAUY OaF�» 1t��w yO.�y7tT q'O YW � A®LGi py v'US.i V L•y OL O.pyvY.:�p i..yq..Oi CPp. �� y4 HO.pi L V Nd.~.O C000 tiv prM�ONYI LN�:S a,'w 10 JCYvua C C C H i Ed7 0� O.Cxqq� pNp aL� gOR7 w Va�CO9ea Nei, cv i �C ONC9 C CPtl NtT,ft'�O.r i q:L iad A.w UlwCaq—CNLy `DN V Nit 0 p N L~! J rti6w C O! Yt0 NY .i.V C L O�U V Vwf q U w pC p N •y NQ yy YN p9y N {NC YYCi.Yiy QgrW CV L9�rtiW■ M N G .t.ij'O g a '/q W yl y%G 0 L V 4 O 0 C O C N V O N 0� U0CY7~qqL�` C.��.Pi Vw A7 Nww 7Y b:V gA�U:Up�yp.yG ddY.:adV CcC17S N �YG...Yy 6O»Oa OO O n —_ U ..i U6 C4 CY/rp C q U iq -W �S�q E WYG t, i 0 7 1 O C !°.YOLW N. w oaU.+Ma O N Xwwo4 O` Ctrnnwt� m q=Cy.i pj w pi .L C Yp. w a:V.Gi y ooL CV C IOi Y vop�pS} os W w. fQ%w 44 13 Y .+aaJ w W Y L .Y C1 1Yn j0t0yC Op C V 7 W u t7 05..Pr V •i N aW dH erP o0i aw.0i.moo.wV. � ■C X V Q� 4O V N G. aM 61 0 �, Yv�c U YLXa VCA JJ. fig+ Oo SM wa e O ii. rr i C .•q•.i ,�c Gam. ap. - - � !r E uNt.Vi?q� qN gtyj QL! y--�VNppC G�Ia N^gLM N Q� Vw GCtJC_YY NW 'H CY y m14 _ p 7. UCW t CO+ a� fa (Rancho Cucamonga 184-2 12/88) f ,k i 14.20.100 �' /JY ^ � �MYVi �1CrV tlGG1�r CCWO �1w 3V V� YV Y� ✓ T�� 1 .�6OY YNv O� O V✓ Y > w.OL q•'170 ✓9 Nq✓atr mow.. q�Yy�u7a W✓ .C. S C w W V'.0 O. V Y M ■U N.J W V C y O �mQ8.Qa V Co iT..'OioiSY ...YV gar.;Ytoa-V O DV® O. Cr. V.V C V uqu G�s•Oi e Q a((��i LOv�Jrr q O,A��. �.^i.41 N�+J~C Y q V nVi V�01 6 G J✓q NQ91 N.VOOW Y6a+q LaBp+V:� q"V 6tJV✓ tt Yd Udq fVj42 O'O Cq..0 V.Oi-wtA W.q.A wwC aV�.L~ Y)tT ii✓ 4JI 7 N C O Y■■✓ �•>G V O.p C.•.RY. V C C Vaiw C Y� tTYH qwo O n o IZ PO G qN qql� ww Y3G■ q C ✓ U- N V.y f3w50,. Gw V C'w✓ Tq•+O V.wr q Sq �VpyO VOwGa pJO OG 6V L tnWCQY ✓ a 6U Y,fV f�Y V Cw —W-O L7 Y.it Q.-J Tau+�YYM J✓.OaNN9 V C O qG.0 TOAwV NMCY UIYVJ V9 ✓wj.•V�+V 4.GC0N _• W'w•.✓>6CY 7rA0Jw✓q Va V•+W tTJYVV VKV'O 9..a�V Nty gw tl�+Tw C LCiOa UV!✓ :9 VC V�+aip , OL.Y 07 CL .tWw V'Q_R+ q CI V U q V @.O n.r 4 O V U .y Y Q V'O qS O N77 g V q V s �.a tAF Hw pYW FgJiYc4 W�.� .0 O@H q�ri..�+Gp U ✓6m.SC NrG JW V a m ' to 9 V V JLr -q Y O - ZrV tT CxV V O J9} qx lt1�4C', H m.. „d s0r�0 7•b/r(Vi�.v�1 Vpt'.JV q Jy SIB. n w u'f pV O w�..0 m.q.Jo O •V N V - _^. qi ..r w. .•.w tniw..6gm +r W. ...y... pp gt qtT d G VC NCsd Ma- e6L'�TNO,I� YP1 ggCf�.l�. �' f 3 tY r lti B V+w y O it 0, q pNp.C Cam. (Yp1®�. -0 T 09 yW!,1 i 86.V O G.J� 6C.. �. .A tw.. 6■ Y.diO p V a' GY Y YI YVw VAt: Y Woo F reD CC 40 l+d GYa Cs F�..9 w..w Wl .c.° = O C NL.Y OC ~ 9C CN Y y Cp C7�+O9 p 4 'j CCQ C7w9� same On Y- O w....p•V Y U -b U NI Y.WiwO t.•.6iwr y�ro.b C a d.Jw Vp mq O'+ CGCC 41 T� mN�"•W q✓..0 q.OM17TA.� x 184-3 (Rancho Cucmanga A ,.2/881 t ' OlVtARI-r NEOW moo. � 303 WEST MAIN STREET ONTARIO,CALIFORNIA 91762 (714)98&4632 • FA>f..t7141 988-6376 State Contractors License#268330 3uly 31" 1991 r l `JUSTIFICATION We propose one elevation of externally illuminated,lefters reading 11RANCH0 SAN'^ANTONIO MEDICAL CENTER" with a logo to be 3natal;led on the curved wall on the corner of Miliken Air:`. and Churc "_St., facing nnr-thwest, (See enclosed sketch.) Though this sign is outside the standards set forth by the. Planning Division, it is needed to identsfy facilitleEi� and direct its patients. The sign is aesthetically appropriate anrl, will not have any negative effects on the Medical -Center or :} Coma#tiitity. This sign will enhance the appearance of the Medical Center and not cause the Center to lock Hover-signed''. It is minimim of 2251 away from the monument sign on Miliken Ave, a�&.x 2801 awaV from the monument on Church St. This sign will not be visible 2rom the other sign locationp— ,:and is attraci_vely placed on the northwest facing curved wall 'k _` rill be the only visible identification sign from the intersectiorioaf Miliken Ave. and Church St.. This medical Center and Urgent Care Facility is an asset to the Community. We make this request with the intent of'Improving the Medical Center, tha eby better serving the Community. >i1 ELECTRICAL SIGNS AND RELATED PRODUCTS SINC,c 194S �T� j i �] U W 0 fly tu dl $ � � C h IL x IL o r z r, AMk IW In I~ .O 13 r. 1 m O v - f, M� v J r U • � _ ��'es4..e�-xis- —t tiI iti a ■3 Rl t f f anteAq Na 7Zr4z RESOLUTION NO.-= A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE .CITY OF RANCH'),, CUCAMONGA, ChLIFORNIA, APPROVIN^, VARIANCE NO. 91-10 10 ALLOW A THIRD 240NUMCNW SIGN AND A COMBINED TOTAL OF 701-t., SIGNS WITHIN THE 'RANCHO SAN :ANTONIO. MEDTChL CENTER, LOCATED AT THE `-SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVENUE AND CHURCH STREET IN THE HOSPITAL AND .RELATED FT.CILITIES, ;OFFICE DISTRICT, OF THE TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY, AND MARINi FINDINGS IN SUPPORT "THEREOF APN: 227-772-01. A. Recitals. (i) Rancho San P.-tonio medical Center has fi1Qd an application for the issuance of a Variance No. 91.10�as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolutior,, the subject Variance request is ce`orred to as "the application." (ii) on the 9th day of October 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. (i,:L) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of.-this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, .it is hereby found, determined, and Wesolved by the Planning Commise or of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This COmmissioA hereby specifically finds that a11: of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are'true and correct., 2. Based _upon substantial' tavidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public! ; earing on -October -9, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application- applies to pro*_-rty located at the southeast r7arner of Milliken and Church Street with a- street` frontage of ~`I r approximately 565 feet on Milliken Avenue and a street frontage of approximately 641 feet on Church Street and is presently improved with one: medical care building. i (b) The strict and literal interpretation of the Sign Ordinance would 'result in practical difficuilty, .in;praperly identifying this public service facility. This multi-functional medical'aenter use, inclxiding the emergRncy "urgent. care".facility, ;/prwAdes' the community of Rancho Cucamonga with a public service that does benefit a large spectrum of community residents and businesses both in normal and emergency situations. „ �f PLANNING COXHISSION RESOLOTIOW-NO, VAP.IANCE'91-10 RANCHO SAN.,PSSTON_TO MEDICAL CENTER October 9, 1991 Page 2 , (c) There are exceptional extraordinary circumstances and . conditions D£ development 'applicable to this property and the intended use that do not apply gengrally to other properties in the same zone. The zone is , Hospital and Related racilitien, Office MHO and is_within,.the Terra Vista Community Plan. The MHO designation does not exist outside the Terra Vista Community Plan and this specific designation was intended to. attract a l _.hospital to ;this specific site. (d) The property has two 'extremely long street frontages alotg Churcx: Street (641 feet) and Milliken Avenue (565 feet). Further,, it ways a condition of approval £hzt access to this property be at the most southerly and of the Milliken frontage and the most easterly end of the Church frontage, thereby, creating a need to identify ;the project at those two, voirts_ of access. A third identification sign was placed on the south'elevation of the building to identify "the facility from Foothill Boulevard, one 'of' Rancho Cucamonga's` major -arterial streets. As a-result of the Sign 'Ordinance restriction of three signs, the project was unable to identify itself for South bound traffic on Milliken Avenue (another'L'Ajor arterial;street). (e) The strict and literal interpretation of the Sign J Ordinance would deprive the hospital of privileges enjoyed,by t'he.owners of other properties in the same zone in that adequate ider.''•fication cannot,be accomnlished-zor this 10 acre 83,000 square foot multi--d6b medial, ,,:. center if restricted to three signs. The restricted street and drive�acc`esa to the property and the need to safely guide a patient:to the facility from, the major arterial streets of Foothill and Milliken Avenue and Church require"a minimun. of four signs. 3. Based upon the subatanilal`evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of fact: ,set forth in.pr-agraphs'l and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: ' (a) That strict or literal,-Interpretation and .enfoxv`ement_ of the specified regulations would result inpractical difficulty or ,"necessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code.' (b) That there' are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that; do not apply,generally to other properties in the same district. (c) That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant-of privileges enjoyed'by the owners of other properties In the same district. (d) That the granting of the Variance will not constitnte a grant of special rpriv4leGu inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. It 1S- (5 ,a PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ` VARIANCE 91-10 RANCHO SAN ANTONIO 2iDICrS, CENTER October 9, 1991 Paae 3 (e) That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the_public health, 'safity,,or welfare or materially irijurious 'to properties'- or improvements in the vicinity. 4 Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth ,} paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 abovs. this Commias ion'hereby approves the application subject to. each and every_condition set forth belgw. 1:`, This variance only applies` to the third monument;Sign to:be located a the corner of Milliken Avenu and Church Street. 2) Approval bf this variance shall not waive compliance with any other sections of the'Sign Ordinance, Development Code, Terra Vista Planned,Onmmunity, and all other ,pertinent City Ordinances. 3) Final design of the wall i1nd- sign shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner,. t I 4) All lanajcaping' planters in 'front of and behind the sign-uhall.be planted according to "the originally approved landscape plan. S. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adopLion of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBEN 1991. PLANNItir, ;WmISSION 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 regulav-ly introduced, passed, `and adopted by the ,Planning Comttiission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a'regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of October 1991 by the followins vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: s' ---�W�_ r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 9, 1991 ` TO; Chairman and Members of the'Planning Commission J FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-42 - PITASSI DALMAU A request to modify the previous approval to provide ,for the phased development of a 45,150 sgzsre-foot YMCA facility on 4.83 acres of land in the Recreation ''Commercial designation of the Terra Vista Planned ;Community, ocated, on the east side of Milliken Avenue, nor* of Church fttreet - APN: 227-151-13. BACKGROUND: On April 26, 1989, the Planning.Commission approved plans , li for the development of the YMCA facility. Subsequently, the Commission approved a one-year time extension on May 8, MI. Due to the current economic conditions and available funds for construction of the project, the YMCA Board is now pursuing a phased development of the facility., { ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is proposing to construct the YMCA facility in five phases over the next eight years (see Exhibits "D" and"E" for a detailed description). ;Each phase of the building is designed to present a finished appeartcni:e through the use of-common elements found throughout the original design. Pads for future building phases will be irrigated-.and hydroseeded +.intil such time as the construction phase is ready to commence. B. Design Review Committee: The Committee (Chitiea, Melcher, Kroutil) reviewed the proposed phasing and recommended approval. The Committee complimented the applicant on the attention paidto each phase of the design to create a finished appearance. ENVIRONMENTAL, ASSESSMENT: In approving CUP 88-42 in 1989, the Planning Commission issued a Negative Declaration for the project. In that the modification proposed is consistent with the original approval, the previous Negative Declaration adequately addresses the environmental issues. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The modification is consistent with the General and Terra Vista Planned Community Plans. The modification will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or cause significant environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed modification is in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Terra Vista Community Plan, the Development Code, and City Standards. - ITDI H PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF ,REPORT CUP 88-42 - PITASSI'DALMAU October 9,R 1991 Page 2 " CORRESPONDENCL': This iteta has been advertised as-,4,.�public hearing in.; ' the Inland Valley 17aily 'Bulletin newa?aper, notices were sent to all ; , property owners within 300:feet of the site, and the site was posted.; Yr RECOMMENDATION: Staif recommends that the Planning Commission approves the modification to Conditional Use Fernat 88.-42 through adoption of the i ' attached Resolution. Respectk5Uy'su ed, „ Brad Bu ler City Planner -' BB:SM/ifs � Attachments: Exhibit "A" = Location Map', Exhibit "B" - Site 'Plan , Exhibit "C" -� Floor Plans and`,Elevationv, Exhibit "D" - Nar at ve (,'Phasing ,Exhibit "E" imetii Te for Construction Phases Planning Commission Resolution No. 89-60 Resolution of Approval Q E t (, T QVaR CD Ca. p cC � moo g Do � —� LU `�, a ga fA Jx2 AM G Atl' ' cl co LLI !1 WtN 1 0. 1 O CLI CL ga n� ! cl _ Ig IN :o o.. � 8mtit a .F tl z e aR - f,. n 1 124 8 D id g d V' �•.�.�'i.1 ! w .4R: py v -- Afth �•• s --- vi lv� ; b- - PILUIR l rmm% e4o AtO OF RAMC'O`C-UCAMONGA PLANNII�L'r xF�T�TISION �A, N EXHIBIT:a-1 SCALE. ^� F Q to - i Ag 7M' rrY OF UC AMONOA �._. PLAN N r- D 't' ION Tfr0t. Zgzw r-. EXRMr.c G°2 SCALE: c> m a _ a _ _ . x-- -- _ ■ 7 A • s . .. lob ■ ' PHASE 2 y OF NCH UCAMONGA firrLE: e.�ir f`�- ren.�ccs PLAN11 M •')M'�SION TEEM: N EXHIBTf e-J SCALE: —7 - . t { s `t lk CX • i 1 L mly OF [C\^ t t3CA JIUNGA PLANM'N - ION TIT?f EXKIBM E=4f SCALE: z m o� �5,,? ^ i - - i'- ice= t�.h�-^y(• _ •�� ■ -- is o € e PHASE .3 r O ``�Q om `; ITEN!•—gyp sE-4�AfAO F RAWPR ,:--lCUCAMONGA PLA MNG-,L1 ION TTrLE: 'iei� / ao o a . < EXHIBTf C-S' `, SCALE: - '. I �.x � t'�ems. �F,• � t t „�f•'t _t i t _ .-. `R 'w® 17 _ �-G II o= 1 �6 f.^ tit 4 tti�•}i•`��'.� �• •=''_; '^ �•y^ `'� t M --Fly OF p riEM: UCAMOIaTGA ._�� PLANNiN - ION TrrLE: le�sP 63.ral� rs�ensiyrs �� . E rr:e-0 SCALE: Fzf Q-r --,- O —6 7 a Ll ■ fig, � { ■ �, 8 n OF UC.,WONGA _ _ Fi,AN�7iNG I)ISIISION _ �J�, _ ys '1 � r r. J✓,�/LAi1lDi.1: fr`F SLnLG: _ c-k r •. ` �- .- E . _ pp �.\EE ti 1 y� ram, - Cam. 3 1 TYE'Fly fir/• � . .�(` • . v•�..��.`�. .l ` 14Y ;� UCAMONGA ....:� FLAN TiN 3 ION : _ • r: E. IT- Z°P ,SCALE- :E- F o ---,r-s�—-mr-W---84' Yff O t !•� Ty � - tit. � if C .. _J j � t In t - a OF T_JCAMONGA:: " TITLE:, o4e ag�U-.4�o i.ANI�II�tr E3I�lIbION N ;;.• EXYIIBTT:G=� SC�c - i f I�;? v LU wy ur �8 �t• BMm o- `-+- 0 Q o- - V, -fig�� Lam•- -� `' �•� � ^ F.l y C— C. _ c� Illy OF UCAMONGA YMM: ION //7/q y,I y, NARRATIVE, y�. Our; applicetion consists of a modification rE`quest to our Conditional Use Permit 85-42. The Architectil e and Site ,. Planning appro:`pd with CUP 88-42 has.not been"altered with this proposal'. We are simply requesting: the ability to construct the facili• y in phases paralleling ,the funds available within the c#ihunity., The. $oard of-.Managers of the 33 Rancho Cucamonga Y. .C.A. unanimously' suppoiT-s thr program represented by the.,,full structure and' has i'ndica�..d their commitment to completing all five (5) phases; , Tne exhibits included within our package are a Floor Plan and Eievations of the building at the conclusion of each phase, as well as a Detailed. Site Plan. Landscape and Grading Plans are ,in their technical format as they were approved by the Planning and Engineering Departments plan checking procedures last year.,,'/ \L The Scope of Work within each phase shall"be As follows,:;-,,-,. l Phase One: ''Full site improvements shall be constructed' including "rough and final grading, parking lot ;. paving and striping and- full irrigation and landscape. Pads at the &?i :zCare, Weight Training, and Racquetball Areas of the building, will be rough graded, irrigated and hydroseeded with turf. The pad area for the Gymnasium will i have a concrete slab (the f";ture subfloor of the Gym) pouxxad and Ptriped for hardcourt play j 1 of primcrily'baskettall�and volleyball. Phase One building P' ldin �d rovements include the Lobby, Administrative Offices, Restrooms, Kitchen,_ cult -Purpose Room, Indoor liool, and Meas and Womens Lockers/Restrooms. The Day--Use Locker Area will Nave all plumbing and electrical" -_.stubbed in, however, nO finishes or' non-bearing t walls shalh;,be in place. This "shell" area will be used for temporary weight training *and , conditioning. The Entry Pergola, Gymnasium, Lobby and Exterior Towers will be constructed' with_Phase One. Total improved area is 23,962' sq. ft. with construction costs estimated'% to be $3 million:including_ site improvemeiiL_- Phase Two: The Gymnasium, Restrooms.,and associated Storage Rooms as weld as- buila out of the Day-Use Locker Roomswill be constructed in this phase. This will complete the entire west, or Milliken Avenue, elevation. Phase Two area is 10,025'. sq. ft. with construction cost estimated'' at $1`million. Phase Three: Phase Three will add the Weight Training Conditioning Area and Aerobics Room to the. fry structure. This will programmaticly free up the entire Multi-Purpose Room for additional activities and complete the major program.areas" of the building. This phase will 'enclose an: additional 3,814 sq. ft. and cost approximately $60011000.GO.c - Phase Four: I'"Phase Four consists of the Child Care Facility, This addition. wiII allow space fora.valuable community and member service to be provided.' Construction will also include the exterior -play '-`area defined as the walls`, gates, hardscape, irrigation and landscape. Building- area is 3,959 sq. '_ft. and construction cost is estimated at $900,000.00. Phase Five: The final phase will consist of the four Racquetball Courts adjacent to the Weight Training Area. This phasic wih 'complete the building. Bui=�dable area is 3,390 sq. ft. and construction cost is estimated at $400,000.00. The construction cosjFs associated with each phase above are merely,estimate& and',have not allowed for 'inflation or the economic conditions'whicn may be present at the time of construction. An attached letter from the Rancho Cucamonga YMCA addresses the proposed tir-stable for each phase: i RANCHO CUCAMONGA Y FAMILY YI CA P.O. BOX 248 • RANCF10 CLICAMONGk CALIFORNIA 91729.O2,48 YMCA (714)987-0777 July 17,1991 City of Rancho Cucamonga Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga,CA. 91729-0807 Attention: Planning Department j Subject: YMCA Facility Phasing Plan Gentlemen: The Board of Managers of the Rancho Cucamonga Family YMCA recently adopted phased construction of our plarmed facility to be located near the comer of Milliken and Church Streets.:',<he estimated timeline for phased construction is as stated below: PHASE ONE: Indoor Swimming Pool,Men&Woreien's Lockers Rooms,Multi-Purpose Room and Administrative/General Service Areas. Ask Construction to commence spring 1992 to be completed and occupied in Fall 1992, PHASE TWO: Gymnasium and Boys&Glds Lockers,Rooms. Construction to CL;mence Spring 1993 and occupled'r`all 1992. PHASE THREE: Weight Training&Aerobics Areas. Construction to commence Spring I to be compliB:sd Fall 1995. PHASE FOI tR: Childcare Center. iM Constmetion to commence Spring 1997 to be completed and occupied by Fall 1997. PHASE FIVE: Racquetball Courts. Construction to commence Spring 1999 to be completed and occupied in Fall 199% �4 ir=t r This timeline is dependent upon,and may be altered as a result of,economic conditiuns and several r nases maybe combined due to st wcessful fund ralsing efforts. If you have any questions reg M'.,g'!fi.—,cfiedule, please feel free to contact me at any time. L_ ll Thomas'W.Stretz Branch Director • 'i A Branch of the West End YMCAs /8/,*' ate" - -- 14-1 7 RESOLUTION NO. 89-60 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGAYPLANNING COMMISSION`' APPROVING CONDITIONAL.: USE PERMIT NO. 8842 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 45,150 SQUARE FQ)T YMCA FACILITY LOCATED ON 4.83 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE RECREATIONAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OF THE TERRA.:"VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY ON THE EAST SIDE OF MILLIKEN, NORTH OF CHURCH STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS 2N &U.70ORT THEREOF - APN: 227-151-13. t. A. Recitals. ii) Best End YMCA has filed-,n application for the issuance of the Ccnditional Use Permit No. 88-42 -as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the sutject C6 ditional' Use Permit request is referred to as "the application"'. (ii) On the 26th of Aprfl__,:g89, the Planning Commmission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga condo;:ted a duly noticed pitvZic hearing an the application and conclu:ted said hearing on that dat°, , i) (iii) All legal prerequisites to .thi adoption of this Resolution i have !+ccurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE,At is her1iby found, ,determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of� th( Cit/ of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1.` This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.- 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this ,Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on April 26, 1989, including I written and oral .staff reports, togethar with ,public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located on the east side of Milliken Avenue, approximately 649 feet north of Church Street with a_ street frontage of ±465 feet and lot.-depth of J535 feet and is presently vacant; and (b) The vacant prooeiku to the north of the subject site is a future park and conw-m-nity trail, the property, to the seiuth of that site is vacant, the vacant property to the east is vacant and zoned for multi-family residentia;, and the :racant property to the west is an apartment complex under construction, 3. Barad upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission Aft during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2'above, this -Omission hereby finds and conclude, as follows: i C PLANNING COMM ISSIO F=RESOLUTIO N NO. "89-60 CUP 88-42 PITASS AL.MAU April 26, 1984 Page 2 t (a) That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Deielopment Code, Terra Vista Community Plan, and the purposas of the district in which the site is located. (b) That the proposed use, trgether -with the conditions applicable thereto, will no)- `.be detrimental to the public health, safety,,`,',..,' we-1 fare, or Wterially injurious to proper ties or improvements in the vicinity. (c) *hat the proposed use complies with each of the aE',Plicable provisions° of the Development Code ano the Terra Vista Community Plan. . 4. This Cortmi3sion hereby finds.and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered' in compliance with the Californiki Environmental Quality Act of Y 70 and, further, this Commission hereby issues a Negative Declaration. 14 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 2 3, and 4 above,;;'his Commission hereby approves the,application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in tine ,attached Standard Conditions attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Division 1. A painted metal coping trim shall be utilized to cap the top of the parapet on the t mnasium facades. 2. This approval is granted subject to the approval of a land use amendment to the Terra' Vista Community Plan. A Terra Vista Community Plan amendment shall be submitted and approved _by the City Planning Commission and City Council prior to issuance of building permits. The Amendment shall revise the land uses in the area around the YEA facility. 3. A minimum of 181 parking spaces shalt be provided on site. At least one (1) additional parking space shall be provided on the,final plans. 4. Sandblasted and painted concrete'column bases shall -Le used on the buil.iing elevations to ,the satisfaction of the City Planner. Engireering Division 1. Construct Milliken Avenue-full width from Base Line Road to Foothill Boulevari; including a landscaped median and the traffic signal at the Milliken/Foothill intersection. PLANNING COMMISSIO1-ESOLUTION NO. 89-60 " CUP 88-42 - PITASSI UALMAU April:26, 1989 Page 3 Parkway 'improvements beyond *,h,e project boi_adaries may be deferred until development of the adjacent property. 2. Northbound right turn deceleration lanes shall be constructed south of both project; driveways. The lanes shall be 230 feet long (inc"""ding 90 feet of taper) and 11 feet wide. , 3. The parkway and median island landscaping on Milliken Avenue shall conform to the results of the City-s beautification study for Milliken Avenue. 4. Construct the following Master p1'aa Storm Drain facilities: a. Line- 1 from Deer Creek Char"el to Milliken Avenue, b. Line 5-1 within Milliken Avenue, and c. The retention basin in La Mission Park, located at the northwest corner of Church, Street and Elm Avenue, 6. The -Secretary to this Commi =ion' shall certify to the adoption i of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED TfijS 26TP DAY OF APRIL, 1989. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF 'RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: r4Wea, nlATTEST: 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 introduced, passed,; and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeti,ng'of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of April, 1989, by the following vote-to-wit: '�d t ti PLANNING COM!AISSION '"SOLUTTOh' N0. 89-6f', CUP 88-42 PITASSI uALMAU P'pri1 26, 1989 a� A 4 ri - AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CN"TIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: -{CONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, i ,\1. - J r � 'y 8�Y t,8 co `d �ySA K b V. ~p 6 y ` O. �`a.� MNeY� B}S-`.^`L CQ. bt1•b. GbVY (dJ Y. YY 6Vyb V yyvo CMMb .,LCCI µ.`�_. p��qOB �_spp VG V' �aO�N D�yCBY > OYC •.C'>.S aCi^ eVy� VOB.N.OYGp �ya� •7 C.Y b. �Cyy"d^.�. �b$YO Cq'yi`� 0`�r B*Y �C-L�N� ShHE iz aa r Iy pOST�O {vGL-L� 4M a. N Qi M NqO B,' �• ®.GB yDYyy Y iCZ pCJ n. Yb V N� Si. p,N� V �pC �. i.M 3N.NbV.'BJM�p2. +"Y L�• % Tq y o�O,^sy�Gyp Y0�3 G�^�YwS dBLO BL.b 91ytL YCF�N C " ab >0V $B $NY`yOVCp�LSM�Hc.� P.�4pN>>�o c jcB nif�>pb3C�;iB6u��acl yV, 0aN�vY�n6O. �i�a�pYuL: �ttq8ii. _W8.34 , .y-. �' 1 it Y$'B1•p'� t 1� N • W y • � `YMB 44s CN y e` + a ee �go B O C Y wy 6a r MO 6 LLVVii yn gyp( r a '° � •�� •w � � BB.�Y �1 �3 N 'E V jib IND Her pTj p A �... 91 r �t m M 14. 'L�Y ' S.3v vG SUN...R 3 :Gy,5a vLB.N_C. aI. �i.Y7 M$^ifl `]��]•((111I T^ `o 1:N! °s' Lss .. Lu. cQi� =�='pYp yy�, 04,t1Y��.�Y ��••C.CRw.� L�7 4 AA�� O i « CYLV^ Ye q d%^�oN`. VO^pp X�V N. =u` sC `6,� G Oy:I�.N WVHt�V_Y @@eeC y•4 •`G NY O CpCC� O C L R V w N• 9 V O,a ` L w Y ' �.M« r a— f3_„ VE, `orla � aul - ,:.,Ys € Ga r Ili Y Q L G ^pp1„v� M Y qOA V 1�M. O I Y 4.�.61"s . Q o O 9 I R�'10 �Q L.00 VV■CMpyy��®N. ++ � .QY C�a 4YL • `pa � �tlLYa LYs �C33. MOB ^.a ar )y LC C IrMi^` all I MM�Y�{{�. �, i. �•'+ � QfQ i ` F a Y1 OI as YWG Y=V�'•C C aL}y■�.p�9 Ca .G.�cq i.•T •pg •. .r Ya. A A�� aYaaMY��jNLtlYYg1. Va�al7a�y a..T"ry �apM ON a.uC� u� e.Yi � 5 � C. tf PH � �agrS �c' »� +RS .N".E�rsf' v 31-3$31 ."R.3 2R 2 R ~Ma Y�.M w^ p 1�4:NC ^Y Y CtN •=�,'F• +�` �uC .mot^ � 'f p r'"� .u$'a'Sr S7 z HUSH V 6 "is b y� •. y.M. i 4 �K aa ^3 �p� Eli _fipt R a� I� aR"' Y � Ya: •^ q`s cc O Y� O yY� ~ M—�+ _N NiO AN�Lf p Ns `I� • fr y+�^ 14 N1! 31 Mg't J H .'".E a3 pCyM3 �.s�a .+y a _ R Y•p Y rs ® sii[Tie p, • ^ :" sit, g� �..�oFit�IL �i`_� . C w w 9^ . j11 .O 2—Y g � Mom• pa$�ae�t t0� Y & a a, : p �,~b..iq^6r` gp Ate. ap; `sxY w a XI j ..I I 1 yy CYC O• w wNi G G L Y l`{� u Ya„ L _C V 4 y60 YN Yy VYOt 1Q .O Nq��O YG.^.L Gr.Y Vqc .G LZ �1. ppY.. ram- Y .�,� Y p, j.pppi G` C •O C e �� O N G O.Z c A y Y N V.P Y> w W y C V.e � P O,OwC�y �� .as. Y SDI 3 M 7 V YY 0 yy V M.i N r s q Y^ • G G C . NYCLp�oy 'R O L t L N Y'Sr G N a�=Y N$Y'a 50 0.»� '3L !^�Y •vGpNp`C, w aka 1°.v GNeN q=. PG w■ ' .•. p�' y^y v�'�Y��ww �agiww G+ e�....... =«� .�.. «N' a•�N Y �c.�c �w Nmj.. O((��.LII O.� x7• VC. yN sq L OUC O^A.��: OVG�CY YYHV NLG ..-a rC w8eM «Ar ".Y. YY$fL�Y'gp`ow��al1p��+( $do��Q M� cZMori� �'.�♦ 101 �(1F.` N• im• Y rN—Y ai z !. C •` YNN�'� L O N Y PyLC 2,N GMN tN.` dY V�YY V. C,N{yr _C C x {Y} C .•. C ^w ��'�LM NlML L O.Mp �}S! $w$. yYr r�N wpC 4`1ry y00VyY N:=p q •LY M N tM f'N 3NO :ANi ! CY.2.2 l0Y O.•«0O ^ CYC h <'. M Adak C 1 N Y O c I O L^ y$Me �� CC'� IBC• �� Ere Eli FZ13. fir.2�a If $ iii r � 3l. !W"i 8 b_ AjL$ g, Vs$$ s 3ypp yy �^' � �.� �= g�M�9x _ pytV r�d�1y�.Yp�aY • C M A� gw* V 4s Oil vi . ' L e+�• YA` ^�� _ ^gw. �� -�6 o Yee $ a� WS cSN0 i.rs� cvs �mr cu cs IGod�u s�F: E7 43s _` 'i p�J �ypA fyIr 9 i GGAO Of�O C1�.. YSI to Cp=4.. yC. -a E_ y�rpnr` Jr°i cLa c �y■y■��1 c .�uy ir. �... L Y N Y O: y Y� '^ Q C Mt N F �q, t o<�L �L aJ • m ^V 1q� UCga �S V uY� Rial �� L�:e °G•:a.J y.�'azu ¢¢A $�a o 52< �{{{pa...h .1 NE, put. 7 � gpt« �j0� ypL ♦`HWY Y Is 1 Ja •r� O G P 5 `pp rC.STD 7 � u Q L �'u■C�jP pVLV CCTGA®s .^pp LA VwV� —� ICd ryzY'wt moo . Y1 �N ata3p3 QiYUyC 4��L(Y(�t LY44 O9p p�Ha }�}�> �^pp Mt�Cggg)Bqr�� p G ag{W.f l;G OLdC pGYi b'=p�TC NO1. � CC� �Y+ FLYw�C p Y ApRr .`o �J 2r nea a u i hLsn� �i Vtt I uw §3oI�.& ¢ •t .fit �, �� I..E� • !J �i �a•� ms x:3 •�q' $a�v I Me y�CYY pq W. ®YY4accn yam^ m �q�p.y�' «G M� tlC H41 u to R w'1pQ0Lp� Jt . �`p 09 Y+.�1a 'M1w Nag'. .3 Ur V3 2 i 3 gsI oL cp N. . vi ill sit MA $¢g ai C rw ^aIO ^^ r a b H Y 6 ii. �� a M Vwi p4�W r_�` W.W o ®Or >►n-+pay V� a M 9.1 Vaw1 .yJw.b sj YS41 ..wi iea. r3al � $ $ Yei aFSt E2.9 f .a Y4 I '' • •ny. i ND —rm Y. V V 22 ey 3 6 M ■CO u� sY G.1 w C 4 M �.>�. daa�i�o` +S.'rn... _ Gm `•r''m' Y r3 +^OL ac ♦♦�� L O aVs 9.m.O W OY�': L m� •QY hill O Y M4jwyL�3, �� Q lea u� �A A m11� m d�mM p m e C C aL. Y L O � O O. 0 L 4 O i1 C Y C O li m Wda S6 p mm A1. W Yq YpU g� d m. �'� yL I q m.. 1.2 Wyly+,N d�A H:M� V � .b■ • W d � �q5. sV'Q^.i � Cmfph g6mC „'V�a -a :� s :.. A o ' m � m SJ!■aO¢ M rr B C qVC a M a i. <O. Y©W p Y SAO« l Y� S q M WQ Go SS A V y K of V /1 N LG. d s g o er n� `�•/ &SUL a$. lx 7.2 OY C arm 1 Ej LEA S rr BLOC L�gY O�Jwu AV+ m Vdy' t9; Mp CM p1® ^ tl yY�aN ® ` O ~9 YvY O If I ` L OyYa G �.^ lw pa®C Ali a © �- , r en pp T S� �� $ O � e3 !•^a fiail g $-k� 4M P;. SL to q wup i O C ay. bi. •.^�,• �. li Pu�w 4 3 3 � ` •O �� `re%4MIate. « a MW ..f�.S® P �p�Wp �Y�$w tlq. yyy� w u`r mu as s -tLeo`sai' <5 a eL�uu N� .. 0;� VI 1 i - u , NYa.t v L c .4NE`'c-as re.1 t....� o..NNN�• o ��u $tl a« Vo N Y - Y w ab. V ra i 6. is LLS, Y,t�ao..'�•'-�+ wP oEy d.. �� :-$.��$� � �. °'..3 N� L Gp Nt q:�• Cpc1 C OYR Y YA.. Ed CCSC e, 2! Y Q.N C' L t v p� ^ M N _+�•y Y ,�p/ N V '� O T B L Y> 8 y i+y�N O.v �tV p yCY i�'Yb v «qy1 4G��;. a Yc�J L.9 ri. =i CVy p L� }:sYYL• YO0 \Go AS Zi �L06 CL .v ♦ OY tyy 4b- ®� MMlll �q �W>q '� ��^i ®L. 6L A9'.•DY L eY VIJ a'� � Vim..V �0�� iM " "cN.«•. �m c$ sum ��pvpp a a� «sd. .�'�° $ �� 9 ^$$ti ' 6Le-5 M�s N�. 6ti� ARL rL V ¢ f0 F NY n.0 wej� 4 p 6. + M E �o ® p V Y' It Lp � �- � � `i Al all hl�` 6 yyfa/a.. t (� i tt'' a IM= V � ' s a�'3 a �� «� .� ruoYY. ��• p r es sss r o`e�s� (qqB yap. i7p.. 6OW Ot OW N IN �1.� _ a qe = I p_ -2-7 C 1 l C Y ..%J� Opp Fbm ;M _ W. .t. o dos® C"C.Q Ysy pu i yy� �I �I n lY 4d✓ rC.3 L I':F.:1 _ tle W wu �� $2 $ 21 s$r wer c orb e�1" B ' buz OU S �` am Ii �yx¢ 2- ]ZakN"pp 'a g z-. S..gyp rC 248 12 Se � r r.p a a r _ dr;. lea v r g 2. ZEE oc Y.tYa Him F.rI tl ,r RESOLUTION NO. 89-60A ' A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOA.,A, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL U4'E PERMIT NO. 88-42 PROVIDINi, FOR THE PHASED DEVELOPMENT OF A 45,150 SQUARE F^)T YMCA �rPrACIZITY ON 4.8 ACRES OF LAND IN THE RECREATION COMMERCIAII DESIGNATION OF THE TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMFUNITY, 'LOCATED ON THE EAST SI13E OF MILLIKEN AVENUE, NORTH OF CHURCH STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APNeti,227-151-13. A. Recitals. (i) Pitassi Dalmau has filed an,application for the modification of Conditional Use Permit No. 88-42 as described in th'e, title. of. this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject modification'request is referred to as -the application."" ,, (ii) Ori the"26th day of April 1989, the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No, 89-JO thereby. pippsoving, subject;to certain conditions, Conditional Use Permit 86-42. ;1 (iii) On th=18th day of May 1991,,the Planning;Commiosion adopted its Resolution No. 91-.48 thereby approving a one-year time extszsion for Conditional Use Pe= t 88-42. (iv) 11pn the Sth,',day of October 2991, the Planning Commission of_the City of Rancho CucaCibnga-conducted a duly noticed .public ;hearing on- the application and concluded said hearing on:that date. (v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resclution have ocFurred. 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 Reso?;ut;Lon are true.and correct._ t.� l 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented t�' tthis -.6mmissien daring the above-referenced public hearing on October 9,1 ,`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 on the e_,it sir_".a of Milliken Avenue, approximat 649' feet north,of Church Street with a street frontage of t465 feet and lox '-Ie-'th of t533 feet and is presently t vacant; and „U, %n 1h ry�ht.J rr gal.' PLANNING '.ONHISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89-60A -i CUP 88-42 =PITASSI DALMAU October 9, 1991, �r ge,2 (b) The vacant property,--a the norts of,the-sub;act site'",irs a park and community trai.V, the,property to the south of the site is vacant and is zoned for recreatior"al commercial uses, the property t� the oast is vacant and zoned for multi :,,amity residential use4, and the vacant property to the west is an :ap art ment~-complex; and (c. The applicant is proposing to devP.op the YMCA facility in five construc ;.on phasas over,.'a period of eight years as 'outlined in t1eir narrative and<ietter containsid in the staff report; and (d) It is the intent of this Commission that time limits under which, construction of the facility must commence shall be consistent with the Development Code'Section 17.04.030 'beginning from the original, Approval of Conditional -Jse,Permit 88-42. 1 ' Once building permits have been issued fix: ?"aaee 1, the applicant has complied with the intent of the'co`".1ition,and may dLUgently proceed completion of the subse6jisnt constr-uotivn phh.. ,ga• t' a 3. Based upon the substas�aai,s�idmte presented to this Commission during the" above-referenced public hearingI:and .upon, the a ecific'findings of facts set forth in paragraphs l: and 2 above, this coitimissicn hereby finds a;nd concludes ae followa: (a) That. the proposed use is in accord with`the General plan, _ the:objectives of the Development ;Code, and the purposes of i:hy.,,district in wkich the site is located. (b) ',That the 3aoaea use, Together' with the condition's Pp1-'cable thereto, will not be detrimental'l:o the public he ath, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to PFOPOrties or improvements in the viiari.ty. (c) That the proposed use complied with •each of the,applicable Provisions of the Development Code. 4. This Commission hereby, finds ,that a-Negative Declaration was issued for the project on April 26, 1989, in comp�iance vilth the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and that they 'proposed modification ics consistent with the original approval. 5. Based u-pon the findings ar:£conclusions set forth"in,paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 Above,'this CommisoLDn hereby approves the application subject ' to each and every condition set forth in Tannin, Commission Resolution No. 89-60 and in accordance-with the plans on file with t;�b Planning Division. 6. The Secretary to.',this commission shall .certify to the adoption of this Resolution. r L iei4lVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF 00TOBER, 190.l <> f I PLANNING COMHISSION.,RESOLUTION NO. S9-6CA CUP 88-42 - PITAS82 DALMAU�� October 9, 1991 ` Page 3 t ) PLANNING COMMISSION'OF THE CITi OF RANCHO GUCXMONGA BY: ,...✓y Larry, T. McNiel, Chairman (l � t. .jv.. ATTEST: Brad Buller, Zecxetary / \\ 666 , I, Brad Buller, . Secretary' of the Planning Commis it of the sty of.� ncho Cucamonga, do Yiereby certify that the foregoin; , deol4tiun .wasy.falp and regularly ia:traduced, 11 passed, and;_.;dgpted by the I*Jgnning Commis;,ion cf +he City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a Yegula�;•meeting of the�k-*lanning--S�smmiesion held on the Sth day of October' 1,9a1, by the fc wing vott 0s 7wit: c 3YES: _ COMMISSZONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: CUM18S1'ONERS: 1� l y _ it ;F •1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 9, 199.1 ✓ 1 TO: Chairman_snd Members of the Planning Commission +' FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner i BY: Scott Murp+ye 1 Associate Planner ' SUBJECT- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERNI-L 91-20 SHELL OIL - A request to establish a gas station, mini-market, and car wash on a 1.00 acre parcel in the Medium Residential d s yuatione ..,(e-14 dwelling units per acre) of'a the Terra Vi.,..a Planned Community, located at the southwoot corner of Base 'Line Road ann_Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-+ 151-17. Related File: Tentative``Paroel ,Map 139e7.` Staff recommends issuance of a_Negative D6alaration. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Ac,-Ion Requested: Approval of Conceptual 'Site Plan, Conceptual Grading Plan, Conceptual Landscape Plan, buildir•q ele:iations, and issuance of a Negative Dectlration. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning* Norm - Single' 'Family Residential under construction; V;.ctoi'ia Planned Lommunity (Low Medium Residential, 4-D dwelling units per acre) South - Vacant; Werra Vista Planned, Community (Medium `i Residential, 8-14 dwelling units per acre) East - Single Family Residential; ?,ow Residential (!-4 dwelling units per acre): West Vacant; Terra Vista Panned Community (Mediuti Residential, Residential a-14 duellkag unite per acre) C. General Plan Designations: Project Site -Low Medium Residential (4-e dw,111i.,-I units neI acre) North - Low Medium Residential (4-8 duelling units per acre) South - Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per 11 acre) East Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), West - Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units pet acrei" D. 1-'arkina,Calv3lations: Number of Number of Type Squ-re Parking Spaces Spa�•es 6f Use Footage Ratio Requi=ed Provided Service Statior g 3 Mini-Market 2,�i52 1/250. 9 13 kJ Total 12 16� ITCrd{Y7 PLANNING COMK.i6SION STAFF REPORT CUP 91-20 SHELL OIL \ October 9, :991 Page 2 ANALYSIS': A. General: The applicant is proposing to deve°l p a 24t tour service .station facility cOs�Sisting of. 12 gasoline dispensing stations;'a 2,152 square foot mini-m,�-aet,_ and,a drive-thru car wash. Under the definition contained i ',the Terra Vista Community Plan,_ ser*rice stations and their relatedtuses (mini-market, and car wash) are Considered "Community Facilities." AS such, service stations may. be located in any zoning designation, along any of `lerra `Vista's major, arterials (Rochester, Foothill, Base Tine, and Mil_iken), subject to revlclw and approval of a,,Conditional Use Permit. The Terra Vi>.sa Co,-munity Plan :toes, WtWevek,, require the use to ba "separated from resider*tiai'uses byla. street, additional landscape setback, or other 'burfer' sa as£actory- to the Planning' commi ssion.'n ;I �t B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Chitiea, Melcher, Kroutil) reviewed the project on September 5, 1991, and - did not recommend approval. The Committee requested that the plans be revised to address the following conceins; .Architecture 1. The canopy column seems out of proportion. 2. The gable, pop-out roof elements ,appear unfinished and should be redesigned to provi e a more i�.,�egrated roof design. ' 3. The storefront elevation should be redesigned to eliminate the glass at the bottom portion of the `elevation to .screen merchandise that may be stacked against the window. 4. A sturdier material (i.e. ceram.c tile) should be used at t.be base of the columns to .minimize-;damage;, 5. The building' should be designed with a sufficient roof , overhang to prevent water'fror,)runn+ng down the building side and stein._hg the walls. Bite Plan 1. The property lit), at the southeast corner of-tfi , site should r:late to the driveway location. seem appropriate to cross over property not owned;by t'hQ, applicant to access the. project... } , i 9 y' 2. Somc concern;_w,aa oxpressed about the three-car stacking for each ptnnp island. f PLANNING 'COMMISSION' STAPF REPORT ^.U$ 91-20 - SHELL OIT� \, October 9, 1991 Myak Page 3 I 3. The location of the parking spaces adjacent to the resid ,{tial area,might create problems with noise, trash, etc. 4. Concern was expressed about the visibility of the air/water stand from the:cashier's window. Clear visibility should he - maintained for security aad safety of the pat'Ins.„ I i j, In addition to the architecture and site planning comments, the Committee expressed serious reservations about locating a sery3ce statior at this location because of the pro"c.mity cf futute residential projects. The Committee felt that 'chere would be_on- going conflicts between the two uses. C. Land Use: In October 1989, tr>. Planning Commission approved an amendment to the Terra vista PLanned Community allowing service stoticns along the major arterials, of Terra Vista (Ni1l.deen, Base Line, FoothL11, and Rochester) subject'to ,review and ap'prov�Y of a Conditional Use Per-hit. Conditional Permit applications are typically requireu for those activities that, because .,i their unique -ite dev 1opment and operating characteristics, require special consideration in order to operate in a manner compatible with surrounding uses and provide adequate mitigation of any potential adverse impacts. The Commission felt that there may helve been appropriate locations ailona the arterials for service statio:Xs and that the Conditional Use Permit process was the correct instrument for review of any such propo"._J., In reviewing tha 'current applicat .m, the Des ign Review,Comm ttee expressed concern about the comp�.;ibility of this service station in relation to future residences nediately adjacent to the south and west. Because of the concerns voiced, the;applicant and steuf _. agreed to bring the application to the full Planning Commission to discuss the compatibility of the 'service station with the surrounding uses. In determining whether the request wili be compatible with -lie surrounding uses, the Planning Commission should consider the following: 1. IS the design (orientation, placement,' buffer/separation, ` architecture,.landscaping). of the service station appropriate to mitigate any potential conflicts between the two, different uses? 2. Is the orientation and p`acement of the bailding consl�tent with the 'policies of the City in relation to the pubi� right-of-way-and adjacent uses? , D. Neighborhood Meeting: On September 4, 1991, a neighborhood meet%pg was conducted to receive input from reaidents on thu propc.Ved service station; however, no residents attendee. the meeting. I 3 PLANNING C_O.JAISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91-20 - SHELL OIL i October 9, 1991" Page 4 ,. k E. Environmental AssesLl�^entr, In completing the Enviranmentai<_- ` Assessment for tte pro�'ttct,- staff has it: ntified several areas of potential adverse e*.vii�nmental impacts connected %ith .the projecti First, as i,dtn an",k-,gas station,`emission of vapors from the"dispensing of gasoline is=o-prime 'concern.` The applicant hss been working with the South Coast Air Quelity Management District and has obtained the--ecessary permits.for the project. The second issue connected with the project is the creation of new light and glare at the intersection. The Development ,Code requires that a lighting plan be submitted for review by the City identifying the foot candles present on-site and allowing not,more than five toot candles to spill onto ,adjacent, properties. Plans will be reviewed tfj ensure light fixtures are directed and shie.':ded to limit any spill-over onto adjacent properties. If the project is approved by the Commission, this will become a condi ion of Ir approval. The third and fi-xial environmental issue is, noise 'that might be created by the project. The noise introduced to they residential neighborhood is different from the typical noise lsrues dealt with by the Commission. The noise can not be metered like the freaway noise because it will not be constant., The noise will be intermittent and include such things as L t.e starting Znd stopping of cars, the revving of engines, (Iuealing of tires, loud r'ldios, r .etc. The applicant is indicating that a block wall will be constructed around tho perimeter of the station next to the future. - yh residences. This will help cut down the anise to the home�-;.. , The nearest existing residf ze is on the east side'of Rochester'Avenue IJ but the master pl& : yws future residences as close as ten feet from the station Fro•^ rty line. If the` Commission approves the project, the Commise dl ;nay want to consider a greater separat%on between the station'-'and tuture residences to provide an adequate buffer. FACTS FOR '1tJDLNGSn '"In order for the Planning Commission to approve the Condition.1-Lae P(rrtit application, the'.'ollowing findings Y%ust be made: �4 A. That the ,proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the> objectives, of the Development Code and Terra Vista Planned r Community, and the -purposes of the district in wtich the site is , located. S. That the proposed use, together w`,h the' conditions applicable thereto, will not :)e setr3mental to the public health, safei�y', or welfare or materially injurious to properties of,improvemet')ts in ' the vicinity. C. That the proposed use complies` with each of the applicable yrovisions of the Development Code and the Terra Vista Planned Commuvtty. kL nlL' ,G COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91-20 - SHELL OIL (� October 9, f�o 1` � Page 5 CORRESPONDENCE:` This item has" begn adverti=e:i as a public hearing in the Inland Valley _Daily Bulletin v newsaape-., the property has been posted, and notices have been sent to all property owners within Z" 500 feet of the<subject site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff: recommends that the Planning Commir;sion receive all written and. oral`testimony on ahe proposed pro0e " .' If,. ;in the opinion of the Planning commission, the project can e desigr,d to provide sufficient buzfering between the two uses, the�)iia;niitg Commission should refer this it&a back to the Design Review Committee or direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval to be brought back at the next meeting. if the Planning Commission does; not feel that the/ compatibility, can be achieved between the uses, staff should bc ce to prolpare a Resolution denying the Conditional Use 2ermlt application for adoption at the next meeting. Respect ly sub ' ted, {I J Brad ler City Planner BBZSM:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" .Situ Utilization Map Exhibit "B" Site Plan Exhibit "S" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "D" -Building Elevations = t tr s r <, Alft r raraq iwrve .• VACANT UNDER CONSTRUCT*."- i` ZONED MEDiU! VACANT LOTS . DENS(TY RE, ENTIAL � . DRNErl �♦ - � 1 BASE LINE ROAD —SITE �--- + - "' in 'VACANT �,; ..-_�EXISTING CURRENT STATUS: FUTURt tOW DENYY UNPLANNED 1 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDEN—PAL - RESIDENTIAL raACr(40 w4so 1 _.:W j � w ey C OF kc,;'TC10 LTC VIONCiIsi Trnz:APIr IPl�L/gsil/d!►l T( PLANNING—I rv-isiON E, EX14Mrr:4-f SCALE: a 11 <C ^qW w 'y {-r-• 3.avW3lai?;3 115'nOaaOM Qt tPi'S �� d bms*r� !� • �t Q � o I tl 'DA '1991 P.C., AG OCTO -,P701-02,: BER 9 1 - 1t31S3HOOb.. ar � 6 it ri t m., n Ri ' t e W2b ti cilly OF 7 UG.� lONGA PL;AN� E ION. PTTtE: c N r EXHIETT:,O-P- SCALE: <.«.,... _' _ fir' M1y �3{- - !• .- ,oaf Izo t h = ou Lu FFF�11\� i^1�i,. a a`t4 , iat 4 i = 'mm\ , 1 �t 1V1 Y E 1 li A \r \vat 1 _ f g � e r �\ I r \ - �} \_ - � � � . . . . . . . . . 2? . . . . . . . . y . w, \/ . , . � , :©■ . CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: October-9, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Barbara Krall Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13987 - LEWIS e creation of a single 1.OB3 acre parcel or the development of a gas station, mini-market, and car wash in the Medium Residential designation (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, ,located at the southwest corner=of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-17 (Related file CUP 91-20) Staff recommends i suance of a Negative Declaration I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Am A. Action Requested: Direction on the proposed Tentative Parcel Map as S�FxTi bit "B" B. Parcel Size: 1.083 acres C. Existing Zoning: Medium Density (4-14 du/acx.: District of the Terra Vista Community ` Plan D. Surrounding Land Use: North Single Family Under,Construction South - Vacant East - 9xisting Single Family West Vacant E. Surrounding General Plan and Development Code Designations: North - Medium (4-14 du/ac) DenAty, Victoria Planned Community. South -Low 'medium (4-8 du/ac). District, Terra Vista Planned Community East - low (2-4 dufac) District Test - Low Medium (4-8 du/ac) District, Terra Vista Planned C'minunity ITEM a `rai' PLANNING C014MISSION STAFF REPORT TENT PM 13987 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO October 9, 1991 Page 2 F. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and slopes gently from north to south. II. ANALYSISs The purpose of this Parcel Map is to create: a single parcel for the development of a gas station, mini-market and car wash. Approval of the Tentative Parcel Map is dependent upon approve:: of CUP 91-2C which is on tonight's agenda to discuss the-land use.: It'would not be appropriate to approve this Tentative Parcel Map, if the CUP on the same property was not approved. It is our understanding the Planning Division has not prcvided a resolution for the CUP; therefore one has not been provided for th;s Tentative Parcel Map either. One will be provided reflecting the Planning Commissions direction concerning the CUP land use issue when the CUP is rescheduled. In addition to land use, these are three other issues associated with the project: 1. Site ex ansion to include Rochester Avenue driveway area - Staff is requiring tat the c ester Avenue driveway and landscaped area north and east of the driveway be incorporated into this site (parcel one). It is staff's opinion that only this development will use the driveway therefore, it ,should be under the same ownership. I The Devel oper has stated that the'$hell Oil Company is wilting to enter into an agreement to maintai:►;,ehe area. However, staff fails to see the logic of overcomplicatii,g the situation with easements and agreements when;a single parcel will result in less confusion for all concerned, l 2. Offsite Rochester Avenue Street Im rover;ents - Staff is requiring that the prG,,2ct construct the west o f OT Rochester Avenue from Base Line Road to Church Street (the east half exists). This requiremen,,. s consistent with the attached Terra Vista Planned Community Street Improven6nt Implementation Policy, which was, approved by the City Council on September 6, 1989. Because the policy was approved by the City Council, the Planning Commission can not modify its requirements. However ,you can recommend exceptions to the Council for their consideration if the applicant appeals the requirement.' The applicant asserts that the policy was intented. for "larger projects and not a small gas station site. Staff does not recall smal discussion about limiting improvement requirements based uDon the formulation and approval of the policy. i l Y PLANNING COMMISSION'STAFF REPORT TENT PM13987 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT.CO October 9, 1991 Page 3 3. Offsite Storm. Drain Improvements - Similar to the preced;ng'issue number , , staft is requiring. that the. proje Anstall Doff-site drainage improvements in accordance with Terra Vista Planned Community Drainage . Improvement Implementa'�fbn ' Policy (.copy attached) which was also approved by''the City Council ;on September 6, 1989. III. ENVIRONKATAL REVIEW: The epplicant completed Part I of the Initial Study. to con acted a fiild investigation and completed Part II of the Initial Study. No a6lerse impacts 'upon the, environment.,,.,,..re anticipated as a result of'this-project. Therefore, issuance of Neg4..4ve Declaration is appropriate. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have'peen sn_nt to --rounding property owners and placed'in'the. Inland Val Iey Daily Bul)et l ,Posting at the site has also been completed. J. UCOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider a inland elements of the related CUP 91-20.a and use and other issues: and provide direction on the appropriateness or the Tentative.,Parcel ,Map. , j Respectfully submitted; �9 l so H n n 8arrye a Senior Civil Engineer BRH:BK:dlw Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" Tentative Map Exhibit "C" - Site Plan Street Improvement Implenentati'on Pot cy Drainage Improvement Implementation Policy Applicant's Letter 1 � `Il I �•,li HI6HLANO Ave, S/TE e eA5e L/NE 90. o4 vo. ARWOW CITY OF . PAPMEL MAP /39S RA14CHO CUCAMONGA 's'IrL&- V tC1MiT Y MPIP u i� y:- BABE LINE ROW g: - .mwvw.r-� ill • Y:. ..es*r w.'rv«• �,.rror..- _ _.y�_ow+[:^v R Erwrr Rov raurxw tx a,vx.�m a•z•ww �.y 7 a f .f Pam ,. 1.053 PARCEL ik W MET' J tt Wf NP.Afy, 1 it M Oi'S6•D•Y 1]9.59 ' �'• M v V 1 Iq V 1 a � AREA 12EDWIZE TO 13E ADDED T PBRML It ili CHURCH .STREET I Ilz too N CITY OF ENGW.0 + s .DrVIZON rr° BASELIYE ROAD �m l 2001'TO BELVWO EAST UNYERt" L .o aor IK u ti ri N � o DhRY OF AIR EA TD BE ADDED TO C-AS STArIoN SITS CITY €F nTx. PAWEL N.tPP 139-83 RANCHO C[ICAMONGA 'irt'YAE SITE PLAN ENGINEEMG Dr 910N CITY OF RANCHO,r.�ll 6A TECRA VISTA PLAW' b C0MKJNITY STREET IMPROVEMENT IMPLEMENTATION POLICY Projects within Terra i'rsta shall be requiredto construa street improvemanis as follows: A. streets adjacent to projects shall be`;,onstructed full width to include curb on the opposite sides. B. ' Streets shall be extended (full width) off-site far enough to provide two means of access. C. Projects within the individual Development Areas shown on the map below shall construct the specific street segments designated as toilows: AREA STREET SEGMENT l Foo_hill - Haven to Spruce and Haven - Foothill to Town Center 2 foothill - Haven to Milliken 3 Foothill - Haven to Rochester 4 Rochester Foothill to Poplar 5 Rochester Foothill to Church 6 Rochester - Church to Base Line. 7 Base Line Milliken to Rochester 8 Base Line - Milliken to Mountain View 9 Same as adjacent area depending upon where access is taken.` 10 Milliken Foothill to Base Line 11 Spruce - Foothill to Elm b 12 Most of this area is already conditioned or developed. 13 Haven - Church to Base Line Note: Projects that cross area toundaries (at corners in particular) shall construct all segments required for each affected area. 04S'6 LNYo Rol LEGEND d r YI. M LU LN sr Area Boundary �9t �„ I` • L" `1' Area Number a W 1` �P ,V $ I'°" 'C @ r L na° W � 4C I LU W , Yid W lk P` 1" s' 2000, CC-'J MAC � C t�O�TltlLL OL(�� rf'f 719-7 aL Fr/�F 2�s —0/ CITY'1'L. RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINEERING VISION TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY DMINAGE IMPROVEMENT INPLEMENTATiON POLICY Projects within the individual Development Areas shown on the map below shall construct the specific drainage facilities designated as follows: AREA FACILITY 1 Portions of Master Plan System 3 and 4 from the site to Deer Creek Channel. 2 Portions of Master Plan System l and 2 fromlthe site to Deer Creek Channel. 3 Portions of Master Plt �{'System 1, 2 and 5 from the site to Deer Creek Channel including adequate retention facilities. 4 Same as Area 3, except no development approvals until park basin sizing resolved. 5 Same as Area 3. 6 Portions of Master Plan System 6 from the site to pay Creek Channel. If prior to completion of Day Creek Channel Phase III, provide one retention facility for the entire area. 7 Same as Area 6. Use Area 6 retention facility increased t accomodate all of Area 7. Note: 1. All development shall provi• de protection from. upstream drainage. 2. Offsite street extensions may be exempt from this policy as approved by the City Engirceer. drfSF L//1/E .RD LEGEND w 1�84i Area Boundary Y A r b 1f0 Y W WNa LU a 'a Area Nurn6er "'' ue a®? W t �w Y u°_ L a LM t Y A+JV u`�� LW _ /` LY .. r P LY./ ' - 'OP ` Q Lu C7i�1 Affik u 1�0© /L.L. l3GY Ic— i Lewis Monies Management Corp. 1156 North Mov wain Avenue/P.O.Box 670/Upland,611fon"9:785.0670 714/985-0971 FAX:714/949.6700 July 18, 1991 Mr. Wm. Joe O'Neil City Enginaer I City of Rancho Cucamonga [ 10500 Civic Center Drive ii Rancho Cucamonga, MCA 91729 i Re: Proposed Shell station - Ease Line and Rochester offsite Improvements Deo_ Joe: Recently We were ix,forlr,.Nd by Shell that: the Condit: .Ys:of Approval for its proposed'grvice, station include significant offsite imorovements. An investigation revealed that the basis for those conditions is the Terra 'Vista Street and Drainage Improvement Implementation Policy adopted in September, 19a9 1- (i.e., the "Policy"), AML An .auly 10, 1991, we met with staff and the Shell ,representative, Ms.. Kathy Lucian;-,_`o discuss the intent of the Policy and address its application' to a` one-acre: commercial project. Staffs' initial reaction was that the Policy should be applied to any development. We disagree and request that the City consider,the oniginal intent and objective of the Policy, i. e., to pro`�ide necessary traffic and drainage mitigation in the context of large residential developments. Those considerations do not Cpply to this one-acre commercial development: 1. Drainage: Staff has acknowledged that the, drainage impact associ..ted with this development is not of the magnitude that was contemplated by the Policy. We understand_ and agree that there _dire minor drainage considerations' which will be addressed. However, the installation of the entire storm drain system'from Base LLie to Foothill or the development of a retention facility to accommodate ,hundreds of acres is not appropriate. 