No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/01/25 - Agenda Packet - PC • THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ANCHO CUCAMONGA JANUARY 25, 2012 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Munoz_ Vice Chairman Howdyshell • Fletcher_ Wimberly _ Oaxaca _ II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 11, 2012, Regular Meeting Minutes III. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. A. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT DRCDA 01-01 - BCA DEVELOPMENT INC. - A proposed amendment to Development Agreement DA01-01 to amend Section 1. B. Term, to extend the Development Agreement term an additional 5 years (May 16, 2017)for an approved project of 632 single-family units on approximately 248 acres of land generally located north of Wilson Avenue, east of Day Creek Boulevard and west of Etiwanda Avenue within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan area. Related Files: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM15699 and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16226 and SUBTT16227. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior • 1 of 4 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA • JANUARY 25, 2012 RANCHO CUCAMONGA Environmental Impact Report certified by the County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors in 1991 and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in July 2001, and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that Environmental Impact Report and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. This action requires final action by the City Council and will be separately noticed. B. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19355 - NL ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, INC. FOR DAY CREEK VILLAGE, LLC - A request to subdivide a parcel of about 158,000 square feet (3.53 acres) that is currently developed with two (2) commercial buildings and is part of a shopping center with an overall area of about 442,000 square feet (9.8 acres), into two (2) parcels of 2 acres and 1.53 acre (Parcels 1 and 2, respectively) in the Village Commercial (VC) District within the Victoria Planned Community, located at 12223 Highland Avenue-APN: 1089-121- 10. Related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00638 and Tentative • Parcel Map SUBPMT15781. This action is categorically exempt per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315, minor land divisions. IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS. This is the time and place for the general public to address the commission. Items to be discussed here are those that do not already appear on this agenda. V. COMMISSION BUSINESS/COMMENTS VI. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. • 2of4 • PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA JANUARY 25, 2012 RANCHO CUCAMONGA I, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on January 19, 2012, at least 72 hours priorto the meeting perGovernment Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. �r ® If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC • TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position,you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda,you may do so under"Public Comments." There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, one week prior to the meeting. The Planning Commission Secretary receives all such items. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the • 3of4 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA • JANUARY 25, 2012 RANCHO CCCAMONGA offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal fled must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of$2,216 for maps and$2,328 for all other decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas and minutes can be found at htto://www.ci.rancho-cucamonga.ca.us • • 4 of 4 Vicinity Map Planning Commission Meeting January 25, 2012 A B - - - - - - ._ --- -- - ---, --------------------------- ;- -------------- , roJ i rl d d E a O r- 0 I X71 C y I 1 d 1 v C m U R ®� 19th St s/ i Base Line tv /Base 1 r� Chu ch i Church ti R 3othill � Foothill c > R Arrow E 1 Arrow m c ! Jersey 8th w i > (9 6th` R w c 6th w N L � > Y 4th ¢ _ _ 4th • * Meeting Location: City Hall 10500 Civic Center Drive CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting January 11, 2012 Chairman Munoz called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:20 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Frances Howdyshell, Lou Munoz, Francisco Oaxaca, Ray Wimberly ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner; Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney; Donald Granger, Senior Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; Tabe Van der Zwaag, Associate Planner • APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Howdyshell, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of December 14, 2011. Chairman Munoz excused himself and left the Chambers prior to reading Items A and B at 7:22 p.m. He said he would abstain for the reason that he works in the communications industry and prefers to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest. Vice Chairman Howdyshell assumed the role of Chairman. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-01138 - AT&T MOBILITY - A request to replace 9 antennas with 12 antennas and related equipment for an existing 45-foot high (top of palm fronds at 50 feet) monopalm wireless communication facility(Originally Approved as Conditional Use Permit DRC2009-00681)located in the Regional Related Commercial Development District of the Foothill Boulevard Districts(Subarea 4) at 12879 Foothill Boulevard-APN:0229-031-28. This project is categorically exempt from the requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 Exemption - Existing Facilities). • Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Crislia Xicotencatl stated she represents the applicant and briefly summarized the project. Vice Chairman Howdyshell opened the public hearing. Vice Chairman Howdyshell and seeing and hearing no comment, closed the public hearing. • Motion: Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Oaxaca, to adopt the Resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit DRC2011-01138. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: MUNOZ carried B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-00688-VERIZON WIRELESS-Site and architectural review of a 45-foot tall (top of branches at 50 feet) major wireless communication facility on the site of the Sacred Heart Catholic Church within the Regional Related Commercial (RRC) Development District and the Medium Residential District (M) Etiwanda Specific Plan (South Overlay) at 12676 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 0227-211-24 and 25. Related Files: Variance DRC2011-01060 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2011-01165. Planning Department staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines as a Class 3 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15303) exemption which covers the installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures. C. VARIANCE DRC2011-01060 - VERIZON WIRELESS - A request to reduce the 300-foot residential separation requirement in order to construct a 45-foot high major wireless • communication facility on the site of the Sacred Heart Catholic Church within the Regional Related Commercial (RRC) Development District and the Medium Residential District (M) Etiwanda Specific Plan (South Overlay) at 12676 Foothill Boulevard -APN: 0227-211-24 and 25. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2011-00688 and tree Removal Permit DRC2011-01165. Planning Department staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines as a Class 3 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15303) exemption which covers the installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures. D. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2011-01165-VERIZON WIRELESS-A request to remove one tree in conjunction with a proposed major wireless communication facility (Conditional Use Permit DRC2011-00688) on the site of the Sacred Heart Catholic Church within the Regional Related Commercial (RRC) Development District and the Medium Residential District (M) Etiwanda Specific Plan (South Overlay) at 12676 Foothill Boulevard -APN: 0227-211-24 and 25. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2011-00688 and Variance DRC2011-01060 Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that following a discussion with the applicant, two conditions will be amended (#8 and# 13)found in the resolution. He said Condition#8 will be amended to include a provision that the applicant will be notified of any trash issues and then they will be given 24 hours to address it from the time of the notification. He said Condition #13 would be amended to reflect that signage required by the FCC is exempt so those signs would be allowed. Commissioner Fletcher asked if the equipment is enclosed. He asked if their property goes beyond the wall of the enclosure. • Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 11, 2011 r Mr. van der Zwaag said that in this case the "tree" is in one location and the equipment shelter in • another. Vice Chairman Howdyshell asked if the applicant what happens when an applicant finds a second carrier. Mr. van der Zwaag said that if another carrier contacts them they will have to go through the Conditional Use Permit process again. Commissioner Fletcher asked why there was no second carrier. Mr. van der Zwaag said it was possible that they needed one with matching processors and none was available. Fiona Hilyer said she is from Spectrum Surveying and Zoning and represents the applicant. Commissioner Fletcher asked if all the other carriers have that location covered. Ms. Hilyer said apparently, yes. She noted that a collocation would still be a possibility at a later time. Motion: Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the Resolutions to approve Conditional Use Permit DRC2011-00688, Variance DRC2011-01060 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2011-01165 as amended. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE • ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: MUNOZ - carried Chairman Munoz returned to the Chambers at 7:37 p.m. and resumed the Chair. E. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2008-00356—GIRON ENGINEERS INC. -Design Reviewof a proposed retail commercial center consisting of 3 buildings totaling 11,588 square feet on 1.08 acre of land within the Specialty Commercial District (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Klusman Avenue - APN: 0208-153-12, 0208-153-13, 0208-153-24. This project is categorically exempt per Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) of the California Environmental Quality Act and the City CEQA Guidelines. It is a Class 32 categorical exemption because the project includes in-fill development consistent with the applicable General Plan designation and regulations. Related files: Preliminary Review DRC2007-00476,Variance DRC2010-00941,Tree Removal Permit DRC2010-00943, and Uniform Sign Program DRC2010-00944. F. VARIANCE DRC2010-00941 -GIRON ENGINEERS INC. -Arequesttoreducethestreetyard setback by 6.27 feet related to Development Review DRC2008-00356, located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Klusman Avenue -APN: 0208-153-12, 0208-153-13, 0208- 153-24. This project is categorically exempt per Section 15305 (Minor alterations in land use limitations) of the California Environmental Quality Act and the City CEQA Guidelines. It is a • Class 5 categorical exemption because the project includes a setback variance not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. Related files: Development Review DRC2008-00356, Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 11, 2011 Preliminary Review DRC2007-00476, Tree Removal Permit DRC2010-00943, and Uniform Sign Program DRC2010-00944. G. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2010-00943-GIRON ENGINEERS INC. -A requestto remove • 13 trees related to Development Review DRC2008-00356, located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Klusman Avenue - APN: 0208-153-12, 0208-153-13, 0208-153-24. Related files: Preliminary Review DRC2007-00476, Development Review DRC2008- 00356Variance DRC2010-00941, and Uniform Sign Program DRC2010-00944. H. UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM DRC2010-00944 - GIRON ENGINEERS INC. - Uniform Sign Program for Development Review DRC2008-00356, a proposed retail commercial center consisting of 3 buildings totaling 11,588 square feet on 1.08 acres of land within the Specialty Commercial District (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Klusman.Avenue -APN: 0208-153-12, 0208-153- 13, 0208-153-24. Related files: Preliminary Review DRC2007-00476, Development Review DRC2008-00356, Variance DRC2010-00941, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2010-00943. ITEM PULLED FROM THE AGENDA FOR PLANNING DIRECTOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. Mayuko Nakajima,Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and gave a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the project. She noted that following a discussion with the applicant, staff agreed that some standard conditions originally required on the project were not needed for this specific application and therefore they have been removed. She said the revised conditions are before the Commissioners showing the struck out conditions. Commissioner Fletcher asked if there is a reciprocal access on the site. Ms. Nakajima said there will be a driveway near the midpoint of the project site along the east • property line. Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, said they could use same driveway if any development occurs to the east as this applicant will provide access to the properties to the east of his development. Commissioner Fletcher asked where the entrance would be. Ms. Nakajima said they could come in off Foothill Boulevard to the west of the gas station. Samual Giron, 654 South Glendora Avenue, Glendora 91740 said he represents the property owner. He said they read and accept all the conditions of approval. He thanked staff for their help. He said with respect to access;there is a provision for reciprocal access; currently there is a public alley east of the gas station near the intersection of Archibald Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. He said his project will provide an access point off of his driveway and that if future development occurs to the east of him, the City intends to eliminate access to the alley and the access point will already be existing off his driveway just to the west. Commissioner Fletcher asked when that would be constructed. Mr. Giron said everything on his side of the property line would be constructed with his development. He said he will leave an opening along his easterly driveway for the developer of the gas station to have access to both sites. He said a portion of the alley will be vacated. Commissioner Fletcher asked what would happen if a future owner of the gas station has no plans • for development; would there still be access to the property east of this project. Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 11, 2011 Chairman Munoz clarified that a driveway will be completed to give access off of Foothill Boulevard. • He said that the owner or future owner of the gas station will have the ability to connect and have access from Foothill Boulevard. He said there will be access on west side and east side of the project site. Vice Chairman Howdyshell asked if any dialogue has occurred between the developer and the gas station property owner. She said they choose to ignore any communication. She said the proposed development is very nice from the previous plan submitted. Mr. Giron said he has heard nothing from the other property owner. Commissioner Oaxaca said this development has features and access to both sides of the buildings, and the parking is to the rear. He said often tenants need storage space. He asked if that need will be accommodated. Mr. Giron said the property owner also brought that up. He said they discussed the dual openings. He said the owner wants a visual view through the buildings and open storefronts at the front. He said the tenant spaces are not laid out yet, but those designs/facilities will be designed accordingly so the tenants do not block the view from the front of the development along Foothill Boulevard to the rear. He said the owner does not want to see stuff piled up against the windows. Chairman Munoz opened the public hearing. Ed Dietl 7576 El Arco said he is quite pleased with the design, and it may help the gas station. He said he does not understand what will be happening with the gravel driveway. He said access off of Foothill Boulevard may be difficult as some will have to make a U-turn to get onto the site. He said • he would like to see the bus stop shifted to the west away from the gas station. Chairman Munoz closed the public hearing. Mr. Henderson said the applicant has tried to plan for future development to the east. He said access to east is limited because of the intersection of Foothill and Archibald. He said the median on Foothill is to control left turns and minimizes accidents that were regularly occurring in front of MacDonald's and it does limit access to this site. He said the applicants worked hard with staff on a difficult site and they did an excellent job. He said no one knows what will happen with the gas station but this developer has offered dual access. Chairman Munoz said access is not always a slam dunk. In most cases they are sensitive about having others taking up property but this applicant did us a favor by providing access; a rare case. He said he is hopeful the developer of the gas station property will work with us-these folks worked hard for 4 years on this design. Ms. Miller commented on the bus stop. She said the existing stop is located where the drive approach will be. She said this applicant will move it west away from Archibald to the west of the driveway in front of their property away from the station. Commissioner Oaxaca said with respect to the in lieu fee rather than undergrounding-he asked if the trigger would be the re-development of the residential properties to the north. He asked if it would require all of them to agree. Mr. Henderson noted that because the State did away with Redevelopment Agencies,it is not likely • redevelopment will happen soon. He said staff looks at what is reasonable at the time of development. Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 11, 2011 Mr. Flower said this development would have to wait for all the other properties to develop before getting their fees back. Vice Chairman Howdyshell said she likes the design,the monuments,the Route 66 fixtures, and the • gateway effect. She said the design is a nice match with the existing development along Foothill Boulevard. She said they did good work. Commissioner Oaxaca concurred that it is nicely designed and it highlights the importance of Route 66. He said it has nice features of attractive frontage even though the real fronts of the buildings are at the rear of the property. Commissioner Wimberly concurred and thanked May for the good report and the applicant for working with staff over the years and not giving up. He said it is an impressive re-design. Commissioner Fletcher concurred and said it is a difficult site to develop and lends an attractive design. He said it is a representation of what the City may want to see. He said in this case the in lieu fees are reasonable as well as the Variance request. Chairman Munoz said it is a good project and the applicant was willing to work with staff on a hard property that is long and wide. He said the in lieu fee seemed appropriate to spread the burden out and the design turned out well. He said Staff did a great job working with the applicant. Motion: Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Fletcher, to approve Development Review DRC2008-00356, Variance DRC2010-00941 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2010-00943. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE • ABSENT: NONE - carried NEW BUSINESS I. CONSIDERATION TO INITIATE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 TEXT AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Section 5.3.2.of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 to add language requiring compliance with the building height limits in the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Related Files: LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan DRC2010-00157 and Development Code Amendment DRC2010-00984. J. CONSIDERATION TO INITIATE DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2010-00984 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Section 17.30.040-D-5 (Building Height) and Section 17.030.060-J-14 (Architecture and Design) to add language requiring compliance with the building height limits in the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Related Files: LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan DRC2010-00157 and Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Text Amendment DRC2010- 00685. Donald Granger, Senior Planner gave the staff report. He said the Airport Landuse Compatibility Plan is a State requirement. He said Ontario has launched a collaborative effort with their neighboring cities. He said the City of Ontario had to adopt a plan; each agency has to adopt a plan. He said then they enter into a collaborative agreement and each city must be sure all their • landuse documents are vertically lined up and consistent with the plan. He said there will be a future workshop with the City of Ontario and these items will be brought forward again in the future Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 11, 2011 to the Commission and the City Council. He said the text amendments for the height limits is fortunately consistent with our new General Plan at 70 feet but that if needed we can apply for an • exception for higher. He said there will be a formal review of1he amendments later. Commissioner Fletcher asked if Ontario airport is considering a realignment of their landing strips. He asked for more information regarding potential impacts. Mr. Granger said they plan to shift both runways slightly south and east of their present locations. He said their strips will still run east/west. He said building heights must be below the height of the conical shaped flight envelope which could be an impact because Rancho Cucamonga is at a higher elevation than Ontario. He said there is overflight notification which is simply making owners aware and potential buyers aware that they are in close proximity to the airport. He noted that during the Santa Ana winds, the flights are altered. Vice Chairman Howdyshell confirmed that hazard disclosures are transferred from one property owner to another. Commissioner Fletcher asked if these issues are being addressed for Cable Airport. He said they practice over his house regularly. Chairman Munoz noted that the FAA regulations have changed much in the last 40 years. Mr. Granger confirmed they too are working on their own plan. Vice Chairman Howdyshell said it was a great report and she looks forward to learning more about this. • Chairman Munoz said he is grateful the City looks out for these things such as notification requirements. He said as a pilot, he knows that many small airports got closed because of noise impacts. He said we are ahead of the curve because our General Plan is in line with this. Motion: Moved by Fletcher seconded by Howdyshell,to initiate the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Text Amendment DRC2010-00685 and Development Code Amendment DRC2010- 00984. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS None COMMISSION BUSINESS AND COMMENTS None • Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 11, 2011 ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Oaxaca, seconded by Wimberly, carried 5-0 to adjourn. The Planning • Commission adjourned at 8:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Troyer, AICP Secretary Approved: • Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 11, 2011 STAFF REPORT _ • PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: January 25, 2012 RANCHO TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission C,UCAMONGA FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director BY: Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT DRCDA 01-01 - BCA DEVELOPMENT INC. - A proposed amendment to Development Agreement DA01-01 to amend Section 1. B. Term, to extend the Development Agreement term an additional 5 years (May 16, 2017) for an approved project of 632 single-family units on approximately 248 acres of land generally located north of Wilson Avenue, east of Day Creek Boulevard and west of Etiwanda Avenue within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan area. Related Files: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM15699 and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16226 and SUBTT16227. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report certified by the County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors in 1991 and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in July 2001, and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that Environmental Impact Report and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. This action requires final action by the City Council and will be separately noticed. • PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The property owner Chin Yun Yeh Chuang (applicant) has requested an amendment to the previously approved Development Agreement between the City and the property owner for the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project. The Rancho Etiwanda Estates project was originally part of the University/Crest Planned Development project that was approved by the County of San Bernardino in 1991. The project was ultimately divided and purchased by two separate owners. The lower portion of the project (the University Planned Development) was annexed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga on December 4, 2000 and the Crest Development (Rancho Etiwanda Estates) was annexed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga on February 1, 2002. The Crest Development Project Development Agreement was approved by the City on August 1, 2001 for a 10-year term and was originally set to expire on September 30, 2011. The approval of the project was challenged by the Spirit of the Sage who filed a lawsuit prior to the effective date of the Development Agreement. The case was dismissed by the court on May 17, 2002 amending the effective date to the date that the lawsuit was actually dismissed. The Development Agreement is now set to expire on May 16, 2012. The requested amendment, which is discussed in greater detail below, neither increases nor decreases the amount of residential development that would be allowed in the project area. Rather, it intended to allow the owner and merchant builders an opportunity to construct the remaining number of dwelling units consistent with the development in the project area. • ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT DRCDA01-01 — BCA DEVELOPMENT INC. January 25, 2012 Page 2 • SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and Edison Utility Corridor. City pre- zone is Utility Corridor. South - Edison Utility Corridor Public Land, and Low Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). East - Very Low Density (1-2 dwelling units per acre). West - Edison Utility Corridor B. General Plan Designations: North - Flood Control/Utility Corridor South - Low Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Edison Utility Corridor/Flood Control. East - Very Low Residential (1-2 dwelling units per acre). West - Flood Control/Utility Corridor C. Site Characteristics: The 246 acre Rancho Etiwanda Estates project area is currently approved for the development of 632 residential units. Currently there are approximately 415 constructed units with an additional 217 lots left to develop. ANALYSIS: • A. Development Agreement Amendment: Development Agreement DA01-01 was originally entered into by the City and the applicant at the time the City annexed the Crest Development project. The purpose of the Development Agreement was to grant the applicant vested rights to develop the project area in accordance with the rules and regulations then in place for the property. Additionally, it allowed the applicant to proceed with the plans for the development of a residential project (632 units) and to assist the applicant in the creation of financing mechanisms for infrastructure, which will be constructed in cooperation (as defined in the Development Agreement) with the City. Due to the current economic conditions, the applicant would like to extend the term of the agreement for an additional 5-year term to allow the developer to continue developing the remaining lots (approximately 217 lots) consistent with the approved development. Specifically, the agreement would be amended to read as follows: 1. Section 1, B, Term, of the First Amendment is hereby amended to read as follows: "The term of this Development Agreement shall commence on the effective date of the enacting Ordinance and shall extend for a period of fifteen (15) years thereafter (the 'Term"), unless this Development Agreement is terminated, modified or extended by circumstances set forth in this Development Agreement, including, without limitation, the extensions provided below and any extension attributable to the "force • majeure" circumstances described in Section 2D5 hereof or by mutual written consent of the Parties." A-2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT DRCDA01-01 — BCA DEVELOPMENT INC. January 25, 2012 • Page 3 Additionally, the City is able to collect non-standard fees as part of the development, such as storm drains, park and equestrian fees. Extending the Development Agreement allows us to continue collecting fees and allow for more consistent development. B. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 88082915) was prepared and certified by the County of San Bernardino as a Master EIR for the University/Crest Planned Development in June 1991, and in October 1999. The County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors certified a supplement to the EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 98121091) because of a revision to the University/Crest Planned Development. In August 2001, the City of Rancho Cucamonga prepared an Addendum to address issues associated with the adoption of the Rancho Etiwanda Development Agreement. The Addendum identified no substantial changes in the project that would require a major revision to the previous EIR in connection with the City's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16226 and SUBTT16227. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project unless: (i) substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; (ii) substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; or (iii) new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously • considered; or (iv) additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. Staff has evaluated the Development Agreement Amendment request and concludes that substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project have not occurred, which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previously certified EIR. The site has been graded and portions of the site are under construction consistent with the previously approved applications. The request does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that Environmental Impact Report and Supplemental EIR since the Development Agreement was originally.approved on August 1, 2001. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previously certified EIR, and do not have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less-than-significant. No changes have been made to the project and there have not been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions to the previous EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, staff recommends that the Planning Commission concur with the staff determination that no additional environmental review is required in connection with the City's consideration of the Development Agreement Amendment request. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised with a large, 1/8th page legal ad as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper and the property was posted. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the amendment to Development Agreement DA01-01 for the proposed project. • A-3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT DRCDA01-01 — BCA DEVELOPMENT INC. January 25, 2012 Page 4 • Respectfully submitted, James . Troyer, AICP Plann g Director JRT:CB/dl Attachments: Exhibit - Vicinity Map Exhibit B - Tract Map 16226 and 16227 Draft Resolution Recommending Approval of Development Agreement DRC2008-00385 • • A-4 s._ i _ f 1R uQ"i.Ri.L \-wy! T � N C.14� • J l 1 J IL �t Y yry�� y_ 1 ..".+�..' +•. � �� �,!� *�: � }� �r `� al >:'}� + °�.. spa ,n �;e ` `� � Jar `P. -r� ' � 'L 'T:~� �3 lU• '� �—(. ` . 4'". y.�'�4`�',"i�Ai_�'=e w��� .-� a�:.4r+� x ?�CM��'1.+iCL`��� ��r�•rr L n me i4b � J ' ° F=1 = = _� I I 1 N ate+ - 7 I 1 _ r I I Y e a I I " 2 - _ 3 z S IPUY•6tPY .I S y N C � u I OL �ort � IJYTd ' L� I `kSO01LiH00 NOSiQ3 V�NHOdRV'7 Nf3KLn(2S �] I \ • z Uz • W �l 73NNYNJ.N3321J Am O 1-LI W U d '0'J!'J'B'S , ` 0000-B ZZ -1L0-90 NdV` Lu EXHIBIT B z U � A-6 RESOLUTION NO. 12-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF • RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 01-01, FOR A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CONSISTING OF A MAXIMUM OF 632 RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN DAY CREEK CHANNEL AND EAST AVENUE, NORTH OF 25TH STREET, AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 65864 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, FOR REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF — APN: 225-071-37, 47, 48, 50, AND-51, 225-081-09, 14, AND 15. A. Recitals. 1. Chin Yun Yeh Chuang filed an application for Development Agreement Amendment DRCDA01-01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Agreement Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On January 25, 2012, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. 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. Recitals. The Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Findings. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on January 25, 2012, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The property subject to the application (hereinafter, the "subject property") is comprised of approximately 248 acres of land, generally located north of Wilson Avenue, east of Day Creek Boulevard and west of Etiwanda Avenue within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan area. b. Development of the subject property is governed by the Etiwanda North Specific Plan area and a development agreement between the City and the applicant. C. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Flood Control/Utility Corridor. The property to the west is also Flood Control/Utility Corridor. To the east is designated Very Low Residential. To the south is designated Low Density Residential, which is partially developed with single-family homes. • d. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CE QA) and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 88082915) was prepared and certified by the County of San Bernardino as a Master EIR for A-7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-08 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT DRCDA01-01 January 25, 2012 Page 2 • the University/Crest Planned Development in June 1991, and in October 1999. The County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors certified a supplement to the EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 98121091) because of a revision to the University/Crest Planned Development. In August 2001, the City of Rancho Cucamonga prepared an Addendum to address issues associated with the adoption of the Rancho Etiwanda Development Agreement. The Addendum identified no substantial changes in the project that would require a major revision to the previous EIR in connection with the City's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16226 and SUBTT16227. e. The application proposes to amend Development Agreement DA01-01 to amend Section 1. B. Term, to extend the Development Agreement term an additional 5 years (May 16, 2017) for an approved project of 632 single-family units on approximately 248 acres of land generally located north of Wilson Avenue, east of Day Creek Boulevard and west of Etiwanda Avenue within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan area. f. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals . of the same project unless: (i) substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; (ii) substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; or (iii) new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered; or (iv) additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially • reduce impacts. g. Substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project have not occurred, which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previously certified EIR. The site has been graded and portions of the site are under construction consistent with the previously approved applications. h. The request does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that Environmental Impact Report and Supplemental EIR since the Development Agreement was originally approved on August 1, 2001. i. The project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previously certified EIR, and do not have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less-than-significant. No changes have been made to the project and there have not been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions to the previous EIR. j. Subject to the City Council's approval of the related applications the application does not conflict with the policies and provisions of the General Plan or any specific plan applicable to the subject property. k. The findings set forth in this Resolution reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. • A-8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-08 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT DRCDA01-01 January 25, 2012 Page 3 • APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Louis Munoz Jr., Chairman ATTEST: James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary 1, James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 25th day of January 2012, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: • NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: • A-9 FIRST ADMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND CHIN YUN YEH CHUANG CONCERNING THE REVISED RANCHO ETIWANDA ESTATES PROJECT THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("First Amendment") is made and entered into as of this day of . 