Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/07/17 - Agenda PacketCITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REGULAR MEETINGS 1st and 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 p.m. July ; ~, iss> Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 •kM City Councilmembers Dennis L. Stout, Mayor William J. Alexander, Councilmember Charles J. Ruquet, Councilmember Diane Williams, Councilmember Pamela J. Wright, Councilmember •rt+ Jack Lam, City Manager James L. Markman, City Attorney Debra J. Adams, City Cferk City Office 989-1801 ~ p ~' -~ ~~~}^- City Council Agenda t i July 17, 1991 1 A31 itsss subsittad for the Citp Council Ageada oust be in ~ xritiag. The deadline for subsittiag these itess is 5t00 p.s. oa the Wednaaday prior to the seetiog. Tba City Clerk's office receives all such Stns. A. Cnr.T TO OADBR 1. Aoll Call: Buquet _, Alexander , Stout _, W1111amA and w.i..6t B• ANNOUNCHt6NM1'B /PRRBSNTATIONS C. COMNVNICATZONS PROM TNa PUBLIC Tbis is the tLe and place for the general public to address the City Council. Stets lax prohibits the Citp Council frog addressing say issue not previously included oa the Ageada. The city Council suy receive teatisoay sad tat the utter for e subsequent seating. Cossents ere to ba Bailed to five sinutes per i¢div idual. D CON_ SBN'l C.~aunpA The following Consent Calendar items ere expected to be routine and eon-controversial. Thep will bs stied upon by the Council st owe tine witbout discussion. Any Sias uy be resoved by a Couneilsesber os aeaber of the audience for discussion. 1. Approval of Minutes: June 5, 1991 June 13, 1991 June 19, 1991 (Alexander absent) July 1, 1991 2. Approval of Warrant e, Register N¢a. 6/26/91, 7/3/91 and 1 7/10/911 and Payroll entling 6/20/91 for the total amount of 5927,895.12. 3. Approval to receive and file current Investme::t Schedule 12 ae of June 30, 1991. 4. Alcoholic Beverage Application for Off-Sale Beer & Wine 16 for Smart & Final, Smart S Final Stores Corporation, 8675 ease Line Road. v~ '~ ^- , . , J~yy~ City Council Agenda ~[ , !;(y~ July 17, 1991 lVl IS.~K 2 5. Alcoholic Eeverage Application for Off Sale Beer 5 Wine 18 for Ron 5he11ey's Chevron, Ronald L. Shelley, 8687 ease Line Road. o. Approval to authorise the Adverti6ement of the "Notice 21 Inviting Bide" for the Heritage Park Ballfield Lighting Improvement Project ae budgeted in the 1991-92 Fiscal Year Budget. 7. Approval of Puhl c~ c.ae... .. -- _~ ;,,, ,uac ion ox e LL a reeolution supporting legislative efforte to empower peace offieere to remove unsafe coaraercial vehicles from streets end highways. RESOLUTION NO. 91-158 Z~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS TO EMPOWER PROPERLY TRAINED PEACE OFPICERS TO REMOVE VNSAFE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES FROM STREETS ANO HIGHWAYS 5. Approval of Hap Parcel Map 12779, located On the north 28 aide of Banyan Street, east of Deer Cseek Channel, eubmitted by Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Ageney. RESOLUTION NO. 91-189 Q9 A RESOLUTION OF THH CSTY COUNCL' OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP N0. 12779 9. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement and 31 Improvement 5ecur it iea for Tract 13565-1 thru Tract 13565-4, located north of 24th Street and Hast of Wardman Bullock Road and release of previously eubmitted Improvement Agreement and Improvement Securities accepted by the County of San Bernartlino on October 3, 1988, and transferred to tl~e City of Rancho Cucamonga on November 1, 1559, both submitted by Standard Pacific, L.P. AESOLUTI ON NO, 91-190 33 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CZTY OF RANCHO CVCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IHPAOVEPiENT SECURITIES FOR TRACT 13565-1 TNRU TRACT 13565-4 AND RELEASING THE ~~,~ z ~ ~(~ City Council Agenda ((.VVYLL July 17, 1991 3 INPAOVEliBNT AGREEMENT AND SMPROVEMENT a SECURITIES PAA VIOUSLY ACCEPTED BY THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNAA11IN0 ON OCTOBER 3, 1988, AND TRANSFERRED TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ON NOVEHBER 1, 1989 10. Approval to execute Flood Control District, Zone 1 3$ Almond Intercept Common Uee Agreement No. YA 18906 (CO 91-041) for Box Culverts at Skyline Road and Almond ABSOLUTION NO. 91-191 36 A RESOLUTION OF TH8 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING COOPEAATI VE AGREEEfl;NT WITH BAN BEANARDSNO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT POR IMPROVEMENTS AT SKYLINE ROAD AND ALMOND STREET 11. Approval to execute contracts for computer hardware and 38 software maintenance with NBI znc. (CO 91-042y in the amount of $14, 292.OC, Prime Computer (CO 91-043) in the amount of $32,747.00, and Weetek Computer (CO 91-044) in the amount of $34,200.00, to 6e funded from Contract Services Account Number 33-4130-6028 for Fiscal Year 1991/92. 12. Approval to execute Renewal Agreement for the Citywide 39 Emergency and .=o .ins Ei.aa.:,,ant Pavement Fapatx, Shoulder Grading, and Debris Removal Annual Maintenance Contract (CO 89-132) with Laird Construction of Rancho Cucamonga, California, for the amount of $85,000.00 to be funded by Recount Number 01-6647-6028. 13. Approval to accept Improvements, Release of Bonds and 40 Notice of Completion for Tract 13662, located on the southeast corner of Baee Line Road and Haven Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 91-192 Q1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 13662 AND AUTHOR R ING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK A ~ ~ City Council Agenda ' i July 17, 1991 4 14. Approval to Vacate a Portion of an Alley located south 42 a of Ninth Street from Vinmar to Sierra Hadre Avenues, setting the data of Public Hearing for August 7, 1991, and waiving administration Eoe for vacation request. RESOLUTION NO. 9i-193 43 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AANCHO CUCAHONGA, CALIFORNIA, __.,,..._.,.. -.C :..__ ___ -„ vnvn'a's a a'UN'1'lUN OP AN ALLEY LOCATED 60UTH OP NINTN STREET PAOM VINMAR TO SIEANA NADRE AVENUES E. CONSBNT ORDINANCES The following Ordinances Dsvs Dad public hearingn at the tine of first reading. 6ecoad readings are expected to ba routine sad non-coatroveraial. They will be aetsd upon by !be Council at one tine without diacuaslan. The City clerk will reed the tilU. Any iten tea bs reeoved for diacuaeion. No Items Submitted. $,_ ADVERTISED PUBLZC REARINOS Tha following items have been advertised sad/or potted ea public hearings as requiretl by law. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testieeay. 1. CONEIOERATION OF ENVIAONM.ENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTAT~V~ 47 PARCEL HAP 13693 - LVNA - An appeal of the Planning Commisaion'e decision to require that Parcel 2 take arcane from Northridge Drive £or a residential subdivision of. one acre o£ land into two parcels in the Very Low Residential District located on the north aide of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - APN 201-182- 29 (related file: Variance 91-04). (ITEM cONTINVED FROM JULY 3, 1991) RESOLUTION N0. 91-182 104 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CSTY CF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A AE¢UEST FOR A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, NUMBER 13693, TO SUBDIVIDE 1.0 ACRE INTO 2 PARCELS IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF NORTNR IDGE DRIVE, WEST OF HAVE AVENUE - APN: 2U1-182-29 ~A~.' ~\ V T` ~ .eY ~ ~~~~ City Council Agenda July 17, 1991 5 2. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE FHE RESOLUTION 1~J ~ hOR PE AN U 5 O OV S VIC RESOLVTION NO. 91-194 1Q9 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NOS. 79-1, 79-1-A, 79-1-B, 79-7, 79-31, 81-66, 81-66-A, BS- -ioo, gnu aa'rgaL1JH1NG A NEW COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCNEDULB FOR PERMITS AND SERVICES PROVIDED BY ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS, TNS RANCHO CUCAHONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA POLICE DEPARTMENT 3. CON T N O NV RON A ASS SM AND G N 133 PL N KENT 90-028 GA U 6 PART RSHIP - A request to amend the General Plan Lantl Use Hap from Mod ium Residential (6-14 dwelling unite per acre) to Commercial for 10.89 acres of land located on the north aide of Foothill Boulevard east of Etiwanda Avenue. The City Council will also consider Low Medium Residential (4-6 dwelling unite pez acre) and office ae alternative land use deeignat ions - APN: 1100-161-D4. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Commercial deeignat ion and issuance of a Negative Declaration. CONS_S IDERATION OF ENV ON ENT ASS S MEN HZL EJ. EVP.P.D SF P•AN -eN -sN^ -" G OUP 66 ' PARTNERSHIP - A Yequeet to amend the FOOthill HoulevaYd Specific Plan Land Use Map in Subarea 4 from medium Residential (6-14 dwelling unite per acre) to Community Commercial for 10.89 acres of land lOCatetl ont he north aide of Foothill Boulevard east of Etiwande Avenue. The City Council will also consider Law Medium Residential (4-B dwelling unite per acre), Commercial Otf ice, and Specialty Commercial ae alternative land use designations - APN: 1100-161-04. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Community Commercial designation and issuance of a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION NO. 91-195 171 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TEL. CITY OF RANCHO WCANONCA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-02B AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND OSE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESZDENTIAL (H-14 DWELLING UNITS PER i i City Council Agenda _~ July 17, 1991 fi ACRE) TO COMMERCIAL (WITH A RASTER PLAN REQVIAEMENT OE SIGNATION) FOR 10.89 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, EAST OP ETIWANDA AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-161-04 RESOLVTION NO. 91-196 174 H IWnVLVl1Vn w.r..~.I ~..- ` CUCAHONGA, CALIFORNIA, CITY OF RANCHO APPROVING FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDHENT 90-03 AMENDING THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM NEDIUK RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO COHMVNITY COMMERCIAL (WITH A MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT DESIGNATION) FOA 10.89 ACRES OP LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTX SIDE OP FOOTHILL BOVLEVARD, EAST OP BTIWANDA AVENUE, AND HARING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-161-04 i~~ 4. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ANO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-OlA - PLANNING NETWOAE - A request to amend the General Plan Land Uae Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling unite par acre) to Commercial for 2.0 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. Tne City Council will also con eider Law Medium Residential (4-B dwelling unite par acre) a:~ Office as alteraa! :~e land use designations - APN: 1100-161-02. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Commercial designation and issuance of a Negative Declaration. CONS IDEAATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 - PLANNING NETWOHI( - A ragas et to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Use Map in Subarea 4 from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling unite per acre) to Community Commercial for 2.0 acres of land located on the no Ytheaet corner of Foothill Boulev aid and Etiwanda Avenue. The City Council will also consider Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling unite per acre), Commercial Office, and specialty commercial as alteznat ive land use designations - APN: 1100-161-02. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Community Commercial des Lgnat ion and issuance of a Negative Oeclarat ion. v ^' < ,ti City Council Aganda July 17, 1991 7 RESOLVTION NO. 91-197 214 , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-OlA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USS MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PEA ACRE) TO A COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION WITH A MASTER PLAN AEQUIREIffiNT FOA 2.0 ACRES OF uanu uuCwl'EU ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ETIWANDA AVENUE, AND MAKING PINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEIL40F - APN: 1300-161-02 REBOLUTION N0. 91-198 21~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH8 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 AMENDING THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN LAND VSE MAP FROM MEDTVM RESIDENTIAL (8-34 DWELLING UNITS PEA ACRE) TO A COMMONITY COMIgACIAL DESIGNATION WITH A MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT POR 2.0 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ETIWANDA AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-1fi1-02 5. J'R •:MD1:T~ nS56S5 T aND GENE LAN AMENDMEN 22O 93-026 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the Genecal Plan Land Use Map from Medium Reeident ial (e-14 dwe111ng unite per acre) to Low Medium Reeident ial (4-e dwelling unite per acre) for the following subareas within the Etiwanda and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan areas: 1. Approximately 14.20 acres bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the east by the eastern City lim it e, on the south by existing Low Medium Residential designated lantl, and on the west by a utility corridor. The Planning CamnSaeion recommends denial. - APN: 229-041-30. 2. Approximately 18.46 acres bordered on the north by the Foothill Boulevertl Specific Plan boundary, which ie approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; on the east by a utility corridor; on the booth by Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The City Council will also consider PAGE s ,n •~' 1'~ ' [[ City Council Agenda i~~~,,ii.(~~(;: ~ ~( duly 17, 1991 ~~ tt~v 8 Commercial and Office ae alternnt ive land use a deeignat ions for this entire area. The Planning Commies ion recommends approval of the Commercial tleeignation for the propert tee from Etiwanda Avenue to approximately 1,277 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue and the Office designation for the rest of the properties in this subarea. - APN: 1100-161-O1 through 04 and a portion of 3100-201-G1. _. :.rr.....:.,,o:e:y i7.oa acres pordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-15) Preewey, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Hedium Residential designnted land, and on the south by commercially designated land bordering Poothi 11 Boulevard. The City Council will also eoneideY Low Residential (2-4 dwelling unite per acre) ae an alternative land uee deei9natlon for this entire area. The Planning Comoiesion has no recommendation. - APNS 227-211-02, 04, 09, 09, 30, 15, 20 and 29. 4. Approximately 87.52 acres bordered on the north by Miller Avenue; on the east by Eaet Avenue and a utility corridor; on the south by the Poothlll Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which ie approximately 530 feet north of Foothill eouleva: d; and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. Tne City Council will also consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling unite per acre) ae an alternative lend uee designation for this entire area. The Planning Commies ion recommends approval. - APN: 1100-73]-Ol and 02, 1_ -.. and 02, i300-151-U1 and V 02, 1100-181-01 and 02 , and 1100-191-01. 5. Approximately 30.72 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the east Dy East Avenue and exiatinc Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by Hiller Avenue. The City Council will also cons ideY LoW Residential (2-6 dwelling unite per acre) ae an alternative land uee designation foz this entire area. The Planning Commi se ion has no recommendation. -APNS 1100-031-Oe, 1100-041-04 through 30, 1]00-051-D3, and 1100-061-02 through 04 and portions of 1100-071-01 and 02. 6. Approximately 11.09 acres bordered on the north by Baae Line Aoad, on the aoutheast by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, and on the west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land. The City Council will also '/`~ 1 ~Y sty rn~,.,^cii Aye: ~. ~ . ~ ^ July 17, 1991 lVl ' , consider office and Neighborhood commercial ae alternat lve land use des ignatlons far this entire area. The Planning Commise ion recommends denial. - APN: 1]00-051-01 and 02 and 1100-061-01. 7. Approximately 10.09 acres bordered on the north and west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by existing Office deeignatetl land, and on the south by ease Line Road. ~;,a „__ ~nuncil will also coneidar office as an alternative land use deeignatwu c th'4 antire area. The Planning commission recommends approval. - APN: 227-131-34 through 36, 52 through 54, and 61. e. Approximately 20.34 scree bordered on th¢ north by the Southern PncifLc railway, on the east by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the south by existing office designa<ed land, and on the west by existing Low Medium designated land and divided Ln a nocth-south direction by East Avenue. The City Council will also consider Low Resident ial (2-4 dwelling unite psi acre) ae an alternative lantl use designation fot this antire area. The Planning Commission recommends approval for the properties west of fast Avenue and denial far the propert ire east of Eaet Avenue. - APN: 227-131-OS and 229-141-14 and 66. The Planning Commission recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC ZZI nLnN AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the Foothill Bculevard Specific Flan Land Vse Map from Medium Residential (B-14 dwelling unite per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-e dwelling unite peY acre) for the following aubazeas within the Foothill eoulev and Specific Plan: 1. Apptox imately 14.20 acres bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the east by the eastern City limits, on the south by existing Low Metlium Residential designatetl land, and on the west by a utility corridor. The Planning Commission recommends denial. - APN: 229-041-10. 2. Approximately 18.46 scree bordered on the north by the Foothill Boulevard SpeciF is Plan 8cundary, which is approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; on the east by a utility corridor; on the south by Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etlwantla Avenue. The City Council will also consider Community Commercial, Commercial Office, and Sped.alty .^.ommercial n PA - City Council Agenda July 17, 1991 `Vl 10 ee alternative land use deaignationa foY this entire i area. Th¢ Planning Comanieeion recommends approval of the Community Commercial designation for the properties from Etiwandn Avenue to approximately 1,277 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue and tho Commercial Office designation for the rest of the properties in this subarea. - APN: 1100-161-01 through 04 and a portion of 1300-201-01. The Planning Commission recammenda issuance of a Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIPIC P"AN AMENDMENT 91-03 - CITX OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan Land Uss Nap from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling unite per acre) to Low Metl ium Rosidential (4-8 dwelling unite per acre) for the following eubar¢ae within the Etiwanda Specific Plan: 1. Approximately 27.89 acres bordered on the northwest by the Onterlo (I-15) Freeway, an the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium AeeidentLal designated land, and on the south by commercially designated land bordering Focth111 Boulevard. The City Council will also consider Low Rae idential (2-4 dwelling unite per acre) ae an alternative land use des ignat ior. for this entire area. The Planning Commise ion hoe no zecommendat ion. - APN: 227-211 -02, 04, O5, 09, 10, 15, 20, and 29. 2. Approximately 87.52 acres bordered on the Werth Gy Miiinr Avenue; on the east by Eaet Avenue and a utility corridor; on the south by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which ie approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The City Council will also consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling unite per acre) as an alternative land use deaignat ion for this entire area. The Planning Commission recommends approval. - APN: 1100-131-01 and 02, 1100-141-01 and 02, 1100-151-01 and 02, 1100-181-01 and 02, and 1100-191-01. 3. Approximately 30.72 acres bordered on the notthwest by the Ontario (I-15) Preeway, on the east by East Avenue and exi et in9 Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue. The City Council will also consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling unite per acre) ae an alternative land use designation for this entire area. The Planning Commission hoe no recommendation. - APN: 3100-031-08, 1100-041-04 through 10, 1100-051-03, and 1100-061-02 through 04 and part ions of 1100-071.01 and 02. _~~ City Council Agenda ~ .___ n July 17, 1991 V 11 4. Approximately 31.09 scree bordered on the ~ north by ease Ltne Road, on the southeast by the Ontario (I-16) Freeway, and on the west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land. The City Council will also consider office Professional and Convenience Commercial ae alternative land use dseignatione for this enkira area. The Planning Commission recommends denial. -APN: 1100-051-01 and 02 and 1100-061-01. 5. Approz imately 10.09 scree bordered on the north and west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by existing Office desLgnated land, and on the south by ease Llna Aoad. The City Council will also consider Office Professional ae an alternative land use designation for this entire area. The Planning Commission recommends approval. - i APN: 227-1'+L-~3n through 36, 52 the ough 54, and 6]. ( 6. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by the Southern Pacific railway, on the east by the Ontario (I-19) Freeway, on the south by existing office desiynated land, and on the west by ex Set ing I.ow Medium designated land and divided ir. a north-south direction by Eaet Avenue. The City Council will also caneider Low Residential (2-4 dwell inq unite par acre) ae an alternat ivs land use deeignat ion for this entire area. The Planniny COmmission recommends approval for the properties west of Ea et Avenue and denial for the properties east of East Avenue. - APN: 227-131-06 and 227-id1-18 and 66. Tne Planning COmmiseion recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION NO. 91-199 344 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-028, SUBAREA 1, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLZNG UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-R DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPAO%IMATELY 14.20 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY FOOTHILL eOULEVAAD, ON THE EAST BY THE EASTERN CITY LIMITS, ON THE SOUTH BY E%ISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESICNATEO LAND, AND ON THE WEST BY A UTILITY CORRIDOR, ANO MAXZNG FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-041-SO q PAGE ~ i .v"~ City Council Agenda July 17, 1991 12 347 ~ RE$GLDT 30N NO. 91-20C A RESOLUTION OF TNS CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02, SUBAREA 1, A REQUEST ^_b AMEND TH8 FOC1'HILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE HAP PROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (H-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPRO%IlUTELY 14.20 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, ON THE EAST eY THE EASTERN CITY LIMITS, ON THE SOUTH BY EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESICNATED LAND, AND ON THE WEST BY A UTILITY CORRIDOR, AND HARING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-041-10 RESOLUTION NO. 91-201 3S~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-028, SUBAREA 2, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LANG USE MAP PROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO A COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION WITH A MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT FOR APPAOX IMATELY 4.25 ACRES OP LAND 430 BEET NORTH AND 200 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FWTHILL BOULEVARD AND ETIWANDA AVENUE (APNS 1100-161-03 AND 03), AND TO AN OFFICE DESIGNATION WITH A MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT POR APPROXIMATELY 1.5 ACRES BORDERED ON THE NORTH AND WEST BY EXISTING MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, ON THE EAST BY A UTILITY CORRIDOR, ANO ON THE SOUTH eY FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, (WESTERN PORTION OF APN: 1100-201-01), A.ND MAKING FINDINGB IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-161-01 AND 03 AND A PORTION OF 1100-201-01 RESOLUTION NO. 91-202 354 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY CF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02, SVHAREA 2, AMENDING THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE 0 City Council Agenda July 17, 1991 13 HAP FROM HEDSUM RHEIDENTIAL (B-14 DWELLING r UNITS PEA ACRE) TO A COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION WITH A MASTER PLAN RH(jU IRE!',ENT FOA APPAO%IHATELY 4.25 ACRES OF LAND 430 FEET NORTH AND 200 FEHT EAST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOVLEVARD AND ETIWANDA AVENUB (APNt 1100-161-01 AND 03), AND TO A CONMBRCZAL OFFICB DESIGNATION WITH A MASTER PLAN ABQVIREHENT FOR APPRO%IlSATELY 1.5 ACRES BORDERED ON THE NORTH AND WEST BY E%ISTING MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LANG, ON THE EAST BY A UTILITY CORRIDOR, AND ON TH8 SOUTH HY FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, (WESTERN PORTION OF APN: 3100-201-01), AND MAEI NG FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEAHOP - APN: 1100-161-01 AND 03 AND A PORTION OF lloo-zol-O1 RESOLUTION NO. 91-203 358 A RESOLUTION OF THH CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-020, S VBAAEA 3, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITR PER ACAS) FOA APPROXIMATELY 27.69 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTHWEST BY THE ONTARIO (1-1~) FREEWAY, ON THE EAST BY ETIWANOA AVENUE AND EXISTING LOW t4:D IUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE SOUTH BY EXISTING COMMERCIAL DESIGNATED LAND BORDERING FOOTHILL HOVLEVARO, AND MAEING PINDINGS IN SVPPOAT THEREOF - APN: 227-211-02, 04, O5, 09, 10, 15, 20, AND 29 ORDINANCE NO. 450 (first wading) 351 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, SUAAREA lr AMENDING THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE HAP FROM MEDI UH RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACAS) FOR APPROXIMATELY 27.89 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTHWEST BY THE ONTARIO (I-15) FREEWAY, ON THE EAST BY ETIWANOA AVENVE AND E%ISTING LOW MEDIUM PAGE i City Council Agenda (1 July 17, 1991 V 16 RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE ~ SOUTH BY EXISTING COMMERCIAL DESIGNATED LAND BORDERING FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-211-02, 04, 0E, 09, 10, 15, 20, AND 29. RESOLUTION N0. 91-204 364 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING GENERAL PLAN AlDENDNHNT 91-028, SUEAiIEA 3, A ABQUES2 TO AMEND TN8 GHNHAAL PLAN LAND USE MAP PROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-34 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UN TTS PEA ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 27.89 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTHWEST 8Y THE ONTARIO (I-15) FREEWAY, ON THE EAST BY ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL D&SIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE SOUTN BY EXISTING COMMERCIAL DESIGNATED LAND BOADERI NC FOOTHILL BOULEVAADr AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SVPPORT THHAEOF - APN: 227-211-02, 04, O5, 09, 10, 15, 20, AND 29. RESOLUTION NO. 91-205 368 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA, CALIYOAN IA, DENYING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA 1, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LANG USE MAP PROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACAS) FOA APPROXIMATELY 27.89 AGREE OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTNWEST eY THE ONTARIO (I-15) FREEWAY, ON THE EAST BY ETIWANDA AVENUE AND E%ISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DES IGNATEO LAND, ?ND ON THE EOVTH BY EXISTING COtR:ERCIAL DESIGNATED LAND BORDERING FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 227-211-02r 04, OB, 09, 30, 15, 20, AND 29 RESOLUTION NO. 91-206 3J1 A AESOLUTI ON OF TY.E CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENEINL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-028, n F 1 City council Agenda ^ lVl .IUly 17, 1991 15 SUBAREA 4, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO A LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (9-8 DWELLING VNITS PER ACAS) DESIGNATION WITH A MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT FOR APPROXIMATELY 87.52 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH 8Y MILLER AVENUE; ON THE EAST 8Y EAST AVENUE AND A UTILITY CORRIDOR? ON THE SOUTH BY THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PI.A37 BOUNDARY, WHICN IS APPRO%IRATELY 530 FEET NORTH OF POOTHII.L BOULEVARD; AND ON THE WEST BY 6TIWANDA AVENUE, AND RASING FINDINGS IN SVPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-131-01 AND 02, 1100-041-01 ANO 02, 1100-151-01 AND 02, 1100-181-01 AND 02, AND 1300-191-01 ORDINANCE NO. 451 (fizet reading) 37$ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO WCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA 2, AMENDING THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND UEE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-16 DWELLING UNITE PEA ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM PESIDENTIAL (4-9 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) DESIGNATION WITH A MASTER PLAN REQVIREMENT FOA APPROX LMATELY 87.52 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY MILLER AVENUE) ON THE EAST BY EAST AVENUE AND A UTILITY CORRIDOR) ON THE SOUTH BY THE FOOTHILL BOVLEVAAD SPECIPIC PLAN BOUNDARY, WHICH IS APPAOX IRATELY 530 FEET NORTH OF FOOTHILL 6OULEVAAD; AND ON THE WEST BY ETI WANDA AVENUE, AND MARZNG FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 3100-131-01 AND 02, 1100-141-U1 AND 02, 1100-151-01 AND 02, 1100-1H1-O1 AND 02, 1300-191-01 RESOLUTION NO. 91-207 3)9 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02 B, SUBAREA 5, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIVM RESIDENTIAL (E-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACAS) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-B DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 30.72 ACAEE OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTHWEST BY THE ONTARIO , City COnncil Agenda July 17, 1991 16 (I-15) FREEWAY, ON THE EAST BY EAST AVENUE ~ ANO EXISTING LOW MEDIUM AE3IOENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE SOVTH BY HILLER AVENUE, AND HARING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-031-08, 1:00-041-04 THROUGH 10, 1100-051-03, ANO 1100-061-02 THROUGH 04, AND PORTIONS OP 1100-071-01 AND 02 URD1Na[IUC nom. rv- (: •e. .G..--n, iRi AN ORDINANCE OP THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CTTY OP RANCHO CUCAMONCA, CALIFOAN IA, APPROVING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC kLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA 3, AMENDING THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LANG USE MAP PROM NEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (B-14 DWELLING VNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (0-8 DWELLING UNIT5 PER ACRE) FOA APPRO%IMATELY 30.72 ACRES of LAND BORDERED ON THE N^RTHWEST BY THE ONTARIO (2-15) FREEWAY, ON THE EAST BY EAST AVENVE AND EXISTING LOW MEDIVM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE SOUTH BY MILLER AVENUE, AND MAXING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-031-OBr 1100-041-04 THROUGH 30, 1100-051-03, 1100-061-02 THROUGH 04, AND PORTIONS OF 1100-071-01 AND 02 Fv".SOLUTI OI: No. 91-2 es 386 A RESf,LUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITY OF PANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAI,I PORNIA, DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02 B, SVBAREA 5r A REQUEST TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LANG USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PEA ACAS) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING VN ZT3 PEA ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 30.72 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTHWEST BY THE ONTARIO (I-15) FREEWAY, ON THE EAST BY EAST AVENUE AND EXISTING LOW MEDIVM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE SODTH 8Y MILLER AVENUE, AND MA%ING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-041-04 THROUGH 10, 1100-051-03, AND 1100-061-02 THROUGH 04, AND PORTIONS OF 1100-071-01 AND 02 P i R-r~ Ciiy CounCll Agenda i July 17, 1991 17 RESOLUTION N0. 91-209 390 ~ A REEOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CVCAMONGA~ CALIFOANIA~ DENYING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA 3, A REQVEST TO AMEND THE ETIWANDA 3PECZ FIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (E-14 DWELLING UNITS PEA ACRE) TO LOW MEDIVM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 _.____ _ _. _ _ nbnnl svn MY rnVU Wnl ni.x n x,r x~ 30.72 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON TH% NORTHWEST 8Y THE ONTARIO (E-16) PREEWAY~ ON THE EAST BY EAST AVENUE AND EXISTING LOW MED 7SM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, ANO ON THE SOUTH BY HILLER AVENUE, ANO HARING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-031-OB, 1100-041-04 THROUGH 10, 1100-051-03, 1100-061-OZ THROUGH O4, AND PORTIONS OF 1300-071-01 ANO 02 RESOLUTION NO. 91-210 393 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA~ CALIFORNIA, DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-028 SUBAREA 6, A AEQUE ST TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (H-14 DWELLING VNZTS PER ACRE) TO L(1W MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PEA ..*.CF.Ej FOA AFPRO%IY.A TELY 11.C9 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY BASE LINE ROAD, ON THE SOVTHEAST HY THE ONTARIO (I-15) FREEWAY, ANG ON THE WEST HY EXISTING LOW MEOI UM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LANDS AND HARING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-051-01 AND 02 AND 1100-061-01 RESOLUTION ND. 91-211 39] A RESOLU?ION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA~ CALIFORNIA, DENYING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA 4, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND VSE MAP FROH MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (B-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW HEDIUM Ri.S IDENTIAL (4-B DW2LLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 11.09 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY BASE LINE ROAD, ON THE SOUTHEAST BY THE ONTARIO (I-15i FREEWAY, AND ON THE WEST BY ~ P ~~ p, :" ''Ffw : ~! i ~ City council Agenda July 17, 1991 18 EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED ' LAND, AND M11P.ING FINDINGS ZN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-051-01 AND 02 ANO 1100-061-01 RESOLUTION NO. 91-212 400 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA, CALI FOANIA, , r ' PLAN LAND AMENOING THS GENSAAL SUBAREA 7, US8 HAP FROM MEDIUM RBSZDBNTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRES TO LOW MED IVH RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 10.09 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH AND WEST BY EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, ON THE EAST BY EX. u'i :NG OFFICE DHSIGNATED LAND, ANO ON THE SOUTH BY BASE LINE ROAD, AND MAXING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-331-34 THROUGH 36, 52 THROUGH 54, AND bl ORDINANCE NO. 453 (first reading) 403 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MNCHO CVCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APFROVING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 41-03, SUBAREA 5, AMENDING THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN Lngn UeE y_RP FRCN ADiD:UM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 10.09 ACRES OF LAND 60RDERED ON THE NOATII AND WEST BY EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, ON THE EAST HY EXISTING OFFICE/PROFESSIONAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE SOUTH BY BASE LINE ROAD, AND HAXING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-i31-34 THROUGH 36, 52 THROUGH 54, AND 61 RESOLUTION NO. 91-213 406 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-028: WEST PORTION OF SUBAREA 8, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE HAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITB PEA ACAS) PA -r~ 'Ti ~ ~ v i (n z,',+ City Council Agenda ~ July 17, 1991 19 TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-B DWELLING ~ UNZTS PRR ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 30 ACRES OP LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH HY THE SOVTHEAN PACIFIC RAILWAY, ON THE EAST BY EABT AVENVE, ON THE SOUTN BY EXISTING OFFICE DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE WEST eY EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND - AFN: 227-141-14 AND 66( AND DENIAL OF THE EABT PORTION OP SUHAREA 8, iWV~~+i i::.: - mcn~ au acncwu. Fuw irfNU • USE FfAP IN THE SAMB MANNER AS THE WEFT PORTION FOR APPROXIMATELY 10.34 ACRES OF LAND 80RDERED ON TH8 NORTH 8Y THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY, ON THE EAST AHD SOUTH BY THE ONTARIO (I-15) FAEEWAY~ AND ON THE WEST BY EAST AVENUE - APN: 227-131-05, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOP OP.D INANCE NO. 454 (firer reading) 410 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO COCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, WENT PORTION OF SUBAREA 6, AMENDING THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PEA ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS ?ER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 10.00 ACRES OP LAND BORDERED .,.. ..... iIORTFS HY TFiE SOUTR-cRH PACLFiC RAILWAY, ON THE EAST BY EAST AVENVE, ON THB SOUTH eY EXISTING OFFICE DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE WEST BY EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND - APN: 227-i41-14 ANO 66 AND MAXING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF RESOLUTION NO. 91-214 413 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, EAST PORTION OF SUBAREA 6, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PIJfH LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESLDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) YOA APPROXIMATELY 10.34 ACRES OF LAND BOMEAEO ON THE NORTH BY THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY, ON THE EAST AND SOUTH BY 0A G.I`C- City Council Agenda 1~'-`( Suly 17, 1991 lJ 20 THE ONTARIO (I-15) FREEWAY, AND ON THE WEST e BY EAST AVENUE - APN: 227-131-06, AND MR%TNG FINDINGB IN SUPPORT THEREOF O. PVBLIC HEARINGS The iollawiog iiere heve oo legal publicetioo ar posting requirsraots. The Cbeir will open the reetisg to receive 1. CONSIDERATSON TO SET ANNVAL SPECI T POA CO 416 FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-2 (DRAINAGE AND LAW ENFOACEMENTI RESOLUTION NO. 91-215 418 A AESOLUTSOF OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CVCAHONCA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-2 (DRAINAGE AND LAW ENFOACEHENT) 2. CONS IOERATION TO SET ANNUAI SPECIAL TA_r FOR COMMUNITY 4Z4 FACILITIES DISTRICT NO 84-1 (DAY CREE% DRAINAGE SYSTEMI IN THE AMOUNT OF 5350.00 PEA ACRE RESOLUTION NO. 51-216 QZ( p nvgpr nTlOH OF ..... ..... CO@:C IL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TA% FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 84-1 (DAY CREEK DRAINAGE SYSTEM) 3. CONS IDERATI DN OF AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING SKATEBOARD 433 RAY.PS. HALF PIPES AND OTHER SIMILAR PHYSICAL STRUCTURES ON POSTED PUBLIC PROPERTY ORDINANCE NO. 455 (Urgency Ordinance) 435 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 10.68 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 30.68.055 PROHIBITING THE PLACEMENT OF "SKATEBO.ARD RAMPS," "HALF PIPES" AND SIMILAR PHYSICAL STRUCTURES FOR VSE IN SKATEBOARDING AND SI(ATING, ON POSTED PVBLIC PROPERTY, AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF r f! ' ~ a . T~~,t ~Jy City Council Agenda 1 ,,,.~© July p, 1991 21 p. CITY MAMAOER'e STAFF RRPl1RTe ~ The following items do not legally require enp public tgtimony, although thm chair my open the ueeting for public input. 1. ~NSIDERATION TO ND NN N 436 RESOLUTION POR TFIE ANNU VY OF N AES 5 NT WITHIN LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1001/07 AESOLVTION No. 91-217 A RESOLUTION OF THfi CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA, CALIPORNIAr TO LEVY AND COLLECT AN ASSESSMENT WITHIN LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991/92 PURSUANT TO THB LANDSCAPE AND LIGMTINO ACT OF 1972 IN CONNECTION WITH LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO, 7 2. NCO SIOE.RATION OF AN INDVCEMENT RESOLUTION FOR A PROPOEFO 43] 520 MILLION MULTI-FAMILY NTA HOUSING MOR A VENUE R3 NANCE BOND POR VICTORIA WOODS APARTMENT RESOLUTION No. 91-218 439 A AESOLUTION OF TH8 CITY COUNCIL OF TH8 CITY OF RANCHO CUCgyONCA, CALIFORNIA, INDICATING ITS INTENT TO PAOVIDB FOR THE ISSUANCE OF OBLIGATIONS IN AN AMOPNT NOT TO EXCEED $20,000r 000 FOR THE VICTORIA WOODS APARTMENTS PROJECT I. COUNCIL HVSINESS The following items have been requested Dy !ha City Council for discussion. They are not public hearing itemc, elthough tha Chair m.y open the meeting for public input. No Item Submitted. ~° ., V , %~' ~~r° r i > ~ 7 ~ ~' City Council Agenda ~ i July 17, 1991 k ~ 22 , I T61^ is thr tia for Citp Council !o idanlifp the itus thq wish to aiecues at the nest acting. These itara will IIot be discussed at Chia acting, onlp idatified for the aext racking. R. CONNUNICATIONe PROM TRx PVBLIC Thies Se the tie and place for the gaeral public to addavss the City Couacil. state lar prohibits the Cit7 Council frw addraaing anp issue net previously lacludnd on the Agenda. The Cltp COIIDCil ay receive batiaoay and tat the albi for • subccqumt eating. Coasts arc to be llaited Lo flue aiautes per individual. L. ADJOURNMBNT NEeTINO TO ADJOURN TO JOINT 168TIN0 WITe TH6 CHAI®6R OP COMI~RC6 ON JULY 24, 2991, 7t00 P.N., IN T86 AAINB ROOM OP Te CIVIC CBNTBR. I, Debra J. Adams, City Clesk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on July 12, 1991, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting par Govarlwent Code 54953 at 10500 Civic Center Orive. June 5, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Re u ax Meetinc A. CALL TO ORDBR A regular meeting of the Anncho Cucamongn City Council was held on Wednesday, June 5, 1991, in the Council Chanibere of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to ortler at 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Dennis L. Stout. Present were Councilmembere: William J. Alexander, Charles J. Buquet II, Diane Will isms, Pamela J. Wright, and Mayor Dennis L. Stout. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Linda D. Daniels, Deputy City Manager; Jerry B. Pulwood, Deputy City Manages; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Olen Jones, Sr. RDA Analyst; Brad Buller, City Planner; Miki Bzatt, Associate Planner; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Mike Olivier, Sr. Civil Engineer; Dan James, Sr. Civil Engineer; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Walt Stickney, Assoc sate Engineer; Bob Zetterberg, Public Works Maintenance Hanaget; Jeff Berne e, Parke/Landscape Maintenance Superintentlertt; Joe 5rhultz, Commu~i~y Services Director; Jim Hart, Administrative Services Director; Ingrid Blarr, GIS Supervisor; Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager; Diane O'Neal, Management Analyst II; Susan Mickey, Management Analyst S; Chief Dennis Michael and Deputy Chief Lloyd Almond, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Cietrict; Capt. Bruce Zeinet and Lt. Joe Henry, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. f R F f. R R B. ANNOUNCEMENTS /PRBBENTATIONS H1. Presentation of Proclamation Commemorating the 40th Anniversary of the Blood Bank of San Bernardino and Riverside Count sea. Mayor Stout presented the Yroclamatior. to Bill Sauter of the Blood Bank. Mr. Sauter thanked the City for its participation in the blood drives that have occurred in the past. 82. Introduction by Captain Bruce Zeiner, Rancho Cucamcnga Police Department, of Lieutenant Joe Henry, x-9 Handler Danielle French, and heI partner "Rocky." City Council Minutes June 5, 1991 Page 2 Hayor Stout Lntroduced Captain Bruce Zeiner, Aaueho Cueamonga Police Department, who introduced Lieutenant Joe Hanry, X-9 Handler Danielle French and her partner. "Rocky." • w w • ~ C COMNUNTCATIONB FROM TRC POBLIC C1. Mre. Wolff, Hickory circle, stated her wall hoe been painted with graffiti many times in the past, and asked .if she would have to pay to have it removed. Rick coma> :i:r ~cvaaopnent Director, elated the Public Works Division hoe a policy of trying to maintain the areas adjacent to public right-of-wnye within the utility corridors and right-oE-ways of Che railroad crossings which would be in the public view, and added this would include bra. Wolff'e well. C2. Mike Doveeeye, 6869 Rovoto in the Victorie Community, felt there should be better coordination of the CC6R'e with the dove}oiler and Clty organizer ions and repreaentativee. He specifically pointed out radio antennae and satellite dish antennae. He suggested the City Council agendize this for a future meeting to work out better coordination For all those involved. Hayor Stout stated this subject involved the Planning Commission and cable companies. He suggested Mr, Doveeeye work wiCh Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, and Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Hanaqer, and stated Jame Hackman, City Attorney, would need to look at the CC6R issue ae far as the City getting involved -with this matter. C3. Tom Spencer, 1175'9 Delaware, read a prepared etatament regarding CC6R•e for the V.icturia Planned community. (A copy ie c.. ..tea in the city Clerk's office.} C4. Elliott Hannah, 1030D Arrow Aoute, stated he did not agree with AB 2920 ee it relates to credit caxds and the requirement to show identification for the use of same. He added he would like far the City Attorney to take action on this matter. C5. Patrick Collins, 6596 Etiwantla Avenue, stated he has read the reporC regarding the City establishing ire awn Police Department instead of contracting with the Sheriff's Department, and did not understand why the City would want to try to fix something that ie not broken, Mayor Stout stated the City Council hoe not discussed this matter at a public meeting and was not ready to make a decision. He stated there woultl be public hearings held on this matter. C6. Phil Deatherage, 6564 Etiwanda, et sled he warted to correct a etatament he had made the previous evening on the police issue. He stated the Chamber hoe net taken an official stand on the matter and wanted to state that their preliminary analysis ie that tha in-house police force is not in the City Council Minutes ..una ~Pags~3 business community's interest at this point in time. He etnted this La not an official statement ae he had Bald it was at the previous evening'a ~ roasting. Mayor Stout stated he was in receipt of a communication from the Chamber this date stating Mr. Ceatherage was not Sn a position to state the Chamber's posit i.on. Mr. Deatherage added he felt our police force was "strapped" and thought the City was having a problem in this area. ai. Went Crcwlay, Rancno Cucamonga ChambeY of Commerce, stated that on Mazch 12 the Chamber delivered to the Public Safety Cornoiseion a lint of concerns which included an initial summary of findings, nothing more. He added no official posit ivn has been made, but that they just wanted to participate at khe commission level. He stated he had a copy for the record. p. CONSENT CALB'NDAft Jack Lam, City Manager, stated that item H1 would be removed from the agenda and would come back on a future agenda. Jack Lam, City Manager, added that on item D9, the correct Resolution No. was 91- 15"/ instead of 91-134. •~~»r D1. Approval of Hinutea: April 11, 1991 May 1, 1991 May 1S, 1991 (Stout abs@nt) G2. Approval of Warrants, Register Noa. 5/8/91, 5/15/91 and 5/22/91, and Payroll ending 5/9/91, for the total amount of $1,924,595.34. D3. Alcoholic Beverage Application for On Sale Beer 6 Wine Eating Place for La Salsa, GC Restaurants, Incorporated and Villareal Reat au rant Group, Incorporated, 10709 Town Center Dr.ivs, Suite 110. 04. Approval of Names for the Sports Complex Interior Streets ae recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission. D5. Approval of Destruction of City Records and Documents which are no longer required as provided under Government Code Section 34090. RESOLUTION NO. 91-157 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTNOAI2ING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS WHICH AAE NO LONGER REQU?RED AS PROVIDED UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 34U90 City Council Minutes June 5, 1991 _ _~ 06. Approval to expand $1,500.00 to acquire anti-graffiti signs From We-Tip to be funded from ae6et seizure account No. 70-276-511. ITBM RENOVED PoR DI BCU68IOW BY COUNCILIlBIBER WILLIANB. D7. Approval of annual loan transaction between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency. D8. Approvai to find the ~Barmakian Company, developer for 'Pratt 13886 and Parcel Map 11394 in default of their Improvement Agreement dated February 8, 1990 and extended to May 0, 1991) and authorize legal staff to cause the developer•^ surety, Developers Insurance Company, Performance Bond No.'e 983230-A ...n ass. "-^, ~ ~....a,.. -i axastinq improvement deflcieneiea and complete all remaining -improvementef pursuant to the Agreement, approved plans and epecificatiOne. AESOLUT ION NO. 91^156 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNC3L OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, FINDING TNS BAAMARIAN COMPANY IN DEFAULT OP THE IA IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 13886 AND PARCEL MAP 31394, AND AUTHORIZING LEGAL STAFF TO CAU58 THB DEVELOPER'S SURETY COMPANY TO CORRECT EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS AND COMPLETE REHA IN ING IMPROVEMENTS FURS ^ANT TO THE AGREBMENT D9. Approval of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga officially protesting San Bernardino County's illegal offset of County Booking Fee Charges against City Property Tax and other revenue e. RESOLVTION NO. 91-135 A RESOLUTION OP THS CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUC?!:CMOA, CA:.: FGRirIA, OFFICIALLY PROTESTING SAN EEANARDINO COUNTT'S ILLEGAL OFFSET OF COUNTY BOORING FEE CHARGES AGAINST CITY PROPERTY TAX AND OTHER REVENUES D10. Approval of Payment of City Loan (CO 88-045) In Full D11. Approval of a Joint Powers Employee Benefit Authority (PARE) (CO 91-031) ae meeting Federal Government requirement that employees not covered by a retirement system be covered by Social Security ef£ectiva July 1, 1991. D 12. Approval to amend Cont fact No. 90-149 with FRA Service e, Inc., Assessment District Management tar an additional amount of $7, 000.OD from Special Punde Account No. 33-4131-6028. D13. Approval to Vacate a Portion of Vincent Avenue including the adjacent }0- foot wide sidewalk easement, located north of Jersey Boulevard, east of Aed Oak Street. Clty Counetl Minutes June 6. 19vi Page 5 RSSOLUTION N0. 91-136 A RESOLUTION OF THS CITY COUNCIL OF T'HE CITY OF RANCHO WCAMONCA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDBRING TH8 VACATION OF A PORTION OF VINCBNT AVENVB INCLUDING THE ADJACENT 30-FOOT WIDB SIDEWALK EASEMENT D14. Approval to accept Real Property Improvement Contrast and Lien Agreemont from Joe and Carla Bentivegna for a single family residence, located at 7805 sierra Vista. RESOLUTION NO. 91-137 A RESOLUTION OP THH CITY COUNCIL OP TH8 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM JOE AND CAALA BSNTIVEGNA AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE SAME 015. Approval to reject all bitls for the Sierra Madre Avenue street Improvement, located from Arrow Routes to Ninth Street. D16. Approval to award and authorization for execution of Contract for Artow Route Bridge Improvement Project (CO 91-032), located at Cucamonga Creek for the amount of $370,410.26 ($33fi,736.60 plus l0a contingency), to be funded from Systems Development Fund, Account No. 22-4637-8738 and FAU Fund Account No. 24- 4637-8775. D17. Approval and execution of Program Supplement No. 5 (CO 91-033) to Local Agency - State Master Agreement No. STLPP-5420 for the State-Local Transportation Partnership Program between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the State of California for the Construction of the Milliken Avenue Underpass and Street Improvements between 6th Street and Jersey Boulevard. The Supplement sate the State reimbursable portion of the project at $996,096.00 and the City'a portion at $3,645,634.00. Reimbursable funding from the supplement agreement shall be deposited to the SB-140/Fund 35 Account. RESOLUTION NO. 91-13E A RESOLUTION OF THE CZTY COUNCIL OP THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND SIGNING OF PROGRA.tl SUPPLEMENT NO. 5 TO LOCAL AGENCY - STATE MASTER AGREEMENT N0. STLPP-5420 FOR THE STATE-LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MILLIRSN AVENUE VNUERPASS AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN 6TH STREET AND JERZEY EOULEVAAD D18. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract 12870, located on the north aide of Highland Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and 8aet Avenue, submitted by Daly Home e. C_ty Council Minutes June 5, 1991 Paces 6 RESOLUTION NO. 91-139 A RESGLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OP RANCHO CUCAHONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGABENENT E%TENBION AN- IMPROVEMENT 9ECURITY FOR TRACT 12870 D19. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract 12895, located on the west aide of Baker Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route, eubmittetl by Rancho Cit iland -evelopment. RESOLUTION No. 91-140 A ABSOLUTION OP THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITY OF RANCNO CVCAMONGA, CAL IPOANIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACT 12895 D20. Apptoval to execute Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract 13281, located ont he northwest corner of Eaee Fine Roatl and Rochester Avenue, submitted by Covington Homes. RESOLUTION NO. 91-14] A PESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGAESHENT EXTENSION ANO IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOA TRACT 13281 D21. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract 13316, located on the northeast corner o£ Archibald Avenue and Carrari Street, submitted by Friedman Nomea. RESOLUTION NO. 93-1d2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA, CALIFORNIA, APPAO'/ING IMPROVBMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOA TPACT 13316 D22. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement Bxtension for Tract 13441, located on the northeast corner of Victoria Park Lane and Kenyan Way, submitted by Gtupe development. RESOLUTION NO. 91-1A3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTBNSION AND IN.PAOVEMENT SECVRITY FOR TRACT 13441 D23. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract 13873, located on the northwest corner of Victoria Park Lane and Atwood Street, submitted by Atwood Victoria Joint Venture. City Council Minutes ~TUne c !:91 Page 7 AESOLOTION NO. 91-140 A RESOLUTION OP THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGRBEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY POR TRACT 33873 D24. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement Extension for Parcel Nap 9498 4th Street Mediene, located on 4th Street east of Haven Avenue, submitted by Reiter ASnker Gateway/Haven Gateway Partners. RESOLUTION NO. 91-145 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THS CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVBMENT ACREEl/BNT EXTENSION AND IMPROYENENT BECORITY POR PARCEL MAP 9498 4TH STREET MEDIANS D25. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement Extension for Parcel Map 11410, located on the south aide Azzow Route between Haven Avenue and Ut ice Avenue, submitted by Utica-Haver. Aaeoclatee. RESOLUTION N0. 91-146 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFDANI A, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR PARCEL MAP 11410 D26. Approval to accept Improvements, Release of Bonds and Notice of Completion for Parcel Map 9498 Haven Avenue Medians, located on Haven Avenue at 4th Street. Aeleaee: Faithful Performance Bond (Street) $ 66,500.00 RESOLUTION NO. 91-147 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORIJ IA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL HAP 9498 HAVEN AVENUE MEDIANS ANP AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORX 027. Approval to Release Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Tracts 9399 and 9400 located on the north aide of Banyan Si rest, between Beryl Street and Hellman Avenues. Release Tract 9399: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) $ 4,900.00 Release Tract 9400: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) $ 2,500.00 City Council Minutes Junn 5. i99i Page B D28. Approval to Releaee Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Tract 12642, 12935-46 Landscape, located on the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Banyan Street., Releaee: Nalntenance Guarantee Bond (Street) S 82,200.00 D29. Approval to Releaee Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Tract 12936, located on the west aide of HLl lview Loop at Rattle Peak Place and Ht. Palomar Street. Releaee: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) $ 10,800.00 D30. Aooraval to Rc lease Maint ar.a ~~a r.... ~...r== v..~.: a..~ + __. __- -__ ~, the north aide of Tezraco Vlew Loop between Nineral Peak Court •and Ma:iasoth Peak Court. Releaee: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) $ 13,960.00 D31. Approval to Release Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Tract 12939, located on the east aide of Mil lviaw Loop at Tloga Peak Court, Pikes Paak Court and Rattle Peak Place. Releaee: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) $ 8,500.00 C32. Approval to Releaee Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Tract 12943, located on the cast aide of Hillview Loop at pikes Peak Court and Tioga Peak Court. Releaee: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) $ 1Or900.00 D33. Approval to Rolease Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Tract 13560, located on the west aide of Nekherlanda View LooF at Mt. Sterling court and Mt. Lassen Court. Releaee: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) $ 6,500.00 D34. Approval to Releaee Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Tract 13642, located on the east aide of Beryl Street between 19th Street and Harm ltcn Avenue. Release: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) $ 21,000.00 D35. Approval to Bet a Public Hearing Date of July 3, 1991, for an Environmental Assessment Review for the proposed Haven Rehabilitation Project, 4th Street to north of Foothill Bou leverd. REEOLUT ION NO. 91-148 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND SETTING A POHLIC NEARING GATE OF WEDNESDAY, JULY 3, 1991, FOR THE PROPOSED HAVEN AVENUE REHABILITATION PROJECT, dTH STREET TO NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW City Council Hlnutee June c 1991 Page 9 D36. Approval Preliminnry Engineer's Reports and Setting a Public Hearing for July 3, 1991, to levy the annual aeeeeemente and approve the Preliminary ~ Engineer •e Aeporte for Landscape Maintenance District Noe. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, B, 6, 7 and e. RESOLUTION NO. 91-145 A RESOLVTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA, CALIFORNIA, OECLARI HG ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN LANDSCAPE HAINTENANCB DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3A, 38, 4, 5, S, 7 ANO S FOR THE FTxr!a r. vxen •yf </Y< PUNBUANT TO TNS LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972, AND OFPERINO A TINE AND PLACB OF HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO RESOLUTION NO. 91-150 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OP PRELIMS NARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORTS POR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT :705. 1, 2, 3A, 3H, 4, S, 6, 7 AND e D3%. Approval of Preliminary Engineer's Reports and Setting a Public Hearing for July 3, 1991, to levy the annual aeeeaemente and approve the Preliminary Engineer'a Reports for Street Lighting Maintenance District Noe. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. RESOLUTION N0. 91-151 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECIJNING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN STREET LIGHTING MAINTBNANCE OLSTRIG3S NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND B FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1991/92 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING ANO LIGHTING ACT OF 1972, AND GFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO AESOLUT ION N0. 91-352 A RESOLVTION OF THE CITY COVNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORTS FOR STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, i AND 8 MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Williams to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item D6 and with the corrected Resolution number as stated above. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. f4111R DISCUSSION OP STEM DS. Approval to expend $1,500.00 to acquire anti-graffiti sigaa from We-Tip to be funded froo asset aeixure account No. 70-276-511. city Council Minutes dune 5, 1991 Page av Councilmember WS lllame questioned where the signs would be placed and quest ionsd if 109 aigne would be enough. Hayor Stout auggastsd possibly more elgne could be added 1P necessary. Councilmember euquet suggested the signs be coatetl with anti-graffiti material eo that they cannot be maxked on. MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Buquat to approve Consent Calendar Item No. D6. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. • • . . ~ . Q• CONSENT OROSNANCEB E1. ENV IEONMENT>L AS$ESEMENT AND :ND[1.STR±AL SPECIF~PI,AN AMENDMENT 91-02 - CLTY OF RANCHO CVCAMONOA - To define and eetabli ah dPVClnpmont cYiteria for recycling uaeg within '.:,e •n dualrial AYea Spec if is Plan. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance NO. 447. ORDINANCE NO. 4d7 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02, ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR RECYCLING COLLECTION AND PROCESSING, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF MOTION: Moved by Wright, seconded by Buquat to waive Lull reading and approve Ordinance No. 447. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. w • a • ~ t F. ADVERTISBD PUBLIC HEARINOB F1. Staff report prevented by Joe O'Neil, City Engineer. Councilmember Williams asked how many unite have been added to thin Assessment District since its inception. Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager, stated approximately 3,000 for a kotal of 27,000 parcels of land, which includes vacant land and dwelling unite. Councilmember Wright stated she found a discrepancy from when this was originally approved and what was iri the staff report where it states on page 100A, second to the lent paragraph, last sentence, ^Projectione fer Lu[ure years indicate City Council Ninutes Jenw 5; 1991 Page 11 these maintenance coats will not decrease but will increase at an estimated annual rate of 90." She stated the original brochure, from when this was ~ approved, indicatetl just the opposite by et at ing it was anticipated that costa will decrease. Sha asked what hoe changed, bee idea increased coats 1n water and electricity, to tali for art Lncreflee in the Aa6easmertt District. Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager, stated when this District was formed there was a lot of vacant land, and it was felt that ae the properties developed, they would subdivide and hopefully there woultl be more single Eamily unite to offset the cost. Ha etatad this happened to some degree, but not ae was anticipated back in 1985. He orated when this District was first formed. thw dwbt wwrvicw www approximately 5900,000.00. He etatad at that time the city had vory little money so staff did a thorough analysis and found nddit ionel dollars. Over the years this hoe euhtllvitled and revenues have begun to generate, but it hoe not gone oust the inflation rate. He etatad that was why in 1986 the assessment rata was reduced to $33.50, and then the following year it was raised. Ha etatad then the parka came on line, and the opportunity to raise the rates. He etatad in 1987 he raised the point that aseeeemente might need to be raised, because there were challenges with this Aaeesament District. Councilmember Wright etatad that the etafF report referred that in the future of pose ibly including ease capitol costa, and etatad in referring to the original brochure of 1985 it meat Toned maintenance being a part of this, but that the total cost could not be increased. She asked Mr. Markman if the capital improvements in the future could necessitate having to reestablish the bonds. J amee Markman, City Attorney, stated he dici not think eo, but etatad the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 allows a district to include other capitalized projects if the Council sees fit after a public hearing, that they have to be described in an engineering report if they are improvements, not maintenance. He added they are allowed to ease se, in addition, to cover. this. He stated the City ie authorized to assess for all the maintenance and for addlt Lonal improvements if they see fit. Councilmember Williams asked if an action ie being made that ie changing the policy, because she Eelt it would never go higher than 535.00. James Markman, City Attorney, stated it was legal to change this if the Council wanted to. Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council were: Joe Jutt, 6858 Valinda, stated he felt when the 1972 Act was enactedr the public was against it. He stated he did not think the $48.00 amount was that large of an increase, but wondered how much higher it would go. He asked if there would be further increases after 1991/92. Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, stated the maintenance costa would continue to go up approximately 99 per year. City Council Hinutee ......0 5, 149. Page 12 Sonny Cinzero stated today was the first time he had seen anything Ln the paper about the aeaeaement increase, and Eelt there should be more notice ~ to thu public. Ne etatad the increase was calculated at morn Lhan 4\. Counci lmember Buquet etatad that unforlunalaly the City does not have a lot of control over the stories that go 1n the paper which would inform the raeident• about such thinge ae the aeeeaement increase. Mr. Cinzero felt somehow the word should get out to the reeidente. He etatad he Le not against the increased aeeeaement, but the way it was being forced on the public through the City council's decision. councilmember august stated Sf the assessment was not increased for the parka, the level of service would go down and the pnrks' appearance would noY be uhnt the reeidente would want it to be. Hr. Cinzero reiterated he did not feel there was enough notification to the reeidente about this public hearing. Ed Bedney stated he did not have a problem when this aaeeeement district was formed, but now did not agree with the increase. He felt the City should cut back in other areas instead of having the increase. Bill Alexander, asked for a copy of the Engineer's Reports from 1985 through 1991. Staff stated the information would be provided to him. Bill Unglee, 6375 Sapphire, stated he did not approve of paying for the increased assessment just for the recreational user groups to benefit. He felt the sports groups were tearing uo the fields which required repairs by the City. Ne felt a fee should be charged to the veer groups to help maintain the fie lda that they use. He asked that the Council look at all income sources before raising the tax on 85-PD. Patrick Collins, 6596 Etiwanda stated he did not want the City to change its parka program. :ie felt the parka were very important for the children to play in. He also added he did not think fees should be charged to the user groups. He concluded by saying he did not have a problem in raising the tax if it waa justified. Jim Banks, stated he did not think the increase was too much according to the Consumer Price Index. Jim Fro et, City Treasurer, felt there should not be any hidden agendas by the City Council regarding this matter. There being no further response, the public hearing was closed. City Council Mlnutea 3une ~; 1991 Page 13 Councilmember Wright stated she felt this matter should have been publicized more in the newspaper eo that the ree Ldente would have been more aware of what web happening. she stated chat the people shoo/d be able to vote on thin aeeeeement increase along with the onee coming up in July. she felt the city Council needed Co look to see if the residents could afford the increased aeeeeement. Councilmember Williams pointed out that when this Assessment District was established in 1985, it was the understanding that there would not need to be ar. increase in the aeeeeement. she felt the residents should be able to give input for this Assessment District taxing policy. .. onuwc arnxananr states ae elected officials, ti,e Council should be making theee~decieione, and did not feel every time a controversial matter came up that it should be put to a vote of the people. He felt the City Council needed to make a dectelon and "bite-the hul let.^ Councilmember Suquet etatetl he did not like how this Assessment Dietriet was originally eetabliehedr but felt the City Council needed to go ahead and make the decision. Mayor Stout etat¢d there was nothing anyone can do abut the decision that was made in 1985, and that it did not matter who was on the City Council at that time. He stated he agreed with Councilmember Alexander ae far ae the City Council making the decision now as elected officials of the people. councilmeniGer Will tame stated she had no problem with the increase, but felt the policy ae a whole was what bothered her. Mayor stout stated he felt that communit tea such as Victoria, or th¢ larger Assessment Districts, should possibly identify what level of service they wanted for their landscaping, but that the City should determine the coat. He suggested that a report ba sent Lw thn residents >dent ifying what the statue was of their Assessment District, list the options, and ask them what they would like the City to do, but he did not feel that process should be done on ttie smaller onee because of the coat factor involved to do this. councilmember Wtight stated a mail-in ballot like what was done with the CFD'9 and the mobile home parka was what she was talking about. MOTION: Moved by Wright Go put the aeeeeement increase for 85-PD to a vote of the people via City mail as was done with the mobile home park ballots. Motion failed due to lack of second. councilmember euquet felt there needed to be a policy created ae it relates to aaseaement increasev. He did not think it should go to a vote of the people every time a hard dacie ion needs to be made by the City Council. He felt there should be something in ~e Graoevine, prior to the tax bill coming out, about the proposed increase and any future increases that might occur in the future. City Council Mlnutee June 5, 1991 Foya ld RESOLUTION NO. 91-153 A RESOLUTION CF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TN6 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA, CALIFORNIA, TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE PARE AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. S5-PO (HERITAGE AND RSD HILL COMMUNITY PARRS) MOT TON: Moved by Stout, seconded by Alexander to approve Resolution No. 91-153 and to set the aeeeeament at 552.00. Notion carried 4-I (Wright no). Counci lmember Wright stated she was voting no because she felt it should be a vote of the .wn~im w~.~ _..a_ r-c ..,.. ..e..e.aoa iiy age mac the increase. • • • • ~ Mayor Stout called a recess at 9:15 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 9:36 p. m. with all Councilm¢mbers present. 1 k • • M ~ PUBLIC H6ARIN08 O1. CONSIDERATION OF REOUSST FOR REFUND FOR PORTIONS O^ DRAINAGE FEES POR 13181 VICTORIA STAEST - MR JAMES BANRS. JR. - LOCated on the south aide of ViCtoila Street and east cf Etiwanda Avenue. Staff report presented 6y Dan Jaroee, Sr. Civil Enqi near. Mayor St nut opined the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council wee: Jinn Hanks, 13181 Victoria Street, stated he felt hie circumetancee were different because other nrojecta that ware p¢ndl,iy i~ad ocher things they needed to arcompl iah before they received their permit, but stated he did not have anything to accomplish. He stated he had mat every requirement placed on him 6y the City, and asked that the City deem hie application ae complete and accepted which would entitle him to the refund. There being no further input, the public hearing was closed. Councilmember Wright asked if there had bean other appeals regarding this same matter. staff responded stating they were not aware of any. James Markman, City Attorney, stated that Mr. Banks had met the City's requirements before this policy was eetabl iehed. He pointed Out to the Council that other individuals might possibly apply fora refund of the fees at a latex date and that the decision made at this meeting might be sett in9 a precedent for the future. Clty Council Minutes June 5, 1991 page i5 Councilmember Buquet etetetl because of th0 circumetancee of this project, and because he was not concerned about the precedent that might. be set, he felt a ~ policy regarding a timeframe should be created ae to when the fee should go into effect. Councilmember Alexander stated he woultl like to know more of the impacts of this before he makes a decision. Mayor Stout asked Mr. Markman how he wou Ltl state the policy as it currently exists. _....._.. ...._..... ,._~r ...,.... ...~, .....e,. F.eve..,. y.,,....r a e.e.~..~.. ... ordinance ie that when someone hoe a permit Seeued that the then current drainage Fees have to be paid is order to have the permit issued. He added it does not matter how big mr small the project la or the amount of time a project was in design review. Mayor Stout stated he does not underatantl this well enough to mnke a decision, ae was et ated by Councilmember Alexander. Councilmember Huquet felt there needed to be criteria eatabliehetl relating to the size of the project al eo. Jack Lam, City Manager, suggested that staff develop something to define the aituat ion as it relates to Mr. Banks and to also check into the possibility as to the affects of what might happen in the future with matters of this nature. Mayor Stout at ated he would like to sae a policy set an.l foz it to be followed for everyone. He suggested staff work up several policy options and the precedent implications of each one of them for the Council to look at eo they can select what they want ae a policy. He et ated then once a policy was selected, Mr. eanYs' s!b•st:o.^. could 6e applied t.. the p^'_icy Councilmember Buquet felt the size of Mr. eanka' project was something that should be considered also. MOTION: Moved by Wright, seconded by Alexander to continue to the July 3, 1991 meeting with the direction as stated above. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS ITEM REMOVED PAOM AOHNDA °°s°°°°•z° `'!! Bn0e Be d ~6b k~ $ 87 4BD,9D r A'-~`.'--PSQ`~.--aanae-OUacanEee-Bend fSEeeeH ~i8v~34O.A6 City Council Minutes June 5, 1991 .,- ~ c -P6R fsE H2. C O U F D - UNIVERSITY CREST - Prel Lolnary Plan of Development, Master Tentative Tract a, Tentative Tract Nape, and Final Plan of Development for 1,239 single-family unite and commercial, school, park, and open apace on 1,113 acres in the Rancho Cucamonga Sphere areal request for .n... e... s •en n{r..~n Hewn r.. rAn rnn..r.. ol.n..l nn rnmmieainn .nA Mvd n£ supervisors. staff report presented by Ntki Brett, Aeeociate Planner. Mayor stout opened the meeting for public comment. Addressing the City Council wee: Joe DLIOrio presented Snformation to the Council pertaining to the University Creet project. Y.e felt things could be worked out eo that this was a win-win situation for ell parties involved. Mayor Stout asked Aick Gomez, Community Development Director, if ha felt the letter Mr. DLIOrio previously referred to, which was about a meeting they had attended with Bob Mickeleon, was what was diecueeed at that meeting. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, et ated he felt the letter was distorted in many ways and that some of the topics mentioned in the letter were not even diecueeed at the meettng. ,Toe DiIOrio stated he would withdraw the letter because he was not aware it had incorrect information. Mayor Stout et ated that Councilmember Euquet was also to have attended the meeting with Mr. Mickelaon, which Mc. Mickelson had requested, but could not due to an emergency. He also pointed out that there had been a meeting with him, the full consortium, City staff and Jon Nikele. Mayor Stout asked Mr. Lam if the City has had diecuaeione with the County ae far as the property tax exchange rate being offered. Jack Lam, city Manager, stated many cit iee in this County have historically battled the County over the share of property tax that actually gets transferred to the cities. He stated what happens ie that the county allows annexat LOA, but given very little property tax back. Me stated Rancho Cucamonga gets 4.5 cents back from the County for each dollar. Ke stated the County hoe arhitrarily taken the position to cut this amount in half, which he hoe received information from the CAO'e office about. Ne et ated one cannot ae eume when you look at the financial resources needed for en area with police protection outside the C1ty, and once it ie inside the City, everyone also hoe to agree to transfer the adequate amount of money to support there aervicee. City Councii Minutra Juno 5, 1993 n.go 17 Joe DSIOrio et ated he agreed with this statement. Jack Lam, City Hanager, stated that the park in the Caryn community was voluntarily provided because the County did not have any requirements for parka and was intended for the purpose that Mr. Oilorio had previously indicated. He stated after the agreements had been signed, the Et iwanda School District needed morn land for the school than what was available, and the school letters were held up, and consequently a chance of litigation or the project might b¢ held up indef lnitely. He added at that point Che CLty asked for an equivalency ae a donation toward a future park, and in return for that, the school situation was resolved, the school letters were released and then constr~.utian began. xe added if that had not occurred, he was not sure how that would ha vs tu.~od ,.,.t_ hot possibly in lit igatlon. There being no further Lnput, the public comment section was closed. Councilmember Buquet asked if the fees eetabliahed !n the Mello-Roos cover the long term potential for annexation in terms of fire protection. Chief Michael, Fize District, statetl ae far ae the Me11o-Roos Community Pacilit iee District 88-1, which ie the north Etiwanda area, and also CFD 85-1, the fees currently being charged were designed to meet the capital ae well ae operations and maintenance needs for a Eire station in that region. He stated there were some areas Chac were not covered in the CPD's, i.e., maintenance of green D¢lt areas, and setbacks. Councilmember Wright asked if after hearing Mr. DiIOrio's comments if it charged any of staff's recommendations. Brad Buller, City Flanner, and Jerry Fu lwood, Deputy City Manager, stated no. Jerzy Fu lwood, Deputy City Manager, stated there were comments made in terms of the fiscal impact reports that were not similar with major tlisagreemente in terms of concept e, and the impact on the City in terms of police antl fire, and also there were new drainage standards that the City would be impacted by which were not accurately reflected in those reports. He stated the City hoe communicated these concerns with the County and hoe requested that they work with the City on providing a new fiscal impact report eo that it would reflect the impact their decision would have upon the City if those properties were annexed into the City at a future date. He stated ttiie same concept was applied to the financing of infrastructure because the City Council has conservative and strict standards on financing; therefore, any finarc ing that occurred within the County would also fall within the 6aaic guidelines of Rancho Cucamonga. Ne stated the City dose have concerns with police service and the tax transfer rates. He added one reason the police CFD was formed was to help compensate because Buff icient funding could not be obtained Erom the County if those propert iee were annexed into the City. He stated the City was being very conservative and prudent with their dollars in doing a fiscal ln~pact report. He stated staff was looking to purchase a program to do their own fiscal impact reports in-house which could be presented to Council on an ongoing basis, thereby reducing the coat of contracting Eor the service, City Counoil Minutes June 5, 1991 Paqa ,o Councilmeuiber Alexander aeMed if the Clty was bending at all to help settle any differences on the requirements for this project. ~ Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager, stated the City hoe been willing to discuss key ieauee to eee if they could find a comfortable position ao it could be preeented to the City Council. He stated that from the financial or fiscal impact e, in many cases staff hoe expressed concerns for developing a comparative fiscal impact report that would reflect the differences of University Crest's version of the plan, eo it could be looked at aide-by-side to analyze it. He felt it would be reasonable to do this with the county, but it was shot down by the developer and the County because they felt it would hold up the project end that it was not necwaaa..,. Councilmember Alexander stated iE this was developed in the County it would still have an impact on the City, and would like to eee everyone work together. Mayor Stout stated he did not think the City Council was ready to make n decision on this project until both the City and the County hove completed their Specific Plane. He elated what he felt staff was asking the Council to do was ask the County not to approve the project at this polni. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated what frueiratee the City was that the tract was going forward with the County and that the City was trying to respond to an action that was being pushed forward, and that all the City was asking for was the time to talk. Me stated the City staff was being criticized for not representing the policy makers of the community. He stated staff was not being allowed the opportunity to see what was being proposed eo that it could be presented to Che City council. Me et at ed eta £f was supporting the Reeolut ion being preeented to the Council at this meeting. Councilmember Euquet stated after looking at both the Clty'e and Hr. DiIOrio'e Resolutions, he did not think there won that m_ch d!ffcrs.-.ce. He siated he hoe an uncomfortable feeling with all that is going on with this project. Councilmember Wright stated the City Council hoe previously directed staff to work on the annexation, and now feels there ors undermining tactics going on. Ehe felt staff should go forward with this plan. Mayor Stout stated he thinks the City Council should tollow staff's recommendation which was what the Council originally directed staff to do. RESOLUTION N0. 91-155 A RESULUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO COCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE SUPPORT OP THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY BOARD OP SUPERVISORS AELATI VE TO THE CITY ACTIONS TO ANNEX THE ETIWANDA NORTN SPHERE AREA MOTION: Moved by Stout; seconded by Wright to approve Resolution No. 91-155. Motion carried 4-1 (Alexander no). City Councll Minutes Juno 5, 1991 _ ,e '_4 Counc ilmamber Alexander stated thet was not fl slam on staff, only on an opinion that was expressed earlier. ~ # . . . . . I. COVNCIL BUBINB3A Yo Items Submitted. • • • # nfmmv n. r e warm wwnrwn Jl. Councilmember wzlght asked for a report on the method used to remove the dead eucalyptus wood because of the borer beetle attack up on Carnelian, and asked if the accepted guidelines were used for removal of borer beetle infested wood. 1JITIONB PRON THB PUBLI K1. Joe DLIOrio addressed the Council again on hie philosophy on the information he presented on the Et iwanda North matter. He informed the Council of the schedule for the County meetings that have taken place and that are set for the future. K2. Richard Martz, 8745 Luraline, et ated he was present at the pravi.ous City council meat ing and was directed to talk to captain Zeiner and hoe not received any results from the Sheriff's Department. He stated he would like to write a letter to the City Council about these matters for the City Councll to keep on file, and Would let the matter dron unless th¢ Council felt otherwise. councilmember Buquet stated he would like to see a response on the letter once it ie written. K3. Councilmember Wright stated she would like to apologize to Beth Gaston of the Inland Valley Daily Aul).et in, that she was not criticizing bar personally, only the Editor of the newspaper for not giving more publicity on the Assessment District issue. She asked Betn to respond to this matter. Beth Gaston explained that she did not receive all the information in her agenda packet in time to get an article in the paper any earlier. She continued to explain the chain of events of why this did not get in the paper until Tuesday. She stated she was willing to put Aancho Cucamonga artic lee Ln the paper, but that staff or Council needs to lot her know what they would like in there. # # R k A f City Council Minutee June 5: 1991 Race 2D MOTION: Moved by Alexander: seconded by Nilliame to adjourn to 8xecutive Heae lon to disease pending lltlgation with American Insurance and personnel matters. Executive 8eselon to adjourn to June 13: 1991: 7:00 p.m. in the Tri-CO®unLtiee Conference Room for a budget workshop. Motion carried unanimously S-0. The meeting adjourned at 11:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Debra J. Aflame: CMC Citv Clerk Approved: Tune 13, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COGNCIL MINUTES Adiourned Maetina An adjourned meeting of the City Council of the Ctty of Rancho Cucamonga was held on Thursday, June id, 1991, in the Tri-Communities Conference Roam of the Civic Cent or, located at 1050D Civic Center Driver Aancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Dennis L. Stout. Present were Cauncilmembere: Wi111am J. Alexanderr Charles J. Buquet II, Diane Williams, Pamela J. Wright, and Hayor Dennis L. Stout. Also present were: Sack Lam, City Managat; LLnda D. Daniels, Deputy City Manager; Jezry e. Fulwood, Deputy City Manager; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Brad Buller, City Planner; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Shintu Bose, Deputy city Engineer) Sigmund Dellhime, Management Analyst II; Walt Stickney, Associate Engineer; Bob Zettarber9, Public Works Maintenance Manager; Jerry Grant, Building official; Joe Schultz, Community Services Director; Paula Pachon, Management Analyst II; Ingrid Blair, GIS Supervisor; Mazti Higgins, DLeaater Preparedneea Manager; Jim Hart, Admiristrative Services Director; Suefln Neely, Finance Officer; Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Man agar; Diane O'Neal, Management Analyst II; chief Dennis Michael, Deputy C..*.iaf Bcb C~tcoran, Deputy Fire Marshall Ralph Crane, and Administrative Services Offieer Alex Ahumada, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Capt. Bruce Feiner, Aancho Cucamonga Police Department; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. • • • a x B. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION el. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED FISCA• YEAR 1991/92 BUDGETS Mayor Stout stated the purpose of this meeting was to discuss the proposed fiscal year 1991/92 budgets. He proceeded Ay turning the meeting over to Jack Lam, City Manager, who gave the presentatioe concerning the budgets. + • + x City Council Minutae June 13, 1991 o...o v General Pund Budcet i Jack Lam, city N.anager, told how the economic condlt ions ae a whole have affected the CLty'a revenue intake, and explained that what the State and County are doing have also had an affect on the City's revenue. He continued by et at ing that at the present time, the budget ie balanced, but may need adjusting after year-end figures have been totaled after July let. He mentioned the fact Chat the census count has also had an affect on the City's revenue. He felt the City's sales tax total would go up next year because of new retail stores that had recently opened and ones that were proposed to open next year. He pointed out to the Council that the City made every effort to hold down expenditures during thla fiscal Jack Lam, City Manager, explained to the Council that a new approach was taken to prepare this budget by taking last year's budget and making cute to it. He added the 1991/92 budget is about 2.1 million dollars lees than last year's butlq¢t and explained what cute were mad¢ in personnel and daily operations to accomplish this. He concluded with this presentation by stating he did not think next year's budget would he much different than this one. Councilmember Wright asked if the coat allocations soon to be voted upon were included in this budget. Jack Lam stated moat of them were, but that the ones to be votetl upon were not included which would help revenue, but not a great deal. Councilmember Wright asked that Mr. Lam explain the cute made to the vehicle maintenance program. Jack Lam, City Manager, explained this program to Councilmember Wright ae it relates to the replacing and repairing of vehicles. Mayor Stout stated he liked the way the budgets were put together and added he felt it was very easy to untleretand, and therefore did not have any questions for staff. He also added the figures were not a surprise to him. Councilmembere Williams and Bu quet concurred. Councilmember Wright stated she felt it was the other agencies, i.e., State and County, that have got the City in the aituat ion it is in today. Counci imember Wright asked that staff use the RDA marketing tools to help the City's financial situation by creating mare revenue for the City. Mayor Stout commented he felt the City was very frugal when you compared the number of city staff versus the rity'e population. He added he was glad to ba part of this city rather than another city that is in a worse financial position. Councilmember euquet stated he felt the City would learn from this experience and not get in the same aituat ion again. Ne added he felt the City needed to keep looking at ways to increase revenues and not atop here. He continued to compliment the prepared budget document. City Council Ninute0 June 13; 1991 Page 3 Jack Lam, City Hanager, complimented Jim Hart, Adminietzat ive Services Director, and Susan Neely, Finance Officer, for all their hard work to put this budget ~ together. Councilmember Alexander stated he felt the salsa tax revenues were very important. He felt correspondence shoo ld keep flowing to the State regarding legia lation that had an adverse affect on the City. He felt the City eheuld encourage quality bus inesa to come into the City. . . ~ ~ rwwn .Tack Lam, City Manager, explained what the capital funds were and turned the meeting aver to Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, for a further presentation of this. Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, gave an overview of the capitnl projects Chat were proposed for fiscal year 1991/92 and stated there were 16 proposed projects. Jack Lane, City Manager, added the City will need to be patient in building more parka. He also added there era reetrictione for spending capital funds. • • . + Fire District Jack Lam, City Manager, explained the Fire Dis tr ict'9 budget by areeenting an overview. Chief Dennis Michael, Fire District, explained that the Me11o-Roos ie used to supplement the general fund budget. He stated there would be nine new 4V .~nf: q64 erg a.i.i@d t... r. yL1r. Y k f x Red 1 t A e Jack Lam, City Manage c, gave an overview of the RDA budget. He added he felt the projects started two years ago would be completed ae scheduled. He mentioned the marketing that the Agency does. He told about the stores coming into the City such as Price Club, Wal Mart and a larger K-MART. Linda Dan isle, Deputy City Manager, stated the City has $30,000.00 to work on fln economic development program with Chaffey College which would deal with the business community. She stated it would 6e 6oth commercial and intluetrial. She mentioned there was $5,000.00 for new bus ineee seminars which would inform others about what the City has to offer. She et ated the trade shows do the moat good to let people know about the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Councilmember Wright asked what was happening with the dollars to be used for commercial improvements. City Council Minutes June 13, 1991 page a Linda Daniels, Deputy City Manager, told what had happened with Parry's Market, and added letters were sent out to quite a £ew bueinaeees along Poothill~ Boulevard, but mart Toned the response was poor. Jack Lam, City Manager, also mentioned the three lawsuits the City wee involved in that have finaneinl impacts on Lhe City: 1) booking fee matters where the City has joined other cities to fight this. He added money ie budgeted if this lawsuit ie lost; 2) fines and forfeitures lawsuit; and 3) nose and low's property tax lawsuit whereby the Clty has joined with other contract cities to fight the County. ,7„u ,, - wt lylLL na Ktla ix Lne Uity Coancll wouia like to navB one [10Leon Qo out 1coneletent ly and market the City. Councllmember Buquet asked if options could be submitted through n memo regarding this matter before a decie ion ie made. Mayor Stout stated he would like information on what other redevelopment agencies are doing in this regard also. Couneilmember Wright stated she would like the information to include redevelopment agencies out aide this area. . . a w Maintenance Dietricte Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, gave an overview of the Landscape Maintenance Dietricte. He distributed a chart to the Council and explained this. Ceunc ilmember Buquet asked if the City was working on optional water aourcee to ..,.....a3 ......... ,..,B Dietricte. Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, stated they are working on this. He stated they are specifically looking to use reclaimed water for [he sports complex. Jim Hart, Administrative Services Director, asked that the Council select a data and time for the budget adoption meeting. The Council concurred on Monday, July 1, 1991, 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Sim Hart, Administrative Services Director, stated the Council Headed to approve the expenditures as of June 30, 1991 at this meeting. Jack Lam, City Manager, suggested this come back at the ,7une 19, 1991 meeting for this action. . . . • x city Council Hinutes Jurte 13, 1991 ^sqa 5 No communications were made from the public. • x • • • a MOTION: Moved by Baguet, seconded by Wright to adjourn. Notion enrried unanimously, 5-0. The msating adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Oebra J. Aflame, CNC City Clerk Approved: ,June 19, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meetino A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga Clty Council was held on Wednesday, June 19, 1991, in the Council chambers of the Civic Canter, loceted at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. by Mayor Dennis L. Stout. Present ware Counci lmembere: Charles J. Buquet II; Diane Will iame, Pamela J. Wright, and Mayor Dennis L. Stout. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manayer; William Curley, Deputy City Attorney; Linda P. Daniels, Deputy City Manager; Jerry B. Fulwood, Deputy City Manager; 018n Jonas, Sr. RDA Analyst; Rrad Buller, City Planner; Otto Krout il, Deputy City Planner; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, A9eietant Planner; Richard Alcocn, Code Enforcement Supervisor; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Pavl Rougeau, Txaff is Engineer; Dan James, Sr. Civil Engineer; Jerry Grant, Building OEEicial; Joe Schultz, Community Services Director; Paula Pachon, Management Analyst II; Marti Higgins, Disaster Preparedne as Manager; Jana Eilie, Disaster Preparedness 6pecialist; Jim Hart, Adminia trative Services Director; Diane O'Neal, Management Analyst II, Susan Mickey, Management Analyst Z; Chief Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Di at rict; Capt. Bruce 2e finer, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; and Debra J. Aflame, Cicy Clerk. Abaent was Councilmember: William J. Alexander. R R i R i f R ANNOUNCSIBNTS/PRBSENTATIONS el. Presentation of Proclamation to Chief Engineer Donald O. Manning of the Loe Angeles Fire Department for his Aasist ante in the Development of our C•E.A. T. Program. Mayor Stout presented the proclamation to Chief Frank Borden. R R R i i i City Council Ninutee June 19, 1991 Fag¢ 2 C. C0101lINICATIONS PRON THB PUBLIC Cl. 811iott Nannah, 10300 Arrow Route, stated he spoke at the previous Council meeting regarding identification being required when using a credit card for a purchase. Ha added he recently received a letter from Duane Baker who had contacted the California Department of Consumer Affairs for information and advice. He felt Mr. Baker had received inaccurate and incomplete information because the letter stated that after Mr. Baker contacted the Department of ConeumeY Affairs he waa told that metiers such ae this should be handled through the District Attorney's offira. He stated the District Attorney's office informed him through a telephone w.ui..y .i,nc cosy woulc not glue legal advice. He felt according to the language of the law that the city Attorney ie empowered to handle matters each ae this, and Baked for the Clty to do something to stop the identification requirement. D• CONSgNT CALMNDAR Jack Lam, City Manager, stated Item D9 should be considered under Atlvertieed Public Heari age (ae Item No. F4) ae it was placed untlei the incorrect section of the agenda. He pointed out that this item was legally advert lead ae required. D1. Approval of Minut¢s: May 22, 1991 D2. Approval of Warrant e, Register Nos. 5/29/91 and 6/5/91; and Payroll ending 5/23/91 for the total amount of $1x403,613.OB. D3. Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule fle of Hay 31, 1991. D4. Approval to authorize amending Fiscal Year 1990/91 appropriations. D5. Alcoholic Beverage Application for Ofi Sale General, Carl's Liquor, Youeet Hawara and Jamil Somouh, 9677 Foothill Boulevard. D6. Alcoholic Beverage Application for Off Sale General, 1990 Conditional Priority f35, Unnamed Bueineee, Chazi D. pu rghalli, 7270 Victoria Park Lane. D7. Approval to authorize the annual levy of assessment administration charges for the collection of assessments in the Alta Loma Channel District (84-2), the Sixth Street Industrial Park Refund District (82-1R) and the Rancho Cucamonga Drainage District (86-2). ITEM PULLED FOR DISCUSSION BY COUNCILNENBER WRIONT. AESOLUT ION N0. 91-158 A RESOLUTION OP THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF AN ASS855MENT SURCHARGE FOA THE E%PENSES INCURRED IN THE COLLECTION OP ASSESSMENTS IN VAA TOUS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS City Council Minutes Jung iY, 1991 Page 3 D8. Approval to find Tha Developers Insurance Company, Sutety for The Barmakian Company, Tract 13886 and Parcel Nap 13394, in default of Performance Bond Noe. 983230-s and 983116-5 and authorize the City Engineer to cause the attest and storm drain improvements i.~d appertain work covered by said bonds to be casplsied and authorize the City Attorney to take action against The Barmnkian Company and Developers Insuranes Company to racovet all costa Incurred by the Cityr including any damages resulting from the Developer's and/or Surety's failure to comply, in causing the Improvements to ba completed pursuant to the improvement agrsemant. ITEM MOVED TO ADVERTT96n PUBLIC 9EARINOB, ITEM MO. Po. D10. Approval of Map and Ordering the Annexation tc Lendecaps Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Noe. 1 and 2 for Parcel Map 13707, located at the northeast corner of Eighth Street and Baker Avenue, submitted by Michael Imieetment Company. RESOLUTION HO. 91-160 A AESOLUT ION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAF NVMBER 13707 RESOLUTION NO. 91-161 A RESOLVT ION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION Oe^ CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LRNCSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR PARCEL HAP 13707 D 11. Approval of Map and execution of Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and Ordering the Annexation to LantleCape Maintenance District No. 4 and Street Lighting Haintenance District Nos. 1 and 4 for Parcel Map 13825, located on the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue, submitted by Lewis Development Company. RESOLUTION N0. 