2. Sweet Tmorovements: We ur.:?:rstand the intent of the Policy. Specifically, wo, note that the line between Area,, #6 and Area 47 (see attached graphic) was"drawn sc hat a '"Project" at the corner of lase Line and Rochester it l� Mr. Wm. Joe O'Neil July is, 1991 Page 2 would trigger the construction of appropriate segments for both areas. However, we submit that the Policy was `established with a large residential project in mind. This is Evidenced by the underlying land use •designation (i.e., "M" (medium-density)) shown on the graphic. The possibility of a one-acre gas station development--with' no significant traffic' impact on the Area #6 segment of Rochester Avenue was not contemplated ' - Consequently, we request tkIt the site '. � :sidei•ed to be within Area #7, (see attavhed graphic) which irequires. the completion 'of all Base Line Road impr8'vemevltsl; provided that appropriate improvements, including transitions, would be made at the adjacent Rochester frontage. Perhaps a favorable admir:.�strative interpretation of the Policy' would suffice for both the drainage and street improvement issues. Staff indicated that the street improvement issue would be more problematic in this regard. Therefore, we respectfully request a review by City Council of the proposed modifications to the Policy. We defer to you to identify the scope o-,that review. We sincerely apprst ,our assistance.. Very truly' yourn, is HOMES E NT CORP> Jo ph M. Oleson Vice President Senior Project Manager JNO•ksk cc: Ms. Fathy,Lucien, shell Oil Company Rick Mager, Lewis Homes Ken Corhan, Lewis Homan Don Thompson, Lewis Homes Mike Lasley, Lewis Homes �J ,10i i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 9, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brmd =r, city Planner BY: zom-Grahn, Assistant";Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSES';MENT AND DEVELOPMENT PjVIEW A0-20 : RANOON REALTY FUNC -iII - ;.he development of a 32-acre office park mast_'plan within the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) ��f the Indr�* gal Area €pnrific Plan, located on the north side of Civic center'- yve between White Oak Avenue and Red Oak Street - APN: •209-352-4 24,=25 49, and 50. Related File: Parcel Hap 13611 rROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of the Conceptual Master Plan and I issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: l North - Vacant, hospital, and hotel (under construction); Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) South - Vacant, Poet office; Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) East - Vacant, existing.' industrial building; Industrial ,Park District (Subarea 7) West - Existing office park; Industrial Park District (Subarea 7 ti. C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Industrial Park North - Industrial Par!. ' South - Industrial Park East Industrial Park West - Industrial Pare D. alte Characteristics: The project site is currently. vacant with vegetation consisting of several trees, neglected vineyards, native grasses, and weeds, The site is relatively :flat 'sloping approximately 2 percent from north to south. An existing medical complex (Conditional Use Permit 87-17) is located directly adjacent to the project site and the.,Master Plan provides-a: transition between the two projects utiliz=ng landscaping and a pedestrian plaza. ITEM R k _ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 90-20 diANCON REALTY FOND III October 9,, 1991 Page 2 AM E. Parking Calculations:- Number of Number of Building square Parking Spaces Spaces Number Footage Ratio Required Provided 1 18,000 1/250 72 2* 58,500 1/250 234 3 14.500 1/250 ,: 58 4 12,500 1/250 so 5 12,500 1/250 50 6 14,;;500 1/250 58 7 7.`0r250 1/250 65 8 14,500 1/250 58 9 16,250 11250 65 10 13,500 1/250 54 11 14,500 1/250 58 12 16,250 1/250 65 1.% 1 14,500 1/250 58 14- 63,000 1/250 252 15 19,750 1/250 79 16** 112,500 1/250 451 17 18,000 1/250 72' 1E* -,6.500 1/250 306 TOTAL 526,000 2,104 2,104 * Indicates the 4-story buildings. ** Indicates the 6-stcry building. ANALYSIS: A. General_ This application is 'essentially the third Master Plan reviewed for the project=site'. The original Rancho Cucamonga Business Park Master Plan provided for the subdivision of the project site and surrounding properties and also established the basic-framework for circulation ritterns in the 200-acre superblock betwean Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route east of Haven Avenue. The second Master Plan approved for the project (Development Review 87-25) was associated with the development of the adjacent medical complex and the surrounding block bounded by Red Oak and White Oak Streets and civic' center Drive. This Master Plan provided only graphics of the conceptual project design and did not establish nny text or specific design requirements. . The purpose.of the Rancon Center 1%ster Plan is to serve as a guideline for future development of this block by establishing driveway access; vehicle circulation; pedestrian circulation and plazas; building size and footprint locations; and architectural,- landscaping, signags, and site planning development guidelines. The overall Master Plan is intended to create a unified development, while at the same,.ti.me PLANNING COMMISSION STP.EF.REPORT DR 90-20 RANCON REALTY FUND III October 4, 1991 i Page 3 I maintaining ,the potential for self supporting businesses on individual parcels. Thia is achieved'through speculative and build-to-suit lot sales to individual users. The proposed Master Plan suk+divides the site into 19 'parcels ranging in size from.0..90 to. 4:66 acres. Project amenities include such items as a one-acre plaza and ,greenbelt paseos linking project elements together..:-'All._future cts:ralopment within the Master Plan area will require 'a separate-Jevelipment/Design Review. As each parcel develops, the applications wial be'reviewed for consistency I with the Master Plan development guidelines and the Industrial Area Specific Plan.. B. Desiern Review Committee: - The Master Plan was reviewed by the � Committee (McNiel, Melchor, Coleman) on November 8, 1990, and again on December`20, 1991 (McNiel, Melcher,, Buller)'. The final review by the Design Review Committee (Melcher,,7:7allette, Hiller) ,was on August S. '1991, when it was recommended for 'approval with the following modifications. 1. The :faster Plan guidelines 'should adequately integrate the existing medical complex into the project. Written and graphic criteria should be established identifying the 'size, design, and features of the plaza area. At a minimum, the criteria should establish the same features and level of detail approved- for, the plaza through development, of the previous Master Plan and medical complex (Development Review V-25 and Conditional: Use Permit 87-17). 2. AddLhional cross-sections should be proy4ded at the northeast corner of Red Oak Street and Civic,'Center Drive and the northwest corner of White Oak Street-.and Civic Center Drive. The cross-sections should identify parkway improvements, berming,, landscaping, and parking to ensure that adequate screening-of vehicles is provided. The cross-sections may result in additional modifications by further increasing the. i:L:;;:&ng setback measured from the ultimate face of curb. 3.` Internal circulation patterns should be revised to allow for adequate connections between parcels to satisfy ,;access requirements of the Fire District. This may be accomplished with reciprocal drive aislez or landscaped areas with turf block. 4. Perimeter parkway improvements (i.e, sidewalk, street trees, etc.) for the entire Master ,Plan should be Anstalled with the development of Phase 1. Tit_ • _dslines, should be revised to clarify that -when n cul-de-sac is adjacent to the phase boundary, the entire .cul-de-sac, including, parkway improvements, should be installed with the r..espective phase. t`l. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REFOrT I_ DR 90-20 - RANCON REALTY FUND III October 9, 1991 Page 4 S. Section 3.4, pageJ23 of the Master Plan guidelines should be revised to del ete "rain gutters, drains, vents and scuppers." Rain gutters, `drains, etc., should be internalized so that.no mechanical or utility devices are,visible on, the exterior of the buildings; 6.' The Committee was amenable towards a; Uniform Sign Program designed consistent with the architectural styles established in tie guidelines. Existing street monua-Rnt signs may.`$e removed and replaced with combination project-identification and street signage: Use of`tLa:project monument signs should be limited to the corner of Red-Oak :Street and Civic Center . Drive.` and the corner of White Oak Avenue and Civic Center Drive. The monument signs proposed at the intersection of Red Oak Street, Spruce Avenue, and white'oak Avenue should be', deleted. The Committee deferred review of the Uniform Sign`, Program specifictPto the full Planning .Commission. J The applicant revised the Master Plan guidelines based ,upon Committee"recommendations (see Exhibit "E")>. C. Pedestrian Plaza: Fundamental to the development of this project is Y;ow well it relates to the existing medical complex, as the plaza located at the end of Spruce Avenue cul-de-sac is a main focal point of the project. During review of the adjacent;medical complex, a conceptual plaza design identifying textured paving, a water feature, accent trees and shrubs, stepped planter(fwalls, and a screen wall was reviewed and approved by the Planning clommission. The final design and completion of.-':he plaza was to occ�'r with the development of the, building to the west."During review of -the Ranson Master Plan; .the Design Review Committee again,4expressed cfincern that the:highest quality.design for the;plaza 'bE attained and be cempleted'in a timely manner. It was the intention of staff i;nd the applicant to include .a copy of :the approved"conceptual +clans in the Master Plan guidelines; however, at the time of this .report, neither staff -nor the. applicant was- able-to locate the ac`ual approved concept plane. Therefor6, the applicant has included a copy of the only,,.'plans found to date for the plaza , design within the Master Platf<Appendix. 'Until the approved plans can be located, and toL ensure that the highest quality plaza design is provided, conditions of approval are recommended that would require the applicant to submii glans indicating specific design features of the plaza, includin,,�but not 'limited to, pedestrian paving and texture, water feature design, and planting palette for review and approval by the Design Review Committee.` Further, this plaza ' '_.conditioned to be completed prior to occupancy of the Rancon Haater Plan Phase:I developments low �l, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR'90-'20 -'RANCON REALTY FUND III Octcber 9, 1991 Page S AM D. Uniform Sian Program No. -117: At the direction of staff, the applicant 'included a Uniform Sign Program within the text of the Master Plan ` (see pages 43-49) The Uniform Sign Program establishes criteria for the installation of all project signage , including wall, directional, and temporary signs. Based upon concerns expressed by the Design Review 'iCIommittee,'the applicant deleted the proposed monument signs and will rely solely,upon wall and directional signs for tenant identifx^!ltion. wall signags,is broken down between major aid minor tenants. Major tenants are required to occupy a specific ;minimum building-equare footage and are permitted to use'establishe•3 logo and type styles; with a color-_;consistent with the building architectural colors. Letter height tdr major tenants will vary. depending upon the height of the building. Minor tenants may use established logo aad,type styles, however, all signs shall be finished with an ivory. letter .face. Maximum letter height for minor tenants is consistent - throughout the project. No more than one primary tenant sign and two secondary tenant signs are allowed on one building elevation. Directional signage was designed to be placed on-site for direction to specific tenants and will provide building.address and tenant names. These signs are designed with a stainless steel case and a native rock base. E. Environmental Assessment: PP-t I'of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and.has found no significaV� impacts on the environment as a result of this project. S FOR FINDINGS: The Planning commission must make the foll owing FACT q 4 � findings befn�__< ..=�nroving his application. A. That the pr-=used project is in accordance with the General Plan, tb� objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the Industrial Area Specific Plan subarea in which the project is located; and B. That the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and C. Ihat the proposed project complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers the property has been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the projo;ct. PLANNING COMMISS1014 STAFF REPORT DR 90-20 - RANCON REALTY FUND III October 9, 1991` ,af RECOM14ENDATION: Staff recommends approval of DevelopmentayRe�iew 90-20 through adopton of the attached Resolution of Approval and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Staff also recommends that approval of tihe Master Plan shall expire in five years, unless extended by the Planning Commission. Respectfully submitted, r_ Brad Buller ) City Planner '1 BB:TG:mlg Attachments: Exhibit 'A' =`Sih.e-jtil:lzation Map> Exhibit "B" - Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit'"C" - Conceptual Gradin441an Exhibit "D" -,Parcel Map 13611 Exhibit "E" -Rancon Realty-Center Master Plan Resolution of Approval .f VW to SrMo� _ . /'. ~. 1Iq7F 4'it 1 fo.o I... ;. , r�r_�� r- ---- 1 1 ' - MNc6N o cc COYFCE. - U �{ L.� oiLSSroNat OiF¢4 l i �-�—LAUR[ 61 fll. ,T06D IlR( ^ L-i-r E• - -- r-_- �r,-�T - Jyy��y.. 1� ^ lr_JI \ `• EUC.Li.,UII 1 L�-• ..�...4i f AAAAAA r •..( 7 � '. !�. �,• //M mow—��\!V ♦� RllllY.pEVfIOtYCNI ��•�--^ ��`\ �\ ,. ' 1 1 a 6 t SIONi Yt S i S1011i Y[OIGAI` +`� i - 1\% MOFLSTIpMlL OFlFIClie ES t•\ � � -; / -\\. IRfSL.RC t W\NIENL'-mcu el r j -7 . 1 RANCON CEKTER ! 1 a noR foR:u •"MSS1aN.L,mica wj ,. LNIlN �V� C L ZJIRYL, i !,-i Li.t Sro�autltuL ' I YaeaN, :f H •;a ��.i IL 1,N 10 ' a Y OF R*CIff,?;'PUCAMONGA ITEM: PLANNING , ,SION TITLE et K M r EXHIBTf: SCALE: ` U` 7 i� t t 1 � i}:�iyysiii ri�3r�§• � = 11 �� ' ;\ �� i to .s, � •I; U O OP96 a F- a� ems:• �, �'� � 1� a3 i��llllllil�111 i�4 ST � it � � M.� �.f f� •'y �� 1 �. /` =� r��` �..X �.�.�--�y1c i.Jere- ,L .±��a► ^raid;-;�.. j�, � pp t� �•'.i, Its • � .,1 �s•J � �. C*-: �� w Ica•.- ��`` ' ,� , wl�•`�' ru W tie s� i��—:- ,; c._ �= � �� ^•� � TP EE j��,.�j./a IR JC .. �� err a �� ••�, • j �- �r = ij;(tisFsF+ �jt =�))rt II "♦1 } r 41{1 jr tt.'it + )t ' =tt te• a tr v� P y .,�t*• � r sa..�.� �J CV) x s r v t ''it `• \ W tql` JP WAWL mv yj RR UJ LU orb � �� ♦ Y. §" t �`!�_ - +t��i v� ffJr). r t ) 151 it t a , I r • .��• � r � Via' t h W I 1.2 co t \ - silt aid arm 44 a.. ,�� _— Ft 'I� T.t` % t ` F ��s.•..—.♦t n ' O Fy .fir � ��• � � Q IZI U Al CL LL � a i ' e . i � � ,may i'�„y.^'S s" .Y•�c-�.��` x � r f?f ax va 31j' s;�• j it t z'R a 1 U 0 ®® Y C L + r ter+� i �`.SY •'�.ij-: w. '�F it D�,( 0 X—/Z n a �,,,"�'� ;� ,tea�;r� �� _ �� •--.� { •v iL',�//y/�t'r,,�...: ..J y A.. ./�/ •�`.,�,�. �: '�P�s�' �l I t't •� `t,i�.C�.]I NZ it IT 64 '�'~ C• r . .1 it y-o i h ; DESIGN GUIDELINES I r NCO I A s►ppterne,,nt to the LNq'W TR&ARFA 5PEf'iR10 PLAN C�'qy of Rancho Cucamonga, and the��+/� U�M�NT RT DY FOR RA ON cFNTER MY OF Wi1,�TO�i&�bUCAMONG.A RT�E+ PL AN,411 I"�TISION Exhl IT: SCALIE. I I! ASh all 0 C ' S DESIGN GUIDELINES mpared for. Rancon Realty Fund III 27720 Jefferson Avenue Temecula,CA 92390 Contact: Roderick MacDonald (714)676-6664 ple lb tangdon Wt i`Archikecture Plannin 4100 Mar- r r Boulevard,Suite 206 NLiw port Beach,Cry 92660` Contact: Jack Camp (714)833-Y193 Robert cclein,William Frost&Ass aaites Engineers,Planners&Surveyors 28765'Single Oak Drive,Suite 250 Rancho Callomia,CA 92390 Contact: `John Gerdtsen,; (714)675,$042 {I TABLE OF CON TENTS RAGE -1.0 INTRODUCTION..) .. ..............1-3 1.1 Purpose and Intent............................... .1 1.2 Goals and Objectives ..., .'1 1.3 Project Orientation. .1 PROJECT ORIENTATIOk 4 MAP .. ........ .........2 PARCEL MAP ...................... .... ..... ................................ ,........3 2.i, SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES......... . ...................... ......... ......... ..........419 2.1 Concert. .. 4 MASTER PLAN. ... .. .... .5 2.2 Site Design Co .....: .... ..... ......... .. ....... .........t., ..,......6 DESIGv CONCEPT....................... ....... ........ .... ..... . ........ .........7 2.3 Site Coverage and FAR............................................................................8 2.4 Landscape Coverage............................... ......... .................9 2.5 Building Specifications.... ..... ............. ..... ......... ......... ........9 a.Building Height..... ................. ............. ..... ..................9 b. Bolding and Parking Setbacks............................................................10-12 , c. Building Location... ........... ........... ....... ..................13 d. wia as Courbtards .......,. . ........................................ ................14 2.6 Parking Requirements..............................................................................15. 2.7 Secondary Entries.:..... C.......................... ..... ............ ....... ........15-17 ACCESS DRIVEWAY LOCATION PLAN. ........ ... ...... ..... ... .........16 2.8 Phasing Plan. ......... ......... .................. . ........ ............ ......18 PHASING PLAN..................................... ................... ............ ......19 u /1 3.0 ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES........• ............................................................20-29 3.1 Concept. 20 3.2 Elevation Treatment.. ...................................... .......20 a.Building Skyline..... ... ..... ........ .... .... ......... ........... ........20 b.Facade Articulation . . 1. .21 c. Entries... .. ... .22 f 3.3 Building Mass and Farm. .... .23 3.4 Roofscapes. ;.. .23 3.5 Colors .... .......................................................23 COLOR CF!ART. 24 3.5 Materials. .25 3.7 Service Areas............................................................ .25 Aft 3.8 Design Prototypes..... ............ ...... ...... . ... ...... , .... .... ........26 DESIGN PROTOTYPES ...........................................................................27-29 4.0 LANDSC hnE GUIDELINES.. ......... ........ .......:... ........ ..... ....... ......30-42 4.1 Concept....... . .............. .:. .. ....... ............ ..,;....... ....... ......30 4.2 Landscape Zone....... ...I..... ............... ....,. .. ....... ........... .......30-38 LANDSCAPE ZONE MAP............ .... ............ . .... ......... .........31 4.3 Site Speajc information............. ..... ......... .. .....:. ......39 a. Plant List.. ... ...........................39 b.Site Furnishing&Lighting....................................................................40-41 4.4 Maintenance .. ....... ........ ......... ............ ...... ...... ... .,.......42 �t J { jj l3 �� u 5.0 .' SIGNAGE GUIDELINES.. i. ... .43-49 5.1 -Concept. ... s 5.2 General. " ..,. 43 5.3 Permanent Ground Signs.. .....44-461' 5.4 Building Wall Signs...,,....... .... 1 ... ...... ...... ....... . . ......46-48 BUILDINGSIGN LOCATION........ ...: ...... .:............. .......................48 5.5, Temporary Ground Sign ......................A..... �' .49 6.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW PROCESS..., ...... ..... ....W55 o 6.1 Concept. ..... ..50 6.2 Development Revpeav Process...........:...........`.%. .............. ... .....50-54 ' 6.3_' Submittals and Approvals.,... ....54 6.4 Appeals. ..:................... ..54 ASk 7.0 ENDIX , 7.1 Building Envelope Plan 7.2 City of Rancl3a Cucamonga Xeriseape Ordinance l++f` n4 >s j I LL ��++ :}j ( l Q 1.0 'INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Intent r The Wrposeof the Rancon Center/Design Guidelines is to su pplemer4 the Industrial Area Specific Plan for Rancho Cucamonga and the Development Study for the original Rancon Centerproje��t-and provide a more detailed framework for site specific development within Rancon Center. The intent _ of the condensed format of the gguidelines is not to repeat text from the above mentioned documents. 'fhe individual elements of the guidelines state the design objective and then provide specific criteria for achieving the designated objective. 1.2 Guals and Objectives At present,the Rancon Center site is surrounded-'by developmentw'sth a homogeneous mix of architectural styles,materials and quality.,The goal of these guidelines is to re Rancon Center the position of preeminence in the area. Adhererce.to these strong,clear design guidelines will provide Rancon Center the identity and"sense of place"so necessary to its aesthetic and financial success. These minimum standards are by no means intended to be the only template of desiggn. A discretionary Development Plan Rev:ew Process will ensure that the fandtimental concerns addressed in these guidelines are consistentlyimplemented,with maximum quality control by°each :project _ q ty 1 P )' developed within Rancon Center. 1.3 Project Orientation The Rancon Center is a 3314 acre business}lark project locate I within the greater Rancho Cucamonga Business.Park,.-+paftr of the rapidly-developing southwest area of the City of Rancho Cucamon .L The project area is encompassed by Red Oak Street on the west,White Oast Avenue on the east,and Civic Center Drive on the south tsee page 2). The'specific prciect site is officially Parcel 3 and a portion of Parcel 2 of Parcel Mats .0696,P.M.B.120 pages 8 and 9,San Bernardino County(see page 3)• IL LH � 0 I ,, I, ,L� i iLU f$ � i � � ^ /1:---' �---�"(,•��-I,�I{ �?sue, ��LJ �� j a I "� c �•� fX/t * --AVEMIR iccl a .Iv Of u17. is fill, f °aid edy9Et n I_ ��t , e g so froi4i� yyS�s ffi Q5E � i if i 3 3.a: OQe ¢�i wldi 2. � L1 � •_ - -�� _p� ige41 lBdjjd LL ® �m �� Id1^ 1 k Q .a i 555111 1 LU ui a �,\ '4'_-+� ' •♦� Wit: A•� �t , rt��g Ci{ :i.._ ' I ,•y 2.0 SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES 2.1 Master Plan Concept The proposed master plan for Rancon Center includes a combination bf two story,four story,and six story office buildings,each varying in parcel size, building heights,and densities(see pa a ). This pplan rs the main vehicle t by which the basic des!gn concepts of the perimeter landscape motif,the greenbelt/pedestrian link,the reiajor entry pants,the available view corridors,to centrally located plaza,and the common courtyard are realized. Exh parcel on this plan bas'been strategically located to insure convenient access,beneficial views,and to includea portion of the greenbelt/pedestrian link. The master plan shall integrate the wasting medical campus,located contiguous to the northern portion of the properly,into the proposed development. This integration shall be achieved through adherence to the following guidelines: The proposed building placement on parcel 18,adjacent to the medical campus,shale be symmetrical to the a dsting three-story medical office building as shown on the master plan{sue page 51. This building placement shall be consistent with the previously approved Master Plan (DR 87.25 and CLIP 87-17),and shall define this area as one of the project's focal points. • The proposed building footprint on parcel 18 shall forma 116 deRtee an month the existing medical office building footp�in,and shall have the same Length(225 ft)tootprint as the PWAing medical office building footprint. • All buildin setbacks on parcel 18 shall be consistent with the existing medical o ce building setbacks. There shall be pedestrian linkages in the form of passes (greenbelt/per]estiian link)betwee-z a existing medical campus and t e proposed development to fdlrtL . _.itegrate the two developments. • There shall be a common courtyard located between the existing three- story medical office building,and the proposed building on parcell8, providing pedestrian amenities and creating a focal point for bath develr'•oments. The size,design,and focallandscape features of this courtyard shall be consistent vMth the previously approved Master Plan and medical'campus(DR 87-25 and CUP 87-17) See Appendix for the enlarged detail plan. Rancon Realty Fund ill shall install and maintain ' this courtyard sim?iltaneous to phase 0(see page 18). 11 i 116° MAROK COURTYARD GREEHBELYJ'FEDiS61 i. S u uj l ;�• _ iS �V 7pp, izi 1 F t� Z JI ea n � g s- c 4421 d VP qP Q:ti e - T \, F d9 . . i F- F-1 -� if ° 0 � fC-23 ' 2.2 Site C,6sign Components ANAL The master plan concept fyy'�r Rancon Center envisions a,fi z rve,well integrated development achieved by,careful design and/ (�IementationG)f four basic design corn oven%all ofwhich con uteV solidifying the o master planned identity of the Rancon Center and pro ect➢ng the necessary image so vital to its success(see page 7),The myor esign components area.3 follows: a. Street Parkway A common parkway with landscape and a textured meandedrity sidewalk shall circumscribe the site along Red Ciak Street,White bait Avenue and CiNic Center Drive.. The combination of a limited plant palette,and a textured meandering sidewalk shall serve to visually unify the project This landscape,-concept is consistent with the surrounding areas. (See Landscape Guidelines,Section 5.0.) b. Greenbelt/Pedestrian Link The development scenario shall include an internal greenbelt/pedestrian link toward which buildings shall ha oriented,and provide grade separations between parcels. This design fR.-{'re shall provide a safe,pleasant interior pedestrian connection froi;yale office buildings to the centrally located plaza,to the existing medical campus and to nearby restaurants so.W retas-areas north of the site aloeg Spruce Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. The pedestrian link and plaza shall c-main HC,,Aing and site furniture compatible with the surrounding architecture. (See Landscape Guidelines,Section 5.0 for more on plaza and pedestrian clink concepts.) c. Architectural Controls Architectural unity shall be achieved through selective design control with respect to building character and materials. (See Architectural Guidelines Section 4.0) d. i na Both ground and building A nage shall be controlled to ensure continuity,Onsistency,anAammony with the master planned architectural quality of Rancon Center. (See Sign Guidelines,Section 5.0) � I -2-5t _ _ DUE TO THE ORIGINAL COPY BEING A COLOR �) XEROX 'THIS S14EET 'DOES NOT COPY CLEARLY. Sala = v 3 •~' )y. �i 2.3 Site Coverage and Floor Area Ratio f} Site coverage and F1 nor Area Ratio(F.A.R.)ara important components in creating a distinctive environment for Ranwn)Center. By limiting the site coverage and F.A.R.,a portion cif each parcel shall be devoted to pedestrian- oriented landscaping,compatiole with the overall greeniiettjpedestrian link theme. It also establishes a higher percentage of overall landscape coverage,creating a"Campus Gke Setting",, • Site coverage is determined by dividing the total building pad coverage at grade by the tatal gross site area. • Building pad Brea at grade shall not exceLA 25%of the site. ��u eAr r r TOTAL OR066 OFM AREA I f • The Floor Area Ratio is deterftr vzd by dividing the total gross floor area of the building by the total gross site area of the parcel. • The FAR.shalt not exceed 65%lor 65 of the ite; I !i rROMW LINE SM UM:F.A. toTAr.su�anta TOTAL 3RO115 MITE AREA ' 8 X_Z6 0 2.4 Landscape Coverage tr: A unifying';'-ampue them&shall be created by a comic on ggreenbbelt/ppedestrian link which traverses the site. As stated in Site;. Coverage/F.A.R.on ppage 8,a portion of each parcel shall be devoted to'a complementary landscape'des�gn that reinforces this landscape theme. In order to establish,a"Campus.Q e Setting" site plans scull exceed the 0, minimum net lot landscape edviaage requirement: Each parcel shall'have a`n.inimumi of 25%net!andscape"coverage (includes Pa.-king area landscape coverage), The cammon'i�reenbeit/pedestrian link shall be developed on a portion"Af eacCi parcel,and is to conf&m.with the overall site ;',i planningg and landscape gguidelines. Development of each parce'- ggreenbelt/pedestrian IinLc shall be,subjectto•approval by Rar f Realty Fund Ill and the City. `ihis`greenbeIVpedestrian link slWA include a Ave foot meandering textured sldewalk,z,�thway elements(trellis},drinki�ig fountains,trash receptacles,benches, "and adequate lighting(see Landscape Guidelines page 32). • Parcel owrks shall be responsible for the design and construction of the porti6h of the greenbelt on-their properFy prior to building final and<prior to building occupancy. Provislo'n shall be made by., Rancon to connect pow'sr and water to each development as individual greenbelt implementat!*^"is completetl. ` 2.5 building Specif1cat)ns. r, a. Building Hei t Building heights shall range from low to mil'-rise throughout ganeon Center. Definitions and limitations are, flows: • The low rise buildings consist of 2 story.office buildinggs,and the mid-rise buildings consist of 4 and S story office buildings: • Al!buildng heights exceeding 4 stories or 75 feet,as measured from finished grade,shall require a Conditional Use Permit. Building heights exceeding stories or35 feet,as measured from finished'i rac7e,shall require a one(1)foot setback,measured from ultimate lace of Lurk-f "each additional one(1)foot in building height. This ie6i.k need not exceed 70 feet: n :Builtlin height shall not exceed 6 stories or 100`feet(whichever is greateryfrom finish J�—ade to top of penthouse parapet. 9 b. Building and Parkine Sotbacks LBuilding and parking setbacks have been established to provide G�nsistency within site planning. All setbacks shall be fully landv Aped !n a mariner compatible vvi;h the landscape design. Setback cr--teda incledes• • All building am Parking setbacks are measured from ultimmate face of curb(see exhibits and summary on page 11). • Public Right of Ways(R.O.W.),or parkways for Civic Center Driver Red Oak Street and White Oak Avenue are!ucated 12 feet from 'timate face .of curb. R.O.NV.'s for all cull-de-sac are located:1 feet from ultimate face of curb • Tt:e aver2ryeJandsca a depth for Civic Center Drive,Red Oak Street anc�White Oak Avenue shall be 25 feet,as measured from ultimate face of curb • All ing lot setbacks lbcated adjacent to perimeter street pa parkys shall be adequately Ian soaped to insure these areas are screened frnm adjacent street views(see Parking Lots Landscape, page 36). ULTIMATE FACE OF CURB .STREET R.O.WJ PROPTEfRTY LINE 2 PARKING LOT _ �� ULTIMATE FACE OF CURB 81 MEAN NDZIU I 9 WRING LOT ` � , STREET q.O.WJ ELK PROPERTY LINE. 1 RED OAK AVEJ WHITE.OAK AV SIDEWALK ER CIVIC CENT DR. , 1T r LANDSCAPE ALL CULS-OE-VACI MAVUENTRIES PARKING LANDSCAPE 4' 4' Tom--LANDSCAPE ta• PARKING SETBACK. awKWAY �' ULTIMATE FAA OF CURB 'PARKWAY � � STREET R.O.WJ I 1 I.TIMATE FACE PROPERTY LINE ,q * O?CURB • MEANDER 1 STREET R.O.WJ 4' ING � 1 SIDEWALK PROPERTY LINE RED OAK AVEJ BUILDING ` WHITE OAY AVEJ'' I -Civic CEI,E R BUILDING ♦ SIDEWALK. R O { I ALL cull-DE-BACI M1.,N ENTRIES • YJ LANDSCAPE - '.� 20 iAN- OSCAPE 4'� T't-3-r-LANP,r.�.APE j(, —� BUILDING BETCACK. i 6UlUN0iN0 SF70ACK l.. - o. t:. to tt o -a » .• r :i SETBACK SUMMARY ',Rancho Cucamonga Average Street Parking Minimum Laridsc3pe Depth Street Classification Setback Building Setback If X6 L%Mm to 6ce of C-) (1) Civic Center Dr. Arterial 20 feet 35'(23'from R.O.W.) 25' (2) Red Oak&White Oak St Secondary 229,feet 35'(23'from R.O.W.) 15' (3) (All.cuts-de sac) Local Industrial i 15 fe l 3t'(20'from R.O.W.) 20' so' i PARNINO. TRACK ULTIMATE FACE 12'PARKWA If -LANOBCAPe PARQNO SETBACK ' OF CURB. I .STREET RA.WJ 1r I PROPTERTY LINE I ,t 11NDSCAPE 4' If "KING Li IT '/ STREET R.O.WJ '"ARKWAY ULTIMATE FACE I I PROPERTY LINK 1 OP CURB RED O W AK AYuLI AML HITE OAK IVE 'CIVIC CENTEa (--L•1 SLOPE .PAN KIND LOT ; • i1EAN0EAIp0 SIDEWALK, VARIES ARIE3 0. } -Q ':A4 CULS-OE-SAC! MAIN ENTRIEG b' 7 .SIDEWALK�+�. LANDSCAPE t4� SS BUILDIHO SE'BAOK 1T - �-* t -Sf SUILIL'OINOSETBACK PARKWAY ULTIYdTE FACE' . ,LANDSCAf�E 20' 7t OF CURB- STREET R.O.WJ T.AI'.3ECAPE —WAY ' PROPERTY LIKE STREET R.O.Wl ULTIMATE FA:E PROPERTY LIIL` OF CURB 'BIRLDINO BUILDING �p ..RED OAK AVEJ , WN:TE.OAK AVE �,�„_ I :ALL CIILS•DE-SAC! CIVIC CFNTER DRa 2:1 SL21PE t l.. MAIN ENTRIES �.6.4t7VAM511)1EMHQ VARIERr MDEWALK SIDEWALK 1 1' T LANDSCAPE 'I - a a le to o s 1e to C7 • A minimum interior side yard setback shall be 5 feet • in cases where parking lots.meet atint orpparcel lines,a five foot landscape setback shall be required where the parking abuts the property line(see exhibit below). • Emergency fire apparati s access easements(26 fee minimum), shall b'provided along:several interior parcel limes in the parking lot areas(see Parking Lot Landscapep page 37). 10 INTERIOR PARKING SETBACK 5' S' LANDSCAPE STRIP \ PARKING LOT ': PARKING LOT INTERIOR PARCEL LINE t- 12 a }.` -3 0 �V4 } it l c. Building Location' All residual open space shall rd--,arce the designed project ggreenbelt/pedestrian link. This shall be realized by adhering to the following�ujdelines: • All proposed buildings shall.be located in the designated areas shown on the Building Envelope Plan below(see Appendix for, enlarged plan). • To take full advantage of its amenities,buildings shall be located adjacent to,or nearthe greenbelt/pedestrian rink. '.�'��• 11 ('"- - ty Q J i • @ f •y 0 ' {'-.-1^ — —= —- •, j 1=ENVELOPE \\ "� �tatE�uncrxsrrtunrLINK 'y n 5 PARXPC AREAS 141 t 11 Cal �' BLKDMl �ENVELOPE PLAN LE @_. Q J -- 6 fi rLr tr-r �1 • Bu ldi%s shall be"off-sett"to minimize views directly into an _ opposingg building. Wherever possible,building shall'avoid being located directly adjacent to ene another. When buildings are directly vis-a-ws,a 60 foot minimusti'landscaped distance shall be grovided for three to six story build ng.s,and a�0 faot minimum landscaped t.stance shall be pcavidet7 for one and two story ' buildings. �.�nea at•teies klsw; !v tSN. _. .: 0 to!stgry befMap ak"Mf , -Un"hem ins a AUW aatata¢ 6U-MG PlOd76YMAN _ iULDfNO �,� ~'WEL TT UUa :PROMTT LUM '^3Et!!KalLT! - PaOlRAtaN L3MK - t 1 .. �.�3t2tl�� taalaww diettatas NMswt All wtlllrctt.et eanws AEUwq 1ltvap t to a aim �I a !S all '900 J 13 /4�'3 Building orientation shall allow for adequate wind protection at ail AM building entrances. Special ccasideration shall be given to the Santa Ana wind condition often prevalent in the Rancho Cucamonga area. Where possible,design solutions shall be used to reduce wind flow to plazas and building entries to-assure a pleasant setting. • The use or combination of berming,landscape materials,low level wall extensions;and building mass shA be used to screen buildid g entries and pedestrian plazas from strong Santa Ana i WIND TECTED:AREAS TO BE WIND PROTECTED HY TREES � AND SERMINO SANTA ANA WINDS _III 0 25 90 100 BUILDING ENTRIES TO SEWIND PROTECTED BY TREES AND.HEDGES OR WALS„,EXTENSIONS d. Pedestrian Plazas&Courtyards r individual building design shall attempt o create an attractive,. comfortable,and functional setting with a"sense of place% This shall be accomplished by Incorporating pedestrian plazas and courtyards that utilize the fo11,o nng: • Distinctive pavementtwduring • Comfortable seating area a • Partial shaded areas • Agreeable landscape treatment • Defined/enclosed spaces Santa Ana%vind;protection WIND PROTECTED COURTYARD GREENBELT/ PROPERTY LINE FEOEBTR!' LINK 2.6 Parking Requiremejts Sufficient on-siit�parking shall be provided to accommodate all vehicles associated with Ae use of each lot at any one time,thereby avoiding overflow parking into other.company's lots or onto public struts. Incentive programs such as ride share,van pool,and;i:ar pool shall be encouraged to reduce traffic generation. a. Parking Ratios: • Office and Administration one space per 250 gross square feet • 20'/o to 35%of all required, paces must be devoted to compact car use. (See parking geon�etncs below for.dimensions.) • All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards. b. Parking Geometrics Paring=Stalls Dimensions Standard 9'x 19'(a one foot reduction in length permitted when vehicle fronts overhang into landscape areas. The landscaped areas must have.:;minimum dimension of 5 feet) :. Compact 'a,x W(20N;G to 35%of total parking spaces) Handicap 9'x VY(includes a five foot striped zone between stalls) All parking lot landscape islands shall' ~3e a minimunf buts de dimension-of 6 feet and shall contain a inch walk adjacent to the parking 5taii=including curb). 2.7 Secondary Entries(Access Driveway)Locations Access drives shall I"s located such that vehicular traffic enteric. and leaving lots,as well as through traffic,flows,efficiently(see page 16). Additionally,' the continuity of street-side or perimeter landscaping shall be minimally, disrupted by access-drives. Secondary access entries shall occur along Red Oak,White C sic and Civic Center Drive,directly aligned to driveways on the?,t opposite side of the street,at a minimum distance of 300(64 apart Qr 2Ct3 feet minimum distance from Set,mn neof r ib Radius(BCR)at intersections. (See Access ar Driveway Location Plan on page 16.) • Where possible.access drives shall be coordinated with adjacent lots to minimize impeding the flow of peak period traffic. Adequate separation of adjoining access drives shall be included. • Primary entries/cuts-de-sac shall occur opposite Aspen S''et, Spruce Street,Elm Avenue and midway between Red Oak Street qV and White Oak Avenue on Civic Center Drive(see'page16) These entries ,hall include access driveways. 15 9 �6 - 7 cr .twu NO e i LLJ LLI 3 a m ca V fs o 2- ct cr co coUJ Co P9 co V b• C3 V. J W Lu to .4l1 tJ Stacking distance from the street face of curb to the nearest edge of parking stall per endicular to the drive aisle shall be a n'iinimum of 50 feet for the driveways along Red Oak,,White Oak,z id Civic Center Drive(see access driveway exhibits below). Driveway Dimensions Width Length Access Driveways 35'without median ;-%'rnin.(to ` it, *50'with median Drive'�'4sles 26' Varies *Two,20 faptwide,thrive aisle separated by a 10 footmedian. 'w+ecu+a urcuw_ PAMOM Lam ti:: ntscr Raw t ft"An= E--.—MVZ AMR f6.� HAH Of am - t l 4 I< < RED CM AM arse sarssu rR. exau swsraR- e'; n is w 2.8 Phasing Plan Rancon Center shall be developed in six phases ri!tlandscape requirements within each phase of the developmerir,eluding the ggreenbelt/pedestrian;link shall be c&npleted'simultane6Uslyto the development of each"phase. Specific responsibility for la.dscape construction shall be as follows: �1 Parcel owners shall be responsible to install the total landscaping requirements of their parcel,including the greenbelt easement within their property. I • Portions of the greenbelt system.which fie on vacant parcels adjacentto i" the phase or parcel under deg—_�,iipment shall be completed by Rancon or the current adjacent property owners. (see Phasing Diagram page !( 19). L . ' r Each cul-de&sac,shall be installed,including the parkway improvements, simultaneous to the adjacent phase of develWment. All perimeter landscape construction and the centrally located plaza shall be installed and maintained by Rancoz-Aealty Fund ill in accordance with the following phasing plan? , Phase I shall include the southeastern portion of the property, consisting of four 2 story office buildings on approximately four acres. All perimeter parkway improvements(i.e.sidewalk.street trees,etc.)for the entire master plan,and cul-de-sac,Street"C' shall be installed during the development of Phase l.: Phase II s wilt begin on corn, -Moh of Phase I and shall include the , southern,portion of the property. This phase shall include approximately eight acres and consists of seven 2 story office buildings and the centrallylocated plaza. Cul-de-sac,Street"8" shall be installed during this phase. Phase III shall include the norhem parcels along Red Oak Street to include parcels 17 and 18. This phase shall consist of one 2 story office building and one 4 story office building on approximately five and a half acres. Cul-de-sac,Street"A."and the common courtyard between the medical oAce building and the proposed 4-story office building shall be installed during this- phase. Phase IV shall include the northeastnm portion of the property and consist ofa 2 story office building and a 4 story officebuilding on approximately four acres. Phase V shall be the scuthwestem portion of the property and also consist of a 2 story office tauitding and a 4 stogy office building on approximately,four acres. Phase VI shall complete the project with a 6 story office building on the western portion of the property on approximately four and a half acres. (See,Phasing Plan.diagram on pace 19) 18 <7- (1 - (Qi } • JJ�r1 d `LJJ 'R�' .i Y. J... � �LL� }'f ,f•, }¢..• et r . S cJ �� Hry �j Y4 � � �w_Y��.{J'JJ ,(vJJ.i ,+j�L •. ;Y•_ � CIVIC CENTER®RIVE PHASiNG RAN "M73 E:'Simultaneous to the develo t of each phase,Rancon Realty Fund III or the current property,owners shall complete the construction of ¢Sil adjacent grcinbelt landscape re9Lirements on vacant or undeveloped parci"6. �=f,,' E i f 3.0 �i2CHITECf4lRAL GU1DEIiNES AOL �A Concept i c The intent:`These AXchitec( ral Guidelines is to insure a sense of harmony 4;1 and continu'►ty within Ranc&'-Center white allowing for the Individual expression of each building. The site requires a well defined program to assure its identity and unity as the premier complex-of the area. The architecture of Rancon Center shall pprc ect a mod erri imia a afintegri�y timelessness,and restra?r.2a'elegance. &A project shall be,iesigned sited with sensitivc)regard to climate,context,and proper use of materials and form in an honest expression of function as well as aesthetics. This document is mean rto become a fixed template,in which each building's. 4 individual expre,,�s.an can thrive,and become a cohesive and integrated part of the master plan. 3.2 Elevation Treatment a. Building_Skyline Particular concern must be shown to ensure the roject's eventual skyline is varied and stimulating. This shall be faeilitated;by the —; 1�fo owing concerns: • Building designs shall avoid uniformly flat silhouettes. Penthouses and mechanical screens'shall not be"afterthoughts" but shall relate in form,material,and colorto the building. in tegration'of pectihouses and meth,nical screens into an overall architectural concept is�quired.-kkhitectural elements such as advertisement signage, of--scale flagpoles,etc.shalt not be permitted. r 'I<-3 Itu_ b. Fa ad`, rticulation qP Building facades shall be designed in a contemporary manner through the use of form,light,shadow,texture and color: • Windows shall be,differentiated from spandrels and no more than, fifty percent of the exterior Area shall be in glass. Large glass and/ol"large spandrel areas shall not be perrnitted: • Materials,textures,color,patterns,reveals,control joints,etc., shall be consistent with the overall architectural concept. Detail.F or elements that.appear arbitrary,added-on,.or out of scale shal{ not be permitted.'The detailing of the project shall express a sense of sophistication and elegance. • All building features must exhibit an office style f".6itecture regardiess of the;vpe of use or equipment cone fined within the budding on the site\ • Architectural planes:sii,,I!have variation in depth and angle to is create variety and interesOn the basic form and silhouette of the ;y building. 3` F - 6,YU a v"nuTT .;r W t VAR=DEm Amb Af OI= GL6T6M0.Tl C1 YATELILASS fLtla 1E7rC{7p1gS TO"CNRiCT S"PLAN" rry f, � - a , g « 1 �. 21 ,�-3 • Sensitivity to solar orientation,prevailing winds and immediate\ architectural context shall be requir-d. Deeply recessed and articulated windows ane 'iZuired. The use of �cseptable shading Jevices or-other techi Iyueslo improve the b� �iin�s ene performance,while creating architectural varie±y�'and visuaT interest,is required. • Glass boxes or monotonous facades,void of a sense ofscale shall _not be permitted. Arbitrary decarative,stylized,or token `historicism of architectural elements shall not be permitted. "Period"build'.4 s shall not be aili: ved. • The use of architectural elements such as arcades,colonnades and covered walkways that define and organize space shall be required. Flush surfaces anc continuous cladding materia.z brought straighi,into die gra^nd without transition shall not be permitted. Building enu Ices shall be well articulated,and project a formal entrance staterhe-t through a variation of architectural planes, pavement surfa�le treatment,and landscaped plazas, c. Entiies The main public entranQ3 shall be;mpaddyvisible ftom the street,parking area and pedestrian connection. Ec,phasis shall be achieved by concentrating a secondai+�material at the entry with either a major projection winds. p �. ro ection or recess. Where ossible entnes,shar be,,rotecter from Prevailing , USE.OF SECONDARY UATERUU. 'A OR PRWEIYWN AND RECESS M ITRAIMCr READILY 4'MIMA FROM STREET 2� !b `' _ ' &31 BuildingMass'and Forme C Massing shall be simple and'-[' st�.�ngly integrated geomexric forms; ie massing slmalE relate to the internal t?inctior and nature e* the space it is l j Lintended to encase. 4 building facades facing street:shall be masyF;. in a mannerthat 1 minimiWc-,apparent bulk. ., ( Long uniptsrrupted exterior walls shall not be fermitted: Breaking ?! un of large masses into smaller ores,use of sf Aide and-shadoly, and structural expression shall be required. 1.' • Articulation of the elevation �shall he.required thrsau h; l+e = use of openings and rec�sses which create texture and sha Uw' patterns and provide variety i4oe building plane or surface. 3.4 Rocfscapes Co ��deratioi of visible roofa„penthouses,tnmechar%- i sd2ens and skylights maybe required of zach proiecti All extd nai visibi_'roofscapes shall harmonize in.solo~and styl Awith the buildin6's architecture. E-ildinas shah appearflee of-all utility ano'communira,;on u�evicses. Rain gutters,drains, v€�ts,scuppers,etc,shall be interalized so that no mechan:cai o*utility dee ..Ps-are�is►b?_on the exiQsor of the building. All n of mounted mechanical e�-Ui peiiOnt shall be ss7eened on all sides.,JMechanical screens and nthomes shall,be integrated v&h—i6e buildirt fL2:ade and c6nstructW of similar or compatible m4teriaes and colors.. mac,stylizeu roof f-gatmenis shad be z4lenved. Hipped;-shed,or gable roofs or skylights maj�be permitteei if they are iniPgraE to the =. 6uilding'sfunction: Mansard roorforms shall not be•;permitted. Satellite dishes and antennas shall be ground mounteu'��id :,,, screr�ed from pedestrian areas and roodtivayyss through'the corr�!�ination of vvalis,,landscaping,and ouild:amgs. _ 3.5 Colors wt The palette of building colors shall be wares and rich it tone. When se,lectirr,colors the following guideline shall be followed: - The majority of each project'!facades(approximately ninety ppercent),shall f✓t klected froi;n the accompanyung list of main building L616rs. r ;i r 23 -7�s 1 � Accent colors shall be.allowed for the remaining ten percent or less of the building. ,These accent colors shall be used purposefully to express entries,bases,or special areas, Accent colors shall not be hi !?!v cuntrastin�,arbitrary,or:graphic. The use of the accent colors mith as No s,1323,734 and 734 for building details such as canopies,handrails,m0lions,skylights, t sheet metal flashing,door f mes,etc.shall be requirer,:All co!ors are subject to approval by the Rancon Realty fund ill and the City' of Rancho Cucamonga. The colors shown below are Benjamin Moore. MAID, BUILDING COLO2S_ V4h�J� k �.• f' r o• r � 1159 1182, 1210 < 042 ACCENT BUILDING COLORS 966 896 754 34 1323 jE TICS THE ®RIG::,.., )SING A COLOR XEROX TRIBE Si EET D0Eo ��af' COPY CLEARLY. �J _ r 24 _r1 h 3.6 Materials 1; The following lists address both mz;terials-permitted and those`not permitted. Al materials,inch ld.ng color a:.d texture,shall be approved by ' the Rancon denter'Desimi Review Board: r ct Ma�ra�=otirmitted Windows Clear entry Grey-SS coating on No f,cide only(SQ a or less outdoor reflectance) Spandrels Brick Tile Stone Precast _ e: l ��ass Fiber Reinforced Concrete • Not Permitted �•: Wndows Mirror Blu e ,Green Pink - Bronze Spandrels _ wood _ Glass" Stucco/plaster Exterior Insul,ativri Finish System("DryviV type system) - Tilt-up concrete ° Glass as a spandrel e' t.,lent shall be.used sparingly on the building facade to laigghlig►a special areas. No large areas of spandrel glass shall 6e permitted. j- • The use of exterior mullions as a desig,,-element shall be�egr.eired., Materials shall not be used to form any h%h contra.0inp or distracting graphic pattern. This list is not intended ik a all i�cluiive. 3.7 Service Areas • Service areas siiall be phu kally segr. ated from all public and L pwkestrianareas. Screen wall materia's steal!be solid,permanent, an s mpatiw iitectureL., a e Service elements such;{as truck docks and loading doors shall be arranged in an nTanized manner with respect to traffic c!rulation. .v and integrated with building design. ;r • Service areas,mechanical equip:bent,irash storage,and communication,devices shag be screened from public right of. 4 ways and adjoining properties with doors,walls cg landscaping t, 3.8 Desigy;Prototypes The desigq,prototypes illustrated on the following pages(Z" 19)are examples of the architectural style that is envisioned in Rancon Center which are consistent with.the architectural guiklelines. These building " prototypes show the consistency in architectural controls throughout each different size building. All of these building prototypeeconforM to the ,F overall architectural desiggmconcept and maintain the ii �pd cohesive development of ftancon Center. - dft ri 26 7� r ,• r z Z 7; `;, _ Z af . f f a cc -+- z> t3 7 E LU W N . .� H Lu Lj °x 27 - � r Z�Z z �� .Z UJ _ Z /] Rj UA s UJ &L -MCA 1. r 28 / � z- p� zr AN L z - f W ui B C- j 1 � � I z Z Z G) j 1� 0 z l am_ z V Lu LU moo: �M:REM:KC ® X 6aCMGStBENE lu W ®CM:HGM:W: L .Ac!M� ® \ 29 x_ 47 0 4.0 LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES 4.1 Concept P_A landscape design guidelinq shall concur with the Industrial Arezi 5nkdflc Plan for Rancho Cucamonga,the Xeri ca a Ordinance and the Development Stud for the original Rancon Center project The purpose of the landscape gguidelines is to provide uniformity to the site and establish a"Campus Like Settin "with both,f•7ctional and aest."etic considerations. This is achieved by:' ; • Wide building setbacks • Lamr�e greenbelt area with an informal meandering walkway which unifces.the site Landscape treatment for buildings,and auto/parking areas ildin s and walkway- Grade changes beh een bu g y 1; The reenbelt/pedestrian link an--,as shall provide,informal groupings of deci, uous and evergreen sih-sde jti�s,flowenng.shrubbery,,treliis arches, drinking fo,intains,trash receptae'es,and bend es along a meandering textured walkway to encourage y0ar round use for,,mlax ng walks,eating and social gatherings. At night,wdem;r lighting shall be provided to aesthetically enhance the site as well as providing for the safety and semirity of motorists and pedestrians throughout Rancon Center. In ad:lition to the greenbelt pedestrian link,a large..ant:ally located plaza and a cbm:non courtyard shall be provided fortenan+and guest use. These areas shall be focal point,of the pro}ect and the Terminuses ofthe greenbelt/pedestrian link. They shall have a fee. lin6 of formality with focus on a centrai feature,i.e.water,They sculpture. Plant materials are specified in this section to be ur-d to%.teate the informal theme of the greenbelt/pedesaian link and the n,.�,e formal theme of the other site areas and entries. Several landscape zones are identified in Rancon Center which specify distinct-ove planrmaterials in each'zone(see page 31). 4.2 Landscape Zones a. Primary,Entrv/Cul-de-sac Entry iMl The primary entries are the cui-de-sacs on tre site and are visible at.a, im distance fror,,the automobile. These entries are intender°to lead pedestrians and automobles into the site with,strong,lanriscape and; site design features,'' There shall be it m of purple leaf plum'tree.3(15 gallon size minimum)located diagonally on tether side of the entries to avoid the-line-of sight,and floweringground zovertoOiighlight these t IF p d •ns © h. � to •� a R 4 Agh t - m• f n, L ® . LANDSCAPE ZONE MAP LANDSCAPE KE`!, RANCQN CENT Est' PH MANY EHTRY(WL-DE-WC C ENTRY) CITY OF RANCHO CUCdKCNGA OREENBEI?/•PEDESTRIAN LINK 6.PLAZA E"E! ia foR too 2uo .p.SITE PEkMET'i:R t.PARKING LOT ;.SECUNDARY ENTRY(ACCESS DRIVEWAY ENTRY) j A•SCREEIWA f 31 `All— . , The cul-de-sac entries shall be forty-four(44)feet in width from curb face to curb face. AWL Along each cul-de-sac ema a co;Ainuous four(4)f�wide., sidewalk shall be rWded adjacent to the, ,bperty lines witl.a seven(7)`foot wide landscape strip along thie curb • The landscape strip shall be consistent with site perimeter parkway planting(refer to the City Engineering'Street Improvements Plan for spedfir`species and tree spadng requirements). � STREET IMV.WJ P30PEATY UNE� , S1OR.'CUPPEO.MEOW Tqi X"M alESi1 41 7 SI:II.D�"O 7UILDlNO {. M."LEAP i PLL"TREE C TOOE TEEM tO CQYN 410dw" . LDiE OF ff0f1T-? ►ARI(W,Y�+.1 tt u' if Tim P-O.W t PROPGn LME Er TS'MV ERTWW COL8-04-,U... eEO A:MJ WWM 0"AVEJ CIVIC CENTER OR.. b. Greenbelt/Pedestrian Link ; As described in Section 2 of these Guidelines,the greenbelt/pedestrian link is designed to un the entire mzste.r plan,proAde an interior pedestrian site access'iink toAhe buildings,parking and site act areas,and to allow a grade se mt,,r paration between parcels. • This area shall have a minimum width of twenty,(20)feet(ten feet wide on either side of interior panel 1'i"s). v� - The greenbelt/pedestrian link shall include�fi a(5)foot wide rneande ing textured sidewalk,trellis archwirAments,benches,; drinkinggfountains trash receptacles and adequa4k night Sighting for pubic safety. The reenbelt/pedestrian are4lAalrbe informs: in character i"parklike in feeling)with grou in�pp-of deciduous and evergreen trees(see plant list on page T9 r;Jr recommended�� species). -` 32 _ Y 0 E Allik At..eds shall be a minin+urn 2,V"box size witN.tFe exception of the Eugih )tus species-(15 gallon) Shrubb4y(evergreen and 1� t fIowering)shaiitbe low te;medium in,a14'1 girouped jn informal t` masses,minimum size shall be 5 gal►onl. `(1t'ieast 5o%'bf the ilea shall be shrub6eq/ground cover F! TJ in gs to reduce water cons umlatiorR. . All gran elections shall brarle from the aispn�ved XP-iscape t3rdina�tce drou toierant list jr&e appendix. , 1 • Since a portion of the greenbelt/pedestrian link shall exist on each parcel(a minimum ten(10)foot wide strip),all landscape requirements of the greenbelt shall be in by each parcel owner prior to building constructio6 final,and shall be consistent with the master plan dinign. Portions of the greenbelt/pedestrian link which lie on adjacent vacant parcels(a minimum ten(i,)foa: strip)shall be installed sirmultaneously by Rancan or the current prcr erty owner. • In atenbng pavers sfrall be provided for pedestrian conn�tion ;toss dr've aisles, ,' Dames amolmmr t vowa�r[nu7�c uOK"TY Aft �t.wx t► qq ',V atr,:aan a s•% � ow�ac aiwae _� t S'ft"affR YBMIC.Ut1t1 tt]RIxJBr/WALE. � wauus mQr�auuw � 1 1 rns,, aanaR '3 h__�ttm" " amp n AQ1 9aitooG BMW" _ C7R IPJ.tI �f, r`� r 0 trur�.acrAMcn -- SS Q� Plaza Feature Area The landscape design of the centrally located plaza shall be consistent in planting with the surroundin7,areas(see plant list,page 39). This area shalhprovide a4bcal landscape feature that shall hig-hlight the space. This feabire elemr:nt shall be either a sculpture,art piece or a water element. Plantings shall focus on this element while also providing shade for a minimurs;50OO,of the area. Exterior fighting shall be provided to aesthetically enhance the plaza, while providin public safety and security i6r pedestrians at night. The greenbelt pedestrian walkway shalli ts`e in and rf�ander through the �s1;¢a to provide access to and from all areas of thr,si'e(see exhibit befaw). ThP plaza featured area shall be installeif and maintained by Rancon Realty Fund III during,the second phase of development(see Page 18)- OKa[ttCITIPGMSTM M UNK-Vq1b \Z rwoq'nl�'ukC r - 'fk4k CANOPY t"%MrjN 1R[tt ' .Y'- CO41OT4Nt V!dr[pt[t71Rtl - PLIIWVUW Man On am A t i -LXA ° TarrmaO MEA N7tRM iN VM= Moen ANR aNOORRI LINK • 2t u nt d. Site Perimeter The site perimeter shall provide a simple consistent e0ge treatment using one tree type(refer to City Engineering Street Improvements Plan for specific species and tree spacing requirements)which shall meander in informal growpin s around the site. R,four(4)foot wide meandering sidewalk shall also be presided along this perimeter edge treatment which shall be consistent with the edge treatment on the opposite side of ail perimeter roads.To conserve water in this area,a minimum 50%of the parkway zone shall be planted with ground-cover and the balance with turf. A V-ditch shall be provided at the toe of slope adjacent to the parkway for erosion control. The use of shrub hedges and massing,and berming shall be provided to screen all parking Tots from street and pedestrian views. All perimeter landscape shall be p€anted-to avoid`tine-uf-sight at access driveways. Perimeter street trees shall bz a,rr-1-imurn 15 gallon size. si Property owners adjacent to the street pparkway frontages shall blend' >7 their planting pallet with that of the parkwa)r area(see Site Pet:^neter exhibit below). All perimeter landsca�,,ing .jail be installed and maintafned by Rancon Realty Fund llV simultaneous tri u�first phase of development. .. - rninw aA%wArtR sseae� MYCtMB. r" A,u a,Ur `MCPVt"unre soF t axT tx+iyEnaost m ---- ' aweovscTtk.roue �tuuaeo3"_ t � y ""DOaka dYIG C"TEt a& tt ROt6 MAX ' \ —YOtfRtAWiC!"TTO Mf;Lwk --�{EtA'A�ENIi,iLRWtG e. Parkin�e Lats Paakrng cat?ieatments shall be"consistent and contribute to the proje,:t landscapii i upity. Parking lots shall be pianted with'-ddes in such a ' manner as lo provioe maximum;shade Lze plant list on page 34). One(9)tree for every!tsee(3)pattingg stalls shall be provid�+d within the perimeter of the paved parking area. internal varking lot tree-q shall be planted at a rate of one(1)15 gallon tre�k;for every three(3)parking stalls in 510"x 510"diamond(rotatF d'at 45 degrees In the parking g id)tree pocket/wheel stop. tt; Tug---"TUN-OCKOT t Trees shall be Lven size and shape at tirme of irs-tallation. Replac inent trees shall be of like size to the suzrounding'eaisting roes or`the largest sizd available commercially. 