2011 by and between the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a municipal corporation and general law city ("City"), and CHIN YUN YEH CHUANG, an individual ("Property Owner"), each of whom may be referred to as.a Party or collectively as the Parties. RECITALS A. On August 1, 2001, the City and A&J Resources, Incorporated entered into a development agreement (the "Development Agreement') regarding the development of that certain real property described in Exhibit "A" to the Development Agreement. B. Property Owner is the successor-in-interest to A&J Resources, Incorporated pursuant to a General Assignment of Development Agreement dated July 23, 2004. C. The Parties mutually desire to extend the terms of the Development Agreement for an additional five years subject to the terms and conditions of the First Amendment. • D. On January 25, 2012, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the First Amendment, after-which it recommended its approval to the City Council. E. On [DATE], the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the First Amendment, after which it adopted Ordinance approving the First Amendment. NOW THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, City and Property .Owner hereby amend that certain Development Agreement in the manner set forth below. FIRST.AMENDMENT 1. Section 1, B, Tetra, of the First Amendment is hereby amended to read as follows: "The term of this Development Agreement shall commence on the effective date of the enacting Ordinance and shall extend for a period of fifteen (15) years thereafter (the "Term"), unless this Development Agreement is terminated, modified or extended by circumstances set forth in this Development Agreement, including, without limitation, the • extensions provided below and any extension attributable to the "force 1 of 2 1406507.1 A-10 majeure" circumstances described in Section 2D5 hereof or by mutual written consent of the Parties." • "Following the expiration of the Term, this Development Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further force and effect; provided, however, that such termination shall not affect any right or duty arising from project entitlements granted prior to, concurrently with, or subsequent to the approval of this Development Agreement and the structures that are developed in accordance with this Development Agreement and the use of those structures shall continue to be governed by this Development Agreement for purposes of ensuring, for .land use purposes, that those structures continue to be legal conforming structures and that those uses continue to be legal conforming uses." 2. Except as expressly amended by this First Amendment, the Development Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. 3. Pursuant to Section 65868.8 of the Government Code, the Parties shall mutually assure that a copy of this First Amendment is recorded against the Property described in Exhibit "A" attached to the Development Agreement, with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County within 10 days after the Effective Date. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Property have executed this First Amendment as of the date first written above. • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHIN YUN YEH CHUANG By: Dennis Michael Mayor ATTEST: Janice C. Reynolds City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: James L. Markman City Attorney 2 of 2 1406507.1 A-11 Rancho Etiwanda Estates Legal Descriptions Exhibit "A" • Tract 16226 Legal Description: In the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, Tract No. 16226, being a subdivision of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 15699; as shown on Map Filed in Parcel Map Book 210, pages 53 through 56, inclusive, records of San Bernardino County, State of California. Tract 16226-1 Legal Description: In the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, Tract No. 16226-1, being a subdivision of Parcel 1, of Parcel Map No. 15699, as shown on Map Filed in Parcel Map Book 210, pages 53 through 56, inclusive, records of San Bernardino County, State of California. Tract 16226-2 Legal Description: In the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, Tract No. 16226-2, being a subdivision of Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 15699, as shown on Map Filed in Parcel Map Book 210, pages 53 through 56, inclusive, records of San Bernardino County, State of California. • Tract 16227 Legal Description: In the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, Tract No. 16227, being a subdivision of all of Parcel 2, a portion of Parcel 4 of Day Creek Boulevard, and all of Etiwanda Avenue of Parcel Map No. 15699-1, as shown on Map Filed in Parcel Map Book 210, pages 49 to 52 inclusive, records of San Bernardino County, State of California. Tract 16227-1 Legal Description: In the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, Tract No. 16227, being a subdivision of all of Parcel 1, a portion of Parcel 4 of Day Creek Boulevard, of Parcel Map No. 15699-1, as shown on Map Filed in Parcel Map Book 210, pages 49 to 52 inclusive, records of San Bernardino County, State of California. Tract 16227-2 Legal Description: In the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, Tract No. 16227, being a subdivision of all of Parcel 3, of Parcel Map No. 15699-1, as shown on Map Filed in Parcel Map Book 210, pages 49 to 52 inclusive, records of San Bernardino County, State of California. • A-12 STAFF REPORT PLANNINGDEPAMWIE VT Date: January 25, 2012 RANCHO To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission CUCAMONGA From: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director By: Mike Smith, Associate Planner Subject: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19355 - NL ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, INC. FOR DAY CREEK VILLAGE, LLC - A request to subdivide a parcel of about 158,000 square feet (3.53 acres) that is currently developed with two (2) commercial buildings and is part of a shopping center with an overall area of about 442,000 square feet (9.8 acres), into two (2) parcels of 2 acres and 1.53 acre (Parcels 1 and 2, respectively) in the Village Commercial (VC) District within the Victoria Planned Community, located at 12223 Highland Avenue - APN: 1089-121-10. Related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00638 and Tentative Parcel Map SUBPMT15781. This action is categorically exempt per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315, minor land divisions. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: • A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Commercial Center; Village Commercial (VC) District, Victoria Planned Community South - Single-Family Residences; Low Medium (LM) Residential District, Victoria Planned Community East - Single-Family Residences; Low (L) Residential District, Victoria Planned Community West - Southern California Edison Transmission Corridor; Utility Corridor (UC) District, Victoria Planned Community B. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Neighborhood Commercial North - Neighborhood Commercial South - Low Medium Residential East - Low Residential West - Flood Control/Utility Corridor Open Space C. Site Characteristics: The project site is part of a shopping center with an overall area of about 442,000 square feet (9.8 acres) located at the southwest corner of Highland Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard. The overall dimensions of the center are about 930 feet (east to west) by about 430 feet (north to south) (Exhibit B). The shopping center, which was approved by the Planning Commission on July 24, 2002 (related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00638 and Tentative Parcel Map SUBPMT15781), is comprised of three (3) buildings with a combined floor area of approximately 82,000 square feet on two (2) parcels. Two (2) of the buildings are multi- tenant buildings — one of buildings is generally situated at the northeastern part of the shopping • center while the other building is situated along the south property line. These two buildings are located on the same parcel - APN: 1089-121-10 — which has an overall area of about 158,000 square feet (3.53 acres) with general dimensions of about 300 feet (east to west) by about 430 feet ITEM B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTPM19355 — NL ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, INC. FOR DAY CREEK VILLAGE, LLC January 25, 2012 Page 2 • (north to south). The third building, a Ralphs supermarket, is at the west side of the shopping center on a separate parcel - APN: 1089-121-09 - which has an overall area of about 284,000 square feet (6.28 acres) with general dimensions of about 630 feet (east to west) by about 430 feet (north to south) (Exhibit D and E). The specific location of the project site and subject of the application is APN: 1089-121-10. The shopping center is bound on the east and south by single- family residential development. The properties to the north are part of a commercial center while the property to the west is a Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission corridor. The zoning of the properties to the east and south are, respectively, Low (L) and Low Medium (LM) Residential Districts. The zoning of the properties to the north is Village Commercial (VC) District and the zoning of the property to the west is Utility Corridor (UC) District. The subject shopping center is Village Commercial (VC) District. All properties, including the project site, are within the Victoria Planned Community. ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant, NL Engineering and Surveying on behalf of Day Creek Village, LLC, proposes to subdivide the subject parcel into two (2) parcels of 2 acres and 1.53 acre (Parcels 1 and 2, respectively) (Exhibit D). Following the subdivision, each of the two buildings that comprise the subject parcel will be situated on an exclusive parcel. The applicant does not propose any physical changes to the site such as modifications to the parking lot, landscaping, or vehicular access/circulation. As the site is fully developed, new construction of, for example, a building or installation of new minor improvements such as parking lot lights is not proposed. As the parking • lot will be.subdivided by the new property line, to minimize the potential for problems regarding maintenance, parking, and/or access, a condition of approval has been included in the Resolution of Approval requiring the submittal to the City applicable recorded documentation that establishes, and/or ensures the continuation of, agreements, easements, etc. for the purpose of mutual/reciprocal access, parking, and maintenance of the parking lot and associated areas within the shopping center. B. Grading, Technical. and Design Review Committees: As the project is only for the creation of a new property line on a fully developed commercial property and development of the site, i.e. grading, public improvements, and/or buildings is not proposed nor required, Staff determined that a review by the Committee is also not necessary. C. Environmental Assessment: The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 15 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 — Minor Land Divisions - as the project is a division of commercial zoned property into four or less parcels, is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning designations, no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent. There is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Dailv Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot • radius of the project site. No comments have been received. B-2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTPM19355 — NL ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, INC. FOR DAY CREEK VILLAGE, LLC January 25, 2012 • Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19355 by adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. Respectfully submitted, Jame Troyer, AICP Planni g Director JRT:MS/dl Attachments: Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Aerial Photo Exhibit C - Site Utilization Map Exhibit D - Tentative Parcel Map SUBTT19355 Exhibit E - Overall Site Plan for the Shopping Center Draft Resolution of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19355 • • B-3 1 � aaNpl. � 1 xdrx ad wa t o�lYtiw. s c ? G N o DA g .I � G 9e rwmf ox .WNYP .PS �ypdA' jfO ¢..� f x` XXc Ywmaw, e E'.IY+I:ww.vM mrsn$ ON °� s°""� PROJECT SITE G mwILY f we wutwwd ..mw wxyEd� 'Z'�p ( c t Poutxs,IppSEVL w � ��i � � / . .aunEP PO � [°l1A\°AC0.fG CAliA j W6RwOn wttx Psi .pLPYSxR[t f g' I6NL.m G G MPd lu y LOS OSOS -rnivcExccwnxn n`dwY W nW GOJO i[rEx @ m c -xfxncnOSUrri ,�c-.,E[v. ¢ �SAIMIMEAMEf� x �� gMmMd fUA RANY/W-ST t(3GG 8 vv SuwmLti BANY§ ST � I,cx aTE �. . n� vwxvnn 6¢ YvYEd ��. _ _ .. , e � �rcn"�aon6wsxax spy �vmmn r3ida i e- �HYN - - r"°° F� gc w am .vWRRAR xneara 3 FyFQ _ G! anY. O w f OA 6 IdELwPx k r E Gfl ¢' c .Pv w �. ^Pm ydn�SP o� I � B � G �yew,�•w�lrnorcP - _i "^I.xo_. g n Pmmvs' _2 F � m crNrmEPO c nxva I -+m. arc E°w� fl°TC wn v�Nanx '� Fxod oP�r°c 4 wwvuovo.. wro Jx R.d �wuzw�vi giol« F w� au�c.n p Ea,EPOP Sw - •c �E dGPOP wwn[soxE OP at dxn ARR w a p g ; JVPIM PYSE VI MLWGO LI xPlrnn' ' IIl,tntt }VAY"'be�c a.�w § {{I " i w .. 6..If n n,., W, NuPlsxoP e� 9� '14\'AK NYYa ;LAINa YISIOfl f 'F ! _ 6YOI�IGR 6r onau. udP`./sir IMian III `-Ow. w^eRmrs M 1 ft"wa "^N. Q� craxfs OR . Fwn,T f vnup yF HONCHO 'Q; rtnxs CUCgMONGA �'xTw Nm uo^^ �,I+ >ry nMn =. warn � wC in'^YV {('4f, I rrvd 9° SA n 3 Lm¢msar 5 E'TIWANDA t �0g'�1 S P� Fz' S 140wP xAORYI.A NNfILF51d F' LW[4sr k a: s9p14i YG, s p `A r __ t w. wg-' � 54 xq a ; Ws VICiOHIA .. Si w G &' = q nxFFOOi yFjv 5, wr I d$.ro.nvH� a� .cvn 6Egwln .._ �ETIWANOA PMx6 YSp CqN '9 ar I �� S��PAN�'t [ qE rn� [ y � i ufnrn ASNF LI G PWCMrtPM � Bn b9r 9 t MWOOP loon NNxw w96` e �' §"'"a" _INwnn°bx'N:o- cu6w sx �' G�G_ E T I W A N D A I IP wworrPCrt vA d x S" r �qp a W_£FSP VW�wd G g , [[ p f}!\q[ F Pr 3 44xR4m^� G INA4x�v j 3 G +.wcsn 28� 1 p a ®GHAPEIANO tl �SwsOR pL pjE 1 n a{ sUOSxYYrms aa � g � } e 3 y � s. 2q w�Sr.Ec � ciu cw'oq a wP Utwa 'Wi.n] DO 3 Sj 'g 3 anP OO �' ux' sxwr xunP ' p[$ �L BASE NE BLVD------. sA xva F.€ n.a.E rib00- 1'cELFewrpx OP S10FlC D' HI -_ WINE MUSEUM - E g c (�rw�P+waatwEioin � w:dwN c '"`xrsa L`YFoP Fl3rxfEd !%'� I avewvn r, f .HQfp w'4, vY:oF. a >= PxooEUwo c` w.Y of c wmwar stn ;:TERRA Np I+nwmPp'nw`x'OSl ��KwfxOLUD f r YPnow' d I < : � / $ rxq��,j�'O rSTA xp �w __ PI[w v 1 6PatFA9mdn^�^ c d 9c y j elurWOx qp y / Awv {N aAw' INaaWpA • t. R nPYn�d U @ftYMV IdIOYfyyAed wYD y0 e t S4 Y� 16r { I yfy Mw (d 6 a war pY aHU'K IY/JXI4NLfl PMP OICY oP u¢�mlcmd I cua3wwn gvmY'.� vvOquF'wsdsmn °"i^r G GCTA.'.m d r / EvsrzG. n � � vti .� � - - - 9 A1` IyNwr F xundxvx ; ! mart \afg4wnp,�0� LHIIFCN Si �y¢'gC fw51EYYN 4 @E..S" d3c '� QYC ,. WPFUwErw.. uxwx Pn r. -- cutrwAGlnEe oe MIUEHAW _ :eu y1 `� 1 xg�� NEVmdar VICTORIA GARDENS . ,..,.. Q4a/ ] r a +JYN SOSr.°p 99' IAPIMWLY 51 f.: p3 6YtVMF��WPy�� .C.A. J 'F 'IARgy4 xo 6s 4£5 g Sacml NUxs: _ �cvstr9 Wpw G§�.unurow / �' g IIc 'opPES I ! nwaurs ns gays arxvan Pwdw' ._ agvcu 3uP YvPS d¢ /r F O N Y A 9N A ... a mrrxwn I E s 3 / eluP xwaf n 4 / EXHIBIT A gg 8 HIS DFIL FOOTHILL BLVD --__ __....i.....__. PoomnL CPOSSIMG � BA PA r4 FOOMILLYARKI ACF 6 y • 11`A �ahx - - xwmwvar o'rkw.. g 1 _ 5 .41!' a pay .O°MU94 �.....� /,". s5tt�wnaa A�'wxcowxxgg�U-a!g d��.�! Wow - t mrwxp t e mwn 6 WILSDN gAGVE ,w J1,y Mp:w PROJECT SITE —Pow, m Ll - wrwua M� .waoMa wwMwa �- jB, S � - � ioRR - EnxnoacuExrAAA i' . ■■ '®P°Mmn'n I ws r • �suMMn fT�2-S■ rrse �� ��yo RPE O ! ' _ �)a-. t INIEHM6•({.AIE Y■` 1i. urrAt �M'A85f ��yyAEL " t �,•��x, r� }_. ♦ mwYn �'�. Y. 9 umkw_' � f ��e"°°mvPL zuaxa -K r.�.,. - �O. �y°� - W p_�MI mat Mimsa a !'MnAet gg- wxonxPwM PwFa say§ �. ° paMx "pra� _ x e r 5. ° W e s _ : >cA - 'a' - .nw I� CG �[ '�ine.e 6 -rinW iOwO � �y{YPw xM�n aYMI�•.-.MawWl! MCLLLPn rawll oP ,r� n mw. .m yy � XIBNANOAK � � .. mwvxa P�PFnW OP � � /:_ .i u)rLxP yy(( #a w m P$FR wton n xQ.1Ln�1YAYl6*! <��� { � nr @ gw�m�w�w wmnEp !+ um.c./ una�alnna nnmtoq n w.M o nFY°kY<. 3.O-wP < °wmon<y€ 2 G€(v gmmmW .a g J.. -akwMr Iii:-ate. '< -vwPVn ONOA �'e•e, 5 J. §s `•�ex�a►YV...r = Pwa n fi"�uon° dfi sr Y167GRIA . c c .._ - f y,rkivn - .f C Aar rNfAGE�PwiwN Y m ee a n n F a EnWANM ` s1 - �.� �l ANDA3 r GKrM 6UM yY T s/ +^' P y MPgM91¢byf OP t - /I t ° IWFm01R �.. _ g -:{ ! rt p' 4 G QG yG la )WYNPRTffA a V1. mew IwYrMR. WWW i 3 M a 9 q Yo.w,vrwmwa M - � --c . y :r'min '- ° a fq 1 lL RAiEFllell � �' a QLVA . {Y [ ♦2S r q .kWIIR d a Q er rAAtAq`A «,... ° I""7"`�e` <a' »�$�Ee ©enAVE�.ARO ( YYY 9w••a W[vn ronuMw r s' � A �<<YI�' �{ �xro.oe• Sran 9 m � '4 e1 se�Pne e:. � sxoonRnava -BASE LINE BLVD 9SSencwo4w +LmvFSwm¢n x NI510F1L wt Y[magai ��y rF C ° G 7=.°r WINE MUSEUM_Nr°''' [ p�awa3C unvn / EEa Fn S P IPprLWR ItiMma, �..t<A < FMOana FulYxtSa { lttR�p {� 49IIZ., Mrllin 4 a �!IMa {^ -WVtG'n C YV'Qq-(�Qrgb4'°'a iiII'.ep �.m.nP 3. c MM1--lPir Er - '1L xxiwwa 'R°g° . F ^�1A� p �wn uwkr ePo:kwroR ono, °� ° i 5 aye F wyYya 1, 6 w iubnM rYYxai wp }( aua 1 b( p.m acx w4� n alit"ra°w � m¢cr aN ° 9 aamn - -VICTORIA GARDENS sirrFe��e - - L.A. sl awnns 999 rarer wFS�oa _ 'S!�{Lh � tlaamRVa� 3 t[:. wyax 6 t¢Ra - W us I oExan��.3 FMy Faj.°._ ` - - 1p loo°rnxwGl EXHIBIT A POSG�xG B-4 °""""` A' AV " °ONPLk YPKEMICf � _ . ...-+1i.� 1 '� 4-.wlJ �n��'�'•q 1.C�3 '/ v it P #j • 114 t 1}J ,• r, e ff OU t S ( r ♦ �" Ilia'* �.lai � k Lns1 .� �•r I]P ! (( s in 'AMM r• _ • � J` i ! r , AJJJ /74 2 05q sl .4 1.09 A­ A, STATE :HIGHWAY 210 S T A T E H W Y 30 `ENV n ALPH SH PING CENTER <0 SLJSJET Sil 11 P T" No 19 M INT 3 z SINGE L4 RE NC z SCALE I'-100• SITE UTILIZATION MAP • .8 a FOR E) a. TENTATIV< PARCEL MAP NO. 19355 RANS Rlpmm BY. NL ENGINEERING&SURVEYING,INC. EXHIBIT C auvA,ainoe m3nio Ava ve W7 —T/ I [-Ll Li off! EXHIBIT D B-7 ly dl EXHIBIT E B-O ' RESOLUTION NO. 12-09 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19355, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A PARCEL OF ABOUT 158,000 SQUARE FEET(3.53 ACRES) THAT IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH TWO(2) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND IS PART OF A SHOPPING CENTER WITH AN OVERALL AREA OF ABOUT 442,000 SQUARE FEET (9.8 ACRES), INTO TWO(2) PARCELS OF 2 ACRES AND 1.53 ACRE (PARCELS 1 AND 2, RESPECTIVELY) IN THE VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC) DISTRICT WITHIN THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY, LOCATED AT 12223 HIGHLAND AVENUE;AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 1089-121-10. A. Recitals. 