91-162 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 33825, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY city council Ninutee Juno i9, i99L Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 91-163 A RESOLUTION OP TME CITY COUNCIL OF THB CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THS ANNE%ATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE OISTRT CT NO. 4 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCB DISTRICT NOS. 1 ANO 6 FOR PARCEL MAP 13825 D12. Approval to execute a Joint Use Agreement (CO 91-034) with Southern California Bdiaon Company for relocation and inetallat ion of electrical transmission lines from a utLlity easement to a street easement on the east aide of Rochester Avenue south of Foothill Boulevaztl. ITEM PVLLED POR DIBCDanaea ns WILLIAM CIIRLEY, nISPUTY exxY ATTORMEx. ABSOLOTION NO. 93-164 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALI FOANIA, APPROVING A JOINT VSE AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDTSON COMPANY FOA RELOCATION OF UTILITIES AT ROCHESTER AVENGE AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD D13. Approval to execute agreement (CO 91-035) with the Pennhill Company allowing construction of model home complex £or Tant at ive Tract 14866 prior to recordation of Final subdivision map. D 14. Approval to award and authorize execution of a cont rect (CO 91-036) for the Rancho Cucamonga Oral History Program, Phase I, to Ma lion and A9eociatee, for the Amount of $12,055.00, to be funded by the Rancho Cucamonga Community Foundation. D15. Approval of Library Enhancement Services Contract (CO 91-037) between the County of Ban Bernardino and the City o£ Rancho Cucamonga to provide $25,000.00 for additional library services at the Rancho Cucamonga Branch Library for Fiecai Year 1990/91. To be funded from Account No. 01-4532-6(128. ITRK PVLLR- POR DSSCIISSION BY COUNCILMENBER WILLIAMS. D16. Approval of year two continuation of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (GARB) program through the execution of a Memorandum of Understanding (CO 90-090) between Alta Loma, Central and Et iwanda School Districts, the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga end the allocation of 544,552.00 to cover the City's portion of the program's budget. 017. Approval to executs Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract 13279, located on the south aide of Highland Avenue between Rochester Avenue and Hilliken Avenue, submitted by The William Lyon Company. RESOLUTION NO. 91-165 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT E%TENSION ANO IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACT 13279 City Council NLnutas June SY; 1991 Page 5 018. Appcoval to execute Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract 13280 Landscape, located on the north Bide of Base Line Road between Milliken Avenue, and Rochester Avenue, submitted by The William Lyon Company. AfiBOLUTION NO. 91-166 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACT 13280 LANDSCAPE D19. Approval t0 execute Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract 17JR1 Landecane. lnrnrea .., _„_ ;~- a ,, cwrner or 9aea Lina Road and Rochester Avenue, submitted by The`WLl liam Lyon Company. RESOLUTION NO. 91-167 A RESOLVTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH8 CITY OF RANCHO CVCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREBMENT E%TENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOA TRACT 13281 LANDSCAPE ^20. Approval to execute ImpYOVement Agreement Extension for Tract 13359, located on the east aide of Sapphire Street between OrchaYd Street and Jennet Street, submitted by H. R. Haim, Incorporated. RESOLUTION NO. 91-168 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMFAOVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACT 13359 D21. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement Extension fOi Tract 13565-5 thru -10 Streets and Tract 17565-5 thrc -.,, Land ac ape, iocatetl on the northeast coiner of Summit Avenue and Wardman Bullock Aoad, submitted by Standard Pacific of Orange County. RESDLUTION NO. 91-169 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNTA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT E%TENBION AND IMPROVEMENT RECVRITY POR TRACT 13565 STREBTS AND TRACT 13565 LANDSCAPE D22. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement Extension for DR 87-48, located on the south aide of 9th Street between Hellman Avenue and Archibald Avenue, submitted by Sebsstiano Filpi. RESOLOTION NO. 91-170 A RESOLUTION OP THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO COCAMONGA, CAIN F'ORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGFEEMENT E%TENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOA DA 87-48 City Council Minutes June i9, i9'si Pages 6 D23. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement Extension for Parcel Map 10185 located on the southweet corner o[ Highland Avenue and Milliken Avenue, submitted by The William Lyon Company. ~ RESOLUTION NO. 91-171 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT E%TENSION ANO IMPROVEMENT SECURS TY FOR PARCEL MAP 10185 D24. Annroval to accept Improvements, Ae lease of Bonds and Notice of Completion for the Storm Drain and Rough Grading of Milliken Park located on the es et aide of Milliken Avenue between Church Street and Mountain View Drive. Release: Pait hf ul Performance Bond (Street] $386,772.00 AESOLUI'IC`! NO. 91-172 A RESOLVTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONCA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS POA THE STORM DRAIN AND ROUGH GRADING OF MILLIREN PARE AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION POR TXE WORK D25. Approval to release the Improvement Bonds for Tract 13442 Renyon Park Project. Release: Faithful Performance Bond $560,000.00 Labor and Material Bond $280,000.00 D26. Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Eond for Tract 12914, located on the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Highland Avenue. ITBM PULLED POR DIECUESI ON HY JACR LAM, CITY MANAGER. Release: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) $ 32,600.00 D27. Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Tract 12944, located on Terrace View Loop at Mt. San Antonio Street and Copper Pasa Court. Release: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) $ 13,500.00 D28. Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Tract 13342, located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue between 19th Street and Finch Avenue. ITEN PVLLRD FOR DISCUSSION BY JACR LAM, CITY MANAGER. Release Streets: Maintenance Guarantee Bond $ 47,600.00 Release Private Streets: Maintenance Guarantee Bond $ 17,600.00 D29. Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Tract 13558, located on Sierra Greet View Loop at M[. Gunnison Court and White Mountain Court. City Council Ninutee Page 7 Release: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) $ 14,500.00 MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Wright to approve the Consent Calendar with khe except Lor. of Items D7, D9, 012, D15, D26, and D20. Motion carried unanlmcuely, 4-0-1 (Alexander absent). •~x ~+• DISCOSSioN OF YTEN No. D7. Approval to authorise the annual lsvp of aaaeasaaat sdainLtration eaargea for the collection of uaeeeeeata is the Alta Lou Charnel District (86-Z), the Sizi6 Stceet Industrial Park Refund District (8Z-1R) and the Rancho Cucewnas Drainage Dialriet faA-s~. Councilmembsz Wright stated she did not think thin item was routine and felt it should be advertised. Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager, stated this fee was an annual fee of $5.00 for asseeament adminietrat ion charges. He added there was no increase in this fee this year. RESOLUTION NO. 91-158 A AESOLllTI ON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH6 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF AN ASSESSMENT SURCHARGE FOR THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS IN VARIOUS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS MOTION: Moved by Stout, seconded by Will isms to approve Resolution No. 91-158. Moticn carried unanimously, 4-0-1 (Alexander absent). DISCUSSION OF ITEM NO. 012. Approval to exennte a Joint Use Agreement (CO 91- 034) with Southern California Edison Coapanp for relocation end laetallation of electrical tran seiss ion lines from • utility eaament to a st rest easeaeat on the sect eider of Rochester Avenue south of Poothill 8ouleva rd. William Curley, Deputy City Attorney, stated there ie a discrepancy in the agreement with Southern California Edison and asked that this be continued until the matter is resolved. Mayor Stout and Councilmember Buquet inquired if this would delay the installation of the signal. Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, et ated no. RESOLUTION NO. 91-1F4 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A JOINT USE AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY FOR AELCCATION OF UTILITIES AT RCCHESTEA AVENUE AND FOOTHILL 80ULEVAAO city council Ninutee Junn 19; 1997 Page e MOTION: Moved by Stout, seconded by Baguet to continue Item D12 to July 1, 1991. Motion carried unanimously, 9-0-1 (Alexander absent). •f kif• I DISCUSSION O} ITEM MO. D35. Approval of Library Evha¢cuent Services Contract (CO 91-037) betwsea the County of Sna Bernardino and tae City of Ra¢cho Cucauaga to provide $25,000.00 for additional library services at tae Rancho Cucawaga Hraach Library for Piacal Yaar 1990/91. To be funded free Account No. 01-6532- 6028. Councilmembar Williams asked if the City had a method to verify that the book batlget In the amount ox 7LVIVVV. VV i,an u~~uu.:y Lee....,.yw...:Lo3. Joe Schultz, community Services Director, stated Barbara Anderson, County Librarian, Buppl tea the City with ver Lf ication on these types of matters. Councilmember Williams asked if this same paragraph would be included in the 1991/92 budget. Joe Schultz, Community Services Director, stated this would be continued each year ae far ae he knew, and stated h¢ would provide further clarifination in memo form to the council. Councilmember Buquet stated he would like the memorandum to include information on per capita revenue generation ae tv if it was actually expended here in this area for the library program. NOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Wright to approve Item D15 with the clarification mentioned above. Motion carried unanimously, 4-0-1 (Alexander absent). DISCUSSION OP ITHM NO. D26. Approval to release Naiatenance Guarantee Boad for Tract 12914, located on the northeast cor¢ar of Archibald Avenue and Bigala¢d Avenue. Release: Ne intenevice Ouara¢tee Bond (Street) $ 32,500.00 DISCUSSION OF ITEM NO. D28. D(a) Approval to release Maintenance Ouaraatae Goad for Traci 13362, located on the east side of Heraosa Avenue between 19th Street end Pinch Avenue. ITEM PULLED FOR DISCUSSION SY JACR LAN, CITY MANAO$R. Release Streator Maintenance 6uarevtee Boad $ 97,600.00 Release Private Street a: Maiatenavee Guarantee Bond S 17,e00 .00 City Council Minutes June 39, 1991 'raga 9 William Cur lay, Deputy City Attorney, stated the City rscelved today an incomplete notice with a potential of a lLen (atop notice) on these iwo bonds. He stated because of the lateness of receiving this information Ln order to ~ further investigate it, it was recommended that rho Council approve both releases conditioned upon and subject to approval of the City Attorney in case there are problems. MOTION: Moved by Wright, seconded by Buquet to approve Items D26 and OPB conditioned upon a final approval by the city Attorney prior to the actual release of the bonds. Motion carried unanimously, 4-0-1 (Alexander abeert). p. CON86NT ORDINANCES No Items Submitted. a • a a a 3+~~33kV.FYi~.11]Riy11~+~4;LF1 Fl. CONS DEAAT ON F ON N G - Review of current City regular ions affecting storage and parking of Recreational Vehicles on private residential properties. Staff report presented by Oito Kroutil, Deputy City Planner. Mayor Stout asked what the standards were prior to 1988 before the ordinance was approved. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, stated even prior to 1988 you could not ekore recreational vehicles diagonally across the front yard or on the main part of the front yard, thst ! would have had to be a paved z..rface or parmarert material that ie eaei ly maintained between the aide property line and the driveway. Ete stated the problem with this Ordinance was that it relied on maintennnce criteria, and Code finforcement received a lot of complaints by neighbors. He stated moat of the complaints were marginal and staff could not pursue a legal case for that reason. Councilmember William asked for clarification ae to what exactly ^front yard" means. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, et ated in relation to single family homes, front yard ie the area between the front of the home and the public right-of-way along the street. He stated the setback area fluctuates according io the size of a person's lot. Mayor Stout opened the meeting for putrlic hearing. Addressing the City Council were: City Council Hinut ee dune 19, 1993 aqo ... Roland Brown, 9212 San Bernardino Road, stated he bought hie house wanting Co park hie ftV in the front yartl because he could not get it in the bacW yard. He felt ha should still be able to park hie AV in the EronC yard. Willie Taylor, 13077 23rd Street, Etiwanda, asked if these regulaticne applied to a dirt toad. Mayor Stout referred Mr. Taylor tc Otto Rrout il, Deputy City Planner, to get his question answered. John Maxim, Jt., 8165 Cornwall, Etiwanda, at ated he has 1Lved in the City for 35 veers and so~~ Re ^..__.._ ,.r a..~. ... pu~w nas oeac an hie front yard. Jack Mallory, 9582 Church, stated he bought hie house thinking he could park his AV in front of hie house. He stated he has made improvement e, i.e., cement work in the front yard, in order tc accommodate hie RV. He pointed out that a survey was taken a year ago which proved that etornge fact}itiee are full, and asked where could people park their AV. Diane Garlick, 7968 Rosebud, stated she has lived in the City for 15 years. She felt people should be able to park their RV'a in the front yard. She stated she cou}d not afford to pay a storage fee to store hsr RV. Mike Perez, 13245 Victoria, felt new development should be required to have to provide RV storage with the City maintaining it. He felt an RV should be allowed to be parked in the front yard if the majority of the neighbors do not mind. BoU Zoldack, 6840 Hellman, stated he would like to keep hie AV in hie driveway because it is full of emergency cuppliaa. Mr. Metzger, 10276 Ashford, asked if all self-maintained AV's were allowed to be parked in the front yard. Mayor Stout referred Mr. Metzger to Otto krouCil, Deputy City Planner, to get hie question answered. Elliott Nannah, 10300 Arrow Route, did not agree that residents could nat park their RV's in the front yard and that they might have to pay to store them somewhere. David Long, 13021 Vista, Etiwanda resident for 27 years, felt RV's should be allowed to be parked in the front yard, and stated he has had an AV parked in hie front yard for 27 years. Beverly Chodae, 9609 Almond, stated she attended the meetings with Aon Ziebarth and also commented on the peot treatment the residents received from staff and the commissions at their meat togs. She did not think she should have to pay a Eee to store her boat away from her house and felt she should be able to park it in her front yard. City Ccuncll Minutes .T~nu 1_O, 10C1 Pag9 L1 Lyle Cribbs, 10302 Carrara, felt this mutter shoo ld be put to a vote of the people. Nike Doveeeye, 6869 Rovoto, eteted hie area does not allow AV's in the front yard par the CC&R'e. He felt Rancho Cucamonga should check with other cities on this matter. Ke felt the City Council should go with what the majority of the people wanted. He did not think the City code should be modified. ,Toe Yancy, Ivy Street, eteted ha has lived in the community for many years. He stated no one would tell him to move hie RV from his front yarn. Mike Vla, 6885 Cabrina, Victoria area, felt the residents should be able to keep their RV's in the front yard if their CC6R'e allowed it. Dave Fletcher, 9448 Orange, stated he did not think there should 6e a blanket law for all trailers to be made secure from rolling. He also felt a person should know who ie complaining about them. Ozzie %etchner, 10015 Langston St., et ated there are no homes in Rancho Cucamonga that have alleys off of the backyard, and asked how people would gat their RV's behind the house. He felt there were too many other issues more important than to worry about RV parking. Ray Caswell, 7935 Gardenia, et at ad hie principal vehicle ie his RV and that this etipu lotion should be included ae part of the ordinance. Aon Canfield, 9196 Malachite, felt he should be able to have an RV in hie front yard. He did not think they were unsafe, unhealthy or ugly and felt this matter should be put to a vote of the people. John Dykes, 10968 Glenoake since 1963, stated he did not think AV's should be taken away from the residents. Martin Wasters, 6409 %lusman for 13 years, stated he did not think the trailers or boats were an eyesore to hie neighborhood. He stated after taking a survey of his neighborhood, it proved hie naighbore did not object to RV's being parked in the front yard. Jane Bradshaw, 6949 Valinda, felt this was a safety issue because AV's parked in the Eront yard can obstruct chi ldren'e vision when playing in the front yard. Mike Perez, 13245 Victoria, felt churches and nonprofit organizations should be exempt. Dave Long felt the majority of the community really tlid not care. Bill Whit, 6875 Pecan, et ated he felt people do care and aheuld have the right to have their RV in their front yard. City Council Minutes June 39, 3991 Paaw 1,? John Maxim, Jr., 8165 Cornwall, Etiwanda, stated again ha did not think hie boat should be Laken away from hie front yard. Ron 2ieberth, 9602 Le Colina, stated he did not think the public Safety Comaiaeion and the Planning Commission should give their opinions about the issue, but only deal with the facto. He did not think the eight 11ne should be 20 feet. He felt people who were here before ell the regulations were eetabl iehed on RV'e should be allowed to have special permits to park their AV's in the front yard. Ha presented various photographs of RV vehicles parked in front yards. He asked that the people be allowed to leave their RV's parked where they want tc park them. Dols Stnrbuck, 117 w. Alraot, Aialto, also of tae Good Sam Organization, talked about an AV ordinance in San Antonio, Texas, and the aPfecte it had on their retail business benauee of lose of revenue. YYkYfh Hayor Stout called a recess at 9:00 p. m. The Council reconvened at 9:15 p.m. with all Councilmembere present (Alexander absent). 4YtRY• Bill Yancy, did not agree with the safety issues brought up. He also asked What would people tlo with their kids if they can't use their RV's in order tc keep them off drugs and off the arrests. Ozzie xetchner, 10015 Langston, stated again he felt RV's should be allowed to be parked in the front yard. Hike Doveseye, Rovoto Court, felt after hearing all of the testimony, some kind o£ a compromise should be made to include all of the euggeetiona made. Ron Cantield, did not think the safety factoY as far ae obstructing the view would be a problem. He stated there have not been any accidents because of safety issues. There being no further reeponee, the public hearing was closed. Counci lmember Wright stated the quality of life ieeua was brought up and etatad she agreed with that. She felt poaeibly that should be looked at in the Ordinance and addressed on a eafet}•/maintenance issue ae far ae if en RV waa stored in a location that was unsafe. She felt maintenance of an RV should be looked at. She felt that the pictures shown by Mr. Ziebarth were acceptable, but that it was those RV's that block a driveway or sidewalk that should be looked at. She did not think that RV's should be parked out of eight necessarily. Councilmember Williams stated she concurred with CouncilmembeY Wright and felt it should be individualized more. She etatad the safety iaeue ie still important, and that she was not ready to do an all or nothing decision tonight. City Council Mlnutee ......0 10, 1991 _ Page 13 Councllmember Buquet stated some people do not think the way their RV 10 parked is wrong, but he felt there were cases that were. He felt this eF,ould be a joint ~ effort by everyone to resolve this matter. He felt possible size limltattone should be considered. He did not think this should go to a vote of the people, and felt it would fail on the ballot if it did. He stated he felt more information was needed. Mayor Stout stated he felt there Were safety issues invo}ved ae far ae backing out of a driveway with an AV parked in the driveway. He felt community values were important and that values are changing. He felt it was important to find out what the community want e. He stated he did not think an AV owner's neighbors ..a __....c ..o....... s.... -- :sic uezgnnor a cney oppoeetl the parking of an RV in a driveway. He added he felt this should go to a vote of the people. Councilmember Wright stated she felt this was an issue the City Council could resolve, but felt a Subcomsittee should be made to work on this Lseue and then come back to the City Council for refining the Ordinance. Mayor Stout stated he would like Counc ilmember Alexander's input. Councilmember Wright stated she would like to serve on the aubconanittee. Councilmember Williams asked that the residents submit their thoughts in writing on this matter and direct them to the City Council. ACTION: The Council concurred that Councilmembers Williams and Wright would serve on the RV Subcommittee. Councilmember Wright suggested that people representing both sides of the resident e' viewpoints a18o work with she and Councilmember Williams. ACT iON: mho COL`nCil n.,..C.Yred that this item wouid come back at th0 August 21, 1991 meeting for follow-up discussions. • • A # f h Mayor Stout called a recess at 9:55 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:15 p.m. with all Councilmembers present (Alexander absent.). w x . . . F2. CONSIOEAAT ION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91'03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A reQlle at to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan to modify the Extensive Impact Commercial Vae and to add the Indoor Wholesale/Retail Commercial Uae and its related development criteria within the Specific Plan area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration, Staff report presented by Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant PlenneY. Mayor Stout asked if what goes on at General Dynamics' parking loi on weekends would prohibit them from doing this because of this amendment. City Council Minutes June 19, 1991 'rage id Brad Buller, City Planner, stated General Dynamite hoe never had a permit for this use. He stated this would prohibit the activities that go on there. Ne ~ stated if they want to continue with these specific activit lee, they would have to go indoor or have what is called a special temporary use permit. Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council were: Aance clou ee, 10370 Commerce Center Drive, stated he was there on behalf of an operator of this type of bueineee, ae well ae a property owner Ln town to lease property to this type cf bueineee. He continued to inform w,wu .. wan inuiuueu in wrs peen amenumnnc, nna re•r ume was a unique concept. councilmember Will iame wanted to make sure this would not be Like the indoor swap meet at Indian Hill. Mr. Clouse at ated provisions have been made to make sure that it is not by the requirements that have been created, including the management requirements. Mayor stout wanted to make sure that sales tax and bueineee license fees are controlled for this. Councilmember Wright expressed concerns for health standartle in regards to the selling of food. Mr. Clouse stated there would be full compliance. Councilmember Wright expressed concerns about the stacking of boxes. ..:. ,.~,...ao =..ated t.`.a,. ,.~,./d to ..ont m ~.ed throng it Buiidiuy and Safety. councilmember Wright asked if there was one she could go see. Mr. Clouse felt Montclair Plaza would be a similar situation. Councilmember wrigh! asked it this could be stopped iE it did not work. Mr. clouae et ated it could rot be stopped immediately, but that if they did not comply with the Conditional Use permit, the Council might impose the revocation process. The Council continued to ask various questions ae to the construction of this. Councilmember will fame asked if there would be control for the types of goods sold, and added this was a concern of here. Brad Buller, City Plannoz, stated there could be requizementa to go along with the Conditional Uee Permit. eo that this would stay a family shopping place. City Council Minutes June 19. 1991 Page 15 Hayar Stout felt the good intent lone of the tenants should be put in black and white. Mr. Clouse felt this could be included in the management plan of the Conditional Use Permit. Councilmember Buquet felt there ahou ld be a "shopping list" of what ie a permitted use for the tenants. Councilmember Wright asked for clarification ae to the lecatien of these types of projects. Brad Buller, City Planner, continued io point this out on an overhead map. Councilmember Wright asked it !t was a concern of the Planning Consoles loo as to the number of people that would patrol inside. Brad Bullerr City Planner, stated it was a concern of the Commission, and stated staff woultl be recommending that there be a mLnimum of four maintenance individuals during all operating hours, a minimum of four security personnel, ae well as twenty-four hour surveillance on other days of the week, and six management (administrative staff) on the premises during operating hours, for a total of fourteen people. Ha felt with this as part of the Conditional Use Permit it woultl be self policing, eo that the only time the City needed to get involved was when there were complaints. Count ilmember Wright expressed her concerns about pceeible health and safety matters if the City was not there to police the premises. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the Fire Department felt comfortable that by having routine inspections they could control these types of problems. Richard Martz, 8745 Luraline, commented on the General Dynamite parking lot swap meet stet in9 it ie held the second Saturday each month For approximately Eive hours through the General Dynamics HAM club, and stated he would hate to see it go away. Ne added this has been going on Eor approximately five years. Mayor Stout agreed that he would hate to see General Dynamics have to stop. Mike Perez, 13245 Victoria, stated he was concerned how thte would affect the City's schools. He felt there should be training classes involved to mitigate the impact on the community colleges, i. e., operating cash registers, serving food, etc. Ne felt cash registers should be required of all vendors with spot audits made and paid for by the vendors. He felt the ventlors should be required to give a list of their products antl be approved. He suggested there be a log of police calls made. There being no further response, the public hearing was cloned. Councilmember Buquet stated he liked Mr. Pe:ez•e comments on the security aspect. City Council Minutes June 19, 1491 cage id councilmember Wright stated she liked the comments ralat ive to consumer protection also. Mayor Stout suggested that the first Conditional Uee Permit have an automat le review in six to twelve months to see if this type of use is working well, and if it is not, a modification could be made to the permit. Count Llmember Wright stated some of the concerns expressed should be anticipated and included in the Conditional Uee Permit. Councilmember euquet stated ha liked Nayor Stout's suggestion of the automatic review. councilmember Wright stated she would like the consumer issues relative to cash regi stet monitor inq and ability to audit also. Brad Bu Sler, City Planner, Mated these concerns would be passed on in writing to the Planning Commission before the fir et application for a Conditional Uee Permit comes before them. councilmember Buquat Eelt the enforceability issue should also be looked at. Mayor Stout stated it was not hie intention to prohibit the outdoor swap meet situation such ae that at General Dynamite. He felt this issue should be addressed separately. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the Council could delete that portion of the amendment that prohibits outdoor swap meets, which could be taken ae a separate action. Mayor stout stated the General Dynamics situation hoe not had any complaints in five yaara. Ha .a ,. there should to sc.Te .imitat ices, but this particular situation should not be prohibited. grad Buller, City Planner, reiterated the Temporary Use Permit does allow that type of outdoor promotional ea le, but not on a monthly baaia, and stated there is no exception to the code at this time. He added if the Council wanted it separate, i.e., the code modified and amended to allow some provision such as this, that would open the door to allow provisions for other outdoor swap meet situations. Ne suggested the council drop the outdoor portion of the amendment which prohibits this. Mayor Stout stated he woo ld like further consideration of thin issue, and would like that dealt with separately from the proposed amendment before the Council tonight. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 448. City Council Mlnutee JUna lOr 1401 Page 17 ORDINANCE N0. 448 (first reading) AN OADINANCS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TNB CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL ARBA SPBCIFZC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS POR THE INDOOR WHOLESALB/RETAIL COMMHACIAi. USE, MODIFYING THE DEFINITION OF EXTENSIVE IMPACT COMMBRCIAL OSS, AND NAEING FINDINGS IN SVPPORT THEREOF MOTION: Moved by Baguet, seconded by Wright to waive full reading, cet eecand reading for July 3, 1991, and delete the portion that deals with the total prohibition of outdoor 4w.o me~~a u-~~:-_ vc-_c~ ,...,...+....a niy, .:-u-a (alexander ab sent). F3. CONB IDERATION OF ANNUAL REFUSE RATES Staff YepoYt preeeniad by Diane O'Neal, Management Analyst II. Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no reeponee, the public hearing was closed. RSSOLVTION N0. 91-173 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO WCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SSTTING RATES FOR RSS IDENTTAL AND COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL REFUSB COLLECTING WITHIN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MOTION: Moved by Nuquet, secondetl by Williams to approve Resolution No. 91-173. Motion carried unanimously, 4-0-1 (Alexander absent). • • • x D4. C NSIDERATION O ORDER THE V CA ON OF A POR I OF N L E T OF CHITS AVENUE D SOUTH F F HILL BOULEVARD Staff report presented by Dan James, Sr. Civil Engineer. Hayor Stout opened the meeting far public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. RESOLUTION NO. 91-159 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OP RANCHO CUCAHONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING TO 8E VACATED A PORTION OP AN ALLEY LOCATED WEST OF MALACHITE AVENUE AND SOUTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD MOTION: Moved by Wright, seconded by Baguet to Resolution. No. 91-159. Motion carried unanimously, 4-D-1 (Alexander absent). . • • . . City Council Minutes Ju.^.e ~s laol Page 18 0. PUBLIC HBARIN68 NO Items Submitted. • ~ H. CITY MANAOBR'8 BTAFP ABPORTB H1. CONSIDERATION C M 10210 - ALMOND INTERCEPT CHANNEL. LOCAT80 ON THE NORTXNEST CORNEA OF ALMOND STAEAT AND SAPPHIRE STRBBT Staff report presented by Joe O'Neil, City Engineer. Mayor Stout asked why they are releasing the Palthful Performance Hond for the streets when it indicates storm drain in the title. Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, stated it indicates street, Dut it really ie the storm drain only, and that all of the other 6onde are et ill in place for that tract. Release: Faithful Performance Bond (Street) $587,400.00 Accept: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) $ 58,740.00 RESOLUTION NO. 91-154 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE STORM OAAIN IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE ALMOND INTERCEPT CHANNEL AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOA THE WORE MOTION: Moved by Wright, seconded by Williams to approve Resolution No. 91-154. Motion carrietl unanimously, 4-0-1 (Alexander absent). . . t • t H2. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING FUNDING AVAILABLE FROM SOUTH COAS U MANAGEMENT DISTRICT lSCAOMDI Staff [sport presented by Jim Hart, AdminletYative Services Director. Mayor Stout asked who will he recommending to the Council how these funds will be spent, and asked if the bn~-ironmental Management Commission would be doing thia. Jim Hart, Adminiatrat ive Services Director, stated St would be done through staff, or the Environmental Management Commission ae another alternative. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of ordinance No. 444 Clty Couneil Minutos .....e 1981 Page 19 ORNINANCE NO. 449 (First reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OP THS CITY OF RANCHO CVCAHONGA, CALIFOANIA, ESTABLISHING A MOB ILH SOURCE AIA POLLUTION REDUCTION PROGRAM MOTION: Moved by Wright, seconded by Buquet to waive full reading and set second reading of Ordinance No. 449 for July 3, 1991. Motion carried unanimously, 4-0-1 (Alexander absent). NO Items Submitted. I. COVNCIL EVSINNBB ~ • • ~ • t J. IDENTIFICATION Oi ITENB POR NEIT MERTINO No items w¢re identified for the next meeting. • . • t R. CONNUNICATIONH FItON T88 PIIeLIC No communlcat ion was made frcm the public. t t M• R R L• ADJGDANNENT The Council recessed at 11:15 p.m. for an Executive Seeelon per C.C. 54956 regarding pending litigation with Tecon Pacific ve. Berry Construction, Caee No. RCV 053547, and also to discuss personnel matters. The Council reconvened at 12:14 a.m, to announce approval of a Settlement Agreement with Berry Construction and adjourned at 12x16 a. m. to July 1, 1991, 5:30 p. m. far the budges adoption. Respectfully submitted, Debra J. Aflame, CHC City Clark Approved: July 1, 1991 CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTEB Adiourned Meatina An adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held on Monday, July 1, 1991, Ln the Council Chambers of the Civic Centerr located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The mooting was called to order at 5:41 p.ro. by Mayor Dennis L. Stout. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; Linda D. Daniels, Deputy City Manager; Jerry B. Fu lwood, Deputy City Manager; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Olen Jones, 3R. RDA Analy at; Laura Bonaccore i, Landscape Dee igner; Erad Buller, City Planner; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Sigmund Dallhime, Management Analyst II; Walt Stickney, Associate Engineer; Jerry Grant, Building Official; Joe Schultz, Community Services Director; Ingrid Blair, GIS Supervisor; J~ fart, Administrative Services Director; Susan Neely, Finance officer; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. r ~ r ~ r ~ B. CONSENT CALENDAR B1. Approval of Memorandums of Underetanding with Employee troupe for Fiecel Year 1991/92. B2. Approval to Adopt Salary Resolution implementing salary and benefits changes for Fie cal Year 1991/92. RESOLU'T ION NO. 91-174 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION N0. 90-273 AND ADJUSTING SALARY RANGES AND BENEFITS FOA EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF HANCHO CUCAMONGA B3. Approval of a one-year extension of City Manager's agreement (CO 89-037). B4. Approval to execute a Joint Uee Agreement (CO 91-036) with Southern California Bdieon company for relocation and installation of electrical transmieaion lines from a utility easement to a street easement on the east aide of Rochester Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard. Continued frog Juan 19, 1991. city council Minutes ly 14°.- page 2~ RESOLUTION NO. 91-164 A RESOLVTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A JOINT USE AGREEMENT WITN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY FOR RELOCATION OF UTILITI@S AT AOCHEETER AVENUE AND FOOTHILL 9OULEVARD MOTION: Moved by Baguet, seconded by Alexander to approve the Consent Calendar. Hotion carried unanimously, 5-0. a • • a • C1. ADOPTION OF FISCAL YEAR 1941/92 BUDGET. AND ARTICLE XII II^B Btaff report presented by Sack Lamy CLty Manager. Msyor Stout opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. RESOLUTION NO. 91-175 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH@ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE CITY•S HUDGET (GAS TAX, OTHER SPECIAL PURPOSE FUNDS, AND ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS) FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991/92 RESOLUTION NO. 91-176 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CVCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, 65TAELI SHIKG nt: A?r^RO?RISTiCi]S LINT PVASUANT TO ARTICLE XIII-B OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION FOA FISCAL YEAR 1991(92 MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Baguet to approve Aesolu[ion Noe. 93-175 and 91-176. Motion carried unan imouely, 5-O. Counc ilmember Wright wanted it pointed out that there have been previous meetings and workshops to discuss the proposed budget. Counc ilmember Baguet also stated the Council has gone through budget workshop discussions which covered tha entire budget, and that now they were at the end xe salt which was the adoption of game. • • . • a a D. COMNVNICATIONB FROM TBR PUBLIC No communication was made from the public. . • • . • . City council Minutes July 1, 1991 . _~_ 3 E. AWOURMI~NT MOTION: Movetl by Alexnnder, eeeonded by Will fame to adjourn. Motion carried ~ unanimously, 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra J. Atlame, CNC vi~y -.v... Approved: sNa Div ¢, zs° a00 ¢ Y NW Oj6 Y ~ V P Op OPOVOOOVnO00MO0000+Nwa000P n ~: NOw OOOhA0000VO0000NwnNPOmNO O00pp NJPONNwOw N POOO O_a0000VTO000N+10PNb nN00 PNnOnnOn NC 0 nh V=~N•N mO00tiPN0000NNPa OJN 0 n Nn m o ^ NNnV N n w r11 n w w N Z• tl~0 •: O 0 N A ^ie•N •n+N+•POwNN+N+h•lOwNN+NahfPOWrvN+N+hOPOwnPJ~~ehm wNN ao<ueao3a3S7aS333~iSaa$~S~s<°nP.~i:°h Rr°-P.~°n Nn .w.~rn~~r nrw-Inn~n >+aa+a+eaaaaa++++a++aaaaa+aaaa+aaaaaaaaaeeeaaaaa+eaa ONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNMNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNPNNMPPNPPNNNNNNNN < _ __ _ •I ql tl00 • • O • • O < aYw V 9 FhM N W h \ P nl Pi e° iu+ J J\ _ • N O W V NS IN P P Vi o.°.N sa o ao s i tlu aiv ai NA NJ ~ °: Pew oN v \uv No ¢a WD °u d fz z » fz ~~ ui iD u e uW Dl xh >rJ ai L • h.Wi +2 hN NJw •r •h ~o ¢ uJ iiWfr9iW ri Rwi~uhiP uN D¢uhWaf• ~ LD ae wnz » Y ihe.WiLL w iWatlN OW NZ NF n+1DV ZOJ hn 00 J •ft WLLM Jf SNNI W>Ni S OJ F W W V20 NW WWW JS WZLO WSG • SO W SOW O ODYNOVOS NVYFO JgOWOH2 ¢S lrwiUMZe JLLLp Wih_ J hiZY~SiiWiiiih PtJOr •2nh 1]ZNLOnN a O Z~ M N WMMJNO O'J=W eLLMN ainwx0< i0e> ¢J VJN Z W W WgiZOVIIY iWiOZ\ JJWFO:itl tltlNOWas ~ NW <VY O~VOO VW Ow1V9iYWNWq F NVWW)w V_PP2 ~fW it2 hYOfiOVtl2~WIliWN`i0 000 w Nl wll pFM 0 W~OWf YWM J:MwIW i • N= wYJU~ JW0 F1 <wnM<I+W p< w0~0 OW<6 0_¢W<f< Vwh OM fOtlNV)VNi1DWVJ9Z20nN<V rUOW pi iVNJOOi\OOhO O O 'Jr •ZOr~~O¢V •SFFN < ZFIWYLLLL Of iV\ tr\VP\F>NWW06M6~nFZhh.~ i~» JWirZZO V W00 )ZWY WOWJLCDOfOJtwWNOVeuwtr JJGU3m60P¢VVVO~ORViVYH Z 20 4 R• 2• O• O~ ii W• M e: n O l hN V S 1- N J Y ZO~ W N W v O ~ RN L MUV N Op O ~h O i h0 NV UU• ZS N 2 ~\ ¢i N SJ Wll L V¢ 00 u nu' ''R < h~ 'i L} nJF ZZS h0 n0 ZU ¢ ZRN WSN V WYiZwN UN hOw wi! wZF i wi iJ fiVYnl< lL N6JOa iN OS OZOW~YiWr •YZNO ZJhOnN V eJ• OUJgO WMM)hWIFFIWNI <U0n SN VWUhwNrU nOn OWw WUl6R > YirJV00NMahWU<w0 J OlJ OOiwO FOI> WO• y OOwlVU020N W W20V OWVaiOEifWZiVJ~iNUWWWhn >JZZUZw~NSOZ~)O OYO •VO IOZNWWN OiaWO~l06 NZ)~NJOO W>qaJ W:W IOWJNZaWWOOJOi¢O„ V ¢i FaOFJFw::YN• FOwWV > iIZJVJFW nZ Yhi¢ 7»NVi wa> «~- Oui O UVJWI>pLLOJYNWhR6JNilWFOFhaii7>WODUUVUJUN O La g000JRataZWNO WSZLLNMOOOOOC¢7 .~~aV 6 i06 <alllZllOgOggqqVUVUVUUUUVVVUUVUUVUDVOOOpwwwww wNnJa++ONNnNNwhnON00•n•pJ+OwNeN+NhPJ d Pa NaPNnN111aOhNOm+a•wNNhJ NddmmnPnnmdrvrvNn N a~ONpPw ! gamhP NNma Na n a Nw cm nNf n N ha°a° na N n. o ~N °NOONeeneP rrrneppNneNNe nNlommNmN° OOnOhOeNNON000nNPOaiNPOPONN ew•P OMNrOOa ••a0ii OON VO°i NOOnhPM mNirvOtlN eOn° ihara0 M °NNN°ON°OpwOwaeanmPPOniIOiONaieNbriMONONmP~ NPNNrvN NN OIn a0 wwwnwlNa NNN ••a wwwwNrnwmw N n w S• O• O• •O• JiNbNPpOwNmanaNOPOrNNirbF°PO••NmlPah\POw•Nm\NaPrP O •wNn• •i• 1 w mFArrYM1f hhM1Ff FIV~.F•Vwrrnn rl~IN•hFFAnrrrrnM1rAA1. 1F. IF.FF ioaaaaao~abaabaaaaaaaabatlboaaaaaaaoaaa\oaaaaaaaabbbtl n nnNNNNNNNNNnNNNrrNrrrrNrrrrrrrrrrrrNrrNaNNrNNNnNnN :i: s i { z 2 i • i Y ~ _ i T W{ N PY V W S O Z OM w i ~ O \i m Zi~LL~J !\ i ~1W O L !Z N YNP OIIiP Z Y •3M •w !OY Y F ! <Y_I tl N iOr M \ WlJ rY OPVr Z u } Y • W n 1vJ ••WNiw n V i v { ? _ FiOw O J wi •i l ~i u U . o e N{ ° NN° :i M : e ~ o W ! ° N. Y; ua1 i \ • u W `PPZ wi li : iN°WOP~y wa n< u s~.u N i J ° i1 uZ UZZ v i V J °n N YO MIJNO~Y W < <ONwSWri W PG i •II WI .JVi iGIW01 n 1 < < ZLLO >m SM Y Y ViUw ii rM{Wtl ZN OWLP JYI Z x0 iour~o ie ee<ole~Pl.IYPOaePnr\n~ ONZW Y ~ .rZ JZV`V`M<JV 0•IOJWNZTWY• NIIVMF iWF OZPNSIN w s ~ Jr~J! = W~rJ 7jj •W_N PV NV ••• OSlS JZi Nu Oa ~LLO r \i FeNyywwWi•• i z N •V• W~eePN s al l o _ ~icr<N. N ~6A6yW yW1rwY 2 OM J w\f°V YOtNFiNW i w• Y e { lW2 Fi3Z iF V~NOZNNWONIU FYVG<vW 2 VtCJCO } ~ LL Sw•,i •rnUr?va0 •YJ{YiMnZFWWOi1L6iY• Ot vw•W °J NIO 1JipVN!!••b.w•VV2viJ\O.WONiW••7iV1 .OMZCJOJ.n<••••V U .Oiw• \MNxN V VO{VS~WieWYNVO VNUINPCV vUVU nw• v ziN w NOw• UZFZSZewFi i \OJM•w°v WILr0001YepYN Ny : OJJ w-S sjJMiaOZVi<• iilFl F••s NNYSfrW>JOSOi n rYJOULL O LLWlOW<JmJ<\{OIiV'IflWfOi WfLWWOWOZ tO JO•• NIIO S tl~VwWVePUOViiiSMYi.NN>01L.pJVVOiOFOnWrw•1 u ZrN F _ i su W zs zzu oN{ ~°w x Ys O V uWi JN J IV r N YNM •[U! V O~v O 4 rY z •x sa ~J 00 •W>NG1 N'J NZN wVMVJ• y < wZ O VMS v u<w NJJ wM YO u FV6 SJ1Jl• rPJJi •IPlF4Z 7.i0 •-6 02 N•{ •W°ZNOM ~ NNNO N ~ a[N Un iV\O •FV.S6 •OrYS ^J 1 ifY U 6u _ vJ vUni NfY{O Zi 'U••••N YZjN°wwW •nW0 N VyJI°iJN NW~V Wi WVOO{NW JvwW •{OSS} VZ COVOYUNJ=v SyOJWO W'yWW vJJJ JW W Jp<wj<f C 0 wZ wY a00n0{Y!!<\wY0 6J •JiZ O 0 yvvO iN tWW • p{ a {WUwa>rOM •W N VJUVMF ~ Z ~ •2W iWJMNF JPN N°FwSV J : i NWi f lW`Fw x ~W •Sf S w uFwJJMWJ J I Mori N y = Fu N•[ U\ •VVWiSZZ2 OPNNZW Wp[M ONYZwO/ ~ wSv w YFY< ON \ M : Y Nw•}V •tW VUVVYZ6v9f Mif W F e F J W p : wWUal:{{.aPe°JNN< u z< u\ ~ ~ WOC WOnPZZZ2'Ii 2. U2 S LfZ •2t iiZSiivv>nn iiZSSZS2NN••w{{.JJII LLLLLLLLLLLL LLILU VVVVV C NPPnNOOnMONONmNrNnaaN °IIN OPVN _ aPOa PinaanNaa mNaVP1N Nann P amPr NbPOrn P NNN NrNN Nr• •V irrY •• N NNrnIN••N NNNNii Nrv•~n~nr r~I~ \~ \• e00W00MNOMO WI-h PjaNaNPOn Oir~~r~~~rr~~r~~rr~rrr~• IoN °ow•maN Sl°nnaa:naini~ia°ow N NOP n Nrn www N nVdw NnONONM00000pwdOONVwOPIOVN •rV0• NVOOOOOOnO rOONOnNOOa olawNweNP NalPedeedf •nPr n V NwPO nNn n 1 w n r n + • a r N f ^ nlN al'+POwNnINOwOwNNIN+nZPOrNmVN+nNPOMNnINah VON0000++ PPPPPPO 00 ~I:n. C~FFwnwnnwnn£wnwwwwni..BS2SSEY:::::::::'.:Ye:.o:e a+ae+++a++aa+++aaa++a+a++af+++++d+a+vda++a+dNa+aa++ ONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNMMMMNMNMMNMMNNNNMNNNMNNMNMN iNP I ~iN Vua =~0 zoe LL N Orb J u° ii ii s: a + i `J >+ V J99'I 'i0 J 91 9 • fY __ N ._1 J si i i~ •i u WZ\ O Z OZVN u ri Wig if _ i:ri uYnY» i r iii I~f GV ZN 000 F_<J YfV O •NW p;V d4• LLj UV J WZiO W'i /iiYii ~ rwFiit viuF`:~IWW=ii• i N=yJFi „QYrvnW •iN`__ rws_ NWOiON0002JJJ iNWJ NVir >WVirn00 viiWiOO _ oi`f rLLWii f Fr i _ dONiiONVVWUVZJ ~JiF OOFV VON>IOliJif NnWi66ipNLF4pYGN1-0NVIlN6 . O N i1 f >h0 FFFV VON NF J7J O WWM NOiJ LLof ~ WZ6 \u i W>re O„VWO Wy7JiWiIViN06 sF~a>NO JW~ooFJWiea OS>22J1NiWlO iyi.WWNiO ~i. Wu ~Si+ 6N~J2WW~u mss>n OV iJ rfZVNWWWWi LLWWO M VIVlOOi~W w_GLO W'J O=JpF uiYNNOJ202NF> 2 rpopi ~uw+ii nLLWLLLLWiisiii i~+NrNNNNNNN •dd rdPNd mPOddwPw Pa.n. I W J ~ • i i ~ ~ Wu io c i n c V \ J OJY 'I JV W N Wt0 iw Om \ nJ. V\W VO \7w WWZVO Nl r_ i\N V 1 1'N WIS>i Oi YaF 1 ril iJFOiF V VI ; „:' j" NW• UFO .nine Nw NF ~ ei~ ~i.°.m urN. rWF iw iw ~fe> i i LLU>IS: eo IOOV \MwWOw N1.O9WWWNOSw=:eNd 'JiVNYUV 21LY0IVMiNU. NF Moi> Maio zeo opiF1 fo V01W OiWZiWO•WYIV wi0i20wV2 N n J ~LL\•00 .>VOJ OFr VPSOONLLSi>ONN•yWYJiiOJN _W Y.1J N~iOeui~FaaWi7r~VO0iJf0 of[~p iron Fopf.JUeWUOJ>u. wi>NWV»CtNZ 1-iONOYfOni InW jO.JiO ON• SWNJ6LL N YOON1oNY 1FYOwnNOiLLil~rti0aii i r Z r OW . W ~ yi N E• _ f F N WW of OV 1I N V or V= rWr SON JN6. V: Vi JJO NV JZ i u i OFF O WuVii N~ i Wue Muria .eW uy ~iiW yn. `saw .iuW°O.°.i° .°. u.+°rf. ~z JJWNJNiWfiFONpNWpi LLS• fiiK oypW r1LWW0 fOWOri V WiSF ~ZYiLLZFVN~Nn ~ffwWWff2ViifOr LLL4G F~WO00'J irrrv. NN NNNNNNNNNMFr•FF7 » » Zaiiaa NPwrvNONNaNPNmNINVm npNNFOPIwn• rNNaPON V• f `ei ~i IZ nON0000 O ONNOtl N ~ y Y NTH N 0t OOOMNMNw n e `N 1P USN 'u `tl UZ uQ YF¢ OrG 1 •w Y~ O• O• i• _H i u O el i wi w ~~ F .utl o N r .N+ WN wON NS irW WM Otl~ SOP NM if rJaO Jtl j~Wp<O tlW~~iO~ TOiONP~ OiC hU ~Iw w V U ~LL W_O Zw fV N2 i wwwNfW wZOJ N\VV~~ i~ur :~ eo°uo iJZi Zo\M~~[i JJJ 6W Sw ZiZiZ~t ra •~NPNOn mNN Nnm O N ShP Of~ U!F the ii ~ON !MY o«s J N L Y .: :: .; .: N. ; ., :. Y6 C W. . u• ~ l• Li i iri wiii N a N0000 ONOOOOOOOePNNO0a0000NO00YONPO00000T 0+ • wneeo eo«eo°e•YNnNOftlNpaNhaonoooNhNOeNeNaeeenee.+e~ N ~ VNOVO NONNNO•NNVOaNOPOeV„OONn N•NONnNaPyNNh„~P N• = N NPOOT •N«POa NNNO NNMNP VNNNtNONNM•NONNN NN. = : M N NNNn N w N N A N n A irN• •rww• ~hNNh•wONNOwMMNN+NV„YnOMNNVNOwieONNn•NVM1YO=::N•NON i+ WNnd$eaee~~~ammmmms"amL"e~Sue em~o~«o:eoomi~~~hi YYY °Y.. °eo ~~ onwwnwwnwwrnwwnwnmanYannwwnnnnann wwnnienwnnwnr+en len i°r~wwwp+°nw n+aiw~ W•I loL IiY W a • • ! • • Y Y f\h == L• ~ N : O NO AN NN YON YONN Nas a !h •Y W •h ea • VNVn „O LWiO 'O • =W+ Oaw WYO tY OOJYNN MI r NYN\M~ WO h n O N4 O NVOO M Nn•NOO •~ i aNY f iilT ON ^O Y i NWO \MLw YO eYmO:YN •~ O I c ~ N'i Yo • VY N i• Vail i0 OL Z wWM O W Y O M1 YYY 0i h NW W OW 9M1 VFVYM1V JVw Y~{OWO MOiJ• =~_~ = h hN _ _ _O N_Y_M1 _O L+ V V\LM Vi YlLN• -eiOL N NL LOii w < L W+ V;V O1MM1 M1VW OiOW+INWYaiW W YVWMiWYi>WW \Y ~lhVWWMY~ yWM J U N VYN~ LLWU Y~NYJi VU!<YV ON OONUV•W+ M1 „MO q W L MPOiN MYh fOJ 6MaWMWiYW J J`MJSW i; i h_ ! ONJO~p yW LMmi W LyW•i>Y e! \ W Y4 W LtlN J JWONM1COWMOOL aWNiNYiNWWYNN VN NJWNOO\ii (EVWO O =NiOMOMiieNW YiY iONNNNNN W9 peYOiV00+ E YF O INeE O LWVNNV20W: JN 000 LY NNN M+ ~ Y YLNgi hLF LhNYiMNYJhf YYYMY>NN i N ZY Y\N+ ~ 0}iN ~ LViMWOOiON09a0(LWLSNOWOEVL -h6ViLOOVW+ O ;hYN NOlOOLi NW« YO MOIYME YN JOlOMNO J M NNM1> YN1~NJV s N«WNL 00(OMCN NN N i NNW i f NW \i hM1MMiM iM M1VIiONM1 ONN LFWLhNNL i~ WL Y> YJ LiiWaMM <W <NiNiNYaf Eft ~ENEhWilflN• ! NOJ i J JIYWYYJi SyY(JWW Z JW~WJJ W YLiWJJ i~ a ! <N'J Y»<Oiii\YNY YYMiJNMiV! iYY Li6iYNEVVLNI M iNwWN OM1F`hi<VOOYf OVhOM~<MeiOhihPO Ofi<OtlttlOC C1 2 J<KO ZWWYLiL4ii\ i< iYLO/iYEiMNi(Y LV L Y M WWYVJ DJLifYiaOObM19YtO shfp OWJ09'JJ •! lDOIOO O: > JOOW iJMNLWW W ~i JNLJYL9ihLM1JYLLaOY}WL LL}L1 2 f ~Y<LL lYCiNBOMrYMfiiNYVONfiOf ifU6lYOOOOIYOLLO l1 s N u Y Y M O h W N of V V l Y IL O h W W Y i J hL h }}M O NM <N M1 W M OW N Ni tY Yi l i J sZ 2glfL W yyhi pip0 L V M y! p NihV J 'JW WN Y} W i i~ 2 Z 2OM1N OM E OM1 'J i WMM O h eYYO O i O Yi J W •LJ y Wi P NY M I_ ~ __ i aO} J NVi< N Li Y Z fi < O OiMO h W ~ J IMOJW Y W J iMiNL YO MM1 (VhhNFi i a. YW fY JZNLaVf iVN rV t'Jl<1 WJV i WM1LNi YYihN MMCJMi ILLiJ}aiY ZFiW{VL <WYi`!~ V JNIO{h VWJI<YV iYYiIYNVO Naif O M1W9 LVYON OOYZM iNWMZ<M NMipO{af JWYi YE V 1 iJipp iYN pp t. _hiah7 LY •O iMiiNYMWi •O = uYWV ~OOZWW WONgiO YYLY •ZN!•f rOYiJ •Y r~L~Jek •ZI O N ih>M a~~OVVYlfYVUf >N OLi Nf WNZ7J<p• NOOOY J~VYN. V l WONWM iWfNi <iiNM M1O WJJi i pYY YYWiLLM~ O ~~ N O {M1}JJ YY7<}~aLLS>WWi Yi<ti latN~h}gY>YYYMJJJr!lN~~Wi Z M1IiJO •VOOONJJJiiZNiN<fiINMNJOOp> ffl<l<l< Y P NYN}L f<ltf<toaaYlfalapOOiOppOOpOiYVYVVVYYYYVYt • NN.1NP POhNONn•O.OP••HMNNVNVwhOOPONh•N•OP6nMNin. ~0n OanOOatlenNOY00•aNn000nNaPPNOPPaahPhhVh~ nY1e 0Y O VO~OONOOVPO m100YON nOPYPOOVeOnO0ee00P 0+ n N nNH V NVNOO OONNONNO ON aNONH 00 nV VOVOOON O• S O M <hw ue~ =;0 SLO <O~ WNW Ojp H a V W e i i i i i. K• Z• qi ii a <i i• i i i Y oo eoovneeN<gooeooooeeNgo+gaNeerNeme or-NeeNeageooNOOme~ ONNOwNOmN00000namO0000NOOVNOmMO ;w NONOMN000O0000/ ONmNMO110wNONNNbNNMONONIm~N10NPNmONPeONOONNONNNOU/ w mNNNON m•IN bNNm/ImNm NN •NN V N+J1neVMNNY•(•N ~N~ jON NN NNINON•PONNN pINV CN OPONN III N+AOPOMNm1NVw<PONNmfNbwO p~ VZpOOZZZZSZRRRRI'PRPRpprPpT pip pppTppppPPPOPTPpPPPPPP P• ONNNNNPNNNNNNNNNNNN NYbINNMNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNMMNNNNNNNNNN~ t _ W N N •• • • • • ' V~aN e^NL \ ONNNNZ~M OPP NM a0 M• ~O <w mN~N O„WMN N \N „ T •i>P •11 >1 N iPiNP\ MOOp MO PO M > ON ON Y< P Pe10\ PP<wZN=w WNO HO __ P N + W Ww00 ~ U>O ~a O_N:==YPW N\w\• • ~ SN mPW ~• 1 •YN<\VOLOW • •L w <N N ZOPO \•i ~ P M m P 09N N N Y <PO 00 O NUM W_YM \N POY> b0\O O\YWO NV 6N • > Y MV G~ ! NweN\NNMwMIOVWZ+!!1 ii LY N O i ••O WG w.N /1 NNJL MLN W O ti • „ O N•Nb O~ \PW „WYO:``ZWW\WM\Wl~WY yJ WW ~ Y iKiYLW u ~ilVVOUa+u lUlRy ~ uY > IN « 1 o Wlq, WW J`Wi YWmW ZV LWi J<hWW ~+JO J T Iliml + \Si WMFKLi\ONW<+N ifNJW ZLZ nV `:NO 1 6W / +9 s LPVV •Y MLV 1S1PJ VNLN •WW MLO• WI WWONN J O• fOM~j ONLOiSONWNJlMW~MTiJOVOOWNlO/1/IMWW'JNW7OJJ WIOIIN OaMOWY~ •iNYO•IbWNNVOF:OYWNWN`YNYYN NmOJNIOYWgLfLWOONOVNW 2~ LW~JLR~RMOZ•• OOLhONNOYOW\LW~•OLYNiZWL+YOWiLWi1~RWi~ + LO W Ya J iWOJ W iYf OWO 7 OOgO iNi JhL LS. TN9NNMItLWINNMy~iNiIONTYL •NZHMNNNIYf Y1•IiWUNNiWONVZi ~N<NStf WLV ttYf WW<WLJ<NWLWZWW«Z<IiZMiIMUytt MZ <N N~ J WJJi ZWJJNJiZJ JJ iOIVWZJJOSMWt WWiZ JJiWiJ LUV=FVVy__<VVLYJVVVZOYUJNMnL VVN •f Mlj~:JW`YYNN •YJ 11 OYSh6SSNVhN2iOSHNLiVVSZWO~t6 ZYZ2U>VSYOL04hOYZiihYOfl Ls00• z000 /9F/9h J9MhM7iOFOJN• WWYLJWZYg09cJOh~j1 eSWUWLLi>MLLLOWiZL2YJLZZiNWLMLLiVmWiLWWSNLLLLM~WLL: OUVJOWieCZJiiWKLiIYO>iU~>aOZFZaMaRONNq~YiNaiYa<6Nf• O MN nY W Ui ilii < J O~ EN S Z Y Kis i OW LYO Yh < i O L NV Yi S/ N N < i J O NN iY 2N < W 7h Z< N<N LW WONN• J <i'~ O NY W_Y_Y_ZZVYYV Y'J_ i fYWN<ZMWNy F 9W0 O: NZMpaVN <NaMOZYYWi •W <NZ OZ O• Wi« <iWYNZWN NY O NOe«<iaN WiONV JJ<P WNWPWZZWOZNY06 a00W NSI[<LJaiZaMYNL Y<WNY 4Yi WO~ WJ W f<WZYIIFWV<UOJN<O YLM NLWYSYy>i• 6W<H Wa •• NiONV ZVNON<L ZJ~~NOiWWWWNyUNW<O<I<OO IN F_WWF_N_<Ji0• ZM wONOWNOi ML<NW<MMJZL~ •ZN ~{ZWJ~YC WI Y ZJONNN wi ZO a~ fNNM<i~ N1VOYiiW <J j~J •.aO JI 6<ZMJ » G>~YOIMMN ~wYOI[iIWIHFU<MWJaSJWWYf aJyNYJPNUWYN ie <WW<JZiwOFYfs>YWJJYYZiLNN~J iU/[WWNy0ii0'JiaYf J.i i<WWWN~ JJJOOOOOa« « « WWWNNNeOZ<OtZNf >fZWNNJOO< NOZZWiZ• YVUVUUUUUOOOOObO0000000OWWWWWWWWWLLWWLLLYUYOYYYYYY: NNNtlIwPNtlPmwwNPOOPOw+OwwNwOa000NNNtlONtlmwOlwPNaN0p0~ oe~o.tlneeewmatloeaooao.eao°o.rmeNNeeNONNwNeNNOwow+eo °e oweeo~ mNON000MN ObNYtlMbN m+NO NOO.0+0 N •NNI~NNNNIIIN+m1 J iNw hl VYn =;0 00 LLNW oNs J N f V W A: Nt u• is ii `•{ O•Y \•f p•< Oci OpOOONOONONNN•whh0000NNNONO000000NO0O000ONOO06000ec 000••p pNpOOh:00PV00000VNNONNOONO00NOPOOgOpO00000000v N'~ONhNNNhO000VBN0„NNNO•noNNNP000NOONpwOpNNNNNNVMN• 1 N^VPNNpPFlA=ONN NNNNVNN^~•NNO PNOV^NwNjOlMwpNN: NA N Nw N NN N NN N PM n JNNN•NVNOPOMNNVNVNOPONNN•MVh~O•IONNNVNVNOPONNNINVpOI O• WXXXXXXXXXwPIPSwSwwPXXXXXXXXPXnwnPSwwwPPaXwASISPPS SO OnNNMMnNNNNNnNNNNNNNNNMPMNNNNNNNNNNPNNNNNNNNNMMNNN NY Y __ __ _ V O Y O\O b W •' ° w y e .• 000•P y WO •O ON MpM w•\N\ N N „OM O OVNXN iM O ^ O! PN•M \NONO O NN NZ N M NWOF i0 =ON\•NM gOPON NP \i N O_Y N N POf PO NO\N\ OVW !O h~ Y q P iPNNOONW \OV V b NN P M NO 00 i{L p O MqS\ iY V O W 00: a WFSF r q VOgWO qW W q« f0 0~f Nq •i w iN O • Nff_ N~ ~ • • P p • W M frOw< se NYI re ~•w YPP~N bYa~a Yn _w fl? JO 110 V dIYWY~NIWIJNYI DVLaII ONIIIJIFIn J IYWN YI N f< `YY OO OgVll NtWf i Y I N•N 1 1~ h• OOOLnNJONgVMON• JWObw J• OYq VTNnOL NNLJi b NNOV OI~y\VNi JNiLNVlh P N VWW NN =^t9 t NNVON V<f'J'N •V••VMVONibMOV9NYN0\ Y= TWf NAY JO10 \q JNaNgWWq MMnhhiYalNaOYNh ~a Y V Y• P<JL J J~1 fIV ONWWtl Mf iN 1 Y q b<O O pWM W O hgbOq NWaiO\\ Yb 000 P<Y 010YW F PWiYbiOii IJ b JN 6J O60 Iq •O YJ h > La WOVNOYiY N q„ONNJ ZO Y O~„N f NW tl„u NNJN_O_ iMf a0<FiYNOi NNtN{NY NY_ p N i J O Oi YaiNYL WiNigibN{ hM0 bi• {N YW {• IJV JJD_{i iW~ O NJOVNJOJJM V~RWWOf JIN JO YYa YOiOgf\rhOWi~IfVWNJV •VY^FO•M6nOWVwYMNnLiVOJiUVI 00_LiUi<f _i hOMLJYf O_NO_f_Y_O 00 l< O { YO Pi<{<O <tt0~ ? Nr rYn NMJO{Y b i pLiNf FiOaMgLO •NbVViFgYf iV O a 1[NO W~FNf `JNO<VOaJJ'JIWl~~J JYJWO •[6 ')JN 'J• WWLP~J~JWt62MNW >WMWif LWOYWi~fOWM)OMWZW{fY<{WOO{OW[ L6POVbOWfVYMP WfNOLJiM iff<rfJJNgf WOtifMiLL000Y{NOV q~ •V Vi ZM MR q N N pV h Z r iS We 2 VM R JN Y Mh Y {iV phi<Y F q0J~J'' ONOMS J i< i O F~N fY`<Nt b i M_ _ZZ JNW O JJi i W < I OYF Z W _ WM•[ Ji W r Of YNWN< ~ w ••N t02 t O!h z•[ f 9V• ift• W Y igip 7 NM< 6ZOJ ZNNNbVW b YVhYYM6<YONFi sIL• • Y WWZf {WOiYM<WWYMZZhi•tY ZiLNiJ Of ZJNW OiWOOY{ h JLO NpNNWgiYiW9i{SWVNWWNOYOW •i<ntMJ• OZ OWWWiNM bOOgVM JJ27~ RWVNZhOiiN IiY JMih<~{ryY Y WSZOOOO SY 2lWtJ •J •Wq O<ZZ«N• •JJ ZY ____•Z Mai Y• YN•• • OW O`fJYFf •NNW • VV ~< •lEh N O<OY • Iej ihNi •iibih• YiYNZWWi •Nq O iWWWWi• •NiOO •f iM iZWMtV J{M •i < OOf iiZYiN •• ~ J OWSZSLNYOfOW{i NI .1 i •{Nf ON~1N<22WFNaiNMONpOYf V OWiOYVYVOi Yr<iWhY`YYYVSOOWVWY OYV JNYMNVYOOYVO YZYYiYffY<YVUtVJZZMYiZZLNM62NiiZlZiiYYNZWfi tiFNNc _<_WWWWWWNO ZZZOO<YWNMMNO'J{<NMOOOMMttttt(IVUWWWOJ 22ZZSSSSNNNNNN I'1•[Y•[YZ•t Y•[I<JJJJJJJJJCZCZZCZiiiCiii] i• <• i• f• O• _• a/ ^wOVONNNOOPnNOONhONhNOVNNPNMVNPNP•OOPONPOPNNNMON•OY N•VNNNNPVnhwVwVO•hOwhNhrlNNOhOtlVPOhwNlpVhhNONwNO~ OP:+yy•POMNONwTOOPOOPOOhOONhgp00000000M OPPOpN VI.10• V• • •1 N••NV• VIN•• N NIn•N •NN VNN•NMNN• _. ~. .. .. u e A sNw F ~~O VS^ Yi0 :LLOO r OJ6 h LL V e' :: :; :. -: :~ _: :E .E E~: •<~ M, O~Y •~ri •Z• a~ , w• ~ Fi Ci i ~~ ~ K• •K• •ra •<• •a~ 'poioi.N.~e°ee°epi-.o°eur:n~i-neopopoopnempeen°ee°ew°e °e ep'N 'e ~Ni. pe °ee elnnNn e~ NONVONNPNAOVFTTINOOONNwONNNOOTIPOFNNOOTVOPwIN~ NPKNVhNNNTNVNNAAeONNNNOOAINVNNVINANNINIVAwnIPMV10N~ N w M VPVr.I P A ww 4NN N P N w w N N ANT L JpN wTw wwIwVNO pPpOANO1NOwO pwp ONNAVMVNOwOMNNVNO««N OPOANN1NVhOPOA~ WwPwPPwPpOSOOSOOSOp000000000000000000000000~00000S E~ K>awrl°n 1Yn 11n l•nI<nl°iN wnlNnr wuhinw n~n.M1ilw n.hi.nnnnn nl>ilnnnnnnnnnnnnnlnnnnne n~ ~ _ Y \ •N Y • N \ • u V Y Z i V J O< ~ ~i LN OI°. Ir ~ a < r i .iiew rL 'Z=oO Ni i W Wfw OM1 VY OMF• f N r PW »ON y<A er \ euui ~ rlNUi .r •o n JN~ ~ N~ VIiO Vi~~ Y ~NYOI «R HO S Y<Y IIU hi 2 II rM9L2• \OM O A•• • OON Je< •EO s0 V K JY IJJ JY A OrJ J 006 NY f LNZNAW if JW<LM1 WYNiNN MNiOAM ih~111N JI 6 N VrIWNONOK OLLO F MWM1riJ iJOwNJ OWMO yA0 N• NO WONOAWiNI WO MNrOJ L NN KYNO V V JY2M1WK NPOONM100„ TNWY < NNM1FM Y < 21 Z F' U <WULW•W•\pMWVI. OArNK~LOYFOW••p OVSL FMWO NL O~N>rONJOONMJrFVNNKNL LOLMLOJ O rM00 O OOMN O~JOi rJ FN: >iYi< FN L11 FOS niNNA LNiF LO>M ~Ipi sW IN dp06MiY00YNKO .OYNN ~iS «iOdN02 JJOJIWfOWZ 7' 2~ W JiLLWWZONWO<•V19iWINLW JJWiiWWW 2rNWNi> Li iJJJtrJVNOYV~NVWOOYiiYdOnYHrrNUYipOYSi\i~p~MMO7YV•• <JJ<Jf dO iNpJiYYN<V< r «LW<000<OL'rr «O ONIJ2Y 4 yMMWY<OYZNNr 2<F O 20YLKONL222LYVLNLVpiYVO<OY •r N~ SV Jn7NNNMV'uOIYZY ZM12>K~.n K990r»VNK SrM12TOUM1YM1 Ni ~OSM1ZWLW<6YOLSV02NlOi NfWZpFWLLWW<f JfWYM1VfVl iff02<~ M1<W« iOWWJJOJWZMJw2rJpW~ OSYYWWW>JJWJ>f MJJDAZKJJOJ dLOYOfNKOUVUrO<JOTNLLYO OVOLOOYOOLLFVOd2<LOO<dLOV V~ i u < N U s j W F i N ~. w V O i a F Y U h 2 W l n N ~ ~ YY u u ~ ~ i w~ N~ie < •L i N ~iV O'J M W F S Jh~ yiM O Y 0 Z VN N 2 Nh S O >O Y •F O Y >J W Ki Zr• <NV L r hr v JJ TJ V M W Y Oi IW'J h Y N i< Fi J Mni • 1 O GOON <W iMn ~r Y N iL M J LJFWr i1[>OWpWw NJi ZO <J1 N9W Y ZiOr WW >WFY> LJWVO ddNrAFNi~ i SNi ANf YOJWrhnJidWZNrJVNNnLOVOM~ fNiAif pFi O JWiL<r Jf Z2r~<MNNN VYUiihnW OJYp<in VOf<FW<r«Yi7KnpNWnrir00 >dM~. ~<6 Y7WN1• r2WiJ MUM90ir Zl FKKV r~ NYWWrWO t0 <'. O IK ••Y Or .n<iZNVFOON YZY OtrON •Zi •.Z<• LLpML>N ~Z aV •>iWS •~IS Mi00rKW ~LFMO J <NiMiiJNNiMr •rY N<Jr<il i2WiYWi ri NNMMri iW •OJ>~YN ><rJ~W~11W WKWrO •J JN<W>pN~ „WN>rSOOtt<WWJWFFVOiibVOiWMWOWWYN•JrOOWj~FyyVM~ijZW~ J~JONW<OFOFZFFNOVrN'~Nlii YF>OONMN i J<N <YVJ<i WY~JLKNFFfWWW22NOrK « «WNN0000'J« «YYwii00\L•pZ<' 000006OLOlrrrLLLLOKrrrrrKrrrriKNNNMNMNNNNNNNNNN>~ 0000'NOPONNAONOPNAVhA10wOAANONOh000NNNNNNNNTw•w•ONi NONOPNOOOOOONOOwOA OOOVNOOANOOOOONNNOOwOTTNVwNON00 NfNINAN•VNnVNNANNN NNNNNNN NnNnNNN NNNMANNANNNNN\~ V OOh000NNhONO00000000pa ~ OONN•OwNaOF000000NNNN• NNONa•n•NNVNNiNaNwhhNN P N 'NANh V'ON«w NNNNPNNNN~ A { O a. iNw1R 7f0 VVI Yh Of0 Ii io°o eN W_ J h N W V W F O i i• i1 O~ i• W• >• N ~ a Jnfn+a+NVVONNN•NVMi w~~pOp .N.pp VVN .N.yl .~•pp W O~SVSE~OOOOOOOOCOOOOOp »>hFhNMNI.hMhhhhhhhhhhh oNnnnNNNNNnNNNNNnNnNNnn u .. z . • u u n • O J • O • M O i O W ON O NM • JO Ni N 1Sw Ni N f ~. ~„ 1 FiVI w~ : j N W P6 a _Y •i N • M OS % .ONMS NM~TONiNNN~` N V • p N>aiVaNNMWV•'`J'J A~JW NO<f~i~Yi~W~h.VIM~Y. Oti iyh Vf OJO•NOJOOYiOO iiV J~ i i>iiii WiM LIOI II W_ +FO M101. VIOLYVY}aYMM~f rVYOi W~i•JY _PYfJiNfJVVih OONN .J ff O iff NNMif iON N•NNiN\ViNN NNOJVWJf iNVMi}~H~NMM L-NV ft M1J JtWV{WfNi ifN UV•fL+WiCV1LVO•YVYwYUVi O i > J V V V i i i M Z t • O{i N > Y NJN Y~1 i iN..hJ N i >VViW WIVWO ii (lllM h~tiNjii OFin dNOWh .J iiorNp uNU .Oi9 >W..i{ .{W .. i +..n .{sszWu ~hNV rW6N+{fi.•iOVMMfO W •V .V{OO_W i •NW{. o»WW ZNSJiN.. OJrFMOYjVOUVOi NOiJi•iiMJiMNOJJ{iiiiW fOO~J 'Ji{t{{f WWMMMVWI{{W Mhhhh'J» >iifiiiiilY>MN NNwnnOrnr•rNaNNlawwOhY alNa•Nnhwf haaahhheoNhh NN MINwNNNNY01Vw1all tlai M.101 Y0iN wOlann ~{r. U¢^ L` V LL V• o~ \• M1M f_ OY O• ~~ •i~ i i •2. 1F •Z• iii ;o: 1 1 ~ 000 m N ~. oP'rP nxaw w w b N V PmmNJhw~. u. ~.wn opp nbmj0 JNOewr PSI m.p PO~p.~ ooPmNFNNP `.In ~V~. ~PN ~.mwn .. N n A ~ mPOON<NbrmmbpOPO~.NmmNbl.mTfNbhOpO~.Nm•NbhOPOwNm.1 N'OhOP PO.PpO°o000O00wNNww..wNNNNNNNNN NIN Ii1mTn.nP mm/1 eF0"Ne00000~/~.'NNr.~hhwrhrhhhrwhhnnww r~. ^NwN'hF~ww_ ONnNNNNNnNNNNPNNNNONNN/INnNNnnNnNNNNONNNNnnnnNNNPwnNn 1.1 1• •_ ••I•! • • • • a z u u mwn •eu~a ei- a `wmm ~~N • N wVJVOV~OWWV W i \ V_VP.VH2\\V f O N 1 Jw J N N VO O J WUU 1 h V¢ J D i YF.i YP i hpww hNV¢w< Sp ZS wfJ 2f{w N wWW ~ °imN¢ N6Nh t w N ZJ6iw iO N J J f100 °D wUwN „ aW ODh ~ T'J SS WWWh~JNZfM4\`i ¢ O O VIWW UYOiV<~Y00.-LN Z` W • V i > y J OJ Z O j {LLL N V y 6yJ ~ w7Z< i a F wY wS J OUw JUJF O u ¢itw ~ anw~ h y wh LLuW NhiWm S LL hiiVDWi{JN 2 fi wt{ 22 WJN ViOWmUUm W• J ~ Jh<NNOmJVWO.t mVW UWWUWWVONJ~iN .y JJiZZ WJfi e e T siNU {« f{a{{mmmuu L ° a° i N 1- J < ' .. O OZN JM \ mi.. 1 'L7m NM Ji Hi2\ w\ Nh WJ Jf JW JJ f2 U oVW .DOJ 6 iVW~i i NJ{Y wNUNw iF Diw\NWW OOJO02 w0 WJtlmO N¢ Dm6 h= Jm=WN ° \W7 S ¢'JY SOmm FONN Y. D YO O NZw6M h.Sii NDKUNWF 2{WLL ZOhfW iiU>Z_M22 fl iNOhDVVF¢ NL{Yf ..NZIFWNO MVaPOf 6LLN 20 P¢Yin¢W Y.n in• w JN{ Nm61. FJi<ffwOKO N h000VmM¢M O UwV pm j~iWS pOZFOy~WFYh1LYSJ •~Vm j7 Q<OSfw60Wf~bWYfw`WZ¢WWOOOW M V3YiMYUZhPmOiLLJ>OwOZVti¢¢ < V V U > S r .Si J O N W Z2 YShO ¢ {O NJwJON. .` V U . ~[ .OZLGW SW Wh ¢iN .O W.. TO WwNJWOM~t Of {fwN S i1LW0 iuJNOhW< ZV~NZOMYw CJSWV •J2~NV¢ <.i0 _O Jl _WRSNN{JI NOZS •~WnS2V°¢JU JJJiWhk~~~WNW ` UNVwi<2JW¢JJJJNYOWOJNWI ~DOO`w oiw aliu i~uiisiizi z.D. N.i..i.~i PNmi NPw^NnnoPn N.~NPNPmiwNhbtlbN• m Y N m NbNfNNtlj w~. `.JnnNnwJO<rvNm< N ry Nw b N NN / ~. V f 2 =a Val =~0 OP a o Ona •Z •F• I• •1 ~p ~>• PNP mpmNpmnPnpNOpwFN nmm,.Pw N..F J... NJ PAryJnoOPVwOw NPm N.Im n CNN NWP _NpNmPNpNPpp p mpN . O COOPaNOONO~+mlmmNN NNNwJON FN~NNnNOV n~PNwC JO~+NNONCFOPONNP~In OnVPONNANNVnN N~INCFPPONNN.INCFPPOwN JiYM~Nw~n Cwwwny~F nFhhnFFFFhhFnMFnnFFFhFnYFFnnhnnFnhFnFF p Nan NNnNNwnnnnnNNnNNNNnnNNNnnNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNnnnNN • Y 1 P P i W i N F nR S S S ZN_ O NU ~ P •a NI T „ w f f_ NF tl0 P <C, N TS V TZ W J O 2PFJ O w P• o J n LL f J ON FP U FJ _ • ws nF ~ LL O\NNJW V LLw Y iU0' ~nW nW 7T 1 MZ O RO OFTWNT •V FOn OapwY ZP N+ 6 WF fP pNh WpO1N J V o jW a „O •u wOMJ 1 1 fOi \WWf6N WINiZ00 J W RP VI'J UiW2 JCI OON Ui yZf OZ O A\T PNWI NFlo~wi~P6PP pJJFHN\22\ UM WiNOSwFaiW Nf O w~jONLLp NO N'Jf Z1~[p NTCY PPLLNUWPTw T FWJM F NP OwM F NJJi4 ~tWNN2nn `NNV NNF ~P I o122LL ONWaUi 1N JNjNWW ONO RJOnM Si hOi~ uJfiyJ UNO FaFU iinPOWihWJLLR fi7uNtW 6nJN L4J7iLJ6ad~ry PY~•N~R VrWOY NIZ~IOSFY YfNZT •WS FSWTaW \1 IInZxNh NFUZNT TF .2P wii Nil-3WZWOV NYfPJ FZi NWNNViW• •JPO ZVTIi\N •WOm NIUN00 LLVTFOYNP •J>ONP~WVNmJWVap2N u NfWJSf Jf\iOaON NJVN O\1 IOa> VV•OJWpNKW~wJ• wiV PZMPi OONJFZUO NhTn aJ P22 wZNUZOF II 1~16~JZWNa7 Vw'^N TPWOPONWJ fl 1160CNJf02NniwOaNWNV WWOWfW> UmWO•W~nW\rl NCWOZ•NJP2aa0Yaf000P OiiVat>YWPi00LLaNNNI1Pi6NOPNnn CNaaViiUNZO;•N6fP•LLN W U N Y w o u ..z W W iN s ~ mo d°N : 7 ~ 7WJ P N= J u N LL2 w P UJ J a2 2't6JWSwNP U hS •W~ •<WJLLVW32JW< aJW oTW7YJN pw VW NJNN Va WPNZ>aPaNp.a Jn NSJVaWm _ VSOaIOw~UNZOaNVFWVVW SN JanWNJIZaJU 70Z F _NNWJM WF JJMiiMNNNOWLLWSaOiWSN NPFf VSNFwV~P60HWUY6F0 ~NTSiV aTNTUP p~Ji•Z<WZOaTf WNT20 <iKWJJSiiiiDOOaPaP6a6aaaaNNN J s N ; z o N J N ;r i ~i NT oP IW- ar ` 2 N aw a t t ez row,W ~.. ~ I PZ V06JS fZV ~p;FM PVNYLLLLi HNMM Wi4 • J JrYa! VZ VJ>F i~aF WVFW2NiJOVa>ZNwZWZWY wNFNi\f wWa6MLLVU:N NOJ fffFOONJfWOWp01W •iV0_ VuVVWWiONhF>~• fM00 WaJJON6NMNJJJNNJ pNNTW WFN?22;• fNiWWW n •hYVF JpJ00»fZYN nNNJn~NPmwNPmn.~CONNFInNw 11N nI1 w1NPPnNN00000Nno• NWmFnONNmonOm n NFn>1 J w NHNw NJ NNNNMN N N N w Nr N NNn Nw ~1 Sri ~ncl ~CGY ~:,.,!;tY '~°' rm.. ,-a m ., a ~c ~°z5 0 : 2 ~ _ Fo Y V .,m. ..md ~~ ~ ~ e~~ 3 ~~ E~fr ~e ~ . gFC e. - -~ I ~d:~E ff YJ E~a~ ~ .R RS=o c ~I `3 - ° ~~ =.a - _ , .. _ _ ~E r ~ _ _~~ 52 "° k° - S~-ei __ Y~ y a~a Fj'~ CS' ~_~ S 8°'e epee. '2 ', 4 ~S _ i~.°.~e - °Y:g C€ '' i~ ~ ~: ~~ xL: A~~ _ _ i J ~L` 1C -a _ \ ` ~ ;e .a /~ ~. ~; rC, ~Y 1 `~~, Or.,..'riU ,. ° ___a~~_~_$~~-~__ g .. - n m~xs - s ge ~~,. ... ~ m €~ ' __p____v`___ __ ee>P s o___ _ _ M n m m 5888°mmHmsm^m~~ ~ $83n m ~ P m 8883eRSS88RRR 4 8 8 8 a~RR - i$$=$eRo$8a~~ss~ - ~ ~_ k ~~~8 ~ - „ss~~~sasa~gas -° = s s _o=a 8 e - ~. _ P ~, - --- 53~RR88888R A 8 S 8 ~ fi b _ ~€~aRR~3~~~~8°0$ ~ SE ~ XB~ S S rR~R~83k88ap£8 m S R ~S&„ fiC 6 P = n , €~ q'', _ 88388RR8°88 A F .R ~ eSe~fia F6~°o~~_ a ~ ~ r x o- - ', $ °R8= --F &BY.~S~X.B, ~.,S a.e< s s S. _ ° 8 ~n m~F _ S _~ ___ __ __ ____ __ ~ S A 8 a ~ _ Z _ S£ ~~ 6V~~ $~ M N ~~Y~YYY~' Y VYis:: a' BS ILY y 9e'Ga ~ -a '-~ }} _ _ y y _ ~ w~' __- - u o- ~_ r ~... m' 8 K' ~E ~I: B k /~ .y ~,_ .. r`. ~~ ~~, -,_. Or ., . .. ~g Se . ~ S ~' - yV Z y: s. -. 3og' k, 4'_~. ~ E u ~ ~° P cr ., d. °. 'I s~ u' ~3 ~ i ~$ ~ fi ~~, S X r 3 ~~ _ .~ J J J ,,_y N'~ ~ ,~ ~ i 4 - .a ~~~~.~ A 88 %8 o 88 $ C RS 8€: ~ ? a s$ ~ $8 ~ aa; €a s ~ f€ ~ ~~ s„: R ~y 58 ~y !fi y~ 38 ~+ 38 ~_.°~r L .. ~ ~ ~ ~' YS K 3 ~~ ~~ ~IC ~~ ~8o~e Z ~ L 3 ~~ Y_ ~ _ IY~ fY Y.: Ye ' S4. .. _ Y Y _ - €' ~~ a~ a8 a € ~ _ - °ss 88 s 008 ~ m ~ - 8R8~8 R - I, ms`s= A v _______ _ ___ s ~ Y~ ~ ooeoe688 e o .,ooe ~, ~ ~ dN ) I ~ s=~~ ~a„„„W„= ~ ~ ~ s se" ~ ~ a _ ~, a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ Y. Q Y ~ € ~~'~ b m mma~~ k ~'„ ~im t`.. S8o8 e ~ 5 s _~ ~.~~._~~~ _ o a~ ='s ~~ ~ ems. ,~ 5 o ~! - N Y L ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ f /~ COpYr_a~...wa~. ...~~..~,~.._ ~S '7 a~ t) } C.J Y~ Z~ i 0 a A i o .~,~ 7a~ aaeafwfa wF~a. A~A ~. „~ a ~. ,~. Ir Dyrraa d AdF.71 Yraaa Cr1rd not .../.., aa.ra7r oet-a.7. 7 r ~ alaa _ fECllf N0. s..r., u,a7ala _ -~-~^r, . con sz : z 7h eaaaJra.IfaM]Maau lv FF.....,.wrr«Faw.. or y~N T. NAn(7) W AII1KAMll) T.aa. IrwN r acre a 7faat itaaaa owaratfr ArMr aJ. f.c aqu p ewra oar earfn err. a tVrrybl ar nANSACnoNCSI '~ ~~ tM _ terra ra Mar aaaafaa a SO.m ZD `~ :'~:- i 1i lYl f iwa.eN Waar-raM rJ ]awl N A W l / r W ~. wf g t ~ ~..~w tlaeaa aaraM 11770 am iaaYtlaa TOtu S SO.m ne.. ].. u. eyua a TIM 7• Fer. Fr a~aWl a wt. arb laeMta .ad.e r. Nb.7T w rbYar 9r 50ww ]. N M14wu YuY. SY taY Ilwhl RrN lI~nJ d.F.1 aiN d ii. pwiiw d M. AbFe7e b °14n1'aOw d M O.nen.ml y.. 4ad~w •~~r]..wa a ...~+~ I) r. Y ...b r .r r ~~..~. 4 nY +. µv.~ a M 4vr..M w i4w. ~ANr la. AINCW .. it.~ IT. Aad4an awr. Id br an] .rra...Y~ryN'n wx4 an.re w.Nw. wAl Fen a M a.aca.eee.. d o Ya.e..., aW RI N1N ti dp M rieleb s [sw w prwM b ~. dela.N rY d M. plwiiw d d. AF.dwF. aa...ee. C.r.d M. r Ix sTAn w wvauaA eeeeq d __!~~ ~°_.!°!..._._______.oeb___..5,13 _ Y.Y car M YM.. . W.. u. aar~ ~..g1...x~w ' w ~. ~ N . YAr. rw ~ w w.er~. a Wlr. FYr ..w .. i~wi.We. ~1.~. ~r..~r~~.~ ~' .Mw.w r.' ~b esY w rL w wMr ~ I ~ w Hw r .w~~. ~u ..~~~. ~~. ~, Yn are..Y...~.W.i ...b .ye.r.nW Y~r~wr.~rw:..a~.~.wMruwr J....M. n ~~~ ~.. • ~ ~ urz7cn71s7n Ar 7w7awew s/a~9.~ n. fTAn d GNIaOWA ta.rq d_.__~~_~________________qb.....__.___ .. .__________ u.r r.+r ~ ..r ~• wrr• ...... e+.a .~. r is, . ...... re. w ~. _ .w. M u ryr~ ~ ~ r .wool M Y CY~+1~ 11 ~ 4 ...fin ~r ~ a~rl .rl.r~ r~Y~i. rJ~ Y . ~r u w W ~~. ~ nom. ~.~ +4 r. 1 ~. 4n eww. Y Yr ~ ..:J w..Wa .may n Y ' w~ .. a la wr e.er / .wA.. a w MJ ~ ~'. w e.er~ I ...In., in 4 i4 .K w.e.wv r. w ~w.~r... w.... ' .wV+~w.~~r .~~+Y.. Wn.. Y.~.r. le. Needy d I4.n.a.(y n. y d IbwNy Il Vur. NuWr(.l m an....>• zo-sszks 0.NN a].fN ad.. rw GwiFw Dgrt.bnl Vw oA -~~• la:.a Abynd o f.a.+N waw. ^FJ.tlrYrwF .~;^ 7r.m air: a.rrra ^ ae...F M d__..__..h4 N.___________._..__ ___.....OOw w__...... murn~ nz.s.i.r .u7lYU~ 11a Ha~LI INS l-~..__. r~. `~ -~__ T-I-I - - --- ---J U SMART & FINAL APN a 207-022-24 8675 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, A 91730 Property cu rre nrly zoned: Wei9h6a rhood Crnmiercial ~unin9 cf adjacent orope rties: North: Medium Residential South: Medium-Nigh Residential ' East: Office lies t: Vacant Flood Control District /~ - 1 ice' 's m .r. S. Ramirez 7-8-91 COPY ~ ..~~~ } I ..JI ~; YOtEEg0Y1 lad IIEOMpEL YYrf•lr ~ I. ]rEgSl d UEdq!(01 /NE ND. ]r M.rl r ElMdie bw. CwN 1001 Ep00.0E Yw001~E an Otti OEOV • t® EEQyY/l~ ]ew~pee. Gil. 1]010 +•~,...+~ f0 caw Ow..e~waEM~fi. ~M I...E t NAtIE(31 d AI111WNfpj rmr Ew.w r OQYi0. I`r1J L. AEOEe0 wdr IOC OON ^ Eiu0a 0.r 1-1-11 ENedlw 0.p: _ 1. 1]EH8 p TEANiK]Id(]I ~ ~. TYR m f 100.00 l0 AOEWr ]1.00 R t.0) ~ ~LLLI µ.P- ..~._ 0. IOelEpl N teMlFMwtr OeE Mw ~I W r Y.~ W ) W ~} (~~0 o w .. C~.wry.~ Y3i X00 111]0 OOp OOEOtOIi~ ~ ]OTAI + 11f.N 6 N EIOiNr Unmet. '~L~~,`3' T• M M1OrLp Yui1e SMOe lm N Uat10 _ CM uN41 1L • ~y AYm. fU iNwwO New Slew aN SNr rEiei: ~n~i 0. New Ym MI Ywn twNPd N a feleeYl 10. NOn lee uo deM1 eq N Nw 1rmYiep N Np AktlWe 4w.q. fap.d M r wOddw. d IM OePrppp Or. 11. Er(Yn e'1A" arvw p Ipw 0 w 10 sn an pMwM dta YNI M tlwwet pw1 d IM spRtMlm. IS. roAWNwm y.ril labbp~mw~w M'Nl la t.piLrd ani d~ilp~ d A~. MmM4 MCmlrel Aemw. rtl E1wnY0 h11-Ol 1]. SlA1E d CAU1pWA Ceuery d ________________________________.._..Dw____. .__....._. ww ~r ~ wwr. r w .~~ .p rwr. w +r w A..wr +Y .emu r ~.w~ rs~. ~w~.r ....1. s. w/W r ~• r r•~ r w n..l.d w. _ ~ ~w w wr u r Mw'+rw '. r w`r. v weww~b+.n ~ ~~nu W ~.~ iw~iw' ~ wM.~w µr. u +w r .~~ wyv`. n nr ..N. + r .w+ir r Yn ~~~ Y Vr w uYi Y ~p ~~~ W .w ~ lr•v • N.. n . 4~ u.~~ .1 •.y..~ w ti~ .1 Wes: IP r ~ ~~ ~~~ 4~ V .. F •A~ MM w4r n s. w..r .r .~ rv.ay i~u.r w ti ~~~. 14 AMIEANf -i ]KNE MIEE _ ~ ~3e..L .. ~'.. .. .... MVEICAf10N 1Y fU11tlNR0! IS OTAIE p UIINIMIA CwMT d_____________________________________Pep._.___._____..........______. r ~p ~~d. dr'R M wru en ~A r4Y. ~ _ w ~~r w. 11..++ ~. u.w~4 w r..rt w w W rr .+....+..w.r .. r..... N~ 'u` x .~..r w r Y~~4~.r'~_~waw .. ~r~ ~+.. n r ~ ~ wY~ ~iwr^+ w ~ r v n w~~~w. r+wrMiwer Vr~wa r~.r. fix... rl ~Nn~ w ~ ti ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~.~. ~ e.wn w ~~, iu A.r r titi .w. +r r ~~. F~.r w +er~ ~ t mr .~.~ Mwe wryr w r e~~.r 0. Nd Mrlp Epbr TlYe Lt1/; is A]ei0wrN Uaadi ANwM4 ^ Ovtet moo. ^ EMw'1 ME'w. : . iww~~ ^ OnwN RO d,__..__JeY r..._ .............._.__.._,_ OAs s..._....______AnIOe Nw .__._.____-_ COPY_w - ~°'~ ~~° 1 ~1C0 5`j1i ~ J ~.: (S _i CJ' a~ r') i_i S t :. dINIG1pM .o. IueeffflflC fMlw ffMWq I. iYN:(]) d uCEN]flfl I .:S YC-- Ia. OpecK a! ,. .. irwyr (Md Iql frer}.ry ILLwrriW f OlI SAI.f tl411 A VINO HtTM~Ki] SwNiwY. CdY. %f If .~. .w.ir ruwi _ ~~~615 GOOF f5r wr/rr%frrd Aw.Yr Mw M fvxxr drnWrlrfrvu Oar Wrrd a. uAA1ElA d Nf11CANR(i) r.wE. rr.N~ .mu.. Iw]n ~. AMr rdw sec uw. ^ OlrOla Oww >-1-YI FIMin Derr: i. ITEpS) d ifANSACnOEyi) ~ lK. LYNF _ tlLY f ICO.:i ]C AIgpAL -- JJ.JJ R i.0] ryw~ yy ~~~yyy~~rrrrrr A fOr ANr11rE•r CYrrCa ~ ! .. ler.r a rww-ra...br w Slwd ) t9 y~j B6Y YMSW W.. ~ r«w~Br.Ce°.o.w xlno fu f~[lf[CSro 'ui ro]Al 5 uJ.co w X rNww Earwe, '~t_fl~~ ~~ ]. Ah Fwiyr NriJr Sbr. lYq dEmir city lM:xl rF.b f. /~f AGYrr OI dllwrnr llew S!-NwWr w SMM ~ w. .I Wrc 9. Neer po rw brr eemirrd d a Irbnyl 10. Non Yoo ww Ndord ary d Xr ero•Nlen d IM Akdwpr Mrwefr Cwl.d M w rrfrbfrr of Nn Dreenr.nr err. 11. frpldn o "Yfi" wwvr r Nree e w 10 m m rxwhm.w rFNA Jidl br drrn~rtl pm d Nwr rpplNOlien. Io. Aool<e.r .a la 11w wq .wrw r~dmd x ee.w ik«n.a ax.lrr MII ne.. ,n Ix. wnl~r w;m. a e ra.ew-=~d ewr Ib) rIM M .M ror mkr w w prrril r br ddaM mY of Mr p.ouwn el Mr AkdwNa Y.wopr Cmrrol An. a-O_ U. SIAIf d Gl6gWL\ cw.ry el ...__...__~rtll~ ..................Oow_.__._.._91_._._._. •w rwr r .rMw ti r~r .rr ' V Y r +M"nr _ ^r+.er r ru ...r N µi..w4.. ..wru.. .~ti+.• n .+ran.rw rw.u ~.~...M r e_.. w wn.., ix r.r x..w. rwr...... w "..u.« Ir .... +. rw.r...+. i..... _,a .... -wn w Ir. AMIICAM SGN MffE .___..__... '~__.._~._._.._._.. _ _.____._____.._ ......... ........................ ..._ vi EfrrucatfofE ~r nwsrnfoff IS SbiE M UIIIOENl1 Ceunry d___ ____ _____________________________0.r.__._...___ ___.___.._....._ .....w-+.. ~ .... N ~.. _ _ r..w u."w __ .r~.i~ ws.~ ti..:....`.n. :..~ .~i. : w.: .:.w`.. .'~ .r .. ....M r'r...:. a ..:.'r . w -, ~.....~. w~,..w........r ...~ :..~..:: w +n....~ r .........rte..... r .+..".. ...~.. r ..rte.-~ ... w............ ,...... w r........ ^ frrwd:lr d._.__.__..JbY a _____._ ___ .._. ___._.__.Oflm m..._,__._._.__..14wH Na ._._.__..__..___..___ ~9 [JO Nd Writs lrEom TFir i:re; Fm UrFnlarY Elr Owlf Axwfird ^ ErrnMd Mir. ^ Rdrr4Y eoPxr. 1 ^._____________________ __________.._..__.____COM1ES A4tlfD...___'.~1._i1__L.(_._._._..___________. nA.iEL1HE ...._ ._l I ~ I I ~J ~I I I ^J ~/ RON SHELLEY'8 CHEVRON APN 8201-022-24 8687 Baseline Rd. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Property ca rre ntly zoned: Neighborhood Conine rcial Zoninq of adjacent Properties: North: Medium Residential South: Medium-High Residential East: Office West: Vacant Fiood Control District d 0 CHEVROff I~-~ L~J S, Ramirez 7-8-91 ^'^'4 CF R.1.'~TC.°.C Ci: vaia",iCiwn vaa STAFF REPORT DATE: July 17, 1991 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Tarry L. Smith, Superintendent of Park Planning and Development .... a.a.vu n,.vulae-ameLy, naeuuiai.e raLi. YL6LLCL' SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE THE NOTICE INVITING BIDS FOR THE HERITAGE PARK BALLFIELD LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RECOMMENDATION That the City Council authorize staff to advertise the Notice Inviting Bida for the Heritage Park Ballfiald Lighting Improvement Project as approved in the 1991-92 Fiscal Year Budget, not to exceed $85,000 as authorized. BACEGROUND/ANALYSIS In May of this year the City completed a renovation of the existing north east ballfield at Heritage Park increasing the base length to 90 feet and adding a 30 £oot high backstop for senior league play. In conjunction with these improvements, additional lighting is required due to the extension of the outfield area. In addition, minor grading and turf improvements will be necessary to upgrade the outfield conditions. The entire improvement project will not exceed $95,000 as approved in the 1991-92 Fiscal Year Budget. Respectfully submitted, Tarry. Smith Superintendent of Park Planning and Development TLS/EMcE/dak " 1111 IIH KYIi I`; FT ~l vii v,(~1tiiV1Y G/1 STAFF REPORT DATE: July 17, 1991 , TO: Mayor and Members oP the City Council FROM: Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: COMeIDSRATIpN nv a aaen. m..~.... .. _ _ EMPO1fER PE71CE ORtIC8A8 TO AEIIOVE ON87t7E+COlBlERCIAL 7EEICLEB Recosmandation It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution as adopted by the Public Safety Commission and requested by the City of Rolling Hills Estates. This resolution would show Rancho Cucamonga's support Por legislative efforts to empower properly trained peace officers to remove unsafe commercial vehicles from streets and highways. Backaroutyd The City has received a letter from the City of Rolling Hills Estates asking the Mayor and City Council to issue a resolution supporting the legislative initiative mentioned above. The Mayor asked that this item be referred to the Public Safety Commission for its recommendation. At the June 4, 1991 meeting of the Public Safety Commission, the Commission unanimously gave its support to the attached resolution and voted to pass it on to the City Council for its action. The City of Rolling Hills Estates noted that its police department was able to enforce the Vehicle Code, including regulations regarding height, weight, cargo and safety equipment. However, during their enforcement activities, they would occasionally have contact with commercial vehicles that aze in such poor condition that to allow the vehicles to continue would pose a serious hazard to other motorists. The City of Rolling Hill Estates felt that the safely course of action would be to simply prohibit movement of the vehicles until the repairs are made. However, under current state law, only the California Highway Patrol or those having attended California Highway Patrol training have the ability to remove an unsafe vehicle from a roadway. Removal of Unsafe Commercial Vehicles July 17, 1991 Page two Currently, the City has our commercial enforcement officers who have this highway patrol training do the removal; however, the Sheriff's Department believes that it would be of benefit to the City if other officers had the ability to "deadline" obviously unsafe commercial vehicles, particularly in instances when our regular commercial officers are unavailable. Should the City Council adopt the attached resolution, it will be !`^__^...'_^-_'_'~ t~ t*~ ^~t'j ~. .v.i.'i:,y iii iie aeLaiCU, ~.d iLlOlnla Contract cities Association, League oP California Cities and our local legislators for their consideration an$ deliberation in Sacramento. Respectfully submitted, IgJ//1~~.(.tt~-~- Duane A. Baker Assistant to the City Manager DAB/tlr DAB:697 Attachment ~3 xucx N~ateN uo~, PEfEiP®E¢ .uow.v,~u,. 1nOU M<GnmE ~~,,.,,~~w~ KENNETISERVn <wnc,lmen •'AEEE.Y 6CxdnEL\L1.NN coo„nae„ D04GL1[ N. PPICIL~AD Ciy.Va„ugar May 6, 1991 , Y . r RAND. ,. aDM' ~ MAY g 19y1 THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATEyS 4D15 MIDS VEIDES DRIYE NOIITn • MLLINa MILIn LRnTM. G 903H rzLeenone-ensn Mayor, Council Members, and City Manager Ci[y of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Dear Mayor, CDUncil Members, and City Manager: ~ n,n ~. Enclosed is the Cicy of Rolling Hills Es Cates Resolution No. 1653 urging the Legislature to empower properly tta fined peace officers Co remove unsafe commercial vehicles from streets and highways. This Resolution will be inrluded for consideration in the Annual Business Session of the California Contract Cities Association in Palm Springs. We strongly urge you to support this effort. Additionally, we would urge your City Council to adopt a similar resolution and contact your individual legislators expressing your support for this effort. Included is background information on the subject. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, Thank you for your assistance and consideration of our position. A ~b ~ Sincerely, 7 ~ n ,~"~,,~. tel.. Do'Gglas R. Prichard City Manager DRP: hn Enclosures SeNy ~G ,,,,~.. /P~,~~ N ''~ ROLLING AILLS ESTATES POSTTION STATEMENT ON TRUCE SAFSI'Y Several times Sn recent years Chia city has attempted, in concert with other cities in similar situations, to get legislation passed which would allow qualified law enforcement officers to remove unsafe commercial vehicles from the road. This authority is currently reserved for the California Highway Patrol. Wi [h respect to the Palos Verdes Peninsula, we have hilly terrain where major thoroughfares sustain grades Sn excess of l0X for several miles and over which traffic volume is in excess of 30,000 vehicles per day. Additionally, many collector and local streets have stretches of 15X to 20X grades. These conditions contribute to traffic safety problems in situations where vehicles have mechanical-related problems (e.g, failing brakes). Typically, the Sheriff's Department enfeccea the Vehicle Coda which includes regulations regarding weight, height, cargo end safety equipment. During the enforcement activities, deputies occasionally have contact with commercial vehicles the[ are in such poor condieion that to allow the v~hic lee to continue would pose a serious hazard Co other motorists, The safest uoursa of action in these situations could be to simply prohibit movement of the vehicles until repairs are made. However, the only lac enforcement personnel currently authorized to immediately remove an unsafe vehicle from the roadway are California Highway Patrol Officers. When our deputies find a vehicle which should not be operated further, an attempt is made Co convince the driver Co 1¢ave the vehiel¢ parked or request a member of the California Highway Patrol to respond to the location and order the vehicle impounded. The fact of the matter is when this latter attempt Ss made, the Sheriff's Department informs us [hat oftentimes the California Highway Patrol is either unable to respond to such a request or may be delayed to such an extent that to require a commercial vehicle operator to wait in abeyance until an officer arrives at the scene is simply not practical. IC is precisely for this reason that this type of legisla[icn is needed to allow local enfozcemenC agencies Che opportunity and flexibility to deal with unsafe commercial vehicles which should be removed from operatics an our rcadvays. The City believes that this type of legislation would essentially augment the commercial vehlc ie enforcement- powers of the Califorrla Highway Petrel which appear to be severely tested to the limits within not only our jurisdiction but [he State of California as a whole. Fox example, according to recent California Highway Patrol statistics, [ruck-involv¢d accidents within the State of California have been on the rise over the last several years. Clearly, these statistics point to the need for additional commercial vehicle enforcement services by other law enforcement personnel. IC is our Contention that this le gisla[Son would benefit everyone concerned, the motoring public because the roadways in [he State of California would become safer, [he California Highway Patrol because their commercial vehicle enforcement services would be enhanced and augmented by other properly trained and licensed law enforcement personnel, and the California trucking industry because the level and standards for commercial vehicle safety would be raised in the industry. For these reasons, the Rolling Hi11s Estates City Council urges the California Contract Cities Association to adopt a resolution of support for empowering properly Czained peace officers to remove unsafe commercial vehicles from streets and highways, a.~ CITY OP ROLLING tlILL4 63TAT[s IOS ANG[L[b COUNTY, CALIpORFrIA p6gOLUTION ND. 1657 A 0.ESOO1'[IDH OF THL LIIY COUNCIL OF TNL CITY OP ROLLING IIILLS ESTATES, WLIFORN[A SUPPORTING LECTSIAIIVL EFFORTS TO ENPOYFR PROPERLY TRAINED PEACR OFFICERS TO REMOVE UNSAFE CGHHERCIAL VEHPCLES IRON ETREEi9 AND NIGIiVAYE. dNP.REAS, local De see officeu an ignad to cnffic dudes currently enforce Vehlr la eoee sectlona regulating vemereial vehicles on roadreys. These re gulaclena pexu Li eo a comasclal vablcla'a relghc, afro, equtpmane, loading and hazerdoua nicer 6ls fats; and rNERFAS. dur/n6 the li en[o[eewne se eivitla a, Locel peace off teen ere onfmneed rich cemeruu ~ .. :` ••~ . ueh dlarepalr and peon condiefpn chat eha lc continued openeion on the radray cewricueea an eztrena u.a....~ oLhar m[oriacz; and NHEREAS, the aeEeec ewna oL ac lien then local peace oE[Scan discover such uaah cemacclal vehidu to to prahlbie eha mvamanc of the vehic La until [.pair. an wda; n,d dHFRGS, Ne only offieen eucwnely auehorized to re~ova uruafa eomarcial vehicle. Lrm use era Glifom/a Ntghraq Patrol o(fiean. N(RI, TNEREFORg, eL tT RESOLVEp 11US the Glcy Cwne ll of cM City o[ 0.olling N LIL Eatatea supports le gidat ive ¢eton dui rwld extend cM mehoctry co ceaave corerclal vehicles frm asrvfee co all properly tzatmd peace o[(Seav assigned to aaffic duetes, The City clerk vhall [otvacd certified eoplo of ehla Ravelueton to eha California Conctaee Ctt Sea Assoc is eion for eenaideration ae eF.a Annwl Rua lnav Seaa/on, the League of CaltEorn/a Licles, gsweor Robe ce Beverly and As a<mblymn Gerald Felando. PASSED, APPROVED ANO AOOPTFD chta 9th day of AprLl, 1991. ' HUGN/ HULLER, MAY 1'RE9T: GLUCL;.S X. PR3 GNARp. CITY CLERK ', DpOGLgG R. P0.ICNARp, NERERY CERTIFY the[ the [ongoing Rem luc/en Ho. 165? u tluly antl [age fatly par sod by the Cl cy Cmuncll of [he cl[y of Rallln6 Hllla Eames at a nguL[ nee tln6 [haee[ hold on the 9cA day of April, 1991, by tM [o llarin6 voce: Al'Ed: NC LUIRE. HULLER, SCHNARZHANN, SERVI g, NERER HOES: HONE ABSENT; NONE yn Ag9TA IN: NONE / /lam//~~/' j pOUGIAg R, PRI CIU0.D, CI1-T('ICLER): REgOLI1T ION No. )65l 0.EUTINC TO TIIE RFNOVAL OF UNSAFE CONNERCI AL VEHICLES r~ / - FRdi NIGIIUAYH d t~ i~ RFS~IIRION N~. 91-ir/ A RLSOIl7iiW OF 'ltlE C1TY 00[YiCJ7. OF 74ffi C.CI'Y OF RANCSD (SICISTINGA, CAISFCBd~IIA, SOPPORI'ING LF13IS[AT1VE II"FOHI'S 1U F}IFOWFR PIdDPII~Y 1FAIIiFD PFALE OFFZCtFS 10 RYDIIJE iPISAFE .7AL VE}iICCFS FfKM 91REE15 A41D HI(367AYS Fff¢~FFIiS, local peace officers assigned to traffic d,rties cauxsntly enforee Vehicle CUde sections regulating mtmercial vehicles on roadways. :fuse regulations pertain to a oo®ercial vehicle's weight, size, equiparnt, loading arcl na~a,.i~+a materials laws; 871d YIiFRFAS, during their enforvaaent activities, l0®1 peace offioex~s are mrif'r'onted with anmexcial vehicles that are in such d;arxu;r and poar edition that their oDnti.reied operation on the roadway coretitutes an ~+~ hazard t0 C1ld1eT motorists, aid 4~iERFAS, the safest mt1L5e of action when local pace officers discover sudv unsafe c~roial vehicles is to prohibit the movement of the vehicles until repairs are made; and 4dII~REAS, the only officers cwrvntly authorized to remove unsafe o~nercial vehicles fzom use are California Highvsy Patrol officers. NoW, 4r¢REFORE, the City m~mcil of the City of Rancho Oramonga doe, hereiry resolve to support legislative action that would extend the authority to rarove cooaoercial vehicles frvn service to all property trained peace officets assigned to traffic duties. ~7 CITY OF RP.NCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 17, 1991 T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack lam, AICP, City Manager FRDM: Wm. Joe O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Nilife Val Buena, Assistant Engineer a~3-. SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF IMP FOR PARCEL MAP 12779, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BANYAN STREEt, EAST OF DEER CREEK CHANNEL, SUDMITTED BY RANCHO CUCAMON611 REDEYELOPMENT AGENCY RECq/ENOATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving Parcel Map 12779 and authorizing the City Clerk to cause said map to record. ANALYSIS/BACKBRDUID Parcel Map 12779, iocated on the north side of Banyan Street, east of Deer Creek Channel within the Flood Control Development District, was approved by the Planning Commission on September 27, 1989 for the division of 3 acres into 1 parcel. The subject parcel will contain the City's "Banyan Ftre Station" which is near completion. The Developer, Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency, has awarded through bid oroposal the installation of the off-site improvements along with the construction of the fire station building. Respectfully subp~ttted, Wm. Joe O'Neil City Engineer MJO:WV:,Ih Attachments RESOLUTION N0. 7~~ ~0 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL NAP N0. 12779 WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map No. 12779, submitted by Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency, Subdivider, and consisting of 1 parcel, located within the Flood Control Development District, was approved by the Planning Commission as provided in the State Subdivision Map Act and is in compliance with the requirements of Ordinance No. 28 of said City; and WHEREAS, Parcel Map No. 12779 is the Final Mao of the di„i ~+..~ ,.v ~a~~~ ayyruveu as snovm on saio Tentative Parcel Map; and WHEREAS, to meet the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the Final Map, said subdivider submits for approval said Final Map offering for dedication for public use the streets delineated thereon. HOW, THEREFORE, 8E IT RESOLYED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, as follows: 1. That the offers for dedication and the Final Map delineating same be approved and the City Clerk is authorized to execute the certificate thereon behalf of said City; and 2. That said Parcel Map No. 12719 be and the same is hereby approved and the City En9lneer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. eRn191T 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM Lf-NDSCaPE WialNTENANCE DisTRIC : i~L. STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 5 'Original Poor ~ual;ty ~ ~' _-.-«,a.~ .- ~ ~ ~ -~ SIiE -'-- _ i i __ ~ -_..,~.~_/~mr~~~/ i I Igai ~ j~, /tee i ,, ., /wee. O U i / ~ / \•, __~ ~ ~ r ccu.. r~_ -'-caw' ~ / . ~~li I /G~ „' I 6ANYAN•••S:r. I~.~- __ 1 I /r \ Il-~.~ Ili ~/ 59 t fngrT C.J STREET TREES 6 E'A STREeT L/6NT5 6 EA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA <.., COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDiNO [_M i27T9 ;,~ ~! STATE,OF~CALIFORNIA rnmv nn n STAFF REPORT V - GATE: July 17, 1991 n / v T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, A1CP, City Manager FROM: Wm. Joe O'Neil, City Engineer 8Y: Willie Yalbuena, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT crruott.rc rno ro~rr l..fc . _ ----- - Lwnicu NORTH OF 24TH STREET AND EAST OF WARDMAN BULlOCK~ROAD AND RELEASE OF PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED IMPROYEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES ACCEPTED BY THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ON OCTOBER 3, 1988 AND TRANSFERRED TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGII ON NOVEMBER 1, 1989, 80TH SUBMITTED BY STANDARD PACIFIC, L.P. It Ts recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the subiect agreement and securities, releasing Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security accepted by the County of San Bernardino on October 3, 1988 and transferred to the City of Rancho Cucamonga on November 1, 1989, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign and release said agreements and securities. BACKGRgINO/ANALYSIS The Improvement Agreement and Securities of Tract 13565-1 thru Tract 13565-4 were approved by the County of San Bernardino on October 3, 1988 and transferred to the City of Rancho Cucamonga on November 1, 1989. The Developer, Standard Pacific, L.P. is submitting an agreement and securities to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in the following amounts: FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE LABOR ANO MATERIAL Nardnan Bullock Road 5302,000.00 (151,000.00 Wardman Bullock Flood Wall 5148,000.00 S 74,000.00 Wardman Bullock Landscape 5216,000.00 f108,000.00 24th Street 5738,000.00 5369,000.00 24th Street Landscape (854,00.00 5427,000.00 Ridgellne Place (806,000.00 (403,000.00 MND Landscape Easement 5271,000.00 f136,000.00 13565-1 Streets f103,000.00 f 52,000.00 31 TR 13565-1 8 Thru TR 13565-4 Staff Report July 17, iggi Dage 2 13565-2 Streets f253,000.00 ;127,000.00 13565-3 Streets S246,000.00 ;123,000.00 ' 13565-4 Streets 5160,000.00 ; 80,000.00 Copies of the agreement and securities are available 1n the City Cierk's office. Respectfully submitjad~,~ /~J~ WJO:WY:fh Attachment 3~- RESOLUTION N0. ~~~ I7o A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT ANO IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES FOR TRACT 13565-1 THRU TRACT 13565-4 AND RELEASING THE IMPROVEMENT AGAEEMEN7 AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES PREVIOUSLY ACCEPTED BY THE COUNTY OF SAN BERIUIRDINO ON OCTOBER 3, 1468 AND TRANSFERRED TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ON NOVEMBER 1, 1989 NNEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, ni ~s,..~~. ~,.~ inr Hr ~..ne lAw.aH nn an Tenmvwwwn4. Aorwwawnt. wxw:utad en July 17, 1991, Dy Standard Paclflc, L.P. as developer, Por the improvement specifically described thereto, and generally located north of 24th Street and east of Nardman Bullock Road; and release of previously submitted Improvement Agreement and Securities accepted by the County of San Bernardino on October 3, 1988,.from Standard Paclflc, L.P. and transferred to the City of Rancho Cucamonga on November 1, 1989. NHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Securities, which is identified to said Improvement Agreement. NON, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES that said Improvement Agreement and said improvement Securities be and the same are hereby approved, release of previously submitted Improvement Agreement and Improvement Securities accepted by the County of San 6ernard;no on Giaabe~ 3, i922, from Standard Pacific, L.P. and transferred to the City of Rancho Cucamonga on November 1, 1989, and the Mayor is hereby authorized to Sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the city Clerk to attest thereto. 33 ~lI6/~I ' q T N094Y0<"E 6 5 ~iDYlvANPTA4l5 ~- a T Nn > TR/3565-~ [G +l w h V'~ ~ ~. 31P ] 6WEP 591C ~£F HS Y/50~64 ~ anE1 ~ SEE 5NlET 5 m ' . 2 L O M1 M1\ . , . ~ ~ M1v SEE ~Jlfli,d ~ \• ~ 9 a ` a $ e ` ~ RECORD OF SURY6Y M19 M1B n I R LL[M1w". Ot L J ~ BOOK 79 ~; ~'~';~"C+n°O FADES ?s3-4o J m .~ ! r •o iA vP' ,~~ 4' -~1M' Bj1 ~ !4 ~rP 3565-3 W m TiP / L 1 II ~IM191 ~'~ ~~ M1;~ a ~~( Vr e ~G. . M1 { f . 0 !~ ~' ao r~-hrT e~~E ~ ~ ` Q p. z P I ~ I .r. •~, gy n ~ N I yN Si ~rE~ ~ Sv ` Q ~~ 1 1A` Jp' 1aM1 M19M1 ~~ ~ ~~ ISi iz~~ Aq` d C• ~ ~~ ` ~ O • ~ ~ !33] ~ -~ ~ 24 th ~3L~9 SUMMIT ~ '" AVENUE ~- - ~Z~~~ =`3",o R:~n BFLSi +i ~ " ` ~i'u SvK ANC TM AREi'E'J CC4 E5 03id ':'AiE: A'IS~ a~yir A51/C LOP SfLTICN ypcy . .. - .. -. 5"~:DS ',Ci~`l OF RANCiiO CtlCAMONGA ITEM; Ti?RCT/8565-/ TO-S E~!ul':E~fiING DIV!~ION TITLE: u p ~' EXHIBIT: Q 0. 3'-~ CTTY OF RANCHO CTtCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 17, 1991 T0: Mayor and Mtmbers of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Wm. Jce O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Jce Stofa, Jr., Associate Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, ZONE 1, ALMOND IN.L~ ~v~v+ • v~• ...... CULVERTS ATVSKYLINE~ROAD~AND~ALMOND~~STREET It 1s recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the subJect agreement and authorfxing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign Bald agreeement. BACK61N1UIR1/AMA.YSIS The Developer of Tract No. 10210 has recently completed construction of Flood Control Fac111t1es (Almond Intercept) across dedicated street right-of-way at two locations (Almond Street and Skyline Road). San Bernardino County Flood Control District retains an easement across the street right-of-wa.y, thus requiring an "Area of Caimon Use" Agreement Tn which the Flood Control District will maintain the box culverts and appurtenances below the soffit of the deck structures and the City of Rancho Cucamonga will maintain all other appurtenant works above the soffit of the deck structures, Including the roadwdy. It 1s anticipated that the streets within the Flood Control District's Easement will be completed in approximately 6-months, whtle the Almond Intercept Channel is currently in operation. The Agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney and is on file in the City Cierk's office. Respectfully su ed, WJO:JES:,ih Attachment RESOLUTION N0. Gf ~- ~Q~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING COOPERATIVE AGREEt~NT WITH SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT SKYLINE ROAD AND ALMOND STREET NHEREAS, the Ctty Council of the Ctty of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration a Cooperative Agreement from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District for the improvements at Skyline Road and Almond Street and which is generally located crest of Saoohire Street and iw~4n ui „imund 5creet; ana NHEREAS, the construction of such improvements, described in said Cooperative Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, 1s to be done by the Developer in con,~unction with Tract Na. 10210; and WHEREAS, in order to receive the necessary permit from Flood Control District for the said construction, the City of Rancho Cucamonga is to act as the lead agency for dealing with Flood Control DTstrlct and the said Cooperative Agreement is to facilitate the receiving of necessary approvals of Flood Control District. NOM, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGII, HEREBY RESOLVES that said Cooperative Agreement be hereby approved and the Mayor 1s hereby authorized to sign said Cooperative Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto. ~~ A.~a~i~V inai ~w: ~4~..:,. 'prig' V Q ~ C'~~ ~o- s,a .~ t e i I11 ~ .b~ ® / ~~ ~ ^ F~V w :. ~. ~~ ~ kre /! ~~ a ~ e.i F .' , i ~~~ ~~^~ '~7i <s.A s .. 3~ ,~ ~~.W1. ~~W i~ ~~.~ ~~~ ~n b litl i vP ilt\ivMil/ \iV li[f1YAl1'I\il1 STAFF REPORT DATE: July 17, 1991 TO: Mayor and Members of the CSty Council Jam Lam, AICP, CIty Manager FROM: Jim Hart, Administrative Services Director BY: Sandy Ramirez, Resource Services Supervisor SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS FOR COMPUTER HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE WITH NB[ INC. IN ~1'tiL~' AMUUIV'1' VN' 1614,'L92, PRIME (:UMYU"1'ER 1N 1'HE AMOUNT OF $32,747 AND WESTEK COMPUTER SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT' OF $34,200, TO BE FUNDED FROM CONTRACT SERV[CES ACCOUNT NUMBER 33-4730-6028 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991/92 Staff recommends City Council's approval to execute contracts for computer hardware and softwaze maintenance with NBI [nc. in the amount of $14,292, Prime Computer in the amount of $32,747 and Westek Computer Services in the amount of $34,200, the total amount of $81,239 will be funded from contract services account number 33-4130-6028 for Fiscal Year 1991/92. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The computer equipment located throughout the City requires periodic maintenance and repair. NBI Inc., 13ime Computer and Westek Computer Services provide these services on some of the hardwaze and software throughout the various departments. Additionally, staff will execute existing contracts for hardwaze that are within staffs purchasing authority dollar limits and do not require City Council action. These pieces of equipment/software are essential for the support of Management Information Systems, Geographical information Systems, Mapping, Word Processing and personal computers wlthm the City. Rely submitted, Jim Hart AdminiaVaUve Services Director JH:SR:jmf 3g ---~iii'i,F nt~jii=jy _i ~_i?%; uiyl~,~niLa STAFF REPORT ~° ` DATE: July 17, 1991 ~ T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jatk Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Wm. Joe O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Gary Varney, Streets and Storm Drains Maintenance Superintendent ~"""~~~• IVYM1VY/LL Xllu gMNfu OF NENENAL AGREEMENT FOR THE CITY HIDE EMERGENCY AND ROUTINE EQUIPMENT PAVEMENT REPAIR, SHOULDER GRADING AND DEBRIS REMOVAL ANNUAL MAINTENANCE CONTRACT NITH LAIR CONSTRUCTION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-92 I RECOMMEMDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the renewal agreement with laird Construction of Rancho Cucamonga for the City-wide Emer9enry and Routine Equipment Pavement Repair, Shoulder Grading and Debris Removal Annual Maintenance Contract. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The City's annual maintenance contract was awarded July 1, 1987. The contract contains provision for renewal of the agreement on an annual basis not to extend beyond June 30, 1992. This year our contractor is requesting a dollar an hour increase for labor with no other increases requested. This past year we have used the contract most extensively for pavement repair, shoulder grading removal of asphalt, concrete and for major storm related debris removal. Ne will be utilizing their equipment rental aspect much more extensively, due to greatly Increased demand for maintenance services. Respectfully submitted, ' ~'~ ~k WJO:GV:Iy 3 iiT'1 iiF nnNi, ri~~ i,i l~, n iriilNi:n STAFF REPORT DATE: July 17, 1991 T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager ~. FROM: Wm. Joe O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Steve M. Gilliland, Public Norks Inspector IZ' SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE OF BONDS AND NOTCCE OF COMPLETION FOR TRACT 13662, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD ANO HAVEN AVENUE RECOMIEIDATIOM: The required street Improvements for Tract 13662 have been completed in an acceptable manner, and it is recoammnded that City Council accept said Improvements, accept the Maintenance Guarantee Bond in the amount of f16,65B.00, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Perfoeltmnce Bond to ±he amount of f166,576.00. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Tract 13662 - located on the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Haven Avenue DEVELOPER: Lewis Homes P.O. Box 670 Upland. CA 91786 Accept: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) E 16,658.00 Release: Faithful Performance Bond (Street) fI66,576.00 Respectfully subm ted, /~j) 1, i' (~ Wm. Joe O'Neil City Engineer NJO:SMG:sd Attachment T~ RESOLUTION N0. 9i-~~~`i A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ' FOR TRACT 13662 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of publ7c improvements for Tract 13662 have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS. a Notice of Completion is reouired to be filed, certlfvinp the work complete. NOM, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. ?I C1TY OF P.a*:cxc cucaalor:ca STAFF REPORT GATE; July I7, 1991 T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Wm. Joe O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Henry Murakosht, Associate Engineer e~3-. SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO VACATE A PORTION OF AN ALLEY LOCATED SOUTH OF NINTH STREET FROM 4INIMR TO SIERRA MADRE AVENUES, SETTING THE DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR AUGUST 7, 1991, AND NAIVING ADMINISTRATION rGG rVN YXI.MI1Vn wLIAILJI RECOMIENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution settlrtg the public hearing for August 7, 1991, for the vacation of a portion of an alley 316 feet long by 20 feet wide, located approximately 190 feet south of Ninth Street from Vlnmar to Sierra Madre Avenues. In addition, said resolution authorizes the City Clerk to cause same resolution to be published 10 days prior to public hearing and staff to process the vacation request without fee. BACKGRWND/ANALYSIS City Council esta611shed a task force to elimfnate gang ac tivlties in the neighborhood. By the residents' request, the task force has recommended closfng the alley from pedestrian traffic to prevent loitering and graffiti. When vacated, a chain link gate will be installed at the Sierra Madre end of the alley to restrict public access. Access wtll be limited only to the property owners adiacent to the alley and utility companies with access easements. The applicant is normally charged a 5125 adm1n15tratlon fee for processing the vacation request. Waiving this fee would facilitate the request process since there are many property owners along the alley which the fee would be divided among, and when vacated, the City would benefit with reduced graffiti removals and maintenance in the neighborhood. Respectfully submt d, ~ f i Wm. Joe O'Neil i City Engineer WJO:CBad Attachments: Exhibit "A" -Legal Description Exhibit "B" -Vicinity Map Exhibit "C" -Location Map T~ RESOLUTION N0. 9/- ///3 follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCRMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN RERNARDiNO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE A PORTION OF AN ALLEY LOCATED SOUTH OF NINTH STREET FROM VINMAR TD SIERRA MADRE AVENUES BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as SECI7 UN 1: Inat the City uouncn nereoy ei acts to proceeo unaer Section seq., of the Streets and Highways Code, also known as the Street Vacation Act of 1941, and waive administration fee far vacation request as allowed in said code. SECTION 2: That the City Council hereby declares its intention to vacate a pow o of an alley located south of NT nth Street from Vinmar to Sierra Madre Avenues approximately 316 feet long and 20 feet wide, as shown on Map No. V-117 on file in the Office of the City Clerk, a legal description of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof. SECTION 3: That the City CauncTl hereby fixes Wednesday, the 7th day of August-IlJ91; at 1:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, as the time and place far hearing all persons objecting to the proposed vacation for the purpose of its determining whether said City street is necessary for present or prospective street purposes. SECTION 4: That the City Street Superintendent shall cause notices to be pos e~Tconspicuausly along the line of the street or part thereof proposed to be vacated at least 10 days before the hearing, not more than 30 feet apart and not less than three signs shall be posted, each of which shall have a copy of this resolution on them and shall have the following title in lettering not less than one Tnch to height: "NOTICE OF HEARING TO VACATE STREET". SECTION 5: The subject vacation shall be subject to the reservations and excep omens, Tf any, for existing utilities an record. The subject alley shall be retained as easements far ingress and egress established in the names of Cucamonga County Nater District; Southern California Edtson; General Telephone Company; and the respective ownersltenants of lots 11, 12, 13, 14, I5, 40 and 47 of Tract Map 1829, and shall also be retained as an easement for drainage and related purposes. SECTION 6: The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attas~fo ffie same, and the City Clerk shall cause same to be published 10 days before the date set for the hearing, at least once in Inland~Val~ley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in~ie-~f~y of n ar o, a forma, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. ~3 EXHI8IT'A" THAT PORTION OF AN ALLEY AS SHOWN ON TRACT MAP 1829 OF THE TOWN OF WEST CUCAMONOA AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 28, PAGE 20, RECORDS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BLLEY ALL THAT PORTION OF AN ALLEY 20.00 FEET WIDE BOUNDED AS FOLLOWS: ON THE NORTH BY THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOTS 10 THRU 15 INCLUSIVE, MAP OF THE TOWN OF WEST CUCAMONGA AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 28, PAGE 20, RECORDS OF SAN BERNARDINO GOUNTY; ON THE SOUTH BY THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOTS 40 AND 47, MAP OF THE TOWN OF WEST CUCAMON_GA_AS PEfl PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK ~a, aerg?n ooCOR.