51 35 r - r. l rubbery shall be plgnted along the Perim`ter of the parkingg areas to screen the autos from adjacent street views,nti�st -,n circulation arras and buildings. Shrub,planting shall be provided in a minimum 5 gallon size and spaced 3 feet on center. To be an effective parking lot screen,shrubs shall he of a mature size at the time of planting. Where cars ov-vtiang the curbs'(one foot maximum),ground cover planting shall be reauimd at a minimum width of 5 feet(inside dirrension). Where parking;lots.occur on the comers of Red Oak Street and Civic Center Drive,and W, nit::Oak Avenu4 and Civic Center Drive,additional tandscaar treatment shall be provided to rnserre these r irking areas are adequately screen=ad from adjacent street Views..=Berming in these areakwall be ra minimum of s feet high and have a natural appearance in form. No parking shall bz altnwed atthese carriers. I Lv `t 1 n� Cd CIVIC CEI�TER DRIVE ' CIVIC CENTER DRIVE - I 32`SETBACK AY CC'�NEAS 40' Pr,c-$ERTY 1AR KW4V LAxDS APE } C LMNE i RUNUS CAROLINIANA V , HIGH VAX ACC NT TREES ••'�`' PRIVOT SHRUB---t_r"' ; HEDGES 1CREENE6- t--SERMIraG '�ARKIi•_:sor tV—DITCH ADJACENT ' } TO PARKWAY y EXISTING STREET (, MONUMENT SIGN L--_.—!P..'%MAX. 1.C'LOPE ° '`+ +a xo 0 �a IN PARKWAY' �l 36 t '• OC QBE 199�, P.C. A�E��D�I,,,, Where parking lots meet at interior parcel lines,several emergency fire apparatus access easements shill be provided within the landscape setback area. The location and detail of these ease;cents are shown below. Additional emc gg!mq?ccess easements may be required prior to development approval. t-PR PEATY LINE zi ti NO PARKING NO PAMINL '.I FIRE LANE FIRE LAN£ 2V MIN )r 0%7AS �POSURE� AO%GRASS EXPD'URE cry -'r � �;��•-� ��= I} zG - PAOPhRri UNE o%.MA74SLOPE O-UE•TURFSTONE--i '.. : P. ROLLED CURB$ —ASS EXPOSURE -1%SLOPE LOPE e -g•y• .,�.• _-- ii�zssT.n�i9n�ar-u� �s omv`V ® R3-$74'X45-TfS'X3-US' - 23'LMSJSaUARE FOOT AMh f. Secondary Entry/Acr_ess Dri'mewag Entry The secondary entries provide convenient accesti xti the parking l6ts at various sAe locations(see Access and Driveway We-at-on Ilan,ppaare 16). In addition to street trees and on-site landscaping,em;i entry st M be designated by fl6wering ground cover and one or two Large specimen trees oli both,shL as of the entries. These trees shall be located a minimum of fifteen(15)feet back ffram the face of the street curb to avoid the line-of-sight. Where the meandering perimeter sidewalk meets these drivev�iys, Interlocking pavers shall be provided outside the public right-ai=waysto direct pedestrian traffic acro-s these access entries. CRAPE MYRTLE + l TREES LCZATEO 15' INTERLOCKING ; FRCM FACE OF CURB .PAVERS OUTSIDE R.O.W. '.. . (JNE OF SIGN?'. RED OAK AVFJ ►&TEN SME3EW U NENIS AT L STREEET a.0.4 WHITE OAK AVEJ 'ZERO FACE OF,CURB PROPERTY LINE CIVIC CENTER DR. " ,;iELLOW OAZANIAS { �l g. Screening � ✓44 Landscape screeri'i,,6 is intendeu�to soften and blendAh c�_ 1rl'(of the deve�oped buiO,ng areas with the landscape of the surro`w: 4\4 sites. This connection shall to be,made with'compatible ground, shrubbery and trees(See plant list,on page 39). Trees shall be prof `Pd to soften ari visually relieve unbroken building elevations and to, provide summer sharif% Trash enclosure areas shall bd fat vided with tree and shrub :,igs to soften the enclosure. Mechanical equipment and transforme.- Peas shall.be provided landscaping screening and low-level screen walls. Valves,meters,back flow preventers,LRc.,shall also bi's"screened by shrub plantings and low level screen walls. ;\ h. Interior Crosswalks' To assist in oedestrian safety,;within,if. .greenbelt/pedestrian'link a!�d other pedestrian areas, irate;'-.akin "�avers shall be provided Withio'the project boundaries to direct Oedestefan traffic across;the drive aisles. An archway element that,is consistent with the pro,;+ct architectural style,shall be provided ten(10)feet away from the property line on either side of the crossing intersection. These archway elements shall be located within the project boundaries to ensure that pedestrian,; safety and motorists views-,of pedestrians are unobstructed. Tree aied- shrub plantings shall:11so be alG;ned'in a more formal manner at these points to further define the cr,,,;s)ng. Rancon shall install and maintain these archway elements inth',r}locations shown below. ARCHWAY E6iUENT LOCATION..FLAN .. FIIONT flCf �4 5 o MOIIftTkROGIOifTIE{..PCBiUt�f6 _ 0' A110 W Mtl1 tl 38 •�-5 r a 4.3 Site Specific Landscape Information Site Specific Landsca a information is provided to give-more specific data,for indlAdual builders. The below listed information shall be required for all`of the abode listed landscape zones and for the individual building areas: • Sf.'eening: All areas shall be screened such as,trash collection -..'eas,mechanical equipment meters and check valves,from streets-and adjacent pedestrian areas. This-may be accomplished by thefollowing: (1) Shrub massing shall identify a minimum of 5 gallon size. (2) The minimum landscaped area between wails and adjacent walk areas is five feet:. I • Pedestrian plazas and courtyards(see Building Location,page 15): Wherever possible,buildings shall_provide wind protected pedestrian plazas or courtyards Y it utilize the f6flowing: (1) Distinctive texturized pavement. - (2) Comfortable seating areas. (3). Partial shaded areas. (4) Landscape treatments Iy (5) Defined enclosed spaces. (6) Santa Ana wind protecticn. a. Plant L&A t.: The following is a required p!-nt list chosen from the Xeriscape Ordinancd(see appendix,pa Q`55)for the landscappe design within each zone exhibited on page 31 (altemate varieties will be con-Adered for review on an indiv'duai basis,based upon design and compatibility of surrounding sites): Trees . Eucalyptus.Camaldulensis,Red Cum Zones b,c gopaniopsis anacardiodes,Carrot Wood Zone e, Laggerstroeinia Indica,Crape Myrtle e Znef Cleditsia tricanthos,Thornless Honey Locus Zones eg Prunus Cerasifer Species,Purple Leaf Plum Zone a Aft '` -57. Shrubs ligustrum japonica;Wax Privot Zones a,e,d,g Pi#tosporunti TobiraVangata Varigated Mock Orange Zones o,c Rapphioleoi€_Indica"Spr;ngtime","Bal!erina" Zone4 6,c,f Vines&.Grourd Cover Agapanthus Afri',anus,Lily of the Rule ZZ^nos�kc Gazaaia""tzua Yellow",Trailing Yellow Gazania,at 6"oc. . Zones b,d,e,f,g b. Site Fprnishine&Lightino Site furnishings and lighting shall conform to thefollowinb specifications Bicycle Raeks,`Pjbbon Rack,_No.,RB-7,,62"long. ! Trash Receptacle: Canterbury International,1107 Shines; Silhouette Combin il,--gn,22"x 34-1/2"high,,black.!t Benches „Fangs and Sue.tkes,No.AF 6061,AF 60V!, black, - ' wide;7 -long,16"high. ' Drinking fountains:'aunroc/YVcstem,Model SF-8610;pedestal mounted stainless steel,bllack'(whealchair acccasible). . i I i °I I i 40 ,�! tllllltlll\\II\t\l\\\\l\\\\\\\\\\\ Lighting is to enhance safety and security of pedestrians and automobiles while contributing to the identity of Rancon Center. Lighting is also.intended to create a pleasant night time environment and to accent entries;the architecture and landscape features of the development. All fixtures must be approved by Rancon Realty Fund III and must conform to City and State installation and safety standards. • Parking lot lighting: Kim Lighting,Archetype,black,steel,non tapered 20 foot pole. • Pedestrian walk circulation light: Kim Lighting,Archetype,black steel,non-tapered 78 inch pole. • Bollard lighting: Kim Lighting,VR132/100HPS120/NA-E,black. • Landscape accent light: Kim Lighting,4311,black Auk Kim Lighting,4221,black. Af We" Ili t4 41 �-5� 4.4 Maintenance ;: All landscape plantingin this development shall be continuously maintained by RanGon in a neat,Efficient and orderly fashion. The following are minimum maintenance standards that must be met. a. All planting areas,both temporary and penaanent,shall be kept free of weeds and debris. b. lawn and ground cover areas shall be kept neatly trimmed andf or mowed on a regular basis. c. All plantings shall be kept in a healthy growing condition: Shrub areas shall be trimmed to maintain as a hedge row and not a shrub ball. Trees shall be trimmed and thinned out at least twice a year as part of the regular maintenance program. APPROPRIATE - INAPPROPRIATE EVENLY TNYIQD, 0110WFD TOP FOLIAGEAP �/ i DCNdr!Iome oux FaLlAca TMINMED-DUT LEAVEE..JI. LII+DF-EIaMT QWTHUCM LIME-OWEIaMT �9T LOW EMAMCMEE' UNOMMLIMA- Aft - _ F APPROPRIATH INAPPROPRIATE t d. All plantinggs shall be-fertj zed a minimum of four(4)times a year with a general al[purpose granular fertilizer as approved by the Rancon Realty Fund Ill. e. The irrigation systems shall be kept in a working condition. Adjust watering cycles for each season. Check coverage and clean heads on a I weekly bans. Raise,move or adjust heads as needed to accommodate the landscape growth of the plantings. This shall be a part of the regular maintenance program. f. The staking and guying(supports)for trees shall be adjusted'regularly until such tine as the trees are fully rooted. At that time guys,ties, and/or stakes shall be removed to prevent girdling.,Adjust ties and. guys as needed to prevent abrasions or girdling. g. Any damage to landscape plantings or imggation caused by vandalism, automobile traffic,or acts of nature shall 6e corrected within thirty(30) days of notification that landscaping or irrigation is damaged. h. All dead landscape plantings shall be replanted within thirty(30)days of notification that landscaping;is dead. I. Undeveloped parcels shall be kept in a weed free condition to mitigate visual impact. 42 /�_�� z r 5.0 SIGNAGE'GUIDELINES" 5.1 CONCEPT:, The objective of these guidelines is to establish specific standards for all exterior.signage in order to ensure continuity,consistency and harmony it' with the master planned architectural quality of Rancon Center. Both j permanent and temporary signage is addressed from an off-site as well as an on-site viewpoint. These guidelines follow the City of Rancho Cucamonga Sign Ordinance. It is the intent of these guidelines to provide sufficient,but not excessive, business identification devices so that the name of each tenant is.clearly and individually associated with the facility it occupies. Signs and business I identification devices shall be,prohibited from being used for advertising of any kind. 'Sufficient informational and directional signage Tor convenient, efficient operation shall be provided. 5.2 GENERAL General,guidelines are as follows: • Signs are grouped into three types: Permanent ground signs I (type 1),building shall sigrt�ftype 11),and temporary.ground signs (type III). The size,locations and design of each,sign shall not exceed the specific maximum limitav6hs for each,group. Rancon Realty Fund Ill shall determine and approve the specific limitations of each individual sign. • Signs and.logos visible from the exterior of any building shall be internally'illuminated,but no signs or any contrivance shall be devised or constructed so as to rotate;gyrate,blink or move in any animated fashion.' • All signs and logos attached to the building shalt be individual letter and surfacernounted. No signs shall be painted directly on the building. W signs shall be boxed with internal lighting and attached to a building. �r • Location and rriaxirum size of wall signs shall be Proportionally compatible and harmonious with the overall building and with the elevation.upon J/hich the sign shall be placed., r • All informationa!;vehicular control and temporary signs shall be uniform in desin,size,height,color,material and typography. • There shall the aaimit of one Building Address/Tenant Identification .Sign per access drive located outside of street right-of-way for each curb cut. • Use of signs shall be minimized. Signage shall be for tenant identification only. Compliance to these guidelines shall be subject to review by Rancon and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 43 F � e 5.3 PERMANENT GROUND SIGNS-TYPE dft Permanent ground signs Shall be utilized for two purposes: ;;Business >r Directory,and Information/Directiona!Identification.,Street-side signs at access driveways shall be used to+dentify a building address/tenacrt and to direct traffic to that building. Internal,on-site signs shall be utilized to provide information and direction to pedestrian and automobile traffic. a. Business Directory Signs TZtissign type is found on-site,near street-side intersections of access drives end public streets. This si ga type steal!be limiteal to identifying the building address and tenantrsd shall be visible from the intersection of a private.driveway and a public street. tvfore than one building address an'i tenant may bc�;dentified on one sign. The si n shall not exceed a maximum area of 4 square feet per face, singleTaced,and shall not exceed 3 feet in vertical height.,,, Signs shall be limited to one sign per access drive(to a maximum b = two signs per street front)and shall not be allowed elsewhere within the landscape setback area or along street frontages. These signs shall be up-lit at night for clear visibility per City Fire Department Codes. t Colors and materials of these signs shall be consistent with the.'overall if Barton Master Nan area.signage. These signs shall be provided,by j Rancon Realty Fund ISL `yam , Stainless stool ' �L. 101< Wdls vinyl letters only ' 102 to to p Native itiver Rock.tamaller '-` rocks than on proiect t.B.signal s t s 44 1�-- 2- Mill now 1111111101 AIL bps Informational[Directic!nal Signs This sign type shall be used to provide direction,to on-site automobile traffic or pedestrians and shall be located on-site,not visible firom off- site areas. Informational/Directional signs shall be imited to 9tsquare feet es face,double faced. This sign shall not exceed 3 feet imvertical height. This sign shalt be limited to the identification affunr 4ian and/ service and shall not contain the name of the business,company or corporation providing the function and/or service. When appropriate,such signs shall contain`a directional arrow and provide direction U)functions and/or services or information such as Private Property,Authorized Vehicles Only,HandicappedParking niy, Visitor Parking,i oa&n&Zone,Walk Up" Banking Welter,Drive-Up l� Banking Uteri' Retaeationai Park and Pedestrian Walk. These sij,ls shall. ;. he prowded and maintained by the parcel owners and be preapproved by;Rancon keatty Fund ill and the Cty. Aft -� ..lei•� Stalnlu!e Sin".., ll o YISIrpRj). .%% PARKING t•---WMto vinyl Ultara only o +: F-=StaWl'"MOW posts, .[uackr3`C7am�^� 45 -63 ns-Type 11 5.4 Building Wallrl Building wall sons shall be located on the buit!. g'face and shalt,be used to identify building tenants within each building in Rancon Center.`These signs �! shall be reci;ticted to naming only the person;firm,company or corporation being identifibd. The design of these signs(letter style)shall be consistent with each individual tenants traditional signage style. The colors and materials of these signs shall be compatible uilh the building architectural colors and mate¢iafs. No garish or fluorescent colors shall 6e permitted. a. dmar r�Ter ant Identification% ns(Parapet Sign) (1) . The primary tenant(major tenant)is defined as the tenant occppying greater than 10,fn7Q square feet. (2) Primary tenant.identfication signs shall be limited to„one(1)sign per elevation iikh a maximum oft,vo(2)signs on non-adjacent races ano located on the parappet. 'fhese signs shall,be internally illuminated or nonAluminated. 0), A corporate 1aago and/or the company name s.L:�0 R e pem tted. A logo is defined as an abstract graphic symbol or trademark. 2y (4) The size and location of each sign and/or lf,o shall he designed to tin complementary and proportional to etch ndiv!dual bU ding.. height. In no case shall the parapet sign exceed the areas { established by the following table: Building Height Parapet Sign` Height In Stories in Square Feet 1 15 S.F._ 11-61 2&3 25 S.F. 21-W 4 100 S.F. 21-W 5 120 S.F. 31-W 6 150 S.F. 31-W (5) ' Primary tenants shall utilize their logo graphics and type style. TIC a face and returns of all primary tenant signs shall be nnished to be compatible With the individual building architectural colors and materials. Subject to approval by Rancon Realty Fund III and the City,the introduction of color on pictorial or abstract logo symbols shall be permitted only when it is essential to the legibility of the symbol and shall be limited to one additional color,preferably —, f black or bronze. i (6) Primary tenant signs:shall be either internally illuminated individual channel letters or reverse channel letters. The return of each letter form or logo shall be a minimum of 5 inches and not exceed 10 inches in depth. 46 '"� (b) S=ndaryTenant ldentificati 1 A n r. F seco da n (minor' en n I i d fin tenant O ryterra t( �. a t) s e edasate t occupying space less than 10,000 square feet. (2) Seecondary tenant identificatioj�signs shall be limited to the identification of tenants with 21 maximum of one(1)sign per tenant. In no.eyent shall the`e be move than four(4D secondary. tenant identification signs permitted per building and no more than two(2)per building elevation. (3)` These signs shall be located above the first floor windows on the fascia or spandrel glass area below the second story window(see page 48). (4) The'raaximum are4 for a secondary tenant identification;sign shall not exceed 15 square feet�The maximum capital letter height shall not exceed 6 inches. (5) Secondary ter ants shall utilize their trad'tional logo ggraphics and signage hype style. The race and return of all serondary tenants signs shall be finished with an ivory color(Rohm&Haas,2146, Ivory)and be'compatible with the building architectural materials. (6) The return of each letter form'shall be no greater than 5 inches in depth. r ,,h it -- r 4 - OKD Ark ,• r'f - n 05 Ica -71 i ss r 0 - - r r E 48 L, y-; 5.5 TEMPOF,ARY GROUND!"XNS-'TYPE III Temporary ground signs shall be allowed to provide information and fay`;,,jte sales during the construction ane--marketing of.Rancon Center. a. Individual Building Marketing Sin(Future Tenant Sign) Futurelenant signs.shall be placed ern vacant or developing property to advertise the future use of the pr9jQty and where this information may be obtained. Such signs shall be lini ted to one pdi:>street frontage and to a maximums of 32 square feet in area and 8 feet in overall height. These signs shall be placed no less than 10 Meet from the property line. any such sign shall be removed upon completion of the pro1ect. b. Construction Sign } One dirv�ctory ign shall be permitted on the construction site for all ca"tractors'may include banks,Realtors,subcontractors,eta)not ex� 3ing s?square feet unless leeggalEy required b�,government contracts to be larger, No sign shall exceed 8 reet In overall height and shall be located no less than 10 feet from anyy properly line. These signs shall he removed upon completion of the projecrt; ''{''�'� te'-o• of I " C,*Mctm TOat tr a ry+a Teat'— I AmMect Elevation "r`' Elevation Individual Building Marketing Sign Construction Sign AML 49 ; 1<--6 7 6.0 DEVL-DPMENT PLAN REVIEW`PRocF G 6.1 Concept A project review process has been established to implement this set of gguidelines. Al development pro`eots shall be reviewed by two entities; Rancon Realty Fund III and the 2ity of Rancho Cucamonga Planning-, Division. The purpose and intent of the Development Plan Review Process is to insure that the appro nate design intentions for Rancon Center are achieved. A stifles ofpplan submittals to both Rancon and the City shall be required for any new development within the project site..Plan submittals shall also be required for any revislon,'altemation or addition to a development plan: revious!y approved by the City. In order to facilitate design coordinatio adjacent buildings and properties within Rancon Center,architectural elevations and landscape pplans of approved projects shall be available for review at t(,e Rancon RealtyFund II office. 6.2 Development Review Procedures a. Architectural Review'Committee The Architectural Review Committee(hereinafter the"Committee") consists of Rancon Realty Fund III and the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department: Plans shall be-submitted and reviewed reearately by Rancon and the City. Building within the Rancon Center shall be permitted only with the Committee's prior consent. All conespoindence shall be made to the attention of RANCON CENTER RANCHO CUCAMONGA. 1n considering the merit;of a,j=posed improvement, the Committee shall consider such major issues,as; • Aesthetic impact on neighboring structures by the appearance, placement,configuratieh and massing of the improvements. • Relationship of pad elevation and finish grade to surrounding topography. • "Effective screening of all exterioe equipment. • Building orientation to nearby streets for most favorable visual impact. s, • On•sitevehicular circulation and screening provision for truck loading: • Adequacy of off-street parking: r • Use of abundant landscaping to screen and enhance the project. • Use of signs for identification. AEL ;r 50 ra , b. Applicants shall'be required''to attend Committee meetings and present their deve.opment plans. When design documents are prepared;2 sets shall be submitted to Rancon and 4 sets+shall be submitted to the City: The Committee shalt then ratify the applicant of tl, date an which it shall.consider the project. At the meeting,the apt+;icant she,i have the opgrtunity to,present the project and respe-�nd to any questions the Committee may have. C. Fees: Apptitant�:shalt be required to submit a fee in the amount $S (i.00 to rover the expenses of Rancon Realty Furd ill's review.end processing of the a-�plica#ion. In adri:ion,a deposit of$2,SOO.Oif shalt be made to - Rancois. This de osit shall bt placed in a simple interest bearing account and sha[I be refunded only after^ancon as granted final }i approval of thE development plans. RartE- n reserves the eight to increase 4he fees and deposit. { Separate fees shall be paid to the City fer .`th tk;,design review and plan check. Until all fees and'`'deposits have been tendered'to the Committee,the C--mmittee shall not be required to take any action or review any plans. d. Approvals t- Plans and specifications for all improvements,including arch`-tural, engineering,grading,.landscaping,signage,and exterior lighting ae subject to review by the Committee. For each submittal step the Committee's>response:shall be within thirty(30)days following receipt of a complete package. Obtaining the Committee's approval is a three step process: f • Step One: Schematic submittal Early in the developpment,of the project design,the appli-,-ant shal6 submit 2 sett-of schematic documents to Rancon aniN sets to the City for review and approval These documents inciude: (1)Schematic site plan and floor plans indicating all dimensions,property lines,buildirl`g footprints,lot area/floor area ratio,'existing ard-proposed grading, adjacent structures,extent of overhangs and undercuts,street elevations,setbic lines,proposed structures,driveway,parking,landscape areas, monument sign locations,and'buildin sign typed ansl locations. The site plan shall be identified by lot'and parcel map number. (2)A resume stating site area,proposed total building area;office,manufacturing and warehousing sub-urea; ;; parking required and parking provided. i� i' (3) Building elevations indicating rnip or dimensions, texture and color of exteriorfinishes,relationship to, ground.elevation,signage dirsenslons,and focaUons.i (4)Outline specifications describing the type and quality of materials,equipment,and systems to be used in the project,etc. (5)Description of facility operations with'estimated number of employees. The Committee is particularly interested in site work,site lighting,exterior building materials,i.e.,wall ano:�oE ;stems. roof top equipment,special equipment associated iro th manufacturing,processing,or special use of the facilk, Appiicar,: shall provide perspectnie renderings,preliminary landscape plan,or any other information,which will assist in ihustrating the development intent. Upon comoletion of the first stage suW_ial and approval by the Committee,the applicant shall then proceed with preparation of construction drawings and specifications. Step Two: Preliminary Submittal Prior to submitting permit applications•o ta�z City of Rancho Cucamonga,6 sets of theIdifPowing shag be submitted to the Committee: z, (1)Preliminary consruc'Bon drt "nd`s ecificat.bns, reflectin&the;coaditaoits of ti.,, � 3uslpy approved schematic submissions, (2)Written response to A preL;ous corn exits by the Committee. (3)Detailed signagg'e program locating and describing all signs and graphics. 4 Material sam Ieandfor color board for all exterior materials an¢fin..•hes. (5)Plantin plans and details indicating sizes and locations of all pant materials listing botanii:E,end respective common names. Planting plans shall'`ontain all landscape rai data such as floor Sines,catch basins,anSmoundrng. ;5) Landscape irrigation plans and instailation details. -J)Exterior lighting system including locatia:is,mounting heights,and manufacturer cata"^,%cut sheets of proposed fixtures. ,,r (3)Transformer;gas meter and i.itility riser locations, (9)Fitial set of rendered elevations foi pprnaanent Committee reference. • Ste;2T!,i Final Approval The Committee's approval of the final construction plans by no means assumes liability reiativ, -building,feasibility,functio.�, and integrity. Changes to app" a )plans or construction improvements shall be price' d through the!Committee and_ shall require re-submittal of development plans,depending upon the level of changes requ�jsted. This shall be determined on a parcel by parcel Basis. These Guidelines may be modified in writ rig,by the Committee and variances may be specific ally grantee" tte��W'om•riittee to allow for flexibility when unique or eAraa nary circu:ns!a,.ces justify r)j"` ,,a. Phase�� telf,Anent: In th fer, vie development of a"site is to be accomplished in tw O more hales,the initial submission of plans should iriciude` an_'�1Jlcin ate Development"Site-Plan in addition wdetailed plaris for thn first phase of the development. The Ultarriate development Site Plan shall be reviev-0d and,approved by the Committee L fore specific plans for phased deveicpmeit are f approvpd• C4 Six sets ofthe Ultimate'Developn ent Site Plan for the site,shall be su:;:n'itted to the Committee and include lire folioWng: (1)_Np indication of phming of the total building complex' rid related parking fop:les, (2)Building footprint sh4Ming initia�i and ultimata development,inclu;ing percentage of iot coverage for each phase. .(3)Design relationship to adjacent Qropei-ies and streets, including setbacks. (4)_tandscaping or other treatment of areas reserved for" future devellopment. (5)Other k ormation as snay be required by the, Committee to assess the impact on neighboring l properties. !! 53 �_ 7/ 6.3 SUBMITTALS AND Ar'PROVALS For eacli:tage of the Development Review Process,the applicant shall be. required to submit sic i6)sets of plans containing the specifics information required for each'sl of plan submittal(two sets to Rancon and four sets to the City). All proposed development plans shall be designed by an architect icensed in the State of California and shall bear the architect's license number enhen submitted for.design review. In addition,all landscape plans shall be,designed by a landscape architect licensed in the State ofpCalifomia and shall bear the archite&s license number when submitted for design review. For parcels requinn site impravements,all lmpr6Vement plans shall be ` g i completed by a civil engineer licensed in the State of California and shall bear the engineer's license number: r After ihe proposed development pians'have been revzwed brthe Committee,a copy shall be returned to the applin-zint a"k Vn with a letter outlining appropriate recommendation,requirements andtridings. The retume pllans shall be marked as follows. I ".�pQroved"-Approve ': ?pis permit the applicantto proceed to k the next stage of theiaeve➢opment review process. "Tentative Ancroval Subiect to Cnnditinns"-Tentative a proval of deve➢opment plans permit the a ppplicant to proceed to tI next stage of the review process rovided the applicant complies with the conditions specified by the Committee. R.. • "loot Approved"-Development plans�vhith are not approved shall be returned to the applicant with c6mments describing the basis for disapproval. Revised development plans must be're- submitted if approval is desired. The Committee's approval of the applicant's development plans, specifications or site development calculations shall not constitute any representation or certification of compliance witl�applicable gave nmental regulations. The applicant shall have the sole respons:biiity for compliance w ie.-al applicable governmental ordinances or regulations for all work erom ed bY'- or on behalf of the applicant Any:discrepancies should be brought to the immediate attention of the Committee. 6.4 APPEALS If the applicant is not in agreement with the conditions or findings specified by the Committee,then the applicant raay appeal the decision in wrrUn to the City within thirty(30)days from the date of the applicant's receipt o returned plans. 170 lank 7.0 APPENDIX RP /(, i fl`L 55 !e'_ 73 J r n .. j < 0 Z Z w t7 u W x o z a U� goy: o Z a r 1t .,•i Ij 'N. < '1 ImCO 7y .�3 Y "4 a - x •' a t >y Vt 1�' 6 lk, vi,� a i Lk r s z'i�: i1. t t , 1 r; ri Ll� � J CXI Co 0 r'�, X 'J '•.. r^ 'j�' �� _�'. i '�`, a tn!r ♦y rtl;. e� i '�..hy'. 0 R{ C 4 5F S �� •. i{; 5`f �J. { � vf� Y i Y• MAY. y_ V4` RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING 'DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 90-201 THE, DEVELOPMENT OF A 31-ACRE OFFTCE PARR MASTER PLAN, LOCATED ON THE NORTH- SIDE OF CIVIC CENTER DRI'JE BETWEEN WHITE OAK AVENUE AND RED OAK STREET IN, THE I,NDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT (SUBAREA 7) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS. IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-352-23, 24, 25, 49, AND 50. A. Recitals': (i.) Rancon Realty Fund has filed an application for the approval of Development Review No. 90-20 as described in the tPle of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Cevi,l6,0.%ent Review request is referred to as "the application." (ii) on"the-'of 9th day of October 1991, it�he=Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly not',ed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are'true and co iect. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on October 9, 1991, including ,#!Zitten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows; (a) The application applies to property circucaer';ood by Civic Center, White Oak Street, and Red OFF Street, excluding the existing medical complex, and is currently vacant; and (b) The property to the north contains vacant land, a hospital and a-hotel (currently under construction); the property to the south contains vacant land and a Post Office; the property to the east contains vacant land and existing industrial buildings; and the property to the west _contains existing office buildings; and (c) The development- of a 31-acre Master Plar. with parcels ranging in size from 0.90 to 4.66 acres is consistent with master planning requirements of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence prevented 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:_ PLANNING%COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. RANCHO, PJMLTY:FUND. III. .. October 9, 1991 Page 2 1 (a) That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and (b) That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in, which the site is located; and, ; (c) That the proposed use is in compliancy-'with each of the, applicable rrovisions of the Development Code; and tti (d) Tha�, the proposed use, together .with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be/detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injuriou0�to properties or improvements in the vicinity, 4. This commis on hereby firi3s and certifi" that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby issues a Negative I Declaration. P S. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth 'below :and in the Standard Conditions attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. I - planning Division: 1) The Master Plan is approved in concept only and future development for each parcel shall be subject to ' the Development/Design Review process and Planning commission review and approval. Modific`a_ one to the Piaster 'Plan shall be subject ''". Planning Commission approval. Approve .,f the Master Plan_shall expire In five yr ,..+ unless' nded by the Planning Commission. 2) Specifics of the plaza design linking, this project with the existing medical complex shall be submitted for the Design Review Committee's review and approval ,prior to the issuance I of building permits for Phase I development. The plans shall indicate,specific design features of the plaza including but not limited' to, .pedestrian paving and texture, water feature design, and planting palette. This plaza bhall be completed prior to any occupancy of Phase Z. 3) Texturized paving .shall be provt4ed on the west side of the Spruce Street cul-de-sac consistent with the material provided on the east"side of the street. ` /C- 7 q r Co u PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 90-20 - RANCHO REALTY FON.111-I�� October 9, 1991 Page 3 Enoineerino Division: 1) An in-lieu fee as contribution to t�`future construction of the median island ti�within Foothill Boulevard shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits or approval of the Final Parcel Map, whichever occurs t`xst. The amount of the fee shall be prorateG on a pi:r acre basis from the total fee attributable to Parcel'%Map 6725. That total r fee shall be one-half'the coat of the median times the distance from a projection of the A easterly ,right-of-wag line for Haven Avenue to a projection of the westerly right--of-way 16: Aspen Avenue along Foothill Boulevard. 2) A traffic study'shall be pa'ovided to determine if and when signals are warranted for the intersections of Spruce/Red Oak, Civic Center/Red Oak, Civic Center/White Oak, Arrow Route/Red Oak and Arrow Route/White Oak prior to approval of tho final map for Phase' 1. Traffic signals determined necessary shall` be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3) The drive approach for Parcel 14 shall be relocated easterly t3 align the centerline'with the common property, line of 'Parcels 5 and 6 of Parcel Map 9955 on the south aide of Civic Center Drive. 4) Parkway improvements sha17.%be constructed along the entire frontage of ea'h phase-upon approval. of the final map for each phase. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman it O PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 90-20 - RANCHO REALTY FUND III October 9, 2991 . Page 4 1 ATTEST; Brad Buller, Secretary I I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Cotmaiesicn 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 j City of Rancho Cucamonga,+ at a regular meeting of theuPlanning Commission held on the 9th day of October 1991, by the 'following vote-to-wit: AYES" COMMISSIONERS:., c' NOES: COMMISSIONERSs ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS. ,y P 1 f J, ;r 7 _ Compreum D,m, 11.Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with —J--J_ the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval-of the final map. _ 12.All building numbers and individual units shall be identkied in a clear and concise manner, J_J including proper illumination, 13.A detailed plan indicating iraii'widths,maximum slopes,physical conditions,fencing,and J_1T we:d control,in accor&ice with City Master Trail drawings,shall be submitted for City Piannerreview and approval priorto approval and recordation of the FinalTract Map andprior, to approval of street improvement and grading plans.Developer shall upgrade and construct all trails,including fencing and drainage devices,In conjunction with street improvements. 14.The Covenants,Conditions and Restrictickris(CC&Rs)shall not prohibitthe keeping ofequine animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been r,at.individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals Without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors or homeowners'associations for amendments to the CCBRZ. 15.The Covenants,Conditions,and Restrictions(CCBRs) and Articles of Incorporation of the _J---J— Homeowners'Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney.They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits,whichever occurs first.. ,mcorded,may shall be orovided to the City Engineer. i6.All parkways,open areas,and landscapik� ill be permanently maintained by the property --/_J_ owner;homeowners'association,or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approval prior to issuance of bui;ding permits. 17.Oolar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or dwelling unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for uoo yr f a solar energysystem.The easements may be contairid in a Declaration of Restricionz for the subdivision which shall be recorded canarrrentty with the recordation of the final map or issuance of permits,whichever combs first.The easements shall prohibit the casting of shadows by vegetation,structums,fixtures or any other object,except for utility wires and similar objects,pursuant to Development Code Section 17,08.060-G-2. 18.The project mritains a designated Historical Landmark. The site shall be developed and / maintained in accordance with the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit No. . Any further modifications to the site including,but not limited to,exterior alteration and/or interior alterationswhich affect the exteriorof this buildings or structures,removal of landmark trees,demolition,relocation,reconstruction of buildings or structures,or changes to the site, shall require a moamaation to tw Historic Landmark Alteration Permit subject to Historic Preservation Commission review and approv al, C. Building Design 1. An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hotwater forali dwelling units J�— and for heating any swimming peal or spa,unless other alternative energy systems are demonstratedtebeofequivalerttcapacily and efficiency.Allswimmingpoolsinstalled atthe time of initial development shall be supplemented with solar heating. Details shaP be inGuded in the building plans and'shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural JJ_ treatment,detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building parmits. / SC•2/91 3 or 12 K^�7 i pRyelt\o YlrCIO-to . .C.Myieeon Dame . 3. Standard patio rover plans for use by the Homeowners'Association shall be submitted for �f_ City Plannerand Building Official review and apprm f priorto issuan a of building permits. 4. AII roof appurtenances,Including air conditioners and other r6ui mounted equipment and/or projections,shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning,, DIvision..Such screening shall be architecturally Integrated with the t uiidind design jaiid constructed to the satisfaction ns:l;he City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. 0._Parking and Vehicular Access(Indicate, malls on building plans) 1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dim9nskin of 6feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall(i Nckxiing curbp. 2. Textured pedestrian pathways and texturod pavement across circulation aisles shall be J—�— provided throughout the development to conned dwellings/un' ildingswithopenspaces] plazastrecreational uses. O 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, -- entrances,.and exits shall be striped per City standards.: 4. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less tivvn 1a feet in -J depth flam back of sidewalk- S. )n9 Covenants,Conditions and Restrictions shall restr?cl the storage of recreational vehicles JJ on this site unless they are tt�e principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit parking on interior circulation aisles ol,4r than in designated visitorparking,areas. _6. Plans for any security gates s Jl he submitted forthe City Planner, City Engineer,and -�-1 Rancho Cucamonga Fire ProtctionDistrict revipw and approval prior to issuance of building permits. E. Landscaping(for puailclymaintainad landscape are=,referto SWlon N.) 1. Adetailed landscape and irrigation plan,lncluding sklpe planting ano.�el home Undscap- -J---�-- ing in the case of residential.developirient, shall to prepared by j I,censed landscape archrt3ct and submitted for City Planner review and approval priorto the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. s `h construction barrier trees preserved 18ce.,ha U be protected rest a 2.'Existirg, esrequiredtobepres p pnr n7accor&a with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110,ardso noted onthe►rw--ping plans. The kx:ation of those trees to be preserved in a`e arid new beations fortrr` ,fled trees shall be shown on the detaiwdlaruiscapepiano The applicant shall follawaka,..—arbarist's recommendations regs!ding preservation.Mispianting and trimming methods. 3. Aminimurn3f treespergross acts,com;ftedofthefollowing sizes,shall beprovided �(J— j within the project: %-48-inch box or larger, %v-36-inch box or larger, %-24-inch box or larger, %-!"alion.and %-5 gallon. 4. A minimt;rrt of %of trees piartred within the project shag be specimen size trees- `-,I- 24-inch box or larger. 5: Within parking tots,trees shall be planted at a We of one 15-gallon tree for every three l .J,_1 parking stalls,sufflUent to shad9 500/6 f3f,the parking area at solar r un on August 21, i L SC 2/91 4 or 12 K �o Comeleum Dam .� 6. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view wadjacr rit to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. --/ 7. All private slope barks 5 feet orlessinveRh:alheght and of51orgreaterslope,butlessthan 2:1 slope,shall be,at-jnimum,irrigated and landscaped with appropriate,ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a pc'manent irrigation system to be Installed by the developer prior to occupancy. �.,C All private slopirala excess oi5 feet,but less than 8 feet inveflicalheghtanbof2:1 orgreater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows:one I5-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq.ft.of slope area,1-gallon or larger size shrub per each100 sq6 ft.of stops area,and appropriate ground cover.In addition,slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height;and of 2:1.or greater slope shall also include one Flallon 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 ii`;ude a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy, 9. For single family residential development,all slope planting and irrigation shall be continu ously maintained in healthy and thriving condition by the developeruntif each individual unit is sold and occupied iYy the buyer.Prortore!easir,occupamytorthosEunits,aninspeeWn shall be conducted by the Planning Divisioo to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 10.For multi-family residential and non-residential development,property owners are respon- sible,for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site,as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained In a healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or Aft g P R Y decaying m lam material shall be replaced within 30 days from 1ho date of damage. 11.Front yard landscaping shall be 'required per the Development Code an:i/or This ragrirement shall t;;a In addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 12.The final design of the perimeter parkways,walls,land*eso ping,and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and Owl be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinatedforcotfsistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 13.Special landscape features such as mounding,alluvial roan,specimen size trees,meander- ing sidewalks(with horizontalchar-,e),and t ltensified landscaping,Is required along 14.Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project,area shall be continuously maintained ay the developer. 15.All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment.#fboated In public maintenance areas.. the design shall be cordinatedwith the Engineering Division. 16.Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and apptval prior to issuance of building permNs; These criteria shali encourage the natural gw.,Ih characteristics of the selected tree species. 17 Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xer;:icape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of lhr Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. SC-2/91 5or12 jC^—G3 F.Signs 1. The signs indicatedon the submitted plans are conceptual only and riot apart of thisaPProval. —l--J— Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and aoproval by the Planning Division priorto installation of any signs. 2. A Uniform Sign Program for this dovelopmern cball be submitted torCity Planner review and approval prior to issuaxo of building permits. 3. Directory monument sign(s)shall be provided for apartment,condominium,or townhomes prior to occupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. G.Environnriental 1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner,priorto accepting a cash deposit on any property. 2. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted — --f- Special Studies Zone fcr the Fled Hilt Fault,in a standard format as determined by vie City Planner,prior to accepting a cash deposit on any properfv. 3. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written ratice of the Foothill Freeway project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner,prior to accepting a cash deposit on any p.,oterty. 4. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approvai prWrto the issuance of building permits. +rie final report shall discuss the level of ulterior noise Auk attenuatlonto below 45CNEL,thelouildirgmate0als.mid constracttontechn:gaesprovid;ed, and if appropriate,verify the adequacy of the mtlgation measures.The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report. H.Other Agencies Emergency seconda)access shailbeprovidedinacconfancewith Rancho CuzamongaFire J---J Protection District Standards. 2. Emergency accessshallbaprovided.rnaintenanceaeeandclear,aminimumofMinotwide --1--1 at all times during construction in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District reepi,ements. 3. Prior to issuance of building permit; for combustible construction, evidence shall be _J-J submitted to the Rancho Cuca mnga FixProtection DtstrIMtttat temporary water SUP*for fire protection is available,pending ronvietion of required fire protection system. _4. The applicants hall contact the U.S.Pwal Seneca to determhe the appropriate type and �I�r location of mail boxes.Mufti-famliy residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail t*xaswith ade(viats lightinig.The final location of the mail tsoxeg arts the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and appr..-.*-jr: fto the issuanc�s of building permits. 5. For projects using septic tank facilities,written certiloaftan of acceptability,inUluding all --�--1 supportive intcmiation,shall be obtained frer:t the San Bernardino Courr.y Department of Environmental HAM,and submitted to the Buildup Official prier to the issuance of Septic Tank Permits,and prior to issuance of building permits. i " . "..:.2/51 8 of 12 ! -? 7 Ccmpleoon Dnm• , APPLICANTS SMALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (714) 98o-1853, C-OR OMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: ..Site Development -1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code,Uniform Mechani- cal Code,Unifo:mPlumbing Code,National Electric Code,and all other applicable codes, ordinances,and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits.. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance id applicable handouts. 2. Prior to isouance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unii(s)or major addition J--� toexistinpunli(s),the applicant shall paydevelopmentf ees at the established rate.Suchfees may include,but are not Iimiledto:City Emautit¢cationFee,ParicFee,Drainage Fee,Systems Development Fee,Permit and Plan Chocking Fees,and Schoch Fees. 3. prior to issuance of building permits for anew commercial or industrial devetupment or addition to an existing development, the applicant,shall Ray development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include,but are not limited to:Systems Development Fee, Drainage Fee,School Fees,Permit and Plan Checking Fees. 4. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Off Wai,akertraclparcel map recordation J_/ and prior to issuance of building permits. i J.Existing Structures 1. Provide compliance Ah the Uniform Syfidireg Code for the property line clearances �--/ consldering use,area,.and fire-resistiveness of existing buildings. 2. Existing buildings shalt be made to coMly with oorreot building and zoning regulations for �--�— the intended use or the keu idlng shall be demolished. I 3. Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed,filled andforcopped to comply with the UnUmTn r"•.int4ing Code and Uniform Building Code. 4. UndergEound on-site utilities are to be Imated and shown on building plans submitted for building permit appficatkoin. K.Gr&d!ng 1. Grading of the su*ct property shelf be in accordance with the Unffoml Building Code,City -�-- Grading Standards, alv accepted grading practices.The final grading plan shall toe. in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. .� 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to --�—�— perform such worts. /3. The development is located within the soft erosion control bosmdanes:a Soil Disturbance Perrrtt,Is raqulred.?lease contact San Setrtiardlno County Deparlrrtentof Agriculture at(714) 387-2111 forpemaf application.Documentalienof such permit shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of"h grading pennit. 4. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified ergitleer'or geologist and submitted'at --�- the time of application for grading plan check. 5. The final grading plans shall beeompieted and approved ptibrto issuance of building permits. J — SC•2/91 7 of 12 /< �� Comoleuon Dam 6. As a custom-lot subdriislon,the following requirements shall be met: a.Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all or;,site r —�—�— drainage facilities necessary for all parcels to the satisfaction of the Bulking and Safety Oivislon priurto final map approval`and priorto the issuance of grading pem0s. b.Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage water that are conducted onto --�—�' or over adjacent parcels,are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading and building permits. c.On-site drainage improvements,necessary for dowatering and protecting the subdivided Jam— properties,are to bo installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows err.;og, leaving.or within a parcel relative to which a building Nrmit is req;ested. d. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety J-- Division for approval priorto issuance of building ani.;-,rading permits.(This may be on an incremental or composite basis.) e.All slope banks in excess of 5 feet In vertical height stiali be seeded with native grasses _JJ or planted with ground cover for erosionconiroi upon completion of grading arsomeother aftemativemethodoferosioncnntrol shaiibecompletedtothesatisfactianofthe Building C3*Jal.In addition a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. This requirement does not release the applir:art/devei0per from=kmpliat= with the slope planting requirements°Of'Section 17.08.040 t of the Development Code. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (714)989.1852,FAR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION1S: L.Dedicatlon and Vahicutar Aoc wA 1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails,public paseo€,public landscape areas,street trees,and public drainage fac4itles as shown on 49e'plans arndlor tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities(cross-lot drainage;local.feedertrails,etc.)shall be reserved as shown on the plans andror tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimater-streets --�� (measured from street centerline): total feet on total feet on total feet on total feet on 9. An irrevocable otter of dedication for -toot wide roadway easement shall be made �J ;~ for all private streets or drives. 4. Non-vehicular access shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets: JJ S. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs J-1 or by deeds and shall be recorded pa=rremly with the map or prior the Issuance of Ji building permits,where no inap is involved. SC-2/91 8o1'12 !<Q 1 s Lrl S. a 6. Private drainage easements for cross-b co 01 von Dam cross-lot i or noted on the final map. 7. Thet final map shall clearly delineate a 10-foot minimum building restriction area on the —J---J_ neighboring lot adjoining the zero lot line wall and contain the following language; "UWe hereby dedicate to the City of Rancho Cucamonga tre n;,iht to prohibit the construef on of tresidenliall buildings(or outer structures)within those areas designated j on the map as building restriction areas.' A maintenance agreement shall also be granted from each tot to the adjacent lot through the CCBR's 8. All existing easements lying wehin future rights-of-way shall be quitclaimed or delineated on the final map. 9. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way s_ shall be dedicated to the C I wherever th3y encroach onto pr. ate property. 10.Additional street right-of-ray shall be dedicated along righttum lanes,to provide a minimum of 7 feet measured from the face of curb:;:It curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn lane.a parallei street tree maintenance easement shall be provided. 11.The developershall make a gcod faith effort to acquire the requi7ed Of$-sfte property interests necessary to construct the required public improvements,and it he the should fail to do so, the developer shall,at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval,enter into an agreement to complete the Improvements pursuant to Govern nnt Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property intereMe requiredforthe Improvements. Su«h agreement shall provide for payme.d by the developerof all costs incurred o f the City to a xuire the off-site,property inter,esu FWIred in connectionwith the subdivision.Security for L cry Lion of these costs shalt bs..+:he form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer,at developer's cost.The.appt", er shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. M.Street Improvements 1. All public improvements(interior streets,drainage facilities,community trails;ipaseos, landscaped areas,etc.)shown on the plans andlortentative map shall be constructed to City:Standards. Interior street Improvements shall include,but are ntt limited to,curb and gutter_AC pavement,drive approLches,sidewalks,streetlights,and Street trees. 2. A minimum of 26-foot wide pavement,within aa40"foot wide dediMed right-of-way shall be _j_/ constructed for all haB-section streets. 3. Construct the following perimeter street Improvements Including,but not limited to: STREET NAME cUR9$ A.C. SIDE DRIVE S'ME'P STREEr COMM. DIAN OTHER GU T£R PVMr WALK APPEL 11GHM 'FREES TRAIL ISLAND SC-2/91 Notes: (a)Median Isla d includes landscaping and irrigation on meter, (b)PXwemem: reccrstn dion and overlays will be determined during plan check. (0)if so marked;We- walk shall be curvilinear per STD.304. (d)If so marked,an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. A. improvement plans and construction: a. Street improvement plans including street trees and street llgMs,prepared by a regis- �--� terea Civil Engineer,shall be submitted to and approved by the Cfty Engineer.Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improve- ments,priorto final map appro+-al orthe issuance of building permits,whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being perfcrmed in public tight-of-way,fees shall be paid and a -/—J construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineers Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping,marking,traffic,street name signing,and interconnect conduct —!-/— shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal condziftwithpull boxes shall be installed on any rewconstruction orreconstruction of major,secondary or collector streets which intersect with other major,secondary or collector streets for future traGc.signals.Pull boxes shall be placed onboth sides of the streetat3 feetoutside of BCR,ECR orany other locations appr®vedbythe City Engineer. 