1. NL Engineering and Surveying Inc., on behalf of Day Creek Village, LLC, filed an application for the approval of Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19355, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Parcel Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 25th day of January 2012, 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. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the •City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on January 25, 2012, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a shopping center located at the southwest corner of Highland Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard; b. The shopping center has an overall area of about 442,000 square feet (9.8 acres) and overall dimensions of about 930 feet (east to west) by about 430 feet (north to south); C. The shopping center is comprised of three (3) buildings with a combined floor area of approximately 82,000 square feet on two (2) parcels. Two (2)of the buildings are multi-tenant buildings—one of buildings is generally situated at the northeastern part of the shopping center while the other building is situated along the south property line. These two buildings are located on the same parcel-APN: 1089-121- 10—which has an overall area of about 158,000 square feet (3.53 acres) with general dimensions of about 300 feet (east to west) by about 430 feet (north to south); d. The third building, a Ralphs supermarket, is at the west side of the shopping center on a separate parcel -APN: 1089-121-09 -which has an overall area of about 284,000 square feet (6.28 acres) with general dimensions of about 630 feet (east to west) by about 430 feet (north to south); e. The specific location of the project site and subject of the application is APN: 1089-121-10; B-9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-09 SUBTPM19355 — NL ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, INC. FOR DAY CREEK VILLAGE, LLC January 25, 2012 Page 2 f. The zoning of the properties to the east and south are, respectively, Low (L) and Low • Medium (LM) Residential Districts. The zoning of the properties to the north is Village Commercial (VC) District and the zoning of the property to the west is Utility Corridor(UC) District. The subject shopping center is Village Commercial (VC) District. All properties, including the project site, are within the Victoria Planned Community; g. The application contemplates the subdivision of the subject parcel into two (2) parcels of 2 acres and 1.53 acre (Parcels 1 and 2, respectively); and h. The applicant does not propose any physical changes to the site such as modifications to the parking lot, landscaping, or vehicular access/circulation. As the site is fully developed, new construction of, for example, a building or installation of new minor improvements such as parking lot lights are not proposed. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above,this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed subdivision is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, the Victoria Planned Community, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The proposed project is to subdivide the property into two parcels and is consistent with the development district of the project site; b. The proposed subdivision, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be • detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed project is to subdivide the property into two parcels — no development of the site is proposed; and C. The proposed subdivision complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed subdivision meets all standards outlined in the Development Code, the Victoria Planned Community, and the design and development standards and policies of the Planning Commission and the City. 4. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project qualifies as a Class 15 exemption under State CECA Guidelines Section 15315 — Minor Land Divisions - as the proposal is to subdivide the property into four parcels or less, is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning designations, no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent. In addition, there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption,and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the Staffs Determination of Exemption. Planning Department 1) Approval is for the subdivision of a parcel (APN: 1089-121-10) located in a shopping center with an overall area of about 442,000 square feet (9.8 acres) located at the southwest corner of Highland Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard into two (2) parcels of 2 acres and 1.53 acre (Parcels 1 and 2, respectively). is B-10 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-09 SUBTPM19355— NL ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, INC. FOR DAY CREEK VILLAGE, LLC January 25, 2012 Page 3 • 2) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Development Code, the Victoria Planned Community, State Fire Marshal's regulations, Uniform Building Code, or any other City Ordinances. 3) Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall submit to the City applicable recorded documentation that establishes, and/or ensures the continuation of, agreements, easements, etc. for the purpose of mutual/reciprocal access, parking, and maintenance of the parking lot and associated areas within the shopping center. Statements noting these agreements, easements, etc. shall be included on the Final Map. 4) Any proposals for development within the project site or the surrounding shopping center shall require the review and approval of the City's Planning Department prior to construction and/or installation. 5) All Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00638 and Tentative Parcel Map SUBPMT15781 shall apply. 6) All signs shall comply with the City's Sign Ordinance and Uniform Sign Program #145. No additional ground or mounted signs shall be allowed by virtue of creating additional lots. Fire Construction Services • Map Recordation 1) Reciprocal agreements for Fire Department Emergency Access and Water Supply are required on this project. The project appears to be located on a property that is being subdivided. The reciprocal agreement is required to be recorded between property owners and the Fire District. The recorded agreement shall include a copy of the site plan. The Fire Construction Services shall approve the agreement, prior to recordation. The agreement shall be recorded with the County of San Bernardino, Recorders Office. 2) Reciprocal access agreement - Please provide a permanent access agreement between the owners granting irrevocable and a non-exclusive easement,favoring the Fire District to gain access to the subject property. The agreement shall include a statement that no obstruction, gate, fence, building or other structure shall be placed within the dedicated access, without Fire Department approval. The agreement shall have provisions for emergency situations and the assessing of cost recovery to the property by the fire District. 3) Reciprocal water covenant - Please provide a permanent maintenance and service covenant between the owners granting an irrevocable and non-exclusive easement, favoring the Fire District for the purpose of accessing and maintaining the private water mains, valves and fire hydrants (fire protection systems facilities in general). The covenant shall have provisions for emergency situations and the assessing of cost recovery to the property by the fire District. • 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. B-11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-09 SUBTPM19355— NL ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, INC. FOR DAY CREEK VILLAGE, LLC January 25, 2012 Page 4 • APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Luis Munoz, Jr., Chairman ATTEST: James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary I, James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 25th day of January 2012, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: • • B-12 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: SUBTPM19355 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP APPLICANT: NL ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, INC. FOR DAY CREEK VILLAGE, LLC SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHLAND AVENUE AND DAY CREEK BOULEVARD LOCATION: 12223 HIGHLAND AVENUE -APN: 1089-121-10 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: General Requirements Completion Date 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents,officers,or employees, because of the issuance of such approval,or in the alternative,to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2' Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 12-09, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay any applicable Fish and Game fees as shown below. The project planner will confirm which fees apply to this project. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary priorto the Planning Commission or Planning Director hearing: a) Notice of Exemption - $50 X_ B. Time Limits 1. This tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the Engineering Services Department within 3 years from the date of the approval. • B-13 , Project No.SUBTPM19355 Completion Date C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans,architectural elevations,exterior materials and colors,landscaping,sign program,and grading on file in the Planning Department,the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, the Victoria Planned Community. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 3. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code,all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. D. Shopping Centers 1. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. 2. The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash and debris remain for more than 24 hours. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DEPARTMENT, FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING SERVICES AT, (909) 477-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: SEE RESOLUTION • • 2 B-14 Ae%vle w C'v PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-08 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT DRCDA01-01 January 25, 2012 Page 3 C. Recommendation. On the basis of the foregoing and the totality of the administrative record before it, the Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council approve Development Agreement Amendment DRCDA01-01, attached as Exhibit "A." The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Louis Munoz Jr., Chairman ATTEST: James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary I, James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 25th day of January 2012, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Al I'Ge-01cd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-09 SUBTPM19355— NL ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, INC. FOR DAY CREEK VILLAGE, LLC January 25, 2012 Page 2 f. The zoning of the properties to the east and south are, respectively, Low (L) and Low Medium (LM) Residential Districts. The zoning of the properties to the north is Village Commercial (VC) District and the zoning of the property to the west is Utility Corridor(UC) District. The subject shopping center is Village Commercial (VC) District. All properties, including the project site, are within the Victoria Planned Community; g. The application contemplates the subdivision of the subject parcel into two (2) parcels of 2 acres and 1.53 acre (Parcels 1 and 2, respectively); and h. The applicant does not propose any physical changes to the site such as modifications to the parking lot, landscaping, or vehicular access/circulation. As the site is fully developed, new construction of, for example, a building or installation of new minor improvements such as parking lot lights are not proposed. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above,this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed subdivision is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, the Victoria Planned Community, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The proposed project is to subdivide the property into two parcels and is consistent with the development district of the project site; b. The proposed subdivision, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed project is to subdivide the property into two parcels — no development of the site is proposed; and C. The proposed subdivision complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed subdivision meets all standards outlined in the Development Code, the Victoria Planned Community, and the design and development standards and policies of the Planning Commission and the City. 4. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project qualifies as a Class 15 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 — Minor Land Divisions - as the proposal is to subdivide the property into four parcels or less, is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning designations, no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent. In addition, there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on its own independentjudgment, concurs in the Staffs Determination of Exemption. 5. 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. Planning Department 4 Mimi L N � > o • � pn •� N 1 Q O ( L J C UOn N roan J 0 N On E i E E � • � fa ro o U f 1 IOU � V :3 C u O E � E u 1 4- R � O to O � V O U U L a L = 0 L cc O ° � • cc � F- Y 1 �j u c � > +.www«w W;. ».�si.:.w wY �u riW,, ...eym— •_..��Yrt+w�� i� 1 P. t i mini > U W N L cu i cu co 0 CL cu > v L o C� � � L > •- c O .O CD M E Mimi CU L O 401 . W CL U LL xow • • • • N m J • � * i \ 3 " • f' ���ray: ��'� r :�` � js 2 c ,F' 1 1F�'r1A .r y�} '}y K r �N Li .. . 7Ta, C L M O UAff R axe. Ixt. I. III i i 3 1 U .09 R > i o N LL (a 0 +, m ce L E cu (a E c .0 0. 1 KF. II IVIT1 7 !'1 c , J u L; � w I 1 E i AA V'' I a� cc J Mimi r co W � CYO a In I t q Vii' Ids T � j >1 _ ...w. ,.. cc L 1' c � cc JtAm \s W 1 Q > o K } � W L 1 ryaI > m J i l Mf �K e � � t Aw cu 0 C CU ., U `x o x V Jp p i .000 C y v pG •� .3° 6 m ¢ J A G 6 tiM c a J °o. l i H 'M. S� I �1P 5 y CL cu U T' L T I I I Y Bpi . 1 i 1 I a cu 0 CU 'cu U mini co N w N E L O -0 - Cl)m C L o� U '• �� i w U J a� �• O � r cz cc .7x c N N v m ✓ J r' vJ f vI IIJ cu 0 C L , .{ s ca E Q U Q 3 ` O w ce J �i L O 3 a� cn .c CD o '� _ • MS �r v 3 o L +� p g ca o � .� i c � cl) = O m +� L- cn CU (n° 3 0 OR J O o 3 a� O > E cc w Cl) . . NiMxiu6.W!sw'+i4+wJrwr . s i f W o L > E U O cn co (� cu co co � 0 O CD J _ cn Cc co � sifEEi sf �E � • a~ya 7 •— J Ix S Z O ! cz L y �Z i O L UJI ; a � 7 � N • f; °� Um jI J I s j U c co 0 ts am U � - A' 1 1 U O u Co _J I, i i i . �. t 1p�'•. R;• � { fl O � f I U r �w ca O o cn ai O O +, 4-j c O Y �' L O � , co � -j CL CU N O N i S c CU N O >1 > �.. L O a) U O O '� �' •� '�"� 2 1 LLJ IoW v� m J � v c� LL C N i i Cl) ca O L Q U cn _ C .cc Z V V N N V Q Co � u V t = !Q V COS J W V J ' 1 L v .O W -� Z c = °' c L ca 0 m 41 0 4.V' 4 '0 C Q 0 N J = ca _ .. O O c� v ~ .� U 'L Z N 0 O ,v) •- N _ •� r. U Z Q \. C O ' C Co L- i O O O c z > J U LL to C7 xoW � � y Uw / �� J Cl4b• O L cc Q> > C L co CL 0_ Co) - : O cn cu /7�"'" AJ � �i� � H• N OW W m f i f I r Mm o =a cu c cu ca o > 0 O ca o a� C (6 L i O co E: E U v O L L C%4 CZ- cu CL � 'L U O „ W ca H = Z U � Q m . - T J N� 1 O 1 _ 4• 1 P cl: cu cu cu 0 / CL .-. His CU U_ � J .L O 8 � p,A cc va �e941 yqi1� • �ti g4iSBE.rEg yyi-: �Cp ,fit ^*5ie �S'a. L,s.,; t at a7 fd �� ��9 f 9 P'A'Z:°4�5Z � ` •� a kill cu s% '�, s C W � v• a ' U } L) l m J L LM _ 0 O e , I = i C13 O ++ cn -�_A _e T__i ARCHIBALD �___.__. .____ ____.___._.f CL U O (Q [! Lm c Y 12 4 AVt/� b 22 s /, m i J i - L Q) O � W z W U _ LL y . ]4j � O a V 2 �� A On co 0 U++ > a ' U .0 L cu W E • 1 Y iii i w C.7 u Z > I .LOr AM L cc � L •rr,: az cc L Mimi cz cn a y� S U� J � y. is y 9 w In_ I U AL�. 1 J W Q LS tv C: `mil y e e E W 2 : / . }�{ \ \ - � } � \ • ! � � ,v • 2 ..\�: v. it +- .. r u � a LW O F ri ll # fPy. j Y l LLJ Nk I X a _ y U G a t � a •� , r,, o Q W A Cd N N z � J]]fj t � , u Z " w L G v' Q G � H _ ` K _ Hy yO 4 r � O W � � E Q O A x 3 J g H • � U 4� god x n J ' 2 a u U } S C r a ~ i6 \T^ y , .4� +9 • � ^gyp d � m 5 c C 15 J I S � 'r a rn tom' "� z W � 'lllllll18111�i � _ � 4 € II ,moo N � IIH � IIil1� z LVE E n � $ � E � r z y5 z V +iRq 8 g H` .o m I = N N N O H A lr N Q = O 0 (, a ^ r r 1 T O W ^, y r :J V Y V L JJ i Cam' e 1 ,q 'V invnn \ �1AA ( _.. MINI) IiUCI rlej v,vrl V 4A C c O 9 IF ti s .g c G r $ B 'r are'. e N b j{oJ ee ,Z_ �i _ G > X Biller �i_i �•if �' cr Lam : } qq r �i:u Uw�y - -' ,t o }•s �! w 2 ! -Fr , .�i iv IM- � O Ir , 8 � a R:� GS G i w ire: J CL LW , I � 1l �J Z t � an x 4 l'i x w w 5 F � L642T�ti�Y•��f .ryaM' u Oyl � • l�l t I:.fr L W: t �r � y�♦ "t L� wt•I F 1. I 3 Q � 4 ti 4. Y. . E �1 0 i i •� m z ' ✓�c, �i 09 O �J w O _ #• m x vggyy � = O R5 w fu G INr `aF' �Y >t, a C rJ L * pE — x F � - � 5f10�� _ 4•u 2. g 11,ON E / » ± f � t0 } 6 b / R6 / § % ! & / + = * = ) 2 / a � 2eG7 § 2 / § / , 3 ® o 2 � ] u , a , G ; t ) » ® we@ ± y m ] » » / gm � 3gg8 $ ( ) } co g IhN ) »,« \ As z \ \ < ! + | � � soft~ ^ & �\\ � } m - f! ; ( \ . � f ) f § ( • . � � ! a / � } / f { *17T } \ \f | ; 7 . j � t. ,._...�• .. . C f _ U r I 4' 3 o z E r uj W WA Lai o e 1 O f N � i « O U E c.fig °u n$ W U . y d 0 yy N„ O L O N U L - o O m U "M O . U(/� $ d d 10 g O d m 0 CZlNd F- C .QmN E,.EV5 "' N C Cd NCSdL 5 ;m.. VL° ' 8c� �y • cc IF d � ��Y y � O OC V N j•.!� � 04 O)d d d N E d _N C d O N a A C q « m ; O N .0 C «yyOdOd Nd. �. mmUC y _ d« yNd ._.Y b o y d N M R d .2 C . N O O=J CO L 2.2 « C r O O d N C C OI E U C ° d NV m E DLO 7i w d r0 « � « 6H N yyd'U �d C C � 11 O N N D7 d ct m y N e°-r N d ro N V t p \ O(!I V 5 a Ed- cv � ° H ; � am5s y u 'c m O y` m ° 2 f E o'rn� E '� m u £ m d O M 0 E 15 m 'c8 8 A m 45 0 L a• C y O LI d C �p O � '°' r N �9 • o y E ° y Ni W • m cu � r vc nmO to ZL d U U I t . tar i i -! k \ } \2a § : ; ! 9 = /\ E• : ; ! i ! ` } \! E { $ {\)\ t ) } { fi + + ; 7 ;k ({ . \ ƒ% ( ®| §- ! � E- » |° kr! § ! ,\ ®) f &■i ! !4 � � !« ! �\ ${ i) / §; ) \ Z {) ! # {f{w \$ + ) | ! ! !® ` � )§ /! e {\ (/} X16 . _ 0 N N o Lo a a c l7 a H rn c 3y8 m 0 ¢ On �.� a M OLL� i a zw NN O � w m CYry O AL a � ,vim- Q o Un W C� Z E > ca o Q W 1 yky 1 �f i f L Ca 4 �• C6 c6 O � X Co Mimi cu cmu .CIO Ali � r � . w F N W U T n N w U� m J i A ; r 1' r � r 0 U 2 CD f_ _ C L = N O cm V � ^ O cu V E_ b C c N W Vv . U X. � m 1 u I L L Q N N 0 � U Q 5 0 N on In cu cVn V � � .. 'c in V ca i0 c :3 L i^ ro s O O }' .� c6 � J 0! V E v O r 0 0 (a O V V 0 a..+ � s 4-J ro c u O a L. u v z C C N U L = � o J C` o u c) u o 0 O ^ C 4-0 U L c: 41 O O u o a� UE L L N 4-J 4-j • V r6 c! M v •� 00 �C U- u L 2 cy Q) 4-J > 0O i Ln i ra N Y < w V Lj E H 1 v m �� Ly' SIGN-IN SHEET �..,.� HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING RANCHO CUUCAMONGA January 25, 2012 NAME COMPANY ADDRESS/EMAIL LZ { e NL L,