^.O ;~ ~;,;~ ON THE WEST RV THE EASTERLY LINE OF VINMAR AVENUE; ON THE EAST BY THE WESTERLY LINE OF SIERRA MADRE AVENUE. CITY OF ITEM: -1 7 RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: LE AL DESCRIPTION ENGINEEflING DIVISION EXHl81T: " -~`~°°°~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~r MEMORANDUM ' `'~ DATE: 7-!YR/ TO: !~E ~.J6/L I FROM: (?dRr L~lLU~/6s SUBJECT: _ A«fY yAennw _ .gECTIaJ .S rfF T/E ,f~'Soc UfiaV AA/O TIIE cq ST SP.JYbvCE~ SElew/D PARA6QAP// OF T//6 STgft REPoRT d/AYE BEE.II WA,/6~p Ta APD TJ/E °RAA/C./o l~cAMdVBA f~RE /'jC~T£CT/M/ ZYSTR/CT Y. I/daT T/// S H/fEK T/E 1~/S7R/tr /QE/FRSED T/~E/R PDS/T/ow/ c+dl/CER,//,fF ~'l/E AGLey /HCAT/on! l~eE Co,~/8D F BAnACIeA/ Q!//EF Fi(~bM ~E T~/SrRICY A,,/ C/1SEME^/T FoR AccESS .af RE7'q /]/EO. AMEoIrAn epgyc isOn45 i]t0 ]01519 DATE: July 17, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STaFr' DEPORT T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Wm. Joe O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Henry Murakoshi, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO VACATE A PORTION OF AN ALLEY LOCATED SOUTH OF NINTH STREET FROM YINMAR TO SIERRA h1A0RE AVENUES, SETTING THE DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR AUGUST 7, 1991, AND NAIVING ADMINISTRATION FEE FOR 4ACATION REQUEST RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution setting the public hearing for August 7, 1991, for the vacation of a portion of an alley 316 feet long by 2D feet wide, located approximately 190 feet south of Ninth Street from Yinmar to Sierra Madre Avenues. In addition, said resolution authorizes the City Clerk to cause same resolution to be published 10 days prior to public hearing and staff to process the vacation request without fee. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS City Council established a task force to eliminate gang activities in the neighborhood. By the residents' request, the task force has recommended closing the alley from pedestrian traffic to prevent loitering and graffiti. When vacated, a chain link gate will be installed at the Sierra Madre end of the alley to restrict public access. Access will be limited only to the property owners adjacent to the alley, the Rancho Cucamonya Fire Protection "uistrict and uttlity companies with access easements. The applicant is normally charged a E125 administration fee for processing the vacation request. Waiving this fee would facilitate the request process since there are many property owners along the alley which the fee would be divided among, and when vacated, the City would benefit with reduced graffiti removals and maintenance in the neighborhood. Respec tfui ly submitted, -~ r,,w;~., ~~ Wm. Joe O'Neil City Engineer WJO:CB:sd Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Legal Description Exhibit "B" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "C" - Location Map RESOLUTION N0. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE A PORTION OF AN ALLEY LOCATED SOUTH OF NINTH STREET FROM VINMAR TO SIERRA MADRE AVENUES BE IT RESOLVED 6y the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: SECTION 1: That the City Council hereby elects to proceed under Section 8301f. of-cee.. or rho cr.>or~ ~a u~..ti~., r..?- -'. ,o - - -- :~~t Street Vacation Act of 1941, and waive administration fee for vacation request as allowed in said code. SECTION 2: That the City Council hereby declares its intention to vacate a porLfon of an alley located south of Ninth Street from Vinmar Lo Sierra Madre Avenues approximately 316 feet long and 20 feet wide, as shown on Map No. Y-117 on file in the Office of the City Clerk, a legal description of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof. SECTION 3: That the City Council hereby fl xes Wednesday, the 7th day of August,-T9?;~t 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, as the time and place for hearing all persons objecting to the proposed vacation for the purpose of its determining whether =_aid City street is necessary for present or prospective street purposes. SECTION 4: That the City Street Superintendent shall cause notices to be posted conspicuously along Lhe line of the street or part thereof ornpnsnd to ne vacated a± least 30 days before the hearing, not more than 30 feet apart and not less than three signs shall be posted, each of which shall have a copy of this resolution on them and shall have the following title in lettering not less than one inch in height: "NOTICE OF HEARING TO VACATE STREET". SECTION 5: The subject vacation shall be subject to the reservations and excep io~ns,^if any, for existing utiiities on record. The subject alley shall be retained as easements for tngress and egress established in the names of Cucamonga County Water District; Southern California Edison; General Telephone Company; Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; and the respective owners/tenants of lots 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 40 and 47 of Tract Map 1829, and shall also be retained as an easement for drainage and related purposes. SECTION 6: The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attes o e same, and the City Clerk shall cause same to be published 10 days before the date set for the hearing, at least once in Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in e y o n an o, a fornia, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. r ~z~- L-~~ 3nN3nvaaavw vaaa I M~a _ N ¢!V n O ~ M W W W N !N J = I •- ~ // H Z ~I" r~ M/a 3(n''N~3A Via 1lw~pllA ! ~,~+ I `mom °2. YJ~~ Y -~,. _~ _ o•• _...~~_4u~lury i;i C? 02 U? ~O U~ v=W V W ~zV-,Z UOaCW -~- Z - 3f1N3AV 3HUbW VklH31S ~~ J H W F N x z z Q C7 Z ~Z ~O Q N ~0 UZ =W V F- a L7 U¢w 3fiN3AV tlVWNIA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA STAFF RR~ORT DATE: July 17, 1991 T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Mm. Joe O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Betty A, Miller, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ANU TENTATIYE PARCEL MAP 13693 W1JlUfl IU REWIRE THAT PARCEL 2 TAKE ACCESS FROM NORTHRIDGE DRIVE FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF ONE ACRE OF LAND INTO TNO PARCELS IN THE VERY LON RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF NORTHRIDDE DRIVE, NEST OF HAVEN AVENUE - APN: 201-182-29 (RELATED FILE: VARIANCE 91-04a REC01/ENDATICM Staff recanaends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny the appeal request by adopting the Resolution attached to the July 3 Staff Report. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS This protect was continued from the July 3, 1991, meeting at the request of one of the appeailants, so that their attorney could be present. The staff report was presented on July 3, but public test/mony was deferred until tonight so that all testimogy cautd be heard on tits night of the decision. Please note that the Northwood Properties Community Association has submitted an Executive Summary of their CC6R's as requested by the Council. A highlighted copy has been included Tn the CouncilmemDer packets under separate cover. The balance of this analysis addresses questions of the staff report posed by Council members on July 3. puestion 1: When the tunas purchased this property, where was their legal access? Since 1984, the tunas have had an access easement to Wilson Avenue across the Droperty to the west. In 1989 that was replaced with Cabrosa Place, which is a public street. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TENT PM 13693 - LUNA .tely t7 t_991 Page 2 Question 2: Why was Cabrosa Pi ace offset? When Parcel Map 5996 was approved, 1n July of 1987, the structures on APN 201-182-27 (lot 27 on Exhibit "N" attached) were existing, along with 30- foot offers of dedication along both the north and west property tines. Cabrosa Pi ace aas designed to be consistent with the existing offers of dedication. Mr. Luna dedicated Lhe balance of the cui-de-sac bulb 1n September of 1989. nuestt on 3: Mhy did the Planning Commission not choose Master Plan alternates "1" or "~~~r An analysis of those alternates is Contained in the Apr11 24, 1991, Planning Caeeission Staff Report attached. The Caimatssion felt that the disadvantages enueerated by staff plus the need to pave additional streets and provide additional City maintenance Just to accomodate a few parcels, did not Justify choosing those alternates. If the Council wishes to pursue Alternate "I" or "J', then the variance would need to be revised to account for the additional area on Parcel 2 lost to street dedication. Mr. Luna would need to obtain access rights for Parcel 2 extending to Wilson Avenue from the owner of either existing Parcel 28 or 30. This amounts to the selection of option 3 from the April 24 Staff Report, rather than option 2(b) which the Planning Commission selected. Rec;ectfully sudnii:ted, Mm. Joe O'Neil ~,,/ City Engineer WJ O:BAM:Jh Attachments: Excerpts from April 24, 1991, Staff Report July 3, 1991, Staff Report ~g flrioinal Pnnr finality ~ ~z -~, ~_ ~: ~ ~ ~_.'_ ® Y 'O ~ - =:., i j I VI ~' ~ I ~ ~ ® d I~ I ___J ~ ; - .. i N i J __ ~ i `y ' G P ~, Z e°` - ._ e i= is I ~ ~-------- `~ - z~ I ~ ..._____-___^apa,.y asasga~ = I•_~ a~ r ~ a ~ ~ ~5 ~T ~ .4 ~ nem ~ ', S I 2 2 i a i j ~~ (G~li i [ I ~ i ~ i EXCERPT' ~"/ ~i O O -`~ ~ U O x U ~z ~ v z w -- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT y DATE: April 24, 1991 T0: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Betty A. Miller, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MNP 13693 _ u1Na - a suoarvision at l.u at re of land Into parses n e ery low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201-182-29. Related file: Variance 91-04. Staff recommends issuance of Negative Declaration. !Continued from March 27, 1991) I. BACKGROUND: This item was continued from the March 27, 1991 Planning omnl~ fission meeting in order for staff to investigate alternative master plans for the area to the north to see if a better access could be provided to Parcel 2 of Lhis proposed parcel maD• A copy of the previous staff report is attached For your reference. II, DISCUSSION: The proposed parcel map and its relationship to the master p and- areais shown on Exhi Dit "H". Note that the Exhibits start with "H" in this report to not be confused with A thru G contained in the March 27, 1991 report. Several master plan layouts were investigated. The main constraint controlling the master planning effort is that only one street, aligned with Cartilla Avenue on the north side of Wilson Avenue, can serve the master plan area from either Nilson or Haven Avenues. Both of these streets are arterials, with intersection spacing restricted to 600 feet. Even if closer spacing were allowed, an additional street connection would provide secondary access to the master plan area, but would not solve the Concern of access to Parcel 2. The master plan shown on Exhibit "I" is the most straight forward in providing direct street access to Parcel 2; however, it has the following disadvantages: 1. It utilizes a four-way local to local street intersection which is discouraged because studies have shown that they produce more accidents than "tee" intersections. 2. 1t imposes substantially more street improvements and right-of-way upon existing Parcel 28 which already has streets on two sides. 3. The additional street right-of-way will preclude the portion of existing Parcel 2D at the southwest corner of Cartilla and Street "A" from being subdivided into two parcels. PLANNING COMMISSION .FF REPORT TENT PM 13693 - LUNA APRIL 24, 1991 PAVE 2 4. Lot 2 of the future subdivision of existing Parcel 30 will be dependent upon the development of Parcel 28 for access. ' 5. IL restricts the future subdivision of the portion of existing Parcel 30 south of Street "A" to four parcels Versus five as shown on Exhibit "K". 6. ft increases the variance required for the proposed Parcel Map (an additional 600} square feet of lot area lost to street dedication on Parcel 21. '. - Lnyu ri.an iiy, Lne master plan does not solve the immediate concern of access to Parcel 2. The southerly extension of Cart111a Avenue, which would provide that access, is on property not owned by this applicant. The second master plan shown on Exhlblt "J" somewhat lessens disadvantages 2 and 3 of the master plan shown on Exhibit "H", but introduces a skewed lntersettton which adverseiy affects safety. Exhibit "K" is a refinement of the master plan shown on previous Exhibit "C". It shows that an additional two parcels could conceivably be obtained south of Street "A" using that master plan street alignment. III. CONCLUSION: Staff was able to design a master plan that could provide ong term direct street access to Parcel 2, but that master plan does present other disadvantages and does not provide an immediate access solution. The Commission appears to have the following options: i. Approve the Parcel MoD as proposed with Parcel 2 taking access across Parcel 1 to Cabrosa Place. 2. Approve the Parcel Map modified to require that (a) both parcels or ib) Parcel 2 only take access from Northridge Orive. 3. Oeny the Parcel Map as proposed directing the applicant to refile a new Parcel Map (and variance) conforming to the master plan shown on Exhibit "I" or "J" and to obtain access rights across the adiacent property extending to Wilson Avenue. Respectfully submitted, ~LZ~f ~'1 I~'-, Barrye R. Hanson Senior Civil Engtneer B RH:dIw Attachments: +M+liaster pPllan Areaa (Epx2hi(fbE~X~it nn"Ht") t4ester Plan - AIL: 3 4Exfit6it "3") Master Plan - Alt. 4 (Exhibit "K") March 21, 1991 Staff Report E X CERPT 51 rtmv nc o e wirvn rr rr a iunwrn_ n STAFF REPORT DATE: July 3, 1991 T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Wm. Joe O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Betty A. Miller, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIYE PARCEL MAP 13693 - LUNA - An Appeal Ot the manning uommisston's mectstop ro require that Parcel 2 take access from Northridge Drive for a residential subdivision of one acre of land into two parcels in the Yery Low Restdential District located on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201-182-29 (Related file: Variance 91-04) Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny the appeal request by adopting the attached Resolution. BAq(6ROUND The project proposes to subdivide a one at re parcel into two single family half acre parcels as sham on Exhibit "B" of the attached Planning Commission Staff RePOrt dated March 27, 1991. The project was heard by the Planning Commission on 4hree occasions (March 21, April 24, and May 22, 1991); therefore there are three separate staff reports and related minutes. The tentative map and related variance were approved by the Planning Commission on May 22, 1991, as modified at the meeting. This appeal was filed by Peter Fan, Lhe owner of the adjacent property to the east of the project, shown as Parcel 30 on Exhibit N° of the attached Planning Commission Staff Report dated Apr11 24, 1991, and by the Northwood Properties Community Association, the homeowners association for the development to the south of the pro,lect. The appeal letters are attached. ANALYSIS The adjacent property owners have appealed this protect because they ob,{ect to the Planning Commission decision to require that Parcel 2 take access from Northridge Drive. The Northwood Properties Community Association has protested the use of Northridge Drive for access to aryy of these parcels throughout the processing of this map, including 5~- CITY CWNCIL STAFF REPORT TENT PM 13693 - LUNA July 3 'g91 Page 2~ discussion at the neighborhood meeting, 150 homeowner petlttons, letters, and statements at each of Lhe public hearings. Mr. Fan is objecting to ' the precedence this approval will set for the portion of his property which also has frontage on Northridge Drive. The objections can be summarized as follows: 1. Increased traffic in an existing community; 2. Potential for parking RV's and large horse trailers on Northridge n.~.. 3. Architectural and CC6R campatabtlity between different development districts; 4. Disturbance of the slope landscaping currently maintained by the homeowner association; and 5. Decreased value for the larger lots on the north side of Northridge Drive. All of these Issues were raised and discussed by the Planning Commission. The initial map submitted to the Planning Commission on March 27, 1991, had both parcels taking access from Cabrosa Place with Parcel 2 using an easement along the north boundary of Parcel 1. The Planning Commission was concerned with Parcel 2 taking access through an easement on Parcel 1 because of possible neighbor disputes, compromised accessibility to Parcel 2 for emergency vehicles, and the Constraints placed on Parcel 1 by an equestrian trail on one side and an access easement on another. The second report, dated April 24, 1991, explored various master plans for the surrounding area to see if a better access could be provided La Parcel 2. It was concluded that the alternate master plans had disadvantages sufficient that they should not be pursued. The Planning Commission required that both parcels take access from Northridge Drive. A third hearing was necessary to allow time to readvertise the required variance, which was revised to include lot depth in addition to average 1 of area, and to prepare a resolution refl acting the new parcel orientation. At the Mdy 22, 1991 Planning Commission hearing, the appitcant requested that Parcel 1 be allowed to take access from Cabrosa Place. The majority of the Planning Commission agreed, resulting Tn the project being approved with Parcel 1 taking access fray Cabrosa Pi ace and Parcel 2 taking access from Northridge Drive. The dissenting commissioners preferred that both parcels take access from Northridge Drive. -~ 3 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TENT PM 13693 - LUNA July 3; 1991 Page 3 The Planning Comaisslon was unanimous in its opposition to along access easement for Parcel 2 across Parcel 1, given that frontage 1s available on Northridge Drive. They did not feel that the additional traffic mould be significant and resolved the issues of parking, CCSR compatibility and landscaping maintenance 1n the conditions of approval. Using a street as the boundary where lot sizes change is camaon and front yards are seen as more attractive than a perimeter wall for properties across the street. Although a particular master plan was not approved, the Planning Commission did state that their decision on this parcel would affect the remainder of the lots on the north side of Northridge Drive. After their appeal request, the Northwood Properties Cawmenity Association submitted a request to add a condition of approval requiring that tots fronting on Northridge Drive became members of their Association (see attached letter dated June 10, 1991). This is a change 1n their previous position and not one to which the applicant has agreed. The Planning Com•isston only intended that CCARS "compatible with the applicable use restrictions of the Northwoods Properties Community Association's CC8R5" be deveioped for the affected lots (condition no. 6 of Resolution No. 91-41). Re'spoectf~ul l yQs~ubmi tied, ~^+~ v°` - 1_ Wm. Jae O'ke11 Cl ~ City Engineer WJO:OAM:d1w Attachments: Appeal Letters Mdy 22, 1991, Planning Caeieission Minutes May 22, 1991, Planning Commission Staff Report April 24, 1991, Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1991, Planning CoanlSSton Staff Report March 27, 1991, Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1991, Planning Commission Staff Report Planning Commission Resolutions 91-41 and 91-42 Resolution ~~ office of City Clerk City of Rancho CUCamonga .•ifir f1F ~ ~~`~•~ •- ~ ~ ~~ CaiitJrhid, 91721 Peter Fan, CPA ~LN ~ W0~ 840 S. Indian Hill Blvd. •~ Claremont, CA 91711 ~~ jP• (714) 621-d831 Honorable city Council Members, As the owner of tentative tract no. 14461, I would like to appeal the planning approval concerning tentative parcel map no. 13693. on may 22, 1991, the Planning Commission approved the subdivision of an 1.o acre land which allowed at least one of the subdivided lot to gain street access through the Northwood Community. In nuuii.iun, i.i~e rinnniny ~ommisaion aisu approved a conceptual master plan for the three surrounding properties. The master plan shows that future subdivided parcels will also face and access through the Northwood Community, as opposed to Cnrtilla Ave. which connects to the Nilson Ave. to the north. I would like to appeal the Planning Commissions decision of allowing any access through the Northwood community based on the following reasons: 1. Accessing through the Northwood Community has been strongly opposed by the residents of the community. The residents expressed tremendous concerns on the intrusion of privacy and safety of children caused by increased traffic and noise from these new subdivisions. (Please see attached) 2. The planning staff analyzed several conceptual master plans and concluded on the March 27, 1991 Staff Report, that the number of parcels which used the Cartilla Ave. (18 parcels in total) generated no significant impact of public safety in the evenC of fire or earthquake. Therefore, accessing through Nor- thridge Drive may not be necessary. 3. In my opinion, allowing access through Northwood commuin- ty will decrease the value of my investment and possible other investments in the immediate area as well. This will decrease the value of future homes there and lead to lower property taxes for the city. Council members, thank you for considering my reasons for this appeal. I hope that this matter will be resolved as soon as possible. Sincerely P t~ ~~ 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGII1EIItIIdG DM9ION ~ (p /~i /Yyy~ rA\ ~ rte., PARCEL MAP 13693 TT~,g; VICINITY MAP ,~ A ~~ E1~1T: Origin4l Pocr ~ua!:ty Qz ~ ~w++r ~M.H g ` ~_ •-- :• i 1 Ir r~ • / +~~~ ~~ ~ r ~--~; ' ~'~ ~ n l ~~ ~~ ~ ~ C F ii i r (;1 r::~i 0 ~ ~ ~ i t i 3 l I ~ ,~ ~, Q` l i ~ ~ r r ~ ~~ __ ^ ' ~ } s ',~ ~ ~ r f i , .: •' _ ~ r -. ' • I f ~ is ~ e .. u ~ -: ;. _ ~ ' ,_• n ``' ~ V ~ --- . ~ ..s . ... _~: yt U w ~ `J7 F ~ v U G; ~ PLANNING COMAd SSION STAFF 0.EP00.i TENT PN 11693 - LUNA ,yApCH 27, 1991 PAGE 3 2. Exh/bit "D" does atiow tM local equestrian trail systaa to be interior to the VL district rather than on tM perieeter, adlatent to Northridge Drive. 3. A detail was provided, on tM Conceptual Gradingg Plan (Exhlbtt "E") of a north-south cross section (Exhlbtt "F"1 taken through parcel i and Northridge Drive, to illustrate the relative position of Muaes, streets, trails, and slopes. Nate that sides of houses will be vlsibl• Trap the south side of Northridge Dr/ra to tM proposed configura0lon, unless tM Might of tM perioseter moll is increased. UMer the nlternate ~;;cr er, chat v/aw wind be of front yards. 4. tf sccess to parcel 2 is taken tray Cabrosa Place, that driveway will De amore than 200 fast long. TM Fin Protection District Mll need away for its vehicles to turn around or Mve an alternaq exit route available. 8. Net hg Eorhood Concerns: A neighborhood emoting ws Mid on Oecaobar I8, 2990. Attendees included residents of Northwood Ytstas, a LaaMedlua t8asidenttei developawrnt (e$ dwelling units per sere) 1eadiatety south of the protect site, and tM owers of a vacant parcel asst of tM pro3ect site. TM residents of Northwood Vistas ab,}acted to fronting at ther parcel onto Northridge Drive for three reasons: 1. TM larger lots do tM north side of Northridge Drive can accoeodate equestrian uses. Use of tM neighborhood streets Dy large vehicles such as Mrse traltars mould conflict with the hodeowners asseclatlon prohtbitian against racreat/oM1 vehicle storage. 2. TM haaeowMrs association currently natntatns tM parkway scope on tM nortfi side of NorUHdga Drive, Pestdents obsect to drtvereys disrupting tiM existing slope landscaptrq and perinatcr fencing. 3. TM residents peroelve Northwood: Yillas as a close-knit coseunl ty and feel tMt tM YL 1 ots proposed moot d be uncheracteMStlc of tlNt cdneYntty. TMy mould not anticipate tlw acceptance of tlase lots into tM Igarowners association, tf such a request were node. Subsequent to tM na1ghborhood nacting, tM City Ms received 133 signed Toro letUrs (Exhibit 'G"} free gebers of tM Northwood Haaepwners Association, ob~acttng to any plans to construct driveways or :tracts lesding into tM casuM ty fron Northridge Drive. 7My feel this vquid conpronise eMtr privacy and security. ~~ February 09, 1991 «~ Ci t'I Of Rancho Cucamonga ,,,, ,. , ; p;yiS,pp y Post Orf.ce Dc.:°^~ Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 AT°.N: Steve Ross. Assistant Planner -ear Mr. Ross, I am a Homeowner in the Northwood Community. 2 strongly abject to any city plans co construct driveways or streets leading into our community from Northridge. the privacy and security of our community are of great importance to me. As a aember of Northwood Homeowners Association and having a shared interest in all Northwood Community affairs, I am entitled to reeeive information and notification concernin4 hearings or meetings affecting the Northwood Community. CITY OF TPEM: FARtEL MRF 13b93 RANCHO CUCAMONGAS~ '~'~~~~' ~~~ LERE ENGINEERING DIYI3ION ~~' " G ^ Si: cerely, Euelid _.~~anagement -.-.Company= June 3, 1991 City Council Members City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Application for Parcel Map 13693 and for variance-Luna Dear Council Members, -. ,. 4 : ~,. ~ar~ ~~ ~;~ .s 1981 ~ 1 ~ l:. As members of the Board of Directors of the Northwood Properties Community Association, we were in attendance at the Planning Commission's Merch 27th, April 24th and May 32nd meetings. we were represented at those meetings be Linda Frost, President of the HOA, the association's attorney, Charles Doskow and many homeowners. The members of the homeowners association are disappointed with the conclusions reached Dy the Planning Couissian on Mey 32nd. Therefore, the Board of Directors and the members of the Homeowners Association wish to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission on the approval of the parcel map application indicated above. Please send all inforsation to the following: Respectfully, Northwood Properties Community Association c/o Euclid Management Company P.O. Box 1510 Upland, CA 91785 (714) 981-4131 Board of Directors Northwood Properties Community Association ~~ 125 South Mountain Ave. Suite E Upland CA '14/981-4131 Mailing Address: Rox 1510 Upland, CA 91785 Euclid _.~~anagement June 10, 1991 ,;;;N 11 l~1 Mr. Brad Buller City of Rancho Cucamonga 'I' •~ ~ -! ~ ~ :. Post Office Box 807 s Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Environmental Assessment and Tentative parcel Map 13693-Luna uear Mr. 15Ulle C: As you are no doubt aware, our members were disappointed with the conclusions of the Planning Commission on the above applications at its April 24 meeting. We intend to continue our participation in the approval process, Our Board of Directors does concur with the sug8estion that any homes constructed fronting on Northridge Drive be required to become ' subject to our area's governing CC&R's, and become members of our - Association. Such inclusion would alleviate some of the concerns which our members have expressed, and would aid in assuring continuation of the quality of our neighborhood. When it was suggested that membership be made a condition of approval of the application, you correctly pointed out to the coouoission that any such membership would be contingent upon their acceptance by the Association. We have no doubt that action by the Association to accommodate inclusion would be forthcoming. We therefore propose that membership in the Northwood Property Community Association be made a condition of approval of the lots in the Luna application, subject to the acceptance of such lots by the Association. If you have any correspondence, please forward to: Northwood Property Community Association C/O Euclid Management Company P.O. Box 1510 Upland, CA 91785 Thank you for your consideration of our views. sincerely, Board of Directors Northwood Property Community Association 125 South Mountain Ave. Suite E Upland CA 714/981.4131 Mailing Address: Box IS III Upland CA 91785 • ~ • ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ENVZ RONMEN L ASSESS NT AND T T IVE RCEL MAP 13693 LVNA - A su bd ivieion of 1.0 acre of land into 2 parcels in the Very Low Aee ident lal Diet rict (lean Chan 2 dwelling unite per acre), located on the north aide of No rthri dg¢ DY i'+e, west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201-182-29. (COntlnued t'rom April 24, 1991.) C. VARIANCE 91-C4 - LUNA - A request to allow a Yeductie^ of th¢ minimum average lot size tram 22,500 to 21,940 square feet and a reduction in khe minimum lot depth from 150 to 130 feet Eor a twc-lot parcel map in the VeYV Low R¢aidanfia, n: e~.i n~ n e__ _ _ _ -,. ,_--,,-,y ~~ ~~ e. w~, located on the north elde of Northridge Drive, weal of Haven Avenue - APN: 201-3E2-29. Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, presented the staff report regarding Parcel Map 11693. She indicated the standard school condition would need to be added to the Resolution. Steve Roes, A6eietant Planner, presented the staff report on Variance 91-04. Chairman NeNiel opened the public hearing. Steve Luna, applicant, 7090 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamongar requested that the Commission approve the option with Parcel 1 taking acceee from Cabroea Place and Parcel 2 accessing Northridge Drive. Linda Frost, Pree ident of Northwoode Propert.tea Community Aeeoclat ion, stated their position had not changetl. They did not agree that Che lore should face Northridge Drive, but felt strongly that if the Commission determined they should front Northridge Drive, that the parcels should be subject to the CCSRe of the Community Assooiation. She did not feel her Low Medium density tract should ha mixed with equestri art i..~ She stated there would be a potential for .up to five lots fronting Northridge Drive. She indicated one of the biggest concerns is the potential for parking AVe and large horse ttai lore on Northridge Drive. She requested that the Community Aeaociat ion be involved in the Design Review proceea if the planning Commiaeion determined the lots should front Northridge Drive. Charles Deekow, aitozney representing Northwoode Momeawnera' Association, 222 North Mountain Avenue, upland, urged the Planning Commission to conaidet the applicant's original proposal with Parcel 1 taking acceee from Cabroea Places artd Parcel 2 taking acceee Erom Cabroea Place via an easement aeroee Parcel 1. He wondered why the Planning Commise ion wee spending e¢ much time on a total of less than one acre. He indicated the^_ the Trails Committee had approved the layout with hoth parcels taking acceee from Cabroea Place and also the option with only Parcel 2 fronting Northridge Drive. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 22, 1991 ~~ Commissioner Valletta indicated that the Commieeion had heard the residents' concerns regarding access to Northridge Drives and was concerned with meeting the needs of both parties lnvolvad ae well as making a decie ton re Electing good planning canoe. She said it was for this reason the Planning Commission was spending ae much time on one acre. She felt that good planning tlitkatees that access should be from Northridge Drive. Commis stoner Melcher Liked the compromise of front Lnq Parcel 1 on Cabroea Place and Parcel 2 on Northridge Drive. Hs did not feel parcel 2 should be subject to all provisions of the CC6Re of the Northwoode Propert tea Community Association. He thought new CCF.AS should be drawn up for Parcel 2 to include only the applicable provisions of the Northwoode Homeowners' Aseociat ion. He indicated that Northwoode hoe two styles of architecture, one with wood and one of stucco. He felt the homes on Parcels 1 and 2 should 6e of aoorooriate ywii Lr wusirucc ion out tt should not be necessary ko restrict the architectural style. Ccmmieeioner Chit tee stated that the function of the Trails Committee is not to approve tract layout a, but to indicate if trails can b¢ accommodated. Sha reported Chat the committee did not support a layout with ono lot taking acceae from Cabroea Place and the other lot fronting Northrldg¢ Drive. Sha stated that the equ evtrian trails weuld not bs adjscent to the Nori hwaode community because they would be located to the north of the two parcels, Commissioner Tolatoy agreed with Commisalonar Heleher regarding the CC6Ae. He felt they should be tailored to the ieauee of eompat ibillty with street ecape on Northridge Drive only. He felt both lots ehouLd fete Northridge Drive. Chairman NcNiel et aced that the decision on this parcel will affect the remainder of the lore to the north of Northridge Drive. He thought the question to be if some, none, or all of the lots should face Northridge Drive. He said that it would require the paving of more ground if the lots do not face Northridge Drive. He stated that the parcel to the west hoe easy access to Cabrosa PLace and the parcel to the east could ba a flag lag, but more. acree[e would have to 6e boil[ in order to avoid fronting future lots to the east onto Northridge Drives. He indicated that there hoe to be a boundary where lots sizes change. He said the trails will not acceae onto or into the community to the south. He did not oppose taking acceae to Parcel 1 from Cabrosa Place. Commissioner Tolstoy statetl that if Parcel 1 faces Cabrosa Place and Parcel 2 faces Northridge Drive, then a aide yard would face a front yard. He felt both front yards should face Northridge Drive. Commissioner Melcher stated that the lot to the west of the two parcels Eronte Cabrosa Place. He felt fronting Parcel 3 to Cabroea Place would provide a batter view from the col-de-sac. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, to ie eue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Environmental Aeeaeement and Tentative Parcel Map 13693 and Variance 91-04 with modifications to front Parcel 1 on Plan ring Commission Minutes -3- May 22, 1993 ~3 Cabroea Place and Parcel 2 on Northridge Drive and provide a variance of the lot depth for one lot only. Motion carried by the Following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISS IONEAS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE CNITIEA, TOLSTOY NONE -carried ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14207 EIW .tIG - A ree identia~ subd>vis ion and design review of 28 single family lots on 19.E acres aQf tl in the Very Low Residentinl District (lees khan 2 dwelling unar/ sur , aocacee on Wllaon Avenue west of Beryl Street, south of ritage Park APN: 1062-0E3-Ol. Aaeoeiatad with this project is T Removal Permit -O6. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Oecl ation. E. VARIANCE 91 3 - ANO - A requ eet to reduce the minima corner lot width from 100 feet o 90 feet and the minimum lot area fro 20,000 square feet to 14,502 equar Eeet on Lot 2E; to reduce the mini m lot depth from 150 feet to 146.19 fe and 105.75 feet on Lote 11 a 14r respectively; and to reduce the minim average lot size from 22 00 square feet to 22,22E square feet within Te Live Tract 74207, co sting of 2E single family lots on 19.E ac ree of la in the Vary Low idential Dletxiot (lees than 2 dwelling unite per acre), located on Wi n Avenue west of Bezy1 Street, south of Hezitaye Park - APN. 1062-052- Steve Hayes, AssocLate Planner, prey t the staff report and a letter from resident Nicholas Craw in opposition the variance for lot size reduction. He also opposed the configuration o Lo 24 and 25 and objected to a house being placed on Lot 25 in its pro eed to Lion of 2E feet from hie property line. Commissioner Vallette quests ed the minimum ae ack from property lines for sitle yards. Mr. Hayes responded the the minimum setback is 30 Band the house on Lot 25 woultl be placed 30 set back from the 15-foot equestr n trail. Commissioner Melc r questioned why the developer is not eirg required to underground the ilitiea on the oppoa its aide of Beryl Et ree but instead is being Condit io tl to pay a fee to the City for future uudergrou ing. Barrye Ha on, Senior Civil Engineer, replied chat the main pr lem with undergro ding the utilities row would be the difficulty in providing erv ices to exi rng homes. Co esioner Chit sea asked the rationale for determining that Lote 20 an 25 s uld Eront eery i. Planning Commission Minutes -4- Hay 22, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF RERUitfi DATE: Mqy 22, 1991 T0: Chairman and Members of Che Planning Commission FROM: Barrye R. Nanson, Senior C1vi1 Engineer BY: Betty A. Miller, Associate Engineer e~ . SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL IMP 13693 - LUNA - A su v s on o acre o an n o parce s n e ery Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units Der acre), located on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201-182-29. Related fit e: Variance 91-04. Staff recoaaaends issuance of Negative Declaration. (Continued fran April 24, 1991) BACKGRWND: TMs item was continued from the March 13, 1991, Planning T~•en meeting to allow concurrent review of the related variance. IL was continual from the March 27, 1991, meeting so that staff could investigate alternate master plans for the area Lo the north, to see if better access could be provided to Parcel 2. On April 24, 1991, the Planning Commission unanimously selected option 2(a), approving the Parcel Map modified to require that both parcels take access from Northridge Or1ve. Since the corresponding resolution was not available at that time, the Stem was continued sa Lhat staff could prepare one. In addition, the related Variance 91-04 (separate report) required revision and readvertisement. Copies of the previous staff reports are attached for your reference. The applicants met with staff on April 29, 1991, and indicated that they are not in agreement with the Planning Commission decision. If the original proposal for both parcels to Lake access from Cabrosa Place (option 1 in the April 24th staff report) is not accepted, then the applicants would prefer option 2ib), vhich has Parcel 1 taking access from Cabrosa Place and Parcel 2 taking access from Northridge Drive. They are also opposed to foining Lhe Northwoods Properties Community Association. The applicants' letter 1s attached as Exh161t "A". II. DISCUSSION: The Commission selected Option 2(a) because it represented tits-besC planning decision for the area. Northridge Drive is a public street which was intentionally located along the north boundary of Tract 10827 (Northwoods Community) to provide access to the then vacant land Cps PLANNING COMMISSION FF REPORT TENT PM 13693 - LUNA May 22, 1991 Page 2 north of that tract. EncuMering Parcel 1 with a 20-foot wide access easement seemed excessive 1n addition to local troll requirements a~ the need for Parcel 2 t0 have a driveway more than 200 feet long raised fire safety concerns. The alternate of Droviding additional streets from the north is not in tha best interest of the City at large, because 1t increases the overall public maintenance burden. Use of the existing Northridge Drive frontage seems Lhe most appropriate solution. The applicants disagree. They feel that compatibility should be maintained within the Verv Low (VLl Devel onmeor. msrri~+ ray ,i sc sao, that mixing custom homes on VL iots with Low Medium (LM) tract homes will have a substantial negative impact on the value of their future houses. The applicants are suggesting that Parcel 1, at least, be allowed to face Cabrosa Dl ace, as all other houses on that cut-de-Sac do, instead of putting a rear yard between two front yards. Mh11e the applicants would prefer not to front either parcel onto Northridge Drive, they feel that facing Parcei 2 only 1n that dtrectlon is a viable compromise which they would like the Coavelsslon to consider. Staff is concerned that it may be difficult to fit local equestrian trails into thts arrangement. This alternative has been scheduled for a Trails Advisory Cawittee review on May 16, 1991, Their comments wTtl be available at the Planning Commission nmeting> along with an alternate resolution reflecting the alternative proposal tf the Camaittee Pinds it workable. The Planning Commission's decision W require that both, or even one, of the parcels take access from Northridge Drive necessitates some additional conditions of approval whlth are refl ected in the attached resolution. The landscaped parlcwyr on the rtorth side of Northridge Drive is currently maintained by the Northwoods ProDerttes Community Association. The Association has expressed concern that allowing the access will lead to deterioration of the existing landscaping and that the Association's strict architectural controls and CCBR prohibitions will not apply to these properties. Therefore, Condition number 4 directs the Planning Dl vision to review the houses for compaL1b111ty~ Condition nmmber 5 relieves the Association of maintenance responsibility far the Parcel Map frontage, and Condition number fi requires CCBR s for the Parcel Map compatible with those of the Northwoods Community. ~~ PLANNING CDMMISSION .FF REPORT TENT PM 13693 - LUNA May 22, 1991 Gage 3 III. CONCLUSION: The Planning Commission should consider the new proposal by ' L eT applesants and the additional Trolls Coswtttee input. If the Comaisslon wishes to proceed based upon their decision at the April 24 meeting, then adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. [f the applicant's new proposal 1s preferable, then staff will suggest modifications to specific conditions at the public hearing. Respectfully submitted, rye'R. son ~/ Senior Civil Engineer BRH: dIw Attachments: Exhibit "A° - Applicant's Letter April 24, 1991, Staff Report Resolution and Recommended Conditions of Approval ~7 City of Rancho Cucamonga May 13,1991 Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730 Re~ FnyierolLen tal Asse==menr and Tentative Parcel May 1x604-i.nna Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, After listening co the proposed recommnedations from the Commission at the regularly scheduled meeting on April 24,1991, we had some concerns that we felt needed to 6e addressed. Wlien we purchased this propet•ty in November of 1984, it was zoned Very Low density. It was our intent to sub-divide and build homes consistent with others in tha Very Low density area. By`asking us to front onto Northridge Dr. you will be mixing custom homes designed For the Very Low density area with Low Pledium density tract homus. This will have a substa r,t ial negative impact on the value of our future homes. We feel that fronting both parcels unto Sorch ridge Ur. is unnecessary. By allowing Parcel 1 (the proposed westerly lotj to f~•ont onto Cabrosa Place as originally intended, we will leave 1 lot that is compatible with the surrounding area. ~'o additional roadways or improvements will be required from the city as 'we have ai ready daditated our portion of the col-de-sac and the street is in place. 1'he area will have a balanced look with all of the homes fronting onto Cabrosa Place facing the col-de-sac instead of having one home with the rear yard facing the scree[. Another concern we would like to address is the recommendation thac we join the Northwoods Homeowners' Association. Again, when we planned on subdividing, it was with the intent of having 2 private lots. Not lots that are part of a housing tract or association. tie are opposed to joining this homeowners' Association. h'e see no reason to be encumbered with cheer fees since we have nc intension of using their facilities. In addition, from the response of the Homeowners' Association President and their attorney, at the 3/27/91 and 4/24/91 meetings, they do not appear to have any desire for us to join. ng~ PAR~.EL MAP 1369 3 ~~ ~,~ APP~ICAWT'S LF.TTE2 )lITA~9 " A " ~ I of Z) in conclusion, it is felt that while we Rave no desire to franc onto Northridge Dr., there is a viable compromise. In the interest of all concerned. Parcel 1 facing Cab rasa Place and Parcel 2 facing Northridge Dr., wi tlt the Parcel Z property owner responsible for the landscaping fronting their lot, in lieu of joining the Homeowners' Association, seems to be the best solution. h'e respectFully request the commission to seriously consider this option. Since;ely,J//~ '~~ K! -~'r+--~--~ Steven k. una Monica A. Luna cc: Betty Miller ,associate Civil Engineer ~; PARCFI MAP 13b93 717'! APDU CANT'S LETf ER AYES: C~CHITIEA, MCNIEL, NOE3: CORM ISSIONEAS: ABSENT: ONEAS: NONE -earned ~ B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ANp TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13693 L NA - p subdivision of 1.0 acre of land into 2 parrs la in the Very Law Residential District (less than 2 dwelling unite per acre), located on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201-132-29. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declarer icn. (Continued from March 27, _,:1., C. VARIANCE 91-0a - LUNA - A Yequeat to allow a teduet ion of the minimum average lot size from ]2,500 to 21,500 aquaze feet for a two-lot parcel map in the very Low Rea idential District (leee than 2 dwelling unite per acre(, located on the north aide of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - APN: 2D1-182-29. (Continued from March 27, 1991.( 9etty Hiller, Associate Engineer, presented the staff zepmrt and stated that staff had received a letter from the Northwoods Properties Community Aseoeiat ion reiterat inq their opposition to either of the parcels taking access via Northridge Drive. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Steve Luna, 8990 19th Street, /201, Rancho cucamong a, stated he was avatlable to answer Guest ions. Commissioner Meleher asked if Mr. Luna had any objections to Parcel 2 taking access £rom Northridge Drive. Mr. Luna responded he did not, but would prefer the configuration shown on the proposed parcel map. Linda Frost, president of Northwoods Properties Community Association, stated they had presented their position in [he letter and in testimony at the March 27, 1991, meeting. She felt approval of the project should be based on access being taken from the north end of the lots. She thought that the new homeowners would not be required to honor the CC&Ra of the Homeowners' Association. She said the CC6Re include strict architectural eontrola antl prchib it ions on le av inq garage doors open and trash cane out. She reported that the CC6RS contain monetary penal it ies is members who do not comply. She thought that allowing any of the lots to take access from Northridge Drive would lead to deterioration of the landscaping. Sha felt the City has an obligation to the Homeowners' Association to prohibit access to Northridge Drive. Planning Cemvnission Minutes -3- April 23, 1991 ~a Charles Doeeow, attorney repreeentin9 Noithwoode Homeowners' Aeaceiat Lon, 222 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, felt that theca had been almost complete unanimity expressed at the March 27 meet ing regarding prohibition of accese from Nazt hrtdge Drive. He supported the Eirat option euggeeted in the ataf[ report. He said he did not understand the concerns rataed by the Planning Commies ion. Ne requeeted that it accese wets to be granted via Northridge Drive that at least the exterior of the homes be eubj act to CCARe. He thought the tesue eltould not be important to the rest of the Clty as there were only two lots in question. He reiteratetl the objection of the residence to Having access via Nori'nridge Drive. Tim Nichols, Board of Direct or e, Northwoode Homeowners' Aeeoeiat ion and chairman of the landscape commit tae, 10257 Coralwood Court, Rancho Cucamonga, a. area .~... _ __ _ _ ___ _ .._ ..__ __ _ ___ .,.. ...... .,. ..,e e..a. . ueuuuaa tc wouis require a tour-way access. He, said theta ware several each intereeetlors in their community, and they did not pose any problems. He felt that if either of the lots were given accese off Northridge Drives, it would set a precedent for the other three lots to 6e developed in the future. Ha said the reoitlente were concerned that the lots will be equeetrian and vehielee would be parked ac rose the street. He said the CC6Ra prohibit parking on the street, yes thought that if access to Parcel 2 were given acroee Parcel 1, the owner of Parcel 1 would not be a61e to deny accese. He showed pictures of the landscaping to the north of Northridge Drive, the community, and horse trailers parked on a street. Commi eeiener Chitiea questioned the ownership of the landscaped area north of Northridge Drive. Mr. Nichcla responded that it is public right-of-way owned by the City. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman HcN ie1 closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher stated he was convinced that the proposal ae originally _~~ c .. was superior Lu ii~e other scenarios preaentetl. Ne commented it would allow development to go forth and would not necessarily lead to unsafe streets. He felt Alternative 2 would raga ire more streets. He stated that Northridge Drive is a public street and he felt the intall igent planning approach would require that at least Parcel 2 take accese from Northridge Drive. Commissionet Chitiea concurred with Commissioner Melcher that accese should be from Northridge ^rive. She felt both parcels should do so. She thought the residents would 6e better off facing the front of homes, than the rear. She reiterated that Nocthwoeds is not a private community. Commissioner Toletoy stated he had hoped it would be pose ible for both lots to take access to the north, but after looking at the ownership and existing lot aizea, he did not feel a street system could be well designed to accomplish that. He thought good planning would dictate that the lots faclnq Northridge Drive have access to Nort hr itlge Drive. He euggeeted that the owners should join the Homeowners' Association. Planning Commission Minutes ~ 4- April 24, 1991 7 Commies inner Valletta stated the item had been coot inuad to allow time to plan for a better street accees. She was concerned that proper fire ecceea ba provltled. She Lndicated that although she would like to agree with the community'e wlahee, she felt at a minimum Paresl I should be accessed from Nort hridga Drive. a Chairman HcN iel thought that the addltiona} streets were inappropriate in order to accommodate only a few percale. He did not feel that restricting access to Northridge Drive represented good planning. He concurred with the remainder of the Planning Commies ion that the properties adjacent to Northridge Drive should to acceaead from Northridge Drive. commissioner Tolatoy agreed that all propert iee atlj scent to Northridge Drive should front onto it. Barrye Hanson, Senicr Civil Engineer, asked if the comanleeionere wished to add a candit ion to require that owners join the Homeowners' Association. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, elated a condition could be added that the property owners cooperate with the Northwoode Propertied Community A aeociat io n, bui the Aeaoeiatitn would have to vote to accept them ae members. Barrye Hanson asked if a sidewalk ehculd be tequ fired on the north aide of Northridge Drive. commissioner Chit iee felt it would be appropriate to not require a sidewalk as a trail '.ul it be provided. Barrye Hanson stated some additional changes would have to be made t¢ the resolution, suc!; as the elimination of Standard condition 4. Ralph Hanson suggested Che Commission may wish to direct staff to return with a resolution of approval. Brad Boller City rianner, suggested chat if Parcels 1 and 2 front Northridge Drive, the Commission may wish to repave the Homeowners' Association from maintaining that portion of the landscaping. He said that typically devei opment of one or two houses is approved at the staff 1ev¢1, but staff has the option of referring it up to the Des iqn Review Committee. Chairman McNiel reopared the puSlic hearing to ask Mr, Luna if he would object to continuing the item. MY. Lund consented to continuing the mdt teY. Mr. Coleman suggested that if both parts LS front onto Northridge Drive, it may change the variance request. Ralph Hanson staled that a change to the variance would roquire the item be readvertised. Mr. Luna agreed to continue the matter to allow for readvertising. Planning Commission Minutes -5- d~ril 24, 1991 7.a-- Motion: Moved by Chltiea, seconded by Tolatoy, to continue Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 13 G93 and Variance 91-00 to Hay 22, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: CONMISSI0NE R5: CHITIEA, MCNIE L, MELCHE R, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried _____ - ___ ,,.. ..yra..l .,. a a.a..,,...e,.. ,. ,. oer:i., ' ..,, r•COnditional Uee Permit 91-O1 pie incomplete. VThia applicati Se a ca sec to locate a temporary modular multi-purpose building of 9 square £ee on the Bite of the ex iatinq 6,000 square foot victory Cha located on acres within the Industrial Park District (SUbar 7( of the Induatra 1 Area Specific Plan at 31£37 Foothill Boul ard, west of Rochester venue -~ APN: 229-011-21. Related Fila: Conditional Uee Permit 82-0 Steve Hayes, Asaocia Planner, presented the et off re rt. Comm issionez He lc her as d if the applicant wool be permitted to occupy a temporary modular building 'f they applied for a were granted a variance. Mr. Hayes responded that cl variance to relieve the appl suggested a variance could be permit application. mission c ld direct staff to require a of the qu irement far a master plan. He seed i connection with the conditional use Commissioner Me LCher felt the there. Oan Coleman, Principal had been to approve years, subject to Comm be permanent eo long as tha use is stated that the Commiaa ion policy in the pact icy trailers for a 'mired time, generally two approval cE time exten 'or.e. Chairman McNiel opened/the public hearing. Bob Wood, asaietan pastor, Victory chapel, 11837 ee^ooehill oulevard, Aancho Cucamonga, stale their main building is located in an old cry building, which has a li red life. He said they rent the building on a th-to-month basis. He dicated the cwner plane to demolish the building build a business p k. He felt it would be impossible for the church to Quids a master p n because the owner has submitted a master plan. Ne said th owner of the zoperty was planning to build a 10,000 square foot building fo the char and •was in the process eE submitting the project to the City. e co cored that there are many modular bu i].d logs in Aancho Cucamonga and eai ey were willing to accept a time Limit. He indicated they ware willing to Planning Comm iss ion Minutes -6- April 24, 1991 73 ,~i4~'r_' QF' K~jti~`:!iG J;,'GA.ML'ri'U,> STAFF REPORT DATE: April 24, 1991 T0: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Sent or Civil Engineer BY: Betty A. Miller, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: ENYIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13693 - LUNA - A su v s on o acre o an n parses n ery Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acrel, located on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201-182-29. Related file: Variance 91-04. Staff recomaw!nds Issuance of Negative Declaration. (Continued from March 27, 1991) I. BACKGROUND: This ltae was continued from the March 27, 1991 Planning ommC~o meeting in order for staff to investigate alternative master plans for the area to the north to see if a better access could be provided to Parcel 2 of this proposed parcel map. A copy of the previous staff report Ts attached for your reference. II. DISCUSSION: The proposed parcel map and its relationship to the master p an area s shown on Exhibit "H'. Note that the Exhibits start with "N" to this report to not be confused with A thru G contained in the March 27, 1991 report. Several master plan layouts were investigated. The main constraint controlling the master planning effort is that enly one street, aligned with Camilla Avenue on the north side of Nilson Avenue, can serve the master plan area from either Wit son or Haven Avenues. Both of these streets are arterials, with Intersection spacing restricted to 600 feet. Even if closer spacing were allowed, an additional street connection would provide secondary access to the master plan area, but would not solve the concern of access to Parcel 2. The master plan shown on Exhibit "I" is the most straight forward in providing direct street access to Parcel 2; however, it has the followtn9 disadvantages: 1. It utilizes a four-way local to local street intersection which is discouraged because studies have shown that they produce more accidents than "tee" intersections. 2. It Imposes substantially more street improvements and right-of-way upon existing Parcel 28 which already has streets on two Sides. 3. The additional street right-of-wady will preclude the portion of existing Parcel 28 at the southwest corner of Cart111a and Street "A" from being subd~ded into two parcels. PLANNING COMMISSION FF REPORT TENT PM 13693 - LUNA APn"iL 2q, i99i PAGE 2 4. Lot 2 of the future subdivision of existing Parcel 30 will be dependent upon the development of Parcel 28 for access. 5. It restricts the future subdivision of the portion of existing Parcel 30 south of Street "A" to four parcels versus flue as shown on Exhibit "K", 6. It increases the variance required for the proposed Parcel Map (an additional 6001 square feet of lot area lost to street dedication on Parcel 2). 7. Most importantly, the master plan does not solve the immediate concern of access to Darcel 2. The southerly extension of Camilla Avenue, which would provide that access, is on property not owned by th15 applicant. The second master plan shown on Exhibit "J" somewhat lessens disadvantages 2 and 3 of the master plan shown on Exhibit "H", but introduces a skewed intersection which adversely sffects safety. Exhlblt "K" is a refinement of the master plan shown on previous Exhibit "C". It shows that an additional two parcels could conceivably be obtained south of Street "A" using that master plan street alignment. Itt, CONCLUSION: Staff was able to design a master plan that could provide onT g term direct street access to Parcel 2, but that master plan does present other disadvantages and does not provide an immediate access solution. The Commission appears to have the following options: 1. Approve the Parcel Map as proposed wl th Parcel 2 taking access across Parcel 1 to Cabrosa Place. 2. Approve the Parcel Map modified to require Lhat (a) both parcels or (b) Parcel 2 only take access from Northridge Drive. 3. Deny the Parcel Map as proposed directing the applicant to refile a new Parcel Map (and variance) conforming to the master plan shown on Exhibit "I" or "J" and to obtain access rights across the adJacent property extending to Nilson Avenue. Respectfully submitted, ~~~t~ 1~ Barrye R. Hanson Senior Civil Engineer BRH:diw Attachments: MM~astter FP1 an Arpe7at(Epx2h(l( ~b~l hhtl1 h6"Hit") I Master Plan - Alt: 3 lE h16it "J~~) Master Plan - Alt. 4 (Exhibit "K") March 27, 1991 Staff Report ~~ . o..._. ... ~wW~~~y : -(;-. - -v~v- Q,-f-- ~-~.~y„ i MV'~/(~'~~J 'I i ~~ 2'~ ~~~wl„ 3 is ~ .. ~, O W W ~~ Y~®~ E J J --- \`_ --; --- ~, .d i ~ ~-'1 ~.g ® ~ :-1 _~ _____________________ N i. ' ~ __ I :.: P ~ .-_ ® _1____________ pp. l ~ O __ W_ J. Y 1- ' @~ P i ~ ~ _________ d o ~- ~ a ~ r '. e ,I, ~ ' r ~ a ~'. ~ e <, ;,° x ~-'T"~ ~, C~ -- ~ ~ O Z V 7~ U f~; O Q ~,i _-_~ ; v,_„ G,~ality ~ Z s 1_ '~jligina M ~ +~ - - - -~x.+d- - - u~eH ~. ;c~~ ~" i ®_ ©_ ~_ I ~1--_ '~ ~ m ~`:', F ~1,' II ® ~ ~ r ~ =-' _. ~ =ir_e+~-~ N '- =~i -` ~ ~ -., ___ © _ ©.__ ~ _ z <~ I ,.. ~_ i '~ I_________ ~ u I .- '~ it ---''-'-- - anvjd vswgop 2 ~-= i ~ - _ ~---^ t k= d~ Y ; i ~ Z ~i iN '. ~ I Z C c Waled ~', ~ ` 'i ~ ~ ~ p~r~~ 2 ~ ~ I ~ p ' .4..v/nr I ,.7 A __~ _. ._. ,' ~ D v i U ~ -- -, ~,.~~ ~' O x .. ~ V x ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~Z ~i "drtginat Poor duality -~ - - - aM,.,, y - - ~^ev F7 ~ ---z. ~•~. _ ~ a ~ -- _J ~. m i `~~.; ~ ~ ~ I'~ ~ ~~ ~i, ®~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~J ; °~ -~ ~ i_ ~ I ~ e ______~_ ~ ti If I _~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ P i j .. ~ "' •' ~ .~ ~yl ~e I ~ ~I ® I©~ __ _ w 1~ Z e~, ' ~~ ~-- -- c ,_. i~ J.""'."'~' aan~a orwgrrj 2 i uI -- i u ~ o W G~~~' ~ ®I ~ -_ ! t ~. 1 Gti ~- ~, -' r i r-o lJ TJ 1', 11 1~ ~a .-, I "-~-, U z 7~ ~ ~ ~'z _-J -- i - ~.w,w.y - - - unry I i ~~~'~ 0__21 i c i ~~~ i _ ® d i ~_ ~l.J O i 1 i 1------- --- ~ -- '- ~----- ^ ~ ---- j- , :_. ~~ ~x I G rY ~ 1;.J ~i •Dn (114$ ~ ~ y ,1~1 ® " ~r ~_i I Vf~ r~ R i i i ----------~- -r--s--- - "~~ "-~ I _ ~ ~ t ~J t. ~ -~ ~ •p y ~. ~ b ~ 2Y _ I ~ N n P ~• ~ I__ I k i ~ ---- a~o~d era.gry 2 _~ " ¢~ y 3 S ~ Z II _ l l C W ad ~ II ~ O I .. 'il V - .L..av+dy I _ ;..; . .__ ~ ~ 79 S 0 x z ~~ ~ ,..,. D. ENVIRON SSE SM NT AND VE PARCEL MAP 13693 - LUNA - A eubdivis ion of 1.0 acre of land into 2 parce la in the Very Low Residential District (lase than 2 dwelling unite per acre), located on the north eider of Northridge Dcive, wear of Haven Avenue - APN: 201-182 -29. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from March 13, 1991.) E. VARIANCE 91-04 - LUNA - A request to allow a reduction of the minimum average lot size from 22,500 to 21,540 equate feet for a two-Lot parcel map in the Vary Low Res Ldant ial District (less than 2 dwelling units oar acre), located on the north aide of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue Betty Miller, Associate Engineers presented the staff report for Parcel Map 13693 and Dan Coleman, Principal Flanner, presented the staff report for variance 9L-04. Commieeiener Melcher asked if the etreeta are public or private. Ms. Miller responded that the et recta are public. Ccmmiaeioner vallette asked if the street eonnecte to the development to the sue at. Mr. Coleman stated that Northridge Drive is the only street from ibis community which abate other undeveloped parce le. Ccmmissioner Melcher asked the intent o£ Northridge Drive at the Cime the project to the south was approved. Mr. Coleman replied the intent was to provide access to the projects to the .torch. He said ac the time the neighboring pro3acc was approved, the land to the north wa.a zcned Low Medium, but it was subsequently rezoned to Very Low. Commissioner Tol stoy asked if Notthr itlge Drive was origLnally in[ended to be a cal-de-sac. Mr. Coleman replied there have been several master plane, some ae a knuckle street and some as a cal-de-sac. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the street was toner rutted to cal-de-sac st ender ds. Ccmmissioner Melcher asked if a solid blc ck wall was being added ae a condition on the trail. Ms. Miller responded affirmatively. Ccmmieeioner Melcher quest toned the equestrian easement. Planning Commission Minutes ~s-6- March 27, 1991 v Mr. Coleman stated there ie a 15-foot private eaeemenG for equestrian purposae. Commissioner Me lc her asked if the amount of xrontage le Et at the eoutheaet corner of Ca6rosa Place would 6e enough curb face for a et andard residential ~ driveway. Mr. Hanson responded affirmatively. Chairman McNie1 opened the public hearing. Steven Luna, 8990 19th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated ha was available to answer quaetione. Chairman McNiel asked how soon ha planned to build. Hr. Luna replied Ghat he hoped to builtl two single family residenees within a year. Ho said he planned to live in one. Me said that fallowing the neighborhood meeting, he redesigned hie lots to accommodate the des iree of the neighbor rs. Linda Frost, 10740 Mahogany Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she ie Pree ident of the Northwood Homeowners' Aaeociat ion, which represents 294 homes immediately south of the project. She agreed with the staff report and the decision agreed to by the developer. She requested that residents from the Homeowners' Association stand up in the audience, and approximately 20 people stood up. She said she hatl over 150 signed letters from residents, and tl;e major concerns were in the area of CC6R enforcement, particularly concerning landscaping and traffic/parking control. She said they felt that the addition of equestrian lots on the north aide with an egress to Northridge Drive would not be in keeping with the higher dins ity neighborhood to the south. She objected to tlisturbance of the slope's landscaping which ie maintained by the Homeowners' Association. She said the CC6Re restrict street parking. She i nrl: ref Qrl tRa wmm~n~VP.era' 999 t n 9CggC ..a ha ,. -C^.t CO.^.H gL•rat A6 •J ~~:: the lore backing up to Northridge Or Lva. Mike Niekles, 10409 No ct hri dge Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, et ated everyone felt they had purchased in a semi-private community and they liked the limited access and were opposed to any houses taking access from Northridge Drive because of increased traffic. He also felt the limited access deters crime. He thought if either of the new homes were to take access from Northridge Drive, they would potentially have large horse trailers which could cause traffic pr obleme on Northridge Drive. Charles Doskow, 222 North Mountain, Upland, stated he had beett asked by the F.omeowneta to comment. He said the maintenance agreement requiring that the Homeowners' Association maintain the slope to the north of Northridge Dtlve constituted a morally persuasive covenant, if not a legal document, between them and the City that the integrity of the neighborhood could be maintained. He said the residents feel the ne ighborhood'e security and privacy would be threatened if any lOL9 to the north are given access Co Northridge Drive. He felt that the chance of zone to larger lots to the north Planning Comm isaion Minut ea -6- March 27, 1991 8 I would change any original idea that there ehou ld have been access to the north. Wayne Graf, 6347 Northridge Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, etaietl he had worked hard to buy hie home and he hatl thought there were no plane to open up the ~ street. He opposed access to Northridge Drive for any houses from the north. He was afraid people would cut through the community ea a shortcut. Hearino no further teat imony, Chair~uan McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman HcNiel stated that the Plan ning Commission muaL make au re that t raEf is can flow throughout the community. He thought that everyone would like a private community, but not all communities can be private. He said that people ehou ld not assume that lots will remain vacant or atreeta will remain caoseo merely because they are currently vacant or elosetl. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Cabroea Place is in place and improved to Wilson Avenue. Mr. Hanson responded that ii ie in olace, but not fully improved to Wilson Avenue. He said the cul-de-sac 1e currently served by a temporary access to wilson Avenue, and the eventual atreat alignment to the east and to the north of the jog is not dedicated or improved. Comm ieaie ner Melchor observed that the Planning Commieeio n'a joh is !o ensure good pLanninq. He felt the proposed plan appeared to represent planning by the neighborhood, which does not necessarily produce the best results. N.e thought that Parcel i would be undesirable because it would have a horse trail on one side and a roadway to Parcel 2 on the other side. He felt the map was a bad plan with poor access and Said he would prefer that Parcel 2 would be entitled to future access to Northridge Drive, as he felt rhea the owners of Parcel 1 might one day block access to Pare¢1 2. He did not Eeel that allowing one lot to gain access to Northridge Drive woultl negatively impact the community. Commisa io ner Chitiea staled she agreed with Commiaeio ner Malcher up to a point. She did not feel that concerns of excess traffic were justified b¢cauee the streets were not planned to go through. She did not feel it would be appropriate to access both parcels off Cabroea Place. She also felt Parcel 1 should not face Cabroea if Parcel 2 faces Northridge. Commissioner 'Jallette stated that the community to the south of the proposed lots decided a long time ago to be an asaociat ion and she felt further access to the community would invalidate the controls of the association. She said she had seen similar driveways Ln planned communit iea and although she did not feel it necessarily represents good planning, she did feel it to be an appropriate compromise to the needs of the community to the south. Conunissioner Tolstoy did not feel the two lots should face Northridge Drive, but thought there should be a better plan to provide ac ceae for Parcel 2. He felt the plan shoultl be studied further, as he felt each lot should have access to Wilson Avenue in soma other way, Planning Conm is lion Minutes -7- March 2], 1991 ~~ Chairman McNiel asked what plane there were tar access for :.,,~ .o,.a .o _.._ east of the site. Ma. Miller responded that staff had prepared the master plane included in the staff report, and there are no concrete plans for the area ae no projects have been eubm ittad ae yet. Mr. Hanson Eelt [he current decie ion made by the Planning commission may well set the precedent for which way other lots will face. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask if the applicant would conaertt to a cons inuance to allow further conaiderat ion. He asked if it would be poaeible to contact the oiher property owners to master plan the area, because he felt tul-de-sacs may be placed where they do not makz a lot of Mr. Luna responded that ha hoped to at art building within a year, but it was not necessary to receive approval this evening. Chairman McNiel asked i£ it would be acceptable to the applicant Co continue the item for two weeks to address a batter master plan. Mr. Hanson stated that two weeks would not allow enough time. Ms. Miller stated that staff has sketched out the master plans and net asked the applicant to do a lot of master planning because it was felt that might he excessive for a two-lot parcel map. Commissioner Melcher felt abetter laycut could be found. ccmnissicner Tolstoy agreed that more thought shoo ltl be given to the layout. Mr. Col^man stated there was cone iderabla diecuaeion at the Trails Committee as to where the trail would be located on the two parrele. He recommended tnac the pr eject be returned to rhs Trails Committee if changes were proposed. Commies inner chitiea stated that if the iota were split with one facing north and the other facing south, horsekeeping art both properties would be effectively eliminated because of the distance from the neighboring house. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that providing access would net necessarily mean that a home would architecturally front a street. Ccn+niseionec Melcher stated he was in sympathy with the idea that the zone change is a aignif is ant one because it is a matter of equestrian lots adjacent to non-equestrian late. He said he would like the land north of Northridge Ceive to be developed without access to Northridge, but he did not feel the proposed plan was a geed one, He felt time should be taken to consider if a better plan could be developed. Ms. Miller asked if the current proposal could he considered as a temporary solution until development is proposed on the adjoining parcels to the east. Planning Commission Minctes R -8- March 27, 1991 V Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that any plan drafted at this point would have to be tr¢ated a¢ purely conceptual and action could only be taken on the two parcels under coneiderat ion. Commissioner Helcher Eelt a public street could potentially be brough~ down to the northeast corner of the applieant'e lot to allow acceas for both parcels ~ to the north. Hr, 9v1:er stated that any master Planning would simply be used ae a reference document to be used ae future appl icatione ate received for adjoining properties. He asked if there was anything in the conditions prohibiting Parcel 2 from obtaining acceas from the east or the north. He thought the Commission could approve the project and further direct staff to develop a master plan for the surrounding propert ice. Commissioner Helcher stated he wanted to see the master plan developed first. He wanted to know what would be a logical street system which would eventually give Parcel 2 legal access to a 8ublie atre¢t without having to go across another property. 9arrye Hanaon stated he would like the developer to work on the master planning. Mr. Buller suggested that the item be continued to April 24r 1993, with the potential of continuing Che item further if it were determined that more time would be needed. Chairman McN ie1 asked if Mr. Luna would object to a continuance to Apz i1 24. Mr. Luna replied [hat would be acceptable. Commissioner Chit iea orated that if temporary acceas were given from Northridge Drive, it would interrupt Che landscaping and there would be no guazantee that acceas would ever be available to the north, Commissioner Valletta asked if the other Commieaionere agreed that access should not be taken from Northridge Drive. Ccmm isaioner Ch itiea did not feel it would be appropriate to preclude acceas frcm Northridge Drive ae no streets were being proposed to be punched through to the north. She did not feel it would be a severe impact to allow access for two lots, with a potential of only three additional lots, to a public street built to regular City standards. Motion: Moved by Me lcher, seconded by Tolste y, to continue Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 13653 and Variance 91-04 to April 24, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHIT IEA, MCNIEL, MELCHEA, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: CONY ISSIONERS: NONE A99ENT: COlIM ISSIONER9: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes ~ i9- March 2?, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CLCAMONGA 5'~AF`N R.EPOIZ'I' " DATE: March 27, 1991 T0: Chatrnian and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Betty A. Miller, Associate Engineer i ~~,,,,~~, ~"~*onws_u.u_ acecccKNT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13693 - LUNA - A su v~ s on o acre o an n parse s fn the very haw Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - APN; 201-182-29. Related file: Variance 91-04 I. PR0.IECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map as s own o-F~xFfbiti "B" and issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Parcal Size: Parcel 1 - 20,580 sq. ft. Parcel 2 - 22 500 sq. ft. ~d32D86 99 (0 aq. ft. . ac) Total L. Existing Zoning: Very Low Residential D. Surrounding Land Use: North - East half vacant; west half has two single faintly residences and a third under construction South -Single Family Residential East - Vacant West - Horse Corral E. Surrounding General Plan and Development Code Designations: North - Very Low Residential South -Low-Medium Residential East - Very Low Residential West - Very Low Residential F. Site C haracteristics: This site 15 vaeant and slopes to the south atat pe~~fiere 15 an existing wrought iron fence along the south project boundary on the north side of Northridge Drive. PLANNING COMMl SSI~ STAFF REPORT TENT PM 13693 - LL.... MARCH 27, 1991 PArc 2 fI. ANALYSIS: The purpose of this parcel map is to subdivide a one acre parcel into two half acre parcels consistent with the Very Low Residential Otstrict desfgnation. Staff initially recommended that both lots front onto Northridge Drive, because it was felt that the fronts of houses would present a more aesthetic streetscape for the hares to the south than would a rear yard wall. There was also some concern about the master planning Implications for vacant parcels to the north and east of Lhe protect site. Staff .~_.~rCcC „a;, LI,C applicant Hold a neighborhood meeting 0!I the tentative parcel map, since Parcel Map 5996 1n this vlclnity had generated significant neighborhood Interest. Residents of the development on the south side of Northrtdge Drive have made it clear, both during the neighborhood meeting and 1n subsequent communications directed Lo staff, that they ob~eet to tots fronting on the north side of Northrtdge Drive. Respecting the neighbor's wishes, the applicant Ts now Droposing to access both parcels off a single drive approach on Cabrosa Place, with a 20-foot wide access easement along the north property line of parcel 1 in favor of parcel 2. Both access conftguratlons, using Cabrosa Place versus Northridge Drive, were presented to the Trolls Caamlttee to determine what the local equestrian trail requirements would be under the two optional master plans. The applicable recommendations have been lntluded in the conditions of approval. A Fire Protection District representative has also reviewed the proposed map and suggested a condition of approval allowing them to review the access to parcel 2 upon development. A. Master Planntn Three large vacant parcels remain north and east of the protect site. The City's access policy for arterial streets will allow one addltlonal intersection on N91son Avenue between Mayberry and Haven Avenues. Exhibit "C" illustrates how this area might be developed if the concept of no access to Northrtdge Orive is a15o applied to the balance of the vacant property. Exhibit "D" shows how the same area could be developed 1 f up to 5 1 ots were ai l owed to front onto Northridge Drive. The issues are as follows: 1. In both alternatives, all of the master planned cut-de-sacs exceed 600 feet to length. In Exhibit "C", three cut-de-sacs I21 lots) will utilize a single access point on Nilson Avenue. In Exhibit "D", two cut-de-sacs (18 lots) will do so. The Fire Protection District has not expressed concern M th either alternative, since all new home construction requires sprinklers. The difference between 18 and 21 lots 1s nominal. ~~ PLANNING COMMISSION AFF REPORT TENT PM 13693 - LUNA !'ARCH 2', 'g9i PAGE 3 Exhibit "D" does ail ow the local equestrian trail system to ha interior to the VL district rather than on the Derimeter, adtacent to Northridge Drive. A detail was provided, on the Conceptual Gradtny Plan (Exhibit "E") of a north-south cross section (Exhibit "F") taken through parcel 1 and Northridge Drive, to 111ustrate the relative position of houses, streets, tracts, and slopes. Note that sides of houses will be visible from the south side of Northridge Drive 9n the proposed configuration, unless the ~lwer eiw ai iernace master plan, that view would be of front yards. 4. tf access to parcel 2 is taken from Cabrosa Place, that driveway Witt be more than 200 feet long. The Fire Protection District will need a way for its vehicles to turn around or have an alternate exit route avallabie. B. Neighborhood Concerns: A neighborhood meeting was held on December 18, 1990. Attendees included residents of Northwood Vistas, a Low-Medium Resldentlal development (4-8 dwelling units per acre) immediately south of the protect site, and the owners of a vacant parcel east of the protect site. The residents of Northwood Vistas obtetted to fronting either parcel onto Northridge Drive far three reasons: 1. The larger lots on the north side of Northridge Drive can accommodate equestrian uses. Use of the neighborhood streets by large vehicles such as horse trailers mould conflict with the homeowners association prohibition against recreational vehicle storage. 2. The homeowners association currently maintains the parkway slope on the north side of Northridge Drive. Residents obtect to driveways disrupting the existing slope landscaping and perimeter fencing. 3. The residents perceive Northwoods Villas as a close-knit camrunity and feel that the VL lots proposed would 6e uncharacteristic of that community. They would rmt anticipate the acceptance of those lots Into the homeowners association, if such a request were made. Subsequent to the neighborhood meeting, the City has received 133 signed form letters (Exhibit "G") from members of the Northwood Homeoantrs Association, obtecting to any plans to construct driveways or streets leading into the community from Northridge Drive. They feel this would compromise their privacy and security. 87 PLANNING COMMISSION .. fAFF REPORT TENT PM 13693 - LDNp "4RCH 2', 1991 PAGE 4 Trails Advisory Committee: The Committee reviewed the protect on February 2D, 1991, and recommended the following trail requirements: 1. If the proposed access configuration 1s used (access from Cabrosa Place), a 15 foot wide local feeder trail should be provided along the entire southerly boundary of Parcels 1 and 2, and a 10 foot wide local feeder trail should be provided along the east side of Parcel 2. 2. If the alternate is used (access from Northridge Drive), a 15 foot wide local feeder trail should be provided along the entire northerly boundary of Parcels i and 2. fII. CONCLUSION: The proposed subdivision 1s compatible with ad,)acent proper on the rrorth side of Northridge Drive and the related master plan (Exhtblt "C"1, although not optimal, is workable. Staff has reservations about providing access to Cabrosa Place for parcel 2 across parcel 1, but given the concerns of the existing residents on Northridge Drive, believes the applicant has offered a viable solution. IV. ENYIRONMENTAL REVIEM: The applicant completed Part I of the Initial to y. to con acted a field investigation and completed Part II of the Initial Study. No adverse impacts upon the envlromment are anticipated as a result of this protect. Therefore, issuance of Negative Dect arati on is appropriate. Y. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Posting at the s,te has aT;a been completed. VI. RECOMMENDATION: It 1s recommended that the Planning Commission consider a nput an elements of the Tentative Parcel Map 13693. If after such consideration, the Commission can recommend approval, then the adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. Respectfully submitted, ~BM~ Barrye R. Hanson Senior Civil Engineer BRH:BAM:diw Attachments: Vicinity Map (Exhtblt "A") Tentative Map (Exhtblt `B") ApArea MasteMraPlan (Exhibith"6C1") 1V ConcepQual G ade~ng ~a~E~Exfilb/tB"E") Samp a Huameorneriletierh(ExM bit)"G") Resolution and Recommended Conditions of Approval ~~~` II ~~~ ~ w ~i cO~~E ~~~ ~ I i ~~ ~ ~ ~~ 1 "= IDDD ~ CITY OF ~; PARCEL MAP 136931 RANCHO CUCA2I~IONGA TITLE: VICINITY MAP ENGDdEERING DIVISION gGI ERHIBIT; ,~ A ~~ ~T/~ M / KC I_ ~~ d '' ~ o rr I; V `W ~ It~~~~i i I H n ~ ~^' ~ ~ ~'~ f ~. ~ -- a pq cs III, i 'L / f Y E ~I~ 4 ~ ;- F o Ili 1 I I ~ ~ / I Iw // ~ IIv / ~ '~ypy~ ,I71ly arti Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~V I ~ 9 l o i I a ~I i W ._ 1 ~~~ ~ ~ 111 °" ~ '~ I vii 1 n~N I _} .. • ~ ~-. ~ lam, r ~I ~ ; I `6i ~t \ c ~a I a ~ ~ I ~, - ~ / of N 1/ I /~ ~~ N o I I I ~. '~ ,r,,, n 1 I J~ % ~~4~ Iv ~ ,r\ Q ' `c ~' °.tic;~ ; I U qj z 9-~ us ; , ~ I /~ v oC \.y1 1 J/ ~ "/~ +_ _~ 4 / A 3~ Original_Poar. Cualfty 7mNnY u~nny ~ , ----- u--; ; ~ i I .. ~ ~~~ 9/ ~~ ~I zl t t) ,,~ i~~~'-~._ _ i ~ ~~rJ O ~ L~ V ~ ~~ ~ ~ ' `i.~ , ' ~l~ ' . . ., ~` j_ ~ 2 , 7 " ° 1 ~ i ~ " 1~ 1 ., ~~ ' ~~ ~~i) ~, ~ ; ~ - -. _ ., _. - --- - e p o U O ~ z ~~ ~~_ ~ ~ Original Poor ~ua;,:y - ~r wi,.y ~ r ~_^~ s I ~~j .. ~ ~ , 1 v ~ ~~im~ s=~ ~ n I ' ~ ;I ~I i it n I r ~~ ~~ "+ ~ I i1 S II CL ss~~° V I~ I I I I ' c7 ~_ I I r, ~~ ~~ `' :~ yy .-. ~ ~ ~ ~f il~ ®.~i ~ I '.~ I I i~ r~, ~i• i ~ a I a r .r ~;~ ... I, 2 `~~, ., ~u ~ \ ,'; a ~ ~~ ~: , ~ (~ S p .: •, ,. ~1 ! V I ._ _.7 ._~'~ I. U --- ~ v 1 ~~ ~. -' - "~ - O Z z 9~- ~ ~ ~ a ~_ I I i ra; 'Original Poor (~Uai;y N~=~ i ~ ~ --~~~o --- "~- a ~~ - a W a ~ Z- ff~~~ i .~~s - .ai ~~ {~ ~ .~ ~ ~ .~ nW ' -- ~\ ~ ; .F n a ~ ' e y 7~,~ m ~---- ~ ~ .s ~` ~~' ,, i ,C •R ~ I ~ t ~,us ;~ .ti~ ~~l1 ~ ~' ~~ ~ T ,i ' p~ ~ a ~ ,g do ~ ~~ :, cti 'rs•i _ ~ '~ ',~ I T ~ '' I O Q ' N t ~ " ~'u,.ro V A `~~ii ~ ~ -~:ter ! ~ U ~ c~ ~ '-- -- - f:. O x ~' `~~ ~ O Z ywo U ~ 93 '' ~ s w ~~ 1 ' I I ZqI ^ uality w~ s ~drig'~nal Poor ~ ~ V - - - +- - Q - --~ ~ . ~~ ~ s ~ U ~' - , _~ ~~ ~ ~ f ~ i `~ a Q o- E ~' _ ' ~,, ! ~ ~ ~ r--~ -~~~ __ . _. ~ ~. ~Y %//~~ _ _ h ~~~ "70`yq. ". _. 6 - ~- -- -t 'h i ,- . ~-- ~ _~ `~ _a'~.._... r a ! C ~- ~~ ~ ---~ ~ ~ Ca a "' 4 W O c ~, ~ O ,'~ s ~ ~ /~ z ~ G7 `~~ ` U ~ ~ Fehruary 09, 199: ~~ city Cf Rancho Cucamonga ~ ~ C,U(4pn yip Post Office pnv nn~ ~ '• ' ^"'::'::: Rancho Cucamonga, CA 917?9 ATTN: Steve Ross, Assistant Planner Pear Mr. Ross, I am a Romeowner in the Northwood Community. I strongly object to any city plans to construct driveways or streets leading into our community from Northridge. The privacy and security of our community are of great importance io me. As a member of Northwood Y.omeowners Association and having a shared interest in all Northwood Community affairs, I am entitled to receive information and notification concerning hearings or meetings aif ecting the Northwood Community. CITY OF Pl'EM: PARCEL MRP 13la93 RANCHO CUCAMONGA 'cr17.,E;5AMPLE HOMEC~VNER lE1T!J ~~ ,~ ENGINEERING DM3ION 9S EXIi®IT: G Si.^.cereiy, RESOLUTION NO. 91-42 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIPORN IA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 91-04 TO ALLOW A AEDUCT ION OP THE MINIMUM AVERAGE LOT SIEE PROM 22,500 TO 21,540 SQUARE FEET AND A REDUCTION IN THE MINIMUM LOT DBPTN PAON 150 TO 130 FEET FOR PARCEL N0. 2 FOR A TWO-LOT PARCEL MAP LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OP NORTNAIDG6 DRIVE, WEST OF HAVEN AVENUE IN THE VERY LOW RBSIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND HARING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-152-29. A (i) Stewn A. Luna hu filed an application for [he Suuame of Variance No. 91-00 a doeribed in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Roolutlon, the subject Variance r+quast Se eeferred to as "the application.' (ii) On the 27th of March 1991, and continued to the 24th of April and the 22nd of May 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rtnchp Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public heeringe an the application and cancludetl said hearings on that date. (111) All legal prerequisites prior to the adopt ion of thin Resolution have occurred. e NOW, THEREFOAEr it i• hereby found, determined, end ruolwd by the Planning Commi a ion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as folloue: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Aeciials, Part A, of this Resolution era true end correct. 2. Based upon substantial widence prevent+d to th!• Covmiu ion during the above-referenced public haerinq• on Harch 27, April 24, and May 22, 1991, including written and oral staff reporter together with public testimony, this CammLSion hetehy specifically finds ae follcws: (a) The application applies to a vacant, undeveloped property located on Cabrosa Place, north of NOrthridge Orlve with a depth of 130 fut, a street frontage of 330 feet along Northridge Drive, and approximately 40 £eet of frontage along Cabrosa Place; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site ie residential, the property to the south of that site consists of single Eamily home, the property to the east i• vacant, end the property to tM west i• also zoned for residential use. loi PLANNING COMMISSION PBSOLUTION NO. 9L-42 yen ol_ne _ cgeycp o, _~Nt May 22, 1991 Page 2 (e) Tha four parcels to the we at have an average depth of 129 East, end the property to the north is also lase than 150 feat. (d) The appl lcat ion has been submitted to allow a reduction of the minimum net average lot area and minimum lot depth xequlrements contrary to Bect ion 17.08.040 of the Devslopmsnt Code within the Very Law 8eaidantial District. (•) Both part•1a meet or ezued the minimum lot size requirement of 20,000 square feet. (f) Pare•1 No. 2 has • lot width of 171 iset, which great ly exceeds the required 90-toot minimum width. (q) exi•tinq mbdivlaions Lmoetl Lately north end west of the subj set alb have a minimum svrage loL sirs of lsu than 22,500 aquae fast and have lot depths lase than the required 150 feet. (h) A variance to allow a reduction in the minimum average. lot airs and minimum lot d•pih requirements was granted for a four-lot aubdivi•ioa adj accent to the subj •et nits. 3. Bead upon the aubatantial widsnce presented to this Commission during the abav-referenced public Bearings and upon the specific findings of facto set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, thin Commission hereby finds and conclude as follows: (a; That strict of literal intsrpretat ion and enfore•ment of the epeelfied regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship incons intent with the object ivee of the Oevelopmeni code. (b) That theta are exceptional or extraordinary citcumstanees or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other propertie in the same d iot tier. (c) That strict or literal interpretation and •nEOSCament of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges •nj Dyed by the owners of other prop•rtlo in the same district. (d) Thai the granting of the Variance will not cans[ itute a grant of special privilege inconaietent with the limiiat ions on other properties cleeeitied in the name district. (e) That the granting of the Variance will not be d•trimencal to the public health, eaE•ty, or wailers or materially injurious to properciev or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the flntlinge and conclueicne eet forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the applies[ Lan. PLANNING COHMISS ION RESOLUTION NO. 31-4: VAR 91-0a - STEVEN R. LVNA May 22, 1991 Pege 3 5. The secreLry to th!• Commlaaion shall certify to the adoprtlon of this Ruolution. APPAOVSD AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OP HAY 1991. PLANNING COlDpISSION OF TH8 CITY OP RANCHO CVCAMONGA BY: ATTEST: I, Brad 8ullez, Secr-tary of the Planning Comniuion of the City oP Aancho Cucamonga, do hereby certity that the tosegoLng Aeeolution va) duly and regularly intro0ueed, paced, and adopted by the Planning commieeion of the City o£ Aancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commleelon he1Q on the 42nd day oP May 1991, by the Polloainq votrto-wit: AYES: COiIlIISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MEL CHER, VALLETTE NOES: CONN135IONSFS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSION8R3: NONE I c~,3 RESOLUTION N0. 9/~ ~~~' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A TENTATIVE PARCEL IMP, NUMBER 13693, TO SUBDIYIDE 1.0 ACRE INTO 2 PARCELS IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF NORTNRIDGE DRIVE, WEST OF HAVEN AVENUE - APN: 201-182-29 A. Recitals. (i) Mr. and Mrs. Steven Luna have filed an application for the approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 13693 described above 1n the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subtect Tentative Parcel Map request is referred to as "the Tentative Parcel Map." (11) On March 27 and continued to April 24 and Mqy 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucaaonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Tentative Parcei Nap and following the conclusion of said hearing, adopted their Resolution No. 91-41 thereby approving the Tentative Parcel Map. (111) Mr. Peter Fan, an adtacent property owner, and Lhe Northwood Properties Community Association have filed a timely appeal of the approval represented in said Resolution No. 91-41 on the basis of the requirement that Parcel 2 take access from Northridge Drive. (iv) On July 3, 1991, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the subtect matter of the appeal of the Tentative Parcel Map and, on said date concluded the public hearing. (v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution iwve occurred. B. Resolution. NON, THEREFORE, the City Council of Lhe City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve as follows: 1. The Council hereby specifically finds Lhat all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. This Council hereby finds and certifies that the protect has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental ~d~ LITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION N0. TENT PM 13693 - LUNA July 3 1991 Page 2~ puality Act of 1970 and concurs with the issuance of the Negative Declaration 9ssued on May 22, 1991. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced July 3, 1991, hearing, including written staff reports, the minutes of the above-referenced March 27, April 24, and Mqy 22, 1991, Planning Commission meetings, public testlmoRy. and the contents of Planning Commission Resolution No. 91-41, this Council specifically finds as follows: lal Ine tentative Parcel Map applies to property located on the north side of Northridge Drive west of Haven Avenue within the Yery Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre); (b) The Development District and development status of the surrounding property 1s as follows: North - Very Low Residential -Partially Developed South - Low-Medium Residential -Developed East - Yery Low Residential -Vacant West -Very Low Residential -Horse Corral (c) The Tentative Parcel Map contemplates the development of a 2-lot subdivision on 1.0 acre of land; (di Variance No. 91-04 was approved in con,lunction wl th the Tentative Parcel Map to ail ow reductions in the minimum average lot size and minimum lot death; (e) The requirements of Planning Commission Resolution No. 91- 41, which specifies that Parcel 2 shall take access from Northridge Drive, remain to be important and necessary to the subdivision of the property; (f) The development as specified will not contradict the goats or ob,)ectives of the General Plan or Development Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and would not promote a detrimental condition to the persons or properties in the immediate vicinity of Lhe subJect site. 4. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) The Tentative Parcel Map with the approved variance is consistent with the General Plan and Development Cade of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; (6) The design or improvements of the Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; ! ~~ CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. TENT PM 13693 - LUNA tiuly 3, i99i Page 3 (c) The subJect slta is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the proposed development is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or avoidable inJury to humans or wildlife or their habitat; (e) The development is not likely to cause serious health problems; (f) The design or Lh! oeVllopment will not Cenrl lCt wiLn any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, far access through or use of the property within the proposed development; and 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth to paragraphs 1, 2, 3,' and 4 above, this CounC91 hereby approves the Tentative Parcel Map subJect to each and every condition set forth to Planning Commission Resolution No. 91-41 (a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit"1"); 6. The Council hereby provides notice to Mr. and Mrs. Luna, Peter Fan, and the Northwood Properties Community Association that the time within which Judicial review of the decision represented by the Resolution must be sought 1s governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094,6. 7. The City Clerk is hereby directed to: (n) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Mr. and Mrs. Luna, Peter Fan, and the Northwood Properties Community Association at their addresses as per City records. l~ RESOLUTION NO. 91-41 A RESOLUTION OP THE PLANNING CONNISS ION OF THE CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING ~ TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 13697, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF NORTFDtIDGE DRIVE, WEST OF HAVEN AVENUE, AND HARING PINOINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APNx 201-1E2-29 WHEREAS, Tart[at iva Parcel Nap Number 13693, submitted by Mr. and Mre. S. Luna, applicants, for the putpoae of aubdivitling into 2 parcel •, the real property sltuatsd in the City o! Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, Identified sa APN: 201-182-29, located on the north aide oI Northr logo Dtlve, west of Hiven AvenUa, and WHEREAS, on Mtrch 27 end continued to April 24, and May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission held n duly advertised public hearing for the abovs- dsecribed map. FOLLOWS: NOW, THEREPOAB, THE PANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS SECTION 1: That the Eo 11ow1ng findinge have bean made: 1. That the map is consistent with the Genarel Plan. 2. That the SmprovsmenG of the proposed aubdiv i•ion is consistent with the General Plan. That the •ite Le physically ew it able Eor the propcaed development. 4. That the proposed aubdlvis ion and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or public health problems or have adverse of Eecte on abutting propart US. SECTZCN 2: This Coamieeton finds and certiEiee that the project has been reviewed and conaidared in compliance wish the California Environnental quality Aci o! 1970; end further, this Commission hereby issues a Negative Declaration. SECTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map Number 13693 ie hereby approved aubjaet to the attached Standard Conditions and the following Spee Lal Conditions: 1. Parcel 1 shall take access Erom cabroaa Plaea and Parcel 2 shall take accee• from Northridge Drive. The access easement over Parcel 1 in favor of Parcel 2 shown on the ranter iva map shall be removed. 2. Provide a 15-foot wide local feeder trail alanq the entire northerly boundary of Parcels 1 and 2. All other trails shown on the tentative map shall be removed. PLANNING CONNISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91-~1 PM 13693 - LUNA wy »; loaf Page ] 3. Sulldinq setback linen shall ba plotted on the Flnal Parcel Nap to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 0. TM structure on parcel 2 shall ba reviewed by the Planning Divitian for compatibility with the Narthwoods Community to the tooth. 5. Tha irrigation system for the exist Lng landeeapinq on the north side of Northridge Drive shall be mod if led so that the portion trontinq parcel 2 ie connected to tM new house, upon development. Tha Northwood• Propertiu Community AuoeLtion shall be rsl ieved of maintenuu aepontibility [or the portion of Northridge Drive fronting parcel 2 once that connection la made. 6. covuanU, condiilons and Rutrlotione (CC6At) shall M placed on Parcel 2 which are compatible with the appllcabL provisions of the ues restrictions of the Narthwoodt Properties Community Auoeiatlon'• CCSAS, as approved by Che CSty Planner end City Engineer. 7. Install a decorative rerun wall along the south property line of Parcel 1, tM design of which ehali be reviewed and approved by the ?lanninq Division. e. Private drainage devices to convey flown from the site and from ihs property north of the sits to the existing public facilities along the west and/or south boundaries shall be installed to the utLfaction of the Building official. Private drainage easements shall be shown on the Pinal Parcel Map as required by the Building and Safety Division. 9. Pursuant to provieiane of California Public Reaourcee Code Section 21089 (b), Chit appllcatlon shall not be operative, vested or tlnnl, nor will building permits be issued or a map recorded, until (1) the Notice of Determination (NOD) regarding the associated envlronmenial action i• filed and potted with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino; and (2) any and all required filing feu auuud pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, together with any required handling charge •, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. The applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a stamped and conformed copy of the NOD together with a receipt showing that all fees have bean paid. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0. d:-,. PM 13693 - LUNA iidv i99i Page•3 In the avant thin application is determined exempt from ouch filing foe pursuant to the pcovia ions of the California Fieh and Game Coda, or the guidelines promulgated thereunder, except for payment of say required handling charge for filing a Cert iti.ents of Pee Exemption, this eondit ion shall be domed null and void. 10. Prior to the recordation of the final map ar iuuanca of building permits, whichever comes ftret, the applicant ^hall conont to, or pat[ielpate in, the utabl Lhmant of a Mello-Roes Community Paeilitio District orGinino to the project vita to provide in conjunction with the applicable school district for the construction and maintenance of neeoury school facilities. However, 1[ any school dLtriet has previously otablishad each a Community fae111ties District, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project cite into the tsrritory of ouch exist inq district prior to tM recordation of the final map or the issuance o[ building permit, whichever comas first. Further, if the affeebd school dLtrict has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilltiu DLtrict within twelve months of the data of approval of the project and prior to the tecordat ion of the final map or issuance of build inq permits for said project, this contlit ion shall be deemed null and void. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 1991. PLANNING WMMISS ION OP THE CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA Chairman ATTEST: 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 commie ion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of May 1991, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNSEL, MELCH ER, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE 'Original Poor ~ua'!CY. ~E 7~ Y ~ ~ '~ ~ 4 ; _ ` _ ~g 'i i ~ III ..g° 7 g yoi j 1 _ E ~ ~ I .._ 931 ~xe ~I m a ~ 9 a I u ~ - 44 i _=z a~ I ~~r ~~ !~I ~ I ~ ZQe c ~s - ° ~3 _ - - ~ _ _ ."_ ~ E$ YO eta - .y6o rte- kYe _g~ G~~g '•a 8~ .~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ -_ - _y :~ ~ "~ Sfi 'y -~ -S _ ~1 c o4 a g~ s fiifi s :E o i ~ _ y a~ ~° ~b ~ c ~ s ~ ~ of _ N "i &i I ~ I ~ ~ ~ t 8` ! Q - a _ o - ~ ~~yE a -5 ~~~ _ E~'' ~ o~ P^_ _ __ E ~ Y ° ~~ __ g tl - YE ~Y £'- e ,. i - - ~) ~ :I ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I \ i \ i9 3 ~ '~ ' g i9 '_ _ ~ c 'eta - - v . ;e °e ~' ~: p s ~ a ~` _ _d e i F:g' ae -F _ 3 9 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~o '~ se ~, _ ^i ~ YE ~' i ae , a ~~ ~ - g~ <_ =~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~' _ 0 '~ 0 4 -~ __ $' - __ 8 Egg - _ eca ~ ..