'Votes: (1)All pull boxes shall be No.6 unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2)Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pullrope. e. Wheet chair ramps shall be Installed on all four oornerr of intersections per City Standards or directed by City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall rermin open to traffic 0.all tulles with.. �—J-- adequate detours during construction,Astreet closure permit maybe mqui.red.Acash deposit shall be prorkfd to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrateddralnage flows shall not cr=sidewalks.Under sidewalk drains-shall be installed to City Standards,ezcapt for single family tots. t h. Handicap access ramp design shalt be as specified by the City Engineer. I. Street names shall be approved by the City PlannOrurforto submittal forf<rst plan check. ��la S.Street improvement plans per City,Standards for all private streets sftall be provided for J—1 review and aipprovai by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being performed on the pri- vale streets, fees shall be paid,and construction permits shall be obtained from the City Engineers Office in addition to anyother permits required. 6.Street trues,a minimum of 15-gailon size or larger,shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the Chy's street tree program. sc- /9l 10 ort2 —�/ / Cumvle aL 7.Intersection line of site designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance w4,h adopted policy. �� a. On collector or larger streets,lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, —�—J— including drrreways.;Walls,signs,and slopes shall be located outside the lines of sight. Landscaping and other obstructions within the lines of sigh'shall be approved bythe City Engineer. b. Local residential street interse-Qns shall have their noticeability improved,usually ay movingthe 2+/-closest streett4es on each side 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: J---I 9.All public improvements on the following streets shall be operationally complete prior to the —�--�— issuance of building permits: N.Public Mlaintenance Areas t.A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works standards —J�— 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 landscape parkways, medians,paseos,easements, trails,or other areas are required to be annexed into the.: -,' Landscape Maintenance District: 2.A signed consent and waiver form to join and/orform the appropria_e Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer priorto final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first.Forfnation costs shall be bane by the developer. 3.All required public landsmong ancl irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. 4.Parkway landscaping on the following street(s)shalt conform to the results of the respective J_J Beautification Master Plan: 0.Drainage and Flood Control t. The project(or portions thereof)is located within a Flood Hazard Zone;therefore,flood protection measures shall be provided as certified by a'registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. 2.It sh-A be tha developers responsihitity to have the current FIRM Zone desigpation removed from the project 2!9a.The developers engineer shall prepare all necessary reports,plans,and hydmlogiGhydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision(CLOMR)shall be obtained from FEMA prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits,whichever occurs first,A Letter of Map Revision(LOMiR)shall be issued by FEMA prior to oc=pancy or improvement acceptance,whichever occurs first. Aft 3.A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final —tom_ map approval or the issuance of building permits,whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. SC•2/91 11 of 12 —� 2 �Y 0- 4.A permit from the County Flood Control District is required for work within itsright•oh-way. 5.Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any pubiic,storm drein pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature free trunk. ---�--- 6.Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in 0^9 event of a --�--� blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street. P.Utilities 1,Prcvide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary,sewerage system,water, gas,electric power,teteptione,arid cable TV'(allunderground)in accordance with the Utility Standards.Easements shall be provided as,required. f 2.The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilttley,,3 necessary j' _ .3 Water and sewer plans shalt be designed and constructed to meet tits f requirements of the —�---J Cucamonga County Water District(CCWD),Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San 6emtAino.A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first: 0.General Requirements and Approvals 1.The separate parcels rontained within the project boundaries shall be legaity combined into --� -- / one parcel prior to issuance of building permits. s 2.An casement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior t final map approve!or �-- issuance of build! psv' .(s,w ichever ccurs first,for:L �aV P j�' ltl 2 �r T rnnb tb � Alkk 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 treated parcels.; 4. Etnvandal$an Sevaine Area Regional Mainline,Secondary Regional,and Master Plan Drainage Fees shall be paid prior to final map approval orpriorto t `ling permk issuanco''N no map is Involved. 5.Parmits shall be obtained from the folloWing agencies for worts within,their rig*73way: 6.A signed consent and welver fort to join and/or form the Law Enforcernent Ct:.inunk, Facilities Dfstnd shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the ' ssuance of building permits,whichever occurs first.Formation costs shall be borne by the Developer. ......7. Prior to finalization of any development phase,sOldent imrmvement plans shall be com-' pleted beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfartionof the City Engineer.Phase boundaries shall correspond to lotiines shown on the approved tentative map. r C SC-2/91 12 of 12 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 9, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission ` FRO.,-4: Barrye R.`Hanson, Senior Civil' neer BY: Barbara Krall, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL. MAP 13611 RANCON ALTO subdivision o 31 acres o a-nd-nto 18 parce s in 5-e- ffaustrial Park area, Subarea 7 of the Industrial Specific Plan, bounded by Red.Oak Street, Mite Oak Street and Civic Center Drive - APR: 208-362-23, 24., 25, 49 and 50 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. �Action�Re u_ested. " Approval of the proposed 'Tentative Parcel Map as s oh wn on tXhlbit "B" B. Parcel Size: Parcels range in size from .90 acres to 4.66 acres. C. Existing Zoning: Industrial Park District, Subarea 7 of the Industrial Specific Plan. D. Surrounding Land-Use: ( :1 North - Vacant,'hospital and hotel under construction South - Vacant andexisting Post Office East - Existing Industrial Buildings West - E;,, ting Office Park E. Surrounding General Plan and.Develapment Code Designations. North Industrial Park, Subarea 7 South - Industrial Palk, Subarea 7 East - Industrial Par12; Subarea 7 West Industrial Park, Subarea 7 F. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and slopes gently from noi`h to south. �� ITEii L: �� PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TENT PM 13611 RAHCON REALTY FUND October 9, 1991 Page 2 II ANALYSIS: The purpose of this Parcel Map is to create 18 parcels for the development of an Industrial Park. The master plan for this Industrial Park is o►� tonight's agenda as DR 90-20. The public streets adjacent:to e site ar� improved with the exception of parkway improve to improvements ,,and drive approaches which are required upon development of each phase, The proposed cul-de-sacs .are to be\; constructed upon recordation of;the Parcel Map. 1II. ENVIRONME►' .a REVIEW: The applicant complIted Part 1 of the Initial tub-,ta' f conducted a field investigation and completed Part II of ` the Ir:cial Study. No ,',adverse impacts upon the environment are anticipated as a result of this project. Therefore, issuance of Negative Declaration is appropriate. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in the Inland'Vailey Dail 1,''Bu14e+Jn. Posting at the site has also been completed. V. RECOMAENDATION: It is recommende&that the Planning Commission consider all npu-t a�-elements of the Tentative Parcel .Map 13611. If after such consideration, the Commission ,can recommend approval, then tfc adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. Respectfully submitted, 19 h7, lw Barryye K. Hanson Senior Civil Engineer BRH:BK•dlw ,7 Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" - Tentative Map Resolution and Recommended Conditions of Approval .^ f c. » C__! lu T i �� ~I i �i_ �D��e1G�lL 1 �y� a P �9 y� CITY OF A TM... PARrL MRP l3&11 RANCHO CUCAMONGA. ALE: V 1 CiNITY MAP {�ENGIIM]EIitNG ExEmm L1T1,,:3t�1�T f "'A. ICA 44 P M.!0617 P.M:B.1391333-35 tU ?"i. -3 _ �i 2 't•xr' a. y —s •} j P.Pi!. 1C'_j3, ..�.�•�f:J.'�U �. .cif" •T �.�� Z. s 1 r1<zs aGx , �+ a � Y `ol 12T.Ab \�+ IF I— k �•. r.i T'+.�. +� .'�' a i� r "1 �. Us Ac? f, CA ' ,�i.` �`y' t,t i 1 • � L fir' M, ,� �/t t oyo� : ®�Q t AQ ?AA. 59—�8 RM.S.112/25-27 N CITY OF ITEM.- PARS. MAP 13611 , . RANCHO CUCAMONGA Trua. TENrATIVE MAA Ak GZ G ?yIVI ON 4.% RESOLUTION NO. �} \ A RESOLUTION OF'THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF:THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNII�, 'CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 13611, BOUNDED BY RE:r OAR STREET, WHITE OAR AVENUE AND CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -Y APN 208-352-23, 24, 25, 49 AND 5O WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 13611, submitted by Rancon Realty Fund, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing into 18 parcels, the real property situated in the City of Rrncho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, identified as APN(s) 208-352-23, 24, 25, 49 and 50, bounded by Red Oak Street, White Oak Avei1L4, and Civic Center Drive; an,3. WHEREAS, on October 9 1991,. the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above-described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, PLANNING COMMISSION jfESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: srCTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is CcmH stout with the General Flan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General PI.-kn. 3. That the site > is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or public health problems or have adv;arse effects on abutting properties. SECTION 2: This Commission finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in Compliance with the,California Environmental Quality Act of 1970; and further, this Commission hereby issues a NRgative Declaration, SECTION 3; Tentative Parcel L4ap Number 3.3611 is hereby approved subject to the attached Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: 1. An in-lieu fee as coe,:ri.bution to the future construction of the: medliA island within Footri'a Boulevard shall be paid to the City prier to the issuance of building permit or approval of the Final PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION }( TENT PM 13611 — RANCON REALTY FUND October 9, 1991 Page 2 1 Parcel Map, whichever occurs firet. The remount ofa 1. the fee shall be prorated on a per acre basis from: the total fee attributable to,Parcel Map 6725. That Q. r total fee shall be c m,half the cost of the median times the distance from' projection of the easterly righ', -of-way line fer 'naren Avenue to a protection of thewesterly right of way-for Aspen Avenue along Foothill Boulevard. 2. A traffic study`ehall be provided 'to determine if and1when signals are warrantod for the intersections' f!, of Spruce/Red Oak, Civic Center,,/Rsd Gtk, Civic center/white._Oak, Arrow/Red Oak and Arrow%White Oak prior to approval of the final map for Phase_ I. i, Traffic signals deierTinsd necessary sha1F'l be. constructed to the satisfaction of the 'City' Engineer. 3. The drive app,�oach for Parcel 14'shall be relocated easterly to align the centerline�with tl.. common property line of Farcei�, S and 6 of Parcel Map 99SS on the south side of Civic Center Drive. 4, parkway itr ovements shall be constructed along the entire frontage of ea^*--nh_aae upon approval. r` the final map V-) each S. The 20 foot wide greenbelt areas +as shown on the tentative Parcel Map shall be as easements. Reciprocal use and maintenance,,,)fltnese areas shall ' be provided by the CC&Yta In. addition, .the reciprocal use and maintenance of Lot A shall be vrovided by the CC&Rs. 6. Emergency,access easements shall be provided between parcels to the satisfaction of the Fire Protection District prior to approval of the final map. APFROVED AND ADOPTED LISTS 9TH DAY OF .00TOBER 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF.THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGa BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLtIION TENT PM 13611 v RANCON REALTY FUND October'3_; 1991 Page,3 Ash t ATTEST- Brad Buller, Serxeta.,y I, Brat Buller, Secretary'o% the A..ning Commission of the City/of Rancho' Cucamonga, 'do hereby certify.that the faregaing Rea'olution watA_duly and rege.1arly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Comm ssioin, Of the City of Rancho 1, c . al.at a regular mee_ing''Of the Plann:r, Commissio3:%held on the 9th day ou October,1991, by ?:he fol7lowi.n -to-wi{� AYES: COMMISSIONP IS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: n ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: n ;) l t s� t i t n . svG_ UV « q0 O O Q L PL �O:D• L OVE_ bPYL+ �� JI._.N MM prM EN c Cp � vL � SL � �L•3 GY yN Y � ZO EE fs 6L� Ygg� �p L� ^ NO MU c Lc ; _W rN EM YCq YC bOp O O.. � _dam... pc tY •O 5 , ao o4/c� sw a a 'c^' dY YM w< e0C a y. c e o o Z •7 o.( y q c u�r'" `0 8 m o N a�_a -^v a L 9. ryp q�'' .`roW S`w♦Eo p Y,LI :�py :�T xYa N p O � �� C� Y•Y ` C1 � L O L J _ Y DVn E�i tCL' 'ij _iw E�Y PtGr I v Y '.1 E Cr OiG <9N !4 p�4C NW4 C` Ati YINCIn J.U. f.dL <' r .. 0� j ♦ O _ ^ y4 L � � 6p Y M �^y V Y N _pC -S yVy« Ems O VOar qy� O► Y �• , O vi �yC N�iLt u 3YC� O 7 Y by IJ OI 9 O C f��.••V L Y-y6 L' 046 OyYY O.0 b L Mb a Lp ^Y t.O Y6AgVT,^>•� 1iy aD YCQ T'l-lVystl7 O - aZ O•tl Y L _ L e o`c�L Y.r7SCY LLG voel SE04 s E.. o rS c9 �oL O �~a> U.IF c+ SNS' p nOr C `.O t�cM qN >Vy OYODL u0 E F. qq O O O O L S S n OiO H b y�O~T O 4 u ru� YY qq sY pa u`a ooLaLu f V ^q. t'.'Yy,Y .Y Yh O^- �. M'" « qt'��' e Jb u.,cZ N �' t Y:p c�.NE v „o '''JJIII�� y� Y � COc _�� C ��yC ~•� N�� Yv`e� E>i �� N�o L� C+ �Tp �O 4 O ,V OI h 05 f.l 4 <Y9D QD� WU HLLMa+YN a. A..Y Y Y 40 O C _O @ A:'Y t.rt1 pp PO�O •:fit GAG �2^ qi :. L. O.��c V A u 9 E4 O -n.L� TQ� w� O^Cps EEqY^O v N$�E 4.4Y L. 0 Or O. ge WE ZGO'Ca yyG4 E"Yw u4' «09 d O C L. N O C N15 ~L p g s .- L 4Y 9 Hip -..N w v '2tlo. o•a H:ro ror�: u� o _ �' N of 4 �� 'p'u, ctl ' z$ . v cQ u.,.�G•c 'S.`'4 C$ 63.TL� p.�y0 .L p�VNW `2y .d^yY \,�! "L"iT buW. Ly..�W ry. �^ �au�s+N^ ,=,;c$o "24 •� �,o nY. �i' of �a �mtiv q.�a otl $i oa.u. 'O:.ypi^p:4N uoou'wo" �� 4E O '�Y tOi " O GPG"YS a y Db p,y. 00 LY�nSNCp 4•!�O O 4 4 _ ape` p o ML n^' tl � no ^ s�V NL n149q �..04. �pU� L^ 6. N tlf.,l0 Y Y.q u u iys O. C .r. ^:.C L O 6 4 N tl L S y L 4.2 \ wOZ �Y�`L�4O.. COVE L 4 YIaL « ^w vo +\ tic o p9-1ea "o atl q M. '". _w a u. nar a.n a'3 vsE E y ^ un "� U g y paw C4 N OW~ M$ 'q Yy -0 '0 q cw G 4 Y" L ^C L ^J:z^ q^ OV ^O1~ M ~� ^YYS -"Zl OQ a� v0 o$ g gg 66 N {yy tl� N O O N V Z. A.G "a p N L 04 E vo U C : 6 � JT =.a L N ve p G u O� rOG 4NC E C` yq 4C q O pa y�a.. �CM. as .. `�W� ` pC C G OO S� CC V*O. ^Y L 233 q LLp `C w. U L E Y �5 Y.. a y4 .2. Y "w �s Op�Y idY SMC ^O€ oDY CWa. C� QL�S O �.p s .:c Yn q0` + K N •+0 0 r 0 O L,m C <�..O 6 Z N 4 O Q om ..: IL C ` 2 a -a Y 2 cl - e � mbcrjmDmmDcammpmmcu, m co Q ctf N c6 tC 0 m o m m tC Ri l6 .0 .0 wo a > > o a o Q m fn w Cl) co cq 0) ur cn cl) IL 7 z e h 0 i n Q Z w 8 g Lotx z v w m m w � nD ' G D D tie Q -- p a - G ,� .q C ci a CO) l4 CD co co o Cl rn rn o � a rvz r) c U o cc c I cc . m c C) �' v W s m W CD ul acc O W w m Z Ui 0 lw- m o m J Z d m 0 o W it K -J, � C> ,. pq t3 tU t9 0 0 cG 0 0 ca -m, ca � of 0 m� CL CA (0 J7 CA . CO CA to w -CA to U) Cl) CO. �� PETITION TO: Dennis stout, Mayor Septemb&r 20, 1991 and Members of City Council Plan -:i-, Commission' FROM: Residents of Rancho Cucamonga Q PETITION FOR GENEFAL''"PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR VICTORIA COMMUNITY DOWN ZONING OF MULTIPLB=UNIT AREAS WE HELtEBY PETITION YOU TO AMEND THE LAND USE FOR THE VICTORIA RT-fUNNED COMMUNITY CURRENTLY ZONED FOR HIGH RESIDENTIAL AND MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL. SPECIFICALLY, WE REQUEST AN AMENDME NT TO THE LAND USE FOR SUBAREAS F AND G IN THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY FROM MEDIUM ZONE DENSITY (8-14 Units per acre) to LOW MEDIMA, (4-8 Units,per acre).. _ COMMUNITY REASONS FOR OPPOSIT< :r ION .Ce? CIT12RE27T MEDIUM ZONE DENSITY AND PROPOSAL FROM THE WILLIAM LYON CLW?AN 1 FOR TWO RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS TENTATIVE TRACT #15354, A 156 UBJIT ;CONDOMINVM PROJEZ'T AND TRACT I #15289, A 193 UNIT TOWNHOME PROJEC`L - SUBAREAS F AND G. A) SUBAREAS F AND G ARE IM MDIATELY AWACENT TO LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS TO THE EAST, WEST AND SOUTH. TO ALLOW ANYTHING BUT THE SAME LOW MEDITR DENSITY RESIDENCES WOULD BE INCOMPATIBLE TO THE SURROUNDING AREAS. B) POTENTIAL DECREASE IN,�THE STANDARD OF LIVING B1C' HIGH DENSITY_ OF LOWER PRICED UNITS. C) DECREASE VALUE TO EXISTING LOW MEDIUM DENSITY HOMES/PROPERTY ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN THE AREA CAUSED BY ADJACENT MULTIPLE, LOWER PRICED UNITS. D) INCREASED TRAFFIC AND PAVING pRoBiaZ is ON ALREADY BUSY INTERSECTIONS, I. ; MILLIKEN AND VICTORIA PARK A5 WELL AS MILLIKEN AND KENYAN. E) PROBABLITZ OF INCREASED CRIME DATE TO°THE LARGE NUMBERS OF UNITS AND PROJECTED LOW SALES PRICES THEREBY ATTRACTING INVESTORS INTERESTED IN'RENTING THESE, UNITS OUT. F) ADDITIONAL OVERCRVWDING OF OUR SCHOOLS' AND RECREATIONAL FACITILIES. WE RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES OF CONf.'s�RNED RESIDENTS IN SUPPCRT OF DOWN ZONING THE VICTORIA COMMUNITY OUR GOAL IS TO MAINTAIN., THE STANDARD' OF QUALITY LIVING Fort"WHICH VICTORIA HAS BECOME KNOWN. NAME (SIGNATURE)_ ADDRESS r !I ee �t r 3G e µ'( a`fie. I I "CAM E _ �• A l; t Y 6 � � � �•/t llama �' t E 3_ f� �y i ' i •I No- Lon m pill �� / 'I i� fps► �i _ �� ,,�i �! _ ' i _�A e a _ • K� I h: I J PETISSON TO: Dennis Stout, Mayor September 20, 1991 and Members of City Counci`1, Planning Commission FROM: Residents 'of Ranchq<'Cucamonga PETITION FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR VICTORIA COMMUNITY Dowj ZONING OF MULTIPLE UNIT AREAS }i" WE HEREBY PETITION YOU TO AMEND THE LAND USE FOR THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY CURRENTLY ZONED FOR HIGH RESIDENTIAL AND MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL TO LOW-MEDIUM.RESIDENTIAL,. SPECIFICALLY, WE REQUEST AN AMENDMENT To THE LAND USE FOR SUBAREAS F AND G IN THE VICTORIA PLANNED`^)MMUNITY FROM MEDIUM ZONE'DENSITY (0-14 Units,per acre) to LOW MEDIUM (4-8 Units per acre) COMMUNITY REASONS FOR OPPOSITION TO CURRENT MEDIUM ZONE DENSITY AND PROPOSAL FROM THE WILLIA14 LYON COMPANY FOR TWO RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS TENTATIVE TRACT #15354, A 156 UNIT CONDOMINIM4.. PR03-ECT AND TRACT '#,15289, A 193 UNIT TOWNHOME PROJECT SUM.EAS''F AND G. A) SUBAREAS F AND G ARE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS TO THE EAST, WEST AND SOUTH. TO ALLOW- ANYTHING BUT THE SAME LOW 2-a- )IUM DEN.SITY RESIDENCES WOULD BE INCOMPATIBLE TO THE SURROUN.,)ING AREAS.. B) POTENTIAL DECREASE IN THE STANDARD OF LIVING BY HIGH DENSITY OF LOWER PRICED UNITS. C) DECREASE VALUE TO EXISTING LOW MEDIUM DENSITY HOMES/PROPERT--` ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN THE AREA CAUSED BY ADJACENT MULTIPLE, LOWER PRICED UNITS: D) INCREASED TRAFFIC AND PARKI'TG PROBLEMS ON ALREADY BUST INTERSECTIONS, I.E., MILLIKL',.AND VICTORIA P.MM AS WELL INS MILLIKEN AND KENYAN. E) PROBABLITY OF INCREASED-CRIME DUE TO THE LARGE NUMBERS Oi UNITS AND PROJECTED LOW SALES -PRIZES THEREBY ATTRACTING" INVESTORS INTERESTED ,IN RENTING THESE UNITS' OUT. F) ADDITIONAL OVERCROWDING OF OUR SCHOOLS AND RECREATIONAL FACITILIES; WE RESPECTVULLY SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES OF CONCERNED RESIDENTS IN SUPPORT OF DOWN ZONING THE JTIC•TLRIA COMMUNITY. OUR GOAL IS TO MAINTAIN THE STANDARD OF QUALITY LIVING FOR WHICH VICTORIA HAS BECOME KNOWN. NAME (SIGNA - ADDRESS l�� =1�.� �( ,.(�, � ,:cam,�3 • ��i(ji 40'.,l4 L6/;LT VLLWzka 00 �I�t i/ CONTINUED PETITION FOR DOWN ZONING VICTORIA NAME (SIGNATURE)p rr_ ADDRESS 1314NZ10 Lo og-r. LLA /1��''r/I ; tif��/l �l � jj�l /� �J'�•} !��/�/I1�!1' rl•(r �-' J.I•t-,�, T^r'^JC. �—(�L��.�•. L�/'"I E�/:. !�n /cr''_�a _ ht.(/.C%l C[. _ry tf_ Lt =y�J,.( [tt...e�� i�T`•'`{ l��.....y^{t .f"—'U+ >•I � .�-ram .'1. Clf rc� , r _ CONTINUED PELTION FOR DO'NN ZONING VICTORIA NAME (SIGNATURE) ADDRESS Cf..�r � r J. �. /, � SCk:�.:/ �r�,.`7�'•] �'f�i�.F-�="�I ri F+i'• �.L:.lCii'.f.Cf� �l!.�L 1 �[°_� C rGi' � 1//Ga�- (�j�7 TiF� 'I%1� 1• i c"!!)d 4 r I1-76 Peril' fir✓ ,h:kl.£;t.'! _ ;,�' 7,-" ,it. f , ED 10 'f�_ ��.' -�✓^�"t77s�//�' `I %1� F—!ZG. +'�T<'�_('r�ir/r. r1,� c:�,/7,•� _ ''!(1 "-�f�_ ci .ry••�M�tj 11%zS?s? ��cC7�x`Y!I� �/! �'�I�{';'� 1 it CONTINUED PETITION FOR DOWN ZONING VICTORIA NAME (SIGNATURE) AD`)RFSS u SAL -'va11a y\�a-c'0 N ciyj-Dl LDL. V(11Q61-Li :5LA (t i •�ri� iliil�rrt.�e-�.� �� f: o r `17 cY Al ��''/U;1 _�•'ci/t �t 1 E=llL'L.r:r�c'' �,`' ^/� ('1�(,�/y' t 3 a.. �. Mtn( 11431 Lon ,Ii, All dY .YCa . q j-7,1 7 l �s �s 1+4JL r-elf'; _aL .C', 17 • ` _ ;`,41 l'S 1 C� 't�l�YCb `t�� F�s It J�7V� - ittlrl �Il14Mfd�1�h wu� 1`�i MU' .YL)v."•.! y L I t� �) �•c� h CL' �C �f t�Z'{ CONTINUED PETITION FOR DOWN ZONING• VICTORIA NAME (SIGNATURE) ADDRESS / 6 T -�i'C SS w r1T., < .✓�!� 4 gs k lei" �...• '1V Via.wLi�L.li'.,z-jot f f �! /,I��r/ � �° � z ''` '�7f LLi WWI 9n ?ti�., J �l - ��t I�.F1.a,,j,^ {k • �! �nt �/��1� v CONTINUED PETITION rOR DOWN ZbNING �o7CTORI:f f I3PS4E (,SIGNATUIR^) ADDt'ES3 1 0 Zkl-a e S 7Y o f ylzz '�fCLCG ? , 7� Tl??L�v 7?% i �1r.•z r `91 A G7 (1' �•1J�rp�.� •A�' �L i:.i /1'�.._L +� 1'��f�! 1�1 '� .t �` { A4f+ �77 / 1 ty.,. �,•.=lZ.t:e...� :>� e� - �r CONTINUED PETITION FOR DOWN ZONING VICTORIA NAME (SIGNATURE)` ADDRESS \ ♦�.�L. C-1 rl i \�:y,-,..�:1�j •-tJ' ''.. i��. L�-;.~#-� '•`�-�t' t'�- � I r_ r�?�,..�� !J.Z.JI �I�:o��v �r{•�C. ��. � �1'j`�.�1 (o i91`1 �AS�i�fa t� A �:tMA �Yf-7Z1{ L , 7(+lliL 10 - . 1 f OCT 09 '91 15:33 HILL,-FARP.=IR3HURPILL " P 2 MILL, FARRER & BURRILL A/ARMCMM)P N WNQ PNQFV,9.0NAL COAM0.1Y9& LOE ANOCLCE COUNT'I '<T rNEft.4T t.AW A.J.MILL.tIEEI.18531 ' ` tc6CP.GNe tam Ois7•o4se THIRTY-FIFTI+FLOOR-UNItGN BANK SQWARC WV•:M.PARRCR 6690 4E711 i STANLTV S.SURRILL 11803.1pe: OIIANGC COVN" .,J$.SOWM FIOUGROA GTIICS.T I TCLEYkONC 17141 sat•EBCS - 69sNai'[tt^i,"CaLy P'b AN1A.90971•IBG9 'C4ZCOPICR. wAITCN'i OIRCCT D.A.f u.nol ja1a1 6xa-K K1 (213) 621-0e45 October 0, 19971 I Members of the �Olanninq commission Ctty of iencho Cucamonga RanchorC+,,c=onga, California 92729 Re: Proposed Amendment to Ganeral Plan Land Qse' �t1„7A �,a tha VxG'i:oria_��paed Cc�mmu`I�tv Dear Ca=is sionesrs: ' t This letter is submitted or bebalf of Lin:oln xaravild,a T,im`t'on Partnership rtn.r0higt (("Lincoln")") _n 6onza®etton 4iii-lx the Planning Ctmaaission's consideration of.En-Yiroismental Asscomment and Caneual Plan Amendment .9,1-03, a proposal to arand the general rlan Land Use Nap within_ the victoria Planned Community ("Proposed Amendment"). As you are todoubtedly aware, Linamin owns twenty acres* of prapgrty lQCL Ce&'at the northeast rornar of Base line Road and MAlliken Avenue in the City-of Rancho Cucamonym d Zn ;.ially, #t ShoUldL be noted that i_he city council's Resolztion 9 -060 which established the direction for. the Progr--rd Amendment, included otxly "potential future residential, cicavelopment based on Rurraxt vacant uncgWitted'resi4fintia� acrea jg " significa ay, the Cl'6yls Haueing Zlsmesnt correctly designaltea. the 1..ncoln ps<a,elA site as props-ty with Mans currently being processed; it agile identify it arts "vaf,arat uncommitted acreage," We believe that the Housinf El`men designation, by definition, removes the Lincoln sit® from this Propa:ed Azentban.t..and request that the c0=ji:ae$7,n spzoifically ackmcwladge this fact if it acts tc rec6mmend adyptisn of the Proposed Amendments 7f, de:spits the Houninj Element designation and the language of Reso',ution 91-060, the _City *,actes to apply lho Proposed Amendmc: to L.tnealta's propsr4,y, Unooln will bn directly and severely impacted since the Amandmo at sge ks to reduce drastically tHA�-densities withl.n txga Victoria CozLu.vj ,ty Plan ("V'CP"), a plan upon which Lincoin h;.'a re:l iaa since purchasing the: property rwo years ago, 1 1 OCT 09 191 15:36 HILL-MRREMBURRILL ' P.1 October 8, 1591 40ge 2 to considering bath thQ Proposed AmeAft- ent;and its appl-1=i ..,n to the Lincoln property, you should keep'`i'n mind the following faits. Since poxchasing the subject property in 1989, TAnco7 n has worked closely W th the City to develop a high "icy, Multifamily residential project ("Project") which includes development and designfeatures that are compatible with the site and the City's efforts to upgrade multifamily davelopmeiir.. AeOpite t io Design Review c*a-iz,ttee's-original apgreval or Lincoln's �'rojec'� and 'he near-approval by your Commi,3sion last yc}ar (2-2; votej,' support within the City has eroded s3 the resell of neighborhood oppozsitio a. Even th4 -gh hinroln lies made repeated revisions to its plans to meet the +ojectionis of neighbr ring homeowners sizcl iding, but not limi'ttd to the allocaUcn of sots opea space, estiliaatioa of air, different floor plaVis addition of attached garages, and the elimiriazion og._62 units -- your Commission and tea City council have failed to approve the Project For over ar, each #aim® the Lincoln Project has been considered, both your commission and the Council have provided express assurances that the density of the p.,�oj,Ae was not,the issue. Zu fact, Lincoln -was directly led to bel '.eve by the Council, as it encoura,i,A Lincoln to resubmit,its clear, that the only issue it needed to address Was the "trans"Eion in density"; and although Lincoln was never requested to reduce overall density ' `did so.. Around the firs; of September, Lincuin SWmitted a now Plan which was desigriod to ?.het the Cfty's concetns. whe total number of units for the. Project has been sivniZl-,aptly rceluced below that originally proposed and it compilem with the 8-14 H su/acre designation on the northerly por^t10n of he site ae. well as the overall site density average of 17.5 dv/acre It was only after Lincoln sttbraitted ita lzlzest plan, specifically rovised to Meet City repirements, that it became aware of the crtyls intended downzonxng of the southerly ten acres of its pror3rty from MH residential (14-24 du/acre) to H residential (8-14 du/acre) anu the northerly try acres frox H resider+tial (8-14 du/acre) to LM residential (4-8 du/acre),, :fie proposed action violates specific provisions of,-,9tat: law interferer witli Lincoln's property ,eights under both state and federal coi.ititutions, and is inconsistant with basic prituoiples of sound planning. s OCT 09 '91 15:37'HILL—FRPRER&tURRILL P.2 October S, 1991 Page 3 pCostld ftendxg= yig=n s state raw The Proposed Amendment to the vCP will unguesticnab2 impede the City's ability: to provide its fair shaara of regJonall riousing as required by Gc+verMOnt Code §§ 65580 - 65520. Additionally, it contravenes the terms of.,Government Code +§f \ 66412.2 and 65923.2 since the City fails to consider this effects; of the proposed action on the housing needs of the region. There, is a discernable need for, and the City has an obligation to provide, high quality affordable housing in the City..,; ,1 The action which the City.is proposing basically ignores the provisions of Government code §639r3.1 which requires a City to designate and zone sufficient vacant land for residential use in relation to zoning for nonresidential usp. moreover, it is violative of thkt-.ez.1press,provisions of Covarament Code § 65863.6 since the public 4ia7th, safety and,,, welfare of the City clearly do not justify reducing the housing t..pportunities thre•.,Sh: this action. 1a this regard,: ,the Proposed Amendment is l contrary to and inconsistent with axm ess provisions of this General Plan's Housing Element, speci.'Gieally, Objective 31 Chapter Two which provides that the 4'Lty shall nja]3low anal` create new opportunities which enabler a broad range, of housing types, site designs, construction method; m"a and maiin a balanced. supply of ownership and rental units." In addition, the Proposed Amendment is contrary to a num.,bc^r of state laws which prohibit discrimination against certain types of residential use. For example, it violates the explicit requiremenf;s of Government Code g 65006 In that it discriminates against Lincoln's proposed residential project based upon future ocampancy by peroons and faxil'l.es of middle income. Moreover, it disregards the requirements uZ`Government Code § 65589..5, being a thinly disguised w4bterfuge for impermissibly gaining leverage to convince Lin=ln to abandcsn its project or develop it at a lever density. Thare is little question that the City's proposed action constitutes imparmi sible exclusionary x6ni,rg which is directly at odds with the VCP's express provision that 25* of the units be allocated for affordable housing. The City cannot legitimately make the findings required by § 65589.5 since it r"nct realistically demonst-Ats that the �proposokl project would have a specific adverse impa�"'-.upon public f yl OCT 09 19i' 1Ea39 HILL=_FARRER&HURRILL ' , P,. Catobeax,"m, 1911 - >� Page 4 health or safety unless the Proposed AmerAiment wers approved or the density of the VCP reduced. Nor do,;-we bekieve the cit a`can �. show that there is no feasible 11 6d to satisfactorily mittgete or avoid the purported adverse' ra;pact other than to peduce ta`� i density of the °VCP.. The adoption of a negative as propesed, also violates "basic requirements o2 t>riw Califr;:.-nia 'Environmental quality Act It: is espparent that the City is required to prepare an environmental iz&act report in connection with this Proposed Amendment. Tor, evert thosie the' propo Al reduces density or, the properties directly affocted, it'neceass$ataly i shifts papu ation to o},her developable •sites, both within and. outside the City. Thal"i'ity is required to consider thi a local and regional, impact;on bousing as it considers': tha ada&ion, 0.f a proposal wzich will have such a direct and e�veY� a�apact xan existing and fut ire housing supply.. The Proposed lmendment Violates Lincoln's Constitutional Rigtats _ - i The impact of.the City Is,Pro;.osed Ameandmeipt an Lincoln*sa property should not ba in doubt. It vielastess Lincoln's right to substantive dupe'praticess in that the action As irrational and arbitrary and not ratrici,!Rl.ly related d to a legitimate glovernrental purpose. The action also denies Linaoin eq=l protection under the California- and,U.S. -Censtitutiona ill that the Proposed Amendment, in its effect, d3reetly and f,-tslireotly singles r:t Lincoln's property for disparate treatment: it unquestionablytar ate the development which blob Lit��ai�s g hasB a-. and is proposed, still proposing, for flee ro stint Ntt31e p p X the Proposed Amendment appears, ,on its*Ease, to affect a number of properties, the intent of the action is clearly directed at LinccAn s pending proposal. As such, ft oonstituteas illegal spay zoning. Furthermore, it effects a downzoning Which in ao ' onerous and excessive as to constitute, .in undue int®rfsxenc* with and a tating of property without payment of Just cempensati.on i:n viol?+tio;a of the California and U.S. Constitutions. Local governments will be required to pay compen"tion if a regulation goes too far, that is, where the application of 21 restricti6n as applied to a partimular property Xas the potenNi ii of destroying' the reasonable investment-backed development of the property owner. . 1 OCT 09 '91 15.4E HILL,_FAR ER&BUP.RILL P.2 October 8, 1991 Page 5 Givaata the amount of time and money which Lincoln has expanded to date in securing regulatory approvals from the City, and repeatedly sevi.sing its Pro cc to meet'the demands of :the City, adoption of this propoffi42 wouat deprive,Lincoln-of a itiaiatental vested right. The action is both,arbitrary and , t, unreasor.able given Linco3ns"s good taath r4;Aance on the City, ,* P continucd guidance and representations$ T.,inpoln has consis�criIyj, ralied upon iose representation and expended; mignificant amount {r of money in furtherance of the d'rectives imposed by the City. l The Propps3d Amendment, as appiie °to Lincoln, is an arbitrary', and &,ncrxminatory exercise of -police power te, thwart a development which would otherwise meet all of lt.'he :'-I�ylm require-meaats and general plan objectives. PreRps!gd AmenaMnt`:, ott Colo sout�d i%x►rs in t'xe final analysis, wMii,tha City is proposing makeo no sense. It ignores not only the mandates of state law but tYte;:, realities of a burgeoning populaticn:,vhic,h is, with, the passing of each year, migrating eastwagi,'. 'Th�a studies g-ib?ished by the Southern California Asa ociatlorY of Governments dictate, and lstata law requires, that gtiod planning conoidar"those realities. The proposed Amendment, is based,upon inapn--ariate planning criteria 4 t and 3nadsquate analytical data. Lincoln irges the commission to'`entiralp reassmjd'the Proposed Amendmeat in light of state law and the rep,a�_� lbilities placed upon the City to plan responsibly to most the 2,o4.si�;1g needs of all economic sagmentP; of the community. The T,'zoioosed Amendmant should be denied. r Very,truly youM, ' a, �Fe;.�'81�tE FISCM. PHX OF HILL, FAMER L BURRILL6 D?P:df i, cc: R. Scot Sellers %ames L. ftrfta n t City Attorney 4; . j OCT 09 191 15:32 HILL—FARRER&BURRILL P.i�� HILL, FARRIER & SURRILL i00 AHOSFO COUNTY A/.uf NUMV 9=4W0/NCMEA110f"CNFOMT*d T APHONX a+i)•o"M AnVRNEYZAT LAW' .tau-.�i,u A!>ssscp,W .,•„) Ow4w eauglY 'MRTY+IFTH PLOP;W*N 8NJK L-JUAP.E. .. s7AHt�Y s tltk�LL ttw7 tra7j. 7F1Fzf0919i momAOtlp.�t• g1W g4rBOD LC9 ANdEt.lrD.C)UJFORPOA 9W1A86! - R9wU.T irA IA161 MANSMIWAL gHgET DATE: /d TIME: — PM NUMBER OF PAGES(Including wvor shw): SEND TO: r c 7Va .wv. NO, Artie Cad, COMPANY NAME: ✓1� t�cc. �ti Number �"YL. SEND TO: -ft.-"sac L. �7?�l�d r k-AA FAX NO. Area Code COMPANY NAME: //t� i`�t�i�r,rL��i— ��Il Number SEND TO: FAX NO. Area Cede COMPANY NAME: Number SEND TO: FAX NO. iewa a Code COMPANY NKME: r� Nwnber �1 FROM: /Z 3 GLIF:NT/INATfER NO. --9c�q MESSAGE: 1109NDP.R REQUESTS CONMRIVIAII r„OF RECEIPT Name.. W Gomm IMPORTANT: THIS ME&SAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INroRWIAii"SN THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFiDMAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPUCABLE LAW. IF TJ±5 READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE;INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING Fr`.3 iH!F INTEK�IED RECIPIENT,YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT READING, D15SEMIfA1TING, CISTRIBUTING OR COPYING THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITS¢. IF YOU HANM REMVEC THIrJ a.9MMUNI/.ATIGN IN ERROR,FLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY TeIE SENDER SY TELEPHONE,WHO WILL-ARRANGE TO RETREVE 17 AT A'O COST TO YOU. THANK YOU, IF YOU DO NOT RECENO ALL PAGES OR T9A. NSMISSION IS i-0OT CLEAR,PL.a,ASg CAU.TELEPHONE NUMBER (2i3)62-380,E ffENSION 237,15-:'!n!ATELY. a CITY OF RANCHO CUCAI4i(3NGA ., STAFF REPDRT DATE: October 9, 1991j TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM Brad Buller, City,Planner BY: Vince Bertoni, Assistar_'L Plaisier �i SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLI-N AMEiiDMENT 91 j 03 - CITY 7F RANCHO-CUCAMONGA - A proposal toamend the General Plan Land Use Map within the Victoria Planned _ Community as described below.' j. 1. From Medium-High Residential '(14-^24 dwelling units par acre) to Medium Residential -(8-14 dwelling units per acre) fov the following subareas.- A. For 10.0 acres of land located on the nort', ast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Ave-axe XPN: Portion of 227-691=01.. J B. For 19.3 -acres of Land located` on the north si%.e of Base Line Road, west of Victoria Park Lane, and east of the recreational vehi%'le self storage facility APAT: 227-0�1-14 and..�L5. C. For 21.77 acres of land' located un the northwest `zorner;;,of 'Base Line .Road and t1te _. Future Day _Creep Boulevard APN- Portion of 22r-091-18 and 19, 227-091-20 through 22, and `, 7-091-43 D. For 7.895 acres of, land located between approximately 1,009 feet and .1,3 ,-. f%?et sa,.ith of Highland Avenue' on, the west `side ..;of;)"'`the future Day Creek Boulevard APN: , Portion 'of 227+-021-03 and lit. , The Fliinnirg CommistUc.-I, will also consider Low- Medium Residential (4-8 dv lling units per acre) as an altena,�_ive land use designation for the nrecedjivig folir subareas. 2. From Aerlium Res*dential ( -54; dwelling units per ,acre) 1r6 Low-Medium Residential (4-^8 dwell.ing'v..acs" per acxe) ,fox the following subareas: E. for 10.1 acres of land located an the east side of Milliken Avenues s?mouth- _of the southern Pacific Railroad.-xight-'' =`.day .- APNa Portion of 227-691-01. F. for 18.0 acres of land located on the east side of Milliken,Avenue between Victoria.-Park Lane and Kenyon Way APN: 227-011-17. IT,&W M,N: PLANNV4G COMkiSSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91-03, A THROUGH M October 9, 3991'` Page 2 J�, :r ., L G. For 11.87 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Kenyon Way and Woodruff Place- A N: 227-011-26% U. ,.For 23.03 acres of land ',located on the') `southeast corner of Victoria Park Lane ar`, Rochester Avenue APN: 227-091-51. 2. Fos 32:34 acres, nf land located on the northeast corner'' of Base Line Road an', ,Rochester Avenue '- APR: 227 091-45 and 4S and a portion of 227-091-,:44. J. For 20.895 'acr;b of "land ap proximately 892 feet north of the future Victoa ,a Park Lane extension on the I west side of_'a•�he future Day Creek Boulevard APNz Pcxtion,' of 227-021-03 and 13. `. K. For 7.895 acres of , land,., located aetween approximately 892 feet and,1,'200 feet north of the future Victoria.,Park La3,e extension and on the west side of the�iuture Day Creek Boulevard APN: Portion of 22T-02'1-03 and 13. ' The Planning Commission will, also' consider Lour Residential (2-4 . dwelling units per acre) as an alternative .land use designation for the preceding seven subareas. 3. From Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwellinz r units per acres)` to Civic/Community for the fo�,,;),oving subarea:, L. For 4.46 acres of land approximately 40.6 feet south c of .the Southern Pacific Railroad ,right- of-way, and approximately 321 feet west of the future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: Porticn of 227-091-18 and 19-. 4. From Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units poi: acre) to Neighborhood Commercial for the following subarea: M. For 7.895 acres of land located between approximately 600' feet,and 1,000 feet south of Highland Avenue and on the west side of the future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: ' Portion of 227-021-03 and 13. The Planning ;Commission will also consider Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units pr acre) as an alLernatke�, land use designation for the preceding Su*)area. \, Staff recommends".issuance oil a 2:egative Declaration for jrl the entire z ap"licatior,_, d' If PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT " GPA 91%'=03, A THROUGH M Oc+:oi�er 9, 1991 f Page 3 , ENVIFONMEITYAL ASSESSMENT AN!? V GTORIA PLANNZD COhIIiUNIT'rr` ti rr=NDMENT 91-03 - CITY OF RANf9tO CUrAMONGA - A proposal to amend the Victoria Planned Co•munity Land UstJ Map as. described below. 1. , From Medium Rig'' Resident z.l (l,-`L'4 dwelling units per acre) {;o -Medium Resxdentia��(8-14` dwell liq units per acre) for the folldcding subareaso) A. For 10.0 acres of `land-located on the;northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milli>en Avenue - _APN: Portion of 227-691-01. B. For 19.3 acres cf land located on the north side• of Base. Trine F.bad, west of 'Victoria Park Lane, and east of the recreational vehicle self storage facility kiN: 227-091-14 and 15. C. For 2,!.77, acres`> of land located on the northwest corner of` Base =�dne Road and the future Dag Creek Boulevard -=\APN: Portion of 227-091-18 and;.d9-, 227-091-20,�-through E)22;, and ZP7-091-43. D. P.r 7.895 acres` zif land located between approximately 1,000 f-et and 1,300' feet south of highland Avenue, on' the west side of the-` future Day Creek Boulevard APN: Portion of 227-021-03 and 3:3.. The Planning Commission will also consider Low- Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use. designation for the preceding four subareas. 2 From Medium Residential (8-=14 dwelling units per acre) to .Low.rMedi= .Residentiz (4-8 ,dwelling unit per acre) for the following s� bareas: E. for 10.1 acres of lan&-.. ated An the eas side Of Milliken Avenue 's., of the Southern Pac!.fic Rai road, 'right ,F-c,Cy - APN: Portion of 227-691-01. _ F. For 18.0 acres; of land located on the e a St side o- Millikep 'venue/.between Victor ;,!t Park Lane and enyon'Aa�s - APN: 227-nii,17. G. For of land °Iloolated on, the, northeast corner of Kenyon 3Vasa�nd Woodruff Place - APN* �27-011.1-26. H. For :23.03 aci`es of .land, -•located on the southeast corner of Victoria Park. Lane, ana Rochester Avenue - APR: 227-091-51, I. For' 32.14 acres of land located.., on northeast corner ,nf, Basc Line `Road and ;,, Rochester Avenue - APN: _y ?7-091-45 wnd 46 and a portion of 227-091-44. J. For, 20.895 acres of land approximately, 892 feet Allk ne_,* h of the future Victoria, ` Park Lane extension on the west side c.f the future Day Creek boulevard`- APN: Portion of 227-02A,03 and 13:. PLANNING C41MISSION STAFF F,EPORT ` GFA 91-03, A THROUGH '_i October 9, 3-991 Page 4 K. For 7.895 acres of land ., located betvaen - -- approximately 892 feet and 1,200 feet north of the future Victoria Park Lane extension. and on the west side of the future Day Creek Boulevard ZPN: Portion of 227-021-03 and 13., _ The Planning commission will also consider Tow Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative lanri use designation for the preceding seven subareas. 3. From Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling :units per acre) -to Community Facilities for the following subar�,a: L. For 2.46 acres of land approximately 406 feet south of the Southern Pacific Railroad right- of-way �,,,nd approximately 321 feet west of the future Day Creek Boulevard APN: Portion of 227-091-18 and 19. 4. From Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Village Commercial for the fol.lowk,ig subarea: M. For 7.895 acres of land located between approximately 600 feet and 1,000 feet "south of Highland Avenue and on the west side of the future Day Creek Boulevard APN: Portion of i' 227-021-03 and 13. AWk The Planning Commission will also consider Medium Residential ('8-1.1 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for the preceding subarea:,,,. Staff' recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration for the entire application. ACTION REOUESTED Approval of a General Plan Amendment and Victoria Planned Community Amendment, divided into 13 subareas, and issuance of a negative declaration. SITE CHARACTEN•.ISTICS: The subject sites exist primarily as a gradual incline in a southerly direction with an average natural slope of less than five percent. Alluvial fan deposits, which are materials deposited by streams draining from the mountains, are found throughout the subject properties. Vineyards have replaced the native vegetation, however, the vineyards have been abandoned and native vegetation is establishing itself again. The most common vegetation found on the subject sites included California buckwheat, scrub oak, and hirsute. The subject sites are currently vacant with the exception of Subarea "I" which is developed with an existUig, nonconforming lumber yard. BACKGROUND: . The,City Council he-- public workshops on Augur t• 9 1990 . '.lid January 31, 1991, regardl .g multiple family housing aevdlopment in the city, These workshops were the result of citizens" concerns relatin,* to the increase in multiple family rwelling unit developments and the decrease in single family /� - PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91-03, A. THROUGH M r. Oct- ;er 9, 1091 Page 5 dwelling unit developments which is gradually changing the community's residential character. city staff reviewed the status of multiple family hc.�sing prior to the workshops. Using various scenarios, staff identified the effects on City revenues,, and services if undeveloped multiple family land were rezoned tv` single family cr to lower 6_=sity multiple family designations, During the workshops, citizens and City Counciin+embers expressed concern over increased traffic -plumes, increasect ,"demands on C,':,t,, services, and overcrowded conditions in local schoolg-' which were all perceives, to be linked to the increase in multiple family: dwelling uni°.: development. The Council determined that a reduction in the ant ;c:.pated total, housing unit coup'; would" lessen the negative effects of residential growth on :the community. i A3 a result of the workshops, thin City Council directed the Planning Commission to develop ,re ommendations to reducii- the community's amount of vacant multiple family 1:*,1d and 'to reduce the density allowed on that land using'"tie 'City's fos,mal amendment proceLs for the General Plan, evelopment Code, Etiwanda Specific Plan, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, and Va-toria Planned Community. The Council;k goal was to`ensure, at the time of the City's build-out, that multiple fami'_y dwelling units comprise no more than 32 to 35 percent of the City's total dwelling unit count. The, Council directed the Planning Commission to investigate all vacant, uncommitted multiple family land for potential land use changes to single family, ,lo,:er density multiple family, and gather nonresidential designations which may ba appropriate on a site-by-site basis. The Planning Commission and City Council have previously reviewed land use designations in the Eti;ganda area; for dens -ty reductions and the Council has ,r edesignated 106.16 acres of undeveloped 'multiple f they desi dat-lr. 1�nd, This ,includes 87.52 acres of land a Specific Plan changed from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelli.-tg units er acre) to Low-Medium Residential, 17,14 acres of land °.n the Foothill Boulevard Speci£ ;^ Plan changed from Medium' Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Community Commei-c A, and 1.5 acres of land in theFoothill Boulevard Specific Flan changed from Medium Residential. (8-14 dwelling units•,;per acre) to Commercial Office. The application to redesignate the remax;ning 100.13 acres of undeveloped multiple family land in the Etwanda,Specific.Plan is pending before the City Council. ' On September 10, 1991, staff conducted a neighLorhbod meeting :with the affected property,'owners andi with the interested property own; s in the vicinity. Notes :were sent to all 1 property owners iaaZ�zn 300 feet of the subject sates and to all property owners wittii�_an expanded notification area. In add n, an advertisement was placed in the Victoria Planned Corte .tty's Active Bulletin. The intent of the meeting was tdl.;� MIX/r 5' n PLANNnzG 66missioN STAFr PXPORT „ GPA 91-03.,_.� THRO*JGH October, B, 3.991, Page 6 give interested ,troperty owners=a id residp.nts'tie opportunity to ask questions of staff regarding the proposed amendments. The rajority of those who attendgd the 'meeting expressed support for the surf recommendations as outlansid in this report. AI3ALYSIS: A. General-' Issues - A review of 3ssueR which apply to all subareas within the applicai,ion az.d a= ,review of the cumulative effects of,-.the proposed land,use amendments: I. 9sU-elLti-al Land Use `St&-ff anal)(sis pr-"Or }to the: workshops assuned,that the 1110,, use ?amendments would stay within residential' land use,.gateolbries. it was anticipated that the least amount` of';,land use conflicts 1 would result from this;, approach.,' Therefore, staff"s initial evaluation of land use. amendlvlits assumed a change from the subject site's existing Aeins tX' range to the next;, lower density "range. Upon further analysis, taking into cansideration site constraints and -public improvement projec#ts,--staff also included consideration of Commercial -.nd Civic/Community Land use designations. 2. xousiaa: ANIL a. victoria Planned Community ,",,2he affects "of,the ,lend use amendments on the attic l{dated xtumber.` f dwelling units remaining to be buili_ in .the victor" a Planned Community-.aloe as follows: 1) The current land use designats"world aliow for 2,853 ;multiple family dwp:Lling units to be built o;; .the subject sites �_,4n development at 62., p�:.sent of the density ra�ige. If 'approval is given to the staff recommendations for land use apE •dments,, then only l;536 duelling units would J s:'-. wilt given development at 62, peitcent of tha ^city range; and. only'784 of those dwelling t.A is would be built "within multiple family land use designations. 'this is a reduction of 2,069 ,.altipla family dwelling unit- ar�d an inAsease of 51 single -family dwelling units wni6A would represent a net reduction of 1= 3Z8 total dwellft.g, units (net total dwelling unit; e'quaas the decrease in"multiple Iamily dF% iling units minus the increase in iingls.,family_dwaslling units). The krcposed amendmts would chnge°the current housing unit ratio at build-cut ,,-in the Victouia PldAred Community from 52 percent single family ,ar!3 48 percer t multiple family to,, 74 percent "sircle fani7.y and 2-,6 'percent multiple faz,4y. =a r Q7a2 ; , ,:QCT � 99 . P AGED C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91-03, A THROUGH M October 9, 1991 Page, y AOL b. City: The effects„of the proposed land use -zmend:aents on City housing policies are-as follows: 1) The dwelling unit reductions should not conflict with any specific policies, goals, or objectives of the General Plan Housing .Element. The Housing Element provides for programs which aid= in the development and improvement of the Citys housing stock. The dwelling units required )Oy. those programs which list specific numbers of dwelling units to be built or to be aided would ba included within the re-aining units expected to be built under the amended dwelling unit totals. Reductions 'in the total number of dwelling units at the build-out date will result in greater portions of law and very low income uni'7, _program-aided ' units, etc., within the remaining total f` of units yet to be d-evelloped and within applicable program goals; 2) The `unit reductions �,arould bring the anticipated total of dwelling units to within approximately 44 percent of the total identified in th.7, SCF..G Regional Housing Needs: Assessmenf..` (RHNA) to be built by 1994. Also, the reductions_, would still fulfill approximately 76 percent of the very low, low, and moderate dwelling unit requirements for+ the same period. 3) The revised total of approximately 10,000 dwelling, units conforms with the Housing Element's anticipated range of dwelling units proposed for development for the period up to 1994 (Program 3.A.1). B. Subarea' Analvsis - A review of the subarea recommendations, alternatives, and site-specific issues 'relating to each proposed amendment are detailed at the end , of the staff report. CUMULATIVE ENVIP0171 WTAII ASSESSMENT: '�Z3ff has completed Part I and Part II of the Initial Study and hLs .found no signi.fic�ant adverse environmental impacts would occur as a result of .the proposed General Plan and Victoria Planned Community amendments. The issue for, consideration is a reduction of proposed land use intensity; therefore, staff believes the,impact GP development `should not be more significant than originally .described in the IV^ 7 t /; PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91703, A THROUGH M October 9,-1991 Page 8 eniAronmental review oV'ithe Gene/al Plan and 7anned Community• Further, the reduction in potentiaLfuture housing unitsYd~o. 'g not ` affect the City°s ability to. implement the goals and obj,p' ;Ives of the General Plan Housin5 -Element. ' j� CORRESPONDENCE: The Planning Division has received h:v in , opposition to the proposed land use changes from the`-..- .fected property owners, The Planning Division has also received letters in support ;of the proposed land use" changes f'com interested residents in close'proximity to the affecti_d proper"ies. These items have been advertised as public hearings in the Inland Valley ai1v. Bulletin newspaper, the "'IDperty has been posted, anus noticas have been sent to all pro , y owners within 300 feet of the project site and to all l,rPpe) /y owners within an ek-Uanded y notification area. Resp 11 bm*-ted, Brad le City anner 1ttachments Subarea Analysis Exhibit "A" General Plan Amendment Location Map Exhibit 1IBze - Letter from Eda Ellena Exhibit "C16 - Letter f7om Mr. and'Mrs. Douglas Watt Exhibit I'D" -`Letter from Erwin Cross, Sr. Exhibit "'E" - Letter- from Paul and Susan Kim Exhibit "F" - Letter from R. Scut Sellers of Lincoln:Properties CPA '91-03, Subarea A, Resolution of Approval VPCA 91-03, Subarea A, Resolution of Approval GPA 91-03, Subarea B, Resolution of Approval VPCA 91-03, Subarea B, Resolution of Approval GPA'91-03, Subarea.C, Resolution of Approval VPCA 91-03, Subarea C .Resolution-of. Approval GPA 91-03, Subarea D, ,Resolution of Approval` , VPCA 91-01, Subarea D, Resolution of-Approval GPA 91-03, Subarea E, Resolution of Approval VPCA 91-03, Subarea E, Resolution of Approval GPA 91-03, Sub=ncea F Resolution of Approval VPCA 91-03, Subarea F, Resolution of Approval GPA-91-03, Subarea G, Resolution of pproval- VPCA 91-03, Subarea;G, Resolution of Approval GPA 91 03,` Subarea H, Resolution of Approval VPCA 91 Subarea H, Resolution of Approval Aft GPA 91-03`, Subarea I, Resolution of Approvi►,1 VPCA 91-03, Subarea T, Resolution of Approval t i, '�l PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91-03 A THROUGH M October 9 1091 � r I.. Page 9 R GPA 91-03 Subarea J, Resolution of Approval �VPCA' 91-03;, Subarea J, Resolution, of Approval GPA 91-03, Subarea X, Resolution of Denial VPCA 91-03;,.'Subarea X Resa--,iion of Denial i.`!Pis 91-03, Subarea L, Resolution of Approval IPC.A 91-03, Subarea L,, Resolution,of Approval 'GPA '91-03, Subarea X, Resolution of Approval `IPCA 91-03,. Subarea M,. Resolution of Approval � H I I � I t a f n wi 3 C: I +, 4PPLI4WION alb'BA'KEAS 3 N�ht'�nd Ave, HiahlandYAve. UA'�C . Co-sm :. Park'1a. LM _Sr Scro®W Reten43an `,L 4i3gh Bab6n �Viclor�a tl� ' L Sn t c3Mo1 PaA `¢ Sehgbl ( : opt. a' J %dicioeiaPar k > INN ark ZYL�iW� I:LPA 49 LM t� 'e u P� tu Park dAA 4 a t o Bane Lino Rd, s lieso Lirts Road j � o t m Aim .+ f' i. Faeeca IRegional Mail + r Hot 7o seat,& h� ��Al—� , r� f CPA 91-03, A TBIOUG$ Mt SUBARUTA MALYSIS October 9 1991 Page 2 � €Llj, LW �� park SUBAREA A Base Line Rd. 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: a. Surrounding Land Use and 'Zoning: North -Undeveloped, Medium Residential (3-14 dwelling units per acre)- proposed for.Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling ur_lts per acre) South - Commercial shopping center under construction, Neighborhood commercial in the Terra Vista Community Plan East - Single family residences under construction, Low- Medium Residential (4-8' dwelling units per acre) West Vacant, Park b. General Plan Desicmatione,"t Project Site - Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) North - Medium Residential (8-14 dwel?.,ii1q units per acre), proposed for how-Medium Reside'rii-ial (4-8 dwelling units per acre) South - Neighborhood Commercial East - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per a:=e) West - Park 2. LAND USE ANALYSIS:• a. Background: An application on the subject site for 328 condominiums on 20.15 acres of land (including subarea to the north) was denied by the Planning Commission on November 28, 1990, and was denied bythe City Council on January 16, 1991, on an appeal bg`the applicant. For the purposes of the multiple family residential study, this denial'` placed the subject property in the vacant, uncommitted land category. The property owners are currently going through preliminary discussions with City staff regarding a new-project for the subject site. The proposed project would include 264 multiple family dwelling units on 15.09 acres of land (17<.49 dwelling units per acre) and would re.-,serve 5 acres of land for future development. b. Analysis of Proposed Medium Residential Designation: This subarea is located on the northwest corner of two major arterials, Base Line Road and "Milliken Avenue. Also, the Central Park is proposed to the west of the subject site. This condition may result in noise impacts from the two majorarterials and impacts from the recreational uses at the park'. Therefore, this location e'1'I,N GPA 51-03, A THROUGH M, S'UBAREIi ANALYSIS October 9, 1991 , I, ;gage 3 li may be appropriate for a multiple family land use MW desir,.nation`such as Medium Residential. In addition, tho' properties to the east of the subject-site are designated Low-Medium Residential and ,._z," Medium Residential designation could act as buffer between the intersection'and the single family homes. ' It is staff's opinion that the Kedium 'Residential: designation could provide for a more appropriate transition than Medium- High Residential from the single family neighborhood to the east and the intersection to the::west. The redesignation of the subject site from Medium-High Residential to Medium Tesidential would not conflict with the pr^;visions of the General Plan and Victoria Planned Community. a. Analysis of Alternative Desicination: _ Low-Medium Residential was reviewed as an alternative to the existing'Medium-High Residential designation and proposed Medium Residential designation. . The Low-Medium designation would provide a continuation of the land ;use designations to the east. The Low-Medium , Residential designation would provide 1 continuation of the land use designation to the east; { however, the intersection of Milliken and Base Line Road, combined with ,the proposed Central Park to the ,east .and the commercial,shopping,center under' construction to the I south, could ciaate an area with visual and noise impacts 1 which may not be t,ompatible with the Low-Medium designation." 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has completed Parts I and II of the Initial Study and has found no significant adverse environmental impacts that would occur as a result of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Victoria Planned Community Amendment. 4. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Based -on -the facts and conclusions listed above, staff believes the.Planning commission can make the following findings regarding this subarea: a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Polices of the General Plan and Victoria Planned Community and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan c'> and with related development. b. This amendment promotes the gels and objectives of the Land Use Element, c. The properties located in Subarea A of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed ill"/d�' GPA 91-03, A THROUGH Ma„SUBAREA"ANALYSIS October 9, 1991 _. Page 4; i/ disc,ict and a3`e compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as-.,evidenced by the .location of properties with lower density ; land use ' designations. bordering the subiect';site,to tk4 'east.. 5. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Gei!'eral Plan Amendment 91'= 03, Subarea ,A, and Victoria Planned Community Amendment 917 ,1 03, Subareaak, to the City Council through the adoption of attached resolutions. c, Cj ,r IqW t>. /n,IV l r.' GPA 41-03, A THROUGH M, 'SUBAREA ANALYSIS Luffi- October 9, 1992 sebaol Page 5 g vteto�riia'Park i Eno a W. @RB cc SUBAREA B tMl LU PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: i *': yp Comer, a. Surrounding Land Use and zoning: asn Line Road North - Single family'residences, Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - Industrial building used to produce wine vinegar, High Residential (1.4-30 dwelling units per acre) East - Condominiums under ccnstruetion and an existing commercifgl shopping center, Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and Village Commercial ,~ West - Recreational vehicle self storage facility b. General Plan Designations: i Project Site - Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre North - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) 8'$outh - High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) East - Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and Neighborhood Commercial West - Medium-High Residential (14-24 ,,dwelling units per acre 2. LAND USE ANALYSIS; a. Analvsis of Proposed 'Medium_Residential Designation". This subarea is located between Base Line Road, which is a major arterial, and 'tale Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, which may;,,se used in the future as 'a commuter rail line. In ad;3ition. there are condomin�`^,71s under construction to the northeast, at a: density of" 16 dwelling units to an acre, and there is also a Village Commercial 'designation Lto the southeast. These conditions may cause noise and traffic impacts which may not be compatible with single family residential: development. It is staff's opinion that a Medium Residential designation would be compatible with the Surrouitt!ang land ,ruses and that a multiple family designation would a�pear to be the most appropriate use. The redesignation of the subject site from Medium-High Residential to Medium Residential would not conflict with the provisions of the General Plan" and Victoria Planned Community. C b. Analysis of Alternative Designation: Low-Medium Residential was reviewed as an alternative to the existing 'Medium-High Residential designation and the tr GPA 91-03, A ,THROUGH M' SUBAREA ANALYSIS October, 9, 1991 Page 6 Fs. proposed Yediuu Residential designation Medium would would be consistent with the existing single family residential neighborhood to the north, of the subject sit-,'' however, the site ' conditions surrounding the property may not make Low Xedium Residential the most appropriate land use designation.,: 3. ENVIRONMENTI.L ASSESSMENT: Staff bas.co4leted Parts I and II cf the initial Study and has found no significant adverse Environmental impacts that would occur as, a result of the , proposed_ General Plan _ Amendment and Victoria Planned community Amendment. ,,, 4. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: t'� Based-on the facts and con7'rusions' listed above, staff believes the Planning commission ,fin make the following findings regarding this subarea: ri a. This amendment does not confl;Xct with .fi`^4 Land Use polices, of the` Orneral Plan and Fi._ll ' ;ovidd for development, within the district, in a manne.„ cons"istent with the General Plar,",and with related' developme-pt. b. This amendment promotes the gQTls and objectives of the Land Use Element. i c. The properties located iC, Subarea B of the: application are suitable for the uses permitted' ir.- the proposed district and are compatible with existing and adj,nctnt land use designations as p-�idenced by the. location c + deal at ons� c d use tan ernes with iowe3. den., ,_ gn I ro Y properties P 9f c bordering the subject site to north. 5. RWOMMENDA:C°ION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval 'of General Plan Aztiendment 91- 03, Subarea B, and Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91- 03, Subarea B, to the City Council "�hrough the adoption of attached resolutions. 4r �J /V GPA 91-03, A THROUGH M, SUBAREA ANALYSIS October 9 1991 Page 7LM , : SUBAREA C : ,^ rr-T 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: a +. ¢ a. Surrounding Land Useand-Zoninat North - Vacant, Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) South acazit, Regional Related Office/Commercial East Vac?'p , Utility Corridor West - Planz Storage, Utility Corridor b. General Plan Designations: Project Site Med?,um-High Residential (14-24 dwelling' units ;per acre) ;forth - how-Medium Residential (4-8' dwelling units per acre) South Commercial Ez-4- _ - Flood Control./Utility Corridor West - Flood Control/Utility Corridor 2. LAND USE ANALYSISe a. Baekaround,: The City of Rancho Cucamonga has recently purchased the properties in this subarea with Redevelopment Agency Set Aside Funds. b. Analysis of Proposed Medium Residential Designation: The subject site is on the north side of a major arterial and is On the west side of a future major arterial. In , addition, the site is on the south side of the Southern .Pacific Railroad right-of-way which :may be used in the future as a commuter rail line. These conditions, may cause noise and traffic impacts to occur on -the ,subject site. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that a multiple family residential designation would be the most appropriate designation for the subject site. The redesignation of the subject site from Medium High Residential to Medium Residential would not conflict with the provisions of the General Plan and Victoria Planned CommL,Iity. / 3 c. Analysis of Alternative Designation: Low-Medium Residential was .considered as an alternative to the existing Medium.-High Residential designation and the proposed Medium Residential designation. it is` staff Is opinion that the site conditions listed above would make this site, inappropriate for single family residences as" allowed in the Low-Medium designation. ;ry-r6 GPA 91-03, A 'I'HROTJGH M, l SUBAREA ANALYSIS�� October 9, 1991 �,� Page S " ! o` d. Analysis of a Mixed Use Desianation: Staff analyzed a mixed use designation as an alternative land use designation. Due to the subject site's location `ne,^r a potential commuter rail station and its potential to combine that use , with residential and orfice or commercial uses, minced use may be -ar_ appropriate designation. However, the Victoria Planned Community does not have any mixed use zoning designations or development standards. The only mixed use zoning in .the City is Within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan although there are no development standards in the plan. Therefore, if the Planning Commission decides that a mixed use zoning is most .,appropriate, then a text amendment i*, addition to a land use amendment would need to be approved by the Commission. In that case, staff would recommend.;that the application for the.subject site' be continued so that staff could develop uses and standards for the ^aixed use designations 3,. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has completed Parts I and II of the Initial Study and has found no significant adverse environmental impacts that would occur as a .result of the proposed General, Plan Amendment- and Victoria Planned Community Amendment. 4. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Based on the facts and conclusions ! listed above, staff believes the Planning Commission can make the fallowing findings regarding this subarea: a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use ' Polices of the General Plan- and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent. with the General Plan and with related development. b. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element. "s c. The propexties elocated in Subarea C of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed -district and are compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the location of properties with lower 'density land use designations bordering the subject si-.e to the'morth. 5. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of General- Plan Amendment 91 03-, Subarea C, and Victoria P-:anned Ye;`imunity Amendment 91- 03, Subarea C, to the City CoUu.; . through the adoptiph of %f attached resolutions. ,+ , �- 7 GPA 91-03, A THROUGH M, SUBAREA`',1'J.ALYSTS t�py October 9, 1991 Comm, F. "" € .Page 9 ` . Rotention Basin LIA SUBAREA D O: = school Yiat�ia Palk r 1. PROZrECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: a. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning, t; _ North - Vacant, Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) F�euth - Vacant, Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) Eaat - Vacant, Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre),-proposed for Neighborhood Commercial West - Vacant, Utilit}. Corridor b. General Plan Designations: Project Site -;Medium-High' Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) North - Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) South —Medium Residential (R714 dwelling.units4per at:re) East - Medium-High Residen'a_.A (14-24 dwelling units per acre); proposed for Village Commercial West Flood Control/Utility Corridor 2. LAND USE ANALYSIS: a. Analvsis of Proposed Medium Residential Designation: The subject site is south of an existing Medium-high Residential land use designation that is proposed to be =r redesignated to Neighborhood Commercial. in addition, the property to the north of the proposed Neighborhood Commercial is also dasignated Neighborhood Commercial. It is staff's opinion that a multiple family land use designation would be most appropriate for the subject site giver the noise and,_ traffic impacts that may be caused r; . by the existing , and; proposed -commercial designations to the north and the proposed major arterial, Day Creek Boulevard, to the east. The redesignation of the subject site from Medium-High` Residential to Medium Residential would not,;conflict with the provisions of the General Plan and Victoria Planned;, Community. b. Analysis of Alternative ' Designation: Low-Medium Residential was considered as an alternateVe land use designation. However, upon consideration of'the impacts- that the comma•-cial uses and the future Day Creek- Boulevard would haire upon the subject site, it is staff''s , 1 GPA 91-03, A THROUGH M, ;SUBAREA ANALYSIS o` October 9, 1991 Page 10 opinion that single family' residences would not ,be an, •'` a p`op ;, riate land use. 3.. MIRONMENTA �`ASSESSMEATs Staff has completed Parts"I and ill of the Initial. Study and has found no sig nificant adverse eznvironmenta impacts that ,would occur as a result ;of the. proposed General. Plan Amendme- and victoria Planned Community Amendment. M 4. FACTS FOR FINDINGS. Based on the facts and conclusions listed above, staff believes the Planning Commission can make the following findings regarding this subarea: a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Polices of the General Plan and will , provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with t `-`General Plan and with related.:development. - a <a b. This amendment promotes the goals and. objectives of the Land Use Element. c. The .properties located in Subarea D of the application ar, suitable for the uses' permitted. in -E4-, proposed district and are compatible with existing an`d adjacont land use designations as evidenced by the io' cation of properties with the same land use designations,south of the subject;site. 5. RECOMMENDATION; Staff_ recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 91-- ly 03, Subarea D, and Victoria Planned community Amendment 91 03, Subarea D, to the City Council through the adoption- of attached resolutions. it �: a GPA 91-03, A THROUGH 14, SUBAREA ANALYSIS October�!9, 1991 Page 11 1 'MR&"' LM PRR SUBAREA E Park �' : LiNd Baae Llns Rd. 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESERIPT ON a. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning; " North - Single family resider-es,''-Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - Vacant, Medium High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre); proposed for Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East - SingIc- family residences under construction, Low- MedLt Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) West - Vacant, Park b. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) North - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre),proposed for Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) . West - Park 2. LAND USE ANALYSIS: r" a. Backcrround: An application on the subject site for 328 condominiums on 20.15 acres of land (including Subarea. A to the south) was denied by the Planning Commission on November 28, 1990, and was denied by the City Council on ` January 16, 1991, on an appeal by the applicant. For the purposes of the multiple family residential study, this denial placed the subject property in the vacant, uncommitted land category. The property owners are currently going through preliminary discussions with City staff regarding a new project for the subject site. The proposed project would iF:cludc 264 multiple family dwelling units on 15.09 acres of land (17.49 dwelling units per afire) and would reserve five acres of land for future development. b Analysis of Proposed Low-tedium Residential Designations The subject site is west of existing properties designated Low-Medium Residential and this proposal would extend that land use to Milliken:Avenue. It is staffs opinion that the Low-Medium designation could act as a transition' between the proposed Medium Residential designation to. the south and the existing Low Residential designation to the north.; 134 N-2-0 GPA 91-03, A THROUGH.k SUBAREA ANALYSIS October 9, 1991 Page 12 The redesignation of the subject site from Medium Residential to Low-Medium Residential would not Conflict with the 'provisions of the General -Plan .and Victoria Planned Community. c. Analysis of Alternative Designation: Low Residential was "I considered as an alternative to the existing Medium Residential and proposed Ltw-Medium. designations. Low Residential, allowing 2-4 dwelling units per acre, is much lower ip intensity' than the proposed "Mi;.Uum Residential to -the south which allows for 8-14 dwelling units ger acre. Also, the Low Residentialdevelopment standards do not allow for innovative standards such- as "zero lot line" and "wide-shallow", products that are allowed in the Low-Medium Residential designations which could provide for an appropriate, transition between the proposed Medium Residential to the south and the existing Low Residential to the north, ` _Theref re, .;Tit is staffs opinion that Low Residential would not be s _, compatible with the surrounding land uses as would Low Medium Residential. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has completed Parts I and II of the Initial Study and has found nil significant adverse environmental` impacts that would occur as a result of the proposed General Plan Amendment and ,Victoria T._"-nned Community Amendment. 4. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Based on the facts and conclusions listed above, staff believes the Planning Comiission can make the following findings regarding this subarea:. a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Polices of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan, and with related development. b. This amendment'promctes the goals at.d objectives of the Land Use Element. C.. The properties located in Subarea E of tli� applicetion are suitable for the uses permitted in "the proposed district and are compatible with existing` and 'adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the location of properties vAth lower density land use designations bordering the subjectsite to the north and propert;tes with toe. same land use designation to the east. S. REC01-WENDATIO11- Staff recommends that the Planning AIML Commission recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 91- 03, Subarea E, and Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91- 2 GPA si-U3, A THkOUGH M, SUt3AREA _ANALXSI3 ' October 9, 1993 Page 13 D 03, Subarea E, to the City Council through thi?"' adoption of attached resolutions. t 7 r� ��. l{ GPA 91-03,'A THROUGH M, SUBV—EA ANALYSIS � =S October 9, 1991 High`rnd Ave. Page 14LM — com @ G E LIW SUBAREA F ILA F Park Soh - I Victoria' w � Eg 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: g � � a. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Commercial shoppint center. r . "Ir caostruction, Village Commercial South Single family residencei. , mow-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per'.acre) East Single family residences and vacant land, Low- Medium Residential. (4-8.'dwelling units per acre) and Park West Single family residences, ?pow-MediuLR Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acres b. General Plan Design I' ,one Project Site - Mean' esidential (8-14 dwelling units North Neighba' ,00d`c.,mmercial South Low-Medium-residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) East - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) a.r,d Park West - Low-Medium Residential (4--8 duelling units per acre) 2. LAND USE ANALYSIS: aBackc=ound: An application was submitted to the Planning Division on Mav 2, 101':0,-for a residential subdivision of 95 single family lot:. On 18 acres oE� land with an average lot size of 6,091 square feet. The!!project etas withdrawn by the applicant on December. 40, 1990. Another application was submitted to ,the Planri.ng Division on April-10, 1991, ,for a residential subdivision 4nd design review of 193 multiple family dwelling units on 18 acres of land (10.7 dwelling units per acre) . T; e application is c'urr,2ntly under review by staff and has'•not received 7Planning CoLmission approval. The earliest possible dvte the current application could receive a Punning Commission publics hearing is November 13, 1991. For the purposes of the multiple ,family residential study, the withdrawal of the first application and the lack of Planning Commission approval on the second application Placed the subject property in the vacant,, uncommitted nand category. b. Analysis of Proposed Low-I3edium Residential Desiar}motion: The properties south, east,- and west of the subject site are designated Law-Medium Residential and a;:e developed PA 91-03, A' THROUGH M, 1SUBAREA ANALYSIS October 9, 1991 Page 15 with single family homes. The. development of single - family homes '-at this density has,not caused any conflicts with any existing land use> condtions. The Low-Medium. designation would continue this 'designation and it is, staff's opinion that it would be an appropriate alternative to the ex,isting;Medium designation. The redesignation of the subject .,site from Iysdium Residential to Low-Medium Residential_ would not conflict with the provisions of the General Plan and Victoria Planned Community. I c Analysis of Alternative Designation: Low Residen idl was analyzed as an alternative to the- existix)S�.Medium Residential and proposed rLow-Medium �esidsntial designations. The properties on both sid�a rf Milliken Avenue north of the Southern Pacific R,ilroad right-of- way are designated 'Low Residential_-,.and staff has not observed any land use conflicts. :-'There is, however, a commercial shopping center,'Lundew construction to the north. The Low Residential,4velopment standards do, not allow for innovative standards .such as "zero lot line11 and "wide,-shallow" products that are allowed in the Low Medium Residential designations which could provide for an appropriate transition between the Low Residential land uses and the commercial site. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that. Low `Residential would not be the most appropriate land use designation. 3. ENVIaRCNMRNTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has completed Parts band TI of the initial Study and has- found no significant adverse environmental impacts that would occur as a result of the proposed General Plane Amendment and Victoria Planned Community Amendment. g. FACTS FOR f,INDINGS: Based on the facts 7and conclusions listed above, staff believes the Planning Commission can make the following findings regarding this subarea: a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Polices of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a-manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development. b. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element. c.: The properties located in Subarea F of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations' as evidenced by the location of properties with the same landuse designations bordering the subject site to the south, east, and west. GPA 91--03, A-THROUGH M, SUBAREA ANALYSIS October 9, 1,991 ; Page 16 t) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that . the Planning ° Commission recommend approval of General, 'Plan Amen•��ent 91— 03, -Subarea. F and Victoria Planned.'Community Amendment 9,-1- 03, Subarea F to the C t_V`C=hcil through the adoptio�i attached resolutions. I AWL 1. a GPA-91-03, A THROUGH 14, SUBP.REA ANALYSIS October 9 1991 Page 17 Highland Ave. 1 F LM C m.: :i € p� ��' Park :g' n` SUBAREA G Ld1'� LJ; schoii(- Wi 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:' @ie9or�ap �mri� a. Yurrounding Land Use and Zoning: �IA LM 4,L:,. North vacant, Community Facility South - vacant, Park and School East Single family resideiiges, Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acreY- West -' Commercial shopping center under construction, Village Commerz:ial be General Plan Desic' ations: 1 Project Site Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units peiI acre) North Civic/Community South Park and School - East - Low-Medium Residential (4•-S. dwelling units per acre)' -: West - Neighborhood Commercial 2. LAND USEIANALYSIS: a. Background: An application was submitted to the Planning Division. on May 2, 1990, for a residential subdivision of YD' 57 single family lots on 12.4 acres of land withan average lot size of 6,582 square feet. The project was withdrawn by the applicant on December 10, 1990. Another- application was submitted to the Planning Division on July 17, 1991, for a residential subdivision and design review , of 156 multiple family dwelling units on 12.4 acres of land (12.6 dwelling units per acre). The application is currently under_ review by staff and has not received .Planning Commi lion approval. The earliest possible date the current)` application could receive a Planning Commission public hearing is November 13, 1991. For the purposes of -thF,' n.ultiple family residential study, the withdrawal of),�'`tha first application' ar-d the lacy of Planning Commisision'' approval on the second application placed the subject p'-°operty in the vacant, uncoinmitted land category'` b. Analysis of Proposed Low+Medium Residential Designation: The properties to the Yeast of the subject site are designated Low-Medium Residential. ind are developed with single family homes. Therefore, -tud proposed designation would be a continuation of the same land use cond4tion to the e:st. Staff has not observed any conflicts -v4ith the adjacent land use derignatiuns,° therefore,.'it is staff''s opinion that, Low-Medium Residential would be an GPA..91-03, F THROUGH`M, SUBAREA AK,* LYSIS October 9, 1991 Page IS AftL appropriate alternative land `-use designation for the subject site. The redesignation of the subject site from Medium Residential to Low-Medium Residential would not conflict with the provisions of the General Plan and victoria Planned Community. c. Analysis of Alternative Designation; Low Residential was .: analyzed as an alternative to' the existing Medium Residential and proposed Low-Medium Residential designations. There is a commercial shopping center to the west of the subject site and a;community facilities designation to the northwest. The Low Residential i development standards do not allow for innovative standards such, as "zero lot line"L ;and "wide-shallow" products, that are allowed in the Lov - tedium Residential designation which could provide for an appropriate trans tion between`'' the Commercial- and community facilities designations to the west and the Low Medium Residential designation to the east. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that Low Residential is not the most, appropriate land use designation. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Staff has completed Parts L and II of the Initial Study and has found no significant adverse environmental impacts that would occur as: a :result of the proposed General' Plan . Amendment and,: victoria Planned Community Amendment. 4. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Baseil on the facts and conclusions listed above, staff believes the Planning commission can make the following findings regarding this subarea: a. This amen.dzent does` not conflict_ with the Land Use Policr_s cf ",the General Plan< andwill _provide for development, within the distrrct,` in,,.,! manner consistent with the General Plan andw 1t`i related development. b. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element. c. The properties located in, Subarea G of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations :as evidenced by the location of properties with the same lard use designations bordering the .subject site to the east. 5. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning commission recommend approval of Ger,• ral Plan Amendment 91 03, Subarea G, ,and victoria Planned Community, Amendment 91 'lrU-2 7 GPA 91-03, A THROUGH M, SUBAREA ANALYSTS October 9, 1991 _Page 19 1p 03, Subaru'.,to the City Council through the adopption of: Y attached r �tions. J lr 1p ,y tj l7' i `L GPA 91-03, A THROUGH M, SUBAREA ANALYSIS October 9 1991 LM Page 20 ,Rmt®ntion Futueo Basin 9 k%eh SUBAREA H scihoot . ark 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: a,. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning; ON North - Flood control retention basin, FloodControl' South Existing, nonconforming lumber yard, Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling' units per acre); proposed for low-Mediux Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) East - Vacant,.Ut lity Corridor West - Single family residences, Low-Medium Residential (4-8 'dwelling units per acre) b. General Plan_tesi ations: Project. -_ite Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) North Flood Control/Utility Corridor South Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); proposed for Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling , units per acre) East Flood Control/Utility Corridor West - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dw\liin nVnits per acre)' 2. LAND USE ANALYSTS• a. Analysis of Prop pnd Low-Medium Designation: The properties. to the%west of the 'subject site are designated Low-Medium Residential and are developed with single family homes. Staff has not observed- any; land use conflicts on. those properties and the proposed designation would be a continuation of the existing land j use to the west. Therefore, it is staffs opinion that Low-Medium Residential would be an appropriate alternative land use designation. The redesigetation of the subject site from Medium Residential to Low-Medium Residential would not conflict \\ with the provisions of the General Plan_and Victoria \.1 Planned Community. \ ,i b. Analvsis of Alternative'Desianation: Low'Residential was 1` analyzed as an alternative to the existing Medium Residential and the proposed Low-Medium Residential designations.. The Low Residential development standards do not allow for innovative standards such as "zero lot ' line" and "wide-shallow" products that are allowed in the Low-Medium Residential designation which could provide for appropriate development adjacent to RochesterAvenue 141 GPA 91-03, A tHROUGA M, SUBAREA ANALYSIS October 9, 1991 _P`ge,2Y f _ which isµ;,.dc !,grated -as a major arterial of the future. Therefore, 1t' s staff's opinion that Low Residential would not be tht most appropriate designation. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has completed Parts I and SI of the Initial Study and has found no sicnificant adverse environmental impacts that will occur as a result' of, the proposed. General Plan Amendment ank Victoria Planned community Amendment. 4. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Based on the face` and conclusions listed above, staff believes the Planning co can make the following findings regarding this. subaref 'ter i a. This ---'amendment ' does not conflict w(!�ta the Land. Use Polices of the General Plan end �(( II` provide for developmefit, within the district, in a (mtnner consistent with the General Plan and with related ILY vefopment'.' b This amendment promotes'",the goals and oY;jectives of the Land Use Element. c. The properties located in Subarea H of the application are 'suitable for the' uses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and,ladjacent OIL land use desigdations as evidenced by, the "-location of properties with the -same land use designation bordering the subject site to the west. �F\ 5. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that %he Planning commission 'recommend approval of General Plan;Amendment 91- 03, Subarea H, and Victoria Planned community Amendment 91y- Oa Subarea H, to the City Coancil ;through the adoption of &i tached resolutions. „ 41 i ,r GPA 91-03,' A THROUGH M, SUBAREA ANALYSIS October 9, 1991 Page 22 1 LM .; SUBAREA I g#A x e 1. PROJECT AND SITE) DESCRIPTION: u: a. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning,: . ' North - vacant, Medium Residential (8-14 dw(al')ing units per acre); proposed for Low Medium Re,adential (4 8 dwelling units per acre) South - Vacant, Low Residential (2-4 dwelling " ts per acre).an the General City' East - Plant storage,/,-Utility Corridor West` - Si,iglr--famil77residences under con.1truction, Medl�,im R�\si_ential (8-14 dwelling-units per acre) b. General Plan Desianations: Project Site - Medium Residential` (8-14 ,dwelling units per acre). North - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling-units per acre); proposed for LowMedium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) South Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) East - 'Flood Control/Utility Corridor West - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling.units per acre) 2 LAND USE ANALYSIS: a. Analysis of Proposed Low-Medium Designation: The properties to the west of tii� subject site are designated Medium Residential and ark?<-developed, with single family homes under construction wh c, are built to the- ,,standards for Low-Medium Residential. it is staff's opinion that there are no site constraints that would make Low-Medium Residential inappropriate for the subject site. The redesignation of the subject site from Medium Residential to Low Nedium Residential would not conflict with the provisions of the General ,Plan and Victoria Planned Community. c. Analysis of Alternative Desicmation: Low Residential was analyzed as an alternative to the 'existing >Medium Residential and the proposed Low-Medium Residential designations.- The Low Residential development standards do not allow for innovative standards such as "zero lot lane" and. "wide=shallow" products that.. are allowed in the L .1-Medium Residential designations x4iiich could provide for 'appropriate development adjacent "io Base Line Road which is a major arterial and Rochester Avenue which isp, MW designated as a major arterial of the future. Therefore, " N-3/ GPA 91-03, A THROUGH M, SUBAREA ANALYSIS October 9, 1991 r Page 23 it is staff's opinion that Low Residential would not be the most appropriate alternative. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has completed�,y-ts I and°II of the Initial Study and has found no significant adverse environmental, impacts that would accur as .a result of the ' proposed General Plan Amendment and Victoria Planned ' Community Amendment.` y 4. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: �J Based on the facts and conclusions listed above, staff believes the Plalining Commission can make the following findings regarding this subarea: a. This 4mendment does not conflict ,with the Land Use Polices, of the.; General Plan and will ,provide for development,' within the district, in a manner consistent with the-General Plan and with related development. b.' This amendment promotes the ;goals and objectives of the Land Use Element. c. The properties located in Subarea I of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district- and are compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by. the location of properties with lower density land use designations bordering the Subject site to the south. 5. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval.. Of General Plan Amendment -91- 03, Subarea I, and Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91- 03, Subarea I, to the City council,through the adoption of attached resolutions. :r � t GPA 91-03, A THROUGH M, SUBAREA ANALYSIS October 9, 1991 Page 24 1 Comm, iRetention Basin � SUBAREA J I o Li"H ®. S. I Sow°67 Viat®la Park I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: i t LLNi a. Surrounding Land Use and Zonincq; r -a ie.. North - Vacant, Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units > per acre);proposed for Low-Medium Residential (4- 8 dwelling units,, per acre) South -- Vacant, Low-Medium Residential (4-& dwelling units per acre) East Vacant, Utility Corridor West - Plant Storage, Utility Corridor b. General Plan Designations: Project site - Medium Residential (8-1,?dwelling units per acre) North - Medium Residential f.8-14 dwelling units per arrie); proposed for Low-Medium Residential (4=8 dwelling units per acre) South - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) East Flood Control/Utility Corridor West - Flood Control/Utility Corridor 2. LAND USE ANALYSIS: :i a. Analysis of Proposed Low-Mediur '+Residential_ Desicgnatian: The properties , :41 the south of the subject site are designated Low=Medium Residential and the proposed designat-,gin would continue the satFe residential densities. The properties in the surrounding area are undeveloped, therefore, staff does not anticipate any land use conflicts to occur as a. result of the proposed land use, change. The redesignation of the subject site from Medium Residential to Low-Medium Residential would not conflict with the provisions of the General Plan and Vicbria Planned Community. b. Analysis of Alternative Designation:- Low Residential was analyzed as an alternative to the existing Medium Residential and proposed Low Medium Residential designations. The Low Residential development standards do not allow for innovative standards such as "zero lot line" and "wide-shallow" products that. are allowed in j Low-Medium Residential designations. These standards could provide for appropriate development adjacent to the Medium Residential designation to the north and the proposed Day Creek Boulevard to the east whit:h will be a i 33 GPA 91-�03, A '11HROUGH M,r SUB�REA ANALYSIS October 9, 1995 Page 25 major arterial. °it is/ystaff's opinion that Low Residential would not be the most appropriate-/ c` designation. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ASS,SSMENT: Staff has Completed Pa--ts Band II of the Initial Study and has found nq significant adverse environmental impacts that would occur as a result of the proposed General Plan Amendment and 'Victoria Planned Community Amendment, 4. FACTS FOR F ND NGS: Based on the facts andl�lconclusions listed above, staff believes the Planning Commission Gan wake the following findings regarding this subarea; a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Polices of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related'}ie4elo:,gent. b.' This amendment promotes Fthe goats and objectives of the Land Use ElemerFt. c. The properties located in SuVarea J of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and adjacent land use designat4 ns as evidenced by the location of property with the same land use designation borderri 'a subject site to the south. 5. RECOMMENDATION: Staff 'recommends that the Planuilzg commission recommend approval of General, Plan Amendment- 91 03, Subarea J, and Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91- 03, Subarea J, to the 'City Council through the adoption of-- attached resolutions. l F r ' GPA 91-03, A THROUGH M, ..SUBAREA ANALYSIS October 9, 1991 coma.. m Page 26 �RsiehlioR �., Basin EGA SUBAREA ,K o s �O' Sehoe! ..Victoria Far 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: LU a. Surrounding--wand Use and, Zoning: iall03 North Vacant, P2edium�High%Residential (14-244 dwelling units per acre);,proposed for 'Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and Neighborhood Commercial South •- Vacant, Redium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East Vacant, Utility Corridor West - Vacant, Utility Corridor b. General Plan Designations: Project Site Medium Residential (8714'uawa ling units per acre) North - Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling uni;ts_ner acre),proposed for Medium,Residential (8-14' dwelling units per acre) __ .ad Village Commercial South - Metdtum Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East - Fle,od Control/Utility Corridor West Flood Control/Utility Corridor 2. LAND USE__ANAL1rSIS: a. Analysis of Existing Medium 12esi den tial Designation: Subarea D to the north of the subject site is proposed to be designated Medium Residential and consists of approximately eight acres of land. A, parcel this size alone would make it difficult to develop a multiple family project to the Cityrs development standards. However, if the property in Sub rea D is combined with the property in `Phis subarea, then�' multiple fa ` project could be Liasible. Theref( f it is stafffs recommendation that:'' the subject szvc ramain Medium .Residential and that'the application for this subarea be denied. b. Analysis of Proposed Lots-Medium Residential Desianazion. i Medium Residential allows for flexibility in private and I public open space and could allow for more flexibility to j mitigate any noiae and visual impacts through the, d,,,.�ign of the product. The Low-Medium Residential desj,cnation may not allow for site development that would,prol,'Ide for an appropriate transition between the proposed Medium Residential and. Commercial uses to the northf nd the Aft proposed Low Residential uses to the south. Vferefore, VP it is staffs opinion that Low-Medium ;Residential would not be an appropriate land %_4,® designation. GPA 91-03, A THROGH M,, SUBAREA ANALYSIS October 9, 1991 Page ,23 c. Analysis of Alternative Designation: 'Low Residential was. analyzed as an alternative to the existing Medium Residential and prnpcised Z;oW-Medium Residential designations. As mentioned above,; hedium Residential allows for more flexibility in the design of private and public open space and could allow for more flexibility to mitigate any noise and visual impacts through the design y of the product. . The Low Residential designation may 'not allow for site development that would provide for ;an >appropriate tra+isition between, the proposed P�iediuid Residential and'"Comttercial uses to the north, and t:,he proposed Low Kedium -Residential uses to ,the "south- Therefore, it is staff Is opinion that Low 'Resident;i<a7 would nrit be an appropriate lanci..use designatian.y'- 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESdIiENT: . Staff has completed,Parts I.,and II of the Initial Study and has found no significant adverse environmental impacts that would-.:occur as a' result' of the, proposed General Plan ,Amendment and Victoria Planned Community'Amendment. 4. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Based on the facts and 'conclusions listed above, staff believes the Planning,Commission can make the following findings regarding{ this subarea: a. This amendment conflicts w1.h the Land Use Polii.es of ::he Seneral Plan an6 will not provide for development, within the district,` in a: manner`,'consistent with the General P3an and with-related development. b. This amendment does not promote the goals and"objectives of the Land Use Element. : - c.`. The properties located in Suba,,.aa K of the application are not suitable.;Ifor the uses,permitted in t:he proposed district and are."'not compatible with existing and, adjacent land use designations.411 5. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the planning Commission recommend denial of General 'Plan Amendment 91-03; Subarea R, and Victoria 1'3anned Community Amendment 91-03, Subarea K, to the City Council'' through the adoption of attached resolutions. t c, Y � r'" GPA 91-�03, A T;]ROUGH TT, SUBAREA ANALYSIS October 9, 1993. ram:;; Page 28 ' 9 SUBAREA L C 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION,: a. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: - North - Vacant, Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) South - Vacant, Medium-High Residential (14-2Q dwelling units per acre);proposed for Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East - Vacant, Utility Corridor West - Vacant, Medium-High Residential (14--24 dwelling units per acre) b. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Medium-High'Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) North - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) South —Medium-High Residential (l_ •24 dwelling units per acre); proposed for Medium Residential (8-14 dweiling units per acre) East - Flood Control/Utility Corridor West - Medium-High,Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) 2. LAND USE ANALYSIS: The sub,act site has been purchased by the City and plans are under review for approval of a fire station. In the General Plan, this use would be classified as Civic/Community. During staff's review of the Victoria Planned community land use amendments, it was considered appropriat: co redesignate this site to make the development consistent with the General ' Plan and Victoria Planned Communitigc No alternative land use. designations were reviewed. The redesignation of the subject site from Mediur.-High Residential to Civic/Community (Community Facilities ':in the Victoria Planned Community) would not conflict with ' the provisions of the General Plan and Victoria Planned, Community. 3. ENVT__RONMENTAL__ASPESSMENT: Staff has completed"Yams I and II of the initial Study and has found no significant adverse environmenta3 impacts that would occur as a result' of-,the proposed General Plan Amendment and Victoria Planned Community Amendment. �/V 3 GPA 91-03,, A THROUGH M, SUBAREA. ANALYSIS Oct*ber 9, 1991 Pags 29 4. FACTS FOR, NDI GS Rased on ''she facts and ;,conclusions EII listed above, ..staff'believes the Planning;Gommission.can make the following findi-Ags regarding this subarea: a. This amendment does not conflict witIv the Land .Use Polices of the General 'Plan, and, will ,,provide for development, within the',district, in A maruzer consistent with the General Plan and with related _development. b. This amends ant promotes the-goals and,.abjsctive"; of tae Land Use KeA:en cti c. The 'properties 'located in Subarea r of the, applicat on+.1 are suitable for the uses permitted is the proposed district: and are compatible with existing ,and 'adjacent land use desianIations as evidenced by the subject, site's proximity. to major arterials and the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, 5. RE¢OMMENUA`PION: Staff recommends ghat the Planning > Commission recgmmend approval of Ganeral�-Plan Amendment 91,- =3 03,, Stiibarea L, and Victoria Planned Community Anendnent„9YL 03, S .bared L, to Clue city council through the, adoption of attached resolutions. ,i :r i I I� GPA 91-03,1A THROUGH M, SUBARFA ANALYSIS �T October 9, 1991omen. �o . 'gage 30 Matenliv— X. Basin G, SUBAREA M ® LM QSchool Victoria Park 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: At a. Surroundira Land Use and Zoning; LM �i' North Vacant. Village Commercial South Vacant, Medium-Hie`;,, Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) East - Vacant, Utility Corridor West Vacant, Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwellAng units per acre) proposed for Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) b. General Plan Designations: Project Site Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwellinr, units per.acre) North - Neighborhood Commercial. South - Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) East - Flood>Control/Utility Corridor West Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre);proposed for Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) I 2. LAND 'USE ANALYSIS: a. Analysis ref Proposed Neighborhood Commercial Designation: The property to the north; of the subject site is designated Neighborhood Commercial (Village Commercial in the Victoria Planned Community). ` The proposed Foothill (I-210) Freeway off ramp-tor Milliken Avenue will reduce tL,.e amount of land within this Neighbc~hood Commercial site with the off ramp removing approximately 1Y 4.5 acres of land from the Neighborhood Commercial designation._ Thy existing Neighborhood Commercial site would total less than ten acres which could ':Hake if difficult---to develop the site as a neighborhood shopping oenter. In addition, the present configuration of the ,existing Neighborhood Commercial designation to the north makes it difficult to provide the appropriate access needed for a commercial site given the Engineering Division's requirements for spaci._rf cif signalized intersections. The 7.895 acres of Neighborhood Commercial proposed in Subarea M, in addition to the existing. Neighborhood Commercial to the north, would allow for, a shopping AIL center to be developed on a 17.16 acre parcel. Most neighborhood shopping centers in the City average between 12 and 18 acres in size. Staff has not identified :any ' adverse affects the additional Commercial' zoning would /4,/0'3y GPA 91-03, A THROUGH Mr SUBAREA ]sMALYSIS October 9, 1991 Page 31 have on the adjacent properties. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that � Neighborhood Commercial (village Commercial in the victoria Planned Community) would be the most appropria`-�:e land use'ciMaignation.', The redesignation of the subject 'site frcm ?Medium-high Residential to neighborhood Commercial would not conflict with the rovisions 'of the Gener P al Plan and Victo ria r'�.a Planned Community. ' b. Analysis of Alternative nesi nation: Medium Residential was analyzed as an alternative to the existing 'Medium High Residential ar_d the proposed Neijhborhood Commercial designation. because of 'the additional commercially zoned land needed `for a shopping cen��er to be developed to the north,, it is staff's opinion that Medium Residential would not be the most appro., briate land use designation for the subject site, 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff hay: completed Parts I and 11 of the initial Stud_v and has fo*-,rich no significant adverse environmental impacts `that would: occur as a result of;:;the proposed General Plan Amendment and Victoria Planned Community Amendment. 4.. ; FACTS FOR `F11,i n � GS: Based on the facts and conclusions listed above, staff believes the Planning Commission can make the following findings regarding this subarea: a. This amendment , does not conflict with the Land Use Polices of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in, a manner consistent with the Generral.Plan. and with relatEld development. b. This amendrent promotes the go;.ls and objectives of the Land Use Element.' c. The properties located in Sv!�area M of the application are suitable for the uses'/'permitted in the proposed district and are .colnpatiblU "with -existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the location of property with the same land use d"ignation bordering the subject site to the north. t .r 5. RE COMM staff recommends t4fX ,the Planning,,- Commission .recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 91- ' a 03, Subarea M, and Victoria''Planned Com1unk6y Amendment 91- 03, Subarea' M, to the city Council through the adoption of attached resolutions. L�luls\�3�a��\\�a! lllls: tut! Iw tusltssria a\1\1 r� fltl 1 ` t�_s w �� ..'a1110i►C � g vr�pr //�ia�gnnil3U`a t�\Nil r BHII!1111� rn�� rl��x (llU1►Lq�3N 1►\`\\tss 11/�-`�- 1�� k):��b: eettr►un►s ��/Iiti1 111P�,�ttgm o-� �tr.'T' - 1•�••�•twy�ois$ IllihlNl = tlt �!!hlllll IIIHa`` ��'�� •- v Sr s ��p•,•epji•••a.�Ritlir eUrlp ly � — :�.`e .,°� •I, /y/ Ilflll11111111 UfU O \�\till 1lr "aaruu`= ales �fee ��'`• � ,__ (ty► �� \!11!Illllillrll�`\\\\�asrilllll�- llllll) ' �`� �\�: Iltt //ft� tl!+ ..\\ tltlk4..� I1N(p tr4)):®®a v' r• ... !t R 1/llq Ills„1,1i�/pl � �� 1� ��.. � o ,..si• +. r � e� (/jI%I%`•� 111�.��i�uuld ��o\``�;'��Rc J .uuHen-4+°° ��+ �a r. .. rR11I► rl/1! \�� '�//1111Ne 4�Q v i1101ii1litl o o a:w' � psl'� r. r tl�lli f il>Il ns` r�°�llltu311111 " �• sr'r: S e111111R�* ��. _�; � —'_� l/lllrMOP r� lil{�ri.1 Ra ry r �g ��'^ �.r�=- Y�y 0 � � ;+♦ a •�i D► s r ar r w.=r e�s..w. -rlll.r1101i+�wo /n/lli.le� rrw.r�dt►e■t01111 10�'® I1111111111p11G hRB10Rllllllllli11111 w. r.r..,.r�,.a,.u•..i� �3•H>tx;l�a rota:xr•av�+�rrr=•�a>�® 1},it>i0� ��lr��A►UIUa ti ,ws�ais.�a.� am '� - � 1e1111YiNi11 Itill►\ti3l�lilllllt11►1 +`•rrratinuuuu` t r LeKle}�puyMAN It �j\1\ a;t 66i4A'1{i[llj • �' //l/�.. r�^�s m=s Ali ;� s 1l�Ils�i Glams11n11 1►=inn��,'�� s �..®w �l II!!fi r —flurgeuri ov�e�.dli:nl�olo ::� Ulm /�- 111//i!1 IIIIIU) t 1A4l11d110 IQIi f`�`��% i ■V��s iu111n nlultd�► s�1/� /.fill ptun nllnnU IpA11�ma`s�."!I/y Ifi111!!11!.�1♦ S1O1111111 l�r,.e� eiq Ii/f�le.ful>,_t' i1 NINA t r i�lti dull■s ��R. �1111t�1 IQIP l�®e ►■IUiI \/!� /Ir •� ►tlllh=��`"�®� r a�fly ■turn _=' � allulltol mnl{`y1 a�S lr •m t■dl C'.:C"� III =nn,r a`lU o /iu illel ��■.••�� hItllllil011i11up111NI1I11d1iH1111 ►tn111W!" � + .Hoot) �: i f.J. ��M1tj1:1-1.J.1WT►Ij'ifH, f '`\\Illltlllllillllllt •;.:= �� 9��s dill 11 a um ems♦ MAMA I Fill I.tii �� _`Illi IIIIIP l a Mrs,Arnold Ellen. 1792 North Euclid Avenue upland, California 91786 t t ALM y � o - , JI 1 R ECEIVED CITY pI RANCHO CUCAM_ON( '�• /t� 5 "o3p+Q1 PLANNING DIVISION OCT 011991 AM FR EXHIBIT "B" RECEIVED CITY,OF RARCHO CUCAAS AWG - Septenber 17, 1991 PLANNING DIVISION SEP 191991 AM PM Vince Bertbni Asst. Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive a P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca ''91129 t: Mr. Bertoni: This letter is'-fn regards to out opposition of building condominiumn or townhouses at Victoria and Milliken (Sub-Area F) Reasons 1. Traffic already is congested and would get worse 2. Schools our schools-are already overcrowded and this development, —� would enhance`thr� problem - 3. Property Values - I bought here looking to increase my property � value and this proposal will, not allow that to happen. It is our understanding thdt single family hones were to'be built at this site and not condominiums or townhouses - I'm interested in keeping Victoria asit is - R Great Place tc Live... SIncerely, t� Mr. and Mrs. Douglas"Wbtt 1,+y ,s I i i it a d RECEIVED CITY OF RANCHO CUA N@NGL A G'✓ PLANNINGOVY15lON SEP 241991 AAO Al to 06 -� � j s � w ' WtoN�li / 4 E ; t:.XH1BtT 1 i RECEIVED CITY r1F 6ANCH0 CUCAMONGA _�tLANNINC WV16I0D! rr Q Aft t ram`, , EXHIBIT OER IA )� d i Rct, It'l h AlhNCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY N.C.,INC. GI',1"3 OF it;;y,,t:'??:t.i•,At i�:.\ v OCT 01 199r AM OUT 7181�1�f,�1�1:11`�l�ul�i�lC September 23, 1991 -r Mr. Vince Bertoni Assistant Planner PANCHOCUCAMOAG4 PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O.Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91729 RE: 2r;.2 Acres r. the Northeast Corner of Baseline and Milliken in Rancho Cucamonga; ;alifornia (Parcels A and B on attached map) Dear Mr. Bedoni: Thank you for your letter of August 29, 1991, advising,us of the meeting on September 10, 1991. Unfortunately, the letter was addressed to the wrong offic,_and 1 did not receive it until several day=, after he proposed meeting date. To avoid future scheduling problems,please direct all correspondence to the following address: Lincoln Maravilla Limited Partnership 30 Executive Park, Suite 100 P.O.Box 19547 Irvine, CA 92713 Attn: R.Scot Sellers I regret the fact that I did not learn of the September 10 meeting in tLne to attend and express our opinions on the proposed general plan amendment. Hopefully, this letter will serve to adequately inform you, the Planning Director, the Planning Commission znd the City Council of our serious concerns with the proposed amendment. Before I elaborate on our concerns, some background information may be helpful. R: Lincoln Maa-villa Limited Partnership ('LMLP') purchased this property in November of 1989. At that time, the property was clearly designated for multi-family housing development, and the Community Plan designation showed half the property as Medium density and half the property as Medium-High density. Additionally, the Victoria Community Plan ('VCP') was based upon an overall aggregate density for Victoria that the City acknowledged needed to be somewhat flexible with respect to specific parcels in Victoria. In keeping with this flexibility,the VCP allowed the density on any parcel to be increased to the next highest density category merely through a vote of the Planning Commission in conjunction with the approval of a site plan,development plan and tentative map. AML The VCP also specifically provided that a minimum of 15%cr'the total units in Victoria were to be 'affordable housing." At the time we looked at the property,no rental housing had yet been constructed anywhere in Victoria. As of the date of this letter,over two years after our first involvement with the property, there has still been no rental housing opened in Victoria(although 124 units are now under 30i'tecutivePark Suite100 P.O.Box195.47 Imine,Californfia92 �47 (lI4)?.61-2I00 EXHIBIT T8 ',r4 </1 j1V✓J- - AENCOLY,PROPERTY COMPANY N.C.,INC. -lJ September 23, 1991 Mr. Vince Bertoni Assistant Planner R WHOCUCAMOAG4 PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O.Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91729 RE: 2t;.2 Acres r. the Northeast Corner of Cucamonga; California (Parcels A and B on al Dear Mr. Bedonk Thank you for your letter of August 29, 1991, advising.u Unfortunately, the letter was addressed to the wrong office, after he proposed meeting date. To avoid future schedulini to the following address: Lincoln Maravilla Limited 30 Executive Park, Su P.O.Box 19542 Irvine, CA 9271 Attn: R.Scot Selk I regret the fact that I did not learn of the September 10 n opinions on the proposed general plan amendment. Hol inform you, the Planning Director, the Planning Commis concerns with the proposed amendment. Before I elabi information may be helpful. Lincoln Maa-villa Limited Partnership ('LMLP') purchasec that time, the property, was clearly designated for mu Community Plan designation showed half the property as Medium-High density. Additionally, the Victoria Communit} aggregate density for Victoria that the City acknowledged neo specific parcels in Victoria. In keeping with this flexibility,I to be increased to the next highest density category merely in conjunction with the approval of a site plan,development i AML The VCP also specifically provided that a minimum of 159 '.affordable housing." At the time we looked at the property, anywhere in Victoria. As of the date of this letter,over tw property, there has still been no rental housing opened in 30] cecutivePark Suite100 P.O.Box19547 Irvine,Califomia9l ,r construction), desF;te the specifio language requiring affordable housing in the original-VCP. With these background facts in mind,we purchased the property and proceeded to begin our site planning and elevation design for the property. in June of 1990, following extensive meetings ar{discussions with planning staff and Design Review Committee ("DRC"), and the approval of our plans by the DRC, we went before the Planning Commission for the final approval o"our project. One of the five Commissioners was absent that evening, and our project received a technical denial,on a 2-2 vote. The Planning Commissioners comments that night made it very clear that in their words "density was not the issue'. In fact,more than one of them said that higher dens-0y, multi-family 1 !lane actually belonged on this corner bncause of the traffic patterns in the City,and other considerat:ins. There was extensive neighborhood opposition expressed at the Planning Commission meeting that night. The bulk of the opposition centered around the factthat this was a rental housing development, not a for sale housing development. We had two previous meetings with the concerned ciftins;at which most of them expressed a consistent comment to me, if we would only change this to a for sale housing development as opposed to a rental development,they would n ;have a problem with it. Unfortunately, for perhaps everyone concerned,this was )t something we were in a position to be able to do. Following the Planning':ommission meeting,we evaluated our options. In the spirit of cooperation with the community,we asked the Planning-Cinnmission to reconsider our aevelopment,following a series of several meetings with the neighbors,• a 9 number of a number of revisions to our plan. As a result of it 9 9 over three months of these meetings,we made extensive revisions to our development plan, including, but not limited to, the following; - Deletion of over 30 units from the plan - Addition of a full perimeter fence around the development,and secrity gates at both entrancf. - deletion of all carports I( - Addition of one enclosed garage per unit f - Revision of the site plan to include over 50%open space - Deletion of all three story buildings - Revision of building elevations to include singe story elements of the buildings - Many other improvements We again went to the Planning Commission in November of 1990. After making all of these revisions to 4 our plan, and extensive ongoing discussions with planning staff aT%d the neighbors surrounding the lI project and another approval of the project by''the DRC, we were turned,down by the Plaraing Allk Commission 5-0. .Evan the members of the DR','that previously approved our project voted again::it. it was very difficult for me to understand why a project that lost on a 2-2 tie vote would be turned down five months later 5-0.after`extensive improvements had been made to ti;e original plan, a: t i However,again, at this Planning Commission review, I eves smted several times that density was not the issue. Several of the Commissioners seemed'to foes on the `quality" of,the development, and commented that it was not"unique enough to be located across the street from the planned City Central Park. f was asked in my public testimony to state`what was "unique and different" about this project that it should merit approval. Unfortunately; my view of what was unique and different about the project was not consistent-with what the Commissioners must have had in mind, and we were f ced with the p,ospnct of findinc other ways to make the project "unique and different" so that it yr ±!Id receive approval. P,epeateaty,though, at this Planning Commission meeting,iP was emphasize,,`'`,,the majority of; e Commissioners, that density was not the issue. Not knowing what else we could do to revise the project to make it"unique and different.",and becoming increasingly conczrned with the inconsistencies in the process (we could be approved by the DRC,but turned down unanimously at Planning Commission),we appealed to the City Council for a review,of our case. This case was heard before City Council,in January,of 1991. Again, the citizens expressed their concerns, and we expressed our concerns about the.history behind the project and the `seeming inconsistencies in how it had been handled. We sincerely wanted to, erstand whatissues we needed to Aft address to design a project that was acceptable to all parties conca: w r We went through each of the potential concerns before-the City Cou�cil. We were told again, that density was pot the issue, rental housing was not the issue,and that development of t1t` , _�-gaiteral was rot the issue. ht fact the only issue th,u iti t remained for us to resolve was the "transon in density' from the northerly :en acres (designated Medium 8-14 units per acre), to the southerly ter, acres (designated Medium-High 14-24 units per acre). Our planning had not contemplated a transition in density betwee6 these two sites, because when we initially laid out the site plan,we felt that a blended density (an overall blend of approximately 16 snits per acre) would create a more consistent and'pleasing community. As'mentioned previously,the VCP allowed this approc'', to the site plan. This provision, however, was eliminated approximately nine months into our appi wal process,'a:nless granted by an act of!he City Council. The result of the City Council meeting was a denial of our appet.l,but with very specific admonitions to us. One of these was that the issue wR needed to address was the transition in density. We were not requested to reduce the overall density on the site, nor,!`o delete multi-family housing or rental housing from our property. We were asked to follow tf,e-,uryiRrlying zoning designations-on the property as esginated in the VCP In fact, Council encouraged us to resubmit a ,plan, and even allowed a res,ibmission of c-r plan with no fees payable to the City. Following fhe City Council meeting, the City's Atinising staff spent a significant amount of time developing;new Multi-Family Design'Guidelines. As eve reconsidered our site plan, and e!avations, we monitored',",e progress of the new Multi-Family Design Guidelines, and worked to adjust our plan to be consistent with the new guidelines. We also sought out an alternative use for the nor�heriy five acres of the property, so that a buffer could be provided between the existing single family homes and the multi-family housing. in addition,we then planned the next five acres at a lower density, and placed the higher density portion of the development in the"MH"designation. 1 i bur new plans, which contain all of these revisions made in specific response to the comrientsreceived at the January City Council meeting,were submitted approximately three weeks ago. additionally, we have completely revised the,building plans and elevations to make several other imprcvements, including: All units now garages:hat are attached to the buildings(this was a big issue brought up by the neighbors). :;ess than 20%of the total units in the project are one yediooms. j There are over six different floorplans. There are some carriage.units in the developmenr. There are significant amounts of open space in the development. - To the best of our knowledge, the proposed plans are essentially coin:intent with the new multi- family d�sign guidelines enacted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. - Overah density has been reduced by 62 units. After all of this, we recently received the notice that the CityjJs ca -idering a unila"sral downzoning of our property. i do not have to slaborate on the extensive e�bnomic hardship that the denials we have experienced to date have caused us. However, this newly proposed downzoning would result in an economic hardship of even far greater magnitude, 1 noted with interest that the langi-ge in the City Council resolution specifically requested an evaluation of "potential future residential development based on current vacant uncommit'ad residential acreages...". Our site was evaluated for the purposes of this analysis,yet the City's own Housing Element component of the General Plan does not categorize our site as"vacant uncommitted acreage". In..fact,the Housing Bantent designates our site,an(--everal others, ar properties with plans currently,being proces-;,- -1-1his designation would, by definition,"remove our site from consideration for the unilateral dov, zoning proposed n your letter, On this basis our site-should not be at;risk for the downzoning. r If the City would like to use our property for purposes othor than multi-fare jy housing, which it is currently zoned t-r(and has been zoned for since we first,got involved with itz;we would be happy to sell it to tha,City for fair and equitable compensation. I would be pleased to meet with the City Manager, mem;:,ers of the Community Development Department, cr any other appropriate individuais to discuss this avenue. A purchase of our lard by the City is a far more appropriate way to change the use of the _. property, than the proposed unilateral downzoning, which in our opinion, constitutes-a taking of our property without compensation. If this is aot an alternative the City will entertain, then I strong:y u ,:,'you to idelete our property' from consideration for this generalpl.-n amendment on the grc',Ads that it does not comprise "current` vacant uncommitted residential acreage." Additionally,there is an,ongoing application being processed - /�l /U -� f i �.' for the property W reflect the,redesign discussed above, and a,long-standing history of discussions that is inconsistent w'W the proposed changes. Vll be happy to make myself available to meet with one;or more members of the City staff, F Tanning Commission or the City Council,to discuss this situi;'tion tn xireater detail. Thank you. Respectfully Submitted, , LINCOLN MARAVILLA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP;;' ;3Y: LINCOLN PAOPEATTYCOMPANYIIIC-�'27,Limited Partnershii^., { its General Partner R.Scot SePurs,. a Managing General Partner RSS:clt cc: Brad Buller Jim Markman, City Attorney` Jack Lam,City Manager Jerry Walsh, Esq. Kevin Hampton Dan Richards City Council: Mayor Dennis L.Stout Mayor Proter. William a:Alexander Diane Williams Pamela J.Wright Charles J.Buquat 11 Planning Commission: Commissioner Chitiea Commissioner McNief Commissioner Melcher Commissioner Toistuy , CommissionerValle$e Y. - 1 i. S RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL- PLAN,AMENDMENT 91-037 SUBARF,A A! AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAID USE MAP FRJM MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL (14-24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO.MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER P.CRE) FOR 10.0 ,ACRES OF 7S''-D r, LOCATEB ON THE NORTHEAST (,ORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: PORTION OF 227-691-01 A. R_itals. 0.), on April 6, 1981 the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the General Plan through the adoption of Resolution No. 81-40. (ii) On "August_ 5, 1991, the City; of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for General Plan Aaerdment ,NO. 91-03, Subarea A, as describedin the title .of this Resolution.:1` 4ereinaflcer-in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment`is referred to as "the application." On October 9, 1991, th< Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to the adoption of this Resolution. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the city of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find. determine, .and resolve 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 ant' correct. 2. Based ,upon -suf-A;tantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referencad public hearing on Octnber 9, 1991, including written and ' oral staff reports, together wit1v-/Jpublic testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to 10.0 acres of land 'located on the northeast corner of 'Bzaq Line Road and Milliken' Avenue and is presently'_ undeveloped., Said property' is currently,designated Medium-High-Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre); and (b) Th& property'to the north of the subject site is designated { Medium Residential (8-1G` dwelling units per acie)�1 and is undeveloped; the ' property to the south is designated Neighborhood Commercial. and is developed with a commercial shopping center under construction; the property to the east is designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling,units,.per acre) and 'is ✓v-52 PLANNING COMMISSION lc?SOLUr.ION no, GPA 91-03,`SUBAREA A - CITY OF R.C. October 9, 1991, Page_2 develrped with single family residences; and the _property to th& west is designated Park and is vacant; and (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 relatad'.development; ,and (d) This amendment promotes the goals Uad .objectives of the Land Use Element;`and (e) The.properties located in subarea'A of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed di frict am are compatible, with existing and adjacent land use designations as 6�Adenc'- iby the Tncation of prupe_ties with lower density land use designations bordering the subject Site to the east;.and ('f) This amendment would not have a significant impact on the environment'nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the.findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Study; and a/ 3. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and. considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, furthor,, this Commission hereby recommends issuance-of'a Negative Declaration. 4., Based upon the findings and concluelz"n--set forth in-p ragraphs ]., , andf_3 above, this 'Commission he resolves to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 91-03, Subarea A, amending the'General Plan Land Use Map from Medium .iigh Residential (14-24 dwelling units .per acre) to Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) for 10.0_.'acres of land located' on the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken lvenue as shown in Exhibit S. The Secretary to thia Commission shall certify to the adoption of this ResolutignY " r RVPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS.9TH DAY OF 0CTOBER 1991. PLANNING COMMIS-Z'= OF THE CITY`OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: r Larry T. McN.iel, Chairman ATTES9': Brad Huller;-Secretary - r 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUT7"11 NO. GPA 91^03, SUBAREA A CITY-tile R.0;. a' October 9, 1991 pagz 3 ram' is 1, Brad, Buller, Secretary,of the Planning Commission of the City of Ranch- 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 9th day of October 1991, by the following:vote—to-wit: AYES: CCMMISSIONRRS: !,1 NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMISSIONEAS: ftir Aft ss 11 N-s _ l-- l) r t Salo= /Illlli►1`N1�1�`�H ��1/!////dlll/.� '. �� ;:0°°s��1�1�C /rl!lltl 11 ►P� a i®4// �� , ° I�III ItB�— 11i11111111►►{ \►��1•,►Bj1/11� 'a•-ra, ,�!I��dj® hHIt1i111111Na�1\► i� � It —filling— flu 11 P all S s /tj we I:ot►►p1 — s111421 l ■• 118,E. h`�IIIIall A bll Illlll\►1►�1 c B\1a�011111111, � �� :; a /1�f!1%� (lpit��ryl11 1►�� ►11/=•'•� ��: I:i+��: � is�t1/1 1(1� l= ! S��s'Itl11II IID�a►�'S1it11 �PpAo •}��s�Q��s�lB C 1111tl1C11) Itlllfll 1111\�C v.'� _� r =�® ' �,�0'/I/�a•sY�. �11111 a1p111 IBBj __ __ o.•C ♦ =..�' 'a •//l0 DIIDII Illlfl) l+It► /�\� kill Il —� �p41 Ili �tlpO� V♦ O�'r� S G= Ie Illlp Ilit�>i� m 11 t(! to !�� ynown�s ®r!♦® �,` + tr////�1//I■ '�I��I��111111 �\�1��j�`f��='.�^?f'�/llllt/tl<\*'./Br�'i�I��r 1 F�`/'Y zz �/�111 111�f11� �%�/1111111�1�'as�_a �t� �=_ s—.�.��t61►fi10��'�s � �. ."/�' .:• �ul>!It--=-- --- -==R..r r �— . �as.B oral► '$": 1-i7'_A�J.7i3iN).1t4�rat:Cia�fll®� r a ;U\<Jf`' �_��///1l//{l its •�•�.L� � dallllllllll 1111111111br(11lUIII►1 �u.,i uuuu+, a ■ r+ 4' RESOLUTION NO. `r " •;vim + A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO .CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RFCOMMENDING' APPROVAL OF VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDiSNT :91-03, SUBAAEA A, AMENDING THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY LAND USE MAP Fi;OM MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL (14-24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL:(8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FCR 10.0 ACRES OF__'!rAND LOCATED,ON THE NORTHEAST.:CORNER OF , BASE LINE ROAD AND HILLIREN AVENUE, AND'.MAZXNG FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APKz PORTION OF 227yfi9.1-01. A. Recit>ls. J \ (i) On May 20, 1981, the City: of Rticho Cucamonga approved, the enactment of the Victoria Planned Community through-.he adoption of Ordinance (ii) On August 5"! 1991, the City of/Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Victoria Planned Community an.'ant No. 91-03 , Subarea A, as described in the title of: this Resolution dHereinafter in this Resolution, the ubject Victoria Planned Community;-'imendmant is referred to as "the application." (iii) On October 9, 1991,'jihe Planning Commission 'o£ the City of Rancho Cucamonga conductu9 a',dul oticed g y sS . public hearing and concluded*said public hearing prior to t)i adoption)of this Resolution. (iv) All lPcv( prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurr,i6d. „. B. Resolution. NOW, THEP.EI'ORE, the Planning Commission of the :City of ''Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows:.' 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that ail of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and corrct. 2. Based upon 'substantial evidence 'presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public -;taring on October 9, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with pub3;ic testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as'followat a) The application .applieu to 10.0 acres of land located cn the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue, and is presently undeveloped. Said property is currently designated Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre), and +l @DINNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VPCA 91-03, SUBAREA A. - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 9, 1991 Page 2 1 v 'Z1 b) The property to the north of the'subjuct site is designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per 'acre) and is undeveloped, the , property to the south is designated Neighborhood Commercial and is developed with a commercial shopping cen,'cer under construction; the property to the:east is designated Medium 'Residential (8-14 dwelling :`units per acre) and is developed with single family residences; and_ the property to the west is designated Park and is vacant, .and �) (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Policies of the General Plan and Victoria Planned Community and will provide for development, within the district, in a'manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development, and (d) This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of`'the Land Use Element; and (e);: The properties located in Subarea"A of the'''application are suitable for the 4ser permitted in the proposed district and�-ere compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced b�%,the location of properties with,"ewer density land use designations boxderiry the subject site to the east; and (f) This amendment would not have a significant impact on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and I2 of the Initial Study. 3. 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-!+:e_2by sacommende' issuance of a Negative Declaration. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions not forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby resolves to recommend approval of Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-03, Subarea A, amending the Victoria Planned Community Land Use Map from Medium-High, Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Residential (8-14 ;dwelling units per acre) for 10.0 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue as shown in Exhibit "A." 5. The Secretary to th-`s Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROX-3D AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH L;,Y OF OCTOBER 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman i. ,I <I yj ! �/ v PLANNING COMMISSION RESGLUiION NO. _ VPCA 91-03, SUBAREA A CITY OF RANCHO'CUCAMONGA October 9, 1991 Page 3 1 ATTEST: �? Brad Buller, Secrstsxy ;J I, Arad 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'(( Planniiiq Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at,a regular eLeeting of' he Planning Commission held' en the-9th day of-October 1991, by the fg7.lowing vote-to-wit: /t AYES: COMMISSIONERS: 1 j ��I 1 NOES: COMMISSIONERS: f U' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; Cry Jfr i 1 ..1 y�C�� An all R1.1� to IIUI Ui p��'tp"�hlNN,= •x.�:..,�!ifi��i�I' hnuunlll ll+ftt►1 s� /UU11111! 'tom pii: Illltigl/# ylr /uiun IDWill ulrin: rINq U 111 1111)t1lJ�rrA�� •: L �dpl# � �" rl1ll rlllWp.� � �••-®.r =±.0 �rm� fNu► Il i1l ill j�p�'��P'��q-��_ uH u!: O�I'�►�,. 1111111�If1f'!\y''��<1/M1411 �"``�YI��'� ��1 NW/liife•==��r.. � r'rr �..'S [rrtti 1<i r!r!o` lhttl s v 1r11U`G�r.ori�rrea►vv/1 illlllOv �#1111/41#glll 1114N4)IIINIIillll�# .....+.....r�r »o..iCa ag.uNaa:nitvsa��rw r>>c:::.it.e� ................. Y • r � o_. 'r 1fIIIIII{1111�11)ili►!\lit�rlllllll � iumutl+urui f 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAN4-1GA, CALIFORM A, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91;403, SUBAREA B, AMENDING., THE 1 GENERAL PLAN SAND USE IMP-'xnOM MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL (14-24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (0-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 19.3 Acnr'-yOF LAND LOCATED ON-THE NORTH SIDE OF BASE LINE ROAE_J WSrT OF VICTORIA PARK LANE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPO,' THEREOF APN. 227ti.i-091-14 AND 1S. A. Recitals. M On April 6, 1981, the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the G6netal Plan through the adoption of Resolution No. 81-40. (ii) On ALguat S, 1991, the~ City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 91-03, Subarea B, as described in the title of this ReeLlution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment as referred to as "the application." jiii) On October 9, 1991, the Planninn, Commission of the city of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and -concluded said herring prior to the adoption of this Resolution. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Revolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Ctr^ission of the City nf Rag-*so i Cucamonga does hereby find, letermine, aid resolve as follcya:__ 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 October '9. 1991, it-.,cluding written and oral ,staff repots, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby opecifs,call-u^finds as follows: (a) The applicatiln applies to 19.3 acres of land located on -'4a north side of Base Line Road, west of Vittoria Park Lane and is presently, veloped. Said property is currently designated, Medium-High Residentlal (14-24 dwelling units per acre and (b) The, propert to the north of the suoject site, past the Sol+ am Pacific"Railroad-rig:.t-of-way, is designated how Residential t2-4 dv ing units per acre) and is develnped with single family residences;`tYe i Ertay to the south is designated Hii•jh residential (24-•30 dw-alling units ptI acre) and is aveloped with an exis4ing,. nonconforming industrial building - 1:. PLANNING CuMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, GPA 91-,03, SUBAREA,H CITY OF R.C. •'>_ October 9, 1991 Pa,^tr 2 Adak (l� used to produce wine vinegar-, the properties to the,-,. east are designated Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and Neighbcrhood Commercial and are developed with condominium project under construction and a commercial shopping centeri and the property to the west is designated Medium--High Residential (14-24 dwelling units, per acre) and is developed, with a recreational vehicle salf-storige facility; --and r(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 development; ,Itnd (d) This amendment promotes the goals and ob?3ctives of�.e Land Use Element, and (e) °The properties fi,cated in Subarea B of tlielapplication are suitable for the uses ;permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and adja.:ent land use der gnations as evidenced by the locati0y) of properties with:lower density"land us., designations bordering the subjec f site to the north; and = i ' (f) This amendment would not have a si�aificant impact on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Study; and. r 3. This Commission hereby finds `chat the project�ius been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental. Quality Act of 197C`'and, further, this commission hereby re"`-mmends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 4. Based upon thefindings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby resolves to recommend approval,of General Plan Amendment 91-03, Subarea B, amending the General Plan Land Use Map from !tedium High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per ,acre) to Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units,:per acre) for 19.3.,acres of land located on the north aide of .Base Line Ruad, west of Victoria Park Lane as shown in Exhibit "A." is S. The Secretary to this--'ommiss�,on shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS-qSH DAY OF OCTOBER 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHPNGA. B:''_ Larry T. McNiel, Chairman /. Ir4�� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION Y70., l >, GPA 91-03, SUBAREA B - CITY OF R.C. t (f October 9, 1991, Page 3 �� 4 ATTEST: �� R Brad Fuller, Secretary I, Brad Buller,. Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of RanCao Cucamonga, do hereby= certify that the foYegoiiq Resolution' was duly and regularly introduced', passed, •an3,._r,.dogted by ti i Planning Commission of the Cit-v of Rancho Cucamonga- at a regular meeting, of'tLe Planning Commission held on the 9th day of Octcb6i 1991,,,by the following,,j-oto-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COLMISSIONERSs ABSENT: CC%HISSIONERS: t l�® ,�®LII��1 �ti aan'lluir� �---- n es�n►- rr -, lneeeRRs�' y r/6111 ,:Illh�`s�r 1 era►r 0e` — �� IIIII qil Rrr/ p�0 ■a• f3Y"r!1 �� 6r � ♦ � :IqI ert rrM,ing1►♦Ar/j1 ie°i i r�_"' -11q 11 U 'p etrtnr►r rOHl/,1)�•,� 111►sue lIN■ NI in atlltll►rea S■i�a•;•'�•� r,1111�1/If t� pl�ur wl,tlul �U"'� hi 1111 rl • l 0 fiirnryttl Yd p rei !/{/11/IlIIe111e :... �Illl 1 rltlll/fryl retreo ` r!1 of =1t� .i ue, uuul 'IUt/ as w :. P tilt 1 IlSittl Itr°�. 9 rtr IL M' � • +�.11l 1 u nnr1�`..��t�rl® it ,,li� ` { 1 n1u E oll �� 11 flllt um• ..'...':+ � pillAt'ili t1111111O�i111111J:A l Iltll r. IN "gags J. Ftltu Itl l till$21-4ltlift�'.t =rls „`atoll° 111123111111 s RS { 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF-THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, ,CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF r t V*CTORIA PLANNiD COMMUNITY AMENDMENT'91-03, SUBAREA:,B, AMANDING TKI VICTORIA PLANNED (COMMUNITY LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIU.-HIGH RESIDENTIAL (14^24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO MED104 RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER P.LRE) FOR 19.3 ACRES (IF LAND LOCATED ON T:M NORTH SIDE OF BASE LINE ROAD, WEST OF VICTORIA PARK LAW,', AND ILUING 'FSNDINGS,IN SUPPORT T►EREO? -, APN: 227-051-14 AND 15. A. Recittiitl:` (a.) On Y(ay 20, 1981, the City of Rancho Cucamonga sppr:ived the enactment of the Victoria Planned Community through the adoption 9f,ordinance No. 143. (ii) On August 5, 1991, _the City, of Rancho Cucamor,;�a filed. an application fcr Victoria Planned Community Azgndmezt No.,-n1-03, Suba.ea B, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resoluticn, the subiect ;Victoria Planned Community Amendment is referred to as "the application." - (iii) On Octnber 9, 2932, the Planning Camav,asion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed-pcb ,:c hi>rinq and concluded said hearing prier to the adoption of this Resolution.- (iv) All legal p.rerec_uidites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW; THEREFORE, the Manning Commission of the 'City .c+ Rancho Cucamonga does hereby fxnd,-determine, and resolve as tollowe: 1., This Cos •.;tsign hereby spe.ifically fix:is,thafi zNll of thr �ftc`s set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are t^ue and correct.. 2. Based upon eat:scent al evidence preseilted to`this Co-mission _ during the above-referenced public hearing ca O t.iber 9, 1991y including written and nral staff rauperts, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds ass fc�'_,: .in: r (a) The applicWor applies. r^ ...-`3 area, 9f. land located.on the north side of Base LinC Road, west of V., ..atid is presently undeveloped. Said propr is currently d SY `;yh Residential (14-2*ti dweli.cng ,mits pei- ^.:); and AUL (b) The )?roperty to the norc:-of the pan: the Sca*hern Pacific Railroad right-of--w8y, Is dae g-i-tated Low Residential (2-4 dtrelline unite per acre) and is developed with single family residences; the property to the south is designated Sigh`Resident?al (24•3C.1wglling unit-:pea PLANNING COMMISSION ImOLUTION NO. VPCA 91-03, SUBArXA B -`CITY OF R.,. r October;9, 1991 Page 2 acre) and is developed with:en existing; noncnnformi'n3 industrial building used to produce wine vinegar; the properties, to tbe.'•east are 'designated Redium-High "sidentialing units psr acre) and Villacge Commercial and aie. developed with'a condominium project and a commercial shopping center; end t'ne property to the west is designated Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling unite per acre) and- i,r aeveloped i6xn a recreatipnal vehicle-storage facility:..and ('c) This amendment does not'conflict with the Lari Use Policies of the 'nerE al Plan and Victoria Planned ,community and ,till provide for development, within the district, in F+ manner consis}ent with the General Plan ` r. and with relaxed development; and. (d) This amendment, promctes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; aad i j(e) The•properties Loct.ted'in Subarea B of the aop'lication are suitabhz for the uses`'permittee':in ',hs-ysrx ossea,distriut and are compatible, with existing and adjacQ use designer ions, as e nt lasj< videnced by the lo::at5,on ' Of rroperties with lowar dene.cy, land use des3.gnations"bordering the subject site to the north: and f (f;i This am invent world nit have B significant'impact on the environment nor cin the surrbundin ro "g p p,.*:s la as evidenced by the findings and col?elusions listed in Parts I and II of cha initial Study; and ;. 3_ This Commission hereby firis. , the projecti'as been' reviewed and considered in canpl,ance with the Ca`,figornia-En�rtranmental`duality' Act 9f 1970 and, furtler, this;.Commission.:hzrab' recomderids .issuance of a Negative Declaration. :. 4. Baued upon the findings and' conclueions set forth in pnra,3raphs f 1, 2, ird 3 above; this Commis ion hereby,rti.solves to recc'nns::d approval. Victoria Planned Community ]rne::dmentd 91-.03, 4-ibarea B, amending the Vidt Planned. Commun':ty Lind Use .Map from Medi3emf-High`Residential 114-24 dwelling - units per o--se) to Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) for 13.3 acres of land located„ on the north'side of Base Line Road, :.�st of tiictoiri a Ptak, Lane as shown in ExhPIt. "A." j 8. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVE? ,STi ADOPTM THIS 9 'H DA.T OV�jO'CTrueR 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF T;'.E'CITY OF'1Sr1NCH0 C-UL M093A f.. BYs Larry;T.MsNiel, Chairman tj i P;;P.NNING CO?MZSSION RESOLO��ON VPCA 91-03;' SUER &A B - $ITY'OF R. T October { '''- • Page 3 A' ATTEST:,_ 1' ad Buller, Secretary ri< ttil I, Brad BulllEr, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the-City of Rancho CucamJnga, d� here6y certify .that, the foregoing Resolution was duly and ieg-:larly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Cmmission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of-the Planning Commiseion held " on the 9th day of October '1991, by the following vote-to-wit: . AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ' x NOES: CbMMIS�,'jNERSfrw, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSS t AD z Abi ta_ : W t �p✓r� r5 � //7A r (i toll 1111 rtrru�t stir �2111t1 allwilloilill Mill oil" t e,r �� + o R—o141 hM 11111� OR li: ruH aloe WI......i a\et`aim • 0 1111q' Cpa lsn rmmrrll:U' UE �:i■11 U�ie � r»II►!I aa��tree�`y r moos /I r.a p .,.. )IQ/rA Illlllll iem [\ 111q rnitr yie o� ' ,Min )fNltll Ilun,ri m1�Wr��aI�ri IsIO/-�■� lean/wn n1 N\m►■s�._ llu I►nUapr a\\1 lul(�11rrrnr � •//Iu a Int ■ ►rnuu 1n1u1 111,E�� Arun ,�rhrnul ui .� ."11/ fill lit tluk l A , .u■..�►r ■ ' 1u111N1011[Il�nlull tl114p 111ln111 ��1111 ;•p: '� :■ J_� �i''.��%,1111q�D C Ski uul.u�i � • I Y up �� III title i �— RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE-PLANNING, COMMISSION OF THE I=Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERA? 'PLAN P.!=DMENT 91-03, SUBAREA ,C, ANEN DING, THE a GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP rRON, MEDIUM-HIGH'RESIDENTIAL (14-24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO"MEDIUN, RESIDEt.3TIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) "FOR 21.77 ACRES OF LAND 5, LOCATED ON WEE NORTHWEST.CORNER OF BASE LINE RCAD AND-THE FUTURE UAr CREEK BOULEVARD, >pAXD MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: POR77.,jN OF 227-091+a. AND 19, 227-091-20 THR6IUGH' 22, AND 2Z,'=!)92-43. a 1 A. Recitals. M On April 6,; 1981„ the City, of 'xancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the General Phan through'the adcaton of Resolution Noy 81-40. 41 I,ii) On Augvgt 5, 1991, the City of 'Rancho Gucamo�%ga filed an appli.::at.ion tar General Plan Amendment No. 91-03, Subaraa as,,deScri;7ed in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the suhject ' General Plan Amendment is refer::'e' d to ius "the applicatijr..^ (iii) On October 4, 1991, the planning Commission of the. City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticsd publ;ic'hearingitd concluded said 1 bearing ?rior to the adoption of this Resolution. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption oZ this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution.' w;iW, THEREFORE, ,the Plannir_g Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby finct', determine, and resolve as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically findo that all of t*ae facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.` 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Coma-ssion during the above-referenced public herring on October 9' 1991, �.ricluding written - and oral staff reports, together with public test!46ny, this Comnissi,Dn hereby specifically finds as (a) The application applies'to 21.77 acres of land located;on , the nortt,west corner of Base Line Road and the`future'Dr? Creek Boulevard and is presently undeveloped. Said property is currently de1s£gnated Medium-Sigh l Residentia.. =(14-24 de:elling units per sure); and ! r (b) The property to the inorth of the subject r 'ce, past the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way,' is desi,nated Low-Hedi'um ReSidential 14-8 dwelling units per acre) and-, iiilevsloped the property to the; south is 1' designated Commercial and is vacant; the property to the east is,desirnated.; , . .' MI/U u PLANNING COMMISSION"zESOLUTION NO. GPA 91-03, SUBAREA G - CITY OF R.C. October 9, 1991 r' Page 2 1� Utility Corridor and is vacant;l%an3 th.. property'to the west '-*Ls -desige `?d Utility Corridor and is used for plant atorage; and (a) This amendment; does not conflict with the Land Use Policies" of the General Plan and will provide for development,,within the district, itt a manner consintent with the General Plan and:with related development; and() .,. (d) This amendment promotes t%tg;goals and objectives of t,ie '`; Land Vse Element; ,and } (e), The properties located in Subarea C of the applicatiot{,'are suitable for the vises permitted..in"the proposed district and are comp at ril0 with-e. ling and adjacent land use designations a3 evidenced by the he# ,con of;,properties with lower density land use designations_bArdering the .z,lu. sect site to the north and (f) This amendment vTould not have a significant"impact on,�'rhe environment nor on the surround:.ng 14ope_t'_es as evidenced by the fin3 ngs ind conclusions listed in Parts'I and II of_a Initial'7teidy; and .3. This Commission N reby finds that the project'has been rev'-awed Bi and considered in compliance with, the C`lifoinia Environmental &elity Act of 1970.,and, further, this Commi.3silan hereby recommends-lissuanceof a Negative Declaration. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in,paragraphs" 1, 2, and 3 abooa this Commission hereby resolves to recommend approval of, , General Plan Amendment 91-03, Subarea`C, amending t a Genetal Plan Land,dseFt Map from Medium-Sigh Residential (14-24 dwelling unite per acre)';'to Medium Residential (8-14,;dwelling units, per acre) for 21.77 acrQa'•c:.:aiid 'located on the northwest corner �of Base 'Line Road and_`Victatia Park„X.11r as shown"in ^xhibit "A. !) S. The Secretary to this Commissioa�'shbil certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Z. r , APPROVED AM ADOPTED THIS 9T$DAY OF OCTOBER 1991. PLA14NING COMMISSION OF fi iE CITY OF RANCHO cvcmd6A BY: Larry T. McHiel, Chairman ATTF!:_: Brad A 4.Jer,,.Secretary 1Q, I} fti f q � w PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 1;0 : CPA 91-03, SUBAREA C. CITY OF R.C, October 9, 1991 Page 3 qp 1=- L, Brad Buller] Secretary o£ the.Flanning Co�cniss!on of the City of"Rancho Cucamoiga, do hereby certify that,the forecoing Resodtionrrwas„duly and regularly intzoducet3t' passed, and adopted >by,the Plannanc'Cammiasion°_of the City of Rancho''Cucaritoaga,`at'a regular meetiig df the Planning Commission held on the 9th day,,,, f October 1991, by the following vote-to-wit: _ i AYES: CoIIMISSIONERS: NOES: COWUSSIONERSc ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: �t j I, � 1 4J II � f Ol Al 70 r Daar► :►o��gllll q�"" +� �t1I111►`ice` s s:••`_ a �=of�� a t►�s ta! ►it+lt�/Boflfjs��/ AItig 111H C':� n I(ms� to pll el! 1111t nu mntlll 1 u\ltd+►s==�: Ii�, 1 11 11111 • ,pIA mu„rlt NU\U►!e� 4/f, t! l 14/�, Ault►unuu�u t\►\ �11/ hdl-unrrrrrr '�i�� s • - �11t =11tri `Qtt/ NO 1/l ayt + �a1ni- :. � h,rrrrl ulua 111D�1►�� "�:_: ttnllill nir't ' pew a ai, �iiiii *� ►tlih= ,w.ti,1 .At -� Marl Irin ►fill 41111l u..u.� � .��IIIInIIIIIItIItIIrIp iDUlii(nlnl) Y i1111111 1t " ntu■ �e =1+111131��..'t f N�StH ti(>' tlA101i Rw.'t �� .�- 'ri"'\\lllpl IlNllltltllf�� In.itt11m i * = ntll- c it, tool[[» ._.. ...., ..� `_tii� i.a..,•. till[ rllli Il i� i i . RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COM1"SSSION OF THE CITY OF 'i RANCHO :CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING 'APPROVAL OF \ VICTCR_TA ,PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA C, AMENDING THE VICTORIF.'PLANNED COMMUNITY LAND USE MAP FROM 2�DIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL (14-24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE') TO MEDIUH%-RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNS.TS'PER ACRE) FOR ^`_-77 ACRES D7 LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER 09 I BASE' LINE ROAD AND THE'-FUTURE DAY''CREEK BOULEVARD, AND MAKING :FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN. PORTION OF 227-091-18 AND 19, 227441;20 THROL0H .22, AND 227-091-43. A. Recitals. (i) On May 20, 1981, the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the Victoria Planned Community through the adoption of Ordinance No. 143. (ii) On August b, `1991, the city of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application fzr Victoria Planned community"Amendment No. 1�1-03, Subarea C, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, subject VictoriaPlanned Community Amen:ment is 'referred to as "the. application." AVA (iii.) on October 9, 1991, the Planning Commission of the. City of Rar,ho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to the adoption of this Resolution. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Fes mtion have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the" Planning Commission •if the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve asi,follows, 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in tbn Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution;are true and correct. 2. Based upom substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing an October 9 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission herrby specifically finds as followsk, (a) The application applies t) 19.3 acres of-;land located. on 1 the northwest corner of Base Line Road and the future Day Craek Boulevard and is presently undeveloped. Saia property is"currently designated Medium-High Resideptial (14-24 dwalling units per acre);, aid b The ro yrt to the north of the subject site past the O P P Y j r Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, is' designated Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and is undeveloped; the property to the south is 4 PLANNING CC.MMISSION RRSOLUTION NO. VCPA 91-0?%, SUBAREA C - CITY OF October 9, 1991 fi Page 2 designated R !;!,onal Related Offiee/Comtaercial andl"ii's variant; thy3 propexty to the east is C%cidignated Utility Corridor and is vacan�; and the property-- to the west is designated Utility Corridor and is used far plvnt storage; and ( ) This amendment does not conflict,'with tk7,� and Usa..Foliciem. of the General Plan and Exctoria Planned Community and will prq- . for development, withi6 tta diatrtct,_in a manner conaistcnt with the GeiOral Plan and wit;', related devP Ppment; and (d) This amendment promGLus the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) The properties located in Sui+area c-of the application are suitable for the uses permittel in the proposed'> district and are compatible with existing and adjacea.t land use designations as evi%"nced by the location of properties with lower density land use designations bc,�dari.ng the subject site �7o the north; and (;f) This o .2ndment would not�ii4v0 a significant impact on '147,e environment not on the surrounding properties as 'avidenced by'the findings a,tid conclusions listed in PartsI and 1I of the Initial'Study; and 3. This Commission hereby finds that thf,project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality A�'t of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuan= of ,a Negative Declaration. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragrahs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby resolves tp recozr-tend approval 1f Victoria 'Planned Community Amendment 91-03, Subarea,, amending tRia Victoria P3anned Community Land Use Map from Medium-High\ !Rr' 3ential (14-24 dwp',Ling uz,_ts per acre) to Medium Residential (8-14 dwellinc .vita per acre) for 21.77 acres of land, located on the northwest corner of F ,Io 1tne Road and Victoria Park Lane as shown in Exhibit ^A." S. The Secrstti:y to this c-mmissior'shall certify to the adoptiun of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS STH DAY OF `CTOHER 1991. / PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. *icNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, :Secretary � MI!'✓_ 73 m - PLANNING CO sIESION'RESOLVTION fiO. V* PA 91-03,SUBAREA C {it.G. Octiflber 9, 1953 - Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Secretary o- the Planning Commission pf the -City nf -dancho Crcamor4a, .do hereby cer:: fy that the foregoing Resolution was6duly and regularly introdaced, passed, and adopted by the planning Commission of the City of Ranc;io Cucf=onga . at a regular meeting of the Planning CommissioA he d the 9th dap of October 1991, by.the following,voe-to-hit: o / AYES: COMMISSIONERS. t_ NOES: COMMT3SIONER& �f ABSENT: COMMISSZCVERS:- e" t: � L _ :�► l"No `°gBill 11tl� rtlil■'■rvilitii y: 1S►� aM...•• ��,.,Iles s/ 11 ��/=',fi w +ii►tilRr .moo 11U`` fltltllll tt l�� ..� tit► ,■/� • ♦�j �.. lie gin,�e�tU/ dl ♦ / eu —_ii!lill It1114\ ,'+ 'ytisel,iulls'l�t�t��l A.IIIIIV/�� ►/►1f1t 111 plttu uunun�i1 ui�t►►,.��:�j��11 IIII,IMI®I {f 11111t ■� II - In n �/u/ ��ij■ o 1 11►� �l■ ' ' _ .-.�- '+ ,r mow. ■ � .._. _._ ,,_. � Ifs_5^/1//0.�� ■111�= •- � tlUrn ntlllt 'tS fl`ate ►rnnr c :::::::� � nn1c.�tti��UUI.�■I Nugl RilY�r B Is 7 lul tilt uutt.� `�-ate{li s ant :::� iL tau tyro = prlr awt � . uuaa.a��, itQ 11H1l1Unti LHIMtllQtttM111"11 tIL Rill - p.uur 16:1�tie a Hl-'1 :iZ■;7(at`4 T_'I! ^.•7Y4 =:..: � ' � .� ��►may nlpi �.» _ ,ram� 1111 �IIIIIIIII 'r �111 a1111 • rs�- � RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RIANNING COMMISSION.OF THF. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOV4ENDING APPROVAL OF .;ENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT VI-03,, SUBAREA D, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM-HIGH F,ESIDENTIAL (14-24 DWELLING UNITS:'-PER ACRE) TO MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 7.895 ACRES,'z LAND LOCATED BETWEEN APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET" AND 1,300 FEET SOUTH OF HIGHLAN1) AVENUE AND O'i THE WELT' SIDr. OF THE FUTURE DAY CREEP. SOULE4ARD, P„'W MAKING FINDIRGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN. PORTION OF 227-021-03 ,'AND 13. A. Recitals. (i) On April 6, 1981, the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the General Plan through the adoption of Reso]_-Ation No. 81-40. (ii) On August 5, 1991, the City of -Rancho Cuct:ianga filed ar. application for General Plan Amendment No. 91-03, Subarea D, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the cpplication." ('iii) On Oc;.ober. 9. 1991, the Plaanning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hewing prior to the adoption of this rtesolutim iiv) all legal prerequisites prior to he adoption of tUs Resolution have occurred.. R. Resolution. ' NOW, THERET;REi the Planning: Oommis_~a of the. City of Rancho Cucamonga does herei` find, determine, and resolve as follows: 1. This Oolnissien hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set fcrth in the Re,:Li s, Part A, of this,Resolution are true and correct.. ' 2. Haset: tt»n substantial evi.dencm presented to this Commission during the above-referenv<d public hea_3ng on October'9:, 1991, including written and orinr sta-'f,, reports, toger''%er with nubac testVinny, this Commission hereby specifically finds as '10< ��Iwsp (a) The application applies to .7.89E acres of land lk.:ated between appr.,x.unately 1,000 feet and 1,300 feet eouth..-of Highland Avenue on the west ride of the future `%y Creek Houlevaid and is presently uu-1eveloped. sv d property is cur-cantly designates`. Mediu.th-high Residential (14-24 dwelling units pe acre); and ..j) The property to the north of the subject site, is designated Medium-high Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre)" and is undeveloped; the property to the 25uth is designated Medium Residential (8-14 N ;� ?b 070 -a ,OCTOBER ��; 1��. P C A EI�DA � ( 7 of 8 � PLANNING CCMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 91-0'3,`/SUBAREA 1) CITY OF R.C. October Sr, 199,* Page 2 qW dwelling units,per airs) and .s vacant, the property to the east is designated Medium-High Residential (14-24-dwelling units per acre) and ii-vacant,.,and the property to the west, is depignated,.,Flood Control/Utility Corrid=- apd is vacant; and (c) This amendment does not conflict with.the.Land Ilse Policies of the General'Plan and wil;r`provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the�;General Plan and with'related development 'And (d) This amendment ,priImotes the.goals and objectives of, the Land Use Element; and. (e) The properties located in Subarea D of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the.'�,roposed`district and: are compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced-by the location of properties with the same land, use designations south I of the subject cite, and (f) This amendment would not have a si*.n;,ficant impact oa the environment nor on the surrounding properties as.evident;eu by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts T and II of the Initial. Stu? yp and 3. This Commission hereby finds that the �%, jest 3aas bean reviewed and considered in compliance with"the, California EnvJ''',,nmezttal-Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends isntaance of a Negative qW Declaration. 4. Based upon:the findings and:conclus£ons srt forth in paragraphs r 1, 2, and 3 abt:.v, this• commission ,hereby resolves to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 91-03, Saabarea D, yamending the General Plan Land Use Map from Nedium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) for 7.895 'acres of ?.and located between approximately 1,000 feet and Ir300 feet south of Highlald Avenue on., the west side of the future Day Creek boulevard as shown in Exhib'1t "A." 5. The secretary.to this Commission shall certify to they adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS: 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1991. - PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Larry T. McNiel, Chairman C.F . 4 �a� PLANNING COt¢HIS RESOLIWVIOx NO. GPA 91-03, SUBAREA D1 CITY' } october g. Page 3 ATTEST: Jr grad Huller, Secretary y (Ir Brad Huller, Secretary of the- Planh�ing Commission of the Cf of Rancho Cucamonga, do,hereby certify` that the foregoing Resolution wa»J duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by,, thr Planninq�bommission of-the City of RancGio Cucamonga,,.at a regular meeting r,x,k,the Planri'`�iig Commission held on the 9th day of October 1"l, by the following vote-to-with',, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: T NOES; COMMISSIONERS: "D :'nSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 1 I rM1` :t /Sr� � t - C(Ilff.see ! .�.�t■�. w ��III\o ..met � _ .._r 11111. D'�uxUtnm nuulrly + t9e O�■, ....... � ;IN(, No M►� I trueua�ri��a",yi� e n (i11A aI lk„."...lq,NN1 oo®°siirgllU►/�tri• to _ 11/Ir Iluilll t/11►1fillip 11111//Ir1►11 `�O oio S O,'_ LgUU n .,1 e6• �t> .o eI� �i o oii(4110►�� • Iona lul 111�.1,�w-.�'�r.,�11111111111. )t11111 I y ,/1,„uU t�.S s .45 LE ` .eo � tG,�a a uu t111►��aei oarao e )Irlulu Il�pll e1eMr�1:, P+nnr c ttglti=1\�r�+11® �11, er�lwr- llnnum Ed �iI a1I MCI ni- - 1■tn qtd ®. i11: a0r L nr -�= ►rtu IUq ••.. .." - a- _Jglnulnmlludmtnuuuw�itll rilnmrat m■.u/ ■... ■!:J®��:1•11I I.'7�.1.NCH 76y,_itV�■ �� y�'y� ��'��\NIIIf111111g11111111� -1ow •raN j � � tt"'J` i y%1111 ;-.tl/tUttl■�1 �•�� _ It i�„ 'Mill Itllll� I R� !a 1 � _ i t�w g. AAk RESOf i'UTION Nv: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF r RANCHO ZUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING, APPROVAL' OF' VICTORI7l% PLANNED COMMUNITY-`AMENDMEN^ 91-03, SUBAREA D, AMENDING THE'•`ICTORIA P..ZXNED COMMUNITY LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM-SIGH RESIDENTIAL (14•-24 'DWItLLING.UNITS PER ACRE) TO MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (e-14 DWELLING UNITS PERACRE). FOR 7.295 ACRES OF T,AND LOCATED BETWEEN APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET AND 7,,300 FEET SOUTH OF HIGHLAND AVENUE AND GN THE WEST SIDE OP THE .AIUTURE DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, AND MAXING FINDING IN SUi ORT ^1EREOF - APN: PORTION OF' 227-021'=03 AND 13: A. Recitals. (i) On May 20,_1981, the City. of Rancho Cucamonga approved the Ienactment of the Victoria Planned Community through the adoption of Ordinance ! No. 143. (ii) On August 5, 1991, the City of Rancnoj;Cucamonga filed do application for Victoria Plann_-J Community Amendment No. 'f,1-03, Subarea D, as described in the title—og this Resolution. Hereinafterijin this Resolution, the subject Victoria Flanned ;Community,;--andment is riferred to .as "the application." (iii) On October 2, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of f Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said i hearing prior to the adoption of this Resolution. I. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. r B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the alanning Commission of: the City of Rancho Cucamonga does he:etiy 'find, determine, and,resolve 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 'pubstantial evidence presented to thi ' Commission during the above-referenc-,;,public hearing on October 9, .1991, including written and oral staff zeports,' together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies' to 7..S95 acres of land located' between approximately 1,OOu feet and 1,300 feet south of Highland Avenue on. the west: side of the future Day Creek Boulevard and is presently undeveloped. Said propert,, is currently designated Medium-High Residential- (14-24 dwelling units per at:e); and PLANNING COMMISSXOX RESOLSWiom No. VPCA 91-03,- 'SUBAREA D - CITY OF October 9, 1991 Page 2 (b) The property to the north of the subject site, is designated Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling 'units per acre) and is undeveloped; the property to the south is designated Medium.Residential (e-14 dwelling snits per acre) and is vacant;,the property.to the east'is designatedl' Medium-High;Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and is vacant, and.,the property to she west is designated Utility Corridor and is vacant; and (c.) This amendment does :not conflict„with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and Victoria Planned Community and .will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with`the General Plan r and with related development; and (d) This,amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) The pzoperties located in Subarea,D of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in t'e proposed district and are compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by.tte location of properties with the same land use designations south. of the subject site; and ; t;. (f) This amendment would not haves. significant impact 'on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in "Parts I and II of the Initial Study; and 3. This '2ommission hereby finds that the project hats 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. 4. Bayed upcn the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby .resolves to recommend approval of 'Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-03, Subarea D, amending the Victoria Planned Community Land Use Map from Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) far 7..895 ` acres of land located between approximately 1,000 feet and 1,300 feet south of Highland Avenue on the west side of the future Day Creek Boulevard as shown in Exhibit "A." 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AM ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1991. l i,LANNING .COMMISSION OF THE CITY'OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman �. cP/ =�' 1 Vif? 2� PLAV1:ING COMMISSION RESOLOTZON NO. VPCA 91-03, SUBAREA D.- CITY OF R.C. X October 91 1991 ,; / Page 3 j ATTEST;_ ; 3rad Huller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify twat the foregoing Resolution` was duly and regularly introduced,- passed, and `adopted by the Planning Zompaission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at'a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held r. on the 9th day of .October 1991, by t;ie following vote-to=wit. 'AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS:' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: _ 1 , c-,AM Y� �h1 �►•��'i LiHI/J®�11�,�1�01 ■Y/'uiri�Ni►�:, . O�%�r 1 Ila■i►• ■� �lillfl101\�' =•fui••�°��C��i p C liiif111Ui1 � � `�._�os Asa .'s��Ilt►s�,11■ Oiii� �/lllli�fi��el►rnuruo Ulwnq'�� •1■��=� C 1111/� (!rI//llllf\�lfft/l✓��1� ID"�v� •�7a■N/11 lit rYrInlrrt/Ir aU��■ji,IUB�111 e'® . Inm„uunn er°eftluntrsea, )ems,,� ,® ulf ilk,%l I Pf p�e1►��.`=e��°%/Alh= �-.r►t{ QIIIIIIIO ar • �iitlli rir(iryi j ,Ifflffltf�f►►�Yj��G t�r� 1lIIUI IU\� _ 1 1n - Ind= u) ii an �Vh�Ir� I��i■ s it ►111®��► ►uflu •�--- U4Inu aUtn f ,�et! prim= Hit ll {Ie1'.r■!/ Yuntl E I �!U_ 1� a•� c':` t:•. � _ipmuo uul►"�� 'o=Itr< pin iii:7 _ _ = Yuu rtr,i ::.. J . lu unr q1U ►qlr OI 1 1♦ ..■■..u�c� 11 O1111111 IUulunulnlUttgpnll 4ruo1111rf e u��i=n sa:Ia:1.■v_t�^1t•>,ni 3t�p�1 puanq � •� -_��a�\\11t11tlll/lllltt NIRs . Will 0 ...aaa�i• � � I��_ � ,��i i IIIY �IIIIIt1IIo '�1111 IIIl11 i FESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITy OF RANCHO CUCAMON A, CALIFORN7A, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL or GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA E, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW;.MEDIUM RESIDnNTIAL (4-8_ DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 3.0.3. ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MILLIKEN AVENUE SOUTH OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND MAKING 'FINDINGS IN .SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: PORTION OF 227-691-01. A. Recitals. (i) On April 6, 1981, the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the General Plan throuoh th3 adoption of Resolution No. 81-40. (ii) on August S. 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 91-03, Subarea E, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution,-the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (iiij On October 9, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to the adoption of this Resolution. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred._ B. Resolution. I_ NOW, TF.EREFORE, the planning Commission' of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, ':za�d resolve ais-follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically fitpds that all of the,.facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and corree.: 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during tho above-referenced public hearing on October 9, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together- with public testimony, this Commission, hereby "specifically finds as follows: (s, >-The application applies to 10.1 acres of land located on the east side of Milliken Avenue south of the Southern Pacific Railroad right- of-way and is presently undevelopec{: Said property is currently designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre), and (b) The property°to the north of the`subject site,I past the Southern Pacific Railroad' right-of-way,, is designated Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with single family residences; the property to the south is designated Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and is vacant; the property to the east is designated Low /''✓ai�/ R PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. r GPA 91-03, SUBARsh`.;E CITY OF 14C. October 9, 1991 Page 2 /J �i Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with single family residences, under ' construction; and, the property to the -west is designated Park and is vacant; and (c) 'Thi.; amendment does;not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner conaietent with the General Plan and with,nelated development; and (d) This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) The properies located in'Subdrea E of the 'applicsition are suitable for the uses petted in the proposed district and are;ifmpatible with existing and :adjacent land use designations as evidenced by t;,'S location of properties with lower density land use designations bordering ;the subject site,to the north" and properties with,the same land use .designation'to the east; and _ (f) This amendment would,not have a,gignifican,_Jimpadt 'on the environment nor on the surroundincfproperties as evidenced by the `i•"indings.and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Study; and 3. This Commission hereby finds that the project has bean reviewedf µ and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of-` 1970 and, further, this Commission heillby recommends issuance of _a Negative IMF Declaration. 4. Rased upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragiephs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereb resolves to recommend approval of General P1dn Amendment 91-03, Subarea, E, au-Tiding the General 'Plan Land`Ooe Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling- units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-U dwelling units per'acre) for 10..1 acres of land located on the east side of Milliken Avenue south of the Southern Pacific Railroad, right- of-way as shown in Exhibit "A." S. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify tip-the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TM DAY OF O(':'OBER PUNNNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RWMHO CUCAMONGA Larry T. McNiel, .Chairman ATTEST: �` t Brad Buller, Secretary V ,r PLANNING COMMISSION RrESOLUTION NO. GPX 91--03,. SUBAREA E - CITY OF R.C. October9, 1991, Page 3 J O 1� _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'meeti,ng of the Planning Commission held, on the 9th day.of October 1991, by the following vote-to.-wit: AYES: ''COMMISSIONERS: NOES, COMMISS1jNERS: (V A ABSENT? COMMZSSIJNERS: -z f ' 1 i 0 7. 1� /07/ O..y1A. S: s11FiP �L`,d. <Y' _ r Iiptrni�� u1 it�a•1. __ ® Fyn= r /.■Ipo +`t\`i��a�• trri �e 4°�°Ipu — inqual — i -nupfuu►11 d11 a'1 s e� _ M-_ k (IIUI-..11n1J 111�"�I 1/ill�..�s�` '.flew M�:i w/as:11111fhhr '-i `_/�I(!'l1U U►��``��g1Ut � �- �.v _...:. ._ ��±i��s�/i�rr 4 111{I111f►1 f (ly �_ ;.�? � •: � `Q�+ t ■J tl lli 11ulII �� = ��• Oa� !� s 111117a 1 (/Qr //1��t111/ (1 �� n� �Mlln�•♦ .• �� _ / 111111111111111111�11SIIAlII rllthRw f�♦� O., t fiu °♦� ��1 -UfbuJ��J� �� a s ;. �(/II// /JQJO ��/�i�i1111It1 (�1>\`�\�i_mil.'_7� I 1111■�",�� air i�� a.::A+. fJ lJii/n��'� �ii�llnilt U ��''�.= rtuflr�a►t e+� � o; •, } f`/ ti jj�r R•raa� �`��l�t/llol \l''�,,• :.ors �'+.411114t111`ye !/IRJI/ 11{s�ll��! all ��; sr 1t♦ iii�r..Yi....ii •'.i er �J Ys�.t a■ y �.ninla`_ze�.r....■-r �i■ti. tRr 11111111iA111 Iiliil111il1itl Ifs ,. Ila- tea■■.■gf[ttu■rrrj ■ r _ : �/Hl[I�I►1�1111►1111\\>1ir111111111.'� a■nu■■mu■■ir • a C 1® RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF Tr PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY 'OF RANCHO CUCAMCNGA,` :CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY"AMrNDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA E, AMENDING THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNI�Y LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE)';TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 10.1 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MILLIKEN AVENUE SOUTH OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF WAY, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APN: PORTION OF `27-591-01. A. Recitals. ; (i) On May 20, 1981, the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of.the Victoria Planned Community through the adoption of Ordinance No. 143, (ii) on August 5, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Victoria Planned Community Amendment No. 91-03, Subarea Y:, as described in the title of this-Resolutitn.'- Hereinafsar in this ResOluhion, the subject Victoria Planned CommunitN, Amendment is reforred, to as`'"the application. (iii) On October 9, 1991, the Planning Commission of the uii of Rancho CucamongL ,conducted, a duly noticed public -hearing and concluded said hearing prior to the adoption of this Revolution. WIT) All legal prerequisites prior tothe adoption of this Resolution have occurred,' B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve 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 October 9, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to '10.1 acres of ?land located an the east side of Milliken Avenue south of the.Southe,A Pacific'Railroad right- of-way and is presently undeveloped. Said propet�,y is cu+:rently designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre), andAh a (b) The p.,,nperty to the north of the subject site, past the Southern Pacific Railroad: 4g2�r-of-way, is designated Low Residential (2-4 ' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.. PCA 91-03, SUBAREA E CITY OF R.C. October 9, 1991 Page 2 r, dwelling units " -r acre) and is developed with single family residencesy the` property to the'south ,is designated Medium-High.`.Residential (14-24 dwelling units get acres) and as vacant; the property to the east is designated Low- Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with, single Family residences under construction; and the property to tae west is designated Park and is vacant; and j (c) Thls amendment does not conflict with the-'Land Use Policies of the General Plan and 'Victoria Planned Community and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and z. } (d) This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of I the Land. Use clement; and - (e) 1 _ properties located in Subarea E of the application are l suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed distr3.ct and are compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the location of properties with lower density land use designations bordering the subject site to tihe north and properties with the same land use designation to the east; and (f) This amendment would not have a significant 'i act on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the/44ndings and conclusions listed in Parts T and SI of the Initial Study; and 3. 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. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragrPphs_ 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby resolves to recommend approval,b._J Victoria Planned"Community-Amendment 91-03, Subarea E, amending the Victoria Planned Community Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium ResidenUal (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 10.1 acres of land located on the east side of Milliken Avenue south of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way as shown in Exhibit "A."' 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9T3 DAY OF OCTOBER 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THErCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Lek BY: Larry T. McNiel, ;Chairman 6' t 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOL'1TION NO. WCA 91—q, SUBAREA E — CITY OF R.C. October 9` 1991 Page 3 i ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary Ct 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 ,:he 9ta day of OctoberV 991, by the following,vote-to-wits rr' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERSz ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: k s� �r �� I a. »r OnnWl»I»tp�pl • 1/a1f/1� r�� —Ilk WEW. (t/fU� itul fl \`\\\�Ill,o�, ��,,,� '\,• ••,�r'�*�•� llllllll)il'� llllli(i►11 4,. s�' �i/inlll UII,\` �� a II aiat•a p $Y ll a � 1 COI; �= • • ♦ V �. �ri- ffU /4 �tlt1 IU»I�I»ti\I p\\Itli{Ilht*e111Uif �r • •�� \a I/f111►HIIa I111�11 r� �\\\��r►fU/� .ulrAtta fi a�♦®w • /,t II 1 II .�•/111 (ll�`\`\\\��l_..t 1111/!!p i4�0, 0±ps-v' a.:.. 5 [/III/f//[Oa ��1�♦�Ir/I[Ilil� \�\``�.�i,�G- '�At111/IlIP1►\° �sC.. riA� e ♦ ..a•. a /�11 Ilpli�� f///UIIU1l1 x��==� �r "��..^��/IiB►1pICp'e��'I�_ .tr!';' Allillf C��-� r- �= o�••�s s ,�-�� -�.H\i IlpllO sa � _' w � -. "' h 11111 L��J rrurlipp111f�■ OIpIpllplllil/fllpll�pllllllllllllf ............a.>. 1�`T1EIL►�l 17 1`.IJtM17f.i�..to La7Q. •«ea4•.1� ►1��all r111//+fit//011i,�� ••�♦�� • „ry`: �, ([Ii111111{hlllll M) �illllllllll} a«n«•Itu.ni �i i t<! M1 T. LJt�y: I. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY or RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL .OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA F, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE h P FROM.MEDIUM'RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 1.8,ACRES'OF LAND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MILLIKEN AVENUE B-.TWEEN VICTORIA PARK LANE AND :KENYON WAY, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: PORTION OF 227-011-17. A. Recitals. k; M On April 6, 1981, the City- of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the General ,,"lan through the adoption of Resolution No. 81--40. (ii) On August 5, 1991,' .the City of Rancho Cli-camonga filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 91-03, Subarea t" as described In the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject " General Plan Amendment is referred.to as "the application." (iii) On October ,9, 1991, thn Planning Commission of the City. of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed.public hearing Ind concluded said hearing prior to the adoption of this esolution.. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to to adu `, of this Resolution have occurred. Ir Resolution. NOW, THEPMFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve. as follows: -" 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth ".,"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 October 9, 1991, including written and oral ' staff reports, together with,''public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as fol`-ws: I (a) The application'applies to 18 acres of land"'Located,on the east side, of Hilliken Avenue between Victoria Park Lane and Kenyon Way and 3s presently unn:velopeA— Said property is currently designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The arty to the north of the subject site, is f designated Neighbct,.wcz ,rcial and is developed with a commercial shopping l center under construction; the property to the south is designated Low Medium Residential (4-8 dWilli,-q units per acre) and is develope! `with single "illy residences; the' coperti," to the east are designated Low=Medium Residllntiet g PLANNING CO?JMJSSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 91-03, SUBAREA F - CITY OF R.C. October 9, 1991 Page 2 dak }t (4-8 dwelling units: per acre) and Park and are developed i,;th single family } residences and the park site is vacant; and `the prcperty?.to thd'`west is designated Low-Medium Residential' (4-8 'dwelling units per xcrey and is developed with single family residences; and (c) This amendment doss not con£li 'ith the Lrfd Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for develoy .,` within the district, in ,•_" a manner consistent with the General Plan anti wy.,e'related development; and (d1 This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Elemen'c; and (e) The properties located in Subarea F, of 437a application are suitable fox the uses permitted in the proposed district an'8-" tea compatible with existing and adjacent ;d-%so designations As evidenced t{ th'`7v.ation of properties with the same''1 ('u_se designations bordering the subject site to the south, west, and east) i �t„ ('f) This am(� L 1aGuld not have a significart impact osi the environment nor on the s�rl?undx..,)properties as evidenced by the findings and v,nclusions listed in ParLl X and 11 of the Initial Study; and 3. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in complx ae,with,the California Envirorimentai quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negatives - Declaration. ,f 4. Based upons;the findings and conclusions s_et forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby resolves to -recommend approval of General Plan. Amendment 91-03, Vubar&d F, amending the,'General Plan Land Use- Map from Medium Residential CA,14 dwelling units_ per' acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling unitp'__p r acre) 'for 18;,ecree�.of land located on the east sidle of Milliken Avenue between Victoria Park Lana, and Kenyon;-Way as shown in Exhibit "A." � r 9. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify_':: the adoption of this Resolution. ai AP?ROVEC AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OT OCTOBER 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY or RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNlel, Chairman .gTTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary A) i 77 /1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, GPA 9Y03, SUBAREA P CITr OF R.C. October 9, 1991 ! i Page 3 AdEhL y` I,, Brat. Secretary of.;the PlannIng Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that the fpregoing Resolution was duly and regularly it" oduced, passed, and adopted Jay the Planning commission of the City of kar.~:ho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the'Pfanning Commission held on the 9th day of October'1991•. .by thQ following vote-ta-wit: A`dES�/ � -COMMISSIONERS: >. NOW.�� COMMISSIONERS: �"^at3T: COMMISSIONERS: -911 1� tit U a •Ef � t lingous ��s Ii11111U1 00/1- iliit ltl�`��Q`�" llfAlAll .� ®r ,"t•�JIIIC= hula ��\`��-.�ieleul►� ��. r�•`ro�a �f11Uut►tit � nr = 0 1 1n.•— � IIl .r.ry,rvj� Ij ♦� till - .+ems��- e/rnlilnulte 'l u+t+lat tuirN %�o ♦ ]71111111 �► o � -- lin hrq�='lflll►i\�lt> pt!�111111/11� ._`ti%e o�.•��g . t i?®lll of ll\\h�\1111 0+��- �1i �*�s:a •�;� O!!)11 _-/�flfUll Ui��\`��llglll "'`= . �' �e r•yo+,rq a fHtulf�j.^ 111111111 ♦/I11t� �•�� . ..' � � � '//�e�}of: r1�T1iA r� �� ", ,�� w .w o• .�rv►r,:Ilttl Ipllll (� ♦�ft1111t1.lt +.Ntul� Iron �a ee '� "�= �rrrrl //�+,lr ill�lllll\`�1`sltt4l _d11111Hr ♦,��`. \r. ✓ �i f1AiN 1111 1 1 � ``��..`�..frrri�'a,eittl�,w�,�♦ /�'�.� :,:. o uq q Sri Illr`�\�� jl_cr ♦ Lo "' .. n = IT®1ii111/D1i11 �;r,i�s I �a. �•C _• r�1< �rr1► r //ri► ��onrll4li !�i e r s.r , �o a.� ♦, � ti rIrll,l/f�rrAlo� •``d/�Ami11tU �as P• = ��t/a1rflAltivP'' ^4-:tr= `r3-�� .. •Afill. �.�rllftn11 0111t11 s=�!�� r� �� •�.}a.r ar.a-= �� 'es r111s rrlil�� +R .•c Y.�: �.0•a •.• S� �—a� •� wtt.. i. /full 11r`_..A��+dr�,rrapH/Illlitr�® Irirrlirllrrli�elluulle�nlnll ! ...,.,e �.....ii' Ikil Its itiltllllllllitlli117111�i(/tllilllll►�i a`i.enuuueu�� s' : t l RESOLUTION NO. A Sf A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIOP OF THE CITY�.OF' RANCHO CUC_3MONGA, CALIFQB131A, 'RECOMMENDING kPPROVAL,"OF " VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBARET/F, AMENDING THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY LAND USE.MAP FROM •MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PEP ACRE) TO.LOW, MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR IS ACRES OF LAND LOCATED' ON"THE EAST SIDE OF MILLIKEN AVENUE " BETWEEN VICTORIA PARK LANE AND KENYON WAY, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF Ai�jW: PORTION OF 227-011- 17, . A. Recitals. I! - (i) On May 20, 1;?81, the "City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the Victoria N annet4,Community through the adoption'bf Ordinance No. 143. (ii) On August SF 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed. an application for Victoria Planned Community Amendment No. 91-03, :Subarea F,; as described in the title of thle Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject, Victoria Planned 'Community Amendment is referred to as the application.„ Adak (iii) On October 9, 1991, the, Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing;and concluded said hearing prior to the adoption of this Resolution. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning,/Commission' of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, a'pd resolve as follows: 1. This Commission hereby aFecifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, eoffjhi, Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon, substantia 'i evidence presented to this _:.Ommission during the above-referenced public ;hearing on October 9, 1991, including written and 'oral staff repo a, 'together with public ' testimony,._ this Commission hereby specifically'finds is follows: (a) The application aipplies to 18 acres of land located on the east side of Milliken Avenue between,", Victoria Park Lane and Kenyon Way and is pxesently' undeveloped. Said, property iieL'`cu.rrently designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per'acre); an8t %'(b) The property` to the north of the subject' site, is designated Village Commercial iid is 'developed with a commercial shopping 1` PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VPCA 91-03, SUBAREA F - CITY OF R.C. October 9, 1991 Page 2 center under construction; the property,to the south is designated Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre)` and is 'developed with single family, residences; the properties to the east are designated Low-Medium Residential' (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and Park and are developed with single family residences and. the park site is 'vacant; and the property to the west is designated Low-Medium Residential, (4-8-dwelling',units per.'acre) and Park and is developed with single family residences; and (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and the Victoria Planned Community and will provide for development, Wi�:hir_the district, 'iti a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and fi (d) This amendment promotes the goals, and 'objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) The properti-s located in Subarea F of the application are suitable for the uses permitted is the proposed district and are compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the location of properties with the same land use designations bordering the subject site to the mouth, went and east; (f) This amendment would not have a significant impact on the env4 ronment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and Amok conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Study; and 3. 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. 4. Based upon the findings: and :conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above._this commission hereby resolves to recommend approvsl of Victoria Planned Conz,�unity Amendment 91-03, ruDa an.F,`amending the Victoria Planned Community Land Use Map from Medivaf Residen*vial (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4 8 tT`.au--n-ua is per acre) for 18 acres of land located on the east side of MiklFKen Avenue between Victoria Park Lane and Keryon Way as shown in Exh31Ji+"A."' S. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS-9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF`RANd.O-CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. Mcyiel, Chairman 17,&N-97 PIJWNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VPCA 91-03, SUDAREA F' - CITY OF R.C. ' October 9, 1991 Page 3 ATTESTS 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;4i,ntroduced, passed, and .adopted by the planning Commission,,of the City of Rii.�ho,Cucamonga, at a tagular meeting of the Planning Commission helm on the 9th day of October 1991, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS:' NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:"' l� qw 1 •r tcDq� � 111 ► � �' �, 1rr ufilttll� rrettl 1 •. rri ��4wj!^r. {IIII'Illi tl\t`\�>>\r►i1'.i+rl/i�%�U•' � "` �' I',/ Innmuuuy sit •„� .. .;.r�, ':_ �'^UA�► „illllll s �Y /ye4,►rrlNhNr`I�t►�'�KNt� :eUnlf 1i ►r°'i: " ,, rlt��_ �,,, �,tta►t\r`�F at. t1►1111 .�� ;, ., tlr)�-= (lpy�'v�r 1 n►trt�It.11►+b��C� 1��;'L Gw`"i � � rll'r .� { gyp\ �3,�a .�, ;w /t,npl►tl= ��+tli11111►t```tttlt{1e.. +� :+, 1�oy++•�!•�+ra r llUllNpq brr _ - - �*� �i`�•�+++Ns S;t11111 Illllir t1 11 I \�1I11t ! - p1ptrllltr. ..r1t/11��a�� »• "j�.c rr /�I 11(Ii III111t It1tP\\ i111N �� • i •r � '+�+ +tit tr �/i �� ""\��\► �n{r{ lytturr r a•: oq �r 1!I hl 111► /1�i lil 6 rrr`r�pltryj anun,a-�•++� ��M s � (/t•I4 fir/ P i i � /1�*\`��\\��l I�\IJOf!/01� �� A�R"`i�i •,. a (/Ij IPs�ll.�f�Ilrljt \r0 . sue% r �x,. �/f11f t��Igll ��,yet11I1111 � �� - a + •o iw+.r �� J 1♦rn�i/Jl�l%fir, '��1//IIIii11U;•*�..+ �� '�' �Dllt�ltitt��is .., ' �111111 i��^� i � �s xi.i.r•.�tw,�. r�e 11tr 111gt1 sa� '�� /■1111111L rv `1�� 1I111111i1i f11111111111111 1111111 11IIAllilllll 1 .... . ......�..,►w T�ta�„�Ib:�9.ta1�t+i 7 tti�=tt:l`ylrlq� --. - r. - ..iVn..yttune.q y '..;__ �Pttlil{llllllll{t111\1it71Ut1111t►1 ilnr.ul.ulnati 1 Afflk RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE: CITY QF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91--03, SUBAREA G, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LA'D ITSE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 11.87 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF RENYON WAY ANi�WOODRUFF PLACE AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - XIN: PORTION OF 227-011-26. A. Recitals. (i) On April 6, 1981, the City of ,Rancho/Cucamonga approved the enactment of the General Plan through the adoption o'�A)Rerlution No. 81-40. t� F' (ii) On August 5, 1991, the City of Ran`��ho Cucamonga filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 91-03, Subarea G, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the'subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application."' (III) On October '9, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded, said hearing prior to the adoption of this Resolution. (iv) All legal pre requisites,prior to the 3?Aption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution, NOW, ;THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as followw: 1. This Commission hereby apecifi.cally 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 ibis Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on October '9, 1991,, including written and oral staff' reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows': (a) The application applies to 11.87 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Xenyon Way and 'Woodruff Place and is presently undeveloped. Said property is currently designated Medium'Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is designated Civic/Community and is vacant; the properties to the south are designated'Park and School and are vacant; the property to the east is designated'Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units .per acre) and is developed with single family residences; and the property to the:west is designated Neighborhood`Commercial and is developed with a commercial shopping center under construction; and A171(/- /16)v d -01Y'TNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 91-03, SUBAREA G - CITY OF R.C. October 9, 1991 Page Z (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan0and will provide for development, within the district, in A manner-onsistent with the General Plan-and with related development; and -(d) This amendment -promotes the goals and'objectives o" the Land Use Element; and ° (e) The properties located in Subarea G of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in`the proposed' district any"lore compatible with existing and adj6sent land use designations as evidenced'-by the location of properties with the same land use designations bordering the subject site to the east; (f) This amendment would not; have a sib'nificant impact on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts 'I and 'II of the Initial Study; and 3. This Commission hereby finds that,the px`nject has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1910 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative DeclaratS:on. tr 4. teased upcn the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby resolves to recommend.approval of General Plan Amendment 91-03, Subarea G, 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 11.87 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Renyon flay and Woodruff Place as'shorm in Exhibit "A." 5. The Secretary to this \cimmiscion shall certify to the adoption of"thin Resolution. �1 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1991: PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY, Larry:T. McNiel, Chairman '_ ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary ;I , ' o PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO',- GPA 91-03, SUBAREA G -,CITY O " October 9, 1991 Page 3' i, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission'of the ity of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing ResoluMi;on was duly and, regularly introduced, gassed, and ado ted by the Planni�ig��:bmmissien of the _ ;> ,'"itr of Rancho Cucamonga, at'a regulant�meeting of the Planning,Commission held on the 9th day of October 1991, by the 'following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS;) '� NOES: COMMISSIONERSa ABSENT: PrMMISSIONERS: 't 1( f J, 1 lluttl =►► _ 1. ti•: -Its= i<jlll 0��q{II s ► _ u11ulU�l`��`lq llll/1!J/j a S♦°111t== to a ul�l��p� o �IN Plln _f`�♦��o In'Inlrtulau►�11t1\ •�ff11O1= t.i�� fP C �� _� I cl laaltltll��IIIIII= . ,,`,a•• `I`ti♦,�.��Illttit�tl��I�,.�SIU� C afNgitll' u��r tl��r G__' ►�k. r-tipUl�ilH�tat �11111111p, ��.9t: :- »► . UI/fN/ - ". (hju�.wu 1►tv«' l�11f �:=== f,*•:� s=,::�Iruulirlt= w.; � �'/II(11i1111►r��_tlUllp ��i o��je l��e �Qi��se` p41plll1l C /rlc/r/111ll111111N'� �'�"�._` -!ram ��►,��:I/Jj��q+ 1111H1111 [dfI f'j �-_ � +�o"f�w efie•.`" ll1►111- (1I1► I/\\\�1111 llc=?o.••a�1111�. =mn::v'`• : �.�s �- li.ff /i�alun a�tll�la��\\P�111 1 atlru►r +��+ t fl //`/=�,'iy �! ,►sttlh� -tllUltl�trr,e [I/II/llfpl (III.1�� p01r tlJlri naertgr► /wee .am -� f _ rr off/j/1 1��.oj /PI (1� �\�\,\i�=y,��1t111t1/1 R�� . .� ► 4/Il///►j►1M '� I�Illlllll ��r �tlllltlll►\� ✓��r r"'i�►• ••� '_ d/rlq t/tt �� //lllltli .i�i♦ r r r • .� �■w ,I . r` [►tltr Il//�qu� e��//1uI1111\\ r/11I,1itsi, �f or 4—�,�r "► is .r �^ I1u111111t��L ��r:r ri�eri0111111iti 111pllllliitll t'IUUI II Ip fill 1.I .. ... ......i r.'1.171Y l�t aJtN�Xtri•I'�=X F.T h7■�� I� will 11jr, ,• ,'� -. �.=�- ram' r itIIIN1111111tutull `[ilitliZlll►L irnuu►nnni. r_ a`x;. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION: OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF VICTORIA PLANWea COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 92-63, SUHAREA G, AMENDING THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMMgITY LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING'UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UKITS PER ACRE) FOR 11.87 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER Or KENYON WAY AND WOODRUFF PLACE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: PORTION OF 227-011-26. A. Recitals. i (i) On Mry 20, 1981, the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the Victoria Planned Community through the adoption of Ordinance No. 143 (ii) On August 5, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an f application for Victoria Planned Community Amendment No. 91-03, Subarea G. as described in the title of this Re-rlution. Hereinafter .4n this Resolution, the subject Victoria Planned Community Amendment is referred to as "the application." (III) On October 9 ., 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted-tit duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to the adoption: of this Resolution. (:iv) All legal preraquisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, "2HEREFOp,F, the 'Planning Commission of _be City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve 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 eubatantia): evidehre presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing rps October 9, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, togethe with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows; (a) The application applies to 11.87 acres of land located on the ,northeast corner of Kenyon Way and Woodruff Place and is presently undeveloped. Said property is currently designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The property to the ngrt% bf the subject site is d =ignated Community Facility and is vacant; the pzoperfias to the South are desijnated Park and School and are vacant; the property to the east is designated Low- ,7-7,-,fit/-/o r t PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VPCA 91-03, SUBAREA G CITY Or R.C. October 9F 4991 Page 2 AgML Medium Residential, (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with single family residences; and tie property to the west is designated' Village Commercial and is developed with a commerc ate' shopping'< -.enter unde- consfzuctiong and , (c) This aae:,. ,ent; oeF not conflict with'the Land Use Policies of` the General Plan and V�ctoria aklannc3 Community`and will provide for' development, within the dist,Tict, in a^:manner consistent with the General Plan, and with related development; and (d) This amendment promotes the .goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) The properties located 'in Subarea G of the application are;. suitable for the uses permitted in the :proposed district and are compatible with exi-3ting and adjacent lend use designations as evidenced by the lac�tion of properties with the same land use designation3 bordering the subject site to the east, .. (£) This amendment would not have a significant impact, on.the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the .findings and conclusions listed in Parts.;T,and'I1 of the Initial Study; and 3. This Coroir sefon hereby finds that the project has been reviewer', and considered in compliance with the California Ert*ironmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this-Commission''hereby recommends I ssuarice.,of a Negative Declaration. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions ®et forth in paragraphs i 2, and 3 shove, thin Commission hereby resolvt�r to recommend approval of Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-03, Subaredr G, amending t.he-Victoria Planned Community Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 11.87 _ acres of land located on the•northeast corner of Kenyon Way and, Woodruff Place as shown in Exhibit "A." 5. The Secretary to th`s Commission shall r ify to the atortion of this Resolution. i I APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TM DAY OF OCTOBER 1991. ` p-TIMING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA I BY: Larry T. Mckvl, Chairman 1- AM ATTEST: Brad puller, Secretary (1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO VaCA 91-0 , SUBAREA G - CITY OF R.C,,- October,9, 1991 Page' 3 I, Brad -Ruller,. Secretary of the Planning Comm,siion of the City of: RanCho ' s: Cucamonaa, do her3by certify 'that the foregoing Resolution,., as duly.;and regularii' introduced, passed, and adopted by,the 191anning ,Commission 'of :the' zeE', City of Rancho Cucamongar.at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of October 1991,•by the following vote-to-wit: -' AYES:: COMMISSIONERS:. C NOES: COMMISSIOZURS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONaRS: Ted (wn' y �. fA !'' 0 '• fluffI Innll�� Alit°\r•\\�nt1 =_t=== � = � ii o Yin e'," /Iillll\l\\ ��``�ii IlP►l� at a r= ®•� o,� '�JI 415 1^ � /iH111J 61�\�\\\O � /<�llll[^ �,ws•�� 11 \\n �� i�71/ a •� /I �/tJl;T t t't tCUI o i1111t0 w • i� I/y`.�'�uu lu"„:'::tilu� - ■Innnl]I a• .t 1 ,�� •Inrnn •a b(i��1111►1\\. t ,�� 111 ®r:Le +o ;'1' •e's�: /irI11J11 �.- � a/�/JiC,I!111\�,�t t1u O:�;:ir! °^ -:'`s�i®��i•+�a�•i v IIII►pYlt! /4s � �� v . �. hits+►.. InRI.unNi Ira ,� -+ __ . �:♦ R•a°j4n L 1►111 Idlll 1yltl 1 Itllli[1\\\111111IIIII�, .��,�� +� !ia It�i �// 4\'1P �"'` •UIU III/IIIe{�a1y � _, [H►p IUIY °_ \� it -'t��\>>.ar 19% ':ufnEaa�,��•�� e�� a,� SL 4j!•Ot141 \\��i: -t PaJU a IIq \\� � hYlllltl ,�., • ., .. ��'r 114:= .•• a ``h•YY►hjj�Y,../ .�%/t/nln►►►�:.'r�., = �= " '��1®rr.rr�Y��, �..Tr,.!r-".�� /11111f ��w.a �� `s f rw w—- _^.—.:r w —littii IlIi9 w�r :: '• /,YnY�n __s��►-.�y� a'Irlulinl. rinle�itfin e�oyl}neee(u1111-1u1r ra:..,:' :.,•,:.....a...� amu tilAe....ury � :�-il•1111111I11111nI1HU>�11J11 11►L :+►.uiu.ari■.n r�.� . if RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY'OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, ,SUBAREA, H, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND;USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAI;-j(8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 23.03 ACRES OF LAND LOCP_TED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF VICTORIA PARR'LANE AND ROCHESTER,AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APN: 227-091-51. A. Recitals. (i) on Aril 6, 1981, the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the P Y g pP enactment of the General Plan through the adoption of Resolution No. 81-40 ' (ii) On August S. 1991,- the City of Rancho C;Ueamonga filed an application for General 'Plan Amendment No., 91-+03, Sularea. M, as described in the title of this Resolution. .Hereinafter in this Resolution, the. subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (iii) on October 9, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and conclsded said hearing prior to the.adoption of this Resolution. (iv) r?1 legal prereT-3isites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. R; Resolution. NOW,_ 'THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City- of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, detezmine, and resolve as follows: . 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth ir_ 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 October 9, 1991, ';including' written and oral staff reports, together with public -testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as. follows: (a) The applicationn appliea tc 23.03 acres,of land located on the southeast corner of Victoria Park T.ane and Rochester Avenue` and is presently undeveloped. Said property is currently designated' Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The property to the north of the subject site, past the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, is designated Flood_ Control/utility AMh Corridor and ie deve2oped with a flood control retention basin; the property to the south is designated Medium Residential (6-14 dwelling units per acre,) and.is developed with an existing, nonconforming lumber yard; the property;to i PLANNING COXHISSION PESOLUTION.NO. ('PA 91-03, SUBAREA H CITY-OF R.C. October 9, 1991 Page 2 the east Is designated Flood Control/utility Corridor andis vacant; and the. property to the west is designated how-Medium Residential (4-8- dwelling units per acre) and is developed with single family residences; and (c) This amendment does trot conflict with the Land lose Policies," of the General,Plan and will provide for,dt+velopment, within the district, in" a manner consistent with the General Plan and frith related development; and (d) This amendment promG, , s the-goals and objectives of the .and Use Element; and (e) The properties located in Subarea-H of the 2{pplication are i suitable for the uses permitted in the-proposed. district and%are- compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evd.dena<d"by the location of properties with the same land use k1signations bcsdering the subject site to the west; (f) This amendment would not have a significant impact on the env.rcanment nor on the suzrounding propertiea as evidenced by the findinga and conclusions listed in Parts I ar_d TI of the initial Study; and II 3. 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• 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions sit. forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, tr.is rommissicn hereby resolves to recomme.,nd approval of General-Plan Amendment 91-03, Subarea S, amending the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Law-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 2303 acres of land located on the southeast corner of victoria Park Lane and Rochester Avenue as shown in Exhibit "A. 5. The Secretary to this commission shall certify-to the adoption of thin Resolution. _1 , APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TFi DAY OF OCTOBER:1991. ' PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA f BY* Larry T. McN:J:el, Chairman i ATTEST.•` Brad Buller, Secretary f PLP.NNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 91-03, SUBAREA H CITY OF R.C,. ' October,9, 1991 . Page' 3' �r' t I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Co�imiesion of thet� ,Ca`ncho,. Cucamonga, do hereby cerfi€y that, the foregoing, Recolutio�, as-'duly/ and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted 'by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a,regular meeting of'thei'lanning COmmiseion held on the 9th day of October 1991, by the following vote-to-wit: 1 AY3S: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: r ABSENTS COMIISSYONERS: r L\ J 1i U AMML 11 � J r'c 5 It, (7 v \`11 ! g t D u t; t c :�1inq 111111j11111 a iule��oBlet►m isillMUN IlllPr® Illllt �e�-.t at111e1111tuunur��i�Stu �'� ei>►`u.1►ut/ • dPi � s✓poi I�ql tl► BSI ueln uulcrl t 111/t/l�a WPi) • It11 lu Tq wl\y0' 'rt►� eI�`,p��i/,�plllp��® oil uU}11iq\tt t i�t1►��_�'�y/y<�IIIINIii +pn' Ir'lii�j a►ttt►tt►uNr �//, Ip11111111pD�■ 11►111 nrtr a�`�\I - lull arngll� •��`�e e . i q IL 1.e111 �� 1, \IU111 c ..::° 11tInn1 ulNq it1�s� ►nuq n - 0 - Illlllllll lll1111� .��ar IN Pal 1 iy Iptllltd Pi �= uiu /.i1t Ill ■■■■■■.�� tl1i111111 14111111 Ilillllll 1silt r ��--- �"■f�I\�111111 IIIIt11111111� _ �� r��+ 1111 �tttlfttllt� 1 IJi tabu■■ ..,... _' 1 ®� 1011 - �111 Illlt► � /f V RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECON[MENDING APPROVAIi; OF VICTORIA PLANP'30 'COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBARSA H, PMENDING THE;,jICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY LAND USE !2AE ,FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE') %b LOW- MEDIUM RESIDENTS;'- (4-8 DWELLING UNITS. PER ACRE) FOR 23.03 ACREZ; -or-LAND LOCATED ON"THE SOUTHEAST`CORNER OF VICTORIA PARR LANE AND ROCHESTER AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APNt 227-091-51. A. Recitals. (i) On May 20, -1981, the City of Rani.�o Cucamonga approved the enactment of the Victoria Planned Community througii'the adoption of Ordinance No. 143. (ii) On August 5, 1991, the City of Rancho' Cucamonga tiled an application for Victoria Planned Community Amendment No. 91-03.,, Subarea H, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Victoria Planned Community Amendment is ':referred to as "the application." (III) On October 9, 1991, the Planq g Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to the adoption of this Resolution. (iv) - All legs! prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve 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 October 9, 1991, including in-itten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this ..ammission hereby specifically finds as followse (a) The application applies to 23.03 acres of land locate4 en the southeast corner of Victoria, Park Zane and Rochester Avenue acid is presently undeveloped. said property is currently designated"Medium Residential (8-'14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The property to the north of the subject site; past the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, is designated Flood Control and is developed with a flood control retention basin; the .property to the south is' (/ F PLANNING COMMISSION�;A� OL'JTION NO. VPcA 91-03, SUBAREA`H --- CITY OF R.C. October 3, 1991 Page 2 i� designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling unite per acre); and is developed with an existing, nonconforming lumber yard: the property' tq'the east is L designated Utility .Corridor and is vacant; and the-property to the west is ® designated Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and.. is "ll developed with single family residences; and (c) This amendment does not conflict'with the Land Use Policies of theme eneral Plan and Victoria Planned Coc ",nity- and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner cone_ntent witl t' 6 GeneYal Pian and with related development; and (d) This -amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; ;and (e) The properties located in Subarea H of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the,propoeed district z=-4:ire compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the location of.properties with the same land use designations bordering the subject site � to the west; (11) This) amendment would not have°a significant impact on the environment nor on the-surrounding properties as.evidenced by the findings and conclusions lift- In Parts I and II of the Initial Study; and s 3 Z ,Otis Commission hereby finds that,the project :has been reviewed and considerbRii in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of. 1970 and, further, this:commission hereby recommends issuance of.a Negative Declaration. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paLAgraphs 1, ,2, and 3 above,: this Commission hereby resolves to recomme'::`,� approval of Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-03, ',Area 11, amending,SLhe Victoria Planned Community Land Use Hap from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Wedium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per ac,;e) for 23.03 acres of land located on the southeast corner of, Vi�;toria Nark Lane and Rochester Avenue as shown in Exhibit "A.. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify\ ;the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF OC'fOEER 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 21TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA t/ BY: - Larry T. McNiel, Chairman f PLANh:NG COMMISSION &:SOLUTION NO. VPCA 91-03, SUBAREA H - CITY or R,C. October 9, 1991 Page 3 ATTEST: a Brad Buller, Secratary " 11 Braad Buller, Secretary of the Pli"Jg Commission of tha City of Rancho Cucamcnga, do hereby certify that the foregoing' Resolution was duly and t' regula<ly introduced, fussed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at'a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of October 1991, by the following scl.e-to-wit; AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT.:. COMMISSION.F.'RS: r ` L t , C` ��LlIH11J®LIIlI�IIII �1lartltnl�,1�1 r r►!O+• p i.��.,jai .it�r�_II`�� =fNl►. '�►�^�uutuutu puunit►s a�<<`�u�� till fIs GD �i4 fad � ii►rentU/n[['lil.��+ir111111 j�t� �I►rtUr ►11111,gt11t i I '� lultut nuual •�►��/►'��/:��ii�®111111!��/� Inuu unit(111� Iplltlo e._ ��4��IIi11111111 Ali ►ultlt auurpti►►1 1►1tl►r�r z Doff /011111111111�'■ J11111t nn4mfr Ullll ♦� �, 11! 'D lair-uunrur� ��\r � I ___'f f fI►s� ,� �qll��. _:: Irrr,u.mtul IIIIP�.,�►0 ►u iH Illlnu lilull '►Ot1��ls put t= '� .r-*Innutu cuu��_�,•.•fr/ iiii iil 11(1 _ = 11u1[tut ltl tiro sag 11111 /IIil t1t11 � .........c•. .. IUIItt101n1Itt11 1101nU111114 11 01u/11111 1tna../) ®■tl.i®=�Y 111Iv;:i■:J_[d^2T-3 Vt " >•ia y'— lunqunnnrRIT - - i turf I�, ® '�Ittt III1 RESOLUTION NO. r A RESOLUTION OF THE P�'ANNTNG, COMMISSION OF-THf ITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AT' 3C"AL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA I, AI`SNDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWAJLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-M.6DIUM RES=ZENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 32.1-4'-ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND ROCHESTINR ' AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS, IN SUPPORT TMREOF APVk 227-091-45 AND 46 AND_A PORTION OF 227-091-44. A. Recitals. (i) On April 6, 1981, the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the General Plan through the adoption of Resolution No. 81-40.. (ii) On August Sr 1991, the. City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 91-03, Subarea I, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as ^tha application.•= (iii) On October 9, 1991, the Planning Commission-of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a dulg; oticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to the adoption of this Resolution. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of th3a Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE. the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds tha£ all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are,true and correct, 2. Saved upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on October 9, 1991,` including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby speci`ically 'finds as follows- (a) The application applies to 32.14 acres of laud located;on the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue and is Ipresentey developed with an existing, nonconforming lumber yard on t,,'6e northern parcel Said property le currettly designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per arse); and (b) The property to the north of the subject size, past the Aft Southern Pacific Railroad right .f�-way, is designated Medium sesicnntial i8-14 dwelling units per acre) and is vacant; the property to thk�,,,aouth' is designated Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and is vacant; the PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, GPA 91-03, SUBAREA_Z - UTY UP R.C. October 9, 1991 Page 2 property to the east i- designated Flood-Control/Utility Corridor an(' is used for plant storage; and the property to the west is designated- Medium y` Residential (8-14 dwelling,units per acre) and is developed with single family residences under construction; and ii (a) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Ua. ';Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development# within the diet ict, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and:with related development; and (d) This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) The properties located in SubsXea I of the application are suitable for the us", -,permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing andi ,:jacent 1'rmd use designations as evidenced by the location of propertiss w'<n,lower de�,sity land use designations bordering the subject site to the au:.£h; and c (f) This amendment would not have a; significant impact on the environment"nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in,Parts,I and II of the Initial Study; and 3. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1976 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.. 4. Based upo4� the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby resolves to recommendapproval of General Plan Amendment 91-03, Subarea '., ,amending the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling' units par acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 32.14 aicres of'land located on, the--ortheast corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue as shown in Exhibit ^A..^ S. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.' APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS`9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF TF2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary f Y PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION GPA 91-03, SUBAREA I - 1,7 7k OF R.C. is October 9, 1991 Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Sec"etary of the Planning Com"ission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foreg6ing Resolution was duly -and regularly introduced, passed, ana'adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held F on the 9th daffy of October 1991, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS' f . l MP f w . llpNj�Lo `U111 >toseuuuu�` r �i ®:IINII! arty�,llt a Uee. t4 Ilt� a>teuttee/ 1/Ir) •rq : pntw, at�.e Illnee eiiiital i• rr,��111 Ili�a h ttuml►ii�L'wv.�a►.`�soi',!//11u1.®,/�! pt rt�uilrnn`�`��1►�.`�.=? �'qr rl/IIfg1111� �tilii iiii i;�� atllttlttltt►ri��'t j<I All 1III 11�� WIN MIS 't '� �of; ® ■ 0 �Iltllip UI tt# i01 Nt it S :a ••:�• � ^ (n111==1ipr �01 ■/it Itunl - � ■/Ir ru■ •■••• •>•'' .. � �Ilp[IUtlUIIUi r tU 11 Illttlil \tllllll t .•.••u.) ■` rLJ�®�;�llfldl�.l.lJ.t 7t_il -'I:��r . ' ��. +��`\\liltluHutlltUtlir� • _ �� . � �rroum uunn_`� �Nltll r =Hilt12 tom tPlli domer` alto 11111� OF f+ r s . RESOLUTION NO.. t A RT--�JI,UTION Ok;�THE PLANNING'COMMISSION OF THE :CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-,',CALIFORN,i, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF VICTORIA, PLANNED' CCMMUNIT-Y AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA._L, AMENDING''TF:'VICTORIA�LAIINED COMMUNITY LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL /,8-14 DWF,LLZNG UNITS P1,St ACRE) TO LOW- - MEDIL; RESIDENTIAL (4-8 1:,'ALLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 32.14 ACP.ES- OF I LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST'CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND ROCHESTER AVENUE, AND MfAKINI FINDINGS IN SUPPOR`' THEREOF - APN: 227-09i-45 AND ;46 AND A PORTION 227-091-44. 4 r, Recitals: (i) On May 20, 1981, the Ci;y" of Rancho Cucamonga'approved the enactment of the'Victoxia Planned Community through•.ne adoption of Ordinance No. .143. (iii oil At-gust 5, "'1992, tY.a City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Victoria Plannlad_Community Amendmert No. 91-03, Subarea 1, as described in the title ,of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution,' the subject Victoric Planned Community Amendment is .;referred to as "the application." (,1i.i) On October 9, 1991,- the Planning Commission of the City of Raachp Cucamonga conducted a duly.noticed public hearing and concluded said Wearing prior to the adoption of this Resolution.,:, (� (iv) All legal prerequisites prier J to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. - NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning 'Commission of the City ,of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows:: 1. Thxs:Commission hereh} specific ciy%finds that. all of the facts se'. forth xn :be Recitals, Part A, .of bits Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence preaented to this, Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on :October 9, 1991, including written - and oral staff reports, together with publi�i testimony, this Commission hereby specificdlly finds as fol'ows: (a) The application-applies to 32.14 acres of land located-or. the northeast corner of Base,Linp Road and Rochester P,.venue'and is Presently developed with an , existing, nonconforming lumber yard on the northern parcel. Said property ia, currently designated Medium Etesidential (8 14 dwelling snits per acre); and 1 -- _ - 0, '.`BANNING CO224ISSI6N._RESOLUTION NO. VPCA 91-03, SUBAREA I - CITY OF R.C. October 9, 1991 Page 2 (H) Tho.,property to the nol,�Eh of the subject''sitej,;past the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, is designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) 'and .is vacant; the property to, the south is - designated Low Residential '(2-4 dwelling: units per acre) and.is vacant; the property to:the east is designated Utility Corritior and is-',used=for plant storage; and the property to the`we"at is:designated Medium Residential (8�14 dwelling unite per acre) and is develti.�ed with single family residences under construction; and (c) This amendment dces not` ^onflict`wit h the,lLand Use Policies of the General Plan and Victoria Planner`, Community :and;.will provide for development, within the,districts in a manner consistent with the General Elan and with related developmep',g 2and. �G• (d) This amendment promotes the goals ;?nd objectives of the Lens? UsP Element; and (e) The properties located in Subarea I of the appAcation are suitable for the uses pczftkitted in the'proposed district and are com,33tible with existing and adjacent land use designati—.ns as evidenced by the location of properties with lower den4 ' land use designations'bordaring thr subject site to the south; and (f) This amendment would not have a significant impact on the Nam environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and NW conclusions listed in Parts I and I1 of the Initial'Study; and 3. This Commission hereby finds Ehat the project has been reviewed and considered in comp dance with the California Environmental Quality 21et-of 1. 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a'Negative ( ` Declaration. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby resolver,to recommend approval of Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-33, Subarea I, amending the 'Victoria Planned Community Land Use Map from Medium Resic�ntial: (844 dwelling units L: per acre) to ow-Medium Residential (4-8 ;dwelling units per acre) for 3L614 acres of land located on the northeast corner of 'Base Line'Road and Rochester Avenue as s4own in Exhibit "A." S. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to tli4 adoption of this Resol.ti�:.. `. r, et APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS ?TSi DAY OF OCTOBER�3.991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1 BY•___ 'r" Larry T. McNiel, Chairman J` i; D L, . �1 PIAt?NING COMMISSrON RESOLUTION No." VPC?, 91-03, SUZAREV I CITY SOP October 9, 1991 Page-3 1 ATTEST: _ Brad SuZle;, Secretary I, Bril Buller, Secretary off the Planning COmmisFtion of the Cii y of,Rane*,-3 CL:amonga, do hereby certify that the I foregoipg .Resolution was duly an,, regi,14rly introduced, passed,."and adopted by tt`a Planning Commission of the w City rf Rancho Cucamonga;-at a.regular meeting of,the Planning Cemmissi:oa h-&Id' \\� on th 'Oth day of October 1991, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ASSENT* COMMISSIONERS: r } i, 4 �4 V s L1111i `Ily 11"till O.uU0.bgl�i►j° . --- e s�n i au s `�+au i1'lu,►�p fit `® � IINI�♦®r�� \ e it 1s t l u 9 in , • nnm ti. C 11 lll al�`I:tll� 1/Q= ®' t11 nul`1 as InilHib it. t f�o oe�) ® III►I It nr uprm►�ie �er� sue`o,�fs®Iii1i11 (ullu t111111111, tt114►+�_��!!Io A1i111111i wr IUIW rrnhrhd�� plila�I •'r OlI �Ilpa+umnn, uuo' �•-`:. Ila Un/uiilue_® J . � � ��1=__�_ i®♦ dal - 1 ....:. Ilthru unl „11►�1/� i11 /nine 7 Irrtll dlkl 1r{0 b.nlll Illlitl__��! o•�Ui) uwu F�Inlnlit).... •: ■m uu� •••�••�� _ I,unN,umn��r,lrn,nm{minnn ►Ilnumr i� .uun. list— j ■ ��®=i4rfr,1 ,1C:3:Yz\l.. 7:1Mi i. • _ �i_\. iy�f�UII11�� .......... ® _trot ; . I11,1 1 ` .:vim RESOLUTION'NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ry RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL;OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREArZT, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM 'MEDIUM'RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACA3) TO LOW-MEDIUM'RESIDENTIAL '(4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 20.895 ACRES OF LAND-LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 992 FEET NORTH OF THE FUTURE VICTORIA PARK ! LANE EXTENSION ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE FUTURE. DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IIZ` .SUPPORT'-THEREOF - APN. PORTION OF 227-021-03 AND 13. r; A. Recitals. (i) On Arril b, 1981, ,the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the General.Plan through the adoption of Resolution No. 81-40. - 5 (ii) On August 5, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for General Plan, Amendment No., 91-03, Subarea J, as described in the title of:this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (iii) On October 9,. 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a Iduly .noticed"public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to the adoption, of this Resolution. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adop^lion of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. - NOW,_ THEREFORE, Fthe Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as fallows:' 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 October 9, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public _testi.mony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to -20.895 acres of land'-located approximately 892 feet north of the:future Victoria Park'Lane extension cn the west side of the `uture Day Creek, Boulevard and is presently undeveloped. Said property is currently designated Medium Residential (8-14-dwelling units per acre); and (b) The property to the north of tY,e subject site is designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and is vacant; the prceer£y to the south s designated Low Medium Residential, (4-8 dwelling units per ,1 , T`. PLANNING COMMISSION RESSOLUTION NO. _ GPA 91-03, SUBAREA.J - CITY OF R.C. October 9, 1991 Page 2 F f acre) and is vacant; the property. to the east is designated Flood Control/Utility Corridor 'and' is vacant; and the property, to the west is? designated Flood Control/Utility Corridor andia,vacant;.and (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within thy! district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development;; and (d) This amendment promote3 the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) The properties lo.aitsd In Subarea J of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in; the pro,�aosed district-and are compatible with existing and adjacent land use d281gna�iions as evidenced by the:locaton of properties_with the same;land use designations bordering the subject site to the south; and (f) This amendment would not have"a si:nnificant'impact on the environment nor on the surroundings properties as evidenced by the findingsand conclusions listed ir7 Parts I and IT of the Initial Study; and 3. This Commission hereby f.rds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commie iznn->hereby, recommends issuance e_f• a Negative Declaration. } 4. Based upon the,fiad1bgs and conclusions'k et'fdrth'in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Coriimiebi err hereby resolves to,recommend approval of General. plan Amendment 91-03, Subarea J, amending the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (2-14 dwelling units ;ier, acre) ,to Low-MP.Ga.um Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for :20.89! acrea of land located approximately 892 feet north)of the future Victoria Park Lane extension on the west aide of the future Day{seek Boulevard as'shown in Exhibit "A." S. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. ^� AtPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1991. 1a) PLANNING COMMISSION OF TiM CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMSNGA Larry T. McNiel, Chairman 1 ATTEST: Brad B-.1ler, Secretary PLANNINGilOMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. � s GPA 91-03, SUBAREA J - CITY,OF R.C.' October 9, 1991 ! rage 3 = c 1, Brad Buller, Secretary of the,Planaing Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that tl,e. foregoing ,Resolution` was .:,4uly and S' regularly introduced '9 Y , passed, end adopted by the Planning.,Commission' o£ the City of Rancho Cucamonga, af,a regular meeuing of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of October 1991, by the following vote-to-wit:l� " AYES: COMMISSIONERS:- NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSEI COMMISSIONERS: S, 0 r (l II �, 1� .'__�—_ ✓ lei ,;% n'y t 1 Loll 1 ,�� i10/tiel7■e11'j`t� as ME �1111111111\�� 0 11/11►� ��r �� Ate—=r_:� i11111i®��.►npnnm luau►/►rs �\��`rp-..G / =unll�' -{I,ul res�aa\ary��.all n o NO a® ■11 4�e►t►il1u,,,►ln►►1j1°r,�'aqI.--�• ® Pltu„nunit tIH„/rnttle1 III fit laa oi�j 4111r i•MITi I nlmul ' res��shy�j�i/ IIIU ►�� uuu nuuml re►eu�lt►J,._ sooy�1111tt1U1!o ,1►ee`lee�ee?! <<. I/IIIII 111��® IlUtnu ulUll tlp��— �►nw c .�:::ti� ® Inlp S 1l�e` 1►1®/d qj ubt fib UII 13 polisillis 1�111 ►t►►►tlltl '••••••�� __IIIR11 IgHlplltl111111p1111111p1111 \tllllllhf ® _ rl.umt) �J®AMOOR-•Irl:.' ,I:Illc[H' [9 V1 u..� 1 �� '(\\elllllllllllllllll'1 V� � " O� •,.ntem a,�aLt M� ..o j� � � ��G Itll Qluttttll 1 _.. �seni:. u.Wit-.• .y .....- ■. - t0/= � .: {� 'TII/1 Itllll � •T. d RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE, PX.1NNING COMMISSION OF`_-RE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,t`RECOMMENDING APkOVIsL OF VICTORIA PLANNED 'COMMUNITY AMENDMENT-91-63, SUBAREA_J, AMENDING THE,VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY LAND USE I3AP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW- MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER 'ACRE) FOR 20.895 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 892 FEET NORTH OF THE FUTURE VICTORIA_PARK LANE EXTIINSION UN:;THE WEST SIDE OF THE FUTURE DAY L-REEK BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - °APN: PORTION OF.:227-021=03 AND 13. A. Recitals. (i) on May 20, 1981, the City of Rancho 'Cucamonga approved the enactment of the Victoria Planned Community through the adoption of ordinance No. 143. (.ii) On August 5, 1991, the City of,,°,Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Victoria P1anaed Community Amendment No. 91-03, subarea J, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Victoria Planned Community Amendment is;referred to as "the application.'" (iii) On October 9, 1991, ,the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed,public hearing and concluded sa-d hearing prior to the adoption of this Rc 'ution. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resclutionl II have occurred. V" f _ _ B. Resolution, NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby.,find, determine, ,and reealve as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically, fiai,j3 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 ot, October 9, 1991, including written and oral staff reports', together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to-20.895 acres of land located approximately 892 feet north of the future Victoria Park Lane extensior on the west side of the future Day Creek Boulevard and is presently undeveloped• Said property is currently designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); and JOI/—/ Z7 ti PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1 VPCA 91-03, SUBAREA J - CITr OF R.C. October 9, 1991 Page 2 Adilk (b) The proaerty to the north of the subject site is designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and is vacant; the,;iproperty to the south is designated Low=Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling--units per acre) and is'vacant; the p7cperty to the east is designated Util#y corridor,, and is vacant; the property?i',the west is designated Utility Ccrrtkor and is vacant; and ; (c) This amendment does not conflict with tLe Land Use Policiesof the General Plan and Victoria Planned Community and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with-the General Plan and with, related development; and (d) This amendment promotes the goals aired objectives of the L,>nd 08e Eleate;t; and (e)':Ths properties loca:ed in Subarea J of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are .compatible with existia? and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the location a of properties',;with the same land use designations bordering the subject site ; to 'the south; a'nd 'fs) This amAndnent would not hard a significant impact on the environment nor on the surrounding properties is evidenced by the findings and conclusions V.sted in Par;s I and,Ix of the Initial Stuiy; and 3.` ,This Commission hereby finds that the project h s been reviewed ar9 ar.d consider in compliance with the California Environmental. Quality Act of 197C And, further, this Commission_hereby recommends issuance of a negative Declaration. 4 Based upel th:: findings and conclusions --et forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby resolves to recommend approval of Victorl,Fa Planned community Amendment 91-03, Subarea a, amending the Victoria PlannP4 Community Land Usv Map from Medium Resid3rCtial (8-14 dwelling units per acx@) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units p�Lr acre) for 20.895 _acres of land located approximately 892 feet north of the tuture Victoria Park Lane exten3ion on the west side of the future Day Creek Boulevard as shown in Exhibit ^A.^ _ 5. The S,.cretary to this Commission shall certify i6 the adopt?on of this Resolution. c APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE cITY OF.RANCHO CUCA'.;ONGA Larry T. McHiel, Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION RESOWTION NO. 1 VPCA 91-03, SUBAREA J - CITY C)F R.C. October 9, ^1991 r Page 3 „ c ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary =r i t I, Brad_Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of th(° City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing T.esolutio„ was duly and regularly introduced, pa sed, and adop*ed by the Planning Commission of.the City of Rancho Cucamonga,{'at a regular meeting of the Pla[.aing Commission b-ald `lY on the 9th day of OctokP;Z'1991, ,by the following vote-to-uit v i - AYES.: COMMISSIONERS: - NOES; COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: AWL L. i, n r !►� �l{WIIJ 111�1111 {rtffiff1fl11r�j == C :♦it n i0s al► long cur■ 's J_ ,s ot ra uletllti r.t1111► 11111 Pp/►�+u1m1�m lefffu vv,i�{ 'fu�.,�'� �w■11 r +Ia �f7111)0!/ddfll�t .• it �d/rr-.. pnfr rl m� of 1►1►nntr panel �4 IIIII)rs� UIIU fit rprU►1{t11e ► .1 tpu Ulrrnyr, ee Ipttttl Zrr !!t i1i//IIIIrIrf. R11,111t Mifit I11i1 �iii1 i {{{ in ne f .It tnnn nm►��`�^�a to to 1 1i 11 Ilu! ••••••••;� bunnnmuun nrnnwpnuntl soil 1 of tuurr ®�L��-�Y+lflt,l�a.1.7TdtlCH.7_11.-�Ld+ "��"� T � �lll Nllllllflllllltl �� . ��♦♦� �gtltlll i11-11tl �� ' "♦�� rNttltzgamm ==taut= ..... __ tt st c rnnuu.• __ 111_ �� 1111 111111 + ® ■ y� RESOLUTION NCI. A RESOLUTTON OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 1ITY, OF RANCHO CUCANONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DE.ii,\L OF, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA K,..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.AGRE) FOR 7.895 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED BETWEEN APPRoxittATELY 892 PEET AND 1,200 FEET NORTH OF THE MW, VICTORIA 'r:RK T_-WE EXTENSION ON THE WEST ST.DE OF TB%:'FUTURE, DAY CR$s`K BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDCNGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF;;:- APN: PORTION OF 227-021-03 AND 13. A. Recitals. M or. April n,' 198:k, the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the General Plan ntrough the_adoption of Pesolution No. 81-40. On August 5, 199� the City of Rancho Cucamonga.,.filed an application for General Plan Amei,.dment No. 91-03, Subarea K, +.a described in, the title of thic ResoV ;on. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is reforred'�to as -the application:! Ask (iii) on October 9, 1991,t-1the Plannin3 Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted: a duly noticed public 'Zjecrirg and concluded said hearing prior to the adoption of this Resolution. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption cif this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution: NOW, TMEREFOAE, the Planning; Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolvei`is follows: 1. T'his Commission herehy sp�cificall finds that ail of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part,'A, OP this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Pried upon substantial evidence presented to this Commissiion during the above-referenced public hearing on Octobtr 9, 19910 including wri,ten and oral staff reports, toge=her with public testimony, this Commission hereby apecifioally finds as follows: (a) The application applies to 7:845 act^es of land located between approximately. 892 feet and 1,200 feet of the future Victoria Park Lane extension an the wet side of the future DRv. croak Boulevard and is presently undeveloped. Said prc.crty is currently designated Medium Residential (8-•14 dwelb_ng units per acre), and ``'(b) The property to the north of,':ie subject site 12 designated Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units par acs�3) and is..-vacant; the a PLANNING MAXISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 91-03-; SUBAREA''K CITY OF R.C. October 9, 1091 Page 2 AOL property to the south is designated'Medium ,ResidentialJ(8-14 d `.11ing units per acre) 'and is vacantj', the 'gcuperty to' tte'�east is designated Flood, Control/Utility Corridor and "is;vacant; Property to .the west -is', designated Flood Control/Utility Corridor and is-Aracant;; and (c) This amendmq��,fi7conflicts with tAie Land use Policie•^ of the , General Plan and will not provide for develop= t, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan aid with related development; and. (d) This amendment does not promote the`goais and,objectIves of r the Land Use Element; and `� !( J (e; The props, ,_es located in Subarea K of the spy"cation are `f not suitable for the uses permitted-in the pzopossd disrrict and are not compatible with existing and adjacent land ^4cs designations; and (f) Thiv,%amendment "ll not have,;a sigmtwrzaant imn3ch bn t,ne environment nor on t';d ourr*junding properties as,ovideno!�A by the findings and conclusions listed in;'Farts I and II of thF"lnitaal• Study, "and � E 3._ This Commissionyi:ereby finds thlt-.the project has been reviewed and consi&-ied In cgmpliance with the Cal. fa,r a EnAronmen,sl Qusiic= Act of 1370 and, furtk er, this Commission hereby A'commends issuance of �`Ne'yative Declaration. 4. Based upon the findings and'eoncld®ions set fgrth in,paragr_dphs 11 2. and 3 above, this Commission her4by res6 1710's to recommend denial of General Plate Amendment 91-0:3, Subarea R,,a resgrivat "to amend ne General Plan . Land .use Map from Medium Residential (a-Z4 dwelliY:y units per"acre)' to Low-, Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for: 7.895 acres of land located -between approximately 892 feet and 1;20D feet vorth of the future Yicto2*ia Park Lane`extension on the west aide of the future Day Ceeek Boulevard assaown in Exhibit. "A." S. The Secretary to V"'`s Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOP'_'ED TEIS 9TE DAY OF OCTOBER'2991. PLANNING `rOMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCkF-AGA r' BY: Larry T. McNiiA, 'Chairman` ATTEST•_ Brad�p#iller, S%2 .eetary „ ��c r i-' il f PLAMING CO.xxisSION nrs:IUTION NCi' GPA_91.03, SUBAREA R - CITY OE RAC. ii October 9, ,i 991 C Page 3 I, 3rad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission ";j the City.,,of Rancho Cucamonga, do ,hereby certify that the foregoing R?�oolution.was •duly', and w regul.rly introduced, passed, and adopted' by ''the Planning,f:ommission of the + r` City,.ef Rancho Cucamonga;,at a regular meeting of,'tha Planniii4 Commission,field c-� the,,9th4ay of October'1991, by the followin4A)gte-to-wit. AYES: CAMtIISSIONEFES: NOF,S: COMMISSIONERS: lI ASSENT: COMHISSIOi4ERS Adikk i y,- it /.e �✓ ��J ,,J A� �� y "7. 4 r _ �e lltN11 ItI RI NUNN O—�—�%,/�1s1 a at►�tr� ,�,*telpilttt e 41,113 Ilion �� g= �� i111ti 1110, • + `��w�+�` w■ylSrl+ �iav fill.. �!(u1nm1 t 1uu�N,Jh • �Ilunn Isi1�R; 10081, 11,011,71 ell;nfolr rntl sly•sue`�j #1►t� 6uo uulh its a �i III Ld1 t=uvtnut '�sa' i' �'1��11►9 :_.'- 4 In„u,�1tell Re �>•1e ►ulfn -� Itlun�IIj11 1111Ltt�i ",Raul :�':•� � hull ■� 1,flail / U u .�.....1<' ��y� ti11111i111Nt11— llltl.i111011lll l.,Iin ft loll > ., If �` ,i®- n,l 4�i1IlkZr-1.21 111 •:s. ± 111n111111ll11�1:1,l l/a ' a111U t11uN.N 'roll 11111/ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOL71TION OF THZ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY Or RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING .DENIAL OF VICTORIA PLANNED"COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA K, A FEQUEST TO :AMEN- THE VICTORIA.PLANNED COMMUNITY LAND !USE MAP FROM MEDIUM_,RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS,PER ACRE); TO .LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL '(4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TOR 1.895 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED BETWEEN C•` APPROXIMATELY 892,FEET AND 2,200 FEET'NORTH OF THE FUTURE VICTORIA PARK LANE EXTENSION ON THE :WEST SIDE OF THE FUTURE DAY _CREEK, BOULEVARD, AND MAXING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF = APN: PORTION OF 227-021-03 AND 13. A L,.Eital (i) On May 20, 2981, th 'City of-Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the Victoria Planned C^�Mrauni.ty through tho adoption of i_dinance. No. 143. (ii) On August 5 1991, ;he City-'of Rancho Cucamorga filed an application for Victoria Planned Community Amendment No' 91-03, Subarea K, as describeC in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subje,tt Victoria Planned Community Amendment is 'referred to as 'the application." IMF (III) ;Yin October 9, 1991, the .2 .anning Commission of the City of Rancho C:+samonga conducted a duly .noti id public hearing and concluded said i hearing,':,rior to the adoption of this'Resolution. (iv) All lsgal prerequisitee;prior to the adoption.of this Resolution hav;i occurred.' " B. Resolution. NOW. THEREFORE, the :2lanning "Commiasion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as -fellows: 1. This Commission hereby speoific.iL y finds that all af.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 October 9, 19910 including written and ora'. _staff reports; ;,together with public testimony, ' this Commission hereby capecifically finds•*c follows: (a) The application applies to 7.895 acres of land located between approximately 892 :fast and 1;200 feet zi 6Ah of the future ;Victoria Park mane extension on the west side of the future Dal—Creek Boulevard and is presently undeval9ped. '. Said property is currently designated Medium Residential (8-14' dwelling units per acre); and -./3Z 7LANNING COMMISSION RFiSOLUTION NO. VPCA 91-03, SUBAREA r,; CITY OF R.C. October 9, 1991 Page:2 (b) , The property to the northof the subject,gite is designated Medium-High Residential, (14-24 dwelling units per 'acre) and is vacant;, the property to the south is designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per 'acre) and is:vacant; the property to the east is designated Utility Corridor and is vacant; and the property to the Nest isl designated Utility Corridor and is vacant; and 11 (c) This amendmentconfliCts with the Land [se Policies of'the General Plan and Victo_ia Planed Community and willl}1i`hot provide for development, within the districK, in a manner coraistent Witt, the General Plan and with related development; and 1 (d) This amendment does not promnty* the goals aid obiectives of the Land Use Element;-and �g (e) The properties located in`Subarea X of the application are not suitable for the uses permitted .in "thi proposed diztrict and are not compatible with existirar and adjacent ,land use designations; and (f) This amendment will .lot,,have a significant impact on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by tbu findings and " conclusions: listed in Parts I;and II of the Initial Study; and 3. This Commission' hereby finds that the project han bean revivjwed and considered it compliance with the Caiifgrnia Environmental Quality Act if 3.970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 4. Rased upon the findings and conclt=lions set forth in pari4raphs 1, 2, and 3 above. this Commission' hereby resolves to recommend denial of Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91->03, Subarea K, a request to amend the Victoria Planned Community Land:Use Map'froin Medium:Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential, (4-6 dwelling unit3 per mere) for 7.895 acres of land located between appcbximately 892 feet and.11900 feat,';'`l north of the future Victoria Park Lane, extension on the west side Qf the future Day Creek Boulevard as shown in Exhibit "A. S. The Secretary ti9 this Commisa'6 shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED TBIS 9TH-DAY OF ocwsrm 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RW4CHO CUCAMONGA BY: , 1;sry T.-AcNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Arad Buller, Secretary,. ii 'I PLANN1z.3�4'!�ffi5I5SION RESOLUTION WO, } k VPCA 91-03, SUBAREA L CTTY OF R.C. �(i~ (� October 9, 1991 . Page 3 1, Brad Buller, Secisf ary of the Planning Commiasioi4�of the"City' of Rancifn U Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the fozegoing Resolution- was duly and regularly introduced, paas,4-dt arieiadopted' by the Planning Commissiyn of the` City of Rancho,Cucamonga, a� a,.rrdgu:tar �neeting<3f the Manning Commission held on the,9th day of October:i 1991 'by the following,vote--tO-tYi*`z AYES: CO2?4ISSIO i7rF'a,1 } NOES: COMMISSIOr4p,p f- ASSENT— CommisrIONERS: it ,�i rr �i t\ C /•_ l .f 1 44) r/ } 'f �y: �fH1I Epsi, !11 fenailr;' a llla® o � H _ r►� all If1A itw�y ` �i liu p��,unu+um/ltlu ♦�\\�`®u e ' 11i1 "aNeetl4e►i\perxi out Air^! .��41i1�i�iirouerr e•/ d • 'tr—�.�® • pnu+,nndR'ra I,ieelnee 1 *pis. III1U/ aOlUr r • pr Ir nnn � �1�°•..�� t�INlliiil0� Igiiii ii�iiiuq t►i �e� �°�i��# 0�/fu iiu i�j _ ►rl _� fill_!ffJI. uru uuut '111/• ►rout— . a ituutirt 1 al��`� :�11/ its xr■Il .' + n .�� ■nterri Ilt _? - rigs etl� Ili =Wigs to _= �xlgs rpy ••••••�'= "' �_�1H1�T> fill11111UtUItll14 Hllllll�llhl)1 Iregslnit rnuu■� � ®'�_Y�1 l �a :Fc[d'�.IH A7.•�:7:1� ® a a. C t T-- ��1\ll. Illlllllltlll t'IR� ••• •� � � �7111111== lugs '�.. l i. RESOLUTION NO. A RE30LLTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITI OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIcORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPa70VAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT? 91-03, SU AREA :?„ AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM 2L:11LUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL (14-24 DWELLING. UNIT, _.�ER ACRE') TO CIYIC/COMMUNITY FOR 2.46 ACRES OF LAID LOCATED APPROXIMATELY"406 'FEET SOUTH OF THE .SOUTHERN ' PACIFIC RAILROAD :RIGHT-OF-WAY_ AND APPROXIMATELY 321- FEET-WEST OF THE FUTURE DAY CREEK "} ' : 1 BOULEVARD,' AND MAKING_ FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APN: PORTION OF-227-091-18 AND'19, A. Recitals. (i) On April 6, 1981, the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment zf the General Plan through the adoption of Rasolution No. 81-40. (ii) On August 5, 1991, the City of Rancho &camonga filed an application for General Plan: Amendment No, 91-03, Subarea 11. ar described in the title of this Resolut ion. Hereinaf`.er in this Reaolutioi,' the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." l (III) On October 1, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed -)Ublio hearing and =coei=luded said 4 he:aring prior to the adoption of this Resolution. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to th€e adoption of this Resolution have c:curred. B. Resclution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: 1. This Cormission hereby specifically finds that all of the f.".s set forth in the Recitals,-Part A, of this Resolution are true $nd corr,;ct. 2. Piased upon substantial evidence presented to this Co^mission during the above-referenced p,bl,ic hearing on October 9, 199h;- includini4 written and oral staff repor`.s, togetner with public testimony, this Commission hereby specificFtly finds as follows: (s) The application-applies to 2.46 acres of-1zland located` ap!3roximately 406 feet south of the Southern Pacific Railroad _fight-of-way and approximately 3?: feet neat of the,€,iture,Day Creek Boulevard and is presently undevelopeu. Said property is currently designated Hed?..um-Sigh Residential ; (14-24 dwelling units-phi acres,; i lid (h) The property to the north of thersubiecx site, past ;';e Southern Pacific .€railroad right-of-way, is dsaignated low�Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per aere) and is vacant; the property to the south IS PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. / ✓ GPA 91-03, SUBAREA L C7-t OF R.C. October Sr, 1991 Page 2 u designated Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling snits;per acre); and Ss vacant; the p-operty to the,east is designated"Flood ConZzol/Ut+?'tg Corrid'ur and is vacant; 'and the properti to the west is des.-nrlted Med'.;uu-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and is vacant; and (c! This amendment does ne conflict crith the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will providEf for d'Ielopment, within the district, in a manner consistent with the Getnerali Plan :and with related deveiopment; and (d) This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (l (e) The prrperti�6 located in Subarea1L of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed dL trict aad are compatible with existing and adjaccnt_iand us'e designat::ans a;� evidenced'by.the subjact site's proximity, to major arterials and the Southeri��,.Pacific Railroad right- of and u (f) This amendment will not have a sgnifinant impact on the environment nor or, the surrounding,proper;ties -is evidenced by the findings and conclusionu listed in Parses'S and 1I of the Initial Study; aui f 3. This commission hereby finds that the proje has been reviewed and cansidered :r. compliance with the California Environment$- Quality Act of 2.970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends ,issuance of.a,Negative E DeclaratioL i 4. Based upon'the findings and c.nclusions lidt forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby resolves to recommend approval of eneral Plan Amendment 91-03, Subarea L, amending the Genersl Plan Land Use Z fsam Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling ;units par acre) to, Civic/Community for 2`.46 acres of land located approximately 406 fe-t south of the Soutliern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and approximately 321 feet west of the future nay Creek Boulevard as shown in Rxhibit °'A:1 5. The Secretary to"this, Commission shall c^rt fy to the..adoption of this ResotLution.. l' APPROVED AND ADOPTS" T--IS 9TH.AAY OF OCTOBER 1991. PLANNING CO)PAISFION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO'CUCAMONGA BY: U:: +Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ' ATTEST: Brad Bt;iler, .5ecretary f - ' Al /cv �l t � j r PIANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 9I-031 SUBAREA-L --CITY OF R.C. octo;'er 91 1991 i Page 3 fi\ 1 7 r Wr t� I, grad Buller, Secretary -f the Planning Commission ;of the City of Rar. o Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Rebolution was duly (.IttLtl regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho=Cucamonga, at'a regular meeting of the Planning Commiaeim hell on the 9th day om October 1991, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES. COMMISSIONERSs f� NOES: COMMISSIONERS: f - ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: !- _ A � AIL } iJ 1.I a �"u tut uis�.rl etttttl191I■rt.. — It O :i181H'lf'It'uu[nnt IHHaur,�ae�� t■BE �"� UI tt4 i ten[!/ • ttt'j�p�t// poly■tu1m1��tttlttlu [i ��w��i�� t1I11/YI'� j�iit�i Iluilllll/Uyt►� o��` i�/It.11tt0 ne au, 14 tlt\tt �� •Itir III IIIYIII ti �ii11N nt 1 '� HHHttnts ,;.. ltt,Jl1t111tlttlto� ^V 7 dI��ji_� �iA�■ � ME` I pl1 t o�e� pt1!�- ■ t F Guru nu:ttt 111 =-- �1lltllll tI�IPI P t■�,�1Q millset • ...�,,.�uh111I1.QI111X ■■�II _ ct 1 jjl gllo •••••••ice �illl t IIr1111Udttim U1111motllVKM rut 1[[ L....a' ■ - ,■tuwtt®�tl�■ssY��>,taar.■��cK�ul�l.nr ••rr� .Itltll -� 1.111= - _ fall nn.uU• Ed / �fi111 a ti �T. RESDLUTION NO. rr A RESOLUTION OF THE --PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CT.TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CALIFORNIA, RLhG02I2FNDiNG APpFJVAL OF VICTORIA. PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 92-03, 'SUBAREA L, AMENDING THE VICTORIA.PLANNED COMMUNITY LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL (14-24 DWELLING UNITS PER)AC!72) TO ,COMMUNITY FACILITIES FOR 2.46 RCRES_OF LAND LOCATED APPROXIMATELY., 406 FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND APPROXIMATELY 321 FEET WEST OF THE FUTURE DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, AM .MAKING FINDINGS IN t SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: PORTION OF 227-091-28 AND=19, r A. Recitals_ (i) On,,,May 20, 1981, the City of Rancho Cucamonga approve& the enactment of the Victoria Planned Community through the adoption of"v/ldinance No. 143. (ii) On August 5, '1991, the City of Rancho Cucaasonge filed an application for Victoria Planned Community Amendment Nu. 91 03, Subarea L. as described in the title of thts Resolution. Hereinsf` r 'in this Resolution, the subject Victoria Planned Community Amendment is referred to as "the application.." (iii) On October 9, 1991, the Planning Commission of thn -City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to the aeoption of this Resolution. (iv) ,All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and r9solve as follows:' 1." This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A of this Resolution ere true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this -Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on October 9, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with publ'2e testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows (a) The application applies to..2.46 acres of land -located approximately 406 feet south of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way,;and approximately 321 feet west,:!of the future Day Creek Boulevard and is prese'atly{`` url�eJeloped.'' Said h roperty is currently^designatec,-'Msdium-High Residen�.ial (`14-24 dwelling units--per acre)a and i PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. - VPCA 91-03, SUBAREA L - CITY OF R.C. , October 9, 1991 Page 2 Agah y>: (b) The property to the north of the subject si'Gte, ;east the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, is designated,,Low-MediW-( Residential (4-8 dwelling unit;,.ti per acre) and is vacant; the property to the south is designated Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units'per acrE) "Wand is vacant; the property to`tha east is designated Utility CarrIidor',and is vacanb; and" the property=to the west is rles gnatod Medium-Sigh Reeidentie.l (14>•24 dwelling units per acre) and in vacant; and (e) Thing amendment does net:.flict with the Land Use Poliwies of the General Plan and Victoria Planned Cp=unity provide for 8,velopment, within the district, in a manner conmiatent with the General Plan and with relat,,d development; and (d) This amendment promotes the goals and objectivez� of the Land Use Element; and (e) The ptoporties located to Subarea L of the 'application'are suitable for the uses parmytted in the proposed distr:c and are compatible with existing and adjac-iht land use' dsol-inations a1 ev;;.mnced by the subject site's proximity to major arterlalB .'.z:he :southern Pac$fic Railroad sight- of-wLy; and (f) This amendment,will not have.,a significant im�ct on the environment nor on the surrounding props:ties'as`,evidenced by the fi�idings and ASL ,onelusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Study; and 3. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental {duality Act of 1970 and, further, t�, a Commission hereby xecommends isseance of a Negative Declaration. 4. Based upon the findinto, and Iona-usion.. set forth in paragraphs 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby resolves to recommend approval of Victoria -Planned Community Amendment 91-03, `uabarea L, amending the Victoria Planned Comes -tr .,_Land,,%Use Map from Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre)' to Community Facilities for 2,4p acres of ;tan3 ,located approximately �; _ south" f the Southern Paui£ic Railroad.right-of-way and 6 £ept at�.:roximately 323 feet wac, of the future Day-Creek Boulevard as shown in Exhibit "A." 5. The Secretary to this Commis,'sion shall certify ta`the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THI/;y9TH"DAY 0 OCTOBER 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY Or WkWaG CUMM9� GR Ask ` rxy T. McNiel, Chairman c. V v. _ e PLANNING COMMISSION RESO,LUrSON NO. - `� i VPCA 41-03, SUBAREA - CIn' OF R.C. October 9;,1991 Paoe `.3 AWEST: Brad'Bullerr Secretary n ` I, Brad. Buller, Secretary of the Planning Camaiasion'e: the City,,sf Rancho CucAmonga, .do hereby certify tha� the'-,,foregoing Resolution war duly and regularly introduced, pasted, and adopted' by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho, Cucamonga, at a reguiar meeting of the,Planning`commission held on the 4th day of Octobeel931, by the following tiate=to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS• 6,NOES: COMHISS3CjJERS; ABSENT: COMMISSYOmm; ff t OCT B R 9, 1,991 P.C.` AGENDA o F av 1 r :.Lnut1 Lg4II1111 IS16"B'l■Iflf►j� ■■e.w d — a1 o=u■■lltu�i -.- , • s 1 11q P►�=��i�u°d`d�}/poi�.�i:■I q`�u—��® =�"'.. _:, o�■ll e 1`��a�atrerfl �it0�! ��oir--+.�■r■ puun nt 1f/ IIUN►ini0ftf soe�s/' 411111/1+�® ; I1111/1 tttgUd�\\,"i'f•1'�vC f��Il� ®iinue•��1 � �uuu ununll "`��U►e � :��% L1111111 /�� fillip ii up a ■p}Ui��l�► r� 4�io 11e111l/lot w _ loll=uu�lptr �i�e�■ Vim==1 6! vp C r ®lil etltu 1 � nnl�— ■ = ! r_ ......3�. sr: Hilt tlllptkiltlhtlllnllt flfi Ifd ® .. ®�dJ 7�- IUIrT I lJS�3a.1( t\1..••.19) low_�\kill 11111111i111111;11►� o.• �615iuq Itpwt f� . ..: �� "i OC►v1i111 n Islip - ----i t RESOLUICIpN NO. A"RESOLUTION OF THE 'PLANNING COMMISSION of THE CITY RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL ii4 t GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-CZ, SUBAREA M, AMENDING THE' GENERAL PLAN LAND USE. MAP FROM MEDIUM-HIGH REST-DENTIJI (14-24 DWELLING UNITS P,BR ACRE) TO NEIGHBORV ' ! � COMMERCIAL FOR 7.895 Adg,S OF LAND LOCATED BET APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET ANY `1,000 FEET SOUTH OF -BIG,�,4 �r AVENUE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE FUTURE DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS I IN'. SUPPORT f4�REOF - UN: PORTION OF 227-021-03 AND 13. A. Recitals. `) (i) On April 6,> 19811 --the C,�y" of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the General Plan through t' a adoption of Resolution F;o: 81-40.. (ii) on August 5, 1991, the City of. RanLao Cucamonga filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 91-03, Subarea M, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this`Resolution, the subject Geneta:. Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (iii) On October 9„ 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly i,:tieed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to the adoption of thi , Resolution. (ivr) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, TBEREFORE the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve 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 Csmmission during the above-referenced public hearing on October 9, 1991, inc,uding written and oral staff reports, together with ",public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as followsa (a) The application applies to 7.895 acres of land locates between approximately 600 feet and 1,000 feet south of Highland Avenue on the west sida of the future Day Creek;,ioulevard and is presently undeveloped. Said property is currently designated Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The nxoperty to the north of the subject site is dasionated Neighborho t Commercial -:1d is vacant; the property to the south is designated Medium-High`Residential_ (14-24 dwelling units Jtor acre) and is vacant; the J' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 91-03, SUBAREA M - CITY OF R.C. k October-9, 1991 )! Page 2 1 I property to the east is designated Flood Control/Utility Corridor and is vacant; and the. property to, tje west in designated Medium-High Rgwvlential ' (14-24 dwt:{"ing,-,units per acre) and Flood Con,.,.ol/uti.lity Corridor< and is rj vacant, and i i (c) ;Rh s amendment does not conflict With the Land Use Policies Fif the General,b2an,,and will provide for development, within the district, in,'- a manner convietent with the General Plan and with ie ated development; and (d) This amendment promotes the;goals and objectives of the Land Use Elements arA I. (e) 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 use des gnt.ions as 3videnced by the location o` property with th3 same :land use desigt, s_on.aordering the subject site to the north; and (f) This amendment will riot, have -a significant impact on the '= environment nor on the surrounding properties f'J-evtidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Ind, ral Study; and 3. This Commission herebyfinds 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... 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions seat forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this- Commission hereby resolves to recommend approval of Ge,teral Plan Amendment 41-03, Subarea M, amending the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium-High Residential (14-24 'dv:_alling unit''s per acre) to Neighborhoou Commercial for 7.99S acres of land located between approximately 600 feet and 1,000 feet south. of Highland Aveenue on the west side of the, future Day Creek Boulevard as shown in Exhibit ""A.^ S. The Secretary to this Comrission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTEb THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER ID91." PLANNING C01-94ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman' ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary " r t , a PIA Nt7IN�Z COWISSXCT' RESOLUTION NO. GPA SUBAREA M — CITY OF R.C„ f; October 9, 1991 Page 3 3, Brad-Buller, ,Secretary of the Planning Commission of the C� y of Rancho Cucamonga, 'do hareby certify i:bat the foregoing Resolution, was duly and regularly inr.roduaaO, passed, and: adopted by the Planning Commission of !;,he City of Rancho �� a a regular r cLiaonga, , resting of the Planning Commission held .. on the 9th dray of October 1991, by the Eollaking vote-to-wits AYES: COIMISSibNERu: NOES: COMM:USra-bTts. AESENT: 'COMMISSIONERS. 4 i j 1I z, f c-� l ; _tom a g�' L11111j® �i,,`� efnia'It1i1M F _ e a1�1 Op:.t�" Nur11111ra�AM SMll jant 1111■ �e'_®n11 m"Still call wo, . lnrArr t tlAt�p 1 t)NII//[fP11i/IJ,w�® ®j® 4t11111�0® lulltir rumol tt i�ti�e�./.�4J s QIII[In s i r urulunf t►\�lt►� err 112111 Ills ®�.. IU r»r�Urr/t tUp1 � � y� wrr= �ejl1 b'uru lurpr ■1L21 a�� pllll pi11►It q►sa Ut4ttu UIPII 111s�'`••e6 llrnt ,ti��ri ee/il■.mailIueu p1{I!L �Iat tlrr uml ..-rllhgUll NUN`• r�.—Ili nit>llai • 1° +� Ilu m.e ES Vr lul m r'�'�� Itlhlll{till III t1JJ01111111111tltluill ►IIIIIIIfIt a °■um � ®��+Lhl:}.�a.L �CH`�I+3 rCl.•'1:Ci.)•P ■�u a � A\Illll glliltUll7)P� ail 11 `® nu■■ufr �� fill ltltll� ,� l f, 1 WE MK I' RESOLUTION NO. Z; RESOLUTION OF THE *?LANNING.COMMISSIO`7 OF THE CITY OFi RANCHO CUCAM0t3ZAI CALIFORNIA, cM C04iMENDING .APPROVAL OF VICTORIA PLANNER; COMMONITY AkSENDHI.:3T'` 91-03, SUBAREA �J, AMENDING THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY LAND USE MAP FRCSM' MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL (14-24 DWELLING UNTTe PER:ACRE) TO VILLAGE COMtUdRCIAL FOR't7.895 ACRLS OF LAND LOCATED BETWEEN APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET AND 1,000 FEET SOUTH OF HIGHLAND AVENUE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE 'FUTURE DAY CREEK BOULEVARD', AND MAKING FINDINUS IN SUPPORT THEaEOF APN; PORTION OF 227-021-03 AND .13. A. Recitalr... (i) On May 20, 19B1, 7the, City-, of Rancho Cucamonga approved ,the enactment of the Victoria Planned Community through the adoption of Ordiziance No. 143. (ii) On August 5, 1991, the City of 1,ancho Cucamonga filed an application for Victoria Planned Community Amendment No. Si-03, ,Subarea M, as described iw, the title of this Revolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Victoria Plazrned Caavnunity Amendment is referred to as "the application." Adilk am (iii) On October 9,, 1901, the Platini.rg Commission of the City; of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to the ado,tion of ttttis Resolution. (iv) All legal p=slam istes prior to}he adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the. City of 'Rancho MR Cucamonga Foes hereby find, det®rmine, and resolve 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 October 9, 1991, `'including written and oral staff reports, together with ,public-;teatimony; this Commission hereby specifically finds as.follows (a) The gpplication applies to 7.895 acres of. land locate=d between approximately 600 feet and 1400 feet-south of Highland r_denue onn-the ., west side of the future'Day Creek Boulevard and is presently undeveloped. Said property is currently designated:Medf„n-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre), and �{ 7 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RE,SOLUhOA DiO. VPCA 91-03, SUBAREA'M, CI,117i i)F R.C. i October 9, 1991 Page 2 (b) The property to the north of the subject site is designated Village Commercial and It vacant; the„property to the: south is designated Hedium-High Residential (1,4-24 dwelling units per acre) and is vacant, 'the property to the .east is`�d� ignated Utility Corridor and is %iacant; aid the_, property to the went is„ designated Medium-High; Residential j'Sh-24 dws'llil, units per arse) and Utility Corridorand.,is vacant; and � , it (c) This amendment does not�'conflict with the hand Use Policies of the. General. ,Pla ahc Victoria Planned 'Community and will �pr n ovidEe_fo1; development,.wi{:hin the,district,"in a manner consistent With.the General Plan and with'related development; and (d) This amendment promotes the goals• and eljectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) The: prop3rties `located in Subarea of the application are suitable for the us" permitted in the pzopodId district and are compatible with existing and adjacent lanc, use designations as evidenced\,by the location of property with the same land use designation bordering the iubject site to the north; and ; (f) This amendment will not hsve a significant` impact on the environment nor on the sgrriunding;properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and 11 of the Initial Study; and, 3" This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed F and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Com,-'.ssion hereby reccmmends issuance of a'Negative Declaration.. 4. Rased upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Coon iesi on hereby resolves to, recommend approval of Victoria Planned Community 1,vs'mcIment 91-03, Subarea M,_ amending the Victoria Planned Community Lund Use X,,p from Kedium-High'Residential -(14-24 dwelling units per acre) to villagescu=ercial for 7.895 acres of land located between approximately-600 feet and"1,000 feet south of Highland Avenue on the west side :of the future Day Creek.,0nulevard as,shown in Exhibit "A.- S. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify tO the,adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1991� PLA14NING COMMISSION OF TfiE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman r ff PLANNING COMMISSION.R3SOLUTION NO. vPCA 91-03, SUBAREA M - CITY OF R.C. October 9, '1991 - f� Page 3 ' ;: ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary t I, Brad Buller, _Secretary of the planningCommission 6f the'Cit of Rancho ! Y h Cucamonga, do hereby certify that: the foregoing 'Rsdolution was duly and � regularly intioducs-Id, passed, and adoFtad by 'the Plasnhing Commias,ion 'of the City cf Rancho Cucamonga,y-at-a.regular`gjeeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of October 1991, by the follow, ng vote-t;o-wit: V r AYES: COIU415SIONERS: \} NOES; COMKISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: AML yf (4•t' i/ ,r s h� r n< c,ll , =l' It {r niJ�Lt�1111111 enaie�oui►pail■ �nl■ fit=ot=�1•'= minis A,M ' C tllll►1� !�a��+'oD i1� �i�Cam.s� ,� r I1111■► b�1711tt11111t1 t t11ltIR� \\ � ■.�.��® ,, e C Illlle{ � �N/H///// t��\trll✓: 1 1".� e�. �"ql NO 7 Y g1'rwn/1I•■�tt61 4�' fall 1 II i� r' �uruu uutal tt U�;tItR/WINE��*�ti � e'a F 1114 iriiiiii[! t4pti�tl��+= y��11111111R'� lUnli I III" l ►\ .1T i I/Il1 1 IIIIf�.. �tlllll Itru grrr ml r s hll1=rrll,hat IRA•4 pgl(I_ ., ►,,,,— _ a t BII♦a,�� . rut t Iluliil iiiutl isall tps+ '�Q rntt�r i =_ _ lntt tUtl i �t+l=b aili� uNr=-� IlrttU aty � •••••••� ' � IIIt1 rllYtlqunWlt ,1/Ilutplldll ►t111t of j; rnuutl r� ■LJ®�i1lY'l�lM I�.It:■W" a011 i�:C�l a!]t�tttt_tt�t� vin Z zoo - uumn? lllIt unli fY' 3 }c�i k avi 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCA'VIONGA STAF"E�qq \ - DATE: October 9, 1991 TO: Chairman and.Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Muller, City Planner BY: Dan Cowman, Principal Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND D,uVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-04 CITY OF RANCHO CU(:M1L`aGA A request to amend Section 17.12.040 regarding bloyc];e storage requirements and S46tion 17.08.070 regarding trail inaintenance requirements.,. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSM13NNT AND INDUSTRIAL ARE41 SPECIFIC P;�AN AMENDMENT 91-05 - CITY CIF_RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AStegiest to amend Part SII, Section: W.F. regarain, 1 cych `utorage requirements_ BACKGROUND: on July 18, 1991, the Planning Commission recommended approval .;of the Trails Implementation Plan to the City Council. The Council has reviewed the 'Flan and•set October 16,. 1991, as the date/�,,or final adoption. These amendments are follow-up items necessitate'& by the Plan. BICYCLE STORAGE: A major component of the Plan is the establishment of a bicycle trail system as an -alternative transportation' mode. To encourage residents and workers to abandon their cars in favor of using bic�-cles, amenities must be provided to accommodate ,their "needs`. Specif-4cally, facilities to story bicycles should be provided within commercial, office, and industrial developments. The proposed amendment would strengthen the City's bicycle storage requirements for nee' development. the amendment would define the minimum number of storage spaces, their' location, and design: standards. To encourage bicycle commuting to the City's large industrial employment area, the amendment would provide an incentive to developers to provide locker rooms and shower facilities for their employees by allowing a reduction in automobile parking spaces if bicycle storage spaces are provided. r TRAIL MAINTENANCE: In 1988, the City Council adopted nuisance abatement regulations that concerned the maintenance of private' local feeder trails. This amendment would'establish specific-, maintenance standards for local feeder Trails. The amendment is necessary toEprovide for an effective enforcamex_'t_.program regarding trail maintenance. These "performance standards" would prohibit the accumulation'of trash and Affilk debris, and require the trail to be maintained in a safe, rideable manner. ITEM 0,P,, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT r DCA 91-04 & ISPA 91-05 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM&M October 9, 199111_1 Page Z Amok qp CORRESPONDENCE: This item Was advertised in the Inland Valle--, Daii Builetin newspaper. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolutions recommending approval to the City Council. i Respe - ily submitte Brad er City annex BB:DC/jfs Attachments* Resolution Recommending Approval of DCA 91-04 Ordinance for DCA 91-04 Resolution Recommending Approval of DCh 91-05 Ordinance for DCA 91-05 } it RESOLUTION NG. A RESOLUTION Or/ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ` RANCHO CUCAMONGe"J' CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-04-1.AMENDING TITLE 17, l SECTION 17.12.040.C.4 OF THE RANCH CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL_ " CODE REGARDING BICYCLE STORAGE FACILITIES_ AND AMENDING SECTION 17.08.070 REGARDING TRAIL MAINTENANCE- STANDARDS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. \ II M The City of Rancho Cucamonga has initiated an application for Development Code Amendment No. 91-04 an described in the title of this-- Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Code... Amendment is referred;:o as "the application." (ii).;" on the 9th day of A.tober 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed, public hearing on the application and cc.icluded said hearing on that date:, (iii) All legal'prerequisites piior to the aaUption of,this• es�jlution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, -?EREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning commission of the City:of Aaneho 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 abcve-referenced public. hearing on October 4, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this, Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:, (a) The application applies to various residential, commercial, and industrial 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 I1; and 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the. above-referenced public hearing and upon;the spbcific findings of facts set forth in paragrapLs 1 and 2 above, thi ;Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan arm w6;11 ,provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the Gederal Plan and with related developmentg and V PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DCA 91-04 - CITY OF RANCHO CUC;Lr7GA October 9, .1991 Page 2 ; 1 `(b) The proposed amendment is consistent with the objectives of ., the Development Cole; and (c) The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or mate,fially injurious to 'properties or improvements in the vicinity; and (d) The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the objectives of the General Plan or the Development Cod,:. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 aid, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a. Negative Declaration. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions' set forth in paragraphs ` 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves as follows: (a) That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of Development Code A"ndment 91-04 to modify the Municipal Code per the attached. Ordinance. 1 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify ��o the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED_7,HIS '9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF'THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA J, 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, passedr and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the Bth day of October 1991, by the following vote-to-wit: ' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: y� NOES': COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS ORDXNANP-- NO. AN ORDINANCE OF TIM, CITY COUNCIL OF 1THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCs'GSONGA, CALIFORNIA,,,' "PROVING �DEVELt,'APMEENT CODE AMFNDMENT NO. 91-04, AMENDING_ ; LE -17, SECTION 17,12.040.C.4 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMO�rffG MC'NIFZPAi ODE{ It.".ARDING BICYCL-. STORAGE FACILITIES'AND AMENDING TITLE' 11, SECTION 17.08.070 REGARDING TRAIL MAINTENANCE S:,'A?,DARDS. Tha City Council of -the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does haseby t-_3ain as follows: SECTION lz Section 17.12.040.,c 4. is amended to :read as follows: 4. Bicycle Stor(�yez Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, ° and industrial districts in accordance with I the following: (a) Minimum spaces equal to S pat.oat: of the required automobile parking spaces or 2 bicycle storage spaces, whichever ''is greater. After the first SO bicycle storage spaces are provided, addltional ' storage spaces required are 2.S percent of"' th u required t�utop�*�ile parking S� spaces. Warehouse. distribution uses shall -pr;ovide bicycle storage spaces at �^ a rnte of 2.5 .percent of the required automobile parking spaces. In no case shall the total`, number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed '100. Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater, the number shall be rounded off to the higher whole number. (b) Ti+.e bicycle storage spaces shall be located no further than two timei3 the distance betweel mair_building entrances and the neimp.st parking spaces to those entrances. (c) The bicycle storages spaces shall be a minimum lang:h of six feet, a minimum width of two fast, ,and have a minimum overhead clearance of six feet.' i (d) An aisle .or other space shall be provided for bicycles to enter and leave the storage spaces. This aisle shall (20 IF ti j4 ! cvxy COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DCA 91-04 -.CITY OF RANCHb,:CUCAMONGA r Page 2 have a width of at least five feet to the front'br the rear of a standard six- fopt,bicycle parkiig in this apace. (e) Security.'racks shall be provided for each storage apace, and 'should be located '1n 'a highly visible area to miinimize"theft and vandalism. (fj office cr_industrial projects with over 100 a-M:cmobile spaces shall provide all- ,a� weathi.:Y_!'storage lockers for..-.So percent f of ;LhEr required bicycle storage spacer:. A "locker" is defined as a frLly enclosed space accessible only to the ovmer� or ,operator of the bicycle. This spai:e may also serve ot"` r purposes. A locked room or la-ke$ enclosure accessible Only to the owners or operators of bicycles„parked within y such room or enclosure may qualify. (g) The following uses shall be exempt: 1. Teoporary uses per Section 2. Motels. 3. 1Aosks for key shops, film drops, v etc. 4 a' Mini-storage facilities.` 5 ` Recreational vehicle storage yards. 6. Vehicular storage yard and towing services. 7..` Scrap yards. 8' Caretakers residences. 4. Other uses as ;jetermined by the City Planner. SECTION 2:' Subsection E is added to Section 17.08.670 of chapter 17.08 to read as follow : E. Local Feeder. Trail Maintenance. All local feeder trails shall be maintained by the property ovnier in a safe and passable manner which does. not detract ,from the use or appearance of the trail, and in a manner consistent with the following standards: 1. Scrap lumber, junk, trash, storage, or debris is prohibited. 80 t : CITY'COUNCIL'ORDINANCE NO. DCA 91-04 - CITY OF .pjWcRo CUCAMONGA Page 3 2. Abandoned, discarded, or unused objects or equipment, such as automobiles, automotive parts, furniture, stoves, refrigerators, cans, containers.,' or similar items, are prohibited. 3. Trail'surface and proper grade shall be continuously maintained for safety and ridability, including' removal of excessive size rocks, filling of pot s , holes, removal of weeds, and refilling of ruts -caused by erosion or other disturbances. The trail surface shall be: continuously maintained with -',surfacing material consistent with City Standards. 4. Construction of any structure within or across the trail easement, including wails and fences, gates, planters, sidewalks,: drive approaches or similar structures, or installation �� any AOLvegetation or irrigat: n stem or device or obstacles of "any, kind are a prohibited. 6: i S. Vegetation shall be kept cleared from ncroaching into the trail to a height of 10 feet and to the full width of the - trail. 6. Trail fences and gates shall be kept in good repair at, all times, including replacing damaged members. and maintaining plumb. This shall not preclude the property owner from 1� replacing the existing trail fence with another fence or wall material. 1 7. Drainage swales, curb and %,1:ter, or i \ similar drainage structures,. shall be kept' clean and free of debris, trash, soil, vegetation, or other material in a manner that permits proper drainage, . SECTION'3: This Council finds that this amendment will notadversely affect the environment and hereby issues a'Negative Declaration. 0 c CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE no. , DCA 91-04 - CITY OF RANCF.O CUG'kMONGA Page 4 "ram The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the samt, to be published within 15 days after its, passage at least once in the inland valley Daily.8ulla_tin, a. newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. f i RESOLUTION NO. qP A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT VI-05, REGARDING BICYCLE STORAGI�; REQUIRMMENTS, AND MAKING FINDINGS' IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals.- II (i_) The City of :aanch- Cucamonga has initiated` an application for Industrial Specific Plan Amendment no. 91-05 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Industrial Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 9th day.• of October 1991, the 1?lanning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the` application and concluded said hearing on that date. ti (III) All legal preregraisites prior to the a-dcption 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 heroy specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A,';of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantl#ii evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced publ _hearing on October' 9, 1991, including written and oral staff reports', 'to`gether with publii, testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to various residential, commercial, and industrial properties located within the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and (b) The proposed amendments will not have it significant impact on the environment as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the initial Study, Part II; and 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presenttld to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon therapecific findings, of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above,'this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) This amendment does not confl 't 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 development; ;:a�..� O if PLANNING COMMISSION RESOWTIO NO. ISPA 91-05 CITY OF RANCHO CYJCAMONGA October 9, 1991 Page 2 (b) The pro;:Nised amendment is consisten�-�ith the objectives of the Industrial Area Specific Planp+ and (c) The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or`,,welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements,in'the"vi.cinit;{f and (d) The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the objectives of the General Plon or the Industrial Area specific Plan. 4.` This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environments,-, Quality Act of 1970 and, further, thlu Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. S. Baeed upon the findings and conclusions set forth in,paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves as follows: (a) 'That the Planning Commission of the city of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of industrial Specific Plan Amendment 91-05 amending Part IfI, Section IV.F. per the attached Ordinance. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1991. PLANNING COMMISaION' Or THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA u BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman - ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of thr,Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify tiat the foregoing Resolution was 4uly 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 9th day of October 1991, by the following vote-to-wits AYES: COMMISSIONERS* NOES. COMMISSIONERS: AWL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; y } n ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF 1`M CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRM SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT Nye. 91-05, AMENDING PART Ill, SECTION IV.F., REGARDING 8;/."CYCLE STORAGE FACILITIES. The City Council of the City of Rancbo: Cucamongar California, does hereby ordain as follows: ft SECTION 1: Part III, Section IV.F.4. is amended to read as follows: R.4. Bicycle storage facilities shall be provided within all development and P' relate to planned and existing bicycle trails in accordance with the Development Code requirements. SECTION 2: Part III, Section W.F.S. is amended to re�j�as follows: f F.S. For developments with at least 40 totals',)arking spaces, -vequirad on-site parking may be reduced at a xate of 1 automobiles parking per 4 spaces of bicycle storager up to 50 automobile parking spaces or 10 percent of, the,,total reduirmd an site parking, uhicnever is less where r lgaher rooms, and showers are provided for employrss to :promote bicycle cemmuting. SECTION 3: This Council finds that this arendment will not adversely effect the environment and hereby issues a Nagative Declaration. The Mayor ;;hall sign this: Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be;published within 15 days 2fter 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. ITEM Q INCLUDED IN ITEM Auk ,}