~i '. ; ox ~:R e8e a~ _ z z ~ _ - - I ~ ~ _ Original Poor Quality , ~ i I ~ ~~ Ra:€ ~s ~ ~ ,a . ___ l ~• _ __ ^ Ro = o ~~^ ~S ,~a t _~~ = - - - e~, - _ - ea m .. _ _ - zrt - 0 __ _ e a ,~~ 0 - - E~ ._- ~~ _. Si = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ n _ ~= i _ _ ~ 3= _ ^ v, _ _ RESOLUTION N0. 9i-19~f A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NOS. 79-1, 79-1-A, 79-1-B, 79-7, 79-31, 81-66, 81-66-A, 81-111, R2-ibR, AND ESTABLISHING A NEN COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE FOA PERMITS AND SERVICES PROVIDED HY ALL CZTY DEPARTMENTS, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA POLICE DEPARTMENT A. Ren itals. (i) Section 54992 of the Government Code requires that prior to lerying a new fee or increasing an existing fen n. ...~i..e ..,,e....e i......~ agencies shall held a pu611c meeting at which oral or written presentations may be made; and (ii) Notice of the time and place of the meeting is to be called fourteen days prior to the meeting to interested parties having previously filed a written request for such notice; and (111) Ten days prior to the meeting, data indicating the amount of cost or estimated coat required to provide service for which the Cee or service charge is to be levied, shall De made avallab le to the public, and (iv) No valid request for mailed notice is on file with the City, and (v) Copies of the required data were made available in the City Clerk's office to the public on July 1, 1991; and (vi) All legal prerequls ites to atlop Lion of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NON, THEP,EPOAE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve as Follows: Section 1.0 Building and Safety Fees: 1.0 A fee for each building permit or service shall be paid to the Duilding Official as set forth in the following Schedule of Fees: Total Valuation of Nork E 1.0o to gl,aoo.oo t,ool.oo to gz,ooo.oo /0 9 Fees Ezs.oo x25.00 for the first $i ,000.00 plus 52.00 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof, to and including 52,000.00. _2_ $ 2,001.00 to 525,000.00 $45.00 for the first 52,000.00 plus 57.50 for each additional 51,000.00 or fraction thereof, to ' and including 525,000.00. 525,001.00 to 550,000.00 5217.50 for the first 525,000.00 plus 55.50 for Bach additional 51,000.00 of fraction thereof, to and including E50 ,000.00. 550.001.00 to 5100 .000.On Rus en e.... ~~.., w.,.. 550,000.00 plus 50.00 Por each additional 51,000.00 or Traction thereof, to and inc ludSng 5100,000.00. 5100,000.00 and over 5555.00 for the first 5100,000.00 plus 52.50 for each additional 51,000.00 or fraction thereof. 1.1 Plan Review Fees: (a) When the valuation oP proposed construction exceeds one thousand dollars, and a plan is required to be submitted, a plan review fee shall be paid to the HuildSng Official at the time of submittal of plans. (b) Plan review fees for buildings and structures shall be equal to seventy-five percent (75i) of the bui ld!ng permit fees set forth '_n Section 1.0 herein. (c) Plan review fees Por electrical, mechanical and plumbing work sha 11 be equal to 25f of the total permit fee as set forth under the pertinent Section 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9 herein. (d) Plan review fees for grading shall De as set forth in the following schedule: puan City of Cut and Fill Fee 50 - 100 yards E 50.00 101 - 500 yards 100.00 501 - 1,000 yards 200.00 1,001 - 2,000 yards 250.00 2,001 - 3,000 yards 300.00 3,001 - 4,000 yards 350.00 L ,001 - 5,000 yards 400.00 5,001 - 10,000 yards 500.00 10,007 - 50,000 yards 600.00 SO,OCI - ;00,000 yards 700.00 100,001 - And up 900.00 /~ -3- The sum of cut and fill yardages shall be used Sn computing grading permit and plan checking Pees. (e) Additional Plan Checking made necessary due to changes iM plans or incomplete plan submission, $55.00 per hour for the estimated time of checking revisions. 1.2 Compliance Inspections/Aeinspections Inspections to determine compliance of existing construction with applicable codes when not included in an active, valid building permit or inspections made necessary due to work not being ready at time specified, or work not corrected after prior written correction notice .................................$30.00 1.3 Change of Occupancy: Change of Ocpupanpy Inspection ............................$50.00 1.4 Eelocated Buildings: Fees for inspection of a structure to De relocated Into or within the City, ahall be $700.00 when located withln 25 miles of City ofPicea, plus $2.00 per mile, round trip, when located more than 25 miles from City offices. 1.5 Appeal of Abatement Notice: An appeal of a notice to abate a substandard or dangerous building ................................................$700.00 1.b Inspeetlon for Temporary Otility Connection or Temporary Oecumanev: Inspection ............................................. ..$ 30.00 1.7 Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge four hours) ......................................$50.00 per hour 1.8 Inspections for xhich no permit fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge one-half hour) ............... ....$50.00 per hour 1.9 Eiec trical Permit Fees: (a) Permit Issuance: For issuing each permit ..............................$15.00 Fnr issuing each supplemental permit . ............. ...$ 4.50 /~~ -u_ (b) System Fee Schedule: (NOTE: The following are in add Stlon to permit-issuing fee.) New Resident lal Build Sngs: + The following fees shall include all wiring and electrical equipment in or on each building, or other electrical equipment on the same premises constructed at the same time. For new re sidentiel build Sngs not including the area of garages, carports and other noncommercial automobile atora¢e areas rtnn st.rnn tnd a* f6n mm N .e ..e.. e...~~e . ~.- - foot ...................................... ...........$ .035 For new garages, carports and other minor accessory buildings constructed in con~unetion with a new residential building per square Poot ............. ..... ...........$ .02 Por other types of residential occupancies and alterations, additions and motllfications to existing residential buildings, use the UNIT FEE SCHEDULE. Private Swimming Pools, Spas: For new private residential, permanently installed spas, hot tubs or swimming pools for sing la-Pamily and mu1t1- family occupancies including a complete system of necessary branch circuit wiring, bonding, grounding, underwater lighting, wa ier pumping and other similar electrical equipment directly related to the operation of a swimming pool, each ..........................................$ 30.00 For other types of swimming pools, spas and alterations to existing swimming pools, use the UNIT FEE SCHEDULE. Carnivals and Circuses: Carnivals, circuses, or other traveling shoos or exhibitions utilizing transportable-type rides, booths, displays and attractions. For electric generators and electrically driven rides, each ................................................E 75.00 For mechanically driven rides and walk-through attractions or displays having electric lighting, each..........$ 4.50 Fora system of area and booth lighting, each.......$ 4.50 Por permanently installed rides, booths, displays and attractions, use the UNIT FEE SCHEDULE. ~/~ -5- Services: For services of 600 volts or less and not over 200 amperes in rating. each ...... .. ........ ....................$ 18.50 For services of 600 volts or less and over 200 amperes to, 1000 amperes in rating, each ... .. .. ........ ... .....$ 37.50 Far services over 600 volts or over 1000 in rating, each ........................... ................ ....$ 75.00 Temporary Power Service: For a temn nra rv ao v1,. ___ -- pGLL at..l iuu i„g all pole or pedestal-mounted receptaole outlets and appurtenances, each ....... .. .......................$ 15.00 For a temporary distribution system and temporary lighting and receptacle outlets for construction sites, decorative light, Christmas tree sales lots, firework stands, etc., each .................... .................... ... .. ..$ 7.50 (c) Unit Fee Schedule: NOTE: The following are in addition to permit issuing fee. Receptacle, Switch and Lighting Outlets: For receptacle, switch, lighting or other outlets at which current is used or controlled, except services, feeders and meters. First 20, each ......... ...................$ •75 Additional outlets, each ........ .. .................$ .45 NOTE: For "•~~lti-outlet assamt lies, each 5 feet or fbaction thereof may be considered as one outlet. Lighting Fixtures: For lighting fixtures, sockets or other lamp-holding devices. First 20, each ............. ... ........ ...$ .75 Additional fixtures, each .................. ..... .. .$ .45 For pole or platform-mounted lighting fixtures, each $ .75 For theatrical-type lighting fixtures or assemblies, each ..................... .... ........ ........... .....$ .76 Residential Appliances: For fixed residential appliances or receptacle outlets for same, including wall-mounted electric ovens; counter- mounted cooking tops; electric ranges, self contained room, console, or through-wall air contlitioners; space heaters; food waste grinders; dishwashers; washing machines; water /~3 -b- heaters; clothes dryers; or other motor-operated appliances not exceeding one horsepower (HP), kilowatt (KN), or kilivolt-ampere (KVA), in rating, each ...... .......$ 3.00 NOTE: For other types of air conditioners and other motor driven appl lances having larger electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus. Non-residential Appllarces: For residential appliances and self-contained faetory- wired, non-residential appliances not exceeding one horsepower (HP), kilowatt (KW), or kilivolt-ampere (KVA), .o~L,d diug uxuiuai ono een ca• eevtces{ food, beverage, and Vice cream oabineta; illuminated show oases, drinking fountains, vending machines; laundry machines; or other similar types of equipment, each ............ .$ 3.00 NOTE: For other types of air conditioners and other motor- driven aDP liandes having larger electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus. Power Apparatus: For motors, genera fora, transformers, redtifiers, synchronous converters, capacitors, industrial heating, air conditioners and heat pumys, cooking or baking equipment antl other apparatus, as follows: Aating in horsepower (HP), kilowatts (KN), kilovolt-amperes (KVA), or kilovolt-amperes-reactive (NVAE): Op to and including 1, each . ....................... .$ 3.00 Over i and not over 10, eadh ....................... .$ '/.50 Over 10 and not over 50, each ................. ..... .$ 15.00 Over 50 and not over 100, each .. ................... .$ 30.00 Over 1D0, each .............. .. ......................$ 45.00 NOTE: 1. For equipment or appliances having more than one motor, transformer, heater, etc., the sum of the combinetl ratings may be used. 2. These fees include all switc hea, circuit breakers, contractors, thermostats, relays and other directly-related control equipment. ~~~ _7 _ Busways: For trolley and plug-in-type busway s, each 100 feet or fraction thereof ....... ... .........................$ 4.50 NOTE: An additional fee will be recuired for lighting fixtures, motors and other appliances that are connected to trolley and plug-in-type 6usways. No tee is required for portaD le tools. Signs, Outline Lighting and Marquees: For signs, outline lighting systems or marquees supplied Prom one branch circuit, each ................. .....$ 15.00 For additional branch cirouits within the same sign, outline lighting system or marquee, each.......... .$ 3.00 Miscellaneous Apparatus, Conduits and Conductors: For electrical apparatus, conduits and conductors for which a permit is required but for xhich no fee is herein set forth .................. ........... .... .............$ 11.00 NOTE: This fee is not applicable when a fee is paid for one or more services, outlets, fixtures, appliances, power apparatus, busways, signs or other equipment. 1.10 Plumbing Permits: (a) Permit Issuance: For the issuance of each permit ... .................$ 15.00 For issuing each supplemental permit .. ............ .$ 4.50 (b) On it Fee Schedule (in addition to issuance fee above): Por each plumbing PSxture or trap or set of fixtures on one trap (including water, drainage piping, and backflow protection therefor) .............. .................$ 6.00 For each building sewer and each trailer park sewer $ 15.00 Aainwa ter systems --per drain (inside building) $ 6.00 For each cesspool (where permitted ) .................$ 22.50 Fcr each private sewage disposal system .............$ 45.00 For each wz ter heater and/or vent ...................$ T.50 /~ -8- For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor including its trap and vent, excepting kitchen-type grease interceptors tune Honing as fixture traps...........$ 12.00 For installation, alteration, or repair of water pip ing+ and/or water-treating eGUipment, each ...............$ 3.00 For repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping, each fixture ................. ...... ....... .. .............$ 3.00 For each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter, including backflow protection devices therefor . .. ... ..........$ 9.00 •- ~..:~NL=•+..-:y y< r=wuw wmwer~ uue iuc iuueu in iewn sprinkler system: 1 to 5 .................. ............... ... ..........$ 7.50 over 5, each ........................... .............$ 1.50 For each backflow protective device other than atmospheric- type vacuum breakers: 2 inches and smaller ....... ............ .............$ 7.50 over 2 inches .......................................$ 15.00 For each gas piping system of one to four out lets...$ 3.00 Swimming pool or spa pipii:g including water heater (not including gas piping) ...............................$ 10.00 1.11 Mechanica'_ Permits: A fee far each mechanical permit shall be paid to the Building Offic Sal as set forth in the following Schetlu le of Fees: (a) Permit Issuance For the issuance of each permit .....................$ 15.00 For issuing each supplemental permit .. .......... .. .$ A.50 (b) Unit Fee Schedule (In addition to issuance fees above): For the installation or relocation of each forced-air or gravity-type furnace or burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance, up to and including 100,000 Btulh ................ ........... ............$ 9.00 For the installation or relocation or each forced-air or gravity-type furnace cr burner, including ducts and vents /1 b -9- attached to such app Nance over 100,000 Btu/h ......f 11.00 For the installation or relocation of each floor fYrnace, inc lading vent ................. ....................5 9.00 For the installation or relocation of each suspended heater, recessed wall heater or floor-mounted unit heater ........................ ....... ........... ..........5 9.00 For the installation, relocation or replacement of each appliance vent installed and not tnc laded in an appliance permit ............................ ................. .$ 4.50 eor one repaar os, alcerataon oT, or addition to each heating appliance, refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit, or each heating, cooling, absorption, or evaporative cooling system, including installation of controls regulated by this code ....... ..............$ 9.00 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor to antl including three horsepower, or each absorption system to and including 100,000 Btu/h... .S 9.00 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over three horsepower to and inc lading 15 horsepower, or each absorption system over 100,000 Btu/h and including 500,000 Btu/h .......... ...............5 16.50 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 15 horsepower to antl including 30 horsepower, or each absorption system over 500,000 Btu/h to and including 1,000,000 BLU/h ........ .. ......... .5 22.50 For installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 30 horsepower to and inc lUd ing 50 horsepower, or for each absorption system over 1,000,000 Btu/h to and including 1,750,000 Btu/h ................. .... ......5 33.50 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or refrigeration compressor over 50 horsepower, or each absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu/h ..... .........$ 56.00 For each air-handling unit to and including 10,000 cubic feet per minute, including ducts attached there to...$ 6.50 Note: This x'ee shall not apply to an air-handling unit which is an inregral portion of a factory assembled appliance, cooling unit, evaporative cooler or absorption unit for wh Seh a permit i.s re4uiretl elesewhere in this code. For each air-handling unit over 10,000 cfm..........5 11.00 For each evapora/t ive cooler other than portable type $ 6.50 ~I 7 -10- For each ventilation Fan connected to a single duct..$ 4.50 For each ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or air-contl it coning system authorized by a permit ............................. ........... .. .. .........$ 6.50 For the installation of each hood which is served by mechanical exhaust, inc lutling the ducts for such hood $6.50 For the installation or relocation of each domestic-type incinerator ........... ............................ ..$ 11.00 e.,.. «ee a.,er~n ~r;~~ nr relncation of each commercial industrial-type Sncinerator ................... ......$ 45.00 For each appliance or piece of equipment reeulatetl by this code but not classed in other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed in this code..... ......E 6.50 1.12 Grading Permit Fees: A fee for each grading permit shall be paid to the building Official as set forth in the following Schedule of Fees: Quantity of Cut and Fill Pee 5U cubic yards or less $15.00 51 to 100 cub io yards $22.50 101 to 1,000 cubic yards -- $22.50 for the first 100 cubic yards plus $10.50 fcr etch additional 100 subie yards or frsetion thereof. 1,001 to 70,000 cubic yards -- $117.00 for the first 7,000 cubic yards, plus $9.00 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards or iS~actSon thereof. 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards -- $198.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards, plus $40.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yartls or fraction thereof. 100,001 cubic yards or more -- $562.50 for the first 100,000 cubic yards, plus $22.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 1.13 Application for Plan Duplication Application for duplication processing ..............$ 30.00 /I V _„ _ Section 2.0 Copying Aatea and Sub scrlDtion Fees: Fee Activity Fee Photoeop Ses $ .25/page Microfilming $ .25/page Audio Tape $10.00/tape Subscriptions: Council Agenda $ 35.00/yr. .,.,,~~~., b 'l7 .UU7yr. Plznning Commiss Son Agenda $ 35.00/yr. Mlnu Les $105.00/yr. Historic Preservation Comm. Agenda $ 9.00 /yr. Section 3.0 Engineering Fees 3.1 ADpl ications Fee Tentative Parcel Map E2 ,514.00 Initial Study $ 225.00 Tentative Parcel Map Appeal $ 251.00 Time Extension - Tentative Parcel Map $ 549.00 Certificate of Compliance $1,190.00 Lot Line Ad?ustment $1,190.00 Amending Parcel Map $1,190.00 Street vacation $1,156.00 Subora ination Agreement $ 298.00 He lea se of Lien Agreement $ 29H.oo Certificate of Correction $ 256.00 c`lood Hazard Lettar $ 314.00 Bond Substitution $ 420.00 Private Street Designation $ 49;.00 i /i9 _1p_ Reimbursement Agreement Storm Drain $2,227.00 Street and Utilities $2,827.00 ' Traffic Study Review (Dev. ProJ.) $ 751.00 3.2 Map and Flan Checking Fees Property Legal Description $ 584.00 Map Checking ..c u.umm.u..a. mac. ny~ ;i,ji~ iiou per YarCel Tract Maps and Non-Residential Parcel Maps of 10 lots or less $2,070.00 Tract Maps and Non-Residential Parcel Maps over 10 lots $1,720 + $35 per parcel or lot 3.3 Improvement Plans Nidening of existing streets $1.35 per LF + sheet charge for interior streets Interior Streets 1-2 sheets: $1,370 per sheet 3-5 sheets: $2,740 + $1,200 per sheet over 2 sheets 6-10 sheets: $6,340 + $1,095 per sheet over 5 sheets 11 or more: $11,815 + $1,025 per sheet over 10 sheets Storm Drain Plans - Same as for interior streets t7yarology Study: Drainage areas up to 150 acres $1,370.00 Drainage areas over 150 acres $2,740.00 Landscape and irrigation plans for City-maintained areas $ 400.OC per sheet For maps and plans checking, the fees for rush checking, when approved by the City Engineer, will be 50¢ grea tet than those listed above. The fees for checking the revisions to approved plans will be on the basis of actual costs at hourly rates as determined by the City Engineer with a minimum fee of $100.00. l~ -13- 3.4 Public Morks Construction Permit Fee: SS of Improvement Cost to E25 ,000, Min. E50 4.Sf of Improvement Cost next E75 ,000 4f of Improvement Cost over E100 ,000 The improvement cost of a pro,)ect shall be based on the Engineer's Cost Estivate as shown on Surety Aond and as approved by the City Engineer. wnmc. novnlnnment Impact Fees may also apply and are addressed Under separate resolutions. 3.5 Overalde Loads •Single Permit $15.00 •AepetStive Permit E70 initial tee ~ E15 per month renewal fee to a maximum of 6 months (Annual Permit E70 per year oThese fees are based on the provisions of the California Vehicle Coda Section 35795 and Caltrans Fee Schedule. Section 4.0 Fire Protection District Fees (These fees hake been adopted b7 the Fire Hoard) U.? Pla.^s Chenk ing antl Inspections 4.?.1 Start-up fee for commercial, industrial or multi- family dwelling Units (paSd prior to TAC).........E 75.00 4.1.2 Plan review: building and/or system(s) inspection A. Single family residential .....................E 120.00 B. Non-Residential development and multi-family Residential awe lling ..........................E 620.00 C. Interior and/or exterior building alteration..E 190.00 D. Naw Spric,kler Systems or over 10 head s........E 150.00 Ten heads or less (alteration only)....... ... .E 85.00 E. Fixed fire-extinguishing systems (i.e. carbon d ioxitle, potassium bicarbonate, halon, etc.)..E 135.00 /d' I -14- F. Fire Alarm Systems .... .... ................ ... .$ 140.00 C. The charge for any revision of a Dreviously approved plan or a change request (Porm FSD-2) for any of the aDOVe, shall be $85.00 per hour Cor the estlma ted time spent in. review but not less than 25f of the original Pee. N. Failure to keep consultation or field inspection appointment without notification (one hour minimum) .......... .... ....................................E 60.00 I. Division consultation fees not otherwise stated (except phone consults tions) (one hour minimum)...........$ 125.00 J. Pire flow teat lone hour) .....................5 vu .uV K. Consultant plan check Pee shall be paid by the developerlcontractor or owner, and shall be paid prior to plan aPProval ................ .................... .$ 40.00 L. Field inspection requiring more than the initial inspection, plus one follow-up ................... .$ 100.00 M. Field inspection of self-inspection oocupane ies who have refused to eenduct their own inspection......$ 54.00 N. Underground Tanks 1. Original application/plan check/tank inspection ...........................................$ 135.00 2. Tank removal .............. .................$ 115.00 3. Inspection(s) resulting from leaks of unauthorized discharge ............. .....................$ 60.00 0. Hazardous chemicals: application/plan check/inspection (storage, hantl ling or use as a solid, liquid or gas, other than underground tanks) 1. 55 gallons corrosive liquid ................$ 80.G0 2. 500 pounds oxidizing material ..............$ 80.00 3. 10 pounds organic or inorganic peroxides.. .$ 90.00 4. 500 pounds nitromethane ... ......... ........$ 90.00 5. 1,000 pounds ammonia nitrate or fertilizer mixture (any amount of highly toxic material, py rophoric, hypergolic, cryogenic material, poisonous gas or radioactive material) ..... .. ...............$ 90.00 6. Any reactive, unstable or other hazardous material not herein classified (extent or hazard and allowable amount to be stored to be determined by the Fire Marsha l)............$ 125.00 ~~ -15- P. Explosives and blasting agents: Application/plan check/inspection 1. Manufacture, possess, store or sell. .......E 95.00 2. To use explosives or blasting agents .. .....E 140.OC Q. Fumigation and thermal insecticidal fogging when toxic flammable tLmigant is used: application/plan check/ inspection ................... .................... .$ 110.00 Section 4.2 Permit Fees 1. Permits (single issuance or as otherwise noted) A. General Uae Permit shall he required for any activity or operation not specifically described below, which in the ,{udgment of the Fire Chief is likely to produce conditions hazardous to life or property. (UFC 4.101) ...............................................E 7s.oo B, storage of readily combustile material (UFC 17.203) ........... ....................................E 105.00 C. Places of Assembly (except churches and schools) (UFC 25.101) 1. A-3, 50-299 without stage ..................E 85.00 2. A-2.1, 300 or more without stage.... .......E 135.00 3• A-2, 999 or less with stage ............... .E 155.00 4. A-1, 1000 or more with stage ..... ......... .E 205.00 D. Bowling alley and pin refinishing (UFC 26.102).$ 75.00 E. Cellulose nitrate plastic (Pyroxylin) (UFC 27.107) ...............................................E 75.00 F. Combustible fibers storage and handling exceeding 100 cubic feet (UFC 28.102) .... .. ..................E 75.00 G. Garages Motor vehicle repair (H-4) (UFC 29.1029........E 75.00 H. Lumber yards (over 100,000 board feet) (UFC 30.101) ......... .. ... .. ...............................E 75.00 I. Tire rebuilding plants (UFC 31.102 .............E 120.00 J. Auto wrecking yards ............................E 75.00 Junk or waste material handling plants (UFC 34.102) K. Flammable finishes .............................E 75.00 :.praying or dipping operations, spray booths, dip tanks, electrostatic apparatus, automobile undercoating, powtler coating and organic peroxides and dual component (~~ -16- coatings (UFC 45.702) (per spray booth) L. Hagneslum (more than 10 pounds per day) (UFC 48.702) .......................... .. ........... ..... .. .$ 115.00 M. 011 burning equipment operations (UPC 61.102)..$ 75.C0 N. Ovens (industrial baking and drying) (UFC 62.102) ............................... .... .... ........$ T5.00 0. Mechanical re Prigeration (over 20 pounds of refrigerant) (UFC 63.101) .............................. .....$ 105.00 P. Compressed gases (store, handle or us exceeding 100 cuo>.c t'ee C1 lUe'C ';4.103) 1. non tlammab le over 100 cubic feet and up to 5,999 cubic feet ............................ .....$ 110.00 2. non flammable 6,000 to 12,000 cubic Peet...$ 130.00 3. non-flammable over 12,000 cubic Peet.......$ 195.00 4. flammable over 100 cubic feet and up to 1,999 cubic feet ...........................E 75.00 5. flammable 2,000 to 6,000 cubic feet........$ 125.00 6. tlammab le over 6,000 cubic feet............$ 125.00 0. Cryogenle fluids (storege, handling or use) (UFC 75.703) ...................................E 75.00 A. Dust-producing processes and equipment (UFC 75.103) ........................................ .... ...$ 80.00 5. FlammaD le and combustible liquids (storage or handling or use) (UPC T9.103) 1. auto fueling ata tion (H-i ) .................$ 90.00 2. inside storage, less than 60 gallons..... ..$ 80.00 3. inside storage, more than fi0 gallons.......$ 715 .OD 4. outside storage, more than 5000 gallons (UFC.79.402) ........... .. ..................5 115.00 T. High piled ccaIDustib le stock (UFC 81-103)......$ 90.00 U. Liquified petroleum gas (store, handle, transport or use more than 120 gallons) (UFC 82.102)....$ 75.00 V. Matches (more than 60 Matchman's gross) (UFC 83.701) ...............................................E 75.00 W. Neld ing and cutting operations to conduct welding and/or cutting operations in any occupancy (UFC 49.101) ........................................ ..... ..$ 75.00 /d _77_ X. Alarm company permits (to install units rithin Fire District) annual permit ........... ... ..........= 95.00 II. Special Services A. Board oP appeals fee (to file an appeal and requiring a spec lal meeting) ...............................E 225.00 H. Excessive or ma lic.ious false alarms causing response of fire apparatus 1. Code 3 response due to "failure to notify" fire department Then working on or testing sprinkler or lira alarm system =140.00 par hour per piece emergency epparaWa reapondiog 1!2 hour oini^ora 2. Trouble alarm Code 2 response due to failure to notify fire department when rocking on or testing system E70.00 per hour per piece of eaprgency apparatus reapondiog 1/2 hour a1aLU~ 3. Malicious false alarms 4140.00 per hour per piece of eYargeacy apparatus respoadiug rith 1/2 hour aLLni~i 4. Alarm system mal Nnction resulting in Emergency Code 3 response 1140.00 per hour per piece of e~ergemp apparatus reapondiag to all false alarms da ezceaa of 2 false alarav is 30 days rith 1/2 hoar .inie.s 5. Alarm systems ma lfLnetion resulting in a trouble alarm Code 2 response =70.00 per hour per piece of e~ergeaey apparaWa reapmding to all trouble alarm9 Yo ezcesa of 2 is 30 Jaya rith 7/2 hour ainiam 6. Code 3 response to false alarms due to negligence, tampering with system construction or modification of building =140.00 per hour per piece of ererge~y apparatus reapondlag rich 7/2 hoar rin1~ ~~~ -18- C. Response to mitigate extended hazardous chemical and material incidents beyond normal service request (this includes response to railroad properties, freeways, and aircraft crashes) 1. Hazardous incident, per hour x235 par hour per piece of apparatus 2. Company Response x95-00 per hour per piece of equipment 3. Squad Response x75.00 per hour 9. Company with Battalion Chief x10.00 per hour 5. Hazardous materials or mayor transportation i.nc ident response due to nag llgence x150.00 per hour per piece of equipment 6. Response to mitigate mayor transportation incidents (may include but not 6e limited to ,jetliner crash, railroad derailment or collision, or major freeway collision with extraordinary circumstances) x150.00 per hour per piece of apparatus D. Special Activities -- One time events (combination of plan check, fire permit, Pield inspection. These events may need the services, at permittees expense, of one or more standby flre~n). i. Fireworks--public display (OFC Article 7R) x75.00 plus x1A0.00 per hour per piece of apparatus 2. Specialty public displays and/or sales (i.e. Christmas tree lots, pumpkin sale lots)....x 85.00 3. Conducticg any blasting operation (for each four hour period or fraction thereof) x100 plus x1A0.00 per hour per piece of apparatus 4. Spec Sal events (public assembly, stage productions, ezhib its, previewing stands, grandstands and bleachers, trade 9hOw9, concerts, banquets, etc., other than tents and air supported structures) /~ _1g. a. Less than 30,000 square feet at an occupant load of 2,000, whichever is more restrictive ................... .. ................ .$ 125.00' b. 3,000 square feet or more, but less than 60,000 square Peet or an occupant load of more than 2,000 but less than 4,000, whichever is more restrle Live..... .. ...E 165.00 c. 60,000 square Peet or more, but less than 90,000 square feet or an occupant load of more than 4.000 but less tnsn F;nnn whichever Ss more restrle Live....... ...E 200.00 d. 90,000 square feet or more with an occupant load of 6,000 or more, whlehever is more restrictive ............................E 235.00 5. Tents and air-supported structures (UFC Article 32) a. Less than 400 square feet ......... .........E 75.00 b. 401 to 1500 sq. Pt ................ .........$ iD0.00 o. 1501 to 15,000 sq. ft ......................E 130.00 d. 15,001 to 30,000 sq. ft . .. .................E 160.C0 a. over 30,000 sq. Pt ....................... ..$ 190.00 MAXIMUM AATES FOB ABOYg Wher. two or more of the same or different clessi Pication(s) that require(s) a permit, and are located or installed at the same premise, a multiple purpose permit may be obtained. The fee for this permit shall be 100f of the largest permit item plus 50$ of the next largest permit item plus 25S of each additional item, not to exceed a maximum of E2500.00. Section 5.0 Planning Fees 5.1 Applications Those charged as a base fee, plus a per unit or per acre amount, with a maximum act at 3X base tee. Application Base Fee Per Unit Fee Maximum Fee Tentative Tract Map $2,987 $60.00 per d~u $8,961.00 Cond Ltional Use Permit $2,921 $292.00 per acre Ee ,T 63.00 /~ -20- Dev/Des Aeview ftes $2,851 $57.00 per d/u $8,553.00 (5 or more) Dev/Des Aeview - Comm/ ~ Industrial $2,851 $285.00 per acre $8,553.00 Initial Study $225 $22.00 per acre $ 675.00 General Plan Amendment $2,866 $287.00 per acre $8,598.00 Spec /COmm Plan Amend.• $2,866 $287.00 per acre $8,598.00 Dev Distr Amendment* $2.866 E2A7.nn n o- ~..ne kg Cng nn •should be charged at half rate if filed in cor.~unetion with a General Plan Amendment. 5.2 Applications Those charged on a time-and-materials basi s with a deposit taken up front. Applioation Deposit Amount EIR Review - Sensitive $2,000.00 Development Agreement Review $2,000.00 Mitigation Plan - Complex $2,000.00 Annexation $2,000.00 Deve lopcent Agreement $2 ,^ ,..00 New Specific/Community Plan $5,000.00 EIR Preparation $5,000.00 5.3 Other Application Fees Application Non-Construction CUP $ 435.00 uniform sign Program $ 580.00 Minor Exception $ 170.00 Dev/Design Aev iew: 4 du's or less $1,027.00 Variance $ 871.00 Variance: 4 du's or less $ 291.00 /fig _21_ Uae Determination $ 315.00 Preliminary Aeview $ 325.00 Minor Development Review $ 29b.00 Time Eztension $ 549.00 Minor Time Extension $ 136.00 Sign Permit $ 51.00 Hillside Develooment Review 5 or more du's $1 ,462.00 Hillside Oevelapment Aeview 4 or less du's $ 244.00 Temporary Use Permit $ 68.00 Temporary Use Model Home $ 219.00 EIA Aevlew Only $2 ,370.00 Landmark Application $ 728.00 Residential and Small Business No Charge Landmark Alteration $ 835.00 Residential antl Small Business No Charge Mills Ac*. Application $ 724.00 Residential and Small Business No Charge Mitigation Plan (Simple) $ 719.00 Mitigation Plan (Complex) See 5.2 5.5 - Appeal Fees Appeal of a City Planner Decision $ 62.00 Appeal of a Planning Commission Deoisicn $ 126.00 Appeal of a Tract Map $ 251.00 5.6 - Other Fees Entertainment Permit $ 571.00 Home Occupation Permit $ 53.00 Status Map Application ~-. $ 15.00 a~ _pp_ Tree Removal/New Development S 432.00 Tree Removal/ExSsting Development ~ 72.00 ~ NOTE: Planning Division fees Por documents, which are individually priced, are conta lned in the Document Price LSst Section 6.0 - Recreation Fees These Tees are located in a separate document Section 7.0 - Rancho CucamonlSa Sheriff' Department Fees Description Fee Fingerprinting S 10.00 Criminal Reports E 70.00 Traffic Accident Reports $ 10.00 Traffic Accident Reports - Mail S 70.00 Criminal History S 10.00 Bicycle License E 3.00 Incident Print-Out $ 0.25 Special Event Jobs No Charge Public Information Clerk - Hourly E 12.04 Sheriff Specialist - Hourly E 14.62 Records Clerk - Hourly E 14.62 Lieutenant - Hourly E 39.08 Secretary - Hourly >' 16.15 Deputy - Hourly S 26.92 Section 8.0 - Miscellaneous Fees Home Park Rent Mediation -Filing Fee S 75.00 Home Park Rent Mediation -Appeal Fee E 300.00 / ~ 0 -23- Industrial Bond Development Bond Applination A tee of 1/4 of 1} of the established maximum amount of the proposed bond application end not leas than $1r250.00 ~ Calculation for 1915 Bond Ant Assessment Districts .................... ........................ S 7.50 Amendment to taz statements for prepaid assessments .................... ....... ................. E 20.00 Dog Licensing See Resolution 81-79 Bingo Lioense S 50.00 Filming Permits See Resolution 90-049 Business License Tax See Resolution 90-049 Sohool Fees - Please refer to Ordinance Nos. 69-C and 74 regarding these fees. In accordance xith Government Code Section 66017, the fees adopted by this resolution x111 become effective in 60 days, on September 16, 1991. c. Effective Date: This Resolution shall become effective xith its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 17th day of .1uly, 1991. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Dennis L. Stout, Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, City Clerk l3 J _Zp I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the CSty of Rancho Cucamonga, Ca1lPOrnia, do hereby certiry that the foregoing Aeaolution uas duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Aancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular maeti.ng of saSd City Council held on the 17th day oC July, 1991. Executed this 1E th day of July, 1991 at Rancho Cucamonga, Cali POrnia. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk r 32- - :'1'1'Y :::~ PAIVnnn .. ' ~.. ni v1. l.AlY1lJ1V l.A STAFF REPORT DATE: luly 17, 1991 "PD: Mayor, Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Jim Hart, Administrative Services Director ~~ ': .'%-.:.. Cvivirunn„itViv ur AllUYI'INIi A COMPREHENSIVE FEE RESOLUTION FOR PERMITS AND USER FEES FOR PROVIDED SERVICES The Ci[y Council adopt the attached resolution implementing permit and user fees for fiscal year 1991/92. The City retained the services of David M. Griffith and Associates to conduct a user fee and cost allocation study. The purpose of the user fee and cost allocation study was to ensure that the City was recovering its cults in areas where it was appropriate and not subsidizing specialized publics with the City's general fund dollars. The study was presented to the City Council and a public workshop was held on April 11, 1991. At the conclusion of the public workshop, staff was directed to prepare a comprehensive fee resolution which incorporated [he recommendations from the study. Additionally, staff was requested to provide information regarding the impact of [he new fees on a development project, to further review fees that related to recreational programs and to develop costs [hat relate to City commissions. The scenario regarding [he impact of [he new fees on development was forwarded to the City Council in June 1991, and staff has been meeting with representatives of the City Council and Parks attd Recreations Commission to review the fees. The consultant is currently working with staff to develop the costs of the commissions. That information will be forwarded once it has been completed. D7 COMPREHENSIVE FEE RESOLUTION July 17, 1991 Page 2 The resolution presented for adoption incorporates all fee recommendations except recreation. Since these fees are still under consideration, they will be presented at a later date as an amendment to this resolution. otaii uas notated members of the Building Industry Association and specific developers who have indicated interest in the new fees (Lewis Homes and William Lyon Company), that this resolution is being presented to you for adoption. Upon adoption of the resolution, the fees will become effective after 60 days, pursuant eo the Government Code Sections 66016-17. Respectfully~/s/ub~~m~i tted~ ~~~ Jim Hart Administrative Services Director 7H%dah attachment /0~ \ y ` V CIIV I~{\ nilT{) Vl' 11R1V CI1^/ Clll .(}1 S STAFF REPORT DATE: Ju 1y 17, 1991 T0: Mayor and Memhers of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, Clty Planner 0Y: Vince Bertoni, A881atant Planner SUBJECTe ~"NVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-02B - GROUP 66 PARTNERSHIP - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential fe-1d dwelling unite per acre) to Commercial for 10.39 acres of land located on the north side of Poothill Boulevard east of Etiwanda Avenue. The City Council will also consider Low Medium Residential (4-3 dwelling unite per acre) and Office ae alternative land use deelgnations. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Co®ercial 3esignation and issuance of a Negative Declaration - APN: 1100-1612-0 d. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ANO PIXYIHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03 - GROUP 66 PARTNERSHIP - A request to amend the Poothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Use Map in Subarea 4 From Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Community Co®ercial Eor 10.39 acres of lend located on the north aide of Foothill Boulevard, east of Etiwanda Avenue. The City Council will also consider Low Medium Residential (d-8 dwelling units per ac[e ), Commercial Office, and Specialty Co®ercial as alternative land use designations. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Community Co®ercial deli gnation and issuance of a Negative Declaration - APN: 1100-161-04. RBCOI!®DA?IGS The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve General P Lan Amendment 90-028 and Poothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 90- 03, amending the land use designation from Medium Residential (e-14 dwelling unite per acre) to Commercial (Community Commercial in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan) through the adoption of the attached Resolutions. Pu rther, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council issue a Negative Declaration Eor the applications. /33 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT .+.~ ~ - - -PA 9D-u3 - ckuu"r tie .IUlY 17,L1991Pa Page 2 eACEGwaRn a AaaLFSxs At its May 22r 1991 meeti.ngr the Planning Commission reviewed the subject applications and made the recommendation descrl6ed above. In arriving at theiz recommendation, the Planning Commi scion considered the following issues: 1. A traffic report was submitted by the applicant and was reviewed and accepted ae complete by the Traffic Divls ion. This report indicated that although a commercial land use ceeignac>on would create an increase in traffic, it would not have a significant traffic impact on the planned roadway network. 2. Because of the potential advexse noise end visual impacts from the anticipated traffic vo lames nn Foothill Houlevezd, it was the Planning Ccarmlsalon's opinion that reaideniial uses on the subject property would not be appropriate. 3. The economic study prepared for the City by a consultant indicated that there is a need for additional commercial uses in the immediate area and the Planning Commission concluded that the subject property would be an appropriate location because of its proximity to existing commercial uses. For further analysis and additional information, please refer to the attached Planning Commission Staff Report and minutes of May 22, 1991. PACTS FOR PINDINGH Based upon the conclu aions listed in the attached Planning Commission Resolutions No. 91-50 6 No. 91-51, it is the Flanninq Commission's opinion that the City Council could make the following findinga regarding these applications: 1. The subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed General Flan and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan land use designations and is compatible with existing and aurroun ding land use designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the west and a portion of the south by commercial land use designations. 2. The proposed amendments would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findi nga and conclusions listed in Part I and II of the Initial Studies. 3. The proposed amendments are in conformance with the General Plan, Development Code, and FooChi ll Boulevard Specific Plan. /"~' CITY COUNCSL STAPF REPORT July 17, 1991 page 3 ODRR66POND6IW:6 These items have been advertised as public Dam Bulletin newspaper, the properly has large notice signs, and notices have been within 300 feet of the project site and to expanded notification area. ReapectfL.hy submitS.ed, ~ ~~~~ c Brad er City la ~~er BB:VB/jfs hearings in the Inland Valley been posted with supplemental sent to all property owners all property Damara withi r. an Attachments: Planning Commission Staff Report of May 22, 1991 Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 1991 Planning Commlaeion Re so lotions No. 91-50 a No. 91-51 GPA 90-02B Reao lotion of Approval FBPA 90-03 Aeaolution of Approval /35 CTTY 7F RANCHO CCCA~IOVGA STAFF REPORT OA:E: MaY 22, 1991 ~; Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner BY: Vince Ber[oni, Assistant Planner acwwrm eNn rRNP.YaL pLAN ANEN01lQNT 90-02H ~V~nyl• --GAOUPY 66 "PARTNCHSSIP - A requemt to emend the Land Uae element Map of the General Plen Liam Medium Residential (e-14 dwelling mite per acre) to Commercial for 70.99 acres of land located on the north side of Pooihill Boulevard east of Etirenda Avenue. The Planning Commission rill aUo eondder Lov Medium Residential (4-B dwelling units per acre) and Otfiw as alternative designations - APN: 1100-161-04. Staft veto®ande issuance of a Nagatlve Declaration. BNVIRONMENTAL ASBESSMENT AND y00TBIi,L HOULEPARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMRNT 90-OI - GROOP 66 PARTNERSEIP - A request m amend the Foothill Boulevard Bpecific Plen land Use Mnp in Subarea 4 from Medium lbsideniial (8-ld dwelling unite per acre) to Commity Comrsrcial for 10.89 acres of ).and Located on the north elda o! Pooihill Boulevard east of Etivanda Avenue. The Planning Comleaion w111 also consider Low Medium Residential ({-B dvsl ling mite per acre), Co®ereial Uf tics, and Specialty Comarci al ae al tarnati•ra 3Cai gnationa - APNi 1100-161-04. PROJECT AND SITB DESCRIPTION: A. Action Aaqusstsd: Approval of a General Plan Amendment and a Specific Plan Amendment and iesuanca of a Negative Declaration. B. Surroundln9 Lend Uu and Zoning: North - Vacant, Mediun Aesldsntial "M" 1e-14 dwllinq unite per acre) in the etivanda Specific Plan Scuth - Foothill Boulevard and arlmting single family dwellings, Lor Residential "L" (2-4 dvs111ng colts per acre) in the Etiwsnda Specific Plan Ease - Vacant, Medium Assidsntiel "M• (e-14 drellinq miu par acre) in the Foothill 0oulsvud Specific Plan west - Existing nee-conforming ma[ket~ Medium Maidentinl "M" (8-14 duelling mica pet acre) in the Foothill Houlevaca Specitlc Plan PLANNING COMMISSION 51'xFF REPORT CPA 90-020 6 FBSPA 90-03 - GROUP 65 PAATNERSR IP rieY - ~av~ Pa qe~2 C. General Plan Do9lgn ati ons: project Sita - Medium Residenilal (8-14 dwelling unite per acre) North - Medium Ae9lden ti al (8-14 dwelling unite per acre) South - Special Boulevard and tow Reeid en tl al (2-4 dwelling units per acrel East - Med lum Rea id ant Lnl IB-14 dwelling unite per acre) West - Medium Re sides ti nl (8-14 dwelling unite per acre) D. Site Cheracteriatica: The Bite ie vacant rith no ai gn iEicant II. LAND USE ANALYSI B: A. Background: The project Bits ru lneludal in the Etlranda Specific Plan area until the Pooth111 Boulevard Speci[ic Plan was adopted in 5987. The Specific Plan raa the result of many months of etlort involving local residents, the buainees community, City ofticiala, and community lealere. In determining land uw designetione for the Foothill Boulevard Sperl flc Plan, the City had the benatit of the "Baeellne Econamlc analytic - Pooth111 Boulevard COlr idol, July 19F,6• study from which to determine the appropriate levels of commercial development within the co®unity. From the Bee el ins Economic analysis, it vas determined that while she City d1d not have enough eo®erclal development to meet the scale of the community, the city had a surplus of co®ercially aoned land along Foothill Boulevard and the City as a xF.ola. An application requeatinq the same change Sn land use deai gnatim rae submittal to the Planning Division by Planning Netrork (fiPA 91-0 tA) for the property conalsting of 2 acres of land on the northeast corner o[ Foothill Boulevard and Etiwmdt Avenue. e. Proposed Cajun ity Co®arcial "CC" Land Uae Demignation: Economic Malycic: in order to evaluate the mal and visb111ty o[ additional cam•erclally zonal land on the subject properties, staLC requsstal an economic analysis and market ^tudy. Thm applicant agreal to the requiramenCS. The study ras conducted jolnlly with the application submittal by Planning Nstrork and sxminal the feaalbility of cos•erelal land desLgnatione for each o[ the individual propcrtlct and for both properties and the alj oininq parcels (see BKhibit "C"). /3 7 PLANK L:IG COMMISSION E't nFF REPORT GPA 90-028 a FeHPA 90-O1 - GROUP 65 PARTNERSHIP a'y' v, Pa qe~3 The study includes a Land supply an al ya is which examines the prevent adequacy o£ commercial land supply and its future adequacy under various growth acenarioe and also examinee commercial land use data from nearby citLes and comperes the information to al locatims Eot Rancho Cucamonga. The study oleo contains a Excused market analysis which reviews planned land uaea in the area and evaluates the ueea age in e! population growth acenarioa and basic commercial demand forecaata. The study indicates Chat there ie a need for approximately Y.e ae rat aL Lana aesl tFlnem tar nelg(IDarnam rece11 services and that the northeast corner o[ Poothill eoulwatd and Btiwenda Avenue Ls en appropriate nits for that designation. The study al eo ind ieeled Ehat the area could support additions) land designated far of[ics and addition el co®ercial uses although no acreage amount was datarmin ed. 2. Traffic Analyeicl A traffic study was prepared by a consul Cant as requested by ataEt• The traffic study indicated that no sign lticent traffic impacts would occur it the land use Se changed tram Medium Fesidential to commercial use. 3. General Plan and Speci tic Plan Conformanee_: Staff reviewed the proposed land use Co determine ifany of the proposed land usm deeignationa would con flirt with the goals and policies o[ the General Plan and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Staff hoe determined that no conflicts rould occur. 6. Lad Use Wlationahips: Tha subject property ,fronts along a major arterial, Fooihlll Boulevard, which Ss typically appropriate for co®ercial usaa• The tract of single family homes to the south of the eubj act property is currently bordered an the west by Region el Belated Cooercial designations, to the south by an existing apartment complex, and to the east by a utility corridor. 0. Consideration of Altarnatiw Designations: To provide the Cos~issian with alternatives to the existing and proposed dsslgnatlons, staff has included en analysis of categories similar in character to those under discussion. In addition, becawe of tM City's initiated Gensul Plan Amendments to reduce the number of multiple fss~ily housing units, staff has included the option of Low Medium Aatidenelal. sGtf examined the following land use categories: [~ V PLANNING COfAN IS5I0N STnE'F REPORT GPA 90-02B 6 FBSPA 90-07 - GROUP 6r PAATNERSHiP Nav 22, i99i Page 4 1. Specialty Commercial "SC": Spe<i al ty Comneretal Land Uao Di stri<ta are designed to accommodate uses which promote a special lnndmark quality or create an ambience which is unique to the subarea (Foothill Boulevard Specif Se Plan Section 6.3.1.1(. Thaee ueee ar• much mote limited than those that are al loved under a Community Commercial designation and are typically Lelia inten ne. 2. Commercial Office "CO": Commercial Office land ueee consist of aetivitiee which cater !o bueineae support and pezeonal cervices. Us ea typically include medical and health care clinics, travel aaaneiaa. ineurancw cow,.": w.. copy canters, end other like land was (Foothill Boulevard Speci [ic Plan eaction 6.3.].2). Again, those uses are much more lSmltad than those the! era allowed under a Community Commercial designation and ate typically lace intense. Low Medium Reaidantial ^LN^: Low Medium Weldential land ueee are typically characterized by rasidamtlal product types which include patio hamu and duplex, tri-plea, and four-plex antra with a density of 6-S drslling wits pas acre (Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan eaciSon 6.3.7.2). Lov Medium Reaidantial ceuld W cam aidered for the subject property if the planning Cammiemion chooses to recommend Low NMSum Residential for the properties in the 6tivanda Spa cific Plan to the north of the aubj act property. The Lor Medium Residanilal lend use could M Lesa in tensn then the existing Medium Residential and also lean intense than the eomercial dasl gnations: therefore. staff does not anticipate any ai gnificent traffic impecte. Any adverse impacts that the Foothill Boulevard arterial could haw on Lutura raaidancu could ba mitigated 'by buffering and noise attanuatloo calls. D. CONCLUSIONS: t. The azisting Medium Rasldential Mmignatian hoe no in harant problems in •tstt's opinion and would be an appropriate Land eua. The City's desire to increase she ratio of aingL family dwell inq unlu to multiple family dwlling units, horawr, could not make thlo the most appropriate designation. The Lou Ned ium Raeidential duignation would continue the single tinily reaidantial development Sf the percale to the north in the Etirenda Spcltic Dlan eta also zedesi gneted to Lor Medium Residential. In addlilan, Lor Medium vould also promote the City's goal of inc ceasing the ratio of single family drslling uni to io multiple family duelling unite at the City's build out date. /.~9 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPGRT GPA 90-02B 6 FBS PA 90-U1 - GpAUP 6A PARTNERSNLP May 22, 1991 wage 5 7. The Community Commercial designation could provide c on iin airy with the eastward expansion of co®erci al development Lrom the Ontario (I-15) eFreeway to the City's gateway entrance from Pontma. Thi9 development vould occur in an area already planned for commercial expansion ae part of the Victoria Gardens Region el Mall and the Foothill eoulevard Specific Plan. 4. while Co®ercial Offiea uses may be a viable alternative, staff believes thin site might ba too large, at nearly 11 __- _ •.. ....~+•. nF fi ne davelnpment in this area. Office was as a part of a retail can Gr might be more appropriate. 5. Tha Specialty Commercial designation is intended to promote spacial landmark gwliiies of a property, but [hare arm none on the eubjact eiG. Therefore, 1t Ss staff's opinion that specialty Co_arelal is not the most appropriate land we designation. 6. Upon revier of pueible land use duignatlone, etatC has determined two pouibla courses of action Eor the Planning Co®SSaion with rhich to procamd: e. Commwity Co®arci al: If the Commission believes That Co®unity Co®arcial uwa are moat appropriate, then a racomendatioo should be made to the Clty Council to change the land we designation for the subject property from Mediae Residential to Community Comercial. It is staft'e opinion that the tolloring facia for Lirdinga can be lade: 1) The eubjact property ie suitable Eor the uses permitted in the proposed Cenersl Plan and Poothlll Boulevard Specific Plan land use desigrtatione sad is compatible rich existing and surrounding land we dwlgnatione as evidenced by the eiu'e being bordered on Che rest and a portion o[ the south W coemercial land ume deelgnatlow. 21 TM proposed amendment will not have aiq:iLicmt impacts an the environment nor an the surrounding properties u evidenced by the findings and eanclueions listed 1n parse I a II oL the Initial Environmental Studies of this application. /~D PLANNING COMN LE BION 51AFF REPO RT GPA 90-028 6 FBSPA 90-03 - GROUP fi~ PARTNERSHIP Nwy J2; 1991 Page 6 3) The proposed amendment does not exhibit any conflicts with !hs provia ions of the General Plan and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. b. Low Medium Residential: If the coomiesion bel laves that Iau Medium Residential once are moat appropriate, then a recommendation should be made to the City Council to change the land use designation far the subj ncY property Fran Medium Residential to Lou Medium itesidantial. It is eteff'• opinion that cns ieiiewang iacu wr unmangs can oe macs: 1) The subject property is sultabl• for the uses permitted in the proposed General Plen and Foothill Boulevard epeci[ic Plan land uss desi gnatlon and is canpatibU with existing and surrowding land use desi9nation• as avideacad by the site's being Mrdarad an the north by residential desi:pxatLms. 2) The proposed amrndasnt will not have significant impacts an the aovironmant nor on the surrounding properties ea evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Puts I 6 Z! o[ the Initial ~vironmantal Studies of this application and of General plan Amendment 91-028. 3) Tha proposed amendment doe• not exhibit any conflicts with the provisions of the General Plan and the Foothill Bnulevud Specific Plan. LII. IIiVIRONNENTAL A6665SMSNT: Staff has reviewed Part I of tF.e Initial Study and completed Put II aM has tound no sign itieant ndvane environa~ntal impacts that will occur ae a result of a change of land uss for Nedium 14sidantlal to Coealun Sty Commercial, Bpacialiy Coaereial, Co®nrclal Dftica, or inw Medium Residential. IV. CORRSBPONDENCB: Theca items Nava bean advertised as s public hearing Sn tM Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has Man posted with a large notification sign, and not ice^ wars aunt to all property owners within 300 feat of the project Bite. /I/ PLANN ZYG COMH iSSION STAFF REPORT GPA 90-02B 6 F^B PA 90-07 - GROUP L5 PARTNERSHIP May 22; 1991 Page V. RECOMMENDATION: Statf recommends that the Planning Commission recommend ihnt the existing Medium Reeidan ti al land use designation (8-10 duelling unite per acre) 6a changtl to either l.ow-Medium Residential (4-8 duelling units per sera) or Community Commercial through the adoption of the appropriate attached Reeolution9- Rea peer EU lly submitted, O~ ~~ .7"'" t Y City Planner BB:VB:m1g Attachments: Exhibit "A" Bxhibit "B Exhibit 'C Resolution Resolution Resolutiop Reeol ution - General Plan and 9pecitic Location Map - Appllcanc's Juetitication - 6tudy Aras Alternatives Los GPA 90-028 to Ca®ereial Cot PSPA 90-03 to Cosunity for GPA 90-028 to Lou Mtlium For FSPA 90-03 to Low Medium Plan Amendment Letter Cooercial 74e iden tial Residential I~ r' i~.ni A.: VL L _ ~ LI ~ .• ,~ Yi l ~ L ~ .~-{ ~ ~ LM ~ ~ ~ %. ~~-3 ~ AJ~\ / ~~, I ~ ETIYANDA AAEA CENFAAL PLAN AYFNDYfMTS lM lM ® MDIEAT[5 CWAfNili DANI OESIDMATED Y F ~ ~ TAICM~ A ~ M U ~ t ACAE INI I MI M t M l EDE f ry, NtEAA1NNl O A SIDNAiIO CON i0 lOt Y[DMI AESNNNIIAL lMD DtELLtK IINIiS IEA ACAEJ 011 ~9 L ~t ~~~ ~ tom ` ~ ^~ ~ / r.Nra o IV! ® wrN ~ LM GPA 9S •OtA (FSPA 9' gagwac to change lard w iM desgnaticn from IAWium RasWaotial to Commarcid , ~ Caam. h~ ~ Comm.,', ..~`i.. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLA.~'~'ING DIVISION /~3 GPA 90-028 (FSPA 90-03 Raqunt to chanpa iM land wa daagnaticn Erom AAadium pggamial to Commercial LM ?Y EXHIBIT' 'A' SCALE: >~~. 1 i~ ~ April 29, 1991 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91)30 _,ti~ APR ;i 0 ~ 7(8l9(lOlll1121112131 ~151~ RE: Amendment to the General Plan and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan -- GPA 90.02B, 91.OIA and SPA 90-0}, 91.01 W< request that you consider the described ten (10) acre Dsrcel on Foothill Boulevard for a General Plan and SDCCiCic Plan Amendment. The parcel is currently designated far residential uses. We believe uus such as commercial, Drofessional or en[CRaln111enr woulU 4e alYCir uwm •yy.yy.uw :,, uua ,o....,.,.. This statement of justification addresus thou aspects of the amepdments outlined in your letter dated Augwt I5, 1990, specifically: 1) Tangible benefits to the City 2) The need for additional Commercial 3) The viability of Medium Residential 4) Land use conflicts with present zoning The justification for the amendments pertaining to tech of chest elements are as follows. 1.0 Benefits to the City 1.1 The economic report states'In the short run the needs of the basic retail goods go unserved in the eastern trade area' A commercial center on [he parcel in question would urve these needs, both in the interim and long term. 1.2 "fhe use of the property for commercial type uses will provide morn positive economic consequences to the City. According t0 the report, 'Currently ezistin{ «tail urviee 6uainesus fall short of that (current supportable commercial acreage) causing continued net outflows of consumer dollars in elect categories.' A commercial retail project would seise in recaDturiog otherwise lost «venues. The center could also capture revenues from those commuting between Interstate IS and communitita to the east. 1.3 The proposed zoning would enhance the commercial character of Foothill Boulevard. The site is currently designated within the Specific Plan as part of the'ACtivi[y Center' at the interuetion of Etiwanda and Foothill. The concept uema to desire lapd uxs which create a character which portrays a regional commercial oriented image.' Tht subject Dsrcel is in a strategic location, with large frontage on Foothill Boulevard. This orientation could significantly contribute to the delivery of this area as an activity center. 0%90C:.c Cer;e, 0,we•Su~.te X00-oancr~~~.orga CA 9t %70. 7mi c GPA 90.029 EsMCit 'B' .9692272 • AX •^ ,: a: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department April 29, 1991 Page 2 1.4 A commercial Droject would add to the opportunities to improve the area as an attractive upgrade for the City, Residential uses will need a barrier to the road thus interrupting the commercial character and activity along Foothill. LS The parcel is in the midst of ocher "Regiood'snd 'Community' commercial apnea A ehanae rn this nneel will hrina it into line with adjacent uses and unify the area, - 1.6 The Droject would Drovide additional acreage for commercial uses related to the regional mall. The economic report indicates that land for such related uses is currently insufficient. 1.7 A rezone of the property to commercial would respond to the City's current issue of reduciog the amount of land allocated Cor medium residential. Commercial uxs would provide ^ logical and workable alternative. 2.0 Demonstrated Nttd Cor Additional Commercial 2.1 The economic study indicates'Commercial uses account for a smaller percentage of Rancho Cucamonga's overall land uses than all but one surrounding community.' The report states, "All six of [he area's reCercnec cities have designated higher proportions of their land use for commercial functions than has the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Local differences are further heightened when one considers the meaning oC those acreage and proportionate figures at the CiNes'anticipated build-out levels. Rancho Cucamonga's commercial land xt-aside would imply 6.25 acres per thousand «siden[s at build-out, auuming a maximum city population of 153,000. That is leu than would bt found in any nearby jurisdiction, including throe with a lower forecast population and smaller employment base (namely Rialto and Upland). In fact Rancho's commercial allocation could be 33 percent below that of Fontana and 59 percent lower than Ontario at build-out.' This alone does nos justify additional acreage. However, the figures imDIY that there may be a discrepancy between allotted commercial acreage and that required. 2.2 The economic study points out that 'the City could support a slightly higher commercial land use box by the time the City attains its maximum population.' • Curren[ commercial build-out allocation is 1,214 acres. • A market sensitive allocation would be a minimum of 1,280 acres. ~~ City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department AGril 29, 1991 Page 3 2.3 Currently them is a need within the Drojec[ area for basic convenience re[ail goods which the economic study states goes unserved, 2.4 The report states the amount of land set aside for support commercial for the regional mall (i.e., restaurants, cntertsinment) may be low by ten (10) in rWfntV /2p1 aClCa. 2.5 The report assumes that all commercially zoned property will be developed as such. Traditionally, there are properties designated as commercial which may not be realistically suitable for development due to location, land configuration or other restrictions, resulting io a lesser amount of actual commercial development. Therefore the City should provide amble land zoned for commercial to account for other possible scenarios. 2.6 The City should take into account the greater rhos expected residential strength which the City has experienced. The report states'Duc to the strength of the housing actor population serving [Ae Foothill Corridor trade area has increased beyond projections (city) prepared five (5) years ago.• IF there is not sufficient commercial land, the Ci[y could experience a shortfall and thus lou additional revenue to adjacent communities. 2.7 The traffic study demonstrated that all currently proposed improvements on adjacent streets and intersections are adeQuate Por traffic generated by commercial urea on the site. 3.0 Medium Residential Viability 3.1 Recently the City has initiated action which would eliminate medium residential zoning within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. The City itself has determined that this land uu is not compatible with its City-wide obKctivea Therefore dixussions regarding the viabili[y of the zoning are less relevant than shoat involving the Dropoud alternate land uua. The generally applied residential land ux alternative could be low density residential, however this land use would in no way be compatible with the environment and intent of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 3.2 Due to the proposed Ci[y zone change, much of the adjacent property to the north may be developed with lower densities than currently allowed. A sensitively planned commercial center will provide an appropriate buffer between these low density neighborhoods and Foothill Blvd. 7`ts.! City ut Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department April 29, 1991 Page 4 3.3 The City has indicated that commercial uses will be considered as alternatives for thox properties located immediately adjacent to Foothill Blvd. For the reasons previously shred in support of commercia! and the obvious inapproDria[eness oC low density residential on Foothill Blvd., the only viable alternative to the existing Medium Residential is m provide commercial uses on the subject Dsoperty. 4.0 Land Use Conflicts wnh F,..,ca: 2'=e?r9 4.1 Foothill Blvd. is going to be • heavily traveled thoroughfare and this parcel will bt subject to many impacts not conducive to residential uses. The coatiauation of Cornwall Street with Foothill Blvd. Witt result is the project bring bordered on two sides by strtets; one a major arterial and the other connecting uvenl hundred homes to Foothill Blvd. The «sulting noise, pollution and traffic would adversely affect residents' health and safety. 4,2 Prexnt residential zoning is not in unity with the commercial character o[ the vicinity. The site will be located on a corner influenced by commercial activity of the regional mall, freeway oCC•ramp and re[ail facili[ies nwrby. Commercial uses will be in character with the thoroughfare orien[ation and eirculatioa. For these reasons and more, our request seems reasonable and appropriate The enclosed application summarizes the proposal. We are prepared to respond as you «quiro addi[ional information. We look forward to working with you on this opportunity, For the Group 66 Partnership, __ ~h George Theodorou FORMA Agent GPT:md (482/02) ~~~ Study Area ~ J~ ~~ ~ ~ --= ~ _.._._._ _.._.._.._.._..__ _._._:~ i I ~: 0 i loelti ~Nd Area 2 9I J ~ J -~,-. . Study Area 3 --; 3 ~ I ~,..JJ I ~ _ Ju~ Ares 4 #. J J' Ju r ~~l Ethvanda Plaza, Rancho Cu~amonpga ~LANNING NE7VI~ORK I O anti wa /..ar ula Study Area ALTERNATIVES EaM01t 'C' I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-028 - GROUP 66 PARTNERS NIP - A raquaat co amend the Laad '!se Fl amens Mao of <he eene raL Plan from Medium 0.u idential (8-10 dwelling unite per acre) <o Commercial for 10.89 acra• oC land located on the north eitle C! Fovchill Boulevard east vE Et iwanda Avenue. Tha Planning commie aion will also consider Low Medium Rae idant iel (4-8 dwelling units per acre) antl Office as alcernat Lva deeignat io n• - APN: 1100-161-04. Staff recammentla ieau anc¢ of a Neq at ive Declaration. J. ENVIRON N H OU V CI IC AN AMEN 90-03 - GROUP 66 PARTNERSHIP - A requaac tv amentl the Poothill sou lev and Specific Plan Land Uaa Map in Subarea 4 Ecom Medium Accident ial (8-16 tlwelling units par acra) to Community Commercial for 10.89 aeree of lantl ~.......n on the north olds of Foothill Bou Lavard uat of Et iwanda Avenue. Tha Planning Commie aion will also eonuaar row n .. :.-a :-_1 - tlwelling units par acra), Commercial O![Lee, and Specialty Commercial^as altarnat iva designations - APN: 1100-161-04. Staff reeommend• Lasuance of a Negat iva Dae serer ion. R. ENVIRONMENTAL AS SESSMHNT ANO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-OlA PLANNING N$TwORE - A requut to amend the Land Uaa Element Map of the General Pltn Crom Medium Resident ial (8-14 dwelllrtq unite pat acra to Commercial foc 2.0 aern of land loeatsd on the northeast eornsr Of Foothill Boulward and Et iwanda Avanua. TN planning Commiuion will oleo consider Low Medium Resident Lal (4-8 dwelling unite par aoraa and of tiro as alCarnatiw dasignationa - APN; 1100-161-02, Statf racommend• iaauanoe of a Negative Declaration. L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTXILL BOVLEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 - PLANNING NETxORR - A request io amend the Foothill sou Levard Specific Plan Land Vae Map in Subarea 4 tiom Medium Residential (8-14 duelling unite par acre) to community commercial foc 2.0 aeree of land located on the northaaat corner of Foothill Boulevard and Et iwanda Avanua. Tha Planning Commiq ion will asst caM idar Low Medium Re9idenCi al (4-B dwelling uniU par acts), Conimsrc Lai Office, a.-.d specialty commerc iel a^ alternative dssignat ions - APN: 1100-161-02. Staff recommends isluence of a Nagativa Declaration. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSNENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-020 - CITY OY RAXCXO CUCAMONCA ~ A proposal to amend Che Genecal Plan Land tea Element Map tram Medium Resldent ial (8-14 dwe111nq unit^ par acra) to Low Medium Ru identlal (4-8 dwelling unite per acre) for the following eubaans within the Et iwanda and -oothill Bou LSVard Specific Plan arree: 3. Approx lmaUly 14.20 aeree borderW on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the wet by Che ueUtn City limit •, on the south by azLstinq Low Hadium Accident sal designated land, and on the west by a utility corridor - APNs 229-041-30. 2. Appcoximate ly 18.46 acres bordered on Che north by the Foothill Boulevard Spacit is Plan boundary, which i^ approximately 530 Eest north o[ Poothill Boulward) on the east by a utility corridor; on the mouth by Poothill Boulward; and on the weft by Et iwanda Avenue. The City will consider Commercial and OEt ice ae altarnat ive land use du ignat ions far thin entire area - APN: 1100-161-01 through 04/ci1anNnd a portion of 1100-201-01. Plann inq Commisl ion MLnuNe / I /-19- Hay 22, 1991 3. Approximately 27.d9 a .. .,.,roared on the northw~t by the Ontario (I-35) Fcaeway, on the oat by Ec iwanda Avenue and ex ietinq Low Mad Lum Au idsntial designer ed land, and on the south by commercieLly designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwlling un it• psr acre( ae an altarnativs land uw dos ignation for thi• ant ire area - APN: 227-211-02, 04, O5, D9, 30, 15, 20 and 29. 4. Approximately 87.52 acres borderatl on the north by Millar Avenue; or. the ust by Eset Avenue and a utility wrritler; on the south by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which ie approximately 530 fast north of Foothill Boulevard; and or. the wes< by Eiiwanda Avenue. Tha City will <on doer Low Ra idential (2-4 dwelling unite per sera) a an albrnatlve lantl use daigation for enc are area - APN: 3100-131-01 and 02, 1100-161-01 antl 02, 1100-151-01 and 02, 1100-181-01 and 02, and 1100-191-01. 5. Apprazimately 30.72 acres bordered on the northwst by tN Ontario (I-16) Freeway, on the sect by EaaL Avenw and existing Low Ned ium RuldutSal dutgnaUd land, and on the south by Hiller Avenue. The Clty will eoneitlsx Low Raidantial (2-4 dwlling units pat acre) as an alternative land uw dalgnaeion for this utire aru - APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-041-04 through 10, 1100-051-03, and 1100-061-02 ehrough 04 and portions of 1100-071-01 and 02. 6. ApproximaUly 11.09 erase bordered on the north by Baae LSne Road, on eN southeast by the Ontario (I-15) Prssway, and on the wear by ax ietinq Law Metlium Resident iel du lgnatW land. The City will consider OfLiw and Neighborhood Commercial a alternative Lnd uu designer ions for thin entire area - APN: 1100-051-01 and 02 and 1100-061-O 1. 7. ApproximnLly 10.09 acre. bordered on tN north and weer by existing Low Metllws RaidentlA du lgnahd land, on the gat 6y ex Ltinq Office daignatad land, and on the south by Bue Llne Road. The City will consider OfEiee as an tltetnat ivs land use designation far this entire area - APN: 227-131-34 through 36, 52 through 54, and 61• 8. APProximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by the Southern Pacific railway, on the eat by the Ontario (I45)~ Pruway, on the south by exist ins Office daignabd land, and on the wut by ezisting Low Medium daignaud land antl divided Lrt a north-south direction by East Avenue. Ths City will consider Low Aaidential (2-4 dwlling units per acre) a an alternative land use designation for thL entire aru -APN: 227-131-OS and 227-141-14 and 66. Staff recommends iauance oC a Negative Oaclaration. N. ENVIAONNLNTAL AS aEaSlLSNT APO FOOTHILL BOOL[VA_an SPCCIPIC PLiw AFFNOlSENT 91-02 - CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A propoul t0 amend the Foothill Boulevard 5pac if is Plan Land Use Map from Mad Lum Residential (E-14 dwelling unite per sera) to Low Medium Residential (4-B dwlling unlb per acre) for the following subarea within the Foothill Boulward Spec if it Plan: Planning Commission Minutes -20- xay 21, 1991 /5a 1. Approximately 16.20 ac ra• bordered an the north by Foothill Bmulevard, an the east by the ua<ern city llm it e, on the south by exist ing Low Hedium Aeeldent ial designated land, and on the war by a utility corridor - APN: 229-041-10. 2. Approx imat sly 18 Afi acres border nd on the notch by the Foothill Boulrvard apeeif is Plan Boundary, which i• approximately 530 E¢at no tth of Foothill Boulwatd; on the seat by a utility cart idor; on the south by Font hill 6oulavard; and on the west ~y Et iwa nda Avenue. The City will ebna ids[ Community Commercial, Commarc ial office, and Specialty commete ial as altetnat iva Land use dealgnat ions tar thi• eat Lre atu - APN: 1100-161-01 through 04 and a portion oL 1100-201-01. Staff recommends iuunnw of a Nagar iva Drelarat ion. O. ENVIRONlLNTAL A55655)LENT A.ND ET IN/~NOA BPECIl IC PLiN A_wvNDNENT 93-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan Land Vee Map from Mrdtum Residential (8-14 dwllinq unite per acre) to Low Nsdium Ru idential (4-8 dwll ing unite per acts) for the following subareas within thr Et iwanda Sprtif ie Plan: 1. Apptoxlmatsly 27.89 acres bordresd on the northwut by eM Ontario (I-15) Frrway, on the oast by Bt iwanda Avenur and ex Ltinq Lou Nediwe Ruldsntial du lgnated land, and on the south by commercially duignabd land bordsrin9 foothill eoulward. Thr city will cons idor Low Rsaidential (2-4 dwllinq unite par acre) as an albrnative land un designation for thL entity area - APN: 227-211-02, 04, O5, 09, 10, 15, 20, and 29. 2. Approximately 87.52 acte• bordered on the north by Hiller Avenue; on ear cart by East Avenue and a utility corridor; on the south by ehr Poothill BouLvard Specific Plan boundary, which ie approx imatrly 530 fast north of Poothill Boulwatd; and ort cha west by Etiwanda Avanw. Thr Clty will eonslder Low Ruidsntial (2-6 dw111ng units pry acts) a en •lternatiw land user du Sgnd ion Eor this entire area - APN: 1100-131-O1 and 02, 1100-141-O1 and 02, 1100-151-OS and 02, 1100-181-01 and 02, end !100-191-OS. 3. Approximately 30.72 acrer bordrrrd on the northwest by the Ontario (I-15) Frrway, on ehr tart by But Avenw and rziaC ing Low Nsdium Raeidrntial deer ignated land, and on the south by Miller Avenur. Thr City will consider Low RwLdutlal (2-4 dwllinq units pry acre) ere an altrtnatiw land wr do ignat ion for this utirr area - APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-061-04 through 10, 1100-051-03, and 3100-061-02 through 04 and port roar of 1100-071-01 and 02. 4. ApproxLoatrly 11.09 ecru bardecsd on the north by Bur Linr Road, on tM southust by the ontario (I-15) Frrway, and on tM wet by uLtinq Low Nsdium Ro idutial duignatrd land. Thr City will eonaidrr off Lee ProGUional and Convenience Caamsrc ial u alternaeiw lane uo deeignationa tar thi• entity aru - APN: 1100-051-01 and 02 and 1100-061-01. 5. Approx imatrly 10.09 arras bordered on the north and wet by mating tow Medium Ree idutlal du Lgnatrd land, on thr uat by existing Of Lice duignatrd land, and on the youth by Bau Lins Road. TM Clty will consider Of[ice Pro[ueional a an altrtnativr land eu du ignat ion for thL rat irr aru - APN: 227-131-36 through J6r 52 through 54, and 61. Planning Commission Minutes -21- Nay 22, 1991 !5/ fi. App[ox ima!•ly 20.J4 acres bordered on CF.e north by the Southern Paet[ie railway, on the east by the Ontario (L-19~ Freeway, on the south by sxistlnq Office des ignaud land, and on the west by existing Lou Medium dos ignated land and divided in a north-eouih tlireet ion by Boni Avenue. The City will consider bow Residential (2-4 dwelling unite per acre) ae an aleernat iva land use doe ignaC ion foc Ch ie entire area - APN: 22~-131-Ofi and 22"l-141-16 and 66. Staff recomme nd• ieeu ante of a Negative Declaration. Alan Warren, Auoeiate Plsn net, and Vines Bert on i, Aea iet an[ Planner, preclnted the staff report/. Commiuioner Melchor caked it the perception la that all multi-family uus are making the common ity hel overwhelmed by multi-family of if Lt i• ru lly the higher-density apartment projects whleh proliferated in certain most ions of the community which soused the alarm. He wondered if devsloplnq at 11-13 unite per aen, which should produce town home projecb, i• viewed u problematical. Mr. Warren responded that concerns were originally raised bwauu of CN higher dsnsCty projects being dweloped. He old howwer when the bu iLd-out perewtagos were pruented to City Council, the Council wanted men LLngb- family unit built [o Msure the character of the community. Brad Bu llsr, City Planner, stated the City Council direct lon wa• that all attached-type product• would be considered multiple family and would be o[ concern. He said therefore, the tlana ity ranges of B dwelling units per acre or greater an being considered. Commissioner NalcMr stated that in the area under coneiderat ion, then are currently no high density projects. He asked if single-family dansit ies of 4-B can be achieved in the Etiwtnda area which will meet the standards of the 6tiwanda apecltlc Plan. Mr. wnrren repll/d that the 6t iwsnda specific Plan ha^ lakger minimum and average lot size/ than nqulnd in other anu of the City, He said the optimum rtandarde allow more flexibility, but require sign if SCanL ly more open span around devolopmenn. Mr. Buller stated that the neighborhood meeting regarding the amendments before the Commluion included a diseuuicn of the Low Medium •tandarde. He indicated the awnen requested that the standards 6e rQaxed to permit Low Nedium standards s1mLLr to the rest of tM Clty. He felt the Etiwanda speeif Se Plan mould probably yield at most a <-6 Swelling unit per acts product in the 6-8 Low Nedium area. Commissioner Melchor stated that the Baseline Economic Analysis prepared prior to the adoption o[ the Foothill soulevard specif le Plan determined there uu a surplus of commercially zoned land along Foothill Boulevard, but Che applicants Cor Stems I, J, K, and L had submitted a new economic analysis Planning Commission Minutes -22- Mey 23, 1991 I `~ a- which intl icac sd thar¢ is not a aurplue of commercial land. He asked if the n¢w study had been prepared by a disinter sated pact y. Mr. warren replied it had been prepared antler contract to the City by [he same consultant who prepared the Baseline Analyeiv. commissioner Melcher felt that alChough that informer ion was encouraging h¢ was et ill concerned, given the 1¢vel of development occurring along Foochll 1. He asked iP the traffic study uas p¢r[ormed under City auspices, Mr. B¢rtoni replied that the traffic study was performed at the r¢que et of the Engineering olvision and was accepted by Engineering a¢ adequate. Comm iesioner Melcher asked why eC Off Iona ids red Low Medium aesident iii as an alternative when th¢ applicant waa raquaetinq a change to Commezc ial and Community Commercial. Mr. Warren replied that staff felt a change to Low Medium should tlw be considered becauw of the Council's direction to look at all undewlaped multi-family parcels. Commiesicnec Melcher aek¢d if it was staff's inbnt ion that dwslopment should be them¢d like Chs potentially historical urvlca station. ?:r. Warren raaponded that it ie anticipated that [he historic value would be in relation Co Route 66. He thought perhaps adaptive reuse of the structure would ba a possibility and future development may emulate Che architectural design. Commissioner Nelcher commented that the application's justification proposed removal of the service station. Mr. Warren stated that if the st ratio re is deHtminad to be hietor ic, accommodations woo ltl have to be made by the applicant. Ha said if the Specialty Commercial were granted, the City would eapeet that tM historic feature be considered with the development. Larry Henderson, Rrincipal Planner, reported that the applicant's proposal was dated prior to staff's completion of the historical analysis of the building. commissioner Nelcher Baked Aow a change Erom Medium to Low Medium Residential woultl affect the City's affocdab la housing program. Mr. Warren raaponded that there is no policy in the hcusing element that epeeif Ua a certain number of molt l-family housing unite moat be built. Xe indicated multi-family houainq will still be built. Ha sold iM money for low-coat houainq tan be used for singly family a^ well as multi-family unite. Mr. Henderson stated that the number of neceuary affordable unit in the housing elem¢nt will change periodically board on regional number generaud by the Southern California AuociaC ion of Governments (SCAG). He said tM Planning Commiaeion Minutes -23- Nay 22, 1991 153 City is also given the opt LOn of ehallsng inq the numbers if they do not Eit into Land uas plane. Ha st at sd that currently buiLdecs are not providing lou- coet hoes inq on their oun init iat iva becau ae lantl costa have grown so rapidly. Na Pelt the City would probably have to pare is ipaee tlieeet ly through cha Redevelopment Aguey's eat-seise fund. Commie eioner Ma lcher asked for coma background on Mr. Banks' letter. Ha ea id at appearod there had been a cemprom iea to permit higher ds ne ity in the area south and uet of the faeway bwause of pressers from the develops re. H• stated it appeared the developers of the plan wars more concerned with keeping low density north of the fzuuay. Chairman MeN lal stated tMp ware too largo local groups: a Ru idents' aesnca•e eon or auw•nae ant a raneowners~ nuomac aen, wnacn nos • numoer of ab•entse landoun•rs with other largo pared s, mostly in the north arse. Ha said the primary concern at cha ruidute vu to maintain the •xlstenu and charectsr of Et iwands north of Bass Line. Ha said their int crests we[e not ae vtrong south of Base Line and particularly south of the freeway. Commis inner Nelcher coamenbd that the higher-dens lay zones werY plawtl around the freeway in a manner bndinq to buffer lover densities and more wns itiw uus from the ftuway environment. Chairman McNiel sCabd that soma of the area wu tlasignaud Nadium Ru LdmtSel when there ware of forts to make SC all commercial. Mr. Buller stated that based on the information presented and discussed during the Etiuanda Specific Plan hearings, tM best planning decision at cha time was reached. HOWV•Z, he said new intormat ion hoe been Iona idered by the City council antl a new tllraction hoe now bean received from Che City council. Comm Le+.oner Melchor asked chat eau ld happen to tM U. S. Homes project it changes uere made to tM duignat ions. Nr. Warren statatl that if the City Council adopts a Low Medium deslgnation, all dwslopment would be subjece to thou standards. Ha' said there era drainage issues involved uhieh have delayed the V. 5. Homes project. Nr. Bul Lr stated that U. S. Homes had indicated to the Planning Commie ion that they have made a sign![icant invutment in tMir application and did not uLh to drop the replication. Ha sported they ware rsprawnUd at the Neighborhood Naetlnq and had requuLd that tM Law Mediws standards be reconsidered to G aqulvaUnt to Low Nadium within the nma indec of the City. He said they have Sndlcatad they could not build what they ful i^ the appropriate Medium tlwalopment, but insbad they want to build singly family home with a tequost to nxxiity tM Btluanda Specific Plan to permit standards that would give them that option. He stated it the land L ndasignatatl Low Medium, the dove !near will have to reconsider tM it application. Ha felt it could be prudent [or the Cosmic lon to dUCUU whathat they would Coro idar changing the Lou Medium standards In 6tLwanda. Planning Commission Minutes -34- May 27, 1991 /5~{ Commie toner Melcher asked if the Scut ha rn Pac iEic rig h<-of-way may not become a light rail corridor. Mr. Henderson •e ated that i[ she Santa Fa Lina ie not pu rchaeetl, it will be ~ several year before the Sout horn Pacific lino can ba veetl because it i• i:i such poor condition. Me stated that no matter what type of housing dens iiy ie built, a noise analysis would ba required beeed on the use of the railroad and m icigat ion measures would be required. Chairman HcN iel opened the public hearing. Van atephans, Forma, 10790 Civic Gnt er Orivs, 1100, Rancho Cucamonga, et ated he i• the agent for Group 66 Partnership. Na apprec Latad etaEE'• work on the application and indieatsd he felt CN requsrted amendment is Commercial i• warranted. He did not think the are L conducive to residential development becauu of huvy traf tic on Foothill Bculevard. He felt an utivity csnGr would be well-served by master planning. Ha commented that addit!onal commercial case would bring add Lt tonal revenw to the City. He showed graphic of the proposed street aligrunent and the addition of a collector street. Ne thought the size of the parcel would be good for commercial uses, eeeauu of the deep sib, he Lndleatad !t wculd not be developed with strip commercial, but would be consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Spec ifie Plan. Commie SOnet Melcher eked if Mr. Sbphee [e It that Subarea 1 to the mouth o! Foothill Boulevard would also W Lnapptopriate foe Low Medium 0.ee ideniial. Mr. Stephens replied that he had not reviewed Subarea 1 in deteil. He indicated it may have different aspects, but he generally did not feel that e Ingle family reidece should be so close to Foothill Boulevard. Charles Cummins, 1665 North Laurel Avenue, Upland, respect Eully reyueted that the northeast cornet of Foothill and 6tiwands be changed io Cammerc is 1. Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Cummins agreed with Ghe recommended deeignatLOn of Specialty Commercial. Mr. Cummins stated he would prefer the regular Commercial deaignat ion becaes ha felt Specialty Commercial would restrict the ees. Commissioner Melcher eked what he planned to do with the service station. Mr. Cummins responded chat he was willing to do whatever the city want sa however, he believed Che etvice bay canopy will extend into the right-of-way. Lloyd Zola, Planning Network, 9375 ArchLbald Avenue, 1101, Ranc!:o Cucamonga, stand that the outside canopy pilars will stand in the right-o[-way. He indLcabd the original du its was Cc remove the orvic• section a such • nee would not be permitted In the arec. Me asked chat the area not 6s specialty Commercial becsuw LC hu not yet been detemLned that the bu!lding Ls historically •igni[iunt. He reported that the laGet study indicate a lack Planning Commission Minutes -25- May 22, 1991 !5S of eommere ial uass in the ores and he Eelt the ccmmeraa ai .and vse ie compatible wLth eurroanding uaee. Donald Phillips, 8011 Etiwantla, Rancho Cucamonga, stated ha owns a houw immediately north of the vacant 9erv ice et at ion. Ne requeaeed that hie ~ proper<y be zoned comma rcia 1. Gary womac k, 5366 Eveni nq Canyon way, Rancho Cucamonga, st..etd he wucka for Crubb 6 Ellie and he Eeele the community needs mare commercial property. Father Fred caglia, Pa stc r, Sacred Heart Churo h, 12700 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, atautl the church requaated Ghat the small portion of [heir property in Subarea 3 ba re za nod Commere Lal to be the same as the remainder of • y.+y.•Ly. n. uw u~• :..a we •we •a cunuuciw co reslaenclal development. Li Li Hmnq, Pu Mal, 7168 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamongar staged they pur<haud the property with the lnbntion of developing under cereain criteria. She felt downzoninq would ereab a financial hardship. She uLd tM Gra [fit generated by Pries Club and the tutus regionnl mall would not be appropriate in a single-family area. Sha requested that the Medium density be maintained. Sha Eelt that Eaet Avenue will also have a high density Lrafflc volume. Sha uitl that U. S. Homan sgcializea in eingls-family unite, eo they were in favor of the change, but her company is just a small company. Robert carry Arcinage, 7650 Calla Canino, Rancho Cucamonga, atabd M wu involved in the atlopt ion of the Etiusnda Specific Plan. Ha acid Jim Banks was a leader of the residents' group. He indicated the Hedium Ree ident ial wan a trade-off to requite one-half acre Lote north of Base Line and one acre loG tort her north. Hs felt that any major commarc ial site ehoultl have a buffer zene o[ Hetlium Rns Ldential before changing tc Low Medium. He felt the utility corridor should be buffered by an apartment house. Hs thought apartment dwellers havo more flexibility to nwve if they decide they era not happy with a au::ound.rg area. Ha oppaaad the change from Radium Co tow Hedium, but felt that if Lhe Ctty should decide to change the designation, cone idaration should ba given to requiring a bu Efer zone around major shopping centers and major arteries. Pete Pitau i, Pitaee i-Dalmau ArchLtects, 9267 Naves Avenue, ?220, Rancho Cucamonga, etabd he represented Gramercy P[opertio, and they opposed the zoning changes to the property. He felt that Miller will be the northern aeceu for the regional mall and will be linked to the properties [o tM east. He ChoughC Medium Rentdent ial will permit batter mitigation of the noise from the elevated freeway. Ne said they had submitte6 an application for development, but LC has been oral led because of a drainage issue. He did not feel it is rw lint le to presunN the[ all Hsd'_um Ruident ial is automatically molt l-family. He acid that staff hen Lndicated they are not sure sing L-family deGChed homes could be developed at a yin ld of greabr than 3.25 per acre because of the minimum 10,000 square foot lots, ewn though the Low MedLum Resltlential equates Co 4-8 dwelling unit per acre. He thought the proposed zoos changes would only equate to a lone o[ 2,800 multi-Eamily Planning Commission Minutes -26- May 22, 1991 ~~f un Lto as oppoud to the a, 000 shown in <he et off report and the increase in sing U-family units would equal 1,500 inateatl of the 2,6C0 indieaC atl in the report. Ha did not feel the area is an appropriate market area for Low Medium xon inq. Ha also request •d that Low Medium ec andartls for the Etiwanda area be studied. defE 5ceranka, 10068 Copper Mountain Court, Rancho Cucamonga, orated h• was on <he task force which stutlied the Ft iwanda area. He felt that Ned Sum Aea idential permits pr ssarva<ion of the rural character better than cookie- cuttat single-family homes. He thought that multi-family allows larger setbacks and pa uo•. H• Lelt Medium Residential is an appropriate den ignat LOn adjacent to fzuways and arterials. H• said neighborhootl commercial bus Loess is going to Fontana because there i• none available alenc Baaa *.+~~ ..~ .w~ eastern part of tom city. Xs indicated the CiCy hoe an opportunity to permit a neighborhocd ahoppLng embt adjacent to the freeway which would permit an interatinq entrant. to the city Crom the truway. Richard Oahl, 5666 Grnellan, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he wu repreant inq I. F. Properties, who own property aajae•nt to the freeway off/on ramp, xs felt [hers should be a special designation under the commercial zone. Agatha Kleinman, 2500 North Luclid, Upland, requuted that their property Sn Subaru a b• operated from the rualnder of tM subaru b•eause it hu a 20 foot eauant along the freeway which cannot be used. She said a 20-foot htgh wall will be required along the Lreeuay o[f-ramp. she reported that the parcel i• only 10 acres, and will be even smaller who East Avenue i• widened. She indicated their parcel Ss bordered by the freeway, the railroad, and Eaet Avenue. She thought that if the property were downzoned, it would effectively preclude their ability to either build on or sell their property. She said she had ban present at the onset of the Et iwantla Specific Plan and she felt it had been a commendable job. .john Fowler, ]19B Easi Avaes, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owned the 10-acre patcei co the war of Eut Avenue in Subaru B. He thought that if the property were changed Co Low Nediws he would not be able to develop or w11 hie property. He felt that the high drainage system cost wbuld not support Low Medium Residential dwelopment, and the stet would be an idol neighborhood commercial center. Dr. Ralph R1elnmrn, 2500 North Euclid, Upland, •tatetl they have owned the property [or 30 years. He did not feel the area should be zoned Ru idential, but shoo ltl be Otfiee or Caametcls 1. He said traf Lic is too noisy !or Residential dwelopment. He also indicated East Avenue will b• a major artery. Mr. Sceranka felt Off1u/Profeu tonal ehmuld oat be considered a an alternate do ignation becaua M thought thsre is an overabundance of office/Profuslonal Ln tM Clty. Heerinq nc [urtMr tutlmony, chairman McN1e1 cloud the public hearing. Planning commies inn Minutes -27- Xay 22, 1991 IS7 Mr. war ran rtatsd that eM numbaca indlcatetl in the etafE report ragard inq Lha retluct ion of multi-family unt<• and the incrsnae of single-family un it• referred to • cumulative •[fact of the amantlmante under consideration along with other ant iclpated amandmenu. • I. N P N 90 0 J. £M/1RONM$NiAG _ASSE SSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLRN AMEND KENT 90-03 Commi a TOner Ch it inn support ed Commercial on cenaral Plan Amendment 90-078. Comm is•ioner Tolatoy concurrw. Notion: Moved by Tolatoy, ucondad by Nalcher, to tacoamand iaauanea of a Nagar iva Declaration and adoptlen of the nsolutlon• racoamandinq approval of General Plan Amendment 90-048 and Foothill BouLward Spaei[ie Plan Amendment 90-03 changing land uo du lgnationa to Commercial antl community Commercial respectively. Motion earned by the fol lowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CMITIEA, NCNIBL, NELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETT6 NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried x. D L. ,~IVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 Chairman NcNial asked if it would be poeetble to change Lc Spccia/ty commareial until auto time as s determination is made ragard ing the historiesl •ignif ieanee of the service station but than automatically revert to Community Commercial if the nrvica station i• determined ineigniticant. Hr. Bu liar stated that a EpaeiQty Coasaereial du ignation in it salt would not cause the building to rewin. Commiuioner Valletta auggestad recommending Community commareial and cagiwstlnq that the City Council determine iL the building should be uvad. Commie loner Malehas aakad it Community Commercial would ba inj urioa• to the aarvica station. Mt. Buller steed Chat tM valve of the service station woul^ be tM •asw whether GM area ware changed to Comrcait~ Commercial or Spaciaity Conmarciu. Planning Commiuion Minute -28-Q Nay 22, 1991 /~v Convni o Loner Nelc her commentetl that the ec ale of the service eta«on ie eo smell compared to the Thomas Winery, that he thought community conune cc ial <o be an appropriate des i9nat ion. Commia•inner To Ltoy concurred and poinbtl out that the canopy would heva too be removed because o[ its proximity to Foothill Baulavartl. Motion: Moved by Chitin, ucanded by Tolatoy, to recommend ie seance of a Negative Declaration and adoption of the teen luC io n• recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 91-D1A and Fcotyill Boulevard Spee L[ie Plan Ame ndmenC 91-03 changing land uu des ignationa to Commercial and Community commercial respectively. Notion carried by the following vote: AYES: CONN ISSIONERSi CH3TIEA, NCNIEL, MELCNEA, TOLS TOY. YALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMHISSIONEA6: NONE -carried . . • a M. RNVLAO NT A 5! SNENT ND N P N M NDN NT 91 020 (SU6araae 1 through e) N. FNVIAO RNT 3 A 9~MENT ND FOOTNI V PECIFIS PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02 (SU6areaa 1 and 2) O. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ET IWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AM ND NT 91 03 (SUbarea• 1 through 6) G 1 Plan A endment 91-02E 15 ba sa 11 d F oth'll B 1 d 5 'E1 Plan Amondlnsnt 91-02 (Subarea 11: Cammiuioner Melchor felt that in light of the asst imony about how inappropriate the area on the north •Lde of Foothill would be for Law Medium, ii would not make sense to change the area on the south eido of Foothill Boulevatd to Low Medium. Commie ionez Val LtG asked it the Commie ion could reeommentl Office/ Pro4uional or Commercial. Commie LOner Chltiu sugquted the Commi uion may wish to rwonmend the du ignation not G changed tram Medium. Conmissioner ValUtU suggsetad the Commission ptopow a set of options. Mr. Warren stated that eta!! did not perform any in-depth analyei• other than for Lou Medium Ru idsnt Ll. He Lndicated staff found no evidence to Lndlut• •uppott foc either Commercial or Lou Residential eau at the locK Lon. Xe suggested that it the Coavaiulon felt something other than she current Medium or CM propood Lou Medium wre appropriate, the matter should be returned to staff Cot further analyala. Planning Commission Minutes -29- Nay 22, 1991 isq Commie ionar Nelcher et ated N would prefer to recommend denial of the amendment. Chairman NcNisl indicated that the area to iha west is developed with single- family homes in a Low Reoitlont ial deeignat ion. Mr. Bartoni et ated a utility corridor separates the area Erom the Low Re •ident ial to the want. commissioner Toletoy [alt staff should prepare an analysis. Mr. Buller euggeoted that iM subarea could be returned with the next General Plan cycle. Notion: Movetl by ToLtoy, ueondod by Nolchor, unanimously carried, to continue Env ironmoncal Auoumont antl Oononl Plan Amendment 91-028 (Subaru 1) and Environmental AoenmenL and Poothill Boulevard Specific Plan Mondmont 91-D2 (Subarea i) to the next General Plan cycle. . • . General Pla t v Ammtlment 91-02 (Subarea 21: Cammio ionere Toletoy and Valletta thought the area should he Commercial. commiuionar Melchor commonnd that eta!! recommended Off lee in the eaebrn portion of the autraroa. Motion: Moved by Nelcher, wronded by Chit iea, to recommend ieeuanee o[ a Negative Declaration and adoption of the zesolutione recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 91-028 (Subarea 2) ehanging the land use deeignat ion to Commercial and Of tics and Poothill Boulevard specific Plan Amendment 91-OZ (Subarea 2) changing land uu dulgnation to Community commercial and Commercial Office. Motion carried by the tollowinq vote: AYES: CONMISSIONERS: CXITISA, NCNISL, MSLCXSR, TOLSTOY, VALLETTB NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMNISSIONEAS: NONE -carried . ~ . . General Plan Aaundnent 91-028 ISUbaroa 11 antl Footh 111 Boulevard Swcltle plan Amendment 91-02 (SUba[oa 11: Mr. Buller sugquted that oho CommLoion forward Subarea 1 eo the Clty Council with a recommender ion of denial rather than eontinu ing the item to the next General Plan cycle. P lenving Commiuion NinuGO -30- Nay 21, 1991 /60 Motion: Noved by MalChet, seconded by Ch it ie a, unan imoue ly carried, to reconsider Environmental Anaaement and General Plan Amendment 91-020 (subarea 1) and Foothill 9DUlevasd Spac iCic Plen Amendment 9i-02 ~5ubarea 1). Moc ion: Moved by Melchat, seconded by Chit La e, to recommend denial of Enviro nmantal Aeu oment and General Plnn Amendment 91-G2B (Subarea 1) and Foothill Eoulevard Speeif Le Plan Amendment 91-02 (Subarea 1). Notion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMNISS:ONEAS: CHITIEA, NCNIEL, NELCHEA, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONEAS: NONE RESENT: COMNISS IONEN9: NONE -<aYYied . . YYVi f9LLDaRl 1 : Commie inner Vs1 L[ts stabd that thla aubatea lm hides the trLngU of land which the church requealed M changed to Commercial. Nr. Buller sugge/tsd that the church be permitted to penes the mattsc u a separate application. Commlu Saner To Ltoy •tabd it i• always hard to tran/it ion from Commercial to single-family ruident Sal. Ne CQt thaw should be a buffer of higher dan/ity between the two uses. Chairman NcNie1 felt iM tranalt ion i• not an in/urmount abU problem end had been euecusful ly dealt with in the pee[. Commie•SOnar Tolatoy felt Chat the buffering of [set is needed far good planning. commissioner Me lcher concurred with Commiaeioner Talatoy and felt there /hoe ld alw be a buffet from the treevay. Commluionar Va11stU eked why the area /hould be considered inapproptiaU for single-[ashy ruidentlal 6uG tM same eonslderatlon should not 6a given to multi-[ashy. She wondered why more people should 6e subj eeted tc tM no i/e of the freeway. chairman McNial reopened the public Marinq. Mr. Pitaui stated that multi-Eamily dwelopmenC allow/ more flexibility to mitlgats the wrroundings, by inenasing ptback/, allowing addlt ional land/caping, and lnclud lnq architectural leaturea which can screen the tenant/ from adjacent usu. Planning CommL•ion Minute -3/1- May 2Z, 1991 /y Commie SOnar Meleher sated that in multi-family development the back of a bu ildinq teeing thw fraway would permit build ing• to be placed clover to the frwway. Mz. PLtaui caked it it L appropr iat• to haves resident Sal ueea adjacent to a a fruway. Mr. Buller euggeated the area may call for a mixed-u ea development. Ne indicated LL is a di tf ieu It dte beeaum it site down 20 - ]0 feet below the Creeway. Mr. Randwraon suggwsgd that •incw it w• alaroet 2x00 a.m., the Commie ion may wish to continue the balnee of the dLeuadon to their nazi meat inq. nr. u9u ...y .. p. .....y ... Nedneaday, May 29, 1991, as that would W the filth Nwdnnday Ln tM month. Motion: Movsd by Chitin, taeonded by Valletta, unanimously cart Sad, to continua the balanea of the agenda to May 39, 1991, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber. e . • . . ADJOURNMENT Motion: Novad by Nelcber, aacondW by Chitiaa, to adjourn. 2:00 a.m. - Planning CommLawion adjourned to May 29, 1991, at 7:00 p. m. in the Council Chamber to finish the balance of the agenda. Raapacttully aubmittad, Btad Bullar_ 9ecntary Planning Comoiaalon Ninutaa -]2- Nay 22, 1991 /~~ AESOLVTION NO. 91-50 A AESOLVTION OD TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION OP THB CITY OP RANCHO CVCAMONGA, CALIPORN IA, ItECONMENDING APPROVAL OF G6NEAAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-028 AMENDING THB GENERAL PLAN LAND VEE MAP FROM MEDIDN RESIDENT IAL (6-14 DWELLING VNITS PER ACRE) TO CONIDSRCIAL KITH A MASTBR PLAN RBQVIAEMENT DESIGNATION FOR 10.69 ACABS OP LANG LOCATBD ON THE NORTH SIDE OP POOTN ILL 60ULEVARD, EAST OF BT TWANDA AVBNUE, AND MAKING PINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOP - APNS 1100-161-04. A. Rec itels. application for cenaral Plan Amendment -NO. 90-028,• requesting • Commercial land uw designation for the .object property a described in the LStU of thin Resolution. Hereinafter Ln this Resolution, the subject Generel Plm Amendment L refsrred to as 'the application." (ii) On May 22, 1991, tM Planning Comsis•lmn of the City of Aaneho Cucamonga conducted a duly nol iced publlc hearing on the appl icatlon. (iii) All legal prerequUites prior to the adopt ton of thL AesolutLon have occurred. e. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it Le hereby foundr determined, and resolved by iha Planning Cammiuion of the City of Rancho Ncemongn ea follows: 1. This Cosmisslon hereby epecif ically finds that Q1 of the facts eat forth in the RwitaU, Part A, of this Awolui ion era true and cotrecC. eased upon aubatantiaL avidancc pxcacntcd to this Cammiasion during the above-referenced public hearing on May 22, 1991, including written and oral staff report •, together with publlc teettmony, this Commission hereby specifically Cinda as followr. (a) The application applies to approximately 10.89 acres of land located on the north •Ltls of Foothill sou Lvard approximately 500 fast east of Etiwanda Avenue with a street frontage of 815 fwt and a lot depth of 526.74 Cwt end L pcuent ly undewloped. SAid property i• currently designated as Medium Residential (8-1< dwelling units par acre); and (b) The propertlu to the north end east o! the subject du era designated Medium Residential (e-]4 dwelling unlt• per acre) and era undeveloped. The property to the south i• designabd Low Residential (2-4 dwa111ng unit^ par acrd) and L^ developed with single Cemily hales. The property to the west is designated Medium Reridential (8-14 dwelling unit par sere) and is developed with an existing, non-conforming market. /63 PLANNING COMNTSSION RESOLUTION NO. 91-50 GPA 90-036, COMM¢RC IAL - PnANA May 33, 1991 P:qa 3 (e) ThLs amendment dwa not conf llet with the Land Uu Policiu of the Osneral Plan and will provide for deva lopment, within Ch dlserict, in a manner condetent with the General Plan and with related devdopmantt and (d) Thie amendment promote. the goals and objectives o[ the Land Uu ¢1 sm•ntt and (e) THU amendment would not be mabrlally Lnjurioue or detrimentQ to Ghe adj went propertiu and would not have • •Lgnlt lcant impact on the environment nor on the wrtoundinq propertle• and that the Luuance of a Negative Dwlaration L recommended. 3. Sued upon the subetantlal widenee prepnted Co thU CammUSion during th above-refazeneed public herrlnq and upon eh epseitic findings of (nets set forth in paragraph 1 and 3 above, thi• Comeieeion hereby finds end eancludu as followea (e) That the subject property Se suitable for the proposed land uu dulgnatlon aL Commercial a evldmeed by Che site's MLnq in eleN prozimiiy to pzopsrtias on the weer, east, and south with Commercial land use duignaelonst and (b) That the proposed aundment would not have significant impacts on th environment nor on th surround inq propertiu a wlduced by the conclwiuns and findings 1Lted !n Part I and II of iha Initial Studlu of th ¢nvironmental uuuments of this applications and (c) That the proposed amendment i• in conformance with th General Plan, DevelopaNnL Code, and foothill 3ouleverd Specific Plan. 4. This Coaaeluion hreby finds that the project hs been reviewed and Considered in cp•piiance with th California ¢nvironmsntal guallty Aet of 1970 and, further, ehL Cammlulon hreby recommends inuancs of a Negative Declaration. 5. Based upon the findings and cortelu•SOns set forth 1n paragraphs 1, 3, 3, and 4 above, ibis Commie don hreby ruolws that on this 23nd day of May, 1991, the Planning Ca®Lsslon of the City o[ Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of GnerQ Plan Amendment No. 90-033, amending the Osnsral Plan Land Du Nap from Medium Ruidential (e-14 dwelling unlt^ per acre) to Coaawreial with • Naetar Plan requirement designation for 10.89 acrd of land located on th north ^ide of foothill Boulevard east of 3tiwanda Avanw, as shown on 6xhlbit •A.' 6. The Secretary to tAi^ Caemiseion shall certify to the adoption of thin Resolution. /b~ PLANNING COMMISSION AE SOLUTION NO. 91-SO GPA 90-028, COMMERCIAL - PORMA May 22, 1991 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF HAY 1991. ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF Tits CITY CP RANCHO CUCANONGA T ATTEST a, Srrd Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commlaaion o[ thr Clty of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby cart Lty that the foregoing Resolution waa duly and regularly Lntroduwd, paaewd, and adopted by the Plannlnq CommUelon o1 the C iiy of Rancho LUCamonga, rt a regular meeting of the Plrnninq Commiuion hold on the 22nd day o! May 3991, by the fallowing vote-to-wlt: AYESt CDHHxSSIONERS: CHITIEA, HCNIEL, MELCHEA, TOLSTOY, VALLETT6 Noss: colaxssxoNans: naNa ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSS NONE ~~ 'CI I. arrrrr I-1 C ~ __ C / ~ ~ ~~ L~ ~ LM ~~'~ T~ ~-~ I Off. LM ii Ofl. I ~,/ ~> I J VV ~~ GPA 91.01A (PSPA 91 f+equest to change land uss the desgnation /rom Medium Rsskential to Commercial i ~~ Comm. . C omm. ~ ~.-i ---•-•--~ .. ...............:... .. T ~ .^ ..... LM EiItAXDA AAEA CENERAI PLAN AYEXpYENTT ® MS~A1~ C'MU,OME~NTIY UMIIITS~IEA AGF~ UMNA ~ CONSIOEAATNNI OR tEOESICMAT10M f0 LOt YEONW AET9ENTIAI (A-1 OtELLWC OMITS PEA ACAE( LM clew o perk I LM LM ITEM: cvi si.oi Tl'sao~'s CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: ~mnindarpint~~o iie PLA.~ti'ING DMSION /~~ EX}iIBIT. 'A' SCALE, GPA 90.028 (FSPA 90-03) Raquel io charge Mre land use deapnatlcn Irom Medium ReaiNntial to Comrtwrcial N RESOLUTION NO. 91-61 A RESOLUTION OT THE PLANNING COMH IS SIGN OF THE CITY OF RANCHO COCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OP FOOTHILL BOVLEVARD SPECIPSC PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03 AMENDING THE FOOTHILL BOULBVARD SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-34 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO CONMUN ITY COMMERCIAL NITN A RASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT DESIGNATION POR 10.89 ACRES OP LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH S iDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, EAST OP ETIWANDA AVENUE, AND MAXING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-16i-04 A. (i) P0RM11, on brhalf of Group 66 Partnership, he^ fllyd an application for Poothill Boulward Sprciflc Plan Amandmrnt No. 90-03, request inq a Community Ca:amircial lantl uae designer ion for thr auhjrct property as described Sn the title of thl• Resolution. Hrrelnafter in thin Reeolut ion, the subject Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amrndmrnt La rrfrrrrd to as "thr epplication.^ (ii) On Hey 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga eonducttd a duly notlcrd public hearing on the appl icstlon and also issued Resolution No. 91-90, recommending to the C1ty Council that thr atecciated General Plan Amrndmint No. 90-026 be approved. (iii) All legal pztrrquisita• prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occutrrd. B. Reeolut ion. NOW, THEREFORE, it L hirrhy round, determined, and rreolvsd by the Flanning Commiuion o[ thr City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This CoamL^LOn hrrrby aprciti<ally finds that all of thr facts set forth in the Rscitalt, Part A, of this Resolution err true and corrrct. 2. Surd upon subrtantial evidence presented to thin Commiulon during thr abovr-rrfrrrncrd public hearing on May 22, 1991, including written and oral staff rrports, togrthtr with public testimony, this Cammiraion hrrrby spec ifically find. a^ follows: (a) Thr application appilr• to approximatrly 10.89 acrr^ of lend Located on thr north •Sdr of Pooth111 eoulrvard approximatrly 500 trrt east of Etiwanda Avrnw with a ^trrrt frontagr of 815 fart and a lot drpth of 526.74 feat and lr pruwtly undevrloprd. Said property 1• currrntly designated ar Mrdlum Aoidrntial (8-14 dwrlling units prr serr)j and (b) Thr proprrtln to the north end east of the ^ubjrct .its err du ignated Madlum Ru idmtial (8-14 dwelling units prr aerr) and ^rr undevrloprd. Thr property to thr tooth ie designated Low Ar^Ldential (2-4 dwelling units per ecrr) and 1^ drvelopad with single family homts. Thr property io tM wut L drsignaLd Medium Residential (e-14 duelling units prr acrr) and is drvtlopra with an sxi^ting, non-conforming markrt. /~7 PLANNING CONMI59ION RESOLUTION NO. 91-51 FSPA 90-03, COMNERC YAL - FORMA May 44, 1991 Yags 2 (c) Thls amentlwnt does not conflict with the Land Uee Pollciea• of the General plan or the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and will provide for development, within the diatriet, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with relaGtl development; and (d) Thls amendment promo tea the goals and obj set Sues of iha Land Uee Element; and (s) Thia amentlmmt woultl not be nubrial ly Snjurioua ar detrimental io the adjtcsnt properties and could not have a simnif Scant :m~•-• r enviro(uoenc nor on the surrounding properties and that the issuance of a Negative DecLrat ien Se recommended. 3. eneed upon the aubstantlal evidence presented to this Comisiss ion during tM abovrtstirenesd public heuinq and upon the specif Se findings of taste act forth in paragraphs 1 and 4 above, this Co~iuion hereby finds and concludes a follows: (a) That the subject property 1s su itabU for the proposed specific plan desSgnat ion at Coamunlty Commercial as evidenced 6y the alte'^ being in clone ptozLeity to propettiee on the we et, east, and south with Commercial land uv dtlignatioN; and (b) That the proposed amendment woultl not have significant impacts an the environment noz on the surrcuntlinq propert ins as evidenced by the conclusions snd findinga listed in Parts I and ZI of the Initial Environmental Studies of this application; and (c) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with iha General Plan, pevelopmsnt Code, and Foothill Boulevard Suoif is elan. 6. This CammiHlon hereby finds that the project has bean rsvlewd and considered in compliance with the Cal ifornln Environmental Quality Aei of 1970 and, further, this ComiLsicn hersby racamaends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 5, Based upon the tlndings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 4, 3, and { above, this Commission hereby resolves Chet on this 42nd day of Hay 3991, the Planning Commission of the City of Aaneho Cucamonga hersby reconmends approval pt Foothill Boulevard specific Plan Amendment 90-03, amending the Foothill sou levard Specific Plan Land Vae Hap from Medium Ras idential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to community Commercial wish Master Plan requlrewnt designation for lo.B9 acres of lend located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard Het of Etiwanda Avenue, as shown in Exhibit "A.' 6. The Secretary to Chit Commies ion shall esrt lfy to tH adoption of Chie Resolution. PLANNING COMMI93ION RESOLUTION ND. 91-51 PSPA 90-03, OOMNEACIAL - lORHA May 77, 1991 'raga 5 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 72ND DAY OF MAY 1991. PLANNING CONIj{99ION OP THE CITY OP AANCNO CUCAHONGA ~ f// 1 1 ~ r BY: ATTEST: I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Cammlaaion of the Clty of Rancho Cucamonga, em Hereby certify that the toragainq Maolutlon vac duly and raqulsrly introduced, pauad, and adopted by the Planning Camoiaeion of the City Of Aaneho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Caemiaalon held on the 27nd day of Nay 1991, by the following vote-to-wit, AYES: COlDIISS IONEAEt CNITIEA, NCNIEL, MELCNSA, TOLSTOY. VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ASSENT: COMMI93IONERS: NONE /~9 L .. LM I' T. ETI9ANDA AREA CENEAAI PLAN AYEXDYENiS 6PA 91-tltA (FSPA 91 Request to change lano ues tfq Designation Irom AAaoium Residential to Commercial I i ~~ Comm. p Comm. ~ «-,~ ~~i-7 ~r7 LM ® M MATTYfO Y[DAN lr UMIIITSMrEI A~wUMMAIINC TOLO~NYFDNM~ EISIDFNT ALNATION (hl ONEllN10 UNITS 1EA ACRE) GPA 90.025 (FSPA 90.03 Request to ohAnpe roe IuM uae dapnstion from ANdium Rgidential to Commercial CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~•••r•t%.e a s,. PLA.tiN1NG DMSION 7 TITLE: aehadre.atat•o.r• ` ~ EXI~IIBR, 'A' SCALE: ~~ y. CiOA i~ SiREt` I. ... '~~ ~.en. ~ VL u N ~''~ I~ ' •teia ec /® ~A LM RESOLUTION NO. 9/-/~S A RESOGUTLOH OF THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ~ 90-02B AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDS UM RESIDENTIAL (B-1d DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO COMMERC LAL (WITH A MASTER PLAN AEQULREMENT DESIGNATION) FOR 10.89 ACRES OF LAND IACATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, EAST OF ETI WANDA AVENUE, AND MAI(I NG FINDINGS SN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-161-03. A. Recitals. (i) On April 6, 1981, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga aporoved the enactment of the General Plan through adoption of Reso lotion No• 81-60. (ii) on July 16, 1990, FORMA, on behalf of Gzoup 66 Partnership, filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 90-028, requesting a Commercial land use designation for the subject property ae described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to ae "the application." (iii) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and following the conclusion of said public hearing, adopted Resolution No. 91-60 recommending to the City Council that said application be approved and a Negative Declaration be certified. (ivI On Ju 1y 17, 1991, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to its adoption of this Resolution. (v) All Segal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Reaclutlon have occuzred. ' e. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Pecitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true end correct. 2. eased upcn substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on July !7, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public teatimcny, this Council hereby specifically finds as fo llowa: ~~ CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION N0. GPA 90-02B - FORMA Page 2 (a) The application applies to approximately 10.89 acres of ~ land Located on the north side of Pooth111 Boulevard approximately 500 Eeet east of Etiwanda Avenue with a street frontage of 815 feet and a lot depth of 526.'6 feet and is presently undeveloped. Said property is currently designated as Medium Residential (e-14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The properties to the north and east of the sobject site are designated Medium Residential (e-14 dwelling units per acre) and ate undeveloped. The property to the south ie designated Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with single family home a. Thn property to the west is designated Medium Residential (e-14 dwelling unite per acre) and is developed with an existing, non-conforming market. (c) This amendment does net conEliet with the land ^ee Fb licie9 of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and (d) This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Uae Element; and (e) That the subject property is suitable for the proposed land use designation of Commercial as evidenced by the site's being in close proximity to properties on the west, east, and south with Commercial land use designations; and (f) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Part I and II of the Initial Study of this application and that the issuance of a Negative Declaration is appropriate; and (q) That the pzopoaed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan, Development Code, and Foothi).1 Boulevard Specific Plan. 3. This Council hereby finds that the project has been revi awed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Council hereby issues a Negntive Declaration. 4. Ba9ed upon the fin dingo and conclusions set Eorth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. 90-02B, amending the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelli ng units per acre) to Commercial (with a Master Plan requirement designation) for 10.89 acres of land located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard east of Etiwanda Avenue, 8s shown on Bxhibit "A." 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. NICi OAIA Si AF(r 4~~ N VL L VL I:...~-t_~....~~.C .-_ H L ~-- ~ I ~ «~~~ I' rl LM~~1 Y.-^ I I ~ ~.. ~. //(;omm. LM ~~ ~~~ `E~ .~ ~~ ~~ GPA 91.O1A (FSPA 91 Request to change IarW uae the designation Irom Medium Residential to Commercial ,A LM LM ~ ~bT C p~rA LM ,~'~ ' CoNnm.,~~~ Comm. _ ~. r .~I~~ LM ITEM: f+D~ O CITY OF R.4NCH0 CUCAMOIVGA TITLE: ~e~n-earal PI.A:'VPf11VG DMS10N EXHIBR: 'A' SCALE: ETIIIANOA AREA GENERAL PIAN AYEXDYEXTS ~ PROPEAiICS CUMENiLT DESIGNATED YEONY AESYENTUL t-IN OtELIINC UNITS PEA A~AfI UIpEA CONSIDCAATIOM OA AEDFSICNATION i0 lOt YFDIUY AESpIFN11Al (A-1 DAEILINC UNITS PEA ACAS) GPA 90-O4B (FSPA 90-03) Request to change the land use designation Irom Medium Residential to Commercial N AESOLVT ION N0. 9/'~g~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AANCHD CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FOOTHILL EOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03 AMENDING THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE1 TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (WITH A MASTER PLAN REQOI REMENT DESIGNATION) FOR 10.89 ACRES pF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL eOULEVARO, EAST OF ET IWANDA AVENUE, ANU MA%ING FINUINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-161-04 a. (i ) On September 16, 1987, the City council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan through the adoption of Resolution No. 87-505 fir) On .luly 16, 1990, FORMA, on behalf of Group 66 Partnership, filed an application for Foothill aouleverd Soecific Plan Amendment No. 90-03, requesting a Community Commercial land use designation for the subject property ax described Sn the tit Le of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (iii) On May 22, 1991, the PSa nninq Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and following the conclusion of said public hearing, adopted Resolution No. 91-60 recommending to the City Council that said application. be approved and a Negative Declaration be certified. (iv) On Su ly 17, 1991, the City Council of the City of Ra nrhn ..uca-,:.-,y-a l;cid a dory noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to its adoption of this Reso lotion. (v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, de tezmined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set Eo ith in the Ae ci talc, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Hosed upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on Suly 17, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: 17~ CITY COUNCZL RESOLUTION NO. FSPA 90-0] - FOPNA .n~~y 17 .ao/ Page 2 (a) Ths application applies to approximately 10.89 acres of land located on the north aide of Foothill Boulevard a ~ pproximately 500 feet east cf Etiwanda Avenue with a street frontage of 815 feet and a lot depth of 526.74 feet and is presently undeveloped. Said property is currently designated as Medium Res identlal (8-14 dwelling units pee acre); and (b) The properties tc the north and east of the subject site are designated Medium Residential (e-14 dwelling units per acre) and are undevel opetl. The property to the south is designated Low Aesidential (2-4 dwelling unite per acre) and ie developed with single family homes. The --~ c-~~ ~ 'a denlgnacee Mearum Hesldential (e-14 dwelling unite per acre) and pis developed with an existing, non-conforming market. (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Uee Policies of the General Plan or the Foothill eoulevatd Specific Plan and will provide for development, within the dlatr 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) That the subject property Ss suitable for the proposed specific plan designation of Community Commercial as evidenced by the site's being in close proximity to properties on the west, east, and south with Community Commercial land use designations; and (f) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties ae evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Study of this application and that the issuance of a Negative Declaration is apps upriake; and (g) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the ;eneral Plan, Development Code, and Poothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 3. This Council hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Council hereby issues a Negative Declaration. 4. Based upon the findings and coot Lusione set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby approves Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 90-03, amending the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling uni[a per acre) to Community Commercial (with a Master Plan requirement designation) for 10.89 acres of land located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard east of Etiwanda Avenue, as shown in Exhibit "A." 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Aeso lotion. ~-J ;AI VL i ~ ~ '' ~. H L ~ L ~ LM / _ r___; / ~. y ~ ~~ 'l ~ ~ r"I ' ......~...,i .. LM ~I~- OIi. I ~~ I •t+ ~m N Ced r1 1 I 1 1: Ems' LM V GPA 91.01A (FSPA 91 Request to change land use the designation from Medium Residential to Commercial ,N i ' Comm.! ! EiIYANDA AREA CENERAI PLAN AYENDYENIS LM W ® PItOPEATYS CUARENILI' (• I DESRMATEp YEDNY , AE59ENTUl A-IA DtCIIIXC P MIT A~ C- S EA Rff UNDER CMSIDEAAiION OR AEDESICNATIDN Olt. r M / E A ~ -1 OtE ACREj I IdC UNITS PER I ~'+ I t~ LM ( +~~ ~~~ + .I.w o park LM GPA 90-028 (FSPA 90.03) Request to oharge the larxl use ~ •. ' I deagnatlon from Medlum ~a~~ Reaitlentlal to Commercial t o~ •' •''Comm. I :N. om 1, T ' '~~ ~if1~'Y h~~r11 A ~ q ~ =~ ~ , ~ ~°,~~4id kt;\~ ~,.,, , e LM ~ :IL.IM1:. GMT 8\-pl Y(FSY. 9YaJl CI"IY OF RA.'dCHO CUCAMONGA Gmnel PIM - Spwiilc Vl.n PL.A.^IN1NG DIVISION TI'i1E: /Imeedm.nrF Lpcauup AtaP N EX}I(BIT: 'A' SCALE: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF` R.EPC~i~,`I` " DATE: July 17, 1991 T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planne[ SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSBSSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01A - PLANNING NETWORK - A request to amend the General Plan Land Uae Map from Medium Aeaidential (E-14 dwelling unite per acre) to Commercial Ear 2.0 acres oY land located on the northeast corner of Poothi ll Boulevard and 8tiwanda Avenue. The City Council will also consider Low Medium Residential (4-H dwelling unite per acre) and Office as nlternative land use deei gnatione. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Coaetercial deli gnation and issuance of a Negative Declaration - APN: 1100-161-02. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 - PLANNING NETWORK - A request to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Use Map in Subarea d from Medium Aeaidentlal (e-14 dwelling units per acre} to Community Co®ercial for 2.0 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etivanda Avenue. The City Council will also consider Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), Commercial Office, and Specialty Commercial as alternative land use designations. The Planning Co~isaion recommends approval of the Community Co®ercial designation and issuance of a Negative Declaration - APN: 1100-161-02. PECONOQIDA4I011: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 91-01A and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 amending the land use designation Ezom Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling unite per acre) to Commercial (Community Commercial in the Pooth.i ll Boulevard Specific Plar.), through the adoption of the attached Resolutions oY Approval. Further, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council issue a Negative Declaration for the applications. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT GPA 91-D to 6 FSPA 91-03 - PLANNING NETWORK r~„y !' 1wa1 Page 2 BACICGNOVND 6 ANALYSIS: At its May 22, 1991 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the subject applications and made the recommendation described above. In arriving at their recommendation, the Planning Commission considered the following issues: A traffic report was submitted by the applicant an3 wa=_ reviewed and accepted ae complete by the Tzaffic Division. This report indicated that although a commercial land use designation would create an increase in traffic, iC would not have a significant traffic impact on the planned roadwap network. 2. Because of the potential noise and visual impacts from the anticipated traffic wlumea on Foothill eoulevard, it was the Planning Commission's opinion that residential uses on the subject property would not be appropriate. 3. The economic study prepared for the City by a consultant indicated that there ie a need for commercial uses on the subject property and the Planning Commission concluded that the property would be an appropriate location because of ire proximity to existing commercial uaea. For an in-depth analysis and additional information, please refer to the attached Planning Commission Staff Report and minutes of May 22, 1991. PACTS FoR PINp);N(SS: Based upon the conclusions listed in the attached Planning Commission Resolutions No. 97-52 6 No. 91-53, it is the Planning Commission's opinion that the City Council could make the following findings regarding these applications: +ue subject propea ty is sui table for the uses permit cad in the proposed General Plan and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan land use des ignations and ie compatible with existing and surrounding land use designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the west, east, and a portion of the south by commercial land use designations. 2. Tho proposed amendments would not have significant Smpacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties ae evidenced by the findings and coot lusiona listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Study. 3. The proposed amendments are in conformance with the General Plan, Development Code, and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. COAFBSPOIIDNNCB: These items have been advertised as public hear loge in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted with supplemental large notice signs, and notices have been sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site and to all property owners within an expanded notification area. ~~8 CITY COUNCIL STAFP R6 PORT GPA 91-U 1A S PBPA 91-03 - PLANNING NLTNOAK v lj ~ss~ Pa qe 3 Reepec ly suhmitted, Brad B le City Tanner Be: VB/jfa Attachments: Planning Comiteion Staff Report of Mny 22, 1991 Planning Comi~eion Minutee of Mey 22, 1991 Planning Commleeion Aeeolut ions No. 91-52 6 No. 91-53 GPA 91-01A Resolution of Approval FBPA 91-03 Reeolutlon oY AppYOVal 179 CITY OF RANCHO CCCA~IONGA DATE: May 22, 1991 ~ e T0: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner HY: Vince Bertonir Assistant Planner SU&:ECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE39MYNT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDI~NT 91-01A n uy.~ ..~ .... .. .. Hlement'•Map 'of the Ganaral Plan tram Medium Realdential IB-td dwelling unite per acre) to Co~arcial for 2.0 scree of land located on the northeast comer of Toothill eoulsvsrd and Etiwanda Avenue. The Flaming Cosmiaeion will also con eider Low Msdlua AasidenClal ld-B drall ing mite per ncra) and Offies a. altsrn s[ive dasi gnaCiona - APN: 1100-161-02 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND P0019ILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 - PLANNING NETVOA[ - A rsqueai to amend the Foothill Boulevard 8paeific Plan Lnnd Uae Map in subarea 6 from Medium Residential (8-td dwelling unite per acre) to Commm ity Comtarcial !or 2.0 acres of land located on the northeast comer of Foothill Boulevard Hiiwanda Avenue. The Planning Co®iaeian will also consider Lor Medium Aetidential (d-8 dwelling mite per acre), Commercial Ot tics, and Specialty Coe®arcial as alternative designations - APN: 1100-161-01 I. PRNECT AND SITE D88CRI PTION: A. Action Faqueated: Approval of n General Plan Amendment and a Specific Plan Aaendment and issuance of a Nagstlve Declaration. B. Surromdinq Land Usa and Zoning: North - Existing single family residence, Medium Rsaidential •M• (e-16 drellin9 uniCa per acre) in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan South - Foothill Boulevard and vscant lrrcal, Cra:mm ity Caa•ercial in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan East - existing, non-conforaing market, Medium Reaidantial •M• (e-16 droll ing mlb per acre) in the Foothill Boulevard Specl tic Plan Meat - Vacant restaurant and motel, Co®mity Comaccial in the Foothill Boulevard Spscltle Plan PLANNING COMMISSION ,FF REPORT 6PA 91-a 1A 6 FSP 91-03 - PLAN NINJ NETrORE ,ar ~»~ Pa qe~2, C. General Plan Deai gn ationa: Project Slte - Medium Peaiden[ial (B-td duelling unite per acre) North - Medium Residential (8-ta dwelling units per acre) South - Special Boulevard and Coaman ity Comaereial EaEC - Medium Residential (E-id duelling unite per acre) We6t - Coalm~nity Comma rci a: D. Site Characteriatice: The site is developed with a vacant service station with an average elope of less than 5 percent. II. LAND USE ANALYSIS! A. Background: Foothill Boulevard Speeilic Plan: Tlu project Bite vas included in the Etirsnda 9paeific Plan uea until the Foothill BOUlevsr8 Specific Plan ru sdoptsd in 1987. The Spec if lc Plan vat the result of many months of effort involving local residents, the business community, City officials, and commun iiy leaders. Economic Analysis: in deternining land use desl gnatiane for the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, the City had the benefit of the "Baseline Bconomie Mal ysis - Poathill Boulevard Corridor, July 1906' study Pram which to determine the epproprieta levels o! commercial development within the community. Pram the Baseline Economic Analysis, it was determined that while the City did not have enough comezcial development to meet the need^ of the community, the Clty had a surplus of commercially zoned land along Foothill Boulevard and the City ae a whole. 3. IDllsting Structure: There is • vacant service station on Che subject property which is duignated a poGntial local landmark sad staff has conducted a survey to determine the historic si gnif icance of the structure. A daGrmination vas made that any potential alteration to the structure and mitigation messuras thst may be necausry would be addressed when a formal proposal for development is submitted to the Clty. This dacl sion was made because the request for a land use change from residential was [o commercial uses would not reduce the oppertunlty to preserve the atruciurs or reduce thm posslbilitias for mitigation messures dam to the nature o[ the structure and its potential for adaptive reuse in a commercial setting. 0. Related Applications: General Plan Amendment 90-028 and Foothill Boulevard Spa<if is Plan Amendment 90-01, requesting the same change in lend use designation, rare 181 PLANNING COMM ISSLON OFF REPORT GPA 91-01A 6 FEP 91-03 - PLANN SNG NETWORK Hay 22. 1991 Page ~ submitted to the PLann ing Oiv is ion by Group 66 Partnership for the property conaieiing of 10.89 acres of land on the north aide of Foothill Boulevard and approximately 500 feat east o! Etiwanda Avenue. In addition, the City has initiated General Pldn Amendment 91-028, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendmen< 91-02, and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 which proposes to change Ghe land use deai gnetian from Medium Residential to Lov Medium Residential Eor properties in the £tiwanda and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan areas. The subject property Eor this applleatlon is el eo included in the Clty-initiated B. Proposed Community Cxmercial 'CC' Land Uea IMai gnntion: Economic Malyalr. in order to evaluab the need and viability of sdditlonel co®arclally zonmd land on the subject propertied, staff regwated an economle analyaia and market study. The applicant agreed to the requirement. The study vas conducted jointly with the appllcatlan dubmittad by Group 66 Partnsrship and this application and examined the taadibility of commercial land deaignatlona for each of the individual properties and Eor both properties and the adjoining percale (see exhibit "C"). The study In cl udea a land supply analyde whicA examinee the preeant'ndequaey of eommareial land supply and its future adequacy under various growth aeenarioe and also examines coomercial land uu date from nearby cities and compared the information to al lo<stion^ Eor Rancho Cucasorga. The Lt::dy also centaim a toeueed market analysla whi<h reviews planned lend wsd in the area and evel uataa the usq agalnai population growth scenarios and basic comercial demand fore<adb. The study indicated that there Ss a nsmd for approximately 9.6 ecru of land dsdignatad for neighborhood retail dsrviees and Chet the norehuet cornmr of Foothill Boulevud and Etiwanda Avenue Sa an appropriate site for that designation. Ths study al ao indicated that the area crould support additional Land dedlgnatsd for office and coa.dreial uddd in the Lutura, although no acreage amount was determined. Traffic Mal ysls: A tratClc study was prepared by a consultant ad ragwsteM by •Caf[. Thm traffic study tndicatsd that no dgniCican! traffic impact would oc<ur if the land use 1^ changW Lrom Medium Residential to commercial use. g~- PUNNING CGMMISSION nFF REPORT GPA 97-01A b FSP 91-03 - PLANNING NETWORK Mey >J~ 1441 Page 4 General Plan and Specific Plan ConEOrman ce: Staff re viewed the proposed land use to determine if any cE the proposed land use designations could conflict with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the eoothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Staff has determined that no conf lists would occur. 4. Land Glee Aelationahipe: The aubj ect property is on the corner o[ a major Sntereection which is typically appropriate for commercial wee. Because of the size of the site, horevar, it could be difficult to devI nn a traditional neighborhood shopping canter without combin inq the subject property rith adjoining parcels. C. Connrderatron of Alternative Deslgnatlons: To provide the Commission with elternetivee to iha exislSnq and proposed desi gnatione, staff has included an analysis of categories similar in character to those wder diacwsion. In addition, because of the City'• initiated Gansral Plan Amendments to reduce the number of multiple family housing unite, staff has included the option of Low Madlum Residential. Staff examined the following land uae categories: Specialty Commercial "SC": Speciel ty Commercial Land Oae Di atricte are designed to accoampdate wee rhich promote a special landmark quality or create an ambiencn which is unique to the subarea (Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Section 6.3.7.1). These uws are much more limited than those that era alloyed wdar a Commw ity Commercial designation and era typically lass intense. Commercial Office 'CO": Co®arcial Office lend uaea conaiat of nciivitiea rhich cater to bwinees support and personal urvlcee. Uses typically In clods med teal and health ce re clinics, travel agenelea, insurance agencies, copy centers, and other like land wee (Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan section 6.3.3.2). Again, Chace wee are much wre limited then those that are al loved wder a Cooewity Co®erclal designation and acs typically lees intense. 3. Low Medium Aeeidantial "LM": 7nr Mad iua Rea idential land uaea are typically characterized by residential product types which include patio home and duplex, tri-plax, and four-plea unite with a density of 6-B dwelling wire per acre IFOOthill Boulevard Specific Plan section 6.3.2.2). Low Medium Reaiden tial could W cm siderad for the subject property if the pLnnlnq Co®ieeion chooses to recommend Lor Medium Residential for the properties in the 6tiranda Specific Plan to the north of the subject property. / L}y7 PLANNING COMM IS SI Ot AFF DEPORT GPA 91-01A S FSP 91-U3 - PLANNING NETWORk Mwy JJ; 1991 Page 5 The Low Medium Residential land use could be less intense than the existing Medium Residential and also less intense then the commercial deai gn at ion sl therefore, staff does not anticipate any aigniEicant traffic impacts. Any adverse impacts that the Foothill Soul evnrd arterial would have on future residences could be mitigated by buffering and noise attenuation call e. D. CONCLUSIONS: Tne existing Medium Residential designation has no inherent problems in staff's opinion and would be an appropriate Tana uaa. Cambined wlih Ghe adjacent propsrtiea to the north and saaC, the subject property could retain the tMdium Residential designation and alloy for a vi able residential development. The City's daaize to ineaaw the ratio of single family dwelling units to multiple family duelling unite, however, would not make this the moat eppzopriata designation. Additionally, the potential historic landmark building would have Less adaptive rehabilitation potential under a residential desi gnatlon. 2. The Low Medium Aes idential deal gnation would continue the a Ingle family residential development if the parcels to the north in the fitivanda Specific Plan are also redesignated to Low Medium Residential. In adds ti on, Low Medium would promote the City's goal of increasing Ghe ratio oC single tamily dwelling units to multiple family dwelling units at the City's build out date. 3. The Co®unitY Cosurclal designation would be appropriate 1n ragara• to the location of the subject pazceln on the corner of a major intenecilon. The economic and market analysis also concluded that, combinsxl with the adjacent property to the north and cant, there would be a need for additional eoaarcial st ihis location. d. The Cce>tercial Otfice dseignation would also be econasLLCally viable nccordinq to she aconosic and market anal yels and, cosbined with the adjacent properties to the north end east, would Da an appropriate location. 5. Tha Specialty Ca®ercial designatim is Sntended to proswts apecisl landsark gwlltlea of a property sod there is an existing structure on the subject pzopnrty which has the potential far a local landmark designation. it in ataff'• opinion, that the existing service •Cation Bite could be combined with tha adjacent propartla• to the north and to Che east to create s viable shopping center. It would 6e mont desirable to combine these properties under a Mseter Plan designation. /8~ PLANNING COMMISSION AFF RE PO RS GPA 91-0 to 6 FSP 91-U7 - PLANNING NETWORK May ?2, :991 Page 6 upon review of possible land use deel gnationa, staff hac determined two poasibie courses of action for the Planning Commission with which to pwcetl: Specialty ceasaerciaL It the Co®isaion believes chat specialty Commercial uses are moat appropriate, then a recommendation shpul8 be mode to the City Council to change the land use designation for the nubj ect property from Mtliw Residential to Specialty Commercial. It in staff's ooin ion thwt r6. •a ~.,.+~-; facto [or findings can be made: i) The subject property in suitable Los the uses permitted in the propostl General Plan and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan land we designation end is eapatible with existing and aurroundirtg la:M wa designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered an the vent, east, and a portion of tlu south be co®ercial land ues designations. 2) The proposed amendment will not have significant impacts an the environment nor on the aurzounding properties as evidenced by the findings end conclusions lintel in Parts I 6 II of the Initial wlranmantal Studies of this npp31eat1on. 3) The propostl amendment dose not exhibit any conflicts with the provLions of the General Plan and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Rlan. b. Low Mtllw Assidential: If the commission believes that Low Ntliw Amsldential wee are moat appropriate, than a raom.endaLion should be made to the City Cowc11 Co change the land uw lee ignation Lor the subject property from Mtlipm Aeeidential to Iqr Mtliw Residan ti al. It is staff's opinion that tM following facts Cor findings can be made: 11 The subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the prapostl General Plan and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan land we designation and is cwpatibla with existing and surround inq land we designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered a: tM north by residential deal gnat Sane. 1g.5 PLANNING COMM ISSLOt :AFF REPORT GPA 91-01A 6 FSP 91-01 - pLANN I;lG NETWORK nav 2c", .70. Page 7 2) The propoeao amendment will not have sign if icant impacts on the environment nor on the aurxounding properties ae evidenced by the Findings sad eon slue ions listed in Pazta I and iI of the Initial Environmental Studies of thin application and of General Plan Amendment 91-028. 31 The proposed amendment does not exhibit any contllcts with the provlelon• of the General Plan and the Foothill Boulevard Spaei tie plan. III. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSNII7T: Staft hu raviwd Part I of the Initial Study and couplated Part II aM hoe found no significant adverse environmental Lapaces that rill occur as a result of the proposed General Plan Amandmant and Specifio Plan Asandesnt u a rosult o! a change at land use Lroe Mediua Residential to Coounity Coessarcial, Specially coeesrcial, Comexcial Ott tee, or Lor Nadiue Raddenlial. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: Than Mass have bean sdvsrtLed as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Dally Bulletin newspaper, the property has bean potted with a largo notification sigl~ and notices were sent to all property owners within 700 [sat of the projacL site. V. R$COMNBNOATION: Stott reed®ands that the Planning Co®ie sioa recommend that the existing Medius Residential land use designation (8-14 dwelling units per acrd) ba changed to either Iqa Nndium Rasidentl4l (6-8 dwelling units par acre) or Specialty Commer eial through the adoption of the appropriate attached Resolutions. Respectfully aubnitttl~ //A~ /J'~ c Brad Eviler u City Planner BB:VB;mlg Aetnchs~tsl 6xhiblt "A" - General Plan and SpeelHc Plan Nandsent Location Nap Exhibit 'B" - Applicant's JustlCiution SCateeent exhibit "C' - Study Kea A1Grnativu Msolutlon for GPA 91-OtA to Corarcisl Rewlution for PSPA 91-03 to Specialty Cos:arclal NsoluL ion Cor GpA 91-0 to t0 Lor Mediue Residential Rewlutlon for FSPA 91-03 to Lor Mediue Residential O W ritra~u S~AEC •~ ~ i~.hiieh.: VL L `1 ~ VL I~ ~- ", L^ ~. h-i '~~ LM / ~ . / /• m. ETItAXOA AREA CENFRAI PLAN AYENOYENTS GPA 91.OtA (FSPA 9 Raquaat to chan0a IanA u6• tM desgnaticn hom at•dium RaaWantial to Comrrrrcial , LM ® PAOPEATES CUAACNIIT OESMRIARO ~OMI I MT~IG A iE))µIIIOM~AL~ COMSIDEAATNIN PM AEDESIOMATIOM TO lOR ItDMI A[SgEM11Al (1-A OtEIIWC OMITS PER ACAE) / Comm. ~-~I"~ ~~ s GPA 90.028 (FSPA 90-0: Rpual ro chanp• tf» lantl ua~ AuiOnatbn Irom AAWium RaaitLMial to Comrn~rcial 17E~1: CI'I~' OF RANCHO CUCA1410NGA c.n.w w.n a sr,.~ PLA.~1'ING DMSION TI71E: 11nr•ndnnntaLeuha ~~ ~ EXH(B(T 'A' SCALE. N ~, •1•A •e yva OFNFRAL PW/ AMENOMENI JUfnF10AiION JuslNlcdlon: We baieve Phot the prapoaed Gurerd Pion and correapondinp Development D'uhicl Amendment are lunHied beeouw They are consistent with the tolbwinq goab and objectives or the Foothill Boulevard SpecNk Plan: Mmdmae 1M economk poaHbn d tM FaolMlt Gorrldd commercbl activHles, caplurinq nephborhood and wGepbrtd demand. Chanaina the dwslnnnrwr ,.r rti. ~ ^^ ° ~!!~ °_^ ; ~' ;~:,;;,-.;' ,,.n,ximuiw we perms development of a nNghbdhaod shoPfNr+p craruu fo serve n1e Ethvaraa dw of the City, caPturirp o podbn of the neighborhood and autxepbnal mdkN. Enwro fM gradual upgrading d undu•utdUed fora uses ItssCtbnlnp d Ipt ttwn theN market twtenfld. fie lxopoted Gw»rd Plan and DwekprnuM Dbhkt Mlertdmenh wp abo rearH In tM removal of the Idmu pas notbn on ttte southun poreN, rrpprodrp an Ixldaututced hnd use funefioninp d Ica than Ma tnorkN potenhd. h addklorl, Ale adlacuN porceb are abo under- utillxed, a sinpWlamily rrsaldence on the norMUn Ix+rcN and o sinpl~fampy dwNlinp and markN on ifw bl fo tfle eon. Menu danikw a large aea wiN pump Mae Pcaceb to be upgradrsd to load uws whkh rssdbe ttte markN potssnlld d Htelr kb. (Provide furl Clew dgonbatbn d sltrseH, IdenfNlable dbhkb, and IandnarW whkh gives peopa o sow of dksetkn and oMrmallon. The rndeM d eonfusbn h traAk ckeulatbn, and the amount d conpwtbn incrwsYlpry Apure h people's pereeptbns of cHles. When the Elhvanda Arw--especlapy the porlfat ewM d tM proposod 30 Fraawoy-b buiN-oui, the Intssrwctbn of FooMtM Blvd and Elhvarld0 w/ becarite m krlpatOm lord poht. fie FoothlN Boulevard SPecHk Plan rer;opnisw ttte slprllACance d M1Y Intenectbn by desipndinp H an adNHy centu. /tc'HvAy ceMea are penudly eortrpwW d urban or{entrW specblly cOR1nlMatd USW, kl file WtI Olhu aetlVNy eeMen drlslpated by Ifte SPeeNk Plan, adlacen! land uses ore aY camterclal, and d M» FodhWEtkvaWo kItM70CAOf1, tlvee d the lour cdnuf hove eannluelal dNlpnaBar. flew eormlereld can W wed to emphaa¢e the Importance an an Mersecttor4 Id wl1Ne reskienHal Waleak are penuaEY dkected InlunalN. cdnmucld uses can be oriented toward t11e carne to reWorce Ns slpNACance Ixavklkp londmarw and pivYlp WoPM o sense d oderNdlon and dwcllon. used to vbuatly unify Ate cartklor, activMy cemen prsvlde a soles d 1Npf W IdentNbbN place whkh ore Hnked togNhu by corwped parkway ryenpn. iM FaolltlE/EMvpnda IMers•ctbn b a rttoaHkalbn of fM slpWard tlesipn. A b Mended Io law O lea pedsMrlan orlultalbn, wNh lea hordscope moferwb, levee pb[m aW sheN harlEure b be replaced W tun. bndaeaFinq Ond beflfll, on O pllaE 6111, weh Ot the orle pnseMly beM1p emsWered. NrlPlesslentdton OI the octlvAY center concept could ae more eas9y accommodated M a comrtwrcld protect tnan in o retklenfld ar». November 13, 1990 /g~ GPA 91-o1A EaMDit •e' Genord Plbn Anlendnlenl.rlr,tmcdwn In addNbn, a number d dnw txlas >ttfoutd 1» valuated when ca+fiderirfp MN propoaot. Althagh a 2 aen eommercid rllo con W dworopod, ocearvnoddtnQ rwWOntid utw an Iho wmo dxe parcel wood txdwbN noT be oeonankolly vlabN. E~poelalN when the proNct world bo requlrod to oWab tFfe eodi ouocroled wNh N» oedvMy eoMor allforfNloo and Nfo won mar. wWtantid eosl of rorrfovklp ono WeonlaNnalMlp R1o dd pa Iarda eunorNty roed.d on IM dts. ni.:..iw w,iiry iii i wry aeo awnrfwrclol wl/ 1101 prechrde dovebp4fp otyocoM propoAW a roWer111a1. tr earrrleretd u1w ao corwnrcted on tr» carter tbrceM. the rMlaYfkp dlo~ mould MII be dovoloPOd a mullipM IaMly nouWp. KN Hfe confer ~h could tk kflo o tbrpw aroo to ttlo oad, It1b aeb could bs motor pbrYled a calrfnlorelol 1M CNY moy wlkl to contWor Mfo four study aea iwtrdod on M1o aMactletl spun. FkwYy, the owner k eommX1W ro eanrllereld Wvobpn1or11 an Mw Wo. Flo Y a Ewtkfeo owns vIMt1 o tPOCMIe o1N an wNCh M htorWr to wede hh FxrMten. Hh rmprooeh to dwolopmerN V rat a a nPeculalM venhxo, txp a m end wer wtY1Yp ro eaabMtl o CudMy comnlerelal paNet. Mbv.mb.r , S. , Op0 / g9 .. . ~~'4`,~r W1ay I, 1991 Mr. Vince Bertoni City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 917;0 Dear vince: •~iY pr RPNt wn~ C1•`A0.,\'uA .~ ~ rv w Mar oa 1B9t 718t811~tlIffiIij2l8j4j518 As agent for the Group 66 Partnership, I recently attended • neighborhood meeting regarding the Ciry initiated rezone of medium residential property within the Etiwsnda Specific Plan. As you know, Group 66 is currently involved is obtaining a rezone which will allow commercial uxs on their property. In previous eorrespOndepee with the City, we have outlined numerous reuons why «sidentiel uses of say kind ate inapDroDriate for the subject property. Thex reasons, while pertinent to medium residential zopiog, are more Dronoueced molten considering the possibility of a low density residential neighborhood adjacent to Foothill Boulevard. Low density residential zoning would be an unxtisfactory use of the property related to orieota[ion. circulation, health and xfety, and overall benefit to the City. We strongly request that the City refrain from including This property within the low density residential area. Wa understand commercial uxs are to be considered as an alternative for the property. This would best respond to the project conditions and Cisy's effort to «duce the amount of medium rpidential zoning. We request tha[ you give this your careful coesideration. 1 look forward to providing you any additional information you may require. Sincerely, FGRMA ~-~~` George Theodoroa Agent for Group 66 Partaenhip GT:kb /~~ r0%90 C~~rc Carter Onve • Svne r00 • Fancne Cucangrga CA 9t 730.171a1989.2232 • FA% r., u~. ;a.. .vy.•.•.::.nti.:n.iP%Ea<..[_•.E.~EiE'r,V:Ei~.n ant i~'E:gEs'.C'i.aBnx:Ei4hEPV~GnuEh'4 WiuGiutr ...E:nwEh':.- Study Area ~ r uJ U ~ I ~ ~ ~ -- Study Area 2 ----' .1 3 1 ,I J Jo ~~ j i. ~, 9~ .'JJ roaw wa -~~ - - - - Study Area 3 3 ~ I 3 J I .. • ,p~iM ~IVd Study Area 4 t C.1 ~~ ~,` r ;~~ ~..~. ~. Study Area Etiwanda Pia:a, Rancho Cucamonga ALTERNATIVE! ~i LANNING NETLbORK ~9~ e.n~n~~ •c- 1. NVIRONMENTA_ A SF95M_NT AND GENERA PLAN AMENDMENT 90-02B - GROUP 66 PARTNERSHIP - A requot to amend the Land Use Element Map of the General Plan from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling unite per acze) to Commercial foc 10.89 ecru of land lee algid on the north aide of Foothill Bou Levartl giant of Et iwanda Avenue. The Planning Commieaion will also coneidet Low a Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling unite per acre) and office an alternative des ignatione - APN: 1100-161-04. staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaxat ion. J. E BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDNENT 90-03 - GROUP 66 PARTNERSHIP - A raqueat to amend the Foothill sou Levard specific Plan Land Uae Nap in subarea 4 Erom Medium Residential (8-14 dwe111nq unite pat Gera( to Community Commercial for 30.89 acres of land loeahd on the north •Sde of Foothill Bou LVard oat of Et iwantla Avsnw. The Planning Commie SOn will also cone ider Low Medium Reudsnt •al (4-a dwe 111ng unlu par sera), ConaureiQ Office, and specialty Comms[eial u alternative deaignation• - APN: 1100-161-04. staff recommends Laauancs of a Negative Deelazation. K. ENVIRONlLNTAL AeeaBBMFNT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-OlA - PS~ANNLNG N O - A ragout to amentl the Land Uu Element Map of the General Plan f[om Medium Residential (5-14 tlwell Lnq unite par acre) to Commercial for 2.0 acraa o[ land located an the noriheest corner of Foothill Boulevard antl Btiwanda Avenue. The Planning Commieaion will also coneidar Low Hadium Residential (4-8 dwelling unite par acts) antl Office ae alternative deeignetione - APN: 1100-161-02. Staff recommsnda iasuence of a Negative Oaclaration. ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMHNT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD sPECIF IC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 - PLANNING NSTWORE - A raqueat to amantl the Foothill Boulevard Spec if i< Plan Land Uae Hap in subarea 4 from Medium Residential (e-14 dwelling unite par acre) to Community Commercial far 2.0 acraa of land locnted on the northeaei corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwtnda Avanua. Tha Planning Commie ion will also consider Low Medium Resident lal (4-B dwelling unite par acre), Commercial Office, and Specialty commercial ae alternative deelgnat ions - APN: 1100-161-02. staff recommends Lseuance of a Negative Declaration. FhJIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-020 - CITY OP RANCHO CVCAMONCA - A proposal to amend the General Plan Land Dee Elamant Xap tram Hadium Resident ial (8-14 dwelling unite par acre) to Low Mediwo Reident Lal (4-8 dwll inq unite par acre) for the following subarea within the Etiwanda and Foothill Boulevard specific Plan areas: 1. Approximately 14.20 acres bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the oat by CM eutern City limits, on the south by mating Low Mediua Au ident ial duignated land, and on the wet by a utility corridor - APN: 229-041-30. 2. Approximately 18.46 acraa bordered on the north by the Foothill Boulevard Specif ie Plan boundary, which La approximately 530 fast north of Foothill Bou levard7 on the coat by a utility corridor) on the aauth by Foothill eoulevardJ and an the west by Stiwanda Rvenue. TM Clty will eoneider Commercial and Office u alternative lend uu du ignation• for thin eni ire area - APN: 1100-161-01 through 04 and a portion of 1100-201-01. Planning Commission Minutes ~1~ ^ May 22, 1991 d' 3. Approximately 2].69 scree bordered on Che porthwaat by the Ontario (I-15) Prwway, on the east by ECiwenda Avenue end ex Let ing Low Mediwo Resident ial deeignated land, and on the south by commercially tleeiynatad land bordering Poothill aoulevatd. The City will coNider Low Resident Lal (2-4 dwelling unite per acre) as• an alternat ivs land uea designer ion for !''-LS sntin aru - APN: 227-211-02, 04, O5, 09, 10, 15, 20 and 29. d. ApproxLmately 67.52 acres barderetl on the north by Mll ler Avenue; on the east by East Avenue and a utility corridor; on the eoulh Dy the Foothill Boulevard SpeeLfic Plnn boundary, which ie approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; and on the wear by Etiwanda Avenue. The City will consider Low Ro ldential (2-4 dwllinq unite par acre) a an alternative land use duignation for this entire a[ea - APN: 1100-131-o1 x~n m nnn..+n+_m •^.+ __, 1100-151-03 and 02, 1100-1B3-Ol and 02, and 1100-191-O1. 5. Approximately 70.72 acres Dordared on the northwest by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the ust by Eaet Avenue and exist lnq Low Medium ReaidentiQ deeignated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue. The Clty will consider Low Residest ial (2-4 dwelling units per acre) ar an alternative land use dwignalion Lor this entire area - APN: 1100-031-OS, 1100-041-Od through 10, 1100-051-03, and 1100-061-02 through 04 and portions of 1100-071-01 and 02. 6. ApproxLmately 11.09 scree bordered on the north by Soe Line Roed, on the southeast by the Oniarto (I-15) Freeway, and on the wet by existing Law Medium Residential deeignated land. The CSty will consider Offiu and Nslghbarhoad Camurcial es alternative land uw designations fo[ this entire area - APN: 1100-051-01 and 02 and 1300-Ofi1-O1. 7. Approx lmately 10.09 acres bordered on the north and west by exLetinq Low Madlum Res ident Lal designated lantl, on the east by exUting Otfin du lgnatad lendr end on the eoutM by caw Line Road. The Clty will consider office ae an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 227-131-36 through 36r 52 through 54, end 61. 8. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by the Southern Pacific railway, on the wet by Che Ontario (2-16) Pzesway, on the south by existing Oftice designated land, and on the west by ex lstinq Low Nedium deeignated land and divided Ln a north-ecuth direction by Saet Avenue. The city will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwllinq units per acre) ae an alternative land uw designation for this entire area - APN: 227-331-OS and 227-141-14 and 66. Staff recoeernde ieswnro of • Negative Declaration. N. ENVIAONMSNTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD 9PECIlIC PLAN AMENDMENT 1G2 - CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONCA - A propOUl to emend the Foothill Boulevard specific Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (B-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-e dwllinq unite pax acre) for the following soberest within the Foothill Boulevard Spec ifie Plan: Planning ComnLuf.on Minutes -20- May 22, 1991 /93 1. Approximatrly 14.30 acres bordered an thr north by Fcot hill Boulward, on [ha east by thr raatern Cley limit •, an the south by rxisting Low Medium Rrsitlential day ignatad land, and on eha caret by e utility corridor - APN: 239-041-10. 2. Approximately 18.66 ecraa bordrred on the north by the Foothill Boulevard specif is Plan Boundary, which is approximately 530 Eeet north of Foothill Bou lrvard} on thr asst by a utility corridor; on the south by Foothill Boulevard; and on eha carat by Et iwanda Avenue. The City will consider Community commerc ie 1, Commezc ial Off icr, and specialty Cammrrclal s• altarnat iva land use designations for thi• entire area - APN: 1100-161-01 through 04 end a port ian of 1100-301-01. Staff recommends Luusncr of a Nsgat iva Drc Lrat ion. V OF RANCNO•CVCANONDA - A proposal to amend the [l iwanda Spae if le Plan Land Uw Map from Nedlum Rrsidrnt Lal (8-16 dwr111nq unlb par acre) to Low Mad ium Rreidential (6-e dwelling unite per acre) for thr following subareas within the 8tiwanda Specil LC Plan: 1. Approximately 27.89 scree bordered on the northwest by the ontar to (I-15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwenda Avmus and ex Ltinq Low Medium Ruidmtlal tleslgnated land, and on ehr south by eommrrelal ly designated lantl bortlerinq Foothill Boulevard. Thr City will cone Ldrt Low Residential (2-d dwllLnq units prr acrr) a an sltrtnatlvr land uss drrignation toz this rnClra area - APN: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 20, and 39. 2. Approximately 87.52 acres bordered on the north by Miller Avenue; on the rasi by East Avenue and a utility corridor; on eha south by the Foothill Baulrvard sprcif lc Plan boundary, which ie approximately 530 feet north o[ Foothill Boulward} and on tM caret by Etiwanda Avrnw. TM City will eonrider Low Re sidrntial (2-d dwelling units per acre) as an albrnativr land uss doignation for this entire area - APN: 1100-131-01 and 02, 1100-141-01 and 02, 1100-151-O1 end 02, 1100-181-03 and 02, and 1100-193-O1. 3. Approxiwtaly 30.72 ecraa bordarrd nn the northeast by the Ontar is (I-15) Ftrrway, on the urt by Baat Avenue and existing Low Medium Aasidential des ignatetl land, and on the south by Miller Avenue. TN City will consider Low Residmtlal (2-4 dwelling unit prr acrr) a^ an •ltrrnatlvr land uw dreignatlon for this entire area - APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-061-06 through 10, 1100-051-03, antl 1100-061-OZ through 0{ and portions of 1100-071-01 and 02. 4. Approximately 11.09 acres 6ordrred on thr north 6y Bao Linr Road, on thr soutMaat by the Ontario (I-15) Pnrway, and on thr caret by rxiatinq Low Mrdlum Residential designated land. Thr City will consider Office Profaulonal and Convenlenee commrrcial as alurnat ivr land uu du ignatlons for this entlrr errs - APN: 1100-051-01 and 02 and 1100-061-01. 5. Approximately 10.09 acres bordered on the north and wut by rxiatinq Low Mrdium ReeLdrnt ial designatrd land, on thr uat by rxiatinq Officr dreignaGd land, -nd on ehr south by Base Line Road. The Clty will consider O[f Lcs Pro [so Tonal a an alternative land uu designation Lar Lhi• entire aru - APN: 227-13i-34 ehrough 36, 53 through 5{, and 61. Planning Commission Ninutra -21- May 22, 1991 ~9~ 6. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by the Seuihern Paeif ie xai lway, on Cha east by the Ontario (I-15) Preeway, on the south by exiatlnq OEf lee designated land, and on the went by existing Low Helium designated land and dtvidetl in a north-south direction by bast Avenue. The City will cone idar Luw Resident ial w (2-4 dwelling unite per acre) ae an alternative land use designation fcr this entire area - APN: 227-331-Ob end 227-141-16 and b6. Stetf recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Alan warren, Assmeiate Planner, and Vince Bertoni, Aaeietant PLannar, presented the staff reports. Comniaaionsz Melehar asked 1t the perception is that all multi-family uaas are making the community foal oven+helmed by multi-family or i[ it La really the higher-density apartment ptojenta which prol if steed Sn eartain wctiona of the community which csuud the alarm. Ha wondered iL tleveloping at 11-12 unite par eats, whleh should produce town home projaetsr is viewed as problematical. Hr. Warren raaponded that eoneerne wart originally raiwd because of the highar density projaeta being developed. Ha said however when the build-out percantagea ware preunted to Cliy Ccuncll, the Council wanted mow single- family unite built to snouts the eharactat of the community. Brad Buller, City Planner, atatatl Cha City Council direction was that all attached-typo products would ba conddered multiple family and would W of concern. Ne said therefore, the tlensity ranges of 8 dwelling unite per acre or greater are being considered. Commie eioner Maleher atatatl that in the area under consideration, theta era currently no high-density projaeta. xe asked if einyle-family denaitiee of 4-8 can ba achievatl in the atiwanda area which will meet Che etandarde of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Mr. warren replied that the Btiwanda Spac if is Plan hoe larger minimum and average lot sizes than required in oiher areas of the City. Ha Laid the optimum standards allow more flexibility, but require significantly more open apace around dwelopments. Hr. Buller stated that the neighborhood meeting regarding the amendments Defore the Co®Saaion included a discussion of the LOW Medium standards. Ha indicated the owners requested that the etandarde be relaxed to permit Low Medium standards similes to tM cant oC the Ciiy. He felt the Bt Lwandt Speeif le Plan would probably yield at most a 4-b duelling unit par sore product in the 4-8 Low Medium area. Commiesionor Melchor seated that the eawllne Eeonamie Analysis prepared prior to the adoption of the Poothill Boulevard S[»cit is Plan determined there ua^ a surplus of cammerelally zoned land along FooehLll Bau levatd, but the applieante for Items I, J, K, and L had eubmLtted a new economic analysis Planning Commies ion Hinutee -22- Nay 22, 1991 l9s which indicated there ie not a surplus of commercial land. He naked if the new a<udy had been prepared by a die intereeted party. Mr. Warren replied it had been prepared under contract to the CLty by the same consul<ant who prepared the Baseline Analye ie. ~ Commise inner Melcher felt that although that information was encouraging he wan still concerned, given the level of development occurring along Fcothil 1. He asked if the traff is study wan performed under City auvpices. Mr. Bectoni replied that the traEf LC study was performed at the request of the Engineering 9ivision and wag accepted by Engineering ea adequate. Commissioner Melcher asked why et off cons Ldvrad Low Medium residential ae an alternative when the applicant wan request Lng a change to commercial and community commercial. Mz. Wazren replied that etnff Eelt a change to Low Hedlwa should also by considered because of the Couneil'e direction to look at all undsvalopsd multi-family portals. Commies inner Melcher asked if it was etaff'• intention that development should be themed like the potent Lally hletorLCS1 service station. Mr. warren responded that it ie ant icipatad that the hiatorie value would ba in relation to Route 66. He thought perhaps adaptive reuse of the structure would be a poeeibil i[y and future development may emulate the architectural design. Commiaeioner Melcher commented [hat the applicat ion'• juetif ication propoeed removal of the service afar ion. Mr. Warren ata[ed that if the vtructure ie determined to be historic, accommodations would have to be msda by the applicant. Xe said if the Specialty Commercial were granted, the City would expect Ghat the historic feature be coneitlered with the development. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, reported that the appl icant'e proposal was dated prior to staff's completion of the hivtorical analysis of the building. Commisaicner Helcher asked how a Change from Medium to Low Hedium Residential would of feet the City's nEfordabU housing program. Mr. warren responded that there is no poltcy Ln the housing •lsment that e pecif ie• a certain number of multi-family housing units must by built. Xa indicated multi-family housing will still ha built. Xa said tM money for low-cost housing can be used Eor single-family as well ae molt L-family units. Mr. Nenderson stated that Cho number of neevesary aftordab la unite in the housing element will change psriodleally based on regional numbers generated by the southern California Aaeoclat ion of Coveznnwnts (sCAGj. He acid the Planning Commies ion Minutes -23- May 22, 1991 1 qcv City ie oleo given the option of challenging the numbers iE [hey do not Eit into land use plena. Ne stated that currently bu ildera are not providing law- coet housing on their own init iat the because land costa have grown so rapitlly. Ha felt the City would ptebebly have to participate tlirect ly through the Redevelopment Ageney•• eat-aside fund. Commissioner Keleher asked for some background on Hz. Banks' lefts c. He •aid it appeared theca had been a compraniea to permit higher tlenaity in the area south and east of the tresway because of pressure from the develop4re. Ha stated it appeared the developers o[ the plan were more eoncernea with keeptnq low density north of the freeway. Chairman McNlal atatad tNre were two large local groups: a AaeidenG' Association of Et iwantla and a Landowners' Association, which had a number of said the primary concern of the res idente was to maintain the existence and character of Etiwanda north of Bue Lire. No said their interuts were not as strong south of Base Lino and port icularly south of the fxesway. Commissioner Melchor ca®ented that the higher-density ranee were placed around the freeway Sn a manner tending to buffer lesser Bona itie• and more seneit ive uses from the freeway environment. Chairman NeNiel stated that cams of the area was deaignatad Medium Resldmtlal when there were efforts to make it all commeretal. Hr. Buller atatad that 6aaed on the Lntormst ion presented and discussed durl:,q the Etiwanda specific Plan heaxingsr the beet planning der ieion et the time was reached. However, hs said new information hoe been considered by the City Council and a new ditaeiion hoe now been receivetl from Che City Council. Commieeioner Nelcher asked what would happen Co the U. 5. Nomee project if changes were made to the deslgnetions. Mr. warren etatod that if the City Cnundl adepts a Lcw Medium designation, all development woultl 6e subject to those standards. He said there are drainage issues involved which have delayed the v. 3. Nomee project. Hr. Buller etatod that U. S. Nomee had Lnd icated to the Planning Commission that they have made • significant Lnvestmont in their application and tlid not wish to drop rho application. He reported they were represented at the Neighborhood Neelinq and had requuted that the Ww Medium atandard• be reconsidered to G equivalent to Low Medium within the remainder of the City. He said Chey have indleabd they could not 6u ild what they feel i• the appropriate Nedlum development, bwt instead they want to bu iltl •inglrfamily homes with a request to modify the Etiwanda Specific Plan to permit standards that would give Cham that option. Ho elated if the land is redesignated Gow Medium, the developer will have to reconsider their application. He felt it would be prudent for tM CommLsion to diecuu whether they would consider changing the Low Medium standards in Etiwanda. Planning Commia•ion Ntnutos -24- May Z2, 1991 Iq7 Commie •iener Helcher asked if the Southern pacific right-of-way may not become a light rail corridor. Mr. Henderson at at ed that St the Santa Ps lino ie act purcnneetl, it will be eeverel years before the Sout~arn Pacific line can be uaetl because it i• Ln ~ such poor condltton. Ns stated that no matter what type of housing tlene ity ie built, a notes analysis would be required based on the use o[ the railroad and mitigation measures would be required. Chairman McN iel opened the public hearing. Van etepnene, Forma, 10790 Civic Center D[lve, 1100, Rancho Cucamonga, st aced he ie the agent for Group 66 Partnership. Ha appreciated staff's work on the appllcet ion and indicated hs felt the requaKed amendment to Commercial is ..3z_c.-._C .. ,,... ..., .u • is conaucivv to rsuaential Bevel opl0ant beeauu of huvy tufilc on Poothlll boulevard. Ha felt an setivity pacer would be wsl l-served by master planning. Ne commented that additional commercial ueee would bring addltlonal revenue to the City. He showed a graphic of the proposed shut alignment and the addition of a collector street. He thought the •ize oL CRS parcel woultl be good for commorelal uses. Because of the deep tits, hs indicated it would not be developed with et rip commercial, but would bs oopiatsnt with the PoothLll Boulevard epee ifie Plan. CommLasioner Melchsr asked if Mr. Stephona felt that Subarea 1 to the south of Foothill boulevard would also be lnapproprlate for Low Hedium Aadtlantlal. Hr. Stephens repl tad that ha had not reviewed Subarea 1 in detail. He indicated it may have different aspect e, but he generally did not feel that single family residences should be oo sloes to Foothill boulevard. Charles Cummins, 1645 North Laurel Avenue, Upland, respect EU lLy requested that the northeast corner of Poothill and EEiwanda be changed to Commercial. Cheri^an N_Nial aakad if Hr. Cummina agreed with the recommended tleeignat ion of Specialty Comnieteial. Hr. Cummins stated hs would prefer the regular Commercial designation bacauo he felt specialty Commercial would rutrict tN ueee. Commies loner Melchor uksrd what ha planned to do with the service station. Hr. Cummins respondetl that ho was willing to do whatever the City wants; however, he believed rho service bay canopy will extend into the right-of-way. Lloyd Zola, Plennlnq Network, 9375 Archibald Avenue, 1101, Rancho Cucamonga, stated thst the outside canopy pLlars will stand in the right-of-way. He ind LCatad the original desire was to remove the service station as such a uw would not bo permitted Ln the area. He asked that the area not be Specialty Commercial bacauu it has not yet bun determined that the building La historically •ignificant• NS reported Lhat tM latest stutly ind Lcates a lack Planning Commieeion MinuCe• -26- May 22, 1991 /~'g of commercial uses in the area and he felt the commercial Land use ie compatible with eurrountling uses. Donaltl Phillips, 8011 Etiwanda, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owns a house immediately north of the vacant ear vice at at ion. He zeque et ed that his property be soned eommeee itl. ~ Gary Womack, 5366 Evening Canyon Way, Rancho Cucamonga, staled he works for Grubb 6 Ell to and he teel• the community noede moro commercial proporty. Father Fred Gaglia, Pastor, 8eered Heart Chu reh, 12706 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, etatod the church roqueated that thx small portion of Choir property in Subarea 3 be rezoned Commercial to be the same ae the remainder of their property. He did not Eeel the area ie conducive to resident ial development. Li LS Hwang, Pu Mai, 7168 Archibald Avenuor Rancho Cucamonga, etatod tMy purchuetl the property with the intention of davolopinq under eertaln crikeria. She felt downzoning would crsau a tinaneLal nardshlp. Bne Laid the traffic ganaratetl by Pt ice Club and the future regional mall would not be appropriate !n a ein93e-family area. she roqueeted that the Medium density be maintained. She folt that Eaet Avenue will also havo a high density traffic volume. She said Chet U. B. Homaa epeeializas in single-family units, ea they were in favor of the change, but her company ie just a small company. Aobort Larry Arcinage, 7650 Celle Casino, Rancho Cucamonga, orated he was involved in rho adoption of the EL iwanda Specific Plan. Ho ea id Tim Banks was a loader of the tssidenb' group. He indicated the Hedium Residential was a trade-off to rogv ire ono-half acre lot• north of Baee Line antl one acre lot• fort het no ran. He frlt rhea any major commercial Bite should have a buffer zone of Hetl ium Residential before changing to Low Metlium. He felt the utility corridor should ba bufferetl by an apartment house. Xe thought apartment dwel Jere havo more flexibility to move if they decide they are not happy with a eurrountling area. Ho opposed the change from Hedium to Low Medium, but felt that if the City should decide to change the deeignai ion, eoneideration should ba given to requiring a buffet zone arountl major shopping center and major arteries. Pete Pit ass i, Pitasei-Oalmau Archltecta, 9267 Haven Ave nos, /220, Rancho Cucamonga, etatod M spreonietl Otaawrcy Properties, and they opposed the zonLng changes to the property. xe felt that Miller will be the northern acceos for the regional mall and will be linked to the properties to the east. He thought Hetllum Resident Sal will permit butter mit igai ion of the noise from the •levatsd freeway. Xo said they had submitted an applieatlon Eor development, Gut it has been stalled because of a drainage issue. Hr did not Eeol it is toilette to pruume that all Medium Residential i• automatically mu It l-family. Hs Feld chat staff hne indicated Choy are not cure eLnglr family detached hoses could be tlaveloped at a yield of greabr than 3.25 per acre because of the minimum 10,000 square foot lob, even though the Low Medium Residential equates to 4-8 dwelling unit per acre. He thought the proposed zone changes would only equate to a loos of 2,800 multi-family Planning Commission NLnute• -26- May 22, 1991 i99 unite as opposed to the 4,000 shown in the staff report and the incisaa6 in single-tami ly unite would equal 1,500 instead of the 2,600 ind icaied in the report. He did not teal the area is an appropriate market area fo[ Low Nsdium zoning. He aLo requsabd that Low Medium standards for the Etiwanda aces be studied. Jeff Sceranka, 10068 Copper Mountain Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated ho was on the iaek force which studied the Et iwanda area. He felt that Medium Residential permits preserver ion of the rural character better than cookie- cutter single-family homes. He thought that multi-family allows larger setbacks and peseta. Ho felt Medium Ruldential ie an appropriate doe ignat ion adjacent to freeways and arterials. Me ealtl neighborhood commercial business is going to Fontana bscauo there U none available along Eaea Lina on the eastern part of the City. Ne indicated the City has an opportunity to permit -C.. - .-... .:j3 -... u • ny u•uu Haas ~.n•w•• nu interesting entrance to the City-from the•fruway. Richnrd Dahl, 5444 Carnalinn, Rancho Cucamonga, stated hn was tepreaentinq I. 5. Properties, who own property aaj scan[ to the freeway off/on ramp. He felt there should be a apeoial dseignation under [hs Commercial zcne. Agatha Eleinmanr 2500 North Huclid, Op land, request sd that their proper ty in Subarea B be separated [rem the remainder of the subarea because Lt has • 20 foot essement along the [reway whleh cannot be aced. She anid a 20-foot high wnll will be required along the freeway oft-ramp. She reported that the parcel is only 30 acres, and will be even smaller when Eaet Avenue is widened. Sha indicated Lheir parcel !s bordered by the freeway, the railroad, and Eaet Avenue. She thought that if the property were downxonsd, it would effectively preclude their ability to either build on or cell their property. She said she had born present at the once[ of the Etiwanda 9pecif ie Plan and she felt it had Daen a commendable job. John Fowler, 1198 Eaat Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owned the 10-ncra parcel to the wort of East Avenue in Subarea 8. Me thought chat if the property were changed to Low Mediua F.e would cc. Le able tc davalcp or sail his property. He Lelt that the high drainage eyeiem coat would not support Low Medium Ras idantial developa~ant, and rho area would bs an ideal neighborhood commercial center. Dr. Ralph Eleimman, 2500 North Eueiid, Upland, elated they have awned the property far 30 years. He did not foal the area should be zoned Resident ial, but should be Office or Camnercial. He eeitl iraf Eic ie too noisy for Residential dsvelopwnt. He al eo indicated Eaat Avenue will be a major artery. Mr. Sceranka felt OEf ice/ProfessLonal should not be cone [dared ae an alternate duignstion because ha thought [hero is an overabundance of Office/Profsesion•1 in the Clty. Hearing no further Gstimony, Chairman Mc Niel closed the public hearing. Planning commies ion Minutoe -27- May 22, 1991 .a QL~ Mt. warren stated Chat Cho numbers indicated in the sta Ef report regarding the redaction of molt l-[amlly unite and the increase of einglo-family unlt• referred to a cumulat lvo affect a[ the amendments under cone Lderation along with other antlclpabd amondmante. I. 0 J. O U V P C P C PL N N 90-03 Commie io nar Chitien supported Commercial on General Plan Amendment 90-02 B. Commies loner Tolntoy concurred. Negative Declaration and-adoption ~ot the reeolut ions recommandlnq approval6 of Gaaaral Plan Amendment 90-028 and Foothill Boulevard Spae ific Plan Amendment 90-03 changing land uoe designations to Commercial and Community Cansoecclal reopectivoly. Motion carried by the follawlnq voU: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CNIT IEA, MCN IBLr MELCNERr TOLSTOYr VALLBTTT NOES: COMMISSICNEAS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONEAS: NONE -carried x. ENVIRO o1 L. NVIRONMENTAL A N AN FOOTNI L BOU VARD SPECIFIC PLAN DMEN 91-03 Chairman McN iel asked Lt it would bo possible to change to Specialty Caam:ercial ~-nt it such time an a detemi.^.ation is made regarding the historical eignif icance of the service etntion but ehen automst ically revert to Community Commercial it tM wrvico etaCion 1• determined ins Sgnif scant. Mr. Huller et ated that a Specialty Commercial designation in iteelt would not etuu the building to remain. Commiealonar Val UtN suggested recomasnding Community Commercial and requoetinq that the Clty Council determine if the building should be caved. comminslonar Melchor asked if common sty commercial woultl be injurious to the service station. Mr. Huller elated that rho value of rho service et at ion would be the same wMther Cho area wen changed to community Commarcia: or Specialty Commercial. Plenning CommiseioD Minutes -28- May 22, 1991 ~/ Comniee loner Me1<hsc commentetl that the ace ie aE the service star ion ie eo small compared to the Thoma• winery, that he thought Community Cammarc ial to be an appropriate designation. Commissioner Toletoy concurred and pointed out that the canopy would have to, be removed because o£ its proximity to Foothill Boulevard. Motion: Moved by Chitiear seconded by Toletoy, to recommend Lseuance of a Negat ivs Deelarat ion and adoption of the rseolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 91-OlA and Foothill sou Levatd Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 changing land use designer icn• to Commercial and Community Commercial respectively. Motion carried by the tollowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONEA6: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, XELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOE 6: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMIS SIONBAS: NONE -carried M. N PLAN AMENDMENT 91-028 (Subareas 3 through e) N. ENVIRONMENTAL AS6ESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BODLEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-U2 (6ubarsa• 1 and 2) O. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETINANDA SP CIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 93-03 (Subareas 1 through 6) General Plan Amendment 91-025 (subarea 11 and Foothill Boulevard Soecit ic_Plan Amendment 91-02 f6ubaiea 11: Commissioner Melchor felt Ghat in light of the teat imony about how _naFFzoFriat^ th^ area or. the ....ah slda of Fctt.`.ill would be for L..a Xadiumr it would not make sense to change the area on the south aide of Foothill Boulevard to Low Medium. Commissioner Valletta asked if the Cammieeion could recommend O£f ice/ Ptofaeeional oz Cossurclal. Commieeionsr Chltiaa suggotsd the Comniesion may wish to reconmend the designation not ba changed from Medium. Commiuionar Valletta auggaatad the Commission propose a set of options. Mr. warren stated that stet! did not perform any in-depth analysis other than for Low Medium Rasitlsntlal. Xa indicated staff found no evidence to indicate support for •Lthsr Commaretal or Low Au ids nt ial uses at the location. Xa auggssted chat 1[ tM Commiu ion Nlt something other than the currant Medium or the ptopossd Low Madlum ware appropriate, the matter should bs returned to staff far Eurthar analysis. Plarninq Commission Minutes -29- May 22, 1991 ~~~d- Commies ioner Melthet stated he would prefer to recommend denial of the amendment. Chairman McNiel lndicsted that the area to the west ie developed with eingle- family homes in a Low Resident inl designation. a Hr. Bertoni etatetl a utLltty corridor ceps rates the area Erom the Low Ree idential to the west. Commies io ner To le[oy felt et aff should prepare an analysis. Hr. Buller suggested that the subarea could be returned with the next General Plan cycle. coot loos Environmental Aouement and General Plan Amendment 91-028 (SUbarsa 1) sod Environmental Asseseeunt and Poothlll Boulevard Spee lfie Plan Amendment 91-OZ (Subarea 1) to the next General Plen cyc la. • ~ . • . v Amendment 91-02 (Subarea 21: Commise icner• Tolstoy and Valletta thought the arq should be Commercial. commissioner Melchor commented that staff recommended Office in the eastern portion of the subarea. Mct ion: Moved by Mvlcherr seconded by Chit iea, to recommend issuance of a Negative Oeelaratien and adopt Lon of the resolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 2) changing the land use deeiynation to Commercial and Otf ice and Foothill Boulevard Spacitic Plan Amendment 91-02 (5ubarsa 2) changing land uu designatLan to Community Commercial sod Com^:esin! Of'_ e. Het ion carried by the following vets: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIBA, MCNIEL, MELCBER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COI4/ISSYONEAS: NONE -carried G b e sod h' ou va d c' Amendment 91-02 fSUbarea 11: Mr. Buller suggested that the Commission forward Subarea 1 to the city council with a recommendation of denial rather [hen continuing the item to the next General Plan cycle. Planning Commission Minutes -30- May 22, 1991 x-03 Motion: Moved by Helcher, seconded by Ch It iea, unanimously carr iad, to raconaitla[ Environmental Aeonemut and General Plan Amendment 91-020 (Subataa 1) and Foothill Boulsvartl 9paeLEie Plan Amendment 91-02 (Subarea 1). Notion: Moved by Malcher, seconded by eh it iea, to recommend denial of Environawntal Anuament and General Plan Amendment 91-028 (Subarea 1) and Foothill Boulevard Speclf lc Plan Amendment 91-02 (Subarea 1). Motion caeried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -tarried General Elnn Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 31 and Et iwanda Soe^^-if is Plan Amendant 91-03 ISUba[ea 11: Commiuioner Valletta ntaGd that thin auharaa includo the triangle of land which the church requested be changed to cammere ial. Mr. Bullez aug9und that the church M permitbd to pursue Ghe matter as a separate application. Conmiu toner To Ltoy atatad it in always ha[d to trannition from Commarci al to single-family raitlutlnl. Ha fall there nhould be a buffer of higher dendty between the two uan. Chairman McNlel felt the transition Ss not an ineurmounkable problem and had been auecanfully Ault with in the pant. Comniee Toner Tolatoy felt that Che buffering effect is needed fot good plan.^.i .^.^y. Coamineioner Malcher concurred wits Commisnionet Tolatoy and felt Yhere should also be a buffer from the freeway. CommLnioner Valletta asked why the era nhou ld be cone ifletefl inappropriate for ningU-lamily realdenilai bui tM same consideration should not ba given to multi-family. She wondered why more people should bs eubj acted to the noiw of the freeway. Chairman McNlel reopened the pub lie haring. Nr. Pitasai atatad that multi-family development allows more flazibility to mil igata the surroundings, by lncreaninq eetbacka, allowing addlt Tonal landscaping, anA including archltecturel features which can ecrvu the tenants from adjacent usu. Planning Commission Minuten -3l^ May 22, 1941 ~~ Commioioner Mvlehvr stated that In multi-family development the back of a building facing the freeway would permit buildinq• to be placed eloaer to the freeway. Mr. Pitaasi asked i[ it L appropriate to hsve resident ial uvvv adjacent to a ~ [rveway. Mr. Bullet suggested ehv area may call far a mixed-uev development. xe Lndlcated it ie a dLf ficult •iG baeauu it ait• down 20 - 30 feel below the freeway. Xr. Henderson auggvatetl that •incv it was almost 2:00 a.m., the Commies ion may wish to continua the baLnee of the dlseuuion to their next nwetinq. wednssdsy,-May 29~ 1991, as that would W the fifth Wednuday in the month. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by ynlLette, unnnimoualy serried, to eontinw the balance of the agenda to May 29, 1991, at 7:00 p.m, in tM Council Chamber. . . . ADJOURNMENT Notion: Moved by Mslchet, seconded by Chitiea, to adjourn. 2:00 a.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to May 29, 1991, at 7:00 p. m. to the Council Chamber to finl¢h the balance of the agenda. / tA~e7epectfully subm~itted,/ ' GJ Brad Buller` Secretary Planning Commission Minute^ -32- May 22, 1991 d'~ RESOLUTION NO. 91-52 A RESOLUTION OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION OP THE CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECONMENDINC APPROVAL OP GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-OlA AHENO ZNG TN6 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP PROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (e-14 DWELLING UNITS PSR ACRE) TO COMMERCIAL WITN A MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT DEEIONAT ION FOR 2.0 ACRES OP LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNEA OP FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ETIWANDA AVENUE, AND HARING FIND:NC9 IN SUPPORT TNEAEOP - APN: 1100-1A1-02. A. Reeitel e. (L) plenninq Network, on behal[ of Charles V. Cummins, has filed an applleetion for General Plan Amendment No. 91-OlA, requesting • Commercial Lantl use designatlOn for iha subject property as described in the title of thin Ruolution. HeainaRer in this Aeeolution, the subjscC /ienertl Plan Amendment Le referred to as •tM application.' (11) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the eppllcation. (111) All legal prerequlsitss prior to the adoption of thle Msolution have occurred. B. Reao lotion. NOW, THEREFORE, it ie hereby found, determined, and resolvetl by the Planning Commiuion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby epee lfioally finds that all of the fncas ter forth in tM RscitaL, part A, of this Auolut ion are true snd correct. 2. Baud upon substantial evidence presented to thL Co®iuion during the nbova-reterenesd public hearing on Nay 22, 1991, including written and oral statf reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically Linde a follows: (a) The application applies to approximately 2.0 ecru of land located on the nortMaet corner of Foothill BouUvard and 6tiwantla Avenue with a street frontage of 630 feet end is prevent ly developed with a vacant urvics station designated a Medium Residential (8-la dwelling units per ecrs)t and (b) The property to the north of the subj cot sib is doignated Medium Residential (B-ld dwelling unite per acre) and Le underdeveloped with a 'Logic family home. TM property to the south is doignated Co®ercial and is undeveloped. Tha property to the east is duignsUd Medium Residential (E-16 dwelling units per acre) and i• dweloped with an existing, non-conforming market. The property io the west is designated Commercial and ie developed with a vacant market and motel. ."~ ~ ~ PLANNING CONNIESION RBBOLVTION NO. y(->~ CPA 91-OlA, CONMCRCIAL - DLANNING NETWORK Nsy ii, i9'ai Page 3 (c) Thi• amendment does net conflict with Ehe Land Uae Pelic lea of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the dUtrlct, Ln ~ a manner consUUnt with Ghe Genarsl Plan and with related dsvalopment; and (tl) Thi• amendment promote the goals and objectives of the Land Uaa Elemsnt; and (e) Thi• amendment mould not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent propert Ses and would not have • •ignlfieant impact on tM environment nor on the surrounding properties and Chat the Suuanee of a Necat ive Oaclaration is recommended. 3. gaud upon the eubetantial evidence preunted to this Camfaiuion during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings o! facts est forth in paragraphs 1 and ] above, Chia CommLeion hereby tlnda and concludes as lollmwas (a) Tha! the aubjeet property is witabls for tM propowd land use duignation of Commercial a evidenced by the ^1U'• being Ln cLoes proximity to properties on the west and mouth with Caaawrclal land ues daaignatlona/ and (b) That the propoesd amendment would net have •Lgnifieant impscG• on the environment nor on the aurroundinq propertlu a evidenced by the conclualona and findings listed in ParC I and II of the Initial Btudlea o[ th+ Environmental Aaeuament^ o[ this applicat LOn and of General Plan Amendment 90-OZ B; and (c) That the propoasd uendment is in confozmance with the General Plan, the Development Coda, and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. d. Thie Commie ion hereby finds that the project hu been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California 6nvirosuwntal Quality Aet of 1970 and, further, thin Commie ion hereby recoaimende iuuance of a Negative Oeelaration. 5. Besad upon the findings and conclusions set forth Ln paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and { above, this Ca®iolon hereby resolves that on this 4Ynd day of Nay, 1991, tM Planning Commission of the Clty of Aancho Cucamonga hereby reeosmenda approval o! General Plan Amendment No. 91-OlA, aaaandinq the General Plan Land Des Nap [rom Medium Reeidentlal (8-1{ dwllinq units per acre) to Commercial with • Nester Pltn requirement designation for Z.0 aerea o[ land loctbd on the nortMast corner of Foothill Boulevard and 6tiwanda Awnw, u shown on Exhibit ^A.^ 6. The Secretary to GhL Commission shall certify to the adoption at this Resolution. ~~~ PLANNING COMMISSION RSSOLDTION NO. yI-5_' GPA 91-OlA, COMMERCIAL - PLANNING NETWORK Hey [<. i55! Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF HAY 1991. PLANNING COMhI59ION OF TN6 CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA 8Y ATTEST: r I, Brad eullar, Sacratary o! tha Planning Cammiaaion nt tha City of Rancho Cucamonga, do haraby eartify that tM toragoinq Raaolutlon wu duly and raqularly lntroduead, pauad, and adoptatl by !ha Planning Caaniuion o[ tha City of RanehO Cucaawnga, d a raqular mwtinq of tha Planning Cammiaaion bald on tha 22nd day of May 1991, by tAa following vote-to-wlt: AYES: COID7ISSTONER3: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOESS CONMIS920NER9: NONE ABSENT: COWIISSIONERS: NONE ~" V _~ YiCrOAi~ SiAEC' r r.hNach.: Vl ` ti ~ t~ i ! L J r-I L ETItAXDA AREA GENERAL PIAX AYENDYEXTS GPA 9Y-OYA (FSPA 87 ReQUest to change land use the tlesgnation Irom Medium Residential to Comnwrcial ~ Comm.'- _==gig LM ® PAOPEAT[S CUAAEMTLY OESMDIAIED DXNI AE510fNTUl ~/-N DtELIMIC DIMS KA AERFf UMOER CDNSIDEAAi1011 rx 011 AEDCSICNATION 10 lOt I[OXW AfSA1ENTIAI (I-1 OtELLAR OMITS /EA ACAE) GPA 80-048 (FSPA 90-03 Rpusst to charge Ihs land use daegnation Irom AMdium Rwdantial to Commercial CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~~~~-~ 6~n.rN Vl:o'6 sp.~ PLANNING DIVISION ~ Tm.E: am.narn.er. Lac.us ~~ ,EXHIBff 'A' SCALE: N ~~ ~ New~'el~. ~ ~ , i~ park , LM RESOLUTION NO. 7C-i3 A RESOLUTION OP THE PLANNING CORM ISSION OF THE CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOHMENDZNG APPROVAL OP FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC AMENDMENT 91-03 AMENDING THE FWTH ILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (B-10 DWELLING UNITS PEA ACRE) TO COMHUN ITY COMMERCIAL WITH A MASTER PLAN AEpVIAEMENT DESIGNATION POA 2.0 ACRES OP LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ETIWANDA AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-361-02. A. Resit ale. (i) Plsnninq Network, on Mhalf of Char La V. Cummins, has filed an application for Foothill Boulevard Spsci(ic Plan Amendment No. 91-03, request inq a Community commerolal land uu dasignatlon !or the subject property as described in the title of thi• Resolution. Hereinatter Sn this Resolution, the subject Foothill Boulevard Spsc ifie Plan Amendment is referred to r• ^ths application.' (S1) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cutaawnga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the appl Seatlon and also issued Resolution No. 93-52, recommantling to the City council that the a uociaLd General Plan Amendment No. 91-D1A be approved. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NON, THEREFORE, Lt i• hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning commission of the city of Ranehe cuca.~_nga as fallawa: 1. Thi• Cammiseion hereby epeciflcslly Elnds that all of the fact' set forth in the Recitals, Part A, at this Aesa lotion are true and correct. 2. Baod upon substantial evidence presented to thi• Commission during the above-rKerenced public boring on May 22, 1993, ineludlnq written and oral staff reports, together with public testLmany, this Commission Hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) Thr application applle• to approzimataly 2.0 acres of land locatetl on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard antl Etlwantla Avenue with a street frontage of 630 feet and i• presently developed with a vacant service station. Said property i• currently designated Medium Resident lal (8-14 dwell lnq units per acre); and (h) TM property to the north of the subject site is designated Medium Residential (e-14 dwelling unite per acre) and Ls undacdevelopsd with a single family home. The property to the south is designatW CommunLty Commercial and ie undeveloped. The property to Ths east is deeignstsd Medium PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 9(-i} PSPA 91-03, SPECIALTY COMMERCIAL - PLANNING NETWOFUC MaY 199_ Pags~2 ReeidsnCiel (8-16 dwelling unite par acre) and is developed with an exist Lrtg, non-canfotminq markmt. The property to the weer ie designated Community Commercial and i• developed with a vacant merket and motel, (c) Thi• amendment does not confllet wish the Land Uae Policies of the General Plen or the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and will provide £or develapmant, within the dietricC, in a manna[ coneietent with the General Plan antl wLth rslaee0 dwelopmant; and (d) Thi• emsndment promotes the goals and object Lve^ of Che u10... _:] v~~^~nh• and (e) Thia amendMnt would no! be materLally injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a signit leant impact on the environment nor on the eu[roundinq propertlu and that the Luuance of a Negative Dee last fora L recommended. 3. 0nNd upon the subetant lal evidence prasengd Co this Commioion durLnq the above-referenced public hearing rand upon the specif ie findings oT Eact• set forth in Daragraphs 1 end 2 above, this CommLU ion hereby tirade and concludes ae follows: (a) That the subject property ie euitebU [or the proposed spec if it plan designation of Community Commercial as evidenced by the sib's being in close proximity to properties on the west and south which have Community Commercial land uu daclgnat lone; and (b) Thst the proposed amendment would not have eigni[ieant impacts on the environment nor on Che surrounding propart ia• ae evidenced by the concluaione and findings listed in Part I and II of the Initial Studies of the Erv i:onment el Aueumenb of this application and of General Plan Amendment 9D-028; and (c) Thai the proposed amendment i^ in conformance with the General Plan, the Development Code, and the Foothill Bou Levard Specific Plan. d, Thie caEmiuion hereby Einde the[ the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental quality Act o! 1970 and, turtMr, this Co®ission hereby reconmsnde leeuanes of a Nsgat ive Declasat ion. 9. 0ased upon the findings and con<lueion• set torth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, thi^ Commission hereby reeolve^ that the Planning commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on this 22nd day of May, 1991, of Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment No. 91-03, amending the Yoothill Boulevard Specific Plen Land Uae Map from Medium Ruident ial (8-id dwelling unite per acre) !o Community Commercial. with a Master Plan reeptiremen! deeignat ion tar 2.0 acres of lend located on tM northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwenda Avenw, as shown on Exhibit A. d ~/ PLANNING COMM2SSION RESOLUTION NO. 9I->i PSPA 91-03, SPECIALTY COMMERCIAL - PLANNING NETWORE Me - 144. Page 3, 6. The Secre[ary to thin Commiu ton shall cart ify to the adoption of thin Roalutlon. ~ APPROVED AND ADOPT$D THIS 72ND DAY OF MAY 1991. PLANNING COMHISS ION OP TyA~E~CI~TYO/P~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY:--1L~!3~~ ~~ 1~~6KU-C I, Brad Buller, SecnGry of the Plannlnq Comniuion o[ the Clty o! Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify thaC iM foregoing Resolution wu duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Plannlnq Comoleeion of tAe City of Rancho Cucamonge, at a regular meeting of the Planning Cammieeion held on the 27nd day of May 3991, Dy the followlnq vote-to-wit, AYBS: COMMISSIONBRS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: C0242ISSIONBRS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE /~ .. YICIOAIA S1AEC' ~ _ I ~ I- -. I ~ ~ LM ~~ ~-~ ~~ ! ~ i~ L ~ ~ I ~ LM •/ OP1. II I~j~~ L~ ,s M'., i' LM B LM Otl. I ,L-/ ~a I.~ t V GPA S/1.OSA (FSPA 9 Request tc charge land use the tlesgnation from AAwlium Residential to Commercial " CoNem.'-^ ETIAAXDA ARFA CEXERAI RIAN AYENDYENTS ® -ItOP[ATHS CUAAENTIT DESIGNATED YCDRW AESIO[NTUI 11-11 DAFIINIC INIIiS PEA ACHE UNDCA CDNSIDEAATION M RCD[SICNATIOX iD l0N YLOIINI RESIDENTIAL II-1 DAEIINK UXI1S PEA ACRE) GPA 90.OPB (FSPA 90.03 Raquast to change the land uee dsepnation from AAadium Rgidantial to Commercial ---/r~~.,j LM ITEM: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA General Plan L Spvci/ie Pbn ,N PLA51'ING DMSION TR1E: ~manemama locaion Mao ~j3 Eh1i161T, 'A' SCALE. RESOLUTION N0. ~/- l +' ] 7 A RESOLUTION OF TXE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANON GA, CALIFORNIA, APPPOVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01A AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE NAP FROM MEDIUM ~ RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PFR ACRE) TO A COMMERCIAL OEsIGNAT ION WITH A MASTER PLAN REQUI AEMENT FOR 2.0 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTRILL BOULEVARD AND ETIWANDA AVENUE, AND MAKING F TN DINGS IN EUP PORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-161-02. A. Recitals. (iI On April 6, 1981, the Crty ww,..ll o_ _ ~ of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the General Plan by cadaption of Resolution No. 81-40. fit) On November 16, 1990, planning Network, on behalf of Charles V. Cuam ins, filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 91-01A, requesting a Commercial land use designation for the subject property as dee cribed in the title of Chia Resclation. Rereinaf ter in Chia Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (iii) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Cosmission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and following the conclusion of said public hearing, adopted Resolution No. 91-52 recommending to the City Council that said application be approved and a Negative Declaration be certified. (iv) On July 17, 1991, Ue City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to its adoption of this Resolution. (v) All legal prerequrs itea prior to the adoption of this Resnl.ut tor. have occurred. E. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: i. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Pazt A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on July 17, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, toget;:er with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The eFPlication applies to approximately 2.0 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Foothill Sou levard and Etiwanda Avenue with a street Frontage of 630 feet and is presently developed with a vacant service station designated as Medium Residential (e-14 dwelling unite pet acre); and `J CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA 91-01A - PLANNING NETWOItI( July 17, 1991 ass. ~ ib) The property to the north of the aubject si to is designated Medium Residential (e-16 dwelling unite pet acre) and is underdeveloped with a ~ single family home. The property to the south is designated commercial and is undeveloped. The property to the east is designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with an existing, non-conforming market. The property tc the wes± is designated Commercial and is deve Loped with a vacant market and motel. (c) This amendment dues not conflict with the Land Vse Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related level Dement. •..a (d) Thie amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) That the aubject property is suitable for the proposed land use designation of Commercial as evidenced by the site's being in close proximity to propert sea on the west and south with Commercial land use designations; and (f) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Study of this application and of General Plan Amendment 90-02H and that the issuance of a Ne ga Give Declaration is appropriates and (g) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan, the Development Code, and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 3• This Council hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Arr of 1970 and, further, this Council h=rtby issues a Negative Declaration. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 7, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. 91- G1A• amending the General Plan Land Use flap from Medium Resr dential (8-1d dwelling units per acre) to a Commercial designation with a Master Plan requirement for 2.0 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue, as shown on Exhibit "A." 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. ~/~,J Y~....;. ~.RT(. ~ _ .n - .- ~j~.j~ch.: VL L -1 ~~ ~ L ... r- ~ i ~~ ', L ~ LM /•I ~' LM a ~ LM rOfA. ~E S~' 4E~ \d ~~ ~ .. SPA 9i •OtA (FSPA Request to change land use designation Irom AAedium Residential to Commercial Comm ~A ETIMANOA AREA CENERAI PLAN AYENUYENTS ® PIt01EATYS CUAAFNil1 OFSRNAIEO YEOIVY UXII~SF1EI~t lA~AEI UX~EALNIR OOYSIDEAATION lOA REOEOiCNAiION i0 LOA YEOIIIY RESIDENTIAL (/-1 DAFllIXO UNIiS PER ACRF) LM ,c LAA i ~ I ~'~ Comm.. .. ~:. M ~~~N LM ~ ITEM; CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA G~nenl Plsn L Spec PLANNING DMSION TITLE: Amenemeeb Locati< EXHIBIT: 'A' SCALE: t;PA 90.048 (FSPA 90-03) Request to change the tone use desgnation Irom Medium Residential to Commercial N RESOLUTION NO. (,//- /~L 7( A REGOLUTION OF TXE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PANCNO CUCAMONGA, GLIFORN IA, APPROVING FOOTH ZLL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMH1IDN13Nf 91-03 AMHNDSNG THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN LAND ^SE MAP FROM INDIUM RESSDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLLNG DNITS PER ACRB) TO A COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DESLGNATION WITH A MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT FOA 2.0 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED CN TNH NORTNEASf CORNER OF FOOTHILL BWLHVARD AND EIIWANDA AVENUE, AND MAEING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-161-02. A. Recitals. (i) On September 16, 19A7, the City Council of the City of Fencho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the Poothi ll Boulevard Specific Plan Chrough adoption of Resolution No. A7-505. (ii) on November 15, 1990, Planning Network, on behalf of Charles V. Cummins, filed an application foY Foothill. 1oulevard 6pecific Plan Amendment No. 91-03, requesting a Coemunlty Co®ercial land use deli gnation fo[ the subject property as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the Subject Foothill Boulevard 9pecif is Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application.' (iii) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Fancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and following the conclusion of said public hearing, adopted Resolution No. 9i-53 recovmending to Che City Council that said application be approved and a Negative Declaration 1>e certified. (iv) On July 17, 1991, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearinc prior to its adoption of this Resolution. (v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of Chia Reaolut ion have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Haled upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above referenced public hearing on July 17, 1991, including written and oral staff report e, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: X17 CITY CDUNC IL ORDINANCE N0. FSPA 91-03 - PLANNING NEfNORK Julv 17. 1991 Page 2 la) The application applies to approximately 2.0 acres of land Located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue witlf a street frontage of 630 feet and is presently developed with a vacant service station. Said property ie currently tlesi gnated Medium Aeei dent sal (9-14 dwelling unite per acre); and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is desi gnafed Medium Residential (B-14 dwelling unite per acre) and is underdeveloped with a single family home. The property to the south is designated Community Commercial and ie undeveloped. The property to the east ie desi grated Medium Residential (e-14 dwelling unite per acre) and is developed with an eziatinc. non-conforming market. The property to the west ie designated Community Commercial and is developed with a vacant market and motel. (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan or the Foothill Boulevard Specifle Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related developments and (d) This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of Lhe Land Uae Element; and (e) That the subject properly is suitable for the proposed epe ciE is plan designation of Community Commercial ae evidenced by the site's being in close proximity to properties on the west and sough which have Covmunity Come rc sal land use designations; and (f) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment ror on the eu rroundinq properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusion9 listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Study of this application and of General Plan Amendment 90-02H and that the issuance of a Negative Declaration is appropriate; and (g) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan, the Development Code, and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 3. This Council hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Council hereby issues a Negative Declaration. 4. eased upon the findings and concluslona sat forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby approves Poothi 11 Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment No. 91-03, amending the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (e-14 dwelling units per acre) to a Community Coamercial designation with a Master Plan requirement for 2.0 acres of land located on the northeast cornet of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue, ae shown on Exhibit "A." 5. The City Clerk shell certify to the adoption of this Resoluticn. ~/~ yinrnt ip earn V L ~ ~J' / r--~~ / it '~, ~ ~' ~. i~}. vsw.......j % Ott. ', ~ ',~~~~~, ! ETI'YAXOA AREA I!~' GENERAL PLAM AYENRYENTS ~, LM ~ LM ~ ~p~~, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STI~F`F ftEPQ~Ii,T DATH: July 17, 1991 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AiCP, city Manager E'id~M: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner Alan Warren, Aeaocinte Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASHESSMffiiT AND GHiERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02B - CITY OF RANCHO COCANONGA - A proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Aeai dential (8-16 dwelling unite per acne) to Low Medium Reaidential Id-8 dwelling unite per acre) for the following subareas within the Eriwanda and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan areas: 1. Approximately td .20 acres bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the east by the eastern City limits, on the south by existing Low Medium Reaidential deai grated land, and on the weer by a utility corridor. The Planning Commission recommends denial. - APN: 229-061-10. 2. Approximately 18.dB acres bordered on the north by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which is approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; on the east by a utility corridoz; on the south by Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Eriwanda Avenue. The City Council will also consider Commercial and Office as alternative land use designations for this entire area. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Comae rciai clcsignatior. fcr thx properties from Etiwandx Avenue to approximately 1,277 feet east of Eriwanda Avenue and the OFfice designation foz the rest of the properties in this subarea. - APN: 1100-161-01 through Od and a portion of 1100-201-01. 3. Approximately 27.89 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-1S) Freeway, on the east by Eriwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by coamercially designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard. The City Council will also consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling unite per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area. The Planning Commission has no recoaenendation. - APN: 227-211-02, Od, O5, 09, 10, 15, 20 and 29. d. Approximately 87.52 acres bordered on the north by Miller Avenue; on the east by East Avenue and a utility corxldori on the south by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Ylan boundary, which is approximately 530 feet north of Poothill Boulevard; and on the west by Eriwanda Avenue. The Ci[y Council will also~c\onsider Low Real dential (2-4 dwelling ..mod CITY COUNCIL STAFF RBPORT GPA 91-025, FSPA 91-02. ESPA 91-0? - CrmY na p,r, Jnly 17, lYY1 Page 2 unite per acre) ae an alternative land use designation for ~ this anti re area. The Planning Coemieelon recommends approval. - APN: 1100-131-01 and 02, 1100-141-01 and 02, 1100-151-01 and 02, 1100-181-01 and 02, and 1100^191-01. 5. Approximately 30.72 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the east by Enet Avenue and existing LOw Meditw Residential deei gneted land; and on the south by Miller Avenue. The City Council will also consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling unite per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area. The Planninc Cemminnf nn hav nn ~.^^•A••••a••~^^ - ._... 1100-031-08, 1100-041-04 through 10, 1100-051-03, ,and 1100-065-02 through Od and portions of 1100-071-01 and 02• 6. Approximately 71.09 acres bordered on the north by ease Line Aoad, on the southeast by the Ontario (I-15) FYeeway, and on the vest by existing Low Medium Aeaidential designated land. The City Council will also ~ronaider Office and Neighborhoo8 Commercial ae alternative land use designations For this entire area. The Planning Commission recommends denial. - ApN: 110C-051-01 and 02 and 1100-061-01• 7. Approximately 10.09 acres Dordared on the ncrth and went by existing Low Medium Aeaidential designated land, on the east by existing Office designated land, and on the scuth by ease Line Aoad. The City Council will also consider Office as an alternative land use designation for this entire area. The Planning Commission recommends approval. - APN: 227-131-34 through 36, 52 through 54, and 61. 0. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by the Southern Pacific railway, on the east by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway: on the couih by exist iag Office deei gneted land, and on the west by existing Low Medium deei gneted land and divided in a north-south direction by Baet Avenue. The City Council will also consider Low Aeaidential (2-4 dwelling unite per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area. The Planning Commission recommends approval for the properties west of Host Avenue and denial for the props rtiea east of Eaet Avenue. - APN: 227-131-OS and 227-141-14 and 66. The Planning Commission recommends issuance of a Negative Decldratimn. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTtl ILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF AANCtlO CUCANONGA - A proposal to amend the Foothill eoulevazd Specific Plan Land Uee Map from Medium Aeaidential (e-14 dwelling unite per acre) to Low Medium Aeai dentlal (4-8 dwelling unite per acre) for the following subareas within the Poothi ll Houlevard Specific Plan: ~I CITY COONC IL STAFF REPORT JulY'17,~1991G~^ ~'- ~• yV~n ~~-V~ - was va n.~. Page 3 1. Approximately 14.20 acres bordered an the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the east by the eastern City limits, on the south by exiating Lcw Medium Residential designated land, and on the west by a utility corridor. The Planning Commission reco®ends denial. - APN: 229-041-10. 2. Approximately 15.46 acres bordered on the north by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Boundary, which is approximately 530 feat north of Foothill Boulevard; on the ea et by a utility corridors on the south by Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The City Office, -and Specialty Commercial -ae -alternative-Viand-use designations for thin entire area. The Planning Cq®ieaion recoomends approval of the Community Commercial deal gnation for the properties From 8tiwanda Avenue to approximately 1,277 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue and the Commercial Office designation for the rent of the properties in this subarea. - APN: 1100-161-01 through 04 and a portion of 1100-201-D 1. The Flaming Coamiaeion reco®ends issuance of a Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASBES SMENT AND Ef IWANDA SPHCIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 - CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A propo9al to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan Lend Uee Map from Medium Residential (B- 14 dwelling unite per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-5 dwelling unite per acre) for the following subareas within the Etiwanda Specific Plan: 1. Approximately 27.89 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-751 Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and exiating Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by commercially de si gnated land bordering Foothill Boulevard. The City Council will also consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area. The Planning Commission has no recommendation. -APN: 227-211-02r 04, O5, 09, 10, 15, 20, and 29. 2. Approximately 87.52 acres bordered on the north by Miller Avenue; on the east by East Avenue and a utility corridor; on the south by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plnn boundary, which is approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The City Council will also consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling unite per acre) ae an alternative land use designation for this entire azea. The Planning Commission reco®ends approval. - APN: 1100-131-01 and 02, 1100-141-01 and 02, 1100-151-01 and 02, 1100-151-01 and 02, and 1100-191-01. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT GPi, .. FSP.. .. ....r HSFT. ~. ..., ..... ,.. ...,.. July 17,1991 Page 4 3. Approximately 30.72 acres bordered on the northaest by the ~ Ontario 11-15) Freeway, on the east by Haat Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential deei grated land, and on the scuth by Miller Avenue. The City Council will also consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) ae an alternative land use designation for this entire area. The Planning Commis eion has no recommendation. - APN: 1100-031-Oe, 1100-041-04 though 10, 1100-051-03, and 1100-061-02 through 04 and portions o£ 1100-071-01 and 02. 4. Approximately 11.09 acres bordered rm the north by ease Line Road, On ne 9outneaec by the untario (1-101 rreeway, and on the west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land. The City Council will nlso consider Office Professional and Convenience Commercial as alternative land use designations for this entire area. The Planing commisaicn recommends denial. - APN: 1100-051-01 and 02 and 1100-061-01. 5. Approximately 10.09 acres bordered on the north and west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east Dy existing Office designated land, and on the south by Base Line Road. The City Concil will also consider Office Professional ae an alternative land use deei gnntlon for this entire area. The Planing Commission recoamende approval. - APN: 227-131-34 through 36, 52 through 54, and 61. 6. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by the Southern Pacific railway. on the east by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the south by existing Office designated land, and on the west by existing Low Medium deei grated land and divided in a north-south direction by East Avenue. The City Council will also consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use desi gratin fot this entire area. The Planning Commission recommends approval for the properties west of East Avenue and denial for the properties east of Ea6t Avenue. - APN: 227-131-OS and 227-141-14 and 66. The Plen ing Commission recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. ~C0MIffi1DATIW: The Planning Commission makes the following recommendations to the City Council: GPA 91-02Br Subarea 1: Denial (Retain Medium Residential) FSPA 91-02, Subarea 1: Denial (Retain Medium Residential) GPA 91-026, Subarea 2: Approval of Commercial and Office FSPA 91-02, Subarea 2: Approval of Community Commercial and Commercial Office ~~-3 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT GPA 9i-02B, PSPA 9i-02, xNPA Y1-U} - rimy Dc P,r, July 11, 1991 Page 5 GPA 91-028, Subarea 3: No Recommendation - planning Commission ~ tie vote ESPA 91-03, Subarea 1: No Recommendation - Planning Commie aion tie vote GPA 91-02B, Subarea 4: Approval (Low Medium Residential) EBPA 91-03, Subarea 2: Approval (Low Medium Residential) GPA 91-028, Subarea 5: No Recommendation - Planning Commission tie vote ~~~:, err-, ouw.ea 3: nw neuo,rmnmm~caon - eiannanq commission tie vote GPA 91-028, Su)area 6: Denial {Retain Medium Rea idential) ESPA 91-03, Subarea 4: Denial (Retain Medium Aeaidential) GPA 91-02B, Subarea 7: Approval (Low Medium Residential) ESPA 91-03, Su Da rea 5: Approval (Low Medium Residential) GPA 91-02B, Subarea 8: Approval of the Low Medium deli gnation for the weetexn portion and Denial (retain the Medium Residential deer gnation) for the eastern portion ESPA 91-03, Subarea B: Approval of the Low Medium desi gnation for the western portion and Denial (retain the Medium Residential designation] for the eastern portion BACEGROOMD: The subject General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendments were generated from City Council Wor kehops held on August 9, 1990, and January 31, 1991. These workshops focused on public concern regarding the increasing development of multiple family dwelling units and the decreasing development oY single family dwelling units. At that time, the City Council reviewed the status of multiple family development in the City in general and did not discuss specific properties to be considered Eor land use redesignation. At the coot lusion of these workehopa, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to develop recomaendatio::s to reduce the community's amount and density of vacant land designated for multiple family development through the Cit}•'s formal amendment process for the General Plan, Development Code, Etiwanda Specific Plan, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, and Victoria Commmnity Plan. The Commission reviewed the Etiwanda arm first and the applications before you are for properties located within the Etiwanda and Foothill Hou levard Specific Plans. At their May 22, 1991 meetinS. which was continued to May 29, 1991, the Planning Comni scion made the above-described recommendations to the City Council far six of the eight subareas. Subareas 3 and 5 were not issued recommendations because of tie votes. The Pla:ming Co®Sasion, in the absence of one of the Commissioners, voted two yes and two no regarding ataff'e recommendations to change the land use designations from Medium Residential to Low Medium Residential. The Planning Commission bylaws provide that in a ~" CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT t:YA yi-02a: Cana a,_ , ..~.. ~~-.,. - ..i ., ..r nw. July 17, 1991 Page 6 situation where an application is before the Commission for recommendation for ~ City Council action, a tie vote results in the issue being forwarded to the City Council with no recommendation. Please read the attached Minutes from the Planning Commission's public hearings on May 22 and 29, 1991, for a further exPlanat ion of the Planning Covmu ssioners' votes. The remnant portions of Subarea 2 were recommended to be changed to Commercial (Community Commercial in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan) in keeping with the Planning Commission recommendati one on the associated General Plan Amendments 90-02B and 91-01A which also reconmiended commercial uae6 for the souls uc properu ee rn tnoee applica Lions. ANALYSIS: Staff analyzed the effects the Planning Commission recommendations would have on the anticipated build-out numbers for multiple family and single family dwelling unite for Etiwanda and the City ae a whole, and they are as follows: 6TINANDA Hui1d-out with Current Number of Build-out with P.C. Numher of Land Use Oesi one Lions Units (e) Recommendations Unite (8) Single Family 3,905 (558) Single Family 4,604 (738) Multiple Family 3,164 (458) Multiple Family 1x683 (278) CITYWINR Build-out with Current Number of Build-out with P. C. Number of Land Use Desianat ions Units (8) Aecommen dationa Units (81 Single Family 33,558 (608) Single Family 3d,267 (738) Multiple Family 22,747 (408) Multiple Family 21,266 (278) The City Council may act on the subareas individually, or the Council may act on the properties individually. Alternative land uses for selected sites were included in tl:e application to provide the Planning Commission and City Council with a wider range of potential uses. For further analysis of the issues, please refer to the attached Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes of May 22 and 29, 1991. C0RI03SP0NDENCE: These items have been advertised as public hearings in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the properties have been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project. ~d'S CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ~o ,. o.- , ESP:. a~-.,, - ..... vc n. C. July~17,~1991^ Page 7 Reaps ly eu 'ttad, Brea le City Plartrter BB:vB/jfs Attachment e: Planning Commission Staff Report of May 22 Planning Comtaiaeion Minutee of May 22 6 29, 1991 Flanning Commission Resolution Nos. 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, fit, 63, 64, 65, 6 66 GPA 91-02H, 6ubarea 1, Resolution of Denial FSPA 91-02, Subarea 1, Resclution of Denial GPA 91-028, Subarea 2, Resolution of Approval for Commercial and office PSPA 91-02, 6ubazea 2, Resolution of Approval far Community Commercial and Commercial Office GPA 91-02B, Subarea 3, Resolution of Approval ESPA 91-03, Subarea 1, Ordinance GPA 91-02B, Subarea 3, Resolution of Denial FSPA 91-03, Subarea 1, Resolution of Denial GPA 91-U2B, Subarea 4, Resolution oP Approval ESPA 91-03, Subarea 2, Ordinance GPA 99-028, Subarea 5, Resolution of Approval &SPA 91-03, Subarea 3, Ordinance GPA 91-02B, Subarea 5, Reaolut ion of Denial ESPA 91-03, Subarea 3, Aeeolutiort Of Denial GPA 91-02B, Subarea 6, Resolution o£ Denial EEPA 91-03, Subarea d, Resolution of Denial GPA 91-026, Subarea 7, Resolution of Approval ESPA 91-03, Subazea 5, Ordinance GPA 91-028, Subarea 8, Resolution of Approval/Denial ESPA 91-03, Subarea 6, Ordinance (West Portion) ESPA 91-U3, Subarea 6, Resolution of Denial (Feet Portion) ~~ / ~rmv nc o . wr~irn ~, •n . vn..r , STAFF REPORT ~ .. DATE; May 22, 1991 TD: Chairman and Menibeca of [he Planning Conmiaaion FRDM: Brad Buller, City Planner j BY: Vinae BD rtoni, Aaaiatant planter Alan Narren, Aaaociate Planner $DBSECT: r.rr~.xnwPr* 91-028- czTY or BANCxD cucaMDxca - A proposal to amend the General Plan Land Uaa Elamsnt Map from Medium Raaidential (8-14 drelling unite per acts! to Lor Radium Raaidantial (4-8 drelling unite psz ac za) for the folloring auba:Pan within the Eiiranda and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan szaaa: 1. Approzimately 14.20 aerea bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevaztl, on tae Peat by the aaatarn City liadta, on the aouta b7/ aziating Low Nadlum P.eaidantial dsaignated land, and on the tea[ by a utility corridor - APN: 229-041-10. 2. Approximately 18.46 accea borGzad on the north by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Boundary, which Se eppcoximataly 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; on tae east by a utility corridor; on the south by Foothill Boulevard; and on the teat by Etiranda Avenue. The City rill conaider Coa®azeial and Office an alterative land uae daaignationa for this entire area - APN: 1100-161-01 GhrougA 04 and a portion of 1100- 201-01. 3. Approzimataly 27.89 aczea bordered on the northreat by the Ontario (I-13) Freeray, on tea Peat by Etiranda Avenue and a:iatinq Lor Medium 14aidantial designated land, end on the aouta by coanacdally designated land bo:deziag Fcothil'- Boulevard. Tae City rill roraidar Low Aeaidential (2-4 drelling unite per acre! as an alternative land uae designation for thie entice area - APN: 227-211-02, 04, O5, 09, 10, 15, 20, and 29. 4. Approzimately 87.52 acraa bordered on the north by Miller Avenue: on [he Peat by Gat Aoenue and a utility eorrido z; on tae south by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, rhich is approzimately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; and on tae re at by Etiranda Avenue. The City rill conaider Low Neeidential (2-4 drelling unite per ae se) as an alternative land uae designation foz thin entire area - APN: 1100-131-01 and 02, 1100-141-01 and 02, 1100-151- 01 and 02, 1100-1B1-O1 and 02, and 1100-191-01. 5. Approximately 30.72 aerea bordered on the northreat by the Ontario (I-15) Fraaray, on Caa aaat by Gat Avenue and axiating Lor Medium 14aidsntial dealgna[ed land, and on the south by Millet Avenue. Ths City will conaider Lor Reaidantial (2-4 drelling unite par ac reD as an alternative land uae designation foz thin snti zs ' area. APN: 1100-031-0E, 3100-041-04 through 10, 1300- 051-03, and 1100-061-02 through 04 and poctiona of 1100-071-01 and 02. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT o V1-n2 w; raop ui -pi; 5 ccoa 9S-?] - G17r nF Aagrun t_:!¢aMUNWf May 22, 1991 Page 2 6. Approximately 11.09 acres bordered on the north by ease Line Road, on the aoutheaat by the Ontario 11-151 F reeray, and on the teat by existing Lor Medium Residential designated land. The City will consider Office and Neighborhood CoJaoeccial na alternative land uas designa[ionq for thiq entire area - APN; 1100-051- 01 and 02 and 1100-061-01. 7, Approximately 10.09 acres bordered on the north and woof by existing Law Medium Residential designated land, on the east by axiating Office designated land, and on the south by Bane Line Road. The City will consider Office as an alternative land use designation •J-~ • 09x.111 _Oa w 94 •-.. .u - _ •ew. w-......J. co nn~ou4n-si.. and 61.-. --. ..- --- - -... - - 8. Approximately 20.34 acrae boxderad on the north by the Southern Pacitie csilray, on the seat by CM Ontario (I -19) Freewsy, on the south by axieti ng Ot fire dasignated land, and on the wet by e:iatinq Lor Medium deaignetsd land and Jiivided in a north-south di action by Eaat Avanw. The City will consider Lor Residential {2-4 dra131nq unite per acre) ae en slternetive land use detignation for Chia entire area - APN: 227-131-OS and 227-141-14 and 66. F,mJIA(mlaa•MPAi. ACC CC... Lln FOOTNT .}. !1n}}tW en CP !'IFI - P _ar - - - A proposal to amend tM loothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Vaa Map from Medium Residential {5-34 drsllinq unite per acre) to Lor Medium Residential 14-8 drallinq unite par acre` for the Eolloring aubazeaa rithin the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan: 1. Approximately 14.20 acres bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the Beat by the aaatarn City limits, on flu south by sxiatinq Lor Medium Residential designated land, and on the rest by a utility corridor - APN: 229-041-30. 2. Approzimately 18.46 acne bordered on the north by cha Foothill Boulevard SPoCific Plan Boundary, which is approzimataly 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; on the aaet by a utility corridor; on the south by Foothill Boulevards and on tM wet by Etiranda Avenue. The City rill eonaidsr Co®unity Commercial, Coamercial office, and Specialty Commercial sa alternative land use Jisaignationa for thin entire area - APN: 1100-161- 01 through 04 and a portion of 1100-201-01. 91-03 ITy OF Pau u0 u•aJanN-a _ A proposal to amend the Etiranda Sgcific Plan Land Use Map from Madima 14aidential ;8-14 dwllinq unite per acre) to Lor Medium Residential (4-S drellinq unite par scral for the folloring aubareaa rithin Che Etiranda Spaci LSC Plan: 1. Approximately 27.89 acrsa bordered on the northreat by the Ontario 11-151 Fraaray, on the eaai by Etiranda Avenue and sxiatinq Low Medium Residential designated land, and on Ghe south by caemarcially designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard. Tha City rill consider Lor Residential {2-4 droll inq unite per acre) as an alternative land use designation for thin entire area - APN: 227-211-02, 09, O5, 09, 10, 15, 20, and 29. ~ ¢ PLANNING COlR1S SRION STAFF REPORT -- - - -a?n o.- , • io2n ~..-03 - vii: OF ~niiCnv CvvuiONGn Mey 22,V1991c- Page 3 2. Approximately 87.52 acres bordered on the north by Millar Avenue; on the east by Eaat Avenue and a utility corridor; on the south by the Eoothi 11 Boulevard Specific Plen boundary, which is approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard: and an the went by Etiwanda Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling unite per acre) as an alternative land use designation for thin entire area - APN: 1100-131- 01 and 02, 1100-141-01 and 02, 1100-151-01 and 02, 1100-181-01 and 02 and 1100-391-01. 3. Approximately 30.72 acres bordered on the northreat by the Ontario 11-15) areaway, on the sect by Haet Avenue ..y - ly.. and oar the aoutR Eby Millar Avenue. ~Ths City rill consider Low Rasidsntial (2-4 drellinq unite par aczel ea an altsrnatioa land use dsaignation [or this entice area - APN: 3100-033-08, 1100-041-04 through 30, 3100- 051-03, end 1100-061-02 througR 04 and portions of 1100-071-01 and 02. 4. Approximately 11.09 aczea Bordered on the north by Hasa Line Road, on the aoutheaat by the Ontario (I-15) Fraaray, and on the reai by exiatinq Lor Medium Maidantial designated land. The City rill consider Oftica Protaaaional and Convenience Commezclal an alternative land uaa daaignationa for tRia entire axes - APN: 1100-951-01 end 02 and 1100-061-01. 5. Appro:imatsly 10.09 scree bordered on Che ncrtA and vest by a:iatlnq Lor Medium Residential designated land, on the cant by aziatinq. OLlSce designated land, and on the aoutR by Haae Lina Road. Tha City rill consider Office Profeaaional sa an alternative land use designation for Chia entire •zea - APN: 227-131-31 through 36, 52 through 54, and 61. 6. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by the Southern Raci tic railray, on tRe asst by the Ontario (Z-151 Frearay, oa CRa south by azi sting Office deaignated land, sad oa cM rent by exiatinq Lor Medium Residential designated land and divided in a noztR- soutR direction by Sant Awnue. TM City rill consider Lor Wsidantia2 (2-4 drelling units par acre) as an altarnatiw laM uaa designation for this entire area - APN: 227-131-OS and 227-141-14 and 66. w,rxrnOlnm a nl~ie<rpr: The City Council Mld public rorkahopa on August 9, 1990, and January 31, 1991, regarding multiple family housing development in the City. Thaaa rorkahopa ^roae from the citizens' concerns zagardlnq tM inczsaeing development of multiple family drallinq unite and the deczesainq number of single family drellinq unit devalopa~enes rhieh aza gradually changing the commu~ity'a raaidantlal eharactaz. Prinz to these rorkahopa, City staff reviewed tea current statue of eultiple family housing. Using various aoanarioa, stet! idantiLisd the eLfecta on City zevanuea and services if multiple Laa11y undeveloped land ran tenoned to single family oz other non-residential deeignationa. During these rorkahopa, citizens and City Council members voiced concern over Snereaaed traffic volumes, increased Camanda on City aervi ce a, and overt zawdinq in local acAOOln, rRicR rs re all perceived to be linked to the Snezeaainq number of mult.ple family dwelling unit deoelopmenta. Ae a result of thane rorkahopa, the City Council di rec[ed the Planning Commission to develop a~-9 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPGRT ol_n 2°- cePA 41-^.°, .....~ ^1-^3 - ..~.. ... °R4^.RO ~'C.L":O::G.°. May 22r 1991 - - Page 4 reeon®endetiona to seduce the conmwnity's amount and Qensity of vacant multiple family land through the City's formal land uae amend»n[ prncsaa to a build out ratio of 32-35 percent fos amltiple fondly unite. M amendment proceaa Ma been eatabliahed to revier land use changes Por Etiranda, victoria, and the reatern general City area. Because of the large emount of vacant multiple family lend which dose rtot have development applicetiana auhauttad, Che etirands erect is the ti rat part.ton of the City that the Planning Commiaaion will review. There ass 50 properties under eonaideration totalling approximately 220.31 aczsa of land designated Medium Ibaidsntial (0- 1~ dwelling unite par acxel. The aiudy area has been divided into sign[ aubareaa (a» ALGChe6 maDl• Tne Planning Caaaalaalon and City Council may act on the antis study area ae a rMle, they may set on the aubereaa aeparataly, or tMy may act on properties indioidwlly. The Planning Commlaeion and Clty Council rill also conaidez alternative land ueea as indicated in thin zeport. In order to mob tM propoaad changsa, three separate City documanta moat be amended. TM General Plaw Amendment in neceaaasy to modify the General Plan Land Oae Map that pravidea generalized land uaea for the City. TM 6tiranda and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amsndmenta rill a»dify the land uae zoning maps in tnoae documanta to be in conformance rith sM nor Ge»cal Plan deeignatiom. On Apcil 23, 1991, atatL conducted a neighborhood anetlnq with the affected property owners and [hone ritaia 300 Leet of tb study area of the City-initiated Genara2 Plan Amendment. The intent of the meeting ran to give intareetad pzoperty ornara the opportunity to oak staff questions regazding the amendments. The main concern expressed at eM meeting ran that tM required miniavm lot sire ran too large Sn the LOr Medium Residential diatxicC for single family detached praducta in.tae Bciranda Specific Plan. An adjustment to the lot airs zequiremente would raqui re separate sctian by the Planning Commission oz City Council to initiate an application in this regard. II. ar;arsaZe; Hecauee of the large number of pzopartlea involved, [he analyala rill ba divided into tM following fro aagmenta: A. A revier oL !souse rhicA generally apply to all the subareas rithin the application area and including cundlative affacta of tM land use amendment in total. B. A revier of the subarea racoaaoendations, alternatives, and land specific issues relating Co earn proposed amendment. A, [r.nwrat Zaaua• 1. Raaidwntial Land Veen; Duzinq CM rorknhop zeviers, ataff'a analysis of tM unit density reduction revolved around Cha prend» that moat oL tM changes sMuld stay rithin the residential land uea eaesgoriee. It ran aaaumad tact tea laaat amount of land uae co¢tlicta could result Lxom Chia approach. Thenfora, staff's initial land uea conaideratio¢ Lor all the pxopeztiea is to the nezt lover danai[y range, Low Medium Residential la-9 draping unite par acxsl- ar~~ PLANNINOi COMA SSION STAFF REPORT C.PA 91-02B, FSPA 91-02, i E9PA 91-03 - CITY OF MNCHO CUCAMONGA ivy 931 Page ~S~ TRis approach has same added validity due to the ociginal General Plan density rangbs which inclutled an expanded Medium Residential cenge of 4-14 dwelling unite per acre. Staff believes ihia previous range cleacly indicated that within the Medium Residential tleaignation, Low Hedium Residential development could be allowed end perhepa be preferable in certain eituetiona. The General elan Medium Residential designation was amended [0 0-14 dwelling units per acre to conforn~ with the Development Diat ri<t Low Medium Residential designation range on NovevaMC 5, 1986 (GPA 86-03 Text). -, - - -- ~.~ r•~..xl plan end tsawctlvs specific plan amendment propoaala are, as previously stated, cna result of City Council direetioa to ensure a multiple family unit percentage of Gtrgn 32 to 35 parDent at the City's build-out. Therefore, the anticipated future housing unit counts rill be significant ly lorecefl if appcoval is given to Lheae land use propoaala and future anticipated density seduc[ions in northern victoria and the Clty'a west aide. The cumulative effects of the density reductions (city rids) on the anticipated number of new wits yet to ba devalopea is as foilora: a. The total reduction in multiple family units repreaanta a 5 to B pecoant loan !n the multiple family unit percentage at build out tAan chat is presently anticipated rith the existing lend use desigmtiona. b. Tha total unit reduction at build-out viii bs between 1,400-1,500, assuming 62.5 po rcent danaiCy range development. The decrease in multiple family units rill ba just over 4,000 and the increase in single family unite rill near 2,600. c. In regards to the Ganexal Plan Nouainq Eloment, the unit ceduetiona should noC conflict with any apecilic policies, goals, or objectives. The Nouainq Element provisions provide programs which aid in the development and ie~rovaaiant o! the City's Nouainq stock. Ganacally, pzogzema vhich list specific numbers of units to be built oz aided tall riihin tM anticipated number of unite expected under the amended build-out totals. Reductions in total build-out unite will result in greater portions of for and very for income units, program-aided units, ate., riihin the lover total o! units yet to ba developed. Also, the unit caductions rill bring the anticipated total o! build-out units riihin approximately 94 percent of cna total SCAG Regional Nouainq Needs Assessment (RFII7A) unit numbers for 1994: and about 76 percent of the very lor, lor, and moderate units foc the acme period. a3i PLANNING COt4fI33ZON STAFF REPORT GPA 91-028, FSPA 91-02, i ESPA 91-03 - C1TY OF RANCXO COCAMONGA wpy 32. 'gul Page 6 Of the range of unlta the Nouain9 Element propoaea for development up to 1991 IProgzem 3.A.1), the nevi aed build-out total of just above 10,000 units falls within thin anticipated range. p, S,t,.~aaa Ana vas - Refer to the following aeetiom which are divided by each study area: .~-3 a- ~~ Subarea 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENdMENT91-026 Subarea 1 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02 X33 PLANNING COie1I SSION STUFF REPORT GPA 91-028, FSPA 91-G2, a ESPA 91-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CVCAMONGA ,ay /9^.. Page~3~ G8M8RAL PLAM AIQIIDIOTNT BUYAiA 1 FGOlBIIS 8~L8Va1tD 8P8C28IC PLAM AM8MDM88T 8IIBAR8a 1 1. p,Spiect wnd Sites Dewrrip inn: a. Sn rzon ndf~ Land Vaw and Enni ne; North - Foothill Boulevard vacant land, Cor®unity Coemezelal in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan South - Vacant, Lor Medium Peaidential ({-B dwelling unite per acre) in the Etiranda Specific Plan East - Flood Control Channel Sn the County of San Bernardino r.a - nHifty rn../wnr. twrn an_ar. in tb RH rwnda Specific Plan p, r+nwrai Plan Dwaim+w lonw: Project Sits - Medium Maidential 18-1{ dwelling unite per acre) North - Special Boulevard and Co®excial South - Lor Medium Residential ({-8 dwelling units per acre) East - Flood Control (County of San Bernardino) Moat - Flood Control/Utility Corridor c, sites Cnararteriatiee: The site Sa generally flat, with a natural elope of leas than 5 percent vitR no aignificant vegetation and has no atruetursa. 2, v.naj,ro ++~. w1 wwewwmwnt; Staff hna reviewed Part I of the Initial Study and conpletad the Enoixonmenial Checklist, Part II of the Initial Study, and ass found no aignificant adverse environmental impacts could occui se a result of the proposed General Plan Amendment and FootAil BoulsvaM Specific Plan Amendment. 3, i.anA nww 1 slue) w; a. flppljpprisiwnw wa of t.er Medium Rwaidant ial ^www in thw Arew; TM property soots of tM subarea is curnatly designated Low Medium Residential and thin designation for tae subarea could continue CAe single family residential character of the area as initially eatabliahed in the southern portion of the Etiranda Specific Plan. h. COnfexmanca with the f-nw cal Plan and Fnethill Reuleva rd Snwcific Plan: The changing from Medium t4aidsntial to Iar Medium Raaidantial at this location raises no Snhe rent conflicts rich General Plan or Foothill Boulevard Specific elan provision. e, renald•zat ien of Al tw rnatirw Dwwienat inv: $taff has not included an alternative laM use deaign[ion for this subarea for the follorinq reason: 1) Conaoereial could not b• appcopciate because there is no evidence tact indicates CAera is support for co®ercial uses a[ [hie location. a3~ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91-02B; FSPA 91-62, i ¢SPA 9i-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA pry ?>; 1941 Page Y 2) Lor lbeidantial (2-4 drelling unite per acre) may not to viable at thin location because there is no evidence that indicates that theca is Curren! support (in terms of need and lnnd uae compatibility) for lover residential densities south of Foothill Boulevard. 4. Rw mmmwndwd sand cr $taEt reconmenda the eziating Medium Residential (8-14 drelling units per acre) land uae designation ba changed to Lor Medium Residential (4-S drelling units par acre) for the property located in Subarea 1 of Lhia application. Staff believes the folloring facts for findings can M made with this recommendation: a, TM property loeacam rn suoaree a is eui~su:e - pexndtted in the proposed GeMral plan aM Foothill Boulevard Specific elan land uee designations and Sa compatible ritR ezieting and aurxoundiag land uee designations ae evidenced by the site's being bordered on the south by the acme land uae dsaigoation. b. The proposed amendment will not Mve aigniLicartt impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclueiona listed in Pe Ks I and II of the Initial Environmental Study and the fact thst the proposal rould redoes the intensity of residential development on the aub~eet proprty. c. The proposed amendment does not esbibh any conflicts rith the provisions of the General Plan and the foothill Boulevard Specific elan and it helps promote the retention of the E[iranda Specific Plan b rural atmosphere through reduced residential unit densities. General plan and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Reaolutiona of Approval axe attached for GM Coaa4laaion'a consideration. X35 ~~~ I~~~ `t~ \~ .+ Subarea 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-028 Subarea 2 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02 J- 23~ PLANNINf- COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91 -02B, FSPA 91 -02, f ESPA 91-03 - CITY OF PANCNO CUCAMONGA .. 22 1401 Page 11 6HNHRAL PLAT 11HtImIRMT BflBaRH- 2 [OOTHILL DOOLHVBAD 88HCZtZC PLaM a1RNDIRJIT BOBARHA 2 1. Protect and civ:w Dewnriy ten; a North - Vacant, Medium Residential IB-14 dwelling unite per acre) in the Etirartda Specific Plan South - Foothill Boulevard end vacant land, Covam;niiy Commercial in the Foothill Boulevard 8pecitie Plan Esat - Utility Corridor in [ha Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan rent - Etiranda Avenue and underdeveloped land, Regional Related Coamemlal in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan b, r-w...1 Plan nwwianwHnnw; Profact Site - Medium Peeidential (8-1/ enrolling wnita per aerel North - lYdtum Residential IB-11 draping units pee acre) South - Special Boulevard, Commercial, and I.or Residential 12-4 dwlling unite par aerel East - Flood Control/Utility Corridor Neat - Spacial Boulevard and Co®ercial c, ei h . i ~~.: Ths site is generally El at with a natural average slops of lean than 5 percent. Thera is a vacant service station on tea corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etirantle Avenue, and to the sea[ of the service station is an ezlating, non-conLOrndng market. There is a single family dwlling on the property north of [he service atatlon aM the property bstreen the market and utility corridor to the esat is vacant. env.: rnn...nrw; Awwwwaa!~nt; Staff has teviered Part I of the Initial Study, and completed the Environmental Chackliat, Part II of the Initial Study, and has found no significant adverse environmental impecta could occur as a result oL the proposed General Plan Amendment and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment. 3, r+nd sae nwtvsis; a. Related Amli a inn.; Applleationa to change the land use deaignat ion from Medium Residential to Community Commercial have been aubedtted for tro properties within [hie subarea (GPA 90-028 i GPA 91-OlA). The application auhmitted by Group fib Partnership is for tM property conaiatinq of 10.89 acres of land on the north aide of Foothill Boulevard appxoslavtely 500 feet Beat of Etiwanda Avarua end the application auamitted by Planning Network is for the 2.0 acres of land located on the northaaat corner of Foothill Boulevard end Etiranda Avenue. Zn order Co evaluate the need end viability of additional co®ercially zoned land on the aubjact properties, staff requested an economic analyaia and market study. Tha applicants agreed to the xequi raarsnt. Tha study ran conducted jointly by the two applicants and it examined the feasibility o£ conmercial land deaignationa £os both propertisa end the adjoining parcels. ~3 7 PLANNING CCIMISSLGN STAFF REPORT GPA 91-028, FSPA 91-02, f ESPA 91-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCANCNGA yWy X12 1_UOl Pago 12 The study indientea that there is a need for approximately 9.6 acres of land designated for neighborhood retail service and that the w noztheaat corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue is an appropriate site for that designation. The study also indicated that the area could euppoct additional land designated for office and additional conmsccial men, although no acreage amount was determined. o. Upon review of poaaible land uae designations, atalL has determined two poaaible couzaea of action for Che Planning Commiaaion to take. 1) r.w i,nn a.wi Awns ial; a) r+nd uae Iwau.a: The area in question is adjacent to e:iating single family homes designated Lor Residential in Che 6tiranda Specific Plan antl Lor Medium Reaidantial may W compatible rith thsae uses. The appropriatenaas of Low Medium Maidantial in Che acaa is affected by the follorinq: i) Medium Residential deaignatad land bordexe the sits to the north, which staff is zacoaaosnding be changed to Lor Medium Residential in Subarea ~. This arrangaa~ent snhaneea the appropriatensas of Lor Medium Residential for this aita. ill Foothill Boulevard is a major arteziel along rhich a significant aaaunt of land is deaignatsd for commercial uaea in the is®ediate area. Therefore, the appropriatensaa Of LOr Medium Residential for this site is in question. b) wnnlwawrd snwnif in platy; The change in land uae designation from Medium Residentiel to Low Medium Residential at this location zsiaaa no confllcta with General Pian oc Foothill eoaievard specific Pian proviaiona. c) Facts Fer Find•naa; If the Planning Comm anion beliavea CMt Lor Nadium Residential is the moat appropriate land uae, then staff believes the follorinq facts for Lindings can ba made: i) TM properties located in Subawa 2 are suitable for iha uaea pec+nitted in the propcasd General Plan and the Foothill Boulevard specific Plan land uae designations and are compatible rich existing and auzzounding land uae designations as evidenced by the aita'a being 6orderad on the north by residential land use designations. 11) Tha proposed amendment will not have aignificanc impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding propartiea •a evidenced by the findings and concluaiona listed in Parts I and Ii of the IniCial Environmental Studies of [hie application. 238 PLANNING CO!l72 aaZON aTAFF REPORT GPA 91-028, FSPA 91-02, i ESPA 91-05 - CSTY OF RANCHO COCAMONGA wy 22, 1991 Page io iiil The proposed amendment doaa not exhibit any contllcta witR the pcoviaione of the General Plan and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. a 21 Cnma rn ial Ib.+igpa`i nn•: al land-a I-~y~: To provide the Comniaaion rich an alternative to roaidential uaea, staff had included the tolloring analyaia of Community Commercial, Coiamccial Office, and Speeiclty Commercial land uae deaignationa; i) romn,,.,ity Cnanmrciai: Comwnity Commercial lend uae diatrieta include a ride variety of uaea rnacn cypicaiiy ,.y - -_-_ aupezmazkata, apparel ahopa,y variety atorea, and commercial recreation uaea. In general, Community Coemarcial Diat xicte function to promote th• eatabllshment of neighborhood/district level commercial goode and aszvicea. Typically, large co®mnity commercial complexes era dsaignad to aeeommodaG the needs of Glop than one neighborhood or aubares and include one or more major tenants accompanied a variety of multi-tenant uaea (Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Section 6.3.1.2). Tha Community Comma rcial dsaignation could provide continuity riLh the eastward expansion of commercial development from the Ontario (I-15) Fraeray [o the City's gateray eniranca from FOBCGM, Thia dewlopmeni VOLld OCCUL in an area al rowdy planned for coaamezcial expansion as part of the Victoria GacGna Regional Nall and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, 111 (.plmmeMial etfice: Co®ercial Office land uaea eonaia[ of activities rhich cater to buaineaa auppozt and personal aervica. Oaea typically include medical and wealth care clinics, travel agencies, insurance aganciea, Copy cantata, and otaer similar land uaea (FOOtaill Boulevard SPoeific Flan Section 6.3.3.2). These uses are much more limited than Chose that are allowed under a Community Commercial dsaignation and are typically lpa intams. the Commercial Office dsaignation could be a compac ibla uae wits tae proposed Community commercial dsaignation for the Gana ral Plan Amendment 90-028 roc CM two acres of lend to the east of tiro application. iii) vp ra _iair_y Cn,,...r~ia1; Specialty Coamazcial Land Uae Dise titre are deaignsd to accommodate uaea rhich promote a apscial landmark quality or create an ambience rhich is unigw to the aubares (Foothill Boulevard specific Flan Section 6.3.1.1). Thews uaea ace mace more limited Chan those tact era allowed antler a Community ~3 9 PLANNING COf91IS5ICN STAFE REPORT GPA 91-029, FSPA 91 -02, i ESPA 91-03 - CZTY GF RANCHO CVCANONGA HdV L<. 1y91 Page 14 Co+®excial designation and are typically lean intense. In thin cane, the two acre site on the cornet Contains n potentially historic structure ~ (vacant service atstionl. It is staff's opinion that the axi sting servi ca station site could be combined rith the adjacent properties to the north and east to create a shopping Centex. b) Confer rmwnrw rifh Lhw f+n ra+ Plan anA !hw Foo hi+l Sou lwve M Speei[ic Plan; TM change in land use designation fsom Medium Residential to Specialty Commercial, Community Covmetclal, or Coamercial Otf ice at this location raises no conflicts with General Plan ,.. :,.......-. C.....e.~.,. ^w....,...e. w ..o.~..o. c) Fecta For Fineime; If the Planning Commission ballevae that the above described comma scial deaignationa eta the moat apprmrptiate land uses, then eta Lf believes the tollorinq facts for findings can be aside: 1) The properties iocatsd in Subarea 2 are suitable fox the uses pezmittad in tRe propoaad General Plan and Foothill Boulevard Specitic Plan land use deaiynationa and era compatible with e:iating and surrounding land uas designations as evidenced by the site b being bordered on the west and a portion of the south by conmle rci al land use designaeiona. iil The proposed amendment rill not have significant impacts an the environment nor on the surrounding pxopextiea as evidenced by the findings and conclusions liatad in Parts I and II of the initial Environmental Studies of this application and of Genexsl Plan Amendments 90-028 eM 91-OlA. 111) Tne proposed amendment done not exhibit any conflicts ritR the provislom of the General Plan and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 4. Aec o+a:.en dwd Lwnd Paa: Sia tf reco®ends that the axlat ing Medium Fnsidential land use deaignation (S-U dralling units per acre) be changed to either Lor Nedium Residential (a-8 drallinq unite per acre) oc a combination of Coamunity Coaamezeial, Commercial Office, and Specialty Comamercial for tM properties located in Subarea 2 of thin application. For clarification purposes; if the Planning Comaisaion approves the above deaczibad Coamercial designations or tRa Lor Medium Reaidenti al designation for associated 6eMra1 Plan Ae+endmente 90-02B (FSPA 90-03) and 91 -OlA (FSPA 91-03), then i[ rould W approoriate to approve only those parcels not included in those applications Sn yous action on Subarea 2, Therefore, the attached Resolutions of Approval rill not include the Conmunity Co®ercial deslgnat Son rhicR is included in the Resolution of Approval Lor Cwneral Plan Amendment 90-028 (FSPA 90-03). General Plan and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Resolutions of Approval for botA alternacives are attached for Cha Cot®ission'a consideration. ~D ~---o L~ a Subarea 3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-02B Subarea i ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 Y tip! `tom `` ~~ .~ ~~I /^o PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF PEPORT GFA 91-028, FSPA 91-02, f ESPA 91-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA r-y ?2: lYyl Page 16 BlIiIRAL PLaM AIQIIDIRIIT 89eARtA 3 ^TI1fA1IDA BPlCY7IC PLAN AImIDIRNT 80Ya11iA 1 1. SoJ t anAi option: North - Ontario (i-15I Fxeeray South - Church and coaerrcia2 buainen s, Regional Related Co®0rcial and Ca®unity Ccamexcial ir. the Foothill Boulevard SpeelEie elan Eaet - Etiranda Avenue and Underdeveloped land, Low Hedium p.wl Aential 1~-e dwelling unite per acnl and Medium Residential ltl-lt oreui..y ......a ~.~: coca. Neat - Ontario (I-151 Fzwray b, r n~ral plan Oeaien.f lnna; Project Site - Medium Residential (8-le dwllinq units pec aero) North - rreeway South - Comaercial East - Special Boulevard, Low Medium Residential (4-3 dwelling units par acn1, and Medium Residential (S-la dwelling unite per sera) Neat - rreeway _, gj tw has w i_ ~~w: Tha site is eanarally flat with a natural aveznga elope of lens than 5 percent, eloping to the south. The Ontario (Y-151 Freevay embankment borders the entire length of the north and rant boundary. A aingle family residence oecupisa the northeastazn portion of the area. The plant material eonaiata primarily of Eucalyptus tree windora and wild gxaaasa. 2, envirmintal Awaeamnwn*: Staff has nvierad Part I of the Initial Study and completed the Ervizonmaatal Cheokilet, Part II of the Initial Study, and has found no significant advezse environmental impacts would occur as a result of the proposed General Plan Amendtoent and Etiranda Specific Plan Amandaent. T.•nd ~-w ~nalrwl ap a. Ann coor~`afwneaw n1 J+w ~+m Baer ~n ihw awn: SIlO area in quaation aucxounda a sizeable Lor Medium area to the east, midway batvaan Foothill Boulevard and Millar Avenue. A Yield inspection noted that the freeway traffic did not gzeatly affect one's perception of the rural atagaphaza. This ran due to the high elevation of the roadway along the antis northwest border, Tharaton, ataf! bsliavaa thst the nroa 1n question exhibits very similar characteziatica to the existing Lor Medium Residential land to the east. Tha Low Medium Maidantial land is primarily undeveloped with a Eer aingle Lamily neidencan fronting on Btiranda Avanw. b, (,pDf S h h. r e 1 pl and • ~ nAa P~Ir-if i~plan; The changing from Medium Residential to Lor Medium Residential at thin location zaiass no confliccs rich General Plan or Etiwanda Specific Plan provisions. Tha change would ~~a PLANNING COMMI ESION STAFF REPORT roA Ot_029: FSPA 91-02. i ESPA 91-g3 - CITY OF RANCHO CVCAMONGA nay ii, i99i Pages 17 better help ptomote the retention of rural thaxacteriatica promoted by the Etirande Specific Plan by reducing future eesidantial density. c. Ce neiMrat ion f alt r i• n .inn 1 To pcovide ChB Communion rith alternatives to the exiatinq and pcopaned deaignatiom, staff has included an analyau of Low Residential (2-~ drelling units per acre). Consideration of thin site for Lor Residential development ahouid not present any aignificant land use eonfllcis. Horevar, it roultl not seem appropriates to place leas density on the site which is bordered on tM east by tM existing Lor Medium Residential lantl. Currently, theca ie no Lor Raaidsntial land betreen e'oocnui nouaarvaru uw u.. ~.....r. If the Planning Coimiaaion believes thla alternative designation is mores appropriate, a final dataratination could be made at thla time hacauae tea envizonaiental analyaia end eoncluaiona could not dlffes aignifica¢Gly Lor Lor Residential as coopared Co Lor Medium Residential. 4. Rw~,.,,o„e..ded naan ne.: Staff recommends the a:iatinq Medium Residential (8-14 dwllinq unite par acre) land use daaignation be changed to Lor Madlwa Meidential M-8 drelling unites per acre) for the psopeztisa located in Subarea 3 of thin application. Staff believaa the following faeta foz findings can be made with this recommendation: a. The properties located in Subarea 3 axes suitable for the uses permitted in the propoaed General plan and Etirande Specific elan land use designations and era coaqutible rlth exiatinq and surrounding land use deaignationa as evidenced by the site's ling bordered on the east by the same land use designetion. b. The propoaed amendment will not have aignificant 1aglacta on the env) sonment nor o¢ the aurroundinq pxopectiea as evidenced by the findings and conclualons )tested in Parts I and II of CRe Initial 6nvlronmental Study and the fact that the pzopoaal would raQuee the intensity of residential developar¢t on the eub~ect properties. c. The propoaed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and Ltiranda Spmclfic Plan b]' pcomotinq the retention of the co~nity'a sores) atmoapMre through seduced residential unit deneieiaa. General elan and Etirande Specific Plan Reaolutiona of Approval are attached for the Commlaaion's coaaidsration. ~~3 Subarea 4 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02B ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 PWNNING CGMMISSIDN SSAFF REPORT May 22r 1991c cage 19 GeIRAaL pLax AIRImIRNT s0311RiA 1 aTI1SaYDa SPtCIyIC PLaN AIm011Q11T SOY-R~a Z 1. erejeet and Site Deaeriptinn: a. Suzrcend lilq rand raw and ~en1na~ North - Miller Avenue, single family homes, Medium Residential (4-e dwelling unite pat acre) in the Etixanda Specific Plm South - Single family Rome and vacant properties, Medium Residential IB-11 dwllinq units per acre) in the Foothill Boulevard Sneeific Plan east - Eaat Avenw and single family homes, LPr Medium Meidential (1-B dwllinq units per acre) in the Etiranda Specific Plan alas utility corridor West - etiranda Avenue and single family homaa, Lor Medium Raaidantial 1/-B dwllinq unite per acre) and lbdium Reaidsntial IB-11 dwllirtg unite per acrel in the Etivanda Spxific Plm b. C+nn.+1. yl nn Oeaien.tl nn+; Project Site - Medium Reaidaneial (8-14 dwllinq units per acre) North - Secondary Artacial and Medium Residential 18-14 dwllinq unite per acre) South - Lor Medium iteeidentlal (1-8 dwllinq unite per acre) East - Flood Control and Lor Medium PmaldentSal 11-8 dwllinq units per acre) west - Lor Medium Residential (1-B dwllinq units per acre) and Medium Residential IR-14 dwelling units per acre) c, site cha racteriaN ce: The site is generally flat, with a natural slope of leas than 5 percent. 2, Rnvira mwn ar a.e+.mwn : Staff has reviewed Part I of the Initial Study and completed Cha Envitaneental Checkiiat, Patt :: of the :nitiai Study, and has found no significant adw:se environmental inQacts would occur as a result of the proposed General Plsn Amendarent and Etiranda Specific Plan aarndmant. 3, r.nd n~a~.iv.l .. a. Portions of the property to the north and rent are currently deaignatad Low Medium Residential. In addition, the subarea Sa a large, undevalopsd ails with far aaiatinq features which would not conflict with the proposed designation change. Therefore, there !s no iMerant problems with the Low Medium Residential designation. b. Ce_e~zmen a rf h he +nwra Plan and hw F. trend. Snwcifin Plan; A change in land we fray Medium Peaidential to Lor Madima Residential at thin location raises no conflicts with General Plan or Etiranda Specific Plan provisions. The change could Wttas help promote the retention of rural charectsris[ica promoted by the B[iranM Specific Plan by reducing future residential demity. o. Caneideration of alternative deaionations: To provide the Comaiaeion rich alternatives to the eristinq and proposed deaignationa, staff has included an analysis of Lor Residential 12-4 ~~ eLaMHIHG cor+ISSloH sure ReeoRT GPn 9i-u2n. PeFA 9i-G2. i enFA ii-vi - Cil'i Gr Cvu:CriG CJC iiii,riG:. Hay 22, 1991 Page 20 dwelling unite per acre). Consideration of this site far Low Residential development should not present any significant land uee eonflicta. However, it would not seem appropriate to place leas ~ density on the site because it is bordered on the east by exietinq Low lydium Residential land. Currently, there is no Lor Residential land 6etrean Poothill Boulevard and the fzeeray. d, Recommended L_vd nee: Staff recoaasenda the exietinq Medium Residential (a-le dwelling unite per acre) lend uee designaClon be changed co Low Hedium Residential (~-9 dre111ng unlia per acre) foz the propartim located in subarea ~ of Chia application. Staff believes the folloring facia foz findings em be Wade with this racoaaeandation: a. Tha properties located in Subarea a ass suitable fax the uses permitted in CM proposed General Plan aM Etiranda specific Plan land use designationn and •ce eompatlble with exietinq and surrounding laM uee designations as evidenced by the site's 6einq bordered on tM northeast by the agar land uaa danlgnation. b. TRe proposed amendment rill not have significant impacts on the environment noz on the nurroundlnq properties as evidenced by the findings and conclualona listed in Pazte I and II o! the Initial environmental Study and as evidenced by the fact Chat Che proposal would reduce tM intercity of neidential dewlopment on the aubjeet properties. c. The proposed amendment does not a:riblt any eonflicta rich the provisions of the Gsnaral Plan and CM 6tiranda specific Plan and it helps promote the retention of Cha 6tirenda Specific Plan's rural atmosphere through reduced neldaetlal denaitien. In addition to Chs Lor l4dium Residential designation, staff believes a Master Plan tsquiranrnt should W included rithia the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan properties to the south, rhleh staff ie recoaanending be designated either Lor Medium Residential or ^ combination of Specialty Commrcial, Conrmu[ity Co®ezcial, and Coeerrcial Office. This pzovi aion is rocarmonIICd in order to aeecre the recea easy coordination of circulation and dzalnags Ssaws. General Plan and Etiranda Specific Plan Rsaolutione of Approval are attached for [he Coamission'a comideration. ~~ Subarea 5 GENERAIPLAN AMENDMENT 91-028 Subarea 3 ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 PLANNING COMA SSSON STAFF REPORT SPA Y7-0%r; f'tiPw 9i-u2. i n'a Pn 9i-Gi - ..ui Oc ni.GCHO C~....w..v,. May 22, 1991 Page 22 GiMe1GL pI,AM AIRIWIRR OOaaAe- S irI1L#MDA BPiCZFiC !L!M AafDIDNfMr SOEap1a 3 1. Proieci wnd cite newrzint inns; a. Su snnndVnq t±nd Dwe and Pnninn: North - Ontario iI-15) Fceexay South - Miller Avenue and underdeveloped land, Medium Raaidential (8-11 dwelling unite par acre), and Lox Medium Raaidsntial (~-6 dwelling unite per acre) in Cha etirande Specific Plan East - Eaat AvenW and undevsiopee iann, urxsca sn cne City of Fontana (rest End Specific 41an1 Meat - Ontario (I-151 Fceway b. C+nwral Plwn newel ie .. Project Site -Medium Raaidential (B-U dwelling unite per acrel North - Freeway south - Secondary Arterial, Medium Reaideniial (E-la dwllin9 unite per serel, and Lor Medium Residential (h8 dw111nq unite psc acre) East - Secondary Arterial and Office (City of Fontana) rest - Freeway c. sires chw ractwriati ra: The site ie generally flat with a elope of lase than 5 percent, alopiag to the south. The Ontario II-151 Freeway embankment borders the anti ra length of the nortR and re at boundary. TRree aingle faastly rsaidancee occupy the aouthraetern swat portion of the area. The plant material consists primarily of Eucalyptus tree rindcowa and wild greases. 2. snv+-~n+nta. w.. w.wwnr• Staff has reviewed Part I of tM Initial study and coapleted the Environmental C4eckliat, part II of Che Initial Study, and hra found no significant adveres environmental impacts would occur ae a result of the psopoaed Gansral Plan Amendment and Etiranda Specific Plan Amendment. 3. i.wnd n.w M.ivaiw; Apprnnriatw,uae of r.,.r Mw AI .w~ ,ww. 1n fh A . The area in question eurrounda a aiseable area to the southeast which is designated Low Medium Maidential at toe corner of Eaat and Millar Avenues. A field inspection noted that tRe freeway t raffle did not greatly aflect tM perception of a rural eta»aphsre immediately adjacent to tM roadway. TAia raa due to e4a high elevation of the roadway along the entice northvsat border. Toe frnray traffic raa m4ri noticeable further east into tM a:iatinq Lov Medium Reaidentlal land. Therefore, staff believes that the area in question ezhibita vary similar charactoriatica to tM esiatinq Lor Medium land to the east. TRS for Medium land Sa pcimarily undeveloped with a far aingle family reaidencea fronting on Miller Avenue. ~~ PLANNING CGMII SSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91-028, FSPA 91-02, i ESPA 9.-c3 - rimy nv aevru~ r. May ii. 1941 .. .__.- .... .................. Page 23 b. Lnnfnrmanew with h r Plan. The changing from Medium Residential to Lov Medium Residential at thin location raises no conflicts rich General Plan or Etivanda Specific Plan provisions. The change vould better help promote the retention of rural characteristics promoted by the Etivanda Specific Plan by reducing Eutu re residential denalty. c. rnnet n.rati E A i ~g i To provide the Covmission with alternatives to the existing and proposed deai gnations, staff has included an analysis of Lor Residential (2-9 dwelling unite per acre). Consideration of rht. .1• _ __ _ any significant land use ~conflleta~.~NOravez, it owoulda not seem appropriate to place lase density on Chia sits because it is bordered on Lhe south by existing Low Medium land. Currently, there is no Low Residential land betrgn Foothill Boulevard antl the lreeray. If the planning Coamiiaalon beliavsn thin alternative designation Sa more appropriate, than a final determination maY M made at thin time becauaa the envizonarntal analysis and eoncluaiana would not differ significantly for the Lav Residential alterative conpared to Lor Medium Peaidential. 9. Remmmwndea d n Staff reeoaooanda the existing Medium Residential (a-19 dw111nq unite par urn) land use designation tro changed to Low Medium lteaidential (4-B dwelling unite per acre) for the props rtiea located in Subarea 5 of thin application. Staff believes the follovinq facto !oz findings can be ands rich this recommendation: a. Tha pzopertiea located In Subarea 5 are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed General Plan and Etivanda Specific Plan land use designations and ors compatible with axial ing and auzzoundinq land use deaignatione as evidenced by the s-la's being bordered on ens southeast by the cams land use designation. b. Tte proposed amendment rill not have significant impacts on tae environment nor on eha aursounding properties as evidenced by the flndinga and conclusions liatad in Parts 1 and II o1 tae Initial Environmental Study and the fact that the proposal would reduce tea intensity of reeiden[Sal tleveloparrni on the suDjsct pmpertiea. c. Tha proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and Etivanda Specific Plan by promoting the retention of Che coamamity's rural stn»ephaca Chrouga reduced zeaidantial deaitiea. General Plan and Etivanda Specific Plan Rasolutiona of Approval are attached for [he Coamiaaion's eonsidezation. ~~f9 4 i,-i u ~""~ , ~, Subarea 6 GENERALPIAN AMENDMENT 91-02B Subarea 4 ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 ,~t ~:~ `~~ ~+ .+ r W , V PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91-02B, FSPA 91-02, i ESPA 91-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCJfl6~NGA riay - 19c1 Page,25 GtMRRaL PLax a1RlmIR11T SOmaRi11 6 tTlffaxW aRAML/SC PLaM 1140n]~iT 898)1Rl- 4 1, pcn{ anA ci a I1w•c ion; a. 5.ezo+n +nq imnd nee and Eoni m: North - esaeline Road, undezdeveicped land, and comoaccial plant nursery (existing, non-conforming) Medium Residential (5-14 dwelling unite per acre) in the ¢tiranda Specific Plan South - Ontario 11 -15) /reeray xeat - Vnder developedvrith~aingle teadly at ructurea, Low Medium Mnidentlal 14-8 dwelling unite per acre) in Che Btiranda Specific Plaa b, Cwnw zal Pla^ newianaN nnw; Project Site -Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) North - Medium Residential 18-14 dwelling units per acre) and Office on the north aide of Base Lino Road South - Freeway East - Freway xeat - Lor Medium Ranidential l4-S dwelling units per aczq c, c:~. rnar The site Se undeveloped with a natural elope of lean than 5 percent in a southerly direction. The primary vegetation is wild gcaaeaa with perimeeez Eucalyptus windrows along tM cast boundary. A ma joz topographic feature, the .Ontario (I-15) /reeray roadway, is elevated above the natural ground level and forma a significant visual barrier to the east and south. 2, Rnvi wen--nra A.•eaa.•.nr. Staff has rrviared Fazi I of t!u I^itial Study and coa¢letsd the Rnoi ronmental Checklist, Part II of the Initial Study, and has found no significant adverse environmental impacts could occur as a result of the proposed General Plan and Etiranda Specific Plan amendments . 3, t_+nd n+e Snwlvefn; a, ~p i f Tr Mw i +w w•id. 1 t• in hw A a: This slte'e location batraaa two aubatantial roadways (Interstate 15 and Baas Line Road) creates significant tsaflie activity which does not occur at any of the other aiten under consideration. The freeway orientation eloping towards the site, the adjacent on-ramp (with oehlclea accele rstinq), and Base Lins Road traftic all provide increased vehicular activity which sakes the development of Low Residential development at this location Inappropriate. Staff believes Chia vehicle activity rill only increase in the future when commercial property Samediataly adjacent to the freeway develops. Therefore, St is staff's opinion that Lor Medium Residential is not the a~oet appropriate land use designation. ~5 PLANNING COl4fISSION STAFE REPORT GPA 91-02B, FSPA 91-02, 4 ES PA 91-03 - CITY OF RANCNO CUCAMONW Yay 2 1441 Page 26 b, rnnfnrm.nce with the r:wnw ral Plan and the Etiwanda cnr~h Elan: The change in land use from Medium Residential to Low Medium Raaidentlal at this location raises no conflicts with General Plan Or Etiranda Specific Plan provisions. c, r .id+ ti f Alt arivw n aignationw; To provide the Comanisslon rith alternatives to tae existing and proposed designations, staff has included the following analyaia of Office (Office Profeaaional in the Etiaanda Specific Plan) and Neighborhood Commercial (Convenience Commercial in the Etiwanda Specific Plan) land uae designations: 1) Nw ghhn rheed Comore rc S+1: In general, thin aeba raw rouic a aPPcupac aly,;,,__ __ ______ _ _ because of its location adjaemt to aujor roadways and tM vieibillty the roadraya provide. Xowvec, Chs Etiranda Specific Plan dose not promote the development of additional commercial activity beyond vhnt is already planned. Mora apaeifically, the Commercial Services Objectiwa ISectlon 3.52.200) states: "P avant futon commercial areas and aasoeLted t raffia from advensly impacting the established core, including Etiranda aM Victoria Avenues.• staff moat assume, rithout a detailed traffic study, that commercially related activities at thin site rould not only increase the traffic in the Smmediate area, but also increase the traffic in the community's established core, due to the site's close proximity to etiranda Avenue. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that Neighborhood Cammrcial rould not be the moat appropriate land uae. 2) (iS11Gl: An office designation would have the same impacts as a neighborhood eomrrclal daaigntti0n, es discussed above. Taerafon, it is staff's opinion cast Oftics rould not be the most appropriate land uae. If the Planning Commiaalon believes either of these alternative deaignationa 1s more appropriate, then a final detarmination should M rithhsld until staff can provide an anvisoneatal analyaia foc the pmferred alternative, 4. lyp(~eemendea L+na yee: Staff rscomssnda that the existing Medium Residential laM uae deaigmtion not be changed fot those propertian located 1o Subarea d of Chia application. Raaolu[iona of Denial ate attached for the Commiaaionb eonaidesation. d~d' Subarea 7 GENERAL PLAN AMENOMENT91-026 ~1 ~~~ ~ ~ ,~~~. O ~~ a 3 Subarea 5 ETNVANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENOMENT91-03 PLANNING COla4I3SI0N STAFF REPORT GPA 91-020, FSPA 91-02, f ESPA 91-03 - CITY OF RANCHO COCAMONGA 4~y ~ _ppl Page 20 QN1nLL DLW LIRlID1uNT SVaaPia 7 iTIM11mA SD<CIDIC DLl11I >ImIDIRMS SOBaRaa, 5 1. Pro yt and Site neon riotipn; a, q.rrp .nding MnA ^aw and Y.oni na: North - Vnderdeveloped, Lor Medium Residential (4-E dwelling unite per acre) in the Etiranda Specific Plan South - ease Lino Road and undeveloped land, Medium Residential (B-lt dwelling unite pez acts) in the East - U.^.devsloped land, Offiu Profaaaional in the E ::rands Specific Plsn Nesi - Urder developed with one single family zesidsnu, Lor Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling unite pez acre) in the Etirands Specific elan b, C+ne rai Plen nenian;tionw; Pxo ject 51te - Medium Residential (B-i9 dwelling unite per acrel North - Lor Medium Residential (4-B dwelling unite pex acre) South - Special Boulsvaxd and l4edium Residential (8-34 dwelling units per acre) East - office Rest - Lor Medium Residential (4-B dwelling unite per acre! c. ci w here ter+etl s Ths site is occupied by a commercial plant nursery '(legal, non-conforming status) with a sizeable storage building surrounded by open plant storage areas. 2, Pnvimnmwneal Aaae_asm!rtL• SLaff has reviewed Part I of the Initial Study and completed the Environmental Checklist, Psrt II of the Initial Study, and has found no significant advazae enoi ronmental impacts would occur ea a raault of the proposed General elan and Etiwanda Specific elan Amendments. 3, i.a nd ^nw I~nwlvaia; a, ypptOy 1 f 1 2 i 1 1 1 fj(w Area; The aubjsct alto is bordered on the north and rest by largely undeveloped Lor lbdium Residsntial land. Changing thin site to Lor Medium Residential could continua the single family land uas pattern. This site diffaza from Subarea 6 because it is not isolated from adjacent propaztiea by the freeway and Base Line Road. The a!£ect o! the azea'a tzaf fit activity should be aignifieantly leas than the traffic 1n Subarea 6 end thereby should auks the Bite more appropriate for single family residential development. The proposed office uses to the east are compatible with Lor Medium Residential uses just as they ere compatible rich multiple family residential development. ~.~ eLartMING coewrssroM stare RepoaT GPa 91 X028, PSPA 91-02, i E9Pa 91-03 - CITY OF RlWCRO CUCaMONGA pay 2 1941 Page 29 b. Cnnaa . ..1 •ti to - 1 1 d h t' d SOS_1G ptan: •The change in land use deaignati on from Medium Residential to IAr Medium Resident ial ac Chia location raises no inherent conflicts rith General Plan or Etiranda Specific Plan prOViaionn. c. CnnaA dwr do of art ~ ^ i t TO provide the Commission with alternatives to the eriating and prapoaed designations, staff has included the follorinq analysis of the Office (office Profesnionel in the Etiranda Specific Plan) deaigmtion: The site is bocdeced on the Beat by esiating undeveloped office land. therefore the Office designation rould appear to provide compatibility to the seas by conunuang ti,. a l..y Office land uaa weterly. as stated above, office aetivitim are generally conaiMrad compatible with anaC residential development. again, an a~aneion of Office uses in the Etiranda Specific elan done not promote the general underlining theme of retaining as muck rural atmosphere ea possible. In addition, as with Subarea 6, staff believes office uses rould increase the traffic in thb area and potentially increase traffic volunra in the core area. If the Planning Coemdaaion believes that this alternative deaignatloa Sa more appropriate, than a final determination should ba withheld until staff can provide an environmental analyaia fox the preferred alternative. 4. Recommwnewd rand nee: Staff recommends Che axi sting Medium Residential (8-14 dre111nq unite par aerel land use designation be changed to for Medium Residential (4-8 dwllinq unite per acrol for the properties located in Subarea 7 0! this application, Staff believes the tollorinq facts for findings can be made with thin reco®endatlon: a. The properties located in Subarea 7 an suitable for the uses ^eradtttd in the proposed General Plan and Etiranda Specific Plan land uaa dealgnations and era coapatible rlth eriatinq and surrounding land use daalgnatlona ae evidenced by the site's being bordered on the north an6 rear by [he acme land uaa dsaignation. b. The proposed amendment rill not have significant impacts on the environment noz on the surrounding properties as wldeneed by the findings and concluniona listed in Parts I and II of the initial Environmental Study and the fact that tea proposal rould reduce the intensity of ra aidential development on the subject properties. c. Tha proposed aatendment is Sn conformance rith the General Plan and the Etiranda Specific Plan by promoting the retention of the conmunity's rural attmaphera through reduced residential denaitiee. General plan artd Etiranda Epsclflc Plan Reaolutiona of Approval are attached for Che Commiaaion'e consideration. ~~~ Subarea 8 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-028 Subarea 6 ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 ~~ ~`'~I •` .+ PL11NIlLNG LOlefISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91-OIB, FSPA 91-02, f ESPA 91-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA M,y ». Leal cage 3i csrwn PLalr a~alm~u~rf BvaaRSa e iTI11AMGA BPiCIlIC PLAM Am[IIDimIT SOBaALA 6 a. S+rro +n Ina •nd ^•e and .nnlnm; North - Railroad Line and underdeveloped land, Lor Medium Residential (d-8 dwelling unite per acre) in the Etiwanda Specific Plan South - Ontario (I-151 Freeray Eeat - Ontario (L-15) Fraeray Went - Underdevelooad land. Low Medium Residential 16-9 drellinq unite per acre) in the Etiranda Specific Plan b. C+nw rxl 21xn MeM mew tion.; Project Site - Medium Residential (8-la drellinq unite per acre) North - Railray and Lor lafdium Reaidantial (~-8 drsllinq unite par acre) South - Freeray Esat - Fceeray shat - Lor ebdlum Residential (~-8 drellinq unite per acre) c. Si a na ra aria i _; TAa site is lazgsly undeveloped with pe rimatez Euealyptua rindrora and rild graaaea as the predominant plant notarial. TM properties have a natuzal elope of leas than 5 percent and mope to the south with Ea at wvenue bisecting the nits roughly in half along a north-south axis. Theze are tro aingla family zeaidencae, one on each aide of East Avenue, in the southerly portion of the sits. 2. Rnvi rort n al Aeee•ax.n S[aff has zeviered Part I of the Initial Study and completed the Environmental Checklist, Part iI of the Initial Study, and found no significant advsraa enoi ronment al impacts would occur as • raault of the proposed Oaneral Plan Amendment and 6tiranda Specific Plan Amendment. 3. r..nn ~.e ~+lv.+•; dpprhpriatenea. of L=w Med!m* Reaidan ial race in fh Ar An analyaia of a map of thin site could lead to the assumption that the portion east of Eaat Avenue might be subject to significant inpaet from bordering transportation ayatame (Interstate 15 and the Southern Paeifie Railrayl. Rorever, afield inspection of this area reveals that much of the freeray and the Bane Line Road nativity is screened by the elevated fzeeray off-ramp along the aoutharn boundary. Ln addition, zaaeazch adore that [he railray along [hs northern boundary is a branch line used only by a abort local train, eonaistinq of a loeoautive and a far freight cars rhich make tro or three zound trips a reek. In general, the site does not aaeID any lean appropriate, by i[s location, fox aingla family development than the adjoining Low Medium Residential properties to the north. .~ 5 7 PLANNING COMfI55ION STAFF REPORT GPA 91-028 FSFA 91-c2, i ESPA 91-03 - CITY OF PANCXO CUCANONGA LvY -< 931 Page 32 b. CnnlO Zmanre rite th r;o 1 P1 d th v.ir.nd Spa ifi P1na: The change ir. land uae designation from Medium Residential Co Lor Medium Residential at this location raises no conflicts with General elan or E[Sranda Specific Dlan provisions. c, Corm eratinn n Alteznat ive ne d gl atiOn.; TO provide CAB Commission rite alternatives to [he existing and proposed deaignations~ staff has included the Following analysis of Low Residential (2-1 dwelling unite per acre). Conaidaration oL this site Lor Lor Residential should not present enY aiy~u __ __ •"^•• u....~... n. it is staff's opinion Chat it could not be appropriate to place a lens intense land uae of Lor Aaaidantial atljaeent to Lov Mediwa Residential land which bordora tole sits on the north and vent in addition the the troeray and railroad line. Staft did not consider conanereial daaignationa ae appropriate due to the problem of iniroducing more intense land ones adjacent to the existing single family properties. in addiiionl the eastern portion of this sit• is effectively separated from ease Line Aoad and Sts properties and future 6uaineaa activities by the freeway off-ramp. This aepnration should limit its viability for commercial uses. 2t the Planning Coamiaeion believsa this alternative deaignation is more appropriate, then a find determination should be rithheld until staff can provide an environmental analyain fox Che profarxed alternative. Re commnndwe sand nee; Staff recommends the exi sting Medium Residential (S-la dr6111ng unite per acre) land uae deaignation to changed to Lor Medium Aesidential (~-8 drellinq unite Pox acre) far the properties located in Subaree 9 of Chia application. Staff believsa the lollowing Eacta for findings can W made rith this reco®endetian: a. The properties located 1n Subaroa 8 are suitable for the uses permitted in tM proposed General Rlan and Etiranda Specific Plan land uae designations and are compatible rich existing and surzoundinq land use designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the north and rest by the same land use deaigMtlan. b. Sae proposed amendment rill not nave significant impacts on Che environment nor on the surrounding proper[iee as evidenced by tae findings and eoncluaiona listed in Pazta I and LI of Cha Initial Environmental Study and the fact that the proposal could ceduce the intensity of residential developannL on ihs subject properties. c. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan end Etiwanda Specific Plan by prooutinq the retention of the coamunity`s rural atmosphere through reduced cesidential densities. General Plan and Etiranda Specific Plan Resolutions of Approval are attached for the Co[maiaaion's considecation, ~~ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 91-028, FSPA 91-02, 4 ESPA 91-03 - CITY OF PANCHO CUCANONGA Vay JJ. 1001 Page 3j III, CLa21LaTI116 FlNIRnNMRUTAi. ARC .CCMRVT; Staff has reviewed Part I of the Initial Study and completed the Environmental Checklist, Part II of the Initl al Study, and has found no significant adverse environmental impacts would occur as a result of [he proposed Gene rnl Plan, Etiranda Specific Plan, end Footh111 Boulevard specific Plan Amendments, Tha issue for consideration is a reduction of proposed land use intensity; therefore, staff believes the impact of development should not be mote aignificant than originally described in the anvi ronmental review of the Etiranda Further, the reduction in potential future housing unite does not affect the Citv'a ability to iealaalent the aoala and obieetivea of the General Plan Houainq filament. rv, reanaapDemerCE; Thsae item have been advertised to a public henrinq in the inland yall.v Daily culls iu nerepaper, the properties have bean posted, sad notices wawa Gent to all property ornery within 300 Leat of the project nitea. Y, RPCOMML:NnATInN: IL the Planning Commission concurs with staff's analysis, an6 believes the proposed Low Medium Residential and Comercial deaignationa are acceptable alGznativea to the existing Medium Reaidsntial tlealgnatiom, it ie mammandsd riot tM Planning coamllaaicn racoamnd approval oL General Plan Amndmnt 91-02B, Etiranda Spscf Lic Plan Amendment 91-03, an6 Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amsndmnt 91-02, by the adoption of attached Subarea Resolutions. A Resolution of Denial is included fox Subarea 6. Reapectfull submitted: //}/~~J~7~ Brad Buller (/ ' City Planner B9:AN:'J3Jjfs Attnchmenta: 6ahibit 'A"- Gneral Plan Amend. Location Map Fshibit "e•- Specific Plan Amend. Location Map Exhibit •C• - Lttex from James Banks Eabiblt •D• - Letter from D.S. Hama WA 91-028, Subarea 1 Resolution of Appmoel FSPA 91-02, Subarea 1 Resolution of Approval GPA 91-02B, Subaru 2-Low Medium Resolution of Approval FSPA 91-02, Subaru 2-Low Medium Maolutioa of Approval GPA 91-02B, Subarea 2~oaoterclal Raaolutlon of Approval FSPA 91-02, Subaru 2-COmmarcial tWolutioD of Appmvel GPA 91-028, Subaru 3, Resolution oL Approval ESPA 91-03, Subszea 1, Resolution of Approval GPA 91-028, Sobers ~, Resolution of Approval ESPA 91-03, Subarea 2, Waolution of Approval GPA 91-028, Subarea 5, Aeaolution of Approval espA 91-03, SuWrea 3, Waolution of Approval GPA 91-028, Subarea 6, Reaoluiion of Denial ESPA 91-03, Subarea ~, Resolution oC Denial GPA 91-028, Subarea 7, Resolution of Approval ESPA 91-03, Subarea 5, ReaoluLion of Approval GPA 91-028, Subarea 8, Aeaolution of Approval FSPA 91-03, Subarea 6, Resolution of Approval 83.59 __ YI CIOAII SME[• L ~_ i LM 0 ~' LM Ofl. O/f. ~w ~h~ ~~ ,~E LM LM p•.w 6.n.o1 Pl.n I1m.ndnr.M. 91~OtB LM - L.nO U.. Daipn.Don ® DES~ISNAim 9EplWTLT AESWEtiLU 1-1k DtEllN6 COUN111SIDGAT(~iQR~ SIINATIDN TO l/t IEDMI RFSIDEMTIAI (A-1 DtEtllk DIATS IEA ACRE) u ~ - Sul.ru No.. W , ~~ ~..~ ... .. .....irryCy LM CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ITEM' GPA 91.Ot8 PLA.^INiNG DMS10N ~~O TITLE: w..r.l Pl.n ~,,,.ny, LaeNbn rap 1V EXHIBIT: 'A' SCALE: T(-': L L E11rAnlo 8p.ni}IC pion Aroendwonlc tt-02 Foothill Dlvtl. Spo<iNe Pl.n A~ondnronlo 11-02 I / Imo, '~E ti~ `~~ \+ LM - Dletlrol DesitlnNlan TRD D1IMIENTLY ® ~ ~ SI CMA N ORLLkC M d MTSM 1 P A I { ~SI CMAT10M O %M ~ µ E TO l0 I[D NNI A R ({-1 ONELLdIi UNITS PE ACAf) 1 - ESPA SuGOno Noo. + W ~ -FSPA SuEeroa Nee. t N W C I-I~' ®®~l1 OF RANCHO. CUCAMONGA I-~M'ESPA 91.03, FSPA 91-02 PLANNING DMSION TITLE:sn.euro Pl.n AwoM. L.n.tron 1Aep N ~I EXHIBIT: •e• SCALE: B an~ca S: Hitc~ie .x .f SOCI..IOx O....O wx [~f JAM E$ BANNS,JR T HO MLS fl RIiC HIE aOBEHTE nrvVOSEN 23 April 1991 Larry J. Henderson, AICP Principal Planner Planning Division Community Development Department City of Rancho Cucamonga Cucamonga, California 91730 SVITC I,O CIVIC C[NL [I. LAW OFFIC[3 10)SG CIVIC CCN TCF O"IVC w/.NCwO CVCAMON OA.CA LIAOw NIA YI)~l ia~i n.e.yav .I f" ~ . ~ C"' '^EPiA APR E s '~ AY p~ ~~i3~lQill~L~1112~3i4i~, . RE: Neighborhood Neetinq for Waeral Plaa Amsadr3eat 91-026 Dear Mr. Henderson: I am n resident of Btiwanda, residing nt 13181 Victoria. I am writing in response to your letter to me doted April 17, 1991, regarding a decrease in density in various parts of the Etiwanda Specific plan. I will not be able to attend the meeting due to a "beck to school night" at Summit Elementary School, I wanted to be sure my views were expreeeed eo I have included them in thi^ letter. Althcugh a longer explanation follows, my conclusion is that I as strongly is support o! !bs Citp geaeratsd proposal to "downzone". I hope you are ready for the storm of controversy the land owners are about tc bestow upon you. in my opinion the densities developed by the Btiwanda Specific Plen for the areas shaded gray on the map enclosed with your letter were wrong from the start. I have a long winded explanation of why I think they were wrong which I will attach as a supplansat to this letter. For the purpose of expressing my opinion as a citizen for the 23-April-1991 hearing, I ^imply ^ay that if you are successful, you will be correcting some old mistakes and improving the future of Btiwanda tremendously. I am delighted to sea that thin question has come up again. I hope that it can be reviewed anew, as far away as possible from the factors which distorted the results of the first consideration. I wish you the very beet of luck in this effort. inc James •, JBJ/dn encl: supplement ~ / EahiDit 'C' SUPPLEMENT TO LETTER TO LARRY HENDEASON POLARIZATION: I wee a member of the Citizens' Advisory Committee to the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Unfortunately there was a polarization of thought at the time of the committees hearings. Many responses to the Committee's ideas were based on an allegiance to the Etiwnnda Landowners' Association (headed up by Mr. Dave Flocker) which supported higher densities or by allegiance to a looser knit group of homeowners who generally °-&r^'. Lnd lower densities. CAUSESr The polarization was due, in pnrt, to jr~the timing of the hearings. Although measured in yenre, the ESP hearings followed the hearings on the General Plnn and followed the later hearinga on the Victoria Planned community. These previous sate of hearings had already positioned many landowners and residents on the density issues. To n lesser degree Lhe polarization was also due, in pert, to •ome mistakes ae coam7ittee members made in approaching the density question which alntmed the landowners. POLITICS: In my opinion the generally high level of controversy about development left over from incorporation, general plan activities and Victoria hearinga left certain developers and development interests with considerable political inEluenca at the time. Pressure was brought upon the Committee (not by the staff) and, I suspect, on the staff to resolve certain issues in auggeated ways. AFFORDABLE HOUSINGJFREEWAY RIGHTS OP WAY: Right or wrong, among the issues which fall into this category are affordable housing and freeway rights of wny. Much of the land which is now enbject to change was affected by one or both of these factors. The economic climate of the time focused heavy emphasis on affordable housing. In addition, we were frequently told that we needed to allow developers along the freeway right of ways extra density eo that they could compensate for freeway proximity. This wee portly correct, of course, but I still believe much of the i777petue for high density in these areas was generated by Route 30 right of way protectionism, be that good or bed. -1- ~ ~3 GENERAL PLAN RANGES: Yf I recall eorrectly, there was another problem related to the present question. The General Plan, nt that time, contained a very wide range of allowable density in the middle planning spectrum. It was something like 5 - 16. This was a factor which affected the application of density ranges in the middle levels of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. This was probably a relatively minor factor. CONCLUSION: The polarizntion and pressure did not atop at the Citizens' Advisory Committee. Both factors were present during ~i,e ~iarri.-.~ ^_r-^_^.i ~~i nn hearings and later the City Council hearing. Yn my view these factors ^aewad ~i,e Etiwanda Specific Plan in cartnin respects, one of the principle respects being the very question you era now addressing. It i• a minor miracle and really n great credit to Otto &routil'a understanding and patience that the Committee was able to produce anything worthwhile. _y~ d ~ I V.S. HOME COP.POFATION WESTEPN LANG OEV EIOPMENT DiN SIGN Tapp E Soumern • Sono ~Op • Tempe, Ancona 85282 • 1802) 03&<1lB May 10, ?991 Planning Commission r:rv of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Dear Commissicner: As the representative for Etiwanda Development Corporation, we wish to express our concerns we have in regaxds to the hearing on May 22, 1991, on the General Plan Amendment. As you know, U.S. Home is in and has been in the process of designing a Preliminary Tract Map M 14211 in the of £ected area. Our Tract Map consists of part o£ areas M 2, M 4 and Y 5. Our main concern is that iE this area is rezoned from medium residential to low medium residential, it will change our lot size requirements. In our lengthy process we have worked with staff, with their support, to design single Family detached lots at an average of 9,000 square feet. We are requesting the commission to take into consideration our request that this zone change will not require U.S. Home to redesign their map and a11aw us to proceed as started. For further information, our tentative Map 1 14211 was granted an extension for submittal by this commission on April 24, 1991. If you need any further information, please feel free to contact me, Very truly yours, U.S. HOME CORPORATION WE ERN LAND DE`R~NT DIVISION J i._..._-_.-- Oallas D. Paulsen Executive Vice President-Project Manager DDP/rc cc: John B. Hyman, U.S. Home, Western Land Division Sherman Haggerty, U.S. Home, So. California Division Vince Beztoni, City Assistant Planner Exhibit "D" .• ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-025 - GROUP 66 PARTNERSHIP - A xequaet to amend the Land Vae Element Map of the General Plan from Medium Residential (e-14 dwelling unite per acre) to Commercial for 10.89 acraa of land located on the north Bide of Foothill Boulevard enst of Etiwanda Avenue. The Planning Commieeion will also consider Low Medium Reeitlential (4-8 dwelling unite per acre) and Office ae alternative designatiens - APN: 1100-161-04. Staff recommends ieeuance of a Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT P.ND FOOTHILL BOULEVA SPEC ZFIC PLAN AMEND NT 90-03 - GROUP 66 PARTNERSHIP - A request to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Uea Hap in Subarea 4 from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling unite per acre) to Community Commercial for 10.89 acraa of land l nraf ~d nn •6r nnn1F .I I. ni enn~wl It o The Planning Commission will aLo eoneider Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), Commercial office, and Specialty Commercial u alternative designations - APN: 1100-161-04. Staff recommends ieeuance of a Negative Declaraticn. K. ENVIRDNNENTAI ASS RNT wn rvuvAat p aN A MOMENT 91-D1A - PLANNING pETWORR - A raqueet to amend the Lend Gee Element Map of the General Plan from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling unite par acre) to Commerc lal for 2.0 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. The Planning CommLsion will also eonaider Low Medium Residential (4-e dwelling unite per acre) end Office ae alternative designations - APN: 1100-161-02. Staff zecommende ieeuance of a Negative Declaration. L. vNVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPEC-FIC PLAN A ENDMHNT 41-03 - PLANNING NETWORK - A request to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Uee Map In Subarea 4 from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling unite par acre) to Community Commercial for 2.0 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard antl Etiwanda Avenue. The Planning Cosaciaaior. will oleo conaidcr Law sdiu- Residential (4-8 dwelling unite pet acre(, Commercial Office, and Specialty Commercial ae alternative designntione - APN: 1100-161-02. Staff reeommanda ieeuance of a Negative Declaration. N. ENVIAONMENTAI. ASSE59MENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-028 - CITY OP RANCHO CUCANONGA - A proposal to amend the General Plan Land Vee Element Map from Medium Aes idential (e-14 dwelling unite pet acre) to Lou Med lum Residential (4-e dwelling units par acre) For the following eubaceu within the Etiwanda and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan areas: 1. Approximately 14.20 acres bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the east by the eastern City limits, on the eauth by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the west by a utility corridor - APN: 229-041-30. 2. Approximately 18.46 acraa bordered on the north by the Foothill Boulevsrd Specific Plan boundary, which ie approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; on the east by a utility corridor; on the south by Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The City will consider Commercial and Of Eice as alternative lend use des ignatione for this entire area - APN: 1100-161-03 through O4 and a portion of 1100-201'0 1. Planning Commieeion Minutes -19- Nay 22, 1991 ~~ 3. ApproxlmaGly 27.89 acres bordarad on the northwest by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwenda Avenue and ax Ltinq Low Radium Rseldantial designated land, and on the south by commercially deeignstad land bordering Foothill eoulevard. The City will confider Low Rssidsntial (2-d Qw11Lnq unite per acre) Y an al4rnative land use du ignat ion Eor this entire area - APN: 227-211-02, 04, O5, 09, 10, 15, 20 and 29. 4. Approximately 87.52 aecee bordered on the north by Miller Avenue; on the cant by East Avanua end n utility corridor; on the south by the Pooihill Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which Le apptaximately 530 feet north of Pooth ill Boulevard; entl on the weer by 8tiwands Avanua. The City will consider Low Resldsnt ial (2-4 dwelling unit par acre) as an albrnativs land use deaignat icn for I,IlY tlnt LLtl aLVV - • - - ~ -VL VIIY VL, 1100-151-O1 and 02, 3100-1811 Ol end 02, Yand v1100-191-O1. 5. Approxlmatsly 30.72 acraa bordered on ihs northwnt by tM Ontario (i-15) Freeway, on the cut Dy Sast Avanua and axial ing Low Medium AesLdentLl duignated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue. Tha City will consider Low Rssidential (2-d dwlling unite per acre) a an alternatiw land use doignation for thin enure area - APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-041-04 through 10, 1100-051-03, and 1100-061-02 through 04 and portions of 1100-071-01 and 02. b. Approximately 11.09 acraa bordered on the north by Bua Line Road, on the couthust 6y the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, and on the went by existing Low Nedium Aesidential designaGd land. The City will connidnr Office end Neighborhood Commercial a alternative land use dsnignationn for thi• entire area - APN: 1100-051-OS and 02 and 1100-061-01. 7. Approximately 10.09 acraa bordarad on the north sad want by exiatinq Low Medium Residential des ignaisd land, on the east by exiatinq Office deaignatsd land, and on the south by Baaa Line Road. Tha Ciiy will connider Office en an alternative land use designation for thin antira area - APN: 227-131-34 through 36, 52 through 54, and 61. 8. Approximately 20.36 acres bordarad on the north by the Southern Pac it is railway, on the asst by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the south by existing Otfica daaignated land, and on the want by exiatinq Low Medium dasignaGd land and divided in a north-south diraetion by Eaat Avanua. The City will consider Low Aesidantial (2-{ dwlling unite per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this antira eras - APN: 227-131-OS and 227-143-14 and 66. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. N. N 9L-02 - CITY OF PANCHO CUCAMONGA - A propoul to amend the Pooihill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Une Nap frao Medium RsnEdentlal (8-14 dwelling units pet acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-B dwlling unite per acre) for the following subareas within the Poathill Boulevard Spacif Lc Plan: Planning CommLsion Minutes -20- May 22, 1991 1. Agproximately 16.20 scree bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard, an the east by Ghe eaatarn City limiter on the south by existing Low Hedium Ree Ldent ial designated land, and on the went by a utility corridor - APN: 229-041-10. 2. Approximately 18.46 acres bordered on the north by the PoothilL Boulevard Specific Plnn Boundary, which Se approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard? on the oast by a utility corridor; on Che south by Foothill Boulevard; entl on the vest 6y Bt iwanda Avenue. The Clty will cone idar Community Commere Sal, Commercial Office, and Specialty Commercial as alternative land uee tleeignations for thin entire area - APN: 1100-161-01 through 04 and a portion of 1100-201-01. Staff recommantla issuance of a Negat ive Declaration. OP AANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the Bt Lwanda Spee if lc Plan Land Uea Map from Medium Reeldentinl (e-34 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-e dwelling unite per acre) for the following subareas within the E[iwanda Specific Plan: 1. Approximately 27.89 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the east by 8tiwanda Avenue and ex Lst inq Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by commercially designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard. The City will consider Low Aes idential (2-4 dwelling unite par acre) ae an nlternative land use designation for thl• entire area - APN: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, 30, 15, 20, end 29. 2. Approximately 87.52 acres bordered on the north 6y Miller Avenue; on the east by East Avenue and a utility corridor; on the south by the Foothill Boulevard Spec if ie Plan baundnty, which is approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Et iwanda Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) a an alternative land uw designation for this entire area - APN: 1100-131-01 and 02, 1100-141-01 and 02, 1100-151-O1 sad 02, i;OC-183-0; and 02, and 1300-191-03. 3. Approximately 30.72 acrae bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-15) Freawsy, on the east by East Avenue end existing Low Metlium Residential deeigneted land, entl on the south by Miller Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling unite pet acre) ae sn alternative land use deeignation for this entire area - APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-041-04 through 10, 1100-051-03r and 3100-061-02 through 04 and portions of 1100-071-01 and 02. 4. Approx Smately 11.09 acres bordered on the north by Baee Line Road, on the eoutheaet by the Ontario (I-15) Praewny, end on the west by exietinq Low Hedium Residential designated land. The City will consider Office Professional and Convenience Ca®ercial ae alternative land use designations for this entire area - APN: 1100-051-01 and 02 and 1100-Obi-O1. 5. Approx imataly 10.09 acres bordered on the north and west by exietinq Low Medium Aee ident ial deeigneted land, on the east by exietinq office designated land, and on the south by Base Line Road. The City will consider office Profsseionsl as an slternative land use deeignation for this entire nrea - APN: 227-131-34 through 36, 52 through 54, and 61. Planning Commieeion Minutes -214- May 22, 1991 ~v 6. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered an the north by the Southern Pacific railway, on the sae! by the Ontario (I-15) Pre¢way, on the south by exist Sng Office des ignated land, and on the we et by existing Low Hadium tlea ignated land and divided in n north-south diraetion by Eaet Avenue. The City will consider Low Rseidantial (2-4 dwalling unite per acre) ae an alternative land use daeignat ion for this entire area - APN: 227-131-05 and 227-141-14 and 66. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Dec]aration. Alan Warren, Associate Planner, antl Vince Berton i, Ass recant Planner, presented the staff reports. wamassioner nwcnwa - ~.....ya,... . -- ..-- .-- -_ _c.-._ ___ __ making the community teal ovsrwhalaw:d by multi-family or-if it is really the higher-density apartment projacte which proliferated in certain sections of the community which caused rho alarm. No wondered it developing at 11-12 unite per sera, which should produce town Noma projacte, ie viewed as problemat real. Hr. warren reepondad that concerns were originally raised because of the higher density pzojact• being developed. He said however when the build-out percentages ware presented to City Council, the Council wanted more aingla- family unite built to ensure the characlor of the community. Brad Bullor, City Planner, stated the City Council diraetion was that ell attached-type protluct• would 6a considered multiple family and would be of concern. He said therefore, the density ranges of B dwelling unite par nets or greater are being considered. Commies roast Melehec stated that in the area under conaiderat ion, there era currently no high-density projacte. He asked if single-family deneit ice of 4-E can 6a achieved in the Etiwanda area which will meet the etandarde of the Et •wanda Specific Plen. Hr. Warren replied thst the 8tiwanda Specific Plan has larger minimum and average lot sizes then required in other areas of the City. He said the optimum etandarde allow more flezibil ity, but requite aignif icantly more open space erountl developmante. Hr. Bullec stated that the neighborhood meeting regarding the amendments before the Commies ion included a diecuaeion of the Low Hedium standards. He indicatetl the ownaxe requested that the etandarde be relaxed to permit Low Medium stantlazda similar to rho root of [ha City. He felt the Et iwantla Specific Plan would probably yield at moat a 4-6 dwalling unit par nets product in the 4-8 Lou Nedlum area. Commies roast Mol¢her stated that rho eeaeline Economic Analysis prepared prior to the adoption of the Poothill Boulevard Specific Plan tletermined theca was a surplus of commercially zoned land along Poothill eoulovartl, but the applicants Eor Items I, J, R, and L had submitted a new economic analysis Planning Commi eeion Minutee -22- May 22r 19P1 `~ / which indicated there ie not a surplus of commercial land. Ne asked if the new study had heen prepared by a dieintereeted party. Mr. Warren replied it had been prepared under contract to the City 6y the came coneu ltant who prepared the Baseline Analysis. i Commie aioner Malcher felt that although that information was encouraging he was still eoncerned~ given the level of development occurring along Foothill. Ne asked if the traffic study was performed under City auspices. Mr. 8ertoni replied chat the traffic study wan performed at the requent of the Engineering Uivieion and was accepted by Engineering as adequate. ~..mm~==<....e. wn}rher ae kefl why etaEf considered Low Mediwa raeident ial ae an alternative when the applicant was requesting a change to ComNercisl and Community Commercial, Hr. warren replied that staff felt a change to Low Hedium should also 6e cone idered because of the Council's direction to look at all undeveloped multi-family parcels, Commissioner Melchor asked if it wan etaf t'• intention that development should be themed like the potentially historical service station. Nr. Warcen responded that it ie anticipated that the historic value would h¢ in relation to Route 66. He thought perhaps adaptive cause of the structure would 6e a poesibil ity and future development may emulate the archiiectutal design. Commissioner Helcher commented that the application's juetiEieat ion proposed removal of thB service et at ion. Mr. warren stated that if the structure in tletermined to 6a historic, _CCOmmodat ions would have to be made by the appl ieant. N¢ acid if the Specialty Commercial were granted, the City would expect that the historic feature be considered with the development. Larry Hendereon~ Principal planner, reported that the applicant'• proposal was dated prior to eteff'e completion of the historical analyeie of the building. Commissioner Malcher asked how a Change from Medium to Low Medium Residential would affect the City•s affordable housing program. Mr. Warren raepontl¢d that there is no policy in the housing element that epecif ies a certain number of multi-family housing unite must be built. He intlic ated multi-family housing will et L11 be built. He said the money for low-coat housing tan be used Eor single-family sa well as multi-family units. Hr. Henderson stated Ghat the number of nsceneary affordable unite in the housing element will change periodically based on regional numb¢t• generated by the Southecn California Asaodation of Covecnmente (SCAC~. He sold the Planning Commission Minutes -23- May 2Z, 1991 ~~~ City ie also given Lha option of challenging the numbers if they do not fit into land ues plane. He aGtsd that currently builders ace not providing low- coet housing on their own Lnit iat ive because land caste have grown eo rapidly. He felt the City would prohably have to participate directly through the Aedave lopmen< Agency•s set-aside fund. commies Loner Malcher asked for some background on Hr. Banka• latter. Ra said it appeared there had bean a compramite to permit higher density in the area south and east of the freeway becnuse of pressure from the developers. He stated it appeared the developers of the plan were more concerned with keeping low density north of the Freewny. Chairman McNiel stated ahsrs wets two large local groups: a Aae idantt' ^~++~i cn of Etiwanda and a Landowners' Aseoeiat ion, which had a number of a6asrtae landownan with rat het easy. y...eL--, -.^•~~ ,n the north area. Ha said the primary concern of the cesldent• wet to maintain the axistenea ono character of Etiwanda north of Eaea Llna. Ha said their intereeta were not at strong south of Eaas Lino and particularly tooth of the freeway, Commissioner Melehsr commented that the higher-density ranee were plaeea around the freeway in a manner tending to buffer lesser dengit Lea and more wneil ive uses from the frwway anviso:went. Chairman McNiel stated that some of the area was designated Medium Residential when there ware sffort^ !o make it all commercial. Mr. Buller stated thst based an the informstion presented and discussed during the Etiwands Specific Plan hearings, the beet planning decie ion at the lima was reaohad. However, ha said now information hoe been considered by ohs City Council and a new direction hat now been receivetl from the City Council. Commissioner Malcher aaksd what would happen to the U. 5. Homes project if changes were made to the designations. Mr. Warren staled that 1E the City Council adcpta a Low Medium designationr all development would bs subject to !hose standards. He acid there ors drainage issues involved which have delayed the V. S. Homes project. Ms. Buller etatetl that U. 5. Homer had indicated to the Planning Commiuion that they have made a significant investment in [hair applicnt ion and did not wish to drop the app! Scation. He reported they were repxeasnted at the Neighborhood Mooting and had rsqueetetl that the Low Medium standards b• reconsidered to be equivalent to Low Medium within the remainder of the city. He said they have indicated they could not build what they feel it the appropt isle Medium development, but instead they want to build single-family homes with a rsquesi t4 modify the Etiwanda Epee if ie plan to permit standards that would give them that option. He stated if the Land ie redesignated Low Medium, the developer 4111 hsve to reconsider their application. Ha felt it would be prudent for the Commission to dieeua• whether they would consider changing the Low Medium rtandarde Ln Etiwanda. Planning Commission Minutes -20- May 22, 1991 ~71 Commies Jonas He lc hat caked if the Southern Pae if is right-ot-way .r.:y .ant becuma a light rail corridor. Mx. Nendsraon etstad that if the Santa Fa liar is not purchased, it will bw wveral years bwfora the southern Pac if is line tan be used because it is in suth poor condition. Hs atatad thst no mattes whee type of housing density Se built, a na iss analysis would be required based on the use of the railroad and mitigation measures would ba required. Chairman McNiel opened she public hearing. Vnn Stephens, Forma, 10790 Civic Center Orive, 1100, Rancho Cucamonga, atatad hr is the agent for Group 66 Yartnerahip. He appreciated staff's work on the ---_-~•~:on end indicated he felt the requested amendment to Commeccial ie warrant ad. Ha did not tnaui. ...c __ ~a eonduciva to residential development 1»csu ae of heavy traff ie on Foothill eoulward. Ha xeac . co i^~•y center would ba wall-carved try madwr plamting. Hr commented that additional commsrc ial uses would bring additional ravwnua to the City. Ha rho Wad a graphic of the pxopoaed atseet alignment and the nddit ion of a collector street. He thought eha size of the parcel would be good for cammereial ueea. HBCdUea of the dNp site, he indicated it would not be dsvalopwd with strip commercial, but would br consistent with the Foothill eoulevacd Specific Pleas. Commiuionar Helchex naked it Mr. SNphens felt that Subarea 1 to the south of Paothill Boulevard would also be inappropriate foc Low Medium Rraidential. Hr. Stephens repllad that he had not reviewed Subarea 1 in detsil. He indicated it may have different aspects, but he generally did not feel that Bing le family residences should be ao sloes to Foothill Boulevard. Char lee Cumminer 1645 North Lautel Avenue, Upland, respect EUlly requaetetl that the northeast corner of Poothill and Etiwanda be ehan9ed to Commercial. Chairman McNiel naked iE Hr. Cuca:irs agreed with the recommended des ignat ior. of Spae ialty Commercial. Mr. cumnina atatad ha would prefer the regular Commercial designation because he Ee1t Specialty Commercial could restrict rase ueea. Commiesiones Melchor asked what he planned to tlo with the earvita star ion. Mr. Cummins responded that ha was willing to do Whatever the City wants; howeverr ha believed !hw service bay canopy will extend into the right-of-Way. LLoyd Zola, Planning Network, 9375 Archihaltl Avenue, f101, Rancho cucnmonga, stated that the outside canoBY Pliers will etantl in the sight-of-way. Ha indicated the original desire war to remove the service station ae wuch a use wou la net bw permitted in the axes. Hr asked that !ha area not bs Specialty commercial because it hu not yet been determined that the building Sa historically aignif icant. Hr reported that the latest study indicates a lack Planning Commission Minutes -25- May 22, 1991 ~ 7~- of commercial uses in the area and he felt the commercial land aria ie camper Lble with surrounding uses. Donald Phillips, 8011 Etlwanda, Aaneha Cucamonga, stated he owns a house immediately north of the vacant service et at ion. Ha raquestetl that hie . property be zoned commercial. Cary Womack, 5366 Evening Canyon Way, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he works for Czubb 6 Ellis and he testa the community needs mor¢ commazeinl property. Father Fred Gaglia, Pastor, Sacred Heart Church, 12706 Poothill Boulevaztl, Aancho Cucamongn, etat¢d the church requested that the small portion of their property in Subarea 3 6e rezoned Cootnercial to be the same ae the remainder of their property. He did not feel the area is conducive to residential development. Li Li Hwang, Fu Nai, 7168 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they purchased the proporty with the intention of developing under certain criteria. She felt down zoning would create a financial hardship. She said the traf tie genara[ed by Price Club and the future regional mall would not be appropriate in a single-family area. She requested that the Medium density 6a maintained. Sha felt that East Avenus will ales have a high density traffic vo lams. She ea id Ghat U. S. Nomes epeeist tree in aingle-family units, so they wets Ln fnvor of the change, but ner company ie just a small company. Robert Larry Areinage, 7650 Calla Casino, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he vas involved in the adoption of the Et iwanda Spscifie Plan. He Bald Jim Banks was a leader of the resldsnts' group. He indicated the Medium Resident ial was a trade-oEf to require one-half acre loi• north of Baae Line and one acre lot• further north. He felt that any major commercial Bite shou ltl have a buffer zone of Hedium Aeeidentlal before changing to Low Hedium. Ne felt the utility corridor should he buffered 6y an apartment house. He thought apartment dwellers have more tlexlbillty to move if they decide they are not happy with a eurroundtng area. Hs opposed the change from Medium to Low Metlium, but felt that if the City should decide to change the designation, coneiderat ion should be given to requiring a buffer :one around major shopping centers and major arteries. Petri Pitasei, Pitassi-Dalmau Architects, 9267 Haven Avenus, 1220, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he represented Gramercy Pzopert tea, and they opposed the zoning changes to the property. Hs felt that Miller will be the northern access for the regional mall and will be linketl to the properties to the east. He thought Medium Residential will permit better mitigation of the noise from the elevated freeway. He said they had submitted an application for developsent, but it has been stalled because of a tlrainage issue. He did not feel it ie realistic to presume that all Medium Aeeidentlal is automatically multi-family. He said that staff has indicated they are not sure single-family dstaehsd homes sou ld bs developed at a yield of greater than 3.25 per acre because of the minimum 10,000 square foot lot e, even though the Lou Medium Residential equates to 0-e dwelling units per acre. He thought the proposed zone changes would only equate to a lose of 2x800 multi-family Planning Commission Minutes -26- May 22, 1991 ~ 73 unite as opposed to the 4,000 shown in the staff report end the increase in einglo-family unite would equal 1,500 Lnstead of the 2,600 indieetvd In the repast. Ha did not foal the area iv an appropriate market area for Low Medium zoning. Ha also requested that Low Radium atantlarde for the Etiwanda area bs studied. ~ Jeff Scezanka, 10668 Copper Hou ntsin Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was on the reek terse which studied the Etiwanda area. He felt that Medium Reeitlentlal permits preeervnt ton of the rural character bett¢r than cookie- cuttar single-family homes. He thought that multi-family allows larger setbacks and peaces. xe felt Medium Residential ie an appropriate des LgnaG LOn adjacent to freeways and artariel e. He said neighborhood commercial business iv going Lo Pontena because there is none available along Basa Lina on the easbrn part of the Cily. Ha indiengtl the City hoe an opportunity to permit . ..,-w.~-.__~ ,, ..__ ___ _.`._ -_..-.y ccL:a. .1J....u: w um rreewaY wnlen would permit sn lntarest inq antrsnce to the city Crom the fraawsy. Richard Dahl, 5466 Carnahan, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was repreaantinq I. S. Properties, who own property edj scant to the freeway of Eton ramp. No felt there should bs a spacial designation under the Commercial zone. Agatha Rlai,unan, 2500 North 8uelid, Vpland, roquoeted that their property Ln Subarea a bs separated from the ramalntlvr of the subarea becauu it hu a 20 foot easmwnt slang the fraawsy which cannot bo used. She acid a 20-foot h1gA wail will be sago Lrod along the freeway off-ramp. Sha reported Chat the parcel ie only 30 acres, and will ba oven smaller when East Avanuo is widened. Sho indicated their parcel is bordered by the freeway, Lhe rsilrcad, and Eaat Av¢nus. Sha Lhouqht that Lf the property were downzonvd, it would effectively pteclutle their ability to either build on or sell [hair property. She said she had bean present at the onset of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and she felt Lt had been a commendable job. John Fowler, 7198 Eaet Avanua, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owned the 10-acre parcel to the west of East Avenue in Su6aroa 8. He thought that if the property «ers changed to Low Radium he would not be able to develop or sell hie property. Ha fall Ghat the high drainage system coot would not support Low Hedium Resltlaniitl dsvalopmant, and the area would 6a an ideal neighborhood commercial cantor. Or. Ralph Rlsiruaan, 2500 North Euclid, Upland, stated they have owned the property for 30 years. Ha did nut feel the area should be zoned Residential, but should be Office oz Commercial. Ha void traffic is too noisy for Ae aidantial tlavalopment. Ne also indicated Eaet Avenue will be a major artery. Mr. Sceranka fa It Otfica/PZOfeeeional vhould not be considered as an al teznato designation because ha thought there le an overabundance of Office/Professional in the City. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNlel closed the public heaz•inq. Planning Commies ion Hlnutes -27- Nay 22, 1991 ~~~ Mr. Warren rtated that the numbsra indieatad in the staff reporC regarding the taductlon o! multi-family unite end the increase of single-family unite referred to a coma lative effect o! the amendments under consideration along with other ant LCipated amendments. I, 90-028 J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSSSS!ffiNT AND F001'MILL BOULEVARD SPECIPLC PLAN AMENDMENT 90_03 Commissioner Ch It iea supported Commem ial on General Plan Amendment 90-028. Commies inner Tolot oy concurred. Motion: Moved by ToLtoyr seconded by Malcher, to recommend luuanea of a Negative Oaclaraiion and adoption of the resolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 90-02B and Poothi 11 eoulwatd Specific Plan Amendment 90-03 changing land uaa designations to Commercial and Community Commercial respectively. Motion carried by the follouinq vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, NCNIELr MELCP.ERr TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -cart iad E. FNVIRONM-NTA. ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-OSA L. ~NVIRONMENTA. ASSESSMENT AND POOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91_03 Chairman McNiel naked if it would be possible to change to specialty Caawercial until each time as a determination is made regarding the historical eignLficanee of the serrica oration but than automatically revert to Community Commercial if the setvlca station is determined ineigni.f icant. Mr. euliar stated that a specialty Commercial designation in itself would not tau en the building to remain. Convoi ae inner Va Llatta saggsstad iaeommandi nq Community Commercial and requesting that the city council datscmina it the building should be saved. Com:aieaioner Malcher asked Lf Community Commercial would 6e injurious to the service station. Hr. gullet etaied thst the value of the cerviee station would ba the same whether the area ware changed to Community Commercial or Specialty Commwrcial. Planning Commission Ninutea -28- May 22, 1991 7-~ Commissioner Mslchar commented that the •eale of the service stet ion is eo small compaatl to the Thomas Winery, that ho thought community Commercial to be an appropriate tlsa ignat ion. commissioner Toletoy concurred and pointed out that the canopy would have to be removed DaCause of lt• proximity to Foothill Boulevard. Motion: Moved by Cnlt ise, sseended by Tol stay, to recommend issuance of a Nagar ivs Deelaratlon and adoptior. of the resolutions recommending approval of cansral Plan Amendment 93-D1A and Foothill Boulevartl specific Plan Amendment 91-03 changing land use daslgnat ions to Commercial and Community commercial seepeet Lvely. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: CORM ISSIONEAS: CNITIEA, NCNI EL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISS30NSAS: NONE ASSENT: COMHISSIONSRS: NONP -carried M. NVIAON PNT * A 6~ vNT ND r P AN ND NT 91 02B (Subareas 1 through B) N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMP.NT AND POOTMILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMBNDNENT 91=02 (SUbaraa• 1 end 2) O. ENVIRONN N A E W A P C F C PL NDM NT 9- (SUbarsae 3 through 6) Gene al P din ba a and oot it oulavard Soecif is Plan Amendment 91-02 ISUbarea 11: Commissioner Malcher felt that in light of the testimony shout how inappropriate the area on the north side of Poothill would be for Low Medium, it would not make sense to change the area on the south aide of Foothill Boulevard to Low Medium. Camniesioner Valletta asked if rho Commission could recommend Off iae/ Profess Tonal or commsrolal. Commissioner Chitise suggested the Commies ion may wish to recommend the designation not bs changed from Medium. Commissioner Valletta suggested the Commission propose a set of options. Mr. Warren stated that stetf did not perform any in-depth analysis other than for Low Medium Aesidential. Ho indicated staff found no evidence to indlcats support for either Commercial or Lou Residential uses at the location. Ns suggested that if the Commission felt something other than ihs current Msdlum or the proposed Low Nsdlum were appropriate, the matter should be returned to staff for further analysis. Planning Commission Minutes 1-29- May 22, 1991 d Commissioner Helehar stated ha would prefer to recommend denial of the amendment. Chairman McNial indica4d that the area to the ueet ie developed with einglr family homes in a Low Auident ial designation. ~ Mr. Bsztoni stated a utility corridor separates the area from the Low Resident Lal to the want. Commiaaicner Tolatcy fait staff •hauld prepare an analysis. Nr. Buller suggested that the eubaraa could be returned with the next General Plan cycle. Notion: Novetl by Toiatoy, seeontled by Meleher, unanimously carriedr to continua Envlrormuntal Aousmant and Genersl Plan Amentlmant 91-02a (subarea 1) antl Environmental AsseseaNnt and Poothill Boulevard Spacif is Plan amendment 91-02 (Subarea 3) to the next General Plan cycle. • • • e General Plan Amendment 91-028 :Subarea 21 and F othill B 1 artl 5 ifi P1 Amendment 91-02 (Subaru 2): Commisaloners Toiatoy end Valletta thought the area •hculd 6a Commercial. Commissioner Naleher commented that staff recommended Office in the enetarn portion of the eubaraa. Notion: Moved by Nelchar, seconded by Chit tea, to raco:rmend issuance of a Negative Declaration and atloption of the resalutione recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 91-028 (SUbaraa 2) changing the lend use tleaignation !o Commercial and Office and Poothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91-02 (SU6atea 2) changing land uu designer ion to Community Commercial and Commercial Office. Motion carried by ihs following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CNITIEA, MCNIEL, NELCNER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried General Pl am dm t 91-028 IS b rea 11 d P th'11 B 1 vard Spec iflc Plan Amendment 91-02 (SUbaraa 11: Hr. Bullez suggested that the CommLeaion forward subarea 1 to the City Council with a recommentletlon of denial rather than continuing the item to the next Genersl Plan cycle. Planning Commission Minutes -30- Nay 22, 1991 ~~~ Notion: Noved by Melcher, seconded by chitlea, unanimously carried, to reconsider Environmental Assesemsnt end General Plan Amendment 91-038 (Subarea 1) and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91-02 (Subarea 1). Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitisa, [o recommend denial of Environmental Aswssniant and General Plen Amendment 91-020 (Subarea 1) and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan wosntlment 91-02 (Subarea 1). Motion Carried by the following vote: AYES: COlBiL SSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNLEL, lIELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CONNISSIONEASi NONE -C etY Led Ge • 1 Plen Amendme t 91-02H sS b 3~ d 6t' d S 'f' P1 Ams doer t 91-03 ISUbarea 11s commiuioner valletu stated that ehL wbarea includes the itiangls of land which the church requgGd bs changed to Caamsrcial. Mt. Buller suggsuted that the church 6e permitted io pursue the matter u a separate application. commissioner Toletoy stated it i• always hard t0 transition EYOm Commercial LO •inglrfamily reddential. Ne felt Lhere should be a buffer of higher density between the two uses. ChaLrman HcNisl felt the transit ion i• not an insurmountable problem and had been successfully dealt with in the past. Commieaionsr ToLioy felt Lhat the buf taring effect ie needed for good planning. Commissioner Melcher concurred with Commissioner Toletoy and felt there should also be a buffer from the freeway. commissioner Valletta asked why the area should be considered inapproHriats far single-famLly roidentLal but the saaw consideration should not hs given to multi-family. She wondered why more people should be eubjeaGd to the noise of the freeway. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Pitaeai stated that multi-family development allows more flexibility to mitigate the surroundings, 6y increasing setbacks, allowtnq additional landscaping, and including architectural features which can screen the tenants from adjacent uses. Planning Commiaa ion Minutes -31- Nay 22, 1991 d ~ V Conmitaioner Melchor stated that Ln molt l-family development the back of a building facing the traoway would pormlt bulldinga to be placed closer to the freeway. Nr. Pitaui ukad it it L appropriate to have rn ldntial urea adj scent to a ~ freeway. Nr. Buller eug9eetad the area may call for a mixed-nee development. Ho indicated it ie a difficult site because it vita down 20 - 00 foot below the freeway. Nr. Henderson euggeated that •inea it was almost 2:60 a.m.r the Comoiaeion may wish to continua the balance of iho d!acuasion to their raxt mooting. Mr. eullor thought the Commission may wish to adjourn the mntinq to Wednesday, Nry 29, 1991, a that would W the Lifth Wednesday in the month. Motion: Novel by Chitiaa, wcondod by Vallstb, unanimously carr iod, to continuo the balanta o! the agenda to Nay 29, 1991, et 7:00 p.m. in thr Council Chamber. ~ . • . . Notion: Moved by Nalchar, ueondad by Chitin, to ndjourn. 2:00 e.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to May 29, 1991, at 7:00 p.m. 1n the Counc!1 Chamber to finish the balanta of the agenda. Respectfully submitted, [~~ Brad eullor` Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -32- May 22, 1991 ~ ~9 CITY OF RANCHU CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting MaY 29, 1997 Chairman McN iel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Coumiasion to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman MeN iel Shen led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PAESSNT: Suzanne Chitien, Larry Mc Niel, John Melcher, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: Peter Toletoy STAFF PRESENT: Vince Bertonl, Assistant Planners Miki Brett, Associate Planner; Brad Buller, City Pla nnei; Ralph Nana on, Deputy City Attorney; Larry Henderson, Principal Plannerr Betty Miller, Associate Engineers Gail Sanchez, Planning Con®iasion Secretary, Alnn Wai ren, Associate Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Bu lies, City Planner, suggested Lhat Item D be continued to permit Principal Planner Dan Coleman to make the presentation. • • a OLD BUSINESS D. TRAILS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, carried with Tolstoy absent, to continue Trails Implementation Plen to a future date. • . . . . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02H - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend Lhe General Plan Land Uee Element Map from Medium Aeaidential (e-14 dwelling unite per acze) to Low Medium Residential (6-e dwelling unite per acre) for the following aubareae within the Etiwanda and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan areas: 1. Approzimateiy 14.20 acme bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the east by the eastern City llmite, on the south by existing Low Medium Residential deei grated land, and on the west by a utility corri doz - APN: 229-041-10. ~~ 2. Approximately 18.46 acres bordered on fhe north by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which is approximately 530 Feet north of Foothill Houlevardr on the east by a utility corridorl on the south by Foothill Hculevardl and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The City will consider Commercial and Office as alternative land use desi gnationa for this entire area - APN: 1100-151-01 through 04 and a portion o£ 1100-201-01. 3. Approximately 27.89 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and ex;sting Low Medium Residential de al grated land, and on the south by commercially designated land bordering Foothill eoulevard. The City will consider Low Residential (2-d dwelling units per aczel as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, ,n t5 On anA Oa, 4. Approximately 87.52 acrea bordered on the north by Miller Avenue: on the east by Saat Avenue and a utility corxldori on the south by the Foothill Boulevard Hpecific Plan boundary, which is appzoxlmataly 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard: and on the west by 8tiwanda Avenue. The City wall consider Low Residential. (2-4 dwelling unite per acre) na an alternative land use designation for this entire arm - APN: 1100-131-01 and 02, 1100-141-01 and 02, 1100-151-01 and 02, 1100-181-01 and D2, and 1100-191-01. 5. Approximately 30.72 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontaxlo (I- 15) Freeway, on the east by Eaet Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue. Tae City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling unite per acre) ae an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 1100-031-BB, 1100-041-04 through 10, 1100-051-03, and 1100-061-02 through 04 and portions c_ .~,.0-9v'.-01 and 02. 6. Approximately 11.09 acrea¢ bordered on the north by ease Line Aoad, on the southeast by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, and on the west by ex;sting Low Medium Residential des; grated land. The City will consider Office and Neighborhood Commercial ae alternative land use desiy..ations for this nntire ores - APR: 1100-05?-O? a.^.3 02 a..^.d 1100-061-01. 7. Approximately 10.09 acrea bordered on the north and west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by existing Office designated land, and on the south by ease Line Road. The City will consider office as an alternative land use deai9nntion for this entire area ~• APN: 227-131-34 through 36, 52 through 54, and 61. H. Approximately 20.34 acrea bordered on the north by the Southern Pacific railway, on the east by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the south by existing Office designated land, and on the vest by existing Low Medium designated land ar.d divided in a north-south direction by East Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as nn alternative land use designation for this entire area -APN: 227-131-OS and 227-141-16 and 66. Staff recommends issuance o£ a Negative Declaration. (Continued from May 22, 1991.) Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 29, 1991 ~8/ Boulevard Specltlc Plan Lnnd Use Map from Medium Reaidential (8-14 dwelling unite per acre) to Low Medium Reaidential (4-8 dwelling unite per acre) for the following subareas within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan: 1. Approximately 74.20 acres bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the east by the eastern City limits, on the south by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the west by a utility corridor -APN: 229-041-10. 2. Approximately 18.46 acres bordered on the north by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Boundary, which is approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; on the east by a utility eorridorr on the _ _. _ _ _ .we .e.. ti., eH ....e aw av.nun. mha City wills consider Community Commarelal, Co®ercial Office, and Specialty Commercial as alternative land use deaignatlons for this entire area - APN: 1100-161-01 through O4 and n portion of 1100-201-01. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from May 22, 1991.) C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND EfIWAN DA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA - A p[oposal to amend the Etiwand4 3pecif le Plan Land Use Map from Nedlum Reaidential (e-14 dwelling unite per acre) to Low Medium Residential (d-B dwelling unite pez sere) for the following subareas within the Etiwanda Specific Plan: 1. Approximately 27.89 acres bordered on the northwest Dy the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on Lhe east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated lend, and on the south by commercially designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling unite per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 20, and 29. 2. Approximately ei.52 acres bordered on the north by Miller Avenue; on the ea et by East Avenue and a utility corridor; on the south by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan boarders, which is approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Houlevardt and on the west by fitiwanda Avenue. The City will cone ider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling unite per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN: 1100-131-01 and 02, 1100-141-01 and 02, 1100-151-01 and 02, 1100-181-01 and 02, and 1100-191-01. 3. Approximately 30.72 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I- 151 Freewny, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Medium Reaidential deei grated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling unite per ncre) ae an alternative land use deal gnation for this entire area - APN: 1100-031-OS, 1100-041-04 through 10, 1100-051-03, and 1100-061-02 through 04 and portions of 1100-077-01 and 02. 4. Approximately 11.09 acres bordered on the north by ease Line Aoad, on the southeast Dy the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, and on the west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land. The C!ty will Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 29, 1991 ~g~- consider Office Profe9s io nal and Convenience Commercial as alternative Land use deal gnations For this entire area - APN: 1100-051-01 and 02 and 1100-061-01. 5. Approximately 10.09 scree bordered on the north and west by exlating Low Medium Residential deai grated land, on the east by existing Office designated land, and nn Che south by Base Line Road. The City will consider Office Professional as an alternative Land use deai gnatior. for this entire area - APN: I27-131-34 thxough 36, 52 through 54, and 61. 6. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by the Southern Pacific railway, on the east by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the south by existing Office designated land, and on the west by existing Low Medium deai grated land and divided in a north-south direction by v. e. n _^__ _,~ Cl;.r viii wnsr aer Low Rea idential (2-4 dwelling uni to per acre) ae an alternative land use deai gnatlon for this entire area -APN: 227-131-OS and 227-141-id and fib. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from May 22, 1991.) Alan Warren, Aasoeiate Planner, presented a recap of the actlone at the previous meeting, indicating that the Coam1881on had xeco®ended denial on General Plan Amendment 91-02H (Subarea 1) and Poothiil Boulevard Specific Plan Amen tDAent 91-02 (subarea 1). He said the Co~ieaion had rernmmended approval of General Plan Amendment 91-028 (Subarea 2), changing the land use designation to Cosmezeial and Office, and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91-02 (subarea 2), Changing the land use deai gnatior to Community Commercial and Covm:ercial Office. General Plan Amendment 91-02B (subs rem 3) and Etiwanda 3cecific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 1): Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing, and upon herring no testimony, he closed the hearing. Commissioner Melcher stated he was not convinced about the viability of single-family homes adjacent to the freeway. He questioned the use of sound wa11s on other properties near the freeway. Covmissioner Chiti ea felt the effects of the freeway would be easier to mitigate if the property were developed under Medium standards. Comvissioner Valletta telt the Commission shoo ld Eol low the City Council's direction [e lower the multi-family ratio. She agreed with staff's re eovmendation to redeai grate the area as Low Medium Residential. Commiissioner Chi ties Felt perhaps some Low Residential should be lowered to Very Low Residential to reduce the number of multi-family units. She questioned the advisability of placing single family hamea in the area with regional related uses nearby. Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 2g, lgg) ~ ~3 Commissioner Val Letts did not feel the City would be capable of providing all Che neeesa ary services if densities are not reduced. She felt that a 32 percent multi-family dens Sty goal is desirable, she thought multi-family densities may make good planning sense for some isolated areas, but that the designation ehonld be lovered in the interest of good planning Eor the Ci[y as ~ a whole. Chairman McNiel commented that there will always be a greater number of multi- family properties in the eastern portion of the City because that. is where the most available land is located. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the other Coamiiasionera felt the area has enough exposure to be suceesafu lly used for Commercial purposes. Chairman McNiel stated some Commercial ie already located immediately south of the subarea and he felt a Commercial use could be made viable. Commissioner Melcher stated that the church had only requested Commercial for a small triangular portion of the subarea. He did not feel the entire subarea should be Commercial. Xe indicated that a consultant had providefl a report justifying Comaercial Eor Subarea 2. Xe felt there appears to be an overabundance of Community Commercial in the City. However, he thought the area appeared to be an undesirable place to live because of the proximity to the freeway and he did net feel individual single-family homes would be appropriate. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, stated that if~the Commission wished to consider Commercial, it would be necessary to readvertise. Commissioner Melcher felt it may be appropriate to parallel the freeway with a buffer zone, similar to Subarea 5. Xe was concerned about isolating the present Low Medium. Commissioner Vai lette felt the church should apply separately to 3asigrate their property as Commercial. Brad Buller, City Planner, reported that along the Snterstate 30 freevay corridor there is a predominance of Low and Very Low designated land uses. Ne stated that a Low Medium Aeaidentiel designation dcea not preclude clustering of houses and buffering from the freeway. He said that staff had studied noise contours and felt that the noise issue could be mitigated. H0 commented that if it is determined that none of rite land under coast derstion should be redesignated rt would be unlikely that the City could meet the goal set by City Council. Commissioner Valletta felt that in keeping with the goals set by the City Council and recognizing the input from the ptblic, Subarea 3 ahou ld be redesignated as Low Medium. Commie stoner Melcher felt social goals were being mneidered in addition to planning phi losophy• He thought Subarea d to be better suited for Low Medium Residential. Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 29, 1991 .~8 ~ Chairman McNiel agreed that Subarea d is obviously better suited for Low Medium Residential, but he did not feel that Low Medium would work for Subarea 3. Commissioner Val lefts conm~ented that the Commission was acting under the ~ direction of City Council to indicate those parcels which would be appropriate to redesignate at lower densities. She felt quality of Life issues are relevant to planning. Sh¢ thought the Council was reacting to concerns of the community to lower the multi-family ratio to 32 percent at build-out. She did not feel tF.e 32 percent goal could be met without lowering the designation on Subarea 2. Commissioner Chitien agreed that the 32 percent goal ie aoo roeriate. hug ahu c alt chat love ung the density may be more appropriate in other paste of the City. Commissioner Vallotte questioned iE the City would be able to meet the goal if Sabarese 3 and 5 were not reduced. Mr. Warren responded that it would be possible to reach a 35 percent goal 1P available land were reduced at the following ratios: 75 percent in Etiwanda, 50 percent in Victoria, and 25 percent in the remainder of the City. Ne said it was felt that Etiwanda would give the beet opportunity to reduce multi- family acreage because there is more open Brea. Ne said that in the areas where the acreage is surrounded by more development, it will to even more difficult to lower the density. Commis aionez Valletta indicated that a planned community offers more amenities such as pazks, paseoa, etc. and she felt it would be more difficult to lower the densities in Victoria. Chairman McNiel stated he was not sure the 32 percent goal ie achievable. Ne thought the problems of proximity to the freeway could M succea sfu lly mitigated. He commented that there is other Low Medium adjacent to the f ceeway in the community. Co~iesioner Melcher commented that Subareas 3 and 5 have a combined acreage of approximately 59 acres. He said planning staff's projections are based on build out at 62.5 percent of the range, which would mean a difference of 5.25 units per acre, which would equate to a total of 300 units. He asked the impact of 300 mote multi-family unite on the percentage. Mr. Warren stated that the total projected number of unite in the City would be approximately 53,000 to 55,000 if the multi-family ratio is 32 to 35 percent. He coamented that 300 additional multi-family units would equate to a 600 unit spread between multi- and single-family unite. Mr. Buller commented that the Co~lseion had already recommended denial of the change for Subarea 1 (approzimnte ly 16 ac rea (. Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 29, 1991 ~g5 Motion: Moved by Valletta, se<onded 6y McNie 1, tc recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adoption of the reeolutiona recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 91-026 (Subarea 3) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 1) changing the land use designations to Low Medium. Motion received the following tie vote: AYES: COMMISSI ONEAE: MCNIEL, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CNITIEA, MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -no ac[i or. RammphOe Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that under the Planning ""' ==o~==~=_•~+• _ ~+= vow un an acuon whiU involves a recommendation to City Council is forwarded to City Council with no action. • • • v ~ General Plan Amendment 91-026 (SUbaree 4) and Etiwanda 6 cific Plan Amendment 91-G3 (Subarea 2): Mr. Warren gave a brief aynopais of the reasoning behind the recommendation for Low Medium and the request for a master plan. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Petc Pitasai Pi taesi-Ualmau Architects, 9267 Haven Avenue, N220, Rancho Cucamonga, rnmmented that the ateff report Indicated a total unit reduction of 1,400 to 1,500 would need to be reached city-wide, and said the staff's recosmended changes in Etiwanda would equate to a seduction of 1,267 units. He felt other areas of the City should have to reduce their percentage as well. Mz. Pitasei stated he represented a client on the south aide of Miller and he showed some preliminary plena for a multi-family project. Ee diecusaed ^'uste.-ing ut unite and the abx hty to create open space in such a multi- family project. He felt the project would result in a 10 to 11 unit per acre product with the unite being ownership type on fee simple lots. He felt that even though City Council had issued a mandate to lower the number of multi- family units, goad planning would dictate multi-family zoning because of the major and secondary arterials bordering and traversing the site. He did not feel a Low Medium designation would give the ability to mitigate the traffic and commercial impacts. Be indicated that because of the elevated freeway, the noise impacts would intensify se Lhe distance from the freeway increases. Jeff Buzum, Diversified Pacific Development Corporation, 6057 Della Avenue, Rancho CUCamonga, referred to a letter he had submitted at the May 22 meeting. He said he had been following the affordable housing issue and how that relates to the Housing Element in the City. Ne agreed with the City Council's directive to down-zone, but felt it ahou ld be economically viable for the property owners in the area. Ne said if the existing atandarde in the Etiwanda Specific Plan are changed to the normal Low Hedlum standards, the housing product generated would probably result in houaea selling in the Planning Commission Minutes -7-Rn/~ May 29, 1991 ~u p $250,000 range. He suggested an overlay district allowing For the development of smaller lots with corresponding lower prices. He said that ataPP had indicated [hat elsewhere in the City developers have merely put larger houses on smaller Iota and the smaller lots have not resulted in more affordable, homes. He suggested n development ratio of house size io Lot size. He felt e that would be economically feasible for the developers. He said he had considered some dif Eerent locations in she area and felt if new standards were adopted in an overlay district it would be possible to buffer by placing e units pee acre next to the freeway (duplexes and triplexes) and situating the smaller lots on the exterior. He said that would not hurt the property owners and would forward the ubjecti vea of the City Counei 1. He requested the Commission direct that smaller lnts should be considered. ,...c_rr3: ..-.._C - c~G~ ...~ ..Jti...J J_Jr. .C'Jy.-. ZG.. ..~.... ., .o. eye. .e ....,. ... ~e would not be viable if the areas were tedeaignated. Mr. Burum stated that it is an idea used in other cltias when a developer uses optional development standards to cap the size of homes placed on lots. He said that iE people aze not willing to ndhere to Lhe capped ratio, they would simply build under the normal standards applicable in the area. Commissioner Vallette auggested the idea may have merit because she felt that developers have definitely placed larger homes on smaller lore to maximize profitability. Comml as inner Melchor awed __ P.r. Suruc felt the iesu of d-16 designation would ba potentially detrimental to the affordable housing supply and was suggesting that the land could be utilized for a more aPEOrdable product subject to some optional development standards. Mr. eurum responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melchor felt the idea may deserve further exploration, but he did not ieci that deveiwpment etendaras ware part of this evening's agenaa. Mr. Buller stated that the issue was brought up at the neighborhood meeting and staff felt there is merit for further discussions. He said the Planning Commission could direct staff to obtain the City Council's direction regarding the issue. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman NcNiel closed the public hearing. Coami saioner Chitiea felt the Low Medium designation is appropriate because of the size, location, and mitigating factors. She felt further study of how to achieve a lower priced product is worthy of consideration. Chairman McNiel said he thought it was a great concept but he had doubts about achieving anything under the heading of affordable housing. He stated the community now has 3,000 to 4,000 square foot lots in the community which do not satisfy the affordable housing requi rmaents. Planning Commission Minutes -e- May 29, 1991 ag7 Commis eioner Melcher stated that even if the houses do not meet the official affordable Rouging guidelines, it would be delivering housing that people can more easily afford. Ne felt that considering Mr. eurum's proposal may help the lower middle income wozker. Chairman McNiel commented there was a consensus of the Commission to seek City Council direction on whether to further study a modification to the development standards Ear Etiwanda. Commissioner Melcher felt that master plan requirement could address the issues raised by Mr. Pitassi. Motion: Moved by Chi ties, seconded by Val lette, to recommend iseuanca of a Nn wN va nn~la naf inn anA aAn Han ni •Fn nnenl..n ~....e __, ____ ,__ ,_ General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Bubo Yea 4) and Etiwanda Specif lc P1an~Amendment 91-03 (BUbarea 2; changing the land use designations to Low Medium and requiring a master plan. lotion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMIS SIONEAS: CMITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCNER, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMNI35IONEAS: TOLSTOY -caztled f • e General Plan Amendment 91-028 (Subarea 5) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 3): Mz. Warren outlined staff's reasoning on Subarea 5. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Neezinq no testimony, he closed the public hearing. Conanissioner Melcher stated his position was the same as on Subarea 3. Conmissionei Chid ea concurred. Commissioner Val lette felt the area should be Low Medium. Chairman McNiel asked the use desigmtion across East Avenue in Fontam. Mr. Warren responded that it is in the Heritage Village Coomuni ty Plan and is designated Office along Eaet Avenue. Vince Beztoni, Assistant Planner, stated that Fontana is also rnnaidering an amendment to allow a variety of Commerrial uses in the area. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Vallette, to recommend issuance of a Negative Deelaratlon and adopticn of the resolutions recoaasendinq approval of General Plan Amendment 91-D28 (Subarea 5) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 29, 1991 ~~ 91-03 (Subarea 3) changing khe land use de st 9nattona to Low Medium. Motion received the following tie vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNI EL, VALLETTE NCE5: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -no action • • • ~ General Plan Amendment 91-02H (Subarea 6) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 4): Mr. Warren gave a brief presentation regarding the reasons state ate not recommend a change from Medium P.eeidential for Subarea 6. Ne indicated Bnse Line Aoad is heavily traveled and the southern border Se a freeway on-ramp, which would generate slgnif icantly more noise because of vehicle acc¢leration. He stated that because staff did not have an in-depth traffic analysis it had to be presumed that any use other than residential would generate significant amounts of traffic above what was planned for at Medium Residential. He indicated it was felt that increased traffic could effect the central core of Etiwanda: and because the philosophy of the Etiwanda Specific Plan is to retain a rural character, staff did not feel comfortable with suggesting a Cosm:ercial or Office use. He in8lcated the property owner had proposed office and Convenience Coameccial. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Jef£ Sceranka, Century 21 Dah ler, 10068 Copper Mountain Court, Rancho Cucamonga, showed a map of the~area depicting the Village of Heritage adjacent to Subarea 6. He indicated a significant amount of houeinq will be developed in Fontana. Ne presented a letter proposing that the subarea be designated Cca:uercial and suggesting that the area is heavily impacted by commuter and shopping traffic flows. He thought the majority of Etiwanda reaidente will go to Fontana to shop as soon as a neighborhood shopping center is built in the Heritage Village area. He thought the proximity of the freeway on/off ramps would assist in ranking the center viable. He thought the City should opt for Commercial in order to keep tax dollars from going to Fontana. Ne said he understood a traffic analysis would need to be conducted. Chairman McNiel asked how many feet of frontage is located on Hase Line. Mr. Sceranka replied 339 feet. Commissioner Valletta asked if Mr. Sceranka was considering the already designated, under construction cpmnerclal sites on Milliken and Highland and on Base Line and Milliken. Mr. Sceranka though[ those centers would only address the needs of a localized area. He indicated the area east of Milliken should support additional Neighborhood Commercial. Planning Coom:ission Minutes -10- May 29, 1991 ~~9 Commissioner Melcher asked if Mr. Sceranka's clienta control nll of Subarea 6. Mr. Sceranka responded afflxmatively. Conmissioner Melcher felt the site would be an awkward cro nfi guratlon Eor Nei ghhorhood Commercial development. He thought less than 400 feet of frontage lr. an area which may have traffic congestion would be difficult. He asked iE the Commission were to direct staff to study the feaslbl lily of Commercial for deliberations during the next General plan cycle, if Mr. Sceranka's clienta would be prepared to underwti to the cost of a traffic analysis. Mr. sceranka stated the clients were in the audience and could answer that question. Chairman McMinl felt an 11 acre parcel may not be large enough. Mr. Ecerenka thought the designated 5-acre alto at the Corner of Base Line and Etiwanda would not be able to attract developers to develop Neighborhood Commercial. He stated several developers have expreeeed intercet in a Base Line/freeway location. He said the developers will qo to the first ai tea availahle along the freeway, whether it be in Rancho Cucamonga or Fontana. Dick Dahl, representing I. S. Properties, Inc., 5664 Carnelian, Renchm Cucamonga, stated that if the property 18 designated Commercial, the owners do not plan to develop as Commercial in the immediate future. He said they propose an interim use of developing a recreational facility, such ae a golf driving range and potentially a miniature golf course if the driving range proves to be successful. Ne thought the City lacks sufficient recreational facilities. He said the site 'hna been reviewed by one of Che major companies who develop golf driving ranges and they canaidered the Bite Co have good potential for such a use because of its proximity to the freeway and the future church an the west. He Said there would be no impact on exlatinq residential. He reported that the Vons shopping Center at 19th and Carnelian is only a little over 10 acres. Ne said his clients would be willing to fund a traffic study when they nre ready to develop the site for commercial uses. He did not feel a traffic study would be necessary for a recreational facility because it would operate at off-peak hours. He thought the area will have to grow more before it can support a commercial use. He commented Ghat Che shopping center at 6tiwanda and Base Line is only 3.2 acres. Commissioner Me lchet asked if the client would be villinq to fund a traffic study at Ghis time. Mr. Dahl responded they did not Feel a traffic study should be necessary at this time. Commissioner Melcher stated Che Commission had recommended rnmmercial applications along Foothill Boulevard based upon studies indicating that additional commercial could be supported. Ne said those 9tudise had been Planning Commission Minutes ^~-1^1j- May 29, 1991 v /~ funded by the property owners. He commented that without a detailed traffic study, staff felt that co®ercial use Sn Sutrarea 6 would not only increase the traffic in the immediate area, but also increase the traffic along Etiwanda AvenLLe• Bernie Svalstad, Pattner in I. S. Properties, Inc., 1811 Weetcliff Driver Newport Beach, stated that moat of the property in the area cannot be developed for probably two to flue years because oP the cost associated with installing the necessary storm drain and the need Por an assessment district. Me stated they wexe auggeatinq an interim recreation use in order to alleviate having the property sit vacant until the storm drain is constructed. He said they wanted to assist the City in deleting 154 multi- family units and would also bring sales tax revenue to the City. He Eelt an aesthetically pleasing Neighborhood Co®ercial center could eventually be mevelope a. ne asxee ci~ac cim matter • ~i La ~... ~+."'_ ~~ ~•'°"" '~^~-°' """ cycle. He did not wish to perform a traffic atudyu based on Commercial^uee because the property vould not be developed ae commercial for another three to five years and the Eigurea would then be outdated. tle said a similar interim uee had been developed in Sl Toro in a retention basin. Commissioner Melchez commented the property owners had requested the Commission consider Neighborhood Commercial even though staff had indicated that without a detailed traffic study, Neighborhood Commercial would not be the moat appropriate land uee. However, the ownnrs have indicated an unwillin gases to underwrite the coat. He was therefore zeluctanG to postpone the decision to another cycle without more indication of cooperation from the property ewnera. Mr. Bvalstad indicated they did not object to conducting a study when they are ready to develop the sits as a commercial use. Commissioner Chi ties stated that in order for the City to consider a land use change, a study would have to be provided indicating that the area could support additional co~etclal uses, ~wven if the implementation were to be in the future. Mr. Svalstad suggested a study be conducted in relationship to a driving range because that would be the only i®inent uee. Nearing no further testimony, Chairman McNlel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Valletta commented that to the west the area ie already designated Low Medium residential. Chairman McNiel commented that Nr. Dahl had indicated a church had purchased the property in order to build a church. Mr. Buller stated the zoning is for Low Medium and a church would require a Conditional Use Pazotit. Planning Comaisaion Minutes -12- May 29, 1991 29r commissioner Vallette questioned if sites have been designated for cosmexcial sites in the Etiwanda North area. Mr. Henderson responded that other areas in the olan are already designated for commercial and the City had already received a request for expansion of ~ those areas. He felt that even 1f a shopping center is built along Eaet Avenue in Fontana, not all Etiwanda Yesidente will neceeearlly go to Fontana to shop. Chairman McNie1 felt Ghat eventually the site may be commercial but commented that without n supporting traffic study, he was not prepared to recommend commercial. He indicated the applicant could approach the City at a later time to change the area to Co®ernial. Commissioner Melcher agreed. commissioner Chitiea felt the proposal may have merit, but without the necessary supporting information she also was not willing to xecomnend the change to Commercial. 6he thought that looking at the proximity to the freeway, the site would appear to be deeireble for a retail use. 6he was uncomfortable with leaving a Medium Residential designation if the City did not really want residential. She thought that co®ercial may be the beet use, but commented that the owners were not willing to fund a study at the present time. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette: to recommend denial of General Plan Amendment 91-028 (SUbaree BI and Etlwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-83 (Subarea 4). Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMAIS6IONEA6: CH IT IEA, MCNI EL, MELCNER, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONHRS: NONE ABSENT: COlM I6 SIGNERS: TOLSTOY -carried • • • • a The Planning Commission recessed from 6:45 p.m. to 6:55 p.m. • ~ General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 7) and Etiwandn Speciflc Plan Amendment 91-63 (Subarea 5): Mr. warren gave a brief synopsis of the reasoning for recommendlnq Lov Medium Residential. Chaizman McNiel opened the public hearing, but there was no testimony. Ne closed the hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -13- Mey 29, 1991 ~9~- Motion: Moved by Velletter seconded by Chit ien, to re coam;end issuance of a Negative Declaration and adoption of the resolutions recommending approval of General PLan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 7) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 5) changing Che land use designations to Low Medium. Motion carried by the following vote; AYES: COMMIESIONERS: CNITIEA, MCNI ELr MELCNEA, VALLETTE NOSE: COMMISSIONERE: NONE AE SENT: COMMZEEIONERS: '1C)LSTOY -carried • f e R - - _ --- _ a_•.+.-tee. ai ...n ari wanaa Scecific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 6)a - Mr. warren presented a review of the matters discussed at the previous meeting. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Agatha Kleinman, 2500 North Euclid, Up lend, presented a copy of a letter she had sent to the City in April regarding her property. She felt the railroad tracks to the north oP the property, the freeway to the east and south, and East Avenue to the west would make the area unpleneant for residential ueae. She requested that the eastern portion of Subarea B be changed to Commercial or left at Medium Residential. She indicated that the property could not be viably developed as Residential, pnrtieularly if the developer were required to pay for the freeway landscaping. She felt the proximity to the freeway presents a safety hazard. She indicated that the property would not be developed fur at least five years because of the assessment district needed to finance the drainage facilities. Re lph Kleinman, 2iG6 Nor Ck. Euclid, Upland, felt that their property is an entrance into Honcho Cucamonga. He said they would not sell their land for industrial use. He commented that they are interested in Rancho Cucamonga because they hays been in the City fOr a long time. He felt a Residential tone would be inappropriate. He indicated East Avenue has a lot of traffic during school hours. Ha did not feel the property could be economically developed at Medium Residential because of the requitement for a 30-foot sound wall. Heating no Further testimony, Chairman McNiel cloead the public hearing. Commissioner Me lcher agreed that the Kleinman property is separated from the remainder of Euba rea 8. He was not sure that a Commercial designation would be the best use. He questioned the projected traffic count nn East Avenue in the future. planning Commission Minutes -14- May 29, 1991 /~ Betty Mille[, Associate Engineer, replied that it would depend upon where the freeway off-ramp is located. Commissioner Melcher asked staff to cos®enG on the Kleinman's comments. Mr. Henderson felt there was not much difference north or south of the Santa I Fe railroad tracks. He felt there would be less traffic if there are no Route 30 freeway ramps at East Avenue. Ne thought the parcel to be a small, awkward size parcel Located on a secondary arterial street. Ne suggested the Comniasion may wish to leave the Kle roman's property at Medium and reco®end that the remainder of Subarea 8 be designated as Low Medium. He commented that the western portion of Subarea a is adjacent to Low Medium Residential. He said similar conditions exist in Los Angeles County where single family resrdential is adjacent to the freeway, but has no access to the freeway. Commissioner Chitiea felt there was some merit in cronsi Bering sepazetion of the two portions of SUbaren e. Chairman McNiel agreed the Kleinman's property should possibly ba separated from the remainder of Subarea 8. Ne did not agree Ghat the site should be Commercial. He indicated that East Avenue will be four lanes and will be heavily traveled. He said it also may have a freeway off-ramp. He thought the western portion of Subarea 8 should be Low Medium and the eastern portion should remain Medium. Commis aioner Chitiea concurred. Commissioner Melcher commented that the only access to the property will be East Avenue. He asked how many points of ingress/egress would be permitted on the approximately 600 feet of street frontage. Ma. Miller replied that on an arterial there is a difference between a street and a driveway. She said that only one street would be permitted, but driveway standards permit one for every 300 feet. She indicated deceleration lease may be rcy--Brad. Commissioner Melcher Felt a single-family Bees gnation would make the parcel. particularly inefficient. He preferred to see the property west of East Avenue b¢ redesignated as Low Medium, and the property ea et of East Avenue remain at Medium because of the property configuration and coast-a infs. Commissioner Vallette felt that Low Residential would endanger fewer people if the proximity to th¢ freeway trvly tepresenGed a safety hazard. She supported Low Medium Residential for all of Subarea 8. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adoption of the reaolutiona recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 91-02H (subarea 8) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 6) with a modification to recommend changing the land wee deli gnationa to Low Medium for the portion of the Subarea west of East Avenue and recommending denial of the Amendments for the portion asst of Eaet Avenue. Matson carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes 1-75- May 29, 1991 d~~ ni~s: CONNISSIONERS: CNITIFA, MCNZ EL, MELCHER, VAI1.E'fTE NOES: COlH ISSION6R5: NONB ABSENT: COMM I65IONERS: TOLSTOY -ca Triad • • • f E. LINTY REFERRAL SO-06 - ONIV6RSITY CREST - Preliminary Plan f J lopment, Mae tar Tentative Tracts, Tentative Tract Mapa, and Final lan of velopment for 1,239 single family unite and Commercial, school erk, and o apace on 1,111 acres in the Rancho Cucamonga Sohw.w _ y,.~ai for re w of the r+. ~'_ r.y..~a~a to the County Planning Co _ sion and Board of ervisore. Miki BratG, Assoc to Planner, presented the staff report. Brae Buller, city Pi ner, states the City Council had eived a Dopy of a letter Mr. OiIOrio ee tv the Chairman of the Coun Planning Commission protesting that he did n feel City staff's cowmen to the County Planning Commission represented the sition of either the C' Council or the Planning Commission. Mr. Buller r eGed clarificatio a to whether the cgmnenta made by staff reflected the po tion oP the P1 nq Commission. Chairman McNiel invited public co nt. Joe B1IOL10, President, The Caryn ny, P. 0. sox 9216 South Laguna, presented a letter stating that the vereity Crest is an integral part of the Ltiwanda North Specific Plan. He ought the COUnty's Etiwanda North Specific Plan to be superior to City' Mr. PiIOrlo Sndicated the County plan has reversed density to w it Go th north. tle said County ateff had determined the project warz a 10 pezcen density bonus, but City eteff does not ayr¢e• Ne said prvlact will pre roe 675 acres of open apace. He stated the project proposed with highs than the county's minimum standards. He rcporte at the project ie commi ed to paying more than the City`s requirement f parka, schools, roads, and a protection. Ne said a 50 foot right of w an cul-de-sac streets (versus a ty standard of 60 feet) does not increa the denalty. He reported the proj employs reverse lct grading with only immediately under the houses. He id the remainder of the lots wil ve natural grading. Ne stated they had au Sed a report from a register geologist stating there aze nv fault proble in the area and Lhere is o Red Ni 11 fault. He reported the project rill pz de 3 acres of local rk for every 7,000 residents on site plus an addition 2 acres per thou a Tsai dente on either Southern California 8dieon surplus p ¢rty or at tw other locati vas. He said their traffic studies show the will be i gnificant traffic on Btiwanda Avenue. He felt the City should' of have pproved other tracts already in the Btiranda North Specific Plan ar He stated the majority of the landowners in the area have protested the ty's proposed annexation. ~. Planning Commission Minutes -16- Nay 29, 7981 ~~~ RESOLUTION NO. 91'56 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMIS SION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIPOANIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-028, SUBAREA 2, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE NAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITB PER ACRE) TO COMMERCIAL WITH A MASTBR PLAN REQUIIIBHENT OBSIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 4.25 ACRES OF LANG 430 FBET NORTH ANO 200 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNBR OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ET IWANDA AVENUE (APN: 1100-161-01 AND 03), AND TO OFFICE WITH A MASTER PLAN AEQU IREMENT DHSIGNATION FOR APPAO%IMATELY 1.5 ACRES BORDBRHD ON TH6 NORTH AND WEST BY EXISTING l1EDIVM .---:~ ':-I:.:. DaSaonnaau wnu, uN THB EAST BY A UTILITY CORRIDOR, AND ON TNS SOUTH BY FOOTN ILL BOULEVARD, (WESTERN PORTION OF APNS 1100-203-01), AND MAKING PS NDINGS IN SVPPORT THEREOP - APN: 1100-1.61-01 ANO Oa AND A PORTION OF 1100-201-01. A. Recital e. (i) The city of Rancho Cucamonga has filed en application for General Plan Amsnd::atnt No. 91-02a as daseribetl in the title of thin Resolution. Hereinafter in thin Resolution, the subject Gsnarnl Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) On Nny 22, 1991, iha Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted n duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iii) On Msy 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga heltl a duly noticed public hearing on property owner SniLiated General Plan Amendment applitntione 90-028 and 91-OlA for ptopartiae which era e part of this application end inued Resolution Non 91-50 and 91-52 recommending to the city Council that General Plan Amendments 90-02B and 91-OlA be appzovsd. (iv) All legal prersquieitee prior to the adoption cf this Resolution have occurretl. e. MOM, TAHREPOAE, it ie hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning co®iseion of the city of Rancho Cucaaonga ae follows: 1. This Cosmieeion hereby epee if ically finds that all of the facie eat forth in the AeciGL, Part A, of this Resolution era true and correct. 2. Based upon eubetantial evidence presented to this Coamiss ion durln9 the above-referenced pu611c hearing on May 22, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds ae follows: ~9~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91-56 GPA 91-028, 9VeAREA 2, COgILRCIAL - CITY OP R.C. May 22, 1991 Page t U) TM ramsining portions of Subarea 2 sppiiee to approximately 6.25 acres, 630 [vat north and 200 foot east of [hs LntarseetloM of Etiwanda Avenue and Poothill Boulevard, bordered on the north and east by exietinq Medium Aeeidential designated land, and ie presently underdeveloped with a single family residence in the northern portion; and approximately 1.5 acraa bordered on the north and wet by exietinq Medium Aeeidential designated land, on the east by a utility corridor, end on the eoeth by Poothill Boulevard. Said propartiu ors currently deaignsted as Medium Aeeidential (e-14 dwelling unite per acre); and (b) The propertiu to the north of the subject sites are designated Medium Ruldential and are vacant; the properties to tM cut era designated Hedium Msidential and Utility Corridor, and are vaean!) the properties south of Poothill BouUvard are designated Comarreial and Lew Residential with the comowseial portion vacant and the residential poreion developed with a single family residential tract; and the property on the wet side of Eiiwanda Avenue is designated Cammarcisl and i• developed with a vacsni commercial structure. (c) This amendment dwe not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for developwnt, within the distriei, in a manner consistent with the Gemral Plan and with related dwelopment; and (d) Thi• amendment dwe promote the goals and objectless of the Land Uae Element; and (a) Thia amendment would not be materially injurious Or detrimental to the adjacent ~proparties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor on the surrounding proparttae. 3. Beeed upon the substantial avidenu presenLd to ihia Coaani salon during the abovrreUrenead public Marinq and upon tM specific findings of facto set forth Ln paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Conmiesion herehy finds and concludes ae follows: (a) Thet the properties located in Subarea 2 of the application are eu itable for the uses pernittad in the proposed district and era compatible with exietinq and proposed commercial land use dveignatiow along this portion of Pocthill eoulevatd on the east aids of the Cityi and (b) That the proposed amendment would not have •ignificani impacts on the environment nor on the eurroundinq properties as evidenced Dy the findinga and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Environmental Studies of this applieat ion and of eeneral Plan Amendment 90-028 and 91-OlA; and General Plan. (c) That the propowd amendment ie in conformance with the X97 PLANNING COMMISSION AESOLUTION NO. 91-54 GPA 91-02B, SUBAREA 2, CO)DgRCIAL - CITY OF A.C. May 22, 1991 'rage 3 4. This Coaroleelon hereby finds that the project ha• been reviawetl and considered in compl lance with the California Environmental Quality Act of ~ 1970 and, further, thin Comoniulon hereby recommends ieeuan<e of a Negative Declaretien. 5. Baead upon the findings and conclue ton• set forth In paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby reeolvee that pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Governnront Coda, that an the 22nd dly of May 1991, the Plenninq Caaoiuion of the City of Ren<ho Cucamonga hereby recommonda approval for those portions listed in the title of this resolution of General Plan Amendewnt No. 91-028. Subarea ~. .m...a,"~ "~~ ^_. ____ .-...-. Lcnd vas Kop Iran Netllum Reeidentiel (8-14 dwlling units per- acre)-, xo Commercial with a Muter Plan requirement designation for approxlwGly 1.25 acres of land, 430 [set north ud 200 feat asst of the northeast corner of Poothill Boulevard and etiwanda Avenue (APN: 1100-163-03 and 03), and Co office with a Mutes Plan requirement duignetion for approximately 1.5 •cru bordered on the north and west by existing Nsdium Raeidantial designated land, on the east by a utility corridor, and on the south by Foothill Boulevard (western portion of APNx 1100-201-03), a shown on Exhibit "A." 6. The Secretary to this CammLSion shall certify to the adoption of this Reeolutfon. APPROVED AND ADOPTED TN IS 22ND DAY OP NAY 1991. PLANNING COlOJI SSION OF THB CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA /// `J~(1 i, 9rad Buller, secretary of the Planning Commiseicn of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly Lntroduced, pseud, and adopted by the Planning commluion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of May 1991, by the following vote-tc-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, HCNIELr MELCXER, TOLSTOY, VAI.LETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE X98 Vl r----: ~i~ Eliwwd• b•• G•nod Pbn 11m•nd~nanh 97.011 LM Lena Uso Daipnation ®pAp[SRNAtE01CK~DDN1 (LT ItFTIDEMI4U IdA DAELLpID UINTT AFA A~E} UNDEA t0 tO~AYEDAW AET~ENTUI AtIDN Ihl D~ELIIXC UMIIT P£A ACAE) OF RA.'~CHO CUCA.~IO'VGA PLA.\~ItiG DI~'ISIOti ~q9 -._~ ,i ~ „fir n1:1c A: VL _ ". -- RESOLUTION NO. 91-55 A RESOLUTION Ol THE PLANNING COMMISSION OP THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02, 9VBAREA 2, AMENDING THE POOTHILL BOVLEVARD SPECIPZC PLAN LAND USB MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL WITH A RASTER PLAN AEQVIRElIENT DESIGNATION POR APPROXIMATELY 4.25 ACRES OF LAND 43C FEET NORTH AND 200 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OP POOTHILL 80ULEVARD AND ETIWANDA AVENUE (APNB 1100-161-01 AND 03), AND TO COMMERCIAL OFFICE WITH A uevTVn v~aw evnn~evu.u". ..._____.____.. .... ................-_ _.., ACREB BORDERED ON THE NORTH AND' WEST BY E%ISTINC MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, ON TH8 BAST BY A VTILITY CORRIDOR, AND ON TH6 BOVTR BY FOOTHILL HO[lLEVAAO, (WESTERN PORTION OP APNS 1100-201-01), ANO MA%INC FINDINGS IN SUPPORT TNBREOP - APN: 1300-161-01 AND 03 AND A PORTION OP 1100-201-03. A. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga hse filed an application for Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment No. 91-02 ae deccrtbed Ln the title of this Resolution. Hersinaftar in this Resolution, the subject Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment Se referred to ae •'t he npplicat Lon." (ii) On May 22, 1993, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and also issued Resolution No. 91-5d recommending to the City Connell that the associated General Plan Amendment No. 91-028, Suharea 2, ba approved. (iii) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Coamission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed puDl lc hearing on property owner Lniiiated Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amantlment applieatione 90-03 and 91-03 for properties which ere a part of this appl test ion and issued Resolution Noe. 91-51 and 91-53 recommending to the City Council the[ Foothill Boulevartl Specific Plan Amendments 90-03 and 91-03 be approved. (iv) All legal prerequieita• prior to the adoption of thin Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it i• hessby round, detarminetl, and resolved by the Planning Commies ion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga an follows: 1. Thi• Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facto est forth in the Recitals, Part A, of thte Resolution are true and correct. 3 ~o PLANNING CONNISSLON RESOLVTION NO. 91-55 FS PA 91-02, SUBAREA 2, COMMEAC IAL - CITY OF R.C. May 20 loot Page 2 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to thin Commission during the above-refarsncatl public hearing on Ray 22, 1991, including uritieR and ornl staff reports, together with public testimony, this Comnission hereby epecif icelly finds as follows: (s) The remaining portions at Subarea 2 applies to approximately 4.25 acres, 430 fast north end 200 feet east of [hs intersection of etiwanda Avenue end Foothill Boulevard, bordered mn the north and east by existing Medium Residential dulgnatad land, and ie promtly undsrdwaloped with a eingls family residence in the northern portion} and approximately 1.5 ~~_~~ .,,,. .,, .eu wec ey exuung nedwm Residential designated land, ony the east •byV~a „utility corridor, and On the south 6y Foothill Boulevard. Said propsrtLS ors cur:cnt l.y designated as Medium Roldmtial (e-:: tlwsllinq unite per acre)} end (b) Ths propextUa to the north of the sabjsct •itu era deeignatatl Radium Ruidsntial and are vacant} the properties to the cart era designaied Msdlum Raaidantial and Utility Corridor, and ate vacant} the properties south of -oothlll BouUvard era designated Commercial and Low Residential with the conmercial portion vacant and the xesitlantial portion developed with l •Sngle family ruitlent ial tract; and the pcoperty on the wet aide of Etiwenda Avenue !• designated Commercial and ie tlevelopsd with a vacant commercial structure. (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Uaa Policies of the G6nsral Plan and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and will provide Eor development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the Csneral Pltn and with related tlevelopmsnt} and (d) This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Lmd Use Element} and (e) Thie amendment would not 6a materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a eigni tieant Smpact on the environment nor on the surrounding pzopett ire. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during Lhs above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facto set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, ihie Commission hereby finds and cone lodes as follows (a} Thet the properties located in Subarea 2 Of the application are au itable for the uses permitted in the proposed dLtrict and era compatible with existing end proposed consserc ial land use designs[ions along this portion of Foothill sou lsvazd on the oast aide of the City; and (b) That the proposed amendment would net have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding propertLes as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in parts i and II of the Initial Environmental Studies of this application and of General Plan Amendments 90-028 and 91-OlA; and ~' PLANNING CONNISSION ABSOLUTION NO. 91-55 FSPA 93-02, SUBAREA 2, COMMERCIAL - CITY OF A.C. riav 22, 1991 Page 3 (e( That the proposed amendment ie in confozmance with the General Plen. 6. This Commission hereby finds that the project has boon reviewed and coneitlered in complienca with the California Envizormental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Coamiaaion hereby recommends iaeuanoe of a Negative D¢Clarat ion. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Coamiesion haraby retolvee that pursuant t0 SecGicn ac°°^ ~. ____ c_ _..- -L ..,..... - a.xuenc coca, cnac cne Planning Coemiu ion of the city of Rancho Cucamonge haraby racoaimenda approval on the 22nd day of May 1991, for thoea portions listed in the title of thin resolution of Foothill Boulevard 5pscitie Plan Amandnrnt No. 93-02, Suhnrea 2, amandinq the Foothill Bou lavard Specitie Plan Land use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling unit par sue) to Community Commercial with a Msatsr Plan sego iramant designation for approximately 4.25 acres of land, 430 feet north and 200 fast out of the northeast corner of Foothill eoulwsrd and Etiwanda Avenue (APN: 1100-161-O1 and 03~, and Lo Commercial Office with a Nastar Plan sego irament deaignat ion for approxinute ly 3.5 acres bordered on the north end we et by existing Medium Aasidantial designated lantl, on the east by s utility corridors and on the south by Foothill Boulevard (western portion of APN: 11C0-201-01(, as shown on Exhibit 'A1.^ 6. The Secretary to Chis Caunieeion shall certify to the adoption of th ie Re aolution• APPROVED AND AIfOPTED THIS 22ND OAY OF MAY 1991. PLA.N:II NC COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA BY: ATTEST I, Brsd Buller, Secretary of the Planning Consnieeion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Aeeclution was duly end regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Comnieeion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular awet ing of the Planning Conmisa ion hold on the 22nd tlay of May 1991, by the following vote-to-uit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCMER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE A85ENT: COMMIES IONEAS: NONE 3~~- Eliw•Ma Se.ei/ie Plm Aw.ndrn.nM f1-07 LM 'fit ~~ ~~~ OP ~+ r7 Vw LM LM LM I foomm elra. so.eiNe Peen If Aw.naw•nb »-az LM - Disbicl OoipnNien ® MDPERT[S CUAAENTIY OESICMTED Y~DMW RESREkTIAI 1 H DtELLkIC EOASIMRATIADN Ef'OR~RECFSICMATIDN i0 LDt kEDMW AESNHNTIAL ~A-1 OtEIIIMC OMIT} PER ACRE) 1 ESPA SuOm• Nos, FSPA SuLnu Noa, u , e..,., Re9ional!Relrtletl~~ LIB `-'-"'~~ Su!•r~~ m•nd•0 Percd• ~F ~"i\rCH~ CUCA.~~h GA I7EAS.ESPA 41-03, FSPA 91-02 PL4\\!VG DI\7g]p~ ~ ` T~'Esp.cn;cPLnAmend Lour' MaP 'h' RESOLVT ION NO. 91-56 A RBSOLVTION OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION OP THE CITY OP RANCHO CVCAMONGA, CALIPORNIA, RECOMHENDING DENTAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-028, SVBAREA 1, AMENDING THE GENERAL. PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PBA ACRE) TO LOW IffiDIUN REEIDENTIAL (4-B DWELLING UNITS PEA ACAS) FOA APPROXIMATELY 14.40 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON TFfP: NORTH BY FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, JN THE EAST EY THE BASTBRN CITY LIMITS, ON THE SOUTH BY EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RBSIDBNTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE WEST BY A VTIL ITY CORRIDOR, AND MAXINC FINDINGS IN SVPPORT mwcnnnv _ you. A. Reeitale. (i) The City of Raneho Cucamonga hen filed an application for General plan Amentlment No. 91-028 as described in the Yitln of thin Resolution. Hereinafter to this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amenchoeni is referred to an ^the applienti on.' (ii) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Co®1enlon of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of thin Raeolut Lan have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, TNEREFOPE, !t is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commies ion of the City of Raneho Cucamonga as folloue: 1. This commission hereby specifically finds that all of the fa cta 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 May 22, 1991, including written and oral staff report e, together with public testimony, this Commie eion hereby specifically finds as folloue: (a) Subarea 1 of the appllcai ion spplian to approximately 14.20 scree of lend bordered on the north Dy Poothlll Bau lavard, on the sent by the eastern City limitn, on the south by exinting Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the wont by a utility corridor and ie presently undeveloped. Said property in currently designated as Mediwo Residential (8-14 dwelling unite par acre)) and (b) The property to the north of the subject nits is de signaied Neighborhood Commercisl end ie vacant. The property to the west ie designated Flood Control /Vtility Corridor. The property to the east Ls designated utility corridor in the County of San Bernardino. The property to the south ie designated Low Medium Ras idential and in vacant. ~~~ PLANNING COMMISSION RS60LUTION NO. 91-56 GPA91-028, 6UBAREA 1 - CITY OP R.C. u.y 199. Page 2 (c) Thi• amendment may conflict with the Land Uee Policies of the General Pltn and may not provide for devalopmant, within iha dietr ict, Sw a manner consiatant with the General Plan and with related development: snd (d) Thi• amendment may not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Uee Element; and (e) Th1e amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the atljacent ptopert iee and would not hive a significant Lopset or. the anvLronment nor the surrounding propertieer but land uea incomoatibil itim• may ruun . 3. Bawd upon the aubatantial evidence prewnhd to Ghi• Commiwlon during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts eat forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Coalmission hereby finds and concludes am follows: (a) That Las property located in 6ubaret 1 of the applictt ion ie not suitable for the uses permitLtl in the prapowd dLtrlct by the •ite'• potential ineompatibillty wish existing and surrounding land uses as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the north by a major arterial road; and (b) That the propoud amentlwnt would not haven aignificant impacts cn the envlrommnt nor on tam surrounding ptopertiea ae evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Part• I and II of the Initial Environmental Study but that land uea incompatibilii iee may result; and (c) That the .proposed amendment may not be in conformance with the General Plan due to the paGntial to establish incompatible land uea relationships with single family uses and aignificant traffic activity. 4. This Coam!oion hereby finds that the project has bemn reviewed and considered in compliance with tM California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, furtMr, thL Comsiiwion does noG recommend the iwuance of Negative Daclaution becauw the land use change may not promoG the goals and object ivee of [M General Plan. 5. Based upon the findings and ewncluaions set Eorth in patsgrapha 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, thin Cootaission hereby resolves that pursuant to Section fi5E50 to 65855 of the Cal ifornie Government Cotle, chat on the 22nd day of May 1991, the Planning Commies ion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recomoende denial of General Plan Amendment No. 93-028, Subarea 1, amending the General Plan land use msp from Medium Aeaidential (B-14 dwelling Units per acre) to Low Netlium (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 14.20 acres of land bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on Lae seat by the eastern city limits, on tAe south by ezlsting Low Medium rasidentlel designated lantl, and on the went by a utility corridor, as shown on Sxhiblt "A." 305 PLANNING CORNISS ION RESOLUTION NO. 91-56 GPA91-028, SVBAREA 1 - CITY OF R.O. Nav 9_J, 100\ Pages 3 6. The Secraiary to thin Conntuion shell cartLly to the adoption of thl• Reaolui ion. ~ APPROVE- AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND -AY OP MAY 1991. PLANNINJG~~CjO///N/H~Z~S~S I~ONIj/SOP TH6\f~C. ,ITy/Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA I, Brad Buser, Secretary o[ the Planning Caomiuion of the City of Reneho Cucamonga, do hereby eertiYy that tM foregoing Resolution Naa duly and regularly introduced, pawed, and adopted by the Planning Commiuion of the Mty of Rancho Cucamonga, at • regular mntinq of the Planning commLeion held on the 22nd day of May 1991, by the following ooie-towit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: C0101I SSIONSAS: NONE ABSENT: CONNISSIONEASr NONE ~~ y 1 E 10 A 11 S 1 A[ E~ --.~.-----~-ti-- -' L ~• ~'r.Al chi VL V ~.--., L r G 1 ~I I ........ '~. /' V ~I ~ L~ LM i/, I ~ ~ ~~ LM 0 ~' G1{Wtnd~ 11f~~ GnufN pifm pm~ndm~nU lI~ORB Wu n ~n LM ~I ~~, I I co m. TppTTTTmmTITITTI~'IIII7/~Y ~ i ~ ~! ~ ~ H F-H N+H'iY7 .. I LM ~ ~ ~` ITEM: GPA 91.028 C [T~' OF RANCHO CUCAMONG~A 7 '['~'[LE:GenvH pbn ~m~nd. Locnlion Map ]v pLA.'VNiNG DIVISION E?CHBiT, •A• SCALE: :~Syi uTiON NO. 91-51 A RESOLUTION OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CLTY OP RANCHO CDCAHONCA, CALIFORNIA, RECOSLMEHCI::G DiiiTiJ. OF FmTF,P L ^:riiLCVARp SPBCIPIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02, 5VBRREE 1, AMENDING TH8 FOOTHILL 80ULEVAAD SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP PROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-34 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW NEDIVM RESIDENTIAL (4-B DWELL LNG UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 14.20 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTN BY FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, ON THE EAST BY THE EASTERN CITY LIMITS, ON THE SOVTH BY BX ISTING LOW MEDIUM RESID@NTIAL D63IGNATED LAND, AND ON TH8 WEST BY A UTILITX CORRIDOR, AND MAlfIN6 FINDINGS IN BVPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-041-10. A. Reritsla. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga hoe filed an appllcat ion for Foothill Boulevnrd Specific Plan Amsndnxent No. 91-02 ne described in the title of thi• Asaolution. Hereinafter to thSa Asaolution, the subject Foothill Boulevard Spacifie Plan Amendment is referred to ae ^ihe application." (ii) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Raneho Cucamonga conducted a duly notlcsd public haarlnq an tho application and also iaeued Resolution No. 91-56 rscosmentlin9 io the City Council that the associated Cenerel Plan Amendment Na. 91-028, Bub area 1, be denied. (iii) All legal oreraquieitee prioY to the adoption of this Raeolut ion have oecurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it la hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Ccr,.assion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ae followa: 1. This Commission hereby spseifically finds thak all of the facts e¢t forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Asaolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon eubetantial sviderce presented to this Coslmiasion during the above-refersnesd public hearing on May 22, 1991, including wrlttsn antl oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission haraby epecif ically finds as followa: (a) Subaru 1 of the application applies to approximately 14.20 scree of land bordered an the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the east 6y the eastern Clty limits, on the south by existing Low Medium Ras Ldent ial designated land, and on the weal by a utility corridor and Is presently undeveloped. Said property U currently designated as Nadlum Ruidentlal (B-14 dwelling unite per acre); and 3p8' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91-57 FSP 91-02, SUBAREA 1 - CITY OP R•C. May 22, 1991 sage 2 (b) The property to the north of the subject site ie designateda Community Commercial and ie vacant. The prcperty to the west ie dasigrtatad Open Space. The property to the east ie a designated uCili.ty cozridor in the County of San Bernardino. The property to the south ie designated Low Nedium Residential and ie vncant. (c) This amendment may conflict with the Land use Policies of the General Plan and the Poothlll Boulevartl Speelfic Plan and may not provide far developnent, within the district, in n manner eonaietent with the General Plan end with related development; end (d) This amendment may not promote the goals and objective of the Land ^aa Element; end (a) Thia amendment would not ba materially injuxioua or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a •Lgnif icent impost on the environment nor the aurrcunding ptopertiea, but land use intompntibilitlea may result. 3. Baod upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commieion during the above-rsfarenosd public hearing end upon the specific findinga of facie set forth Ln paragraphs 1 and 2 above, thin Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That Che property located in Subarea 1 of the aonllcat.i nn ie not suitable for the uas. P.nnittcd Sn the proposed ~ sc<icc by the site's potential incompatibility with sxiating antl surrounding land ease ae evidencetl by the site's being bordered on the north by a major arterial road] and (b) That the propoud anwndmant would not hsve significant impacts cr, the anvirunawnc nor on tM surrounding properties as evidenced by the findinga and conclusions listed in Pazt• I and II of the Initial Environmental study but that land use ineompaiibilit tae may result, and (c) That the proposed amendment may not De in conformance with the General Plan and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan due to the potential to establish incompa!lbla lend use relationehipe with single family uses and significant traffic activity. 4. Thia Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and cone idersd in compliance with the Calitornia Bnvlronmentai Quality Aot of 1970 and, further, thin Comalasion does not rscanmend the ieeunncs of a Negative Declaration because the land use change may not promote the goals and obj act ruse of the General Plsn. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, end a above, this commission hereby resolves that pursuant to Ssetion 65350 to 65855 of the California Covernnieni Cotla, that on the 22nd day of May 3991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby .,30 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91-5] FSP 91-02, SUSARBA 1 - CITY OP R.C. Nay 22, 1991 Pffge ? recommends dental of Foothill boulevard SpaeLfie Plan Amendment No. 93-02, Subarea 1, amending the Feothil! Boulevard Specific plnn land use map frog Helium Resldentlal (8-36 dwelling unite per esrs) to Low Nadium Reeldential )4-e dwell inq unite pex acre) for -pproximately 14.20 aerss of land bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the east by the eastern elty limlte, on the mouth by existing Low !odium Reaidentlal deeigneted land, and on the ws[ by a ut 111ty corridor, as shown on Bzhlblt •A1.• 6. The 5seretary to ih.L Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 1991. PLANNING COIpIISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA BY• % Larry '~. McNie1, ChaLrman I, Brnd Buller, Secrrtary of the Planning Commission of the City of Aaneho Cucamonga, do hereby certlly thst the foregoing Resolution vas duly and regulsrly introduced, paced, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at • regular meeting of the Planning Co®iulon held on the 22nd day of May 1991, by the following vott-io-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMNYSSIONBRS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ~~ d VL L ~__ ~~ ~ LM LM oP ~' ~' ti~ `t! \~ LM I Ellrende SPwlfle Pbn Arnenleen/. fl-Ol ieethill Blvd. Speeilie P6n Awendnreete 1/-02 ______- LM - Ditldet DolOneNon ® PROPERTES CD911EMTLY OESKRAIEp RRI AFSnUITIAI II-1{ pDELLMM ~PGtM I DESIgIATNNI ip lpf 1[DARI AESAIFNTIAI LM IA-1 DDELip16 RNI1S PER ACRE) u ~ - ESPA Suhare• Noe. a © - FSPA Suheoa Nne. lM ' a •nn CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLA.'~N1NG DIVISION 3(( ITE;vitESPA 91-03, FSPA 95-02 T-ITT.E'Specific Pbn Am d L ti MaD N ' FXHIR rT •A 1• S('er c RESOLUTION NO. 91-59 A R890LUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSSON OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOHMENOING APPROVAL OF i GENERAL PLAN AHENDHENT 41-028, SVBAAEA 4, AlIBNDINC THE GENERAL PLAN LAND UEE MAP FAOH 1ffiDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING VNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-0 DWELLING UNITS P&R ACRE( WITH A MASTER PLAN REQUTAENBNT DESIGNATION FOR APPRO%IMIITELY 87.52 ACRES OP LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY HILLER AVENUE) ON THB EAST BY EAST AVENUE AND A UTILITY CORRIDOR; ON THE EOLITH B:' THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY, WHICH I9 APPRO%IMATELY 530 PERT NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOVLBVARD; AND SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-131-D1 AND 02, 1100-061-O1 AND 02, 1100-151-01 AND 02, 1100-181-01 ANO 02, AND 1100- 191-01. A. Rec it ale. (i) The City of Rancho cucamongs has filed an explication for General Plen Amendment No. 91-028 as described in the title of this Resolution. NereinafGt in thi• Resolution, tN mbj act General Plen Amendment Ss referred to as "the appllcation.^ (ii) On May 22, end continued to Hay 29, 1991, the Planning Commieeion of the city of Rancho Cucamongn conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Gha applieaticn. (iii) All legsl preraquieitea prior [o the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Reco:ut Now, THEREFORE, it le hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planninq Commiuion o[ the City of Rancho Cucamonga ae followr. 1. This Coaeoieeion hereby epecifieal ly finds thst all of the facto set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution era true and correct. 2. eased upon substantial evidence prseentsd to this CommLeion during the above-referenced public heartnga on May 22 and May 29, 1991, including wrltGen and oral staff report e, together with public Uetimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) Subarea 6 of the applicatlan appl Ses to approximately 87.52 acres of land bordered on tAe north by Miller Avenue; on the east by Eaet Avenue and a utility corridor; on the south by the Foothill Boulevard Spaclfic Plan boundary, which i• approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; end on the west by 6tiwanda Avenw and is prauntly undeveloped. Sold property is currently designated ae Medium Residential (e-14 dwelling unite per acre); and ~~~ PLANNING CORMIaEION RESOLUTION NO. 91-59 CPA 91-02 B, SVBAREA 4 - CITY OF R.C. May 29, 1991 race e (b) The properties to the north of the subject aiis ace designated Medium Realdential and are vacant. The properties to the we et are designated Nedlum Aesidential and Low Radium Residential and are developed with •Sngle family homes. The properties to the east are designated Low Medium Resident ial, Flood Control/Uti11Cy Corridor, and office (City of Fontana) and are underdeveloped with .Ingle family homes. Thu properties to the south are daeignaied Medium Rea idantial and are developed with a vacant service station; an existing, non-conforming market, and a single family home. (c) Thia amsndmvnt does not coot llct with the Land Vea Policle• a`manner consistent with the General Plan and with related .development; and (d) Thie amendment does pramots the goal. and object Ives of the Land Uaa Element; and (s) Thi• amendment would not W materially injurious or detrimental to the adj resat properties end would not haw a •ignif icent lmpad on the environment nor the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial widence prevented to thU coemiuion during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific tindings of taste sat forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 abovs, Ghis Commission hereby fintl^ and concludes ore follows: (a) That the properties located in Subarea 4 cf the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are comport tbls with existing and adjacent land use deeignationa as evidenced by the .ire's being bordered on the north and west by the acme land use deeignationt and (b) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environaent noc on the surrounding properties ore evidenced by the findings and conclualons listed in Pert^ I and II of iha Initial Environmental Study and that the proposed designer ion would reduce the intans ity of future ruidential development on the subject properties; and (c) :i:at the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan by praawting the retention of 8tiwanda'• rural atmospMre through reduced residential dens it lea. 4. This Commiuion hereby finds that the project has been revleved and considered in complienee with the California Environmental Quality Act of 3970 sad, further, thL Coamiuion hereby reeo®:ends Souancs of a Negative Declaration. 5. eased upon the tlndings and conclue ions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Co®ieeion hereby resolves that pursuant to section 65890 to 65855 of the California Government Coda, that on the 29th day of Nay 1991, the Planning commission of the Clty of Rancho Cucamonga hsrsby ~l3 PLANNING COMMISSION AESOLUT ION NO. 91-i9 CPA 91-026, SUBAREA 4 - CITY O! R.C. Hay 29, 1991 Paea 3 recommends approval of Wneral Plan Amendment No. 91-U2a, Subaru 4, amending the General Plan land uae map from Medium Resldentlsl (8-34 dwell inq unite per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-E dwelling unite per acre) with a Muter ~ Plan requirement designation far approximately 87.52 acres of land bordered on the norih by Miller Avenue? on the sect by Bast Avenue end a utility corridor: on the south by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan bcundary, which ie approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; and on the wadi by Et iwanda Avenue, ae shown on Exhibit "A". b. The Secretary to thin Commlasion shall certify to the adoption of thin Aeeolutlon. APPROVED AND ADDPTBO TIiIB 29TH OAY OF MAY 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION 08 THB CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA I, Brad Buller, secretary of the Planning Cammiee ion of the city of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly sad regularly introduced, passed, end adopted by the planning Commission of the Ciky of Rancho Cucamonga, et s regular meeting of tM Planning Comoieelon hold on the 29th day Of May :991, by the fcllcwing vota-tc-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITI EA, MCNIEL, MEL CHER, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY ~/~ Vl L LM ,--~_ L - LM I~ i•. Etlwantla Mu Ganonl elan ~mmdmonla 91.OYS LM 1 Off. Off. ~~ •k •~ t,,` ``• A LM LM park LM - Lsntl Uw Daa{vnallon ® 1ROPEATIES CURAEATIY DESNUTATEA IAiAAAI I~p11TSLPEA LA~[IAU~A~~S COMSIDEAATNNI iql ALAFSICMATION i0 l0~ YEDNY AESIDEXTIAI I/-1 DAELLAIC UXITS FER ACRE) 1 - SuDana Nos. .+ Co;nm. o~~--=~ .. ~ nn LM CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ITEM. OPA 91-02B PLA.'VNING DIVISION 315 TITLE: c.^•rN pl.n gmaod. Location w.p N EX}1IB[T~ •q• SCALE: Pg $IJI {IT IUN NV. y)-CV A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COlN1I SSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AECONHEND ING APPROVAL OP ETIWANDA SPECSPIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA 2, AMENDING TN8 BTIWANOA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND VSE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS YER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIVM RESIDENTIAL (4-S DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) WITH A MASTER PLAN REQU IREHENT DESIGNATION FOA APPROXIMATELY 87.52 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY MILLEH AVENUE; ON THE EAST EY EAST AVENVE ANO A UTILITY CORRIDOR; ON THE SOUTH BY THE FOOTHILL 80ULEVARD SPECIFIC FLAN BOUNDARY, NNSCX IS APPROXIMATELY 530 FEET NORTH OF POOTHI LL eOVLEVARD; ANO ON TH8 WEST BY ETIWANOA AVENUE, ,Ww ouw.iw~ --,~ ,C _. -__o..em mwRRxnP - ppN: 1100-131- 01 AND 02, 1100-141-O1 AND 02, 1100-151-O1 AND 02, 1100- 181-01 AND 02, 1100-191-01. Recitals. (i) The Clty of Rancho Cucamongs hoe filed an application for Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 91-03 act de acribetl in the tit la Of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, ihs subject Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment ie referred to act 'the application.• (ii) On May 22, end coot inued to Hay 29, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and slao issued Aeeolut ion No. 91060 recommending to the City Council that the aesoc fated Genwral Plan Amendment No. 91-028, Subarea 4, be epproved. (iii) All legal prerequie flee prior to the adoption of this Aesolut ion have occurred. B. Recto lut ion. NOW, THEREFORE, it le hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning COnmieeion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga act follows: 1. This Coa>mleeion hereby apecif feel ly finds that all of the facts set forth in the Roc itale, Pait A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon eubatantial evidence proeented to this Coam:iesion during the above-referenced public hearings on May 22 and May 29, 1991, including written and oral staff report e, together wits public tsetlmony, tAle commission hereby specifically finds act follows: (a) Subarea 3 of the application applies to approximately 87,52 acres of land bordered on the north by Miller Avenue; on the east by Eaet Avenue and a utility corridor; on the south by the Foothill Sou lavard Spec if lc Plan boundary, which i• approximately 930 feet north of Foothill 0ouUyard7 and on the west by 6t iwanda Avenue end ie presently undeveloped. Said property ie currank ly deai9nated as Medium Raeidential (E-14 dwelling unite per acre); and 3l~ PLANNING COMNI9SION RESOLUTION NO. 91-60 ESP 91-03, SVHAREA 2 - CITY OP R.O. Msy 29; 1991 Pages 2 (b) The properties to the north of the aubj act vita era designated Medium and Low Medium Rseideni Lal and are vacant. The propsttiee~ to the weer are deeignetad Medium and Low Medium Resident Lal and are developed with single family homes. The prcpartiee to the east ere designated Low Medium Residential, Plood Control/Utility corridor, and Office (City of Fontana) and era under developed with single family home •. The properties to the south nrs designated Nedium Residential and are developed with a vacant service etaiion, en exist inq, non-conforming market, and s single family home. (c) Thi• amendment does not conflict with the Land Uee Policies of the General Plan end of the Etiwanda Specific Plnn and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related developmsntj and (d) This amendment does promote the goal and objectives of ihs Land Use Elerosnt; and (e) Th1a amendaent would not be materially injurious or detriment al to the adjawnt properties and would not have a significant lmprct on the snvitorunent nor the surrounding properties. 3. eased upon the substantial evidence presented !o thin Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragrnphs 1 and ] above, thin Commisa ion hereby finds and concludes as fo ll owe: (a) That the properties located in Subazsa 2 of the epplictiion are suitable for the usw permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing end surrounding lantl use designations ae evidenced by the site's being bordered on kha north and wet by the same land use designation; entl (b) That the proposed amendment would not have eignificent impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties ae evidenced by the findings and conclusions list.sd in Parts I end II of the Snit ial Environmental Study and thei LM proposed designation would reduce the intensity of Niure residential development on the subject propartiaq and (c) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and the Etiwnnda Specific Plan by pramot ing the retention of Etiwanda'e rural atmosphere through reduced residential unit densities. 4. This Commission hereby finds chat the project has been reviewd and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this commissipn hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 5. Based upon the findings and eonclusion^ set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves that pursuant to Section b5850 to 65855 of the California Gpveznment Code, that on the 29th day of May 1991, the PLenning Commission of the city of Rancho Cucamonga hereby 317 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSOLUTION NO. 91-60 BSP 91-03, SVBAREA 2 - CITY OP R.C. vay 20 lnol Page 3 reaommend• ipproval of Eiiwanda Spetitic Plan Amendment No. 91-03, Subarea 2, amending the 6tiwanda Specific Plan land uae map from Medium Residential (8-14 ~ dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Resident ial (4-e dwelling unlt• per acre) with a Master Plan requirement detignntion for approximately 37.92 acres of land bordered on the north by Hiller Avenuq on the east by Baet Avenue and s utility corridor; on the loath by the Poothill eouleverd Speeif ie Plan Boundary, which is approximeiely 530 feet north of Pooihill Boulevard; and on the west by Ht iwanda Avenue, ae shown on Exhibit "A1". 6. The Secretary to this Commission shell sect ify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 29TH DAY OP NAY 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OP NANCNO CVCAMONCA e ATTEST: i, Ered 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 Ctty of Rancho Cucamonga, at a request meet±ng of the Planning Commies ion held an the 29th day of May 1991, 6y the following vote-to-wit: AYES: CONNISSIONBAS: CNITZEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE ROES: COlDIISSIOHHRS: NONE ABSHNT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY ~~g Vl lM LM '~~ !~ ,4~ ~1V i \ I L LM L EIIrAnd. 8Peellle Pbn Amendmanb !f-OJ Feolhill Blvd. Specifle Plen Amendments !1-OT LM - Dblriet Doipnelien ® MDPERTN:T CURREXTIY DESNX41fED YEDAMI RESIOENTpI 0-1A DNELLXID UNITT PER A E, UMMR 1010RYEDNNI RESIROEFXiSRENATIDX (1-A DREILNIC UNHT PEA ACRE) ' ~ ESPA SuOeree Noe. - FBPA SuOere• Noe. w. r CITY C:. I ~~i:1~IN~ OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ISM' ESPA 91-03, F$PA 91-02 PLA.tiNING DIVISION ~~~ TI7-LEaP.cific Pbn Am.nd. Locaion MaP N ~V-~!rP rT 'A 1- C!'er[ RESOLUTION NO. 91-61 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OP THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AECOMMENOING DENIAL OF ~ GENERAL PLIW AMENDMENT 91-02 H, SUBAREA 6r A REQUEST TO AMEND TX6 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM REE IDENTIAL (E-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW tffiDIUM RESIDENTIAL (9-B DWELLING VNITS PER ACRE) POR APPRO%IMATELY 11.09 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY EASE LINE ROAL1, ON TH8 SOUTHEAST BY THE ONTARIO (I-15) FREEWAY, AND ON THE WEST BY EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND MA%ING PINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-051-01 AND 02 AND 1100-061-01. A. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filyd an application for General Plan Amendment No. 41-02B as described in tea title of this Reeolution. Hereinafter in thin Resolution, the subject Ganaral Plan Amendment is referred to as "the applieat ion." (ii) On May 22, and continued to May 29, 1991, the Planning commiealon of the Ciiy of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iii) All legal preraquieitae prior to the adoption of this Reeolution have occurred. B. Reeolution. Now, THEREFORE, it ie hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho cueaax+nga a• follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth Sn the Reciia2 e, Part A, of this Reaolut ion era true and correct. 2. eased upon substantial evidsncs prseanted to thin Commission during the above-referenced public hearings on May 22 and Nay 29, 1993, including written and oral craft report •, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby spacif ically finds ae follows: (a) Subarea 6 of the application applies Co approximately 11.09 acres of land, basically a triangular configuration, bordered on the north by ease Line Road, on the southeast by the Ontaito (I-15) Preeway, and on the west by existing Low Medium Xeaidantial designated land as shaven on Exhibit "A," and i• presently vaeani Said properties era currently designated u Medium Rasideni ial (8-ld duelling unite par acre); end (b) The propert ice to the north of the subject site on the opposite aide of Baee Line Road are designated Medium Rea idantiel and ere PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVTION NO. 91-61 GPA 91-02 R, SUBAREA 6 - CITY OF R.C. - • nO 1991 Page-2 developed with a ca®etcinl plant nursery. The property to the southeast Se designated frseuay and ie tlaveloped with the Onterio (i-15) Praaway. The ~ property to the went L designated Low Medium Resident Ll and ie underdeveloped with a single family residence. (c) ThL• amendment may conflict with the Land Ute Policies of the General Plan and may not provitle far development, within the district, in a manner coneietent with the General Plan and with related development; entl (d) Thie emandment may not promote the goals and objectivaa of the Land Uee Elements wad (e) Thi• amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjaeeni properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor on the surrounding properties, but land use incompatibrlatiss may result. 3. Based upon the substantial ev ideate presented to this Commis tort during the above-referenced public hearing end upon the spec if is findings of facts eat forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the propettiae located in Subarea 6 of the application ere net euita6la far the uses permitted in the proposed district and era incompatible with existing and surrounding lend use designations ae evidenced by the site's being bardsred on the southwest by a freeway on-ramp and on the north by a major arterial road and frwway off-ramp intsreecticnj and (b) That the proposed amantlment would not have •ignifieant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties ne evidenced 6y the findings and concluaien6 listed in Pax to I end II of the Initial Environmental Study but that land use incompatibil tries may result; ertd (e) That the proposed amendment may not ba in conformance with the General Plan due to the potential of establishing incompatible land use relationahipe with single family uses and signif ieant vehicle traffic dCtiVltiae. 4. Thi• Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Coamieslon doee not recommend iesuanee of a Negative Declaration because the land ues chenge may not promote the goel• and objectives of the General plan. 5. Bated upon the Etndings and conclueione eat forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, thin Commission Mreby ruolves that purauent to Section 65850 to 65855 of chs California Government Code, that on the 29th day of May 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends denial of General Plan Amendment No. 91-026, Subarea 6. -~°/ PLANNING CONMI6SION %SOLDTION NO. 91-61 GPA 91-028, SUBA%A 6 - CITY OF R.C. Yay 29, ..~. Page 3 6. Tha Secretary to thla CommLnion shall certify to the adoption of thin Ratolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY 1991. PLANNINISSIO~N//~DF1y'_1/7n~\\CITY///OF R11NCH0 CDCAMONGA BY: r J.Ii 61 ///LAlta' I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Conmiaaton of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, tlo hanby certify that the foregoing Resolution wu duly and zequLrly introduced, pauW, and adopted by the Planning Commioion o! the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at • regular meeting of the Planning Caeaeloion hold nn the 29th day of Mey 1991, by the following vote-to-wlti AYES: CONMISSIONEASi CHIT2EA, MCNIEL, MELCNER, VALL E'PTE NOES: COMHISSIONBRS: NONE ABSENT: COKKISSIONERS: TOLSTOY 3 a~- IDS.' :. _2 ~y i.-..~.;-.., _ -T-_r~_ l l i V GworN iqn f,rnondrnmb H-021 • Lond Wn Ontlpnolion IADIEATIES CUAEMTIY DESIGNATED RESYIEMTUI 1 -~11 DtEIIWG CDNSbEAAiIDN EDRDNAfDESM.NAiIOX TD lot 1[DNwfAESXIEMTIu (1-1 DRELLNIC UXITS /[R ACAf) ~..1v CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIvIONGA ITEM' GFq sT-oze PLAtiNING DIVISION ~3 TTTE,E:Grnerd Vbn llmorrd. Loeofion Mop EXHIBIT •q• SCALE: LM ^ RESOLUTION NO. 91-tit A RBSOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMEND ING GENIAL OF ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA 4, A REQUEST TO AI~ND THE ETIWANDA SPECIFZC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEOI[M RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIOM RESIUENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING OMITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 11.09 ACASS OF LAND BORDERED ON TH% NORTH BY BASE LINE ROAD, ON THE SOUTHEAST BY THE ONTARIO (I-15) FREEWAY, AND ON THE WEST 8Y EXISTING LOW MEDIVM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AN- MAXING FIND INOS IN Snosnnm mwavvnv _ 1100-061-01. ~~-~~ --_- _-- _- ~-~- y ~.~ A. Recitals. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonq- has filed an application Eor Etiwanda Speeific Plan Amendment Ho. 91-03 as dsactibad in the tit:.s of this Resolution. Hereinafter in thin Resolution, the subject Etiwsnda Specific Plan Amendment ie referred to se •t ha application." (ii) On May 22, and continued io Hay 29, 1993, the Planning Ccmmieaion of the City cf Rancha Cucamonga conductetl a duly noticed public hearing on the application and also issued Aeeoluticn No. 91-61 recommending to the City Council that the associated General Plen Amendment No. 91-020, Subarea 6, be denied. (iii) All legal prsrequisitsa prior to the adoption of this Reaolution have occuzzatl. e. Reaolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it ie hereby found, determined, and zeaolaed by the Planning Coemission of the City of ILLncho Cueamonga as follows: 1. This Co®iaaion hereby apecif ically finch that all of the faeta Bet forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Reaolution are true end correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public henringe on May 22 and Bay 29, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public test tawny, this Commies ion hereby epecif ioal ly finds as follows: (a) Subarea 4 of the application applies to approximately 11.09 acres of land, basically a triangular configuration, bordered on the north by ease Lina Aoad, on the southeast by the Ontario (I-19) Freeway, tnd on the west by existing Low Medium Resitlantial designated lend es ehawn on Exhibit ^Al," and is presently vacant. Said propsrt tee are currently designated as Medium Resitlential (E-14 dwelling un!ts per acre); and (b) The properties to the north of the aubj act site on the opposite side of Basa Line Road ere Medium Aee identiel and are developed with ~~ PLANNING CONNI SSI ON RBSOLVTION N0. 91-tit ESPA 91-03, SVBAREA 4 - CITY OP R.C. uay Oa 19x1 Page 2 a conmereial plant nursery. The property to the southeast 1.• designated freeway and is the Ontario (I-15) Freeway. The pcoperty to the west 1s designated Low Medium Residential and ie underdeveloped with a single family residence. (c) Thie amerdmertt may conf llc< with the Land Use Policies of the General Plen and of the Et Lwanda Spseif ie Plan and may not provide For developaent, within the dLStrict, in a manner cone ieteni with the General Plan and with related development; and (d) Thi6 emsndment may not proroota the goals and objectives of the Land Uee Element; and (e) This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a eignif icant impact on the mvironnent nor on the surrounding pxoprrtiu, but land ue incompatibil itiee may result. 3. Baud upon tN substantial evidence preeanbd to this Co®ioion during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts est forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, thi• Commission hereby finds ud concludes er follows: (a) That the properties located in Subarea 6 of the application are not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed dietrit! and are incompatible with ex ist lag and aurroundinq land uas designations se evidenced by the •ite~e being bordered on the southwest by a freeway on-ramp and on the north by a nujor ertezial toad and freeway off-ramp intersection; and (b) That the proposed amendaent would not have signif icant impacee an tna environment nor on the surrounding properties es evidenced by the findings and conclusions listetl in Parts I and Z1 of [ha Initial Environmental Study, but that land use incompatibil it iss may raault; and (e) That the proposed amendment may not be in conformance with the General Plan due to the potential of astabl ishing incompatible lend use relationships with single family uses and significant vehicle traEf is act iv itias. 4. TAis Conmiaeion hereby finds that the projeei has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 antl, further, this conmissicn does not recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration because the land use change may not pranote the goals and objectives of the General Plen. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby roolvas chat purwant to Section G5B50 to fiBB55 of the California Government Coda, that on the 29th day of Nay 1991, tM Planning Commission of the City of 0.ancho Cucaalonga hezsby recommends denial of Etiwsnda Spec if is Plan Amendment No. 91-03, Subarea 6. 3VJ PLANNING COMMI66ION RESOLUTION NO. 91-62 ESPA 91-03, SVHAREA d - CITY OF A.C. Msy Z9, 1991 -age a 6. Thw Sacratery to thls coemiu LOn shall cwrtLty to the adoption of this Resolution. ~ APPROVED AND ADOPTED TNIS 29TH DAY OP MAY 1991. PLANNING COMN;SSION OP THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY ATTEBT L. •y I, Brad collar, SwcrwGry of tM Plannlnq CommLaion of thw city of Aancha Cucamonga, do Mrwby ewrtify Gha[ ihw forwgoing Awwolut ion wu duly and regularly introduced, paaaW, and adoptwd by the Planning Ca®iawion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at s regular meeting of the Plannlnq Caamlaalon hold on the 79th day of Hay 1991, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSION%RS: CNITIEA, MCNIEL, MEL CBER, VALL ETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY Vl L L L - I LM LM OP i ~1 ~1r. S~ ,~! ~~ Eliwondv Spooifie Plvn AwPndwmb vt-aa .' Foothill Blvd, Spori/fe Pbn Awondwvnts St.OR LM - Divbiol Dovivnnlion W TIY ® T D OESICM E Y E DN ( ~ RESDEMTIAL -H DRELLMC CR D S RA O A E~ ~ C R RK il ON OA RE~E51CMAilOX TO LOY YEOAW RESIDENiIAI , (1-! CRELIRW URIiS PFR ACRE) LM 1 - ESPA SYDaIn• Nov. Q -FSPA SuDan• Nos. ~~.. ELM •` w-~ wa.no Cjn OF RAIVCC-IO CUCAMONGA F~`N'ESPA 91-03, FSPA 97-02 PLANNING DIVISION ~~ 7 TYE~L.E:SpeNlic Pbn Amond. Locution Map rf AESOLUT ION NO. 51-63 A ASSOLUTI ON OP THE PLANNING COHMI6SION OF THE CETY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMEND ING APPROVAL OP GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-028, SUBAREA 7, AHENDING THS GENERAL PLAN LAND USE NAP FAOH MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (R-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-e DWELLING UNITS PER ACAS) FOA APPROXIMATELY 10.09 ACRES OP LAND BORDERED ON THS NORTH AND hRST BY EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LANG, ON THE EAST BY EXISTING OFFICE DESIGNATED LAND, A.W ON THE SOUTH EY BASE LINE ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-131-34 TNROUGR 36, 52 THROUGH 54, AND 61. A. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga hoe filed an application £or General Plan Amendment No. 93-028 act described Ln the tit la of this Resolution. Hereinafter in Chia Resolution, the subject Oensral Plan Amendment 1e referred to as "the application.• (ii) on May 22, and coot inuad to Hay 19, 1991, the Planning Commission of the Clty of Rancho Cucamonga conduoGd a duly noticed public hearing on the appLicat ion. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Recto lut ion. NOW, THEPE FORE, it i• hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commiuion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 3. This Comroiee ion hereby specifically finds that all of the facto set forth in the Recitals, Pert A, of this Resolution era true and correct. 2. Based upon eubetential evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on Nny 22 and May 29, 1993, including written end oral etaft report e, together with public testimony, thin commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) Subnrea 7 of the application appl lee to approximately 10.09 acres of land, buicslly • rectangular configuration, bordered on the north and west by Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by exlsting office designated land, and on the south by Baee Line Road act shown on Exhibit "A," and ie presently vacant. Said prapert iea are currently designated u Metlium Raeidential (R-14 dwelling unite per sere); and (b) The property to the north of the subject sits is designated Lou Medium Residential and ie vacant. The properly to the wear is designated Low Medium Raeidential and ie underdeveloped with a single family raeidenco. The property to the east Se tleeignated Offiea and ie vacant. The property to the south of Rase Line Road is designated Medium Residential and is vacant. 3 ~' PLANN INC COMMI9SION RCSOLVTSON NO. 91-63 GPA 91-0287 - CITY OP R.C. Nay 29, 1991 • ~ (e) Thie amendment dose not contltc< with the Land Uae Paliciea of the General Plan and will pzovid¢ for development, within the district, in a manner coneietent with the Cenral Plan and with related development; and (d) Thi^ amendment do¢e promote the goal/ and objsciivae of the Land Uae Element; and (¢) TATS amendment would not b¢ mat¢rial ly injuriou/ or detz imental to the adjac¢nt properties and would not hav/ a eignif scant impact on the environment nor on th¢ surrounding propert les. 3. Baead upon the substantial suss/nc/ pu....L.L to `.`.1• ^~~sa ion during the above-ref/rencetl public heartng and upon the epac if is findings of facto s/t forth in parsgrapha 1 and 2 above, thin Coami/sion hereby find/ and coot Judea se follows: (a) That the properties located in Subarea 7 of th/ application are suitable for the u/ea permitted in the propo/ee district and ors compat ih l¢ with exLting and surrounding land case duignatione a widmead by the site'/ being bocd/z¢d on GM north and wut by the seaw land cave deeigna<ion; and (b) That the proposed amendment would not hav¢ slgniEicant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties a/ evidenced by the findings and tom fusions lirtsd in Parts I and II of the Ini<ial F.nv ironmental Study and that the proposed designation would r¢duce the intensity of future reeidantial development on the aubj¢ct properties; and (c) That the proposed amendment is in conformanc¢ with the General Plan by promoting the rat¢ntion of Btiwanda'e rural atmosphere through reduced reeidantial deneitie¢. 4. This coamiaeton hereby find/ that the project has bean reviewed and considered in complinnca with th¢ cal ifornin Enviro;wantal Quality Act of 1970 and, further, lhia Coamiesion hereby recommends iaauance of a Negative oeclacation. 5. Based upon the findings and eoneluaions set forth in pnragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, Lhia Commiuion hezsby rualvea that pursuant to 5rction 65850 to fi5855 of the californis Governnufnt Cods, that on the 29th day of May 1991, the Planning commieston of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of eensral Plan Amendment No. 91-OZ B, Subarea 7, emending the General Plan Land Vea Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Ass ident sal (4-8 dwelling units per sere) for approximately 10.09 scree of land bord¢r¢d on the north and west by existing Low Medium Reeidant sal designated land, on the east by ¢xtsting Otfiee designated land, and on the south by Base Lin¢ Aoad, as shown in Exhibit •A.' 6. The Secretary to <hie Commiesien shall eertiEy to the adoption of this Reeo lutlo0. ,3a9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0. 91-67 GPA 91-0287 - CITY OF A.C. May 29, 1991 Peoe 'a APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 29TH DAY oP MAY 1991. PLANNING COMNISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY ATTEST Lorry I, Brad Bullez, Secretary of the Planning Commleeion of the City of Reneho Cucamwnga, do Mreby certify that tM foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, gssad, and adopted by the Planning Co®iaaion OL the city of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular mNilnq oY tM Plarninq Cammiesion held on the 29th day of May L991r by the following vote-towLt: AYES: COMMI SSIONBASS CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MEL CNER, VALLETTB NOES: COHMISSIONEAS: NONE ABSENT: COHHISSIONERS: TOLSTOY 330 VL [ ii i~ V L ~' `~ i ~'~~ I LM Eliwende Mu GenuN Vlan AelendineMe 91-028 LM - Lantl We Duipnetlen ® PRtIEAiES CUTAFMTIY OESICMATEt SRRI AESCENTUI f!-~N~ OtEILMIC CDRSIDERATbt EEgI ~OESICMAiIOM id ltt 1[DElll RESpEMTIAL LM ~/-1 OtEIIEIC UNI15 PER ACRE) .., 1 -sees.. we..' pl m. puk --' ....~ LM ` CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ITEM. GPA 91-028 PLA.1N}NG DIVISION ~ 1 TITL-E:Gensel yl.n Amend. Loulinn qap N / EAHIB IT °A• SCALE: RESOLUTION N0. 91-64 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONCA, CALIFORNIA, RECONMENDINC APPROVAL OP ~ ETI WANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA 5, AMENDING THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM NED IUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DHELLING UNITS PER ACAS) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-B DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOA APPROXIMATELY 10.09 ACRES OP LAND eORDEAED ON THE NORTX AND WEST BY EXISTING LOW MEDIVM AES IDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, ON THE EAST BY EXISTING OFPICfi /PROFESSIONAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON TFffi SOVTH BY BASE LINE ROAM, AND MANING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-131-34 :.„Jon --, Si 1nnuUl:n h4, aN0 61. A. Recitals. (i) Ths City of Rancho Cucamongs hoe filed an application for Etiwanda Specific Plan Aroantlment No. 91-03 ss described in the title of thle Raeolution. Hereinafter in this Reeolut ion, the subject Etiwanda SpsciE is Plan Amendment i• referred to as 'the application.' (i1) On May 22, and continued to May 29, 1991, the Planning Commission of the Clty of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and also issued Raeolution No. 91-a3 recommending to the city Connell that the aseoclated General Plan Amendment No. 91-028, Subarea 7, be approved. (iii) All legal prerequieitss prior to the adoption of this Raeolution have occurred. e. Raeolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it ie hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commieaior. hereby specifically finds that all of the facto set forth in the Recitals, Patt A, of this Resolution aza truo and correct. 2. Based upon aubetant lnl evidence presentetl to thlo Comaiee ion during the above-Sefsrsncsd public hearings on May 22 and 29, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public Lstimony, this Commies ion hsteby epscitlully finds a follows: (a) Subarea 9 of the application applies to approximstely 10.09 acres of land, baeieally a rectangular conEiqurat ion, Dordeted on the north and west by Low Hadium Residential designated lantlr an the oast by exist inq Office/Profeotional designated lend, on the south Dy Haee Line Road ae shown on Exhibit ^A1,^ and Se presently vacant. Said propett Sae are currently designated ae Nedium Resident lal (8-14 dwelling unite per acre); and (b) The property to the north of the subject Bite ie tleeignatad Low Medium Residential and i• vacant. The property to the went ie designated Low Medium Residential and is undesdevaloped with a single family residence. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91-64 ESPA 91-03, SUBAREA 5 - CITY OP A.C. Nay 29, 1991 va ve t The property to the east ie designated Office/Profess LOna1 and is vacant. Thr property to the south of Baer Line Road 10 drsignsted Medium Residential and is vacant. (e) Thi• amendment dose not conflict with the Land Vse Polielas of the General Plen tad Etiwanda Specific Plan and will provide Eor development, withir. the district, in n manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and (d) This amsrtdment dose promote the goals and object ivee of the Land UBe ELBmOn[; and (a) Thi• aawndemnt would not M materially injurious or detrimental to the sdjacsnt properties and would not have a •ignifieant impact on the anviroriment nor on the surrounding properties. 3. Burd upon the substantial evidsnw presented to thLs Commioion during the above-referenced public boring and upon the epseific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the properties located in Subarea 5 of the application are suitable for the vase permitted in the proposed district and err compatible with existing and surrounding land usr dsrignat ions ns evidenced 6y the site's being bordered on the north and west by the same land usr designer ion; and (b) That the proposed amendment would not have slgniEicant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding prapsrties er evidenosd by the findings and conclusions listed Ln Parts I and II of the Initial Environmental Study and that the proposed duignatLon would redoes the intensity cf future :aa!dent!al deyelopmertt on the wbject properties; and (c) That the proposed amendment ie in conformance with the General PLan and the Etiwanda spreific Plan by promoting the retention of Etiwanda'e rural ateaepherr through trdueed rssidantial danaitiea. 4. This Co®ission hereby finds that the project has been rayiewrd and considered in Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, thi• Cgmoiu ion hereby recommends iuuancs of a Negntiw Declaration. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions sat forth in paragsephs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves that pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government Code, that on the 29th day of May 1991, the Planning Cammiesion of the City of Rancho cucemonga hereby recommends approval of Btiwenda Specific Plan Amendment No. 91-C3, Subarra 5, amending the Etiwanda Specitie Plan Land Use Map from Medium Resident ial (8-16 dwelling units per acre) to Lou Medium Rasidentisl (4-e dwlling unite per acre) for approximately 30.09 aerie of land bordered on the north and west Dy ~~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91-64 EEPA 91-03, SUBAREA 5 - CITY OF A.C. May 29, 1991 extetinq Lou Medium Reaidentiai dulgnabd land, nn the east by existing office/Protpsional daa ignated land, and on the south by Hap Line Road, u• shown in 8xhibit "Al.• 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify t< the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED TRIS 29TH DAY OF MAY 1991. P~aO,ine e„nnaaaaun ur 'lMa CITY OF AANCRO CVCANONGA r Secretary I, Brad Buller, Se<retan~ at the P1aMinq Commission of tha city <f Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly u:d regularly introduead, passed, and adopted by the Pianninq cosmiselon of tha City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Paanninq Commission hall an the 29th day of May 1991, by the follnwinq vote-to-wit: AYES: COMH ISSIONER3: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MzLCHER, VALE ETTE NOES: COMMI SSIONEAB: NONfi AHSENT: COMMISSIONBAS: TOLSTOY 33`~ V l ~J LM LM 0 P~I ~~ VL LM i Ellwande S-ee111e Alen Amendment 91-09 FootA{II Blvd. Speellle Ptn Amendments 91-OR LM - olatrlot Dealpnetien ® PRDPEAi[S CURRENiIY DESIpIAlEO MDAIY RESpEMTIAL 11-II DtEILYIG DNITS PER A ) UXDEA NATIM TON O~R M R A EN I RW L YED S Po T AL IAC MITS R DRE LL /ER ACRE) I~- LM _ 1 - ESPA Subarea Nea. a ~ ~ fSPA Subarea Nos. LM L au • io C I7Y ~ ®~~ ~^ OF RANCfiO CUCAMONGA 17'E(~:ESPA 91-03, FSPA 91.02 PLAtQNING DMS1ON ~ TITLE:Spect/ic Plen Amend. Location Mep ~\Ti1?1R •a 1• CI'al c RESOLUTION NO. 91-65 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSYON OF THE CITY OF RaHCHO CUCANONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ~ GENERAL PLAN AlOSNDIOiNT 91-028, W63T PORTION OP SUBAREA 8, AMLNOING TFe GBNEFAL PLAN L]{ND USB MAP FROM MEDIUH RESIDENTIAL (8-16 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE( TO LOW M%DIVM RESIDENTIAL (4-B DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE( FOA APPROXIMATELY 30 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY TH8 SOUTH%RN PACIFIC MILWAY, ON THE %AST SY EAST AVENVE, ON PHE SOUTH BY EXISTING OFFICE DESIGNAT%D LAND, AND ON TNS WEST BY EXTSTINC LOW lDSD IUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND - APN: 227-141-16 ANO 66~ AND RECOMMENDING DENIAL .: inn uwa avnxaun ur suaeMEA tl, REQUESTZNO TO AMEND THB GENERAL PLAN I.71RD OSE MAP IN THE SAME MANRER AS TH6 NEST PORTION POR APPROXIMATELY 10.34 ACREB OP LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY THE SOUTHERN PACT PIC RAILWAY, ON THE fiAST AND SOUTH BY TH8 ONTARIO (I-19) FREENAY, AND ON THE WEST BY EAST AVBNU6 - APN: 227-331-OS, AND MAXING PIND2NG5 IN SVPPORT THEREOF A. Racit ale. (i( The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an appl Seat ion for General Plen Amendment No. 91-020 as described in the title oC this Resolution. Herainefter in thi• Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment ie reterred to a• ^t he applicat Lon.^ (ii( On May 22, and continued to Msy 29, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conduet¢d a duly notiead public nearing on the application. (iii) all legal preraquieitee prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. geeolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it i• hereby fountl, determined, antl resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. Thl^ Coaission hereby specifically {rode that all of the fact^ set forth in tAs Recitals, Part A, of thla Resalut ion are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commioion during the above-rsferanced public hearings on Mey 22 and May 29, 1991, includ in9 written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, thi• Commission hereby apselfically finch ea fallous: r33 h PLANNING CONNISSION ABSOLUTION NO. 91-65 GPA 91-028, SVBAREA 8 - CITY OF R.C. May 29. 1991 4age 2 (e) Subarea a of the application eppliee to approximately 20.34 acres of land bordarod on the north by Cha Southern Pacific Railway, on th/ east 6y the OntarLO (I-15) Freeway, on the south by existing Office deeignatsd land end the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, end on the west by exist in9 Low Medium Re0idential designated land and tlivided in a north-south direction by East Avenue ns shown on Bxhibit "A," end ie presently underdeveloped with two single family teeidencea. Said propart iea axe currently designated as Medium Residential (8-14 dwallLng unite per acre); antl (b) The property to the north of the subject Bite ie designated Low Medium Ae9ltlential sntl i• vacant. mho .. • _„_ ..c-_ -_ ..cG:y.,eL.u freeway and 1• developed with Cho Ontario (I-35) Freeway~.A^The property t0 the east ie deeignatsd Low Medium Reeidantial and is vacant. The property to the south L du ignnted OfLlca and is vacani. (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Vas Policies of the General Plnn and will provide for development, within the diatrlci, in n manner tonaietent with Chr Genartl Plan and with related development, but land uea incompatibillt ias may moult on Lhe asst portion of Subarea 8 because the sect eras ie adjeeent to •ignif leant transportation facilities) and (tl) Thi• amendmani dose promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Eleawnt; and (e) Thi• emendmsnt would not 6e materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent pzopert iae and would not have a eignificanG impact on the environment nor on the surrounding properties, but land use i ncompatibilitiee may result, for the east portion of Subarea 8. 3. Based upon the aubstanttal evidence presented to this Commission tluring the above-referenced public feer_aq and upon the specific findings of facto 9ei forth in peragraphe 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and cone lutlea ae Eo Llow0: (a) That the properties located in the west portion of Subarea B of the eppiicetion are euitaDle for the ueee permitted in the proposed district and axe compatible with existing end eutrountling land use designer ions as evtdenesd by the dte'• being bordered on the north end west by the same lend uea designation and that the propert Lea in the east portion are not au it able for the ueee permitted Ln the proposed district because the t rian9u lar •ite Sa bordered on three •idee by significant treneportatfon facilities; and (b) Thet the proposed amendment would not hove •Lgniflcant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings end conclusions listed in Porte I and II of Che Initial Environmental Study and that th1 proposed designer ion for ohs west port Lon o! 5u6aree B would reduce the intensity of future residential development on the subject properties; and (c) That the proposed amendment ie in conformance with the General Plen Dy promoting the retention of Etiwande'e rural atmosphere through reduestl residential densities. '1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91-65 GPA 91-OZ R, 6VBAABA 8 - CITY OP R.C. NAy _Ja laal Page 3 4. This Commission hsraby fintle that the project hoe bean nvlewed end cone idsred in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of ~ 1970 and, further, thi• CommLdon hereby recommends ieeuanee of a Negat ivs Deelarnt ion. s. Based upon the findings end cone lue ions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and d above, thL Commission Mraby resolves that pursuant to Ssct ion 65850 to 65855 of the callfornia Government Coda, thnt on the 29th day of Nay 1991, the Planning Commiuion of the City of Aancho Cucanlongs hereby recommends approval of Gene[el Plan Amendment No. 91-02 A, west portion of Subares 8, amending the Wneral PIA,. n...a n.. w... . _ _ _ (8-16 dwelling unlt^ per sore) to Low Medium Aaaldent ial~ (4-8 tlwalling unite per acre) for approximately 10.00 scree o! :and end reconsnends denial of the land uo change for the wet portion of Subarea 8, as shown on Exhibit "A.• 6. Tha Secretary to this commisdon shall certify to the atloptfon of this Aeaolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY 1991. PLANNING CO~ISSION OF THE C;TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA I, Brad Bullrr, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the Clty of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify thst the foregoing Aeaolution was duly and regularly Lntrotluced, paced, end adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, tt a regular meeting of the Planning Commission hall on the 29th day of May 1991, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ASSENT: COMNISSiONERS: TOLSTOY ~~~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLA.'VNING DIVISION 22Q Eliw.ntl. b.a Gpn.nl Plm Aw.ndw~.nb !1-Btl .M L.nd Uw DgI0n.11en a9 pp[A[A~T~ ~~ENTLY AESIDEAYNLL 11-114 D~ELINIC CDASA1FAAfgN fOA SICNAiION hID09fLLDA~C EI NIT~EA ACAS) ®~ ~.. LM ITEM: GPA 91-028 TITLE: G.nar.l Plan Am.ntl. LocHion Map N ExtIrBIT: 'A• SCALE: RESOLUTION NO. 91-66 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA, C1ILIPOANIA, NECOHMENDING APPROVAL OF ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, WEST PORTION OP SUBARBA b, AMENDING THB ETIWANDA 9PECIF IC PLAN LAND USE MAP PROM MEOIVM R8SIDENTIAL (8-ld DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) 1b LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 10.00 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY THB SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY, ON THE EAET BY EAST AVENUE, ON Tt1E SOUTH BY EXIETING OFFICE DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON TFffi WEST 8Y EXISTING LOW l~DIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND - APN: 297-ia:-:a nun <c_ .-.- RECOMMENDING GENIAL ON Tf0! EAST PORTION OP SUBAREA ,6, REQU68TING TO AMEND T!A BTIWANDA SPBCIF IC PLAN LANG USE MAP IN THE SAML MANNER M TN6 W68T PORTION FOR APPROXIMATELY 10.30 ACRES OP LAND BOMERBD ON THE NORTH BY THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY, ON TNB EAST AND SOUTH BY THE ONTARIO (2-16) FREENAY, AND ON TH6 WEST BY EAST AVENUE - APNi 227-133-Ob, AND MAKING PINOSNGS IN SVPPORT THEREOF A. (i) Ths City o! Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for Etiwanda Spec ific Plan Amendment No. 91-03 ae described Ln the tltls of thi^ Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the sub]eei Etiwnnda Specific Plan Amendment is reUrrsd to ss •the application.' (ii) On Nay 22, and continued to Nay 29, 1991, the Planning Commieeion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted s tluly noticed public hearing on the application and elan issued Resolution No. 91-6E recommending to the City Council that the a¢aoeinr_d General Plan Amendment No. 91-020, Subarea 8r be approved. (iii) All lsgsl prersquisitee prier to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Resolution. NOiI, THEREFORE, It i• Mnby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Cammiolon of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ea follows: 3. This Commission hereby spacitically finds that all o! the facts get forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution era true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidenes presented to this Co®luion during the shove-refereneed publie hearings on May 22 and May 29, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with publie testimony, this Conmission hereby spscificelly finds a follows: (` PLANNING COMMISSION AESOLUTION NO. 91-66 ES PA 91-03, SVBAREA 6 - CITY OP R.C. Nay 79, 1991 PACw ? (a) Subarra 6 of thr application nppliu to approximately 70.34 acres of land bordered an the north by the Southern Pacific Railway, on the east by the Ontario (T-15) Prrrway, on thr south by exist lnq Office/Prafeseional dssignatrd land, end on the vast by existing LOw Nrdlum Ree idential tleeignetad lnnd as shown on Bxhibit "A1," and le prusntly underdeva]oped with two single Eamily reeidancee, Said proprrtirs are currently designated as Medium Aaeldantial (e-14 dwelling unite per acre); and (b) The property to the north of the subject sib L duignatsd Low Medium Aoidrntial and L vacant. The property to the vast is duignatsd freeway end Ls drvrloprd with the Ontario (I-151 Prs«+-;• .~ r...prrry to thr rant U dolaewr.a ~-- -,;:,,,,, nrsaautiel and is vacant. Thr property to thr south i• duignatrd Oflicr/Profrssional and La veeent. (e) This a:mndmsnt does not conflict with the Land Usr Polieirs of the Grneral Plan and of the Btiwanda Specific Plan antl will providr for devslopmrnt, withSn thr distrlet, in a manner consistent with the cenrral Plan and with rrLted developa:rnt, but land usr incompatibilities may ruult on thr east portion of subarea 6 brcauar thir area is adjacent to significant transporbtlon faci11i1erJ and (d) TAia aawndmrnt doss promote thr goal end objectives of the Lantl Usr 6lrmantJ and (s) TD SS amendmrnt would not br materially injuriau• or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not havo a •ignifieant impset on the envirom:wnt nor on thr surrounding proprrtiu, but Lnd uu incompatibilities may rnult for the nsC portion of Subarra 6. 3. eased upon thr substantial svidrncr preernted to thL CommLslon during Ur above-rrfersncrd public hrarinq and upon the specific findings of facts of forth ir. paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and coneludee es follows: (e) That the propertirs located in the west portion of Subaru 6 of the application ere citable Eor the uru permitbd in thr proposrd district and ate compat iDU with existing and aurroundinq land uu derignationr a evlducrtl by the aitr'a bring bortlaad on the north and carat Dy thr samr Lnd uu dnlgnation and that the propert ice in thr cat portion are not suitable for the uau prrmitbd in the propoud district bcausa the triangular sib is Dordrred on three aide by significant transportation facilities) and (b) That thr propowd amendment would net haw significant impact on the environment nor on the aurroundinq propertiu a rvidmced by the findings and concluslans 11Krd in Part^ I and 7I of thr initial Environmrntal Study end that thr proposed designation for thr wrnt portion of Subarea 6 would retlucr the inirnsity of future ruldential devrlopmrnt on thr ^ubject propertiuJ and c.-/ PLANNING C0lO1S SSION RESOLUTION NO. 91-6fi ESPA 91-03, SUBAREA a - CITY OF R.C. Nsy 24, .». Page 3 (c) Shat the propowd amantlment i• in conformance with the General Plan and the etlwanda Specific Plan by promoting the retention of Etiwenda'e rural atmosphere through reduced reaidentlal deneltiaa. 4. This CommLaion hereby finds that iha prajaet has beer. reviewed and Iona itlered in eomplisnce with the California Envizonmentel quality Act of 1970 and, further, ihia coeimLeeion hereby recommends iuuance of a Negative Declaration. 5. Based upon the findings and concluelons set forth in paragraphs 1. 1. 3. wad n w:.,..e ..,- ~_ __--:...c..Lr ~., ~ pus woos to secs loo 65850 to 65855 of the calitornia Government Coda, ^that l,on the 29th day of May 1991, the Planning Commiaeion o! the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of Etlwanda Specific Plan Amendmen! No. 91-03, wear portion of Subarea 6, amending the Etiwanda Specific Plan Land Uee Map from Med!um Residential (8-14 dwelling unite per acre) to Low Medlum Aeaidsntlal (4-8 dwelling unite per acre) for approximately 10.00 acres of land and recomoenda denial of the land uu change for the uet portion of Subarea 6, as shown on Exhibit "Al.^ 6. The Secretary to this Cammiuion shall certify to Lhe adoption of this Reaalution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THZS 29TH DAY OF NAY 1991. PLANNING COlR{ISSION 08 T}IE CITY OF 1U1NCH0 COCANONGA BY: ATTEST Larry T~gcNiel, chairman I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning wmmiselon of the City of Aancho 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, ai • regular meeting of the Planning Cammiesion held an the 29th day of May 1991, by the following vote-to~wit: AYES: COMHISSI0NER4: CNITIEA, NCNIEL, !ffiLCFIER, VALLETTE NOES: COMNIS&IONEAS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY .3~~- VL l L-J ~ L LM LM `!, ~~ti OP ~~ •~ I`7 ~ Ellwanda SPacilie Plan Awantlwenla p1~07 Foolblll Blvtl. SPaelf{c Plan Awentlwanb f1-pE LM - Dialrkl Doeipnetien ® MOPEATNS CDAAENTIY OESNRIATED ANI RESIDENTUa e-u DRELEWD DINTS PEN A ~ WIDER TO~L0~1[DAN ~S~TSIUDIIATNNI (1-E DRELLDN; DNRS PEA ACRE) 1 ~ ESPA Sebrtu Noe. W ~ ~ FSPl1 Subnu Nee. W .,.. C I-IY ITEM:ESPA 91-03, FSPA 91-OZ OF RANCHO CUC.AMONGA TITLEsa.eNi~ Pbn Amand. Loeeiion Map 'r( PLA,ti'NiNG DIVISION ~~3 FY7-!!N (T' -a 1- C('4! F RES0Ll1TI0N NO. ~/~ / ~7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ~ 91-02H, SUBAREA 1, A REQUEST Tl7 A.MElID THE GENHRAL PLAN LAND UBE MAP FROM MBDIUM RESIDENTIAL (H-ld DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) T17 LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 14.20 AC PBS OF LAND HORDERED OH THE NORTH BY FOOTHILL BWLHVARD, ON THE EAST HY THE EASTHRN CITY LIMITS, Ctl THE SOUTH BY EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE WEST HY A UTILITY CORRIDOR, AND NAXING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-041-10. A. Recitals. (i) On April 6, 19H 1, the City Council o£ the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment oY the General Plan through the adoption of Reaolution No. R1-d0. (ii) On March 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 91-028 ae described in the title of this Reaolution. Hereinafter in this Reaolution, the subj act General Plan Amendment is referred to ee "the application." (iii) On May 22, 1991 and continued to May 29, 1991, the Planning Commieaion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and following the conclusion of ea id public hearing, adopted Reaolution No. 91-56 recomolending to the City Council that said application be denied. (iv) On July 17, 1991, the City Council of the City of Aancho ..ucaeonga held a duly nGiiced public heating and concluded said hearing prior to its edopti on cf this Resolution. (v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Aancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facia set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Reaolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on July 17, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, Chia Council hereby specifically finds as follows: 3~ `~ CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 97-56 GPA91-02B, SUBAREA 1 - CITY OF R.C. Suly 17; 1991 Page 2 (a) Subarea 1 of the application applies to approximately 74.20 acres of land bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the east by the eastern City limits, on the south by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the west by a utility corridor and is presently undeveloped. Sa18 property is currently designated as Medium Residential (e-14 dwelling unite per acre); and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is designated Nei ghborhood Commercial and is •tacant. The property to the west is designated Flocd Control/Utill ty Corridor. The property to the east is designated utlli tv rtnrrid~r ." the r.... ..c __.._z __ .. _.. H=_r - ~ ,... ~..., ....~.... is designated Low Medium Re6 identi al •and ^is vacs nt. fc) This amendment may conflict with the Land vse Po 11 c1 es of the General Plan and may not provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and (d) This amendment may not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) That the property loceted in Subarea 1 of the application is not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district due to the subject property's potential incompatibility with existing and surroundiny land uses as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the north by a sa jor arterial road; and (f) That the propeaed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Study but that land use incompatibilities may result; and (g) That the proposed amendment may not be in conformance with the General Plan due to the potential to establish incompatible land use relationships with single Family uses and significant traffic activity. 3. This Council hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, Further, this Council does not issue a Negative Declaration because the land use chanye say not promote the goals and objectives of the General Plan. 4. Hased upon the findings and conclusions set Forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby denies General Plan Amendment No. 97-02B, Subarea t, a reyuest to aslend the General Plan band Use Map from Medium Residential (8-1d dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium (4-e dwelling units per acre) for approximately 14.20 acres of land bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the east by the eastern city limits, on the south by existing Low Medium residential designated land, and on the west by a utility corridor, as shown on Exhibit "A." 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption. of this Resolution. ~/ ~~ ~YICIOAIA S1A[[i __ ,-! ~ 4hlycht Vl "~ • r L VL ~~ ~-r t C 1.-_--~- .......I .•'. r~ti ~+---~-- LM ~~. G•noN Plm •m•ndm•nl• 91-ORB B it ne c j I I ~ omm. PU,'i ~ ~ ~. Colbm.!~. I tY Nl~til~0 a.~w,, y~,'q Sub~n~~m•nd•d pMC•b LM CITY OF RAPICHO CUCAMONGA ITEM GPA 91-oze FLA.ti:~ihG DMSIOti TmEa.^•'•' P,.n gmond. loc~lion Mnp ~1 exxlarr •a• sc.a~a. RESOLUTION NO. 9/'~PJO A RESOLUTION OP TNS CITY COUNCIL OF TH6 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING POOTH ILL BOULEVARD ~ SPECIFIC PLAN ANENONHNT 9i -02, SUBAREA 1, A AEQUHST TD AMHND TN6 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN LAND U36 MAP FROM MED NM RESIDENTIAL (8-10 DWHLLING UNITS PER ACPE) 1V IqW MBDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-H OWHLLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPFDXI MAYFLY 14.20 ACRES OF LAND BORDBRED ON THE NORTH BY FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, DN THE EAST HY THB EASTHFN CITY LIMITS, Cti THS SOUTH 8Y HXISTING IOW MHOIUM RESIDENTIAL DHSIGNATED LAND, AND ON THH WS$T BY A UTILITY CORRIDOR, AND MAILING PINDINGS IN 6UPPORf THEREOF - APN: 229-041-1H. A. Recitals. (i) On September 16, 1987, the City Council cf the City of Poncho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan through adoption of Resolution No. 87-505. (ii) On March 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Poothi 11 sou levard Specific Plan Amendaent No. 91-02 ae described Sn the title of this Resolution. Hereinaftet Sn this Peeolution, the subject Poothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment is referred to m "the application." (iii) On Mey 22, 1991, the Planning Commies ion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and following the mncluaion of said hearing, adopted Resolution No. 91-57 recommending to the City Council that said application be denied. (iv) On July 17, 1991, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed publir. hearing and concluded said hearing prior to its adoption of this Resolution. (v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve as follows: 1. This Covncil hereby specifies and finds that all of the facto set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. ~~~ CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. FSPA 91-02, SUBAREA 1 - CITY OF R.C. July 17, 1991 Page 2 2. Haled upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on July 17, 1991, including vri tten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) This amendment may conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and may not provide for development, within the district, in a manner consiatenC wish the General Plan and with related development; and (b) This amendment may not promote the goals and obiecr.~~<~ o_ the Land Uae Element; and (c) That the property located in Subarea 1 of the application ie not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district due to the subject property •e potential incompatibility with existing and surrounding lan.i uses as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the north by a major arterial road; and (d) That the proposed amendment would not have ei gnificani impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties ae evidenced by the Findings and conclusions listed in Porte I and II of the laitial study but that land use incompatibtlittee may result, and (e) That the proposed amendment may not be in conformance with the General Plan and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan due to the potential to establish incompatible land use re la tienahipe with single family uses and aigniticant traffic activity. 3. This Council hereby finds that the project has been reviewed artd considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of i97d and, further, this Council dose not issue a1•zgative Declaration because the land use rhanae may nct promote the goals and objectives of the General Plan. 4. Haled upon the findings and conclusions set Forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Ccuncll hereby denies Poothi ll Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment No. 31 -02, Subarea 1, a request to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (e-tq dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium ResidenCial (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 19.20 acres of land bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the east by the eastern city limits, on the south by existing Low Medium Resi den[i al designated land, and on the west by a utility corridor, as shown on Exhibit "A 1." 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. 1 v ~~~~ ~ ,`\ `,4 ~~ _. - . ,. ~~;~- - vL LM L ~ LI ~I ,~ i Ellwontlo SDDd/ic Pbn ~TOndmmla !l A! Poollllll Blvd. BP.cille PIln ~Inondment. l/-02 LM Dillricl Duilnolion ®/RDPEAilES CUARENiIY DFSICIIATFD YEDNNI RESYIfXTUL 1!-U DREILIXD UXITS PFR A E~ UMDER TOALOt YEDXN RESANEXISACIIATIDX (E-R OREIIXW UXIT~ PEA ACRE) LM 1 - ESPo1 lubpo Noa. - FSP~ Bubuu Nos. iLM r ~ Ne9icml i , i E IlLted~~m ~~ ~E s.e..., CITE' OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLA\SiNG DMSION ar - pnreNs ITEM1I;ESPA 91-03, FSPA 91-02 TITLEspvcilic Pbn Amend. Location Mnp r( ~I EXHIBIT 'A t• SCALE. AESOLUTI ON N0. 9/ - del A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PANCNO CUCAMONGA, CALTFOFW IA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ~ 91-02B, SUBAREA 2, AMENDING THE GBNERAL PLAN IJ:ND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-1d DWRLLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO A COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION WITH A MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT FOA APPROXIMATELY 4.25 ACRES OF LAND d30 FEET NORTY. AND 200 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ETI WANDA AVENUE (APN: 1100-161-01 AND 03), ANC TO AN OFFICE DESIGNATION WITN A MASTER PLAN REQVIREMENT FOA APPROXIMATELY 1.5 ACRES BORDERED ON THE NORTH AND WEST BY EXISTING MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, ON THE EAST BY A UTILITY CORRIDOR, AND UN ': RE auu•rn BY FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, (NESTEAN PORTION OF APN: 1100-201-01), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOP - APN: 1100-161-01 AND 03 AND A PORTION OF 1100-201-01. A. Recitals. (i) On April 6, 1981, the City Council of the City of Rancho (UCamonga approved the enactment of the General Plan through the adoption of Aeao lotion No. 81-60. (ii) On March 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 91-028 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred tc as "the application." (iii) On May 22, and continued to May 29, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings on the aoclieatlon and following the eoneluslon of said public hearings, adopted Resolution No. 91-56 recommending to the City Council that said application be approved and a Negative Declaration be certified. (iv) Cn July 17, 1991, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to i[s adoption of this Resolution. (v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. H. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, ii is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: ~~~ CITY COUNCIL AEBOLUTION NO. GPA 91-026, SUBAREA 2 - CITY OF A.C. July 17, 1991 - n 1. This Council hereby sped fical ly finds that all of the facts set i forth in the Recitals, PaYt A, of this Aeao lotion are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Comma anion during the above-referenced public hearing on July 17, 7991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The remaining portions of Subarea 2 apply to approximately 4.25 acres, d30 feet north and 200 feet east of the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. hnrdw~na ~~ _.._ :-_ .. ~ uy exrstxng meuxum Residential designated land, and Se presently underdeveloped with a single family zaeidence Sn the northern portion; and approximately 1.5 scree bordered on the north an8 west by existing Nedium Residential designated land, on the east by a utility corridor, and on the south by Foothill Boulevard. Said properties are currently 8eaignated as Medium Residential (B-14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The properties to the north of the subject sited are designated Medium Residential and are vacant; the properti ea to the east are designated Medium Residential and Utility Corridor, and are vacant; the properties south of Poothill Boulevard are designated Commercial and Low Residential with the commercial portion vacant and the residential portion developed with a single family residential tract; and the property on the west aide of Etiwanda Avenue is designated Commercial and is developed with a vacant commercial structure. (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Uee Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner cone istent with the General Plan and with related development; and (d) This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the land Use Element; and fe) That the properties located in Subarea 2 of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and proposed Commercial land use designations along this portion of Foothi 1.1 Boulevard on the east aide of the City; and (f) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and cone lesions listed in Parts I and II of the initial Btudy cf this application and of General Plan Amendments 90-02H and 91-01A; and (g) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan• 3. This Council hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Council hereby issues a Negative Declaration. 3.~ ~ CITY COUNCIL RBSOLUTION NO. GPA 91-025, SUBAREA 2 - CITY OF R.C. July 17, 1991 Pa qe 3 4. Based upon the findings and concluaiona set forth in peragrapha 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby approves for those portions listed in the title of this resolution of General Plan Amendment No. 91-028, Subarea 2, and amends the Oenexal plan Land Uae Map from Hedlum Residential. (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to a Commercial designation with a Master Plnn requirement for approximately 4.25 acres of land, 430 feet north and 200 feet east of the northeast coiner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwnnda Avenue (APN: 1100-161-01 and 03), and to an Office designation with a Master plan requirement for approximately 1.5 sores bordered on the north and west by existing Hedium Residential designated land, on the east by a utility corridor. and nn rn. a....ww ~~ ?-_.___ ..J.......... wve eau, portion or AYN: 1100-201-01), as shown On Exhibit "A." , 5. The City clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Reaolutlon. ~S~ YICt9RIR S1Ajjr V Eliwmfd• Mo Gm~nl Dl~n Amr.ndm~nls 91 AIB Lrrnd Uu Drrsiynation -_-~ suwru Z rmmded wm~U' LM CITY OF RAI~'CHO CUCAMONGA I~u' GPA 91-02B IJ ~.A.`.~~I~G D~7S.IO~ TR1.E: Gr.n~r~l Dl~n Amend. Location Map \ EXHIBIT •A• SCALE: RBSOLUTION N0. ~/'~c~-' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNC L4 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMQiGA, GLIPORN IA, APPROVING FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMEtIDMA17T 91-02, SUBAREA 2, AMENDING THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RIiS IDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS YER ACAS) TO A COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION WITH A MASTER PLAN REQUTAEMBNT POR APPROXIMATELY 4.25 ACRES OF LANG 430 FEET NORTH AND 200 FEET HAHT OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ETIWANDA AVENUE (APN: 110 D-161-01 AND 03 ), AND TO A COlRABRC IAL OFFICE DESIGNATION WITH A MA6TER PLAN - _ _ _ ___ _ _________ c .rove ononvovn nu muc vY~ ..r..... ... NORTH AND WEST 8Y HXISTING MEDIUM RBSIDHNTIAL DESIGNATBD LAND, ON THE BAST BY A UTILITY CORRIDOR, AND ON THB SOUTH BY FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, (WBSTBRN PORT IPM OF APN: 1100-201-01), AND MAKING FINDINGS IH SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-161-01 AND 03 AND A PORTION OF 1100-201-01. A. Recitals. (i) On September 16, 1907, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan through adoption of Resolution Mo. 87-505. (ii) The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Foothill Sou levard Specific Plan Amendment No. 91-D2 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hareinafter in this Resolution, the subject Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment ie referred to as "the application." (iiil on May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed pu'olic Leaxiny ai the application an3 following the conclusion of said public heating, adopted Resolution No. 91-66 recommending to the City Council that said application be approved and a Negative Declaration be certified. (iv) On May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public hearing on property cwner initiated Foothill Boulevard Specific Ylan Amendment applications 90-03 and 91-03 for properties which are a part of this application and issued Resolution Nos. 91-51 and 91-53 recommending to the City Council that Foothill eoulevard Specific Plan Amen~ents 90-03 and 91-03 be approved. (v) On July 17, 1991, the City Council of the city of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed pubiie hearing and concluded said hearing prior to its adoption of this Resolution. Ivi) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. ~~ CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION ND. FSPA 91-02r SUBAR¢A 2 - CITY OF R.C. - " .~9? Page 2 Reso ].ut ion. NOW, THEREFORE, it Ss hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: ?. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facia set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on .TUly 17, 199'. inrlna; .,.. ..., ««._ oral staff report e, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds ea follows: (a) The remaining portions of Subarea 2 apply to approximately 4.25 acres, 43D feet north and 200 feet east of the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill eoulevard, bordered on the north and east by existing Medium Residential designated land, and is presently underdeveloped with a single family residence in the northern portico; and approximately 1.5 acres bordered on the north and west by existing Medium Residential designated land, on the east by a utility corridor, and on the south by Foothill eoulevard. Said properties are currently designated as Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); and fb) The properties to the north of the subject sites are designated Medium Residential and are vacant; the properties to the east are designated Medium Residential and Utility Corridor, end are vacant; the properties south of Foothill Boulevard are designated Commercial and Low Residential with the commercial portion vacant and the residential portion developed with a single family residential tract; and the property on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue is desianateA Commercial and is developed with a vacant commercial structure. (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Uge Policies of the General Plan and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and (d) This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) That the properties located in Subarea 2 of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and proposed commercial land use designations along this portion of Foothill Boulevard on the east side of the City; and (f) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions liat_ed in Parts I and II of the Initial Study of this application and of General Plan Amendments 90-02H and 91-0 tA; and ,35 .s CITY COUNCYL RE80LUTION NO. P6PA 91-02, SUHARBA 2 - CITY OF R.C. Jury fi, i39i page 3 (g) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. ~ 3. This Council hereby finds that the project hee been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Council hereby issues a Negative Declaration. d. Haled upon the findings and conclusions set fortA in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby approves those portions listed in the title of this Resolution of Poothi ll Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment No. 91- -, amm+uiny uro eoorn111 eouleward BpeclLle Plen Lend Hse Map from Medium Reslflential (8-10 dwelling unite per ecre) to a Community Comercial designation aith a Hester Plan requiremnt for approximately 6.25 ncree of land, 030 feet north and 200 feet east of the northeast corner oP Foothill Boulevard and fStiwanda Avenue (APN: 1700-161-01 and 03), end to n Comercial office aeaignntion with a Master Plan requisment Eor approximately 1.5 acre8 bordered on the north end west by existing Medium Residential dear grated land, on the east by a utility corridor, and on the south by Foothill Beulevnrd (western portion of APN: 1100-201-01), as ahovn on Exhibit "A 1." 5. The City clerk shall certify to the adoption of this iteaolution. ,~5/0 'yAt VL ~ r `VL UP ~ ~ j ~°j Fj' E +tiV. ~1~ 'y,' I ~ L ~-?-~ 'I, ,•'~ L LM I ENWantla Spaei/fe Plan Amandmanb 91.07 Foothill Blvd. Spaei/ic Plan Araantlmants !1-OZ LM - District Daai9nation ®DES~I6ENAitC ICADRDIUY iLY RESYIENTIAL fR-N DRELLOIC UNlii PEA ACRE WIMR CONSDIERATION flOR pEDESICNAf10N i0 LON YFDNY RESNIENTIAI ~{-1 ONELltll6 UNIt~ PER ACRE) 1 - ESPA Subarea Nos. u ~ -FSPA Subua Noa. u ' 14S]~--- e.r e,a, np9tOnBl !gelAtedl v ~!+1 ~ g~ Submaa CIT'Y' OF RA1tiCH0 CUCAMONGA PL.~\~;ItiG DMSIOti Parcab ITE!H;ESPA 91-03, FSPA 91-02 T1TLE:SSecilic Plan A d L t' Map \ '~, EXNIBR~ •Ar SCALE: - RESOLUTION NO. U/~~3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO e CUCAMONGA, GLIPORN L4, APp ROVING GENERAL PLAN AMHNDNENT 91-028, SUBAREA 3, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE NAP FROM fffiDIUM RESIDBNTIAL (8-1d DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM AESICHNTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PBA ACAS) FOA APPROXIMATELY 27.89 ACRES OP LAND BORDER® ON T1II: NORTHWEST BY THE ONTARIO (I-15) FREEWAY, ON THE HAST BY SFI WANDA AVENUE AND EXISTING LOW 1~DIUM RESIDENTIAL DBSIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE SOUTH BY BXISTI NG COMMHRC IAL DESIGNATED LANG BORDERING FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND NAEING eanuinw 1n BuFYUHf 'fNEREOF - APN: 227-211-02, 04, O5, 09, 10, 15, 20, AND 29. A. Recitals. (i) On April 6, 1981, the City Cowc11 0£ the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the General Plan through the adoption of Aeaolut ion No. 81-40. (ii) On March 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 91-02H as described in the title of this Resolution. Hsreimfter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment ie referred to as "the application." (iii) On May 22, and continued to Nay 29, 1991, the Plawing commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings on the application and following the conclusion of said public hearings, made no recommendation to the City Council. (iv) On July 17, 1991, the City Cowcil of the City of Pancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to its adoption of this Resolution. (v) All legal prerequieiiee prior to tte adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEPffi'OREr it is hereby fowd, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1.. This Cowcil 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 Council during the above-referenced public hearing on July 17, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, th16 Cowcil hereby specifically finds as follows: .3.5g CITY COUNCIL PESOLUTION NO. GPA 91-02B, SUBAREA 3 - CITY OF R.C. July t7, 1991 Page 2 (a1 Subarea 3 of the application applies to approximately 27.89 acres of land, basically a triangular configuration, bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by commercial designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard as shown on Exhibit "A," and is presently underdeveloped with a single family residence in the northeastern portion. Said properties are currently designated as Medium Residential (B-14 dwelling units per acre); an3 (b) The property to the northwest of the subject site is designate3 freeway and is the Ontario (I-15) Freeway. The properties to the east are desrgnacea L.. ~ ,.~„-. .._ ^^~"~ and underdeveloped with single family residences and on"the oppo8lte aide of Etiwanda Avenue it is designarea Medium Residential. The properties to the south are designated Commercial and are partially developed with mixed bueinese activities. (c) This amendment does noC 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; and (d) Thia amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) 't'hat the properties located in Subarea 3 of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and adjacent la ad use designations as evidenced by the site's `zing bordered on the east by the same land Use de6l gnation; and (f) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacte cn 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 that the proposed designatron would rzduce the atengi ty of future residential development on the subject properties; and (g) That the proposed amendment Ss in conformance with the General Plan by promoting the retention of Etiwanda'a rural atmosphere through reduced residential densities. 3. ThiB Council hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental ¢la lily Act of 1970 and, further, this Council hereby issues a Negative Declaration. 4. Based upon the findings and conolusi ons set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, artd 3 above, this Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment No• 91- 028, 3ubarex 3, amending the General Plan )and use Map from Medium Residential (B-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medivm Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 27.89 acres of land bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by existing Commercial designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard, as shown on Exhibit "A." 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution _3.~ 9 Y IQIOAIA Sig [!_ _~ ~--.. - ,~ Iir~i~cA' VL V ~~ G V _ L ~ -. .I VL ~r- ~ ' y / L LM /• , ~ • L I LM~ `~'`' ~/ r ~• Ot ~~ I ~ ~ o ~ N.CO IU ~~ ~ ._. G9nad Pbn Annndmnnh 91.028 LM lM LM - l.nd U.. Doi9n.tlan ® MOPEIITCS CURRENTLY pESMrNAT[D YERNY I VMIIISTSENPEA AdEl1~FRlINO ~ QS~ENTSALNATION iORLOt 1E0NXl Ott. 011. ({-1 ORElLA10 UNITS PfA ACRE) ~ ~~~~ LM W Subsw No.. ,~! `t! ~+1 el m. pe rk I I LM •' I bS'~~ . p,,.•'Comm~I ..... 4 •;i CD~-I i~I`~I~j t9 i'~II i~il,, l'~Iu ~ ' ' vl i ~ o :~I .Com } „ i i ' T~l i ~ i vu i ~ 1 ii iify '~~ Colnm. In p~~1i~6~" t p © I iHFH~ 'r~~~ r ' Sub.rn. 2 .mwd.d p.ra.b LM ITEM: GPA 91-028 CITY OF RANCHO Cli CAIv10NGA TITLE :GmmlPhn Am.nd. 1. c.fion M.p fV PLA.~1tNG DMSION EXHiBIT~ •A• SCALE : _ ORDINANCE N0. ~-S s~ AN ORDINANCE OF TIQS CITY COUNC II. OF THE CITY OP FANCtl0 CUCAMONGA, CALIF0AN L4, APPROVING HTIWANDA SPBC IFIC PLAN AMENDMHNT 91-03, SUBARHA 1, AMENDING THS 6TIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USS MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDSNTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITH PSR ACRE) TU iDW M6D NM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWBLLING UN TTS PER ACRE) FOR ApPROXIMATSLY 27.&9 AC REH OF LAND BORDSRBD GN TIDS N0ATNWE5f BY T[H3 ONTARIO (I-15) FREBWAY, CN Ttl6 SAST HY HTIWANDA AVBNU6 AND 6%ISTING LOW NSDIUM RE SIOBNTIAL DHSIGNAT® LAND, A!ID ON THE SOUTH BY &%ISTING COMMHACIAL DSSIGNATSD LAND BORDERING POOTHI LL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING PINDINGS II1 SUPPORT TNHRHOF - APN: 227-211-02, 04, O5, 09, 10, 15, 20, AND 29. A. Recitals. (1) On July 6, 19&3, The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga epproyed the enactment of the Regulatory Provisions of the Etiwandn Specific Plan through the adoption of Ordinance No. 203. (11) On March 16, 1991, the City of Rancho Cuensonga filed an nppllention for Stiwanda specific Plan Amendment No. 91-03 as described in the title of this Ordinance. Nereinafter in this Ozdimnce, the subject Htiwanda Specific Plan Amendment is referred to na "the application." (111) On May 22, and continued to May 29, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings m the applicatim and following the conclusim of said public hearings, made no recommendation to the City Council. (iv) On July 17, 1991, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to its adoption of this Ordinance. !iii} All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. a. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Aancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facto set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance nre trve and correct. 3 6/ CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 6SPA 91-03, SUBAREA 1 - CITY OF ft.C. ~..iy 1'' .-.. Page 2 2. Based upon eubatantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on 7uly 17, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) Thia amendment does not cronflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related developments and _..__ _ _ rc.._ _- r -rtia ~.- g--_o ac... --, cc Llrw ... ...~ Land Uae Element; and (c) That the properties located in Eubnrea 1 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 site's being bordered on the enat by the same land use designation; and (d) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor w the surrounding properties ae evidenced by the findings and ccncluslona listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Study and that the proposed designation would reduce the intensity of future residential development on the eubj act properties; and (e) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and the Etiwanda Specific Plan by promoting the retention of Etiwanda's rural atmosphere through reduced residential densities. 3. This Council hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental puality Act of 1970 and, fua then, this Council hereby issues a Negative Declaratinr.. 4. Rased upon the Findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby approves Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 91-a 3, Subarea 1, amending the Etiwanda Specific Plan land use map from Medium Residential (B-14 dwelling unites per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-e dwelling units per acre) for approximately 27.89 acres of land bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium Reai dential designated land, and on the south by existing Co®ercial deal grated ]and [ordering Foothill Boulevard, as shown on Exhibit "A1." 5. The Mayor shall ei gn this ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newepapst of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, an3 circulated in the City of Rancho Cucaaonga, California. ~~ YI CiDA IA S1A[[i V i .. ' ~ _~Tr'_^~-VTR ^~+-.~---• _ -r 41 lly ~~ V~ ~ ~i i L ~~ i LM i • I~ - I EllwanAa SPeoiAie Pbn Amentlraenla 91.07 .. ~ Fpolhiil Slvtl. Specdic Plan AsandmanL 9102 LM lM LM - Oialripl Darfpnalion OWY TIY NA ® O E ~ • IC U YE ES T AFSIDENTUI (R-1/ DA'ELLINU UNITS PER ACRE UXOER 6NATIDM S A A OP A KD/UY RSIDEMi TOLD I (A-1 DAELlIM6 UNllj PER ACRE) S ~ OP LM 1~ 1 ESPA Subarea Noa. ~! ~,S > Q PSPA Subarea Nor • \~ . .... __._ A s i .N I ~ LM .`.. ~~v~-- ,_~ IC.Q:omm. - ~RE9ional ~Relgtedr Subaea eman0ed panda ITE~N:ESPA 91-03, FSPA 91-02 CIT`r' OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~~Y~„(yG D~c'O~ T1TT.E:Spemlic Plan Amend. Lpulipn Mep 'tii J E\HIBIT •Ar SCALE R650LUTION N0. /~/~~ `F A RESOLUTION OP TNB CITY COUNC II, OF TNB CITY OF RANCHO ~ CUCAMONGA, CALiPORNIA, DENYING GeNEML PLAN AMENDMENT 91-028, SUBAREA 3, A REQU63T TO AMEND T1~ GENERAL PLAN LAND USE NAP FROM MEDIUM REBIDENTIAL (B-14 DWBI,LING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW M$DIIRd RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACAS) FOR APPROXZMATELY 27.99 ACRES OP LAND BOROSRSD Otl THE NORTNWBSf BY THE ONTARIO (I-15) PREBWAY, CN THE EAST BY BTINANDA AVENUE AND EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE SOUTH BY B%ISTING COMtiHRCIAL UESIGNATED LARD BORDERING FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AtRi MAI(I NG FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THERBOF - APN: «i-<:I-u [, U4, OS, 09, 10, 15, 20, AND 29. p. Recitals. (1) On April 6, 1931, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the General Plan through the adoption of Resolution No. 81-60. (ii) On March 15, [991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application far General Plan Amendment No. 91-02B as described in the title of this Resolution. Nezeinafter in this iesolution, the Subject General Plan Amendment is refezred to m 'the application." (iii) On May 22, and continued to May 29, 1991, the Planning Com:iesion o£ the City of Fancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings on the application and following the mncluaian of said public hearings, made no recd®endation to the City Council. (iv) On July 17, 1991, the City Counci] of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to its adoption of this Resolution. (v) All legal prerequisl.tes prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resoluticn. NOW, THEREPORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ae follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that 811 of the facto set Yorth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution aze true and cozzect. 3 ~~- CITY CODNCIL RESOLUTION N0. GPA 91-029, SDBANBA 3, DENIAL - CITY OF A.C. July 3, 1991 .age . 2• Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on .IUly 17, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds ea follows: (a) Subarea 3 of the application applies to approximately 27.99 acres of land, basically a triangular configuration, bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwenda Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential deai grated land, and on the south by commercial designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard as shown on Exhibit "A," and is presently underdeveloped with a single family residence in the north...=•_-~ -_- _-;. ___ -r:.r,,.:.:~ ere currently designated as Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The property to the northwest of the subject site 16 designated freeway and is the Ontario (I-15) Freeway. The properties to the east are designated Taw Medium Residential and underdeveloped with single family residences and on the opposite aide of Etiwanda Avenue it is designated Medium Residential. The properties to the south are designated Commercial and are partially developed with mixed business activity ea. (e) This amendment may conflict with the Land Uee Policies of the General Plan and may not provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent wish the General Plan and with related development; and (d) This amendment may not promote the goals and objectives of the Iand Use Element; and (e) That the properties located in Subarea 3 of the application are not suitable far the uses permitted in the proposed district due to the subject property's potential incompatibility with existing and adjacent iand use designations es evidenced by the site's being bordered on the east by the same land use designation; and (f) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts 2 and TI of the Initial Study but that land use incompatibilities may result; and (g) That the proposed amendment may not be in conformance with the General Plan due to the potential to establish incompatible land use relationships with single family uses and significant traffic activity. 3. This Council hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Enviro~ental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Council does not recommend the issuance of a Negative Declaration because the land use change may not promote the goals and objectives of the General Plan• ~~~ CITY COUNCIL FSSOLUTIIXi NO. GPA 91-028, SUBAA6A 3, DHNIAL -CITY OF R.C. Suly 3, 1991 aye 3 d. Based upon the findings and concluaiona eet Eorth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby denies General Plan Amendment No. 91- 028, 9ubaren 3, a request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-70 dwelling unite oeY acre) to Low Medium Residentlal (4-8 dwelling unite per acre) for approximately 27.09 acres of land bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the east by Btiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by existing Commercial designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard, as shown on 8xhiblt "A." 5. The City Clezk shall certify to the edoption of this Aeeoluticn. c36~ ~ VL LM '~~ ~h~ ,fit V lM perk LM - Lrnrl Uu DgiOnaion ® TtRtDS IC[UD wNnx AESBENTUI it-F1N DAELINIC T~ 0~~1[DCANf RDES~Mi ALNAiIOM (L-1 DAEURN UNITS PEA ACRE) 1 - s.e.... Nos. i , '~ ! Co1nm. ~ ~ hP ~i~s;Y~ f'E, I r I ~~~~ ~~~',r4,~~, $IlprfY 2 .mrndrtl porooir LM ITEM: CaPA 91.028 CITY OF RA.hTCHO CUCAMONGA ~ PLA.tiNING DMSION TITLE:Grnrrri Pirn Amend. Louiion Mrp Ek7-If6lT~ •A• SCALE, RESOLUTION NO. 9 /- T^ S A RESOLUTION OP THE CITY COUNCIL OF TBE CITY OF RANCtlO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING ETIWANOA SPECIFIC PLAN ~ AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA 1, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE Ef IWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM lUiD IUM RESIDENTIAL (E-14 DWELLING UNITS PBR ACRE) TO IA1W MEDNM RESIDENTIAL (6-8 DWELLING DN ITS PER ACRE) FOA APp PDXI MATELY 27.89 ACRES OF LANK BORDERED ON THE NOf(fRWEST BY THB ONTARIO (I-15) PREEWAY, ON THE EAST BY ETIWANDA AVENUB AND EXISTING LJW MBDIUM RBSIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND OA THH SOUTtl BY 6%ISTING COMMEPC IAL DESIGNATED LAND BORDERING POOTHILL BOULEVARD, ANO MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-211-02, 04, O5, 09, 10, 15, 20, AND 29. A. Recitals. (i) On July 6, 1983, The City Council of the City of Poncho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the Regulatory Prwiaions of the 6tiwanda Specific Plan through the adoption of Ordinance No. 203. (11) On March 16, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 91-03 as de scribed in the title of this Resolution. Reteinafter in this Resolution, the subject Etiwanda Specific Ylan Amendment ie referred to ae "the application." (iii) On Nay 22, and continued to May 29, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga cronducted duly noticed public heari nga on the application and following the coneluaion of said public hearings, made no xecommendation to the City Council. (ivI On July 17, 1991, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public hearing and croncluded said 'nearing prior to its adoption of this Resolution. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Pesolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. ~~v CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. ESPA 91-03, SUBAREA 1, GENIAL - CITY OP R.C. Jul_v 17, 1991 Page 2 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on duly 17, 1991, including written and ~ oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) This amendment may conflict with the Land Uee Policies of the General Plan and of the Etiwanda 6peeific Plan and may not provide Eor development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and fbi This amendment may not ozomote the goals and objectives of the Land Uae Element; and (cl Thet the properties located in Subarea 1 of the application are not suitable for the uses permitted m the proposed dietnct duo to the subject property's incompatibility with existing and adjacent land use designations ae evidenced by the site's being bordered on the east by the same land use designation; and (d) That the proposed amendment would net have ai gnifican[ impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Study but that land use incompatibilities may result; and (e) That the proposed amendment may not be in conformance with the General Plan and the Etiwanda Specific plan due to the potential to es tabliah incompatible land use relationships with eingie family uses and significant traffic activity. 3. This Council hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered Sn rnmpliance with the Callforn is Environmental ~aa 11*_y Art of 1970 and, further, this Council does not recommend issuance of a Negative Ceclaration because the land use change may not promote the goals and objectives of the General Plan. 4. Haled upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby denies Etiwanda Specific Plan Amen~ent No. 91-03, Subarea 1, a request to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling unites per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-6 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 27.69 acres of land bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the ea et by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, anfl on the south by existing Co®ercial designated land bordering Foothill boulevard, as shown on Exhibit "A 1." The City Clex•k shall cerilEy to the adoption of this Resolution. 3~g VL ~ VL ! ~I I`..... LM LM m C NIAIION ACRE) C 1" RESOLUTION NO. // • 4 "W A A660LUTI Q7 OF T1~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO a CUCANONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENBPAI. PLAN AMBNDMeNT 91-02H, SUBAREA d, AMENDING THE GHNERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (H-id DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) Tt0 A IOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-B DWELLING UNITS PER ACAS) DESIGNATION WITH A MASTER PLAN A6QUIRBM6NT FOR APP RO%IMATELY 87.52 ACRES Op LAND BORDERED ON Tim NORTH BY MILLER AVENUE; Ri THE EAST BY EAST AVHIIVE AND A UTILITY CORRIDOR; ON TH8 SOUTH BY THE FOOTHILL BOUIEVAAD SPEC IP ZC PLAN BOUNDARY, WHICH I3 APPROXIMATELY 530 PEST ...... .... _.. ~.... ....". i w ~ ~ YOL O3 a'L'1 MMI1Ufl AVENUB,v AND HARING FZNDING6 DV SUPPORTwTHEREDF - APN: 1100-131-01 AND 02, 1100-Od1-01 AND 02, 1100-151-01 AND 02, 1100-181-01 AND 02, RND 1100-191-01. A. Recitals. (i) On Aptil 6, 1981, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the General Plan through the adoption oP Resolution No. 81-40. (ii) On March 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 91-028 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to ae "the application." (Sii) On May 22, and continued to May 29, 1991, the Planning Co®iseion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings or. the application and following the conclusion of said public hearings, adopted Resoiution No. 41-59 rewnmending to the City Council that said application be approved and n Negative Declaration be certified. (iv) On July 17, 1991, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to its adoption of this Resolution. (v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. H. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ae follows: ~~/ CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION N0. GPA 91-02B, SUBARHA d - CITY OF A.C. 3nly t'1 1VUt Page 2 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facto set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution ate true and correct. ~ 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on July 17, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically Einda as follows: (aI Subarea 4 of the application applies to approximately 87.52 acres of land bordered on the north by Miller Avenue; on the east by Haet Avenue ann a Ui111cY ~o criuear ., .. ~r L.•C .sot..-_. -., __~ ___ _ ____. Plan boundary, which ie approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Bou levardt and on the west by Htiwanda Avenue and is presently undeveloped. Said property is currently deaf gnated ae Medium Residential (8-id dwelling unite per ac re l; and (b) The properties to the north of the subject alts are designated Medium Residential and are vacant. The properties to the w¢et are designated Medium Residential and Low Medium Residential and are developed with single family homes. The properties to the east are designated Low Medium Residential, Plood controlNti lity Corridor, and Office (City of Fontana) and are underdeveloped with single family homes. The properties to the south are deal 9nated Medium Residential and are developed with a vacant service station; an exieting, non-conforming market, and a single family home. (c) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Uae Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a mannez consistent with the General Plan and with related developmentr and (d) This amendment does promote the goals and obj eciives of the Land Use Element; and (e) That the properties located in Subes% d of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the prapoead district and are compatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the north and west by the same land use designation; and (f) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Btudy and that the proposed designation would reduce the intensity of future residential development on the subject properties; and (ql That the proposed amendment is in ccnformance with the General Plan by promoting the retention of Btiwanda'e rural atmosphere through reduced residential densities. 3. This Council hereby finds that the project hoe been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Council hereby issues a Negative Declaration. ti~ L ^ CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA 91-02B, SUBAPEA 4 - CITY OP A.C. ?uly ~ ~99i Page 3 ' d. Based upon the findings and conclusions set Forth in paregrapha• 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby approvee General Plan Amendment No. 91- 82B, Subarea 4, amending the General Plan Land Uea Mep from Medium Reeidentl.al (5-14 dwelling units per acre) to a Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling unite per acre) designation with a Master Plan requirement £or approximately 87.52 acres of land bordered on the north by Mi 13er Avenuer on the east by East Avenue and a utility corridor} on the south by the Foothill Boulevard Speci £ic Plan boundary, which is approximately 538 Feet north of Foothill Boulevard; and on the vest by Btiwenda Avenue, as shown on 8xhiblt "A". ... .~~~ vi cy Mara shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. x373 v~nrnaip e ~- :I' I I I~ IIII L~,. LM IIi N.Pe ~ MI ~.~~~~~ `tl I I Etiwmde Mee i Gennx Plen Amendmenb 91-pYB i LM LM LM Lena Uu Deaipnelion PRDPEATY:S CURAEXTLY DESNMiED YfEeDNY RESIXATxI - 14 DtEIIIYG ~ G C~MITtFRAigY EEdIMREUESIDM/iIDN Ott Ott' UX TSEPFR~A (; 1 I R D ~ . I - DtE I C CRE) I A ~a L M •t' W 1 - SuAeree Noa. ,,~! \ al m. park ~ ` ~ V q lM I ~_ ! ~ i ~, Comm. A ~ ~~s,E BuGwe R emended pereeb LM ITEMS Gpa et-pz[i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: Geneul Plan Amend. Loulion xaD N PLANNING DMSION EXHIB t•1'~ 'A' SCALE: ,; ORDINANCE NO. ~ ,~ AN ORD INANCH OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CZTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA EPEC IFTC PLAN AMENDt~NT 91-03, SUBAREA 2, AMENDING THE ETIWANDA e SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE HAP PROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (B-1d DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TD LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-S CWELLING VNITS PEA AC AE) DESZGNATION WITH A MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT FOR APPRO%IMATELY 87.52 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH HY MILLER AVENUE) ON THE EAST BY EAST AVENUE AND A U'PILITY CORRI DORI ON THE SOUTH HY THE FOOTHILL BOULEVAFD SPECIFIC PLAN HOUNDAAY, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 530 PEST NORTH OF FOOTHILL HOULEVAEiDl AND ON THE WEa'1' ns .u '..... ._._ +ev rNC FTNDTNGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -+ APN: n 1100-131-01^ AND 02, 1100-141-01 AND 02, 1100-151-01 AND 02r 1100-iB1-01 AND 02, 1100-191- 01. A. Recital8. (i) On July 6, 1983, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the Aegulatoxy Provisions of the Etiwanda Specific Plan through the adoption of Ordinance No. 203. (ii) On Harch 16, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Stiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 91-03 as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment ie referred to ae ^the application." (iii) On May 22, and continued tc May 29, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City o£ Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings on the application and following the conclusion of said public hearings, adopted Resolution No. 91-60 recommending to the City Council that said application be approved and a Negative veciaratio.-. 1w rextified. fiv) On July 17, 1991, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to its adoption of this ordinance. (v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain as follows: r3`75 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE N0. ESPA 97-03, SUEAREA 2 - CITY OF R.C. JLL1V (%; 1441 Page 2 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts eeb forth in the Recitals, Paxt A, of th16 Ordinance are true and Correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on July 17, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, Cogether with public testimony, this Council hereby apeci£ically finds as follows: (a) The properties to the north of the subject site are designated Medium and Low Medium Residential and am v ~~..~. m,.,. -____ weau are designated Medium and Low Medium Residential and nze~developed with single family homes. The properties to the eeet are des Sgnated Low Medium !residential, Flood Control/Utility Corridor, and office (City o£ Fontana) and are under developed with single family homes. The properties to the south are designated Medium Aeaidantial and are developed with a vacant service station, an existing, non-conforming marketr and a Single family home. (b) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Uae Poli ciea of the General Plan and of the Etiwanda 3peciflc Plan and will provide for development, within. the district, in a manner consistent. with the General Plan and with related developmentr and (c) This amendment does promoto the goals and objectives of the Land Use Elements and (d) That the properties located in Subarea 2 of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and surrounding land use designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the north and west by the same land use designation; and (e) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properti ea as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Study and that the proposed deai gnation would reduce the intensity of future residential development on the subject properties; and (f) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and the Etiwanda Specific Plan by promoting the retention of Et iwanda's rural atmosphere through reduced residential unit densities. 3. This Council hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Council hereby issues a Negative Declaration. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby approves Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 91-03, Subarea 2, amending the Etiwanda Specific Plan Land Use Map from Medivm Residential (E-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-e dwelling units per acre) designation with a Master Plan requirement for approximately 87.52 acres of land bordered on the north by ~~~ CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ESPA 91-03, SUEARfSA 2 - CITY OF R.C. ~,:i'y ii>i Page 3 Miller Avenue) oh the east 6y Eaet Avenue and a utility corridor! on the Booth ~ by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Flan Boundary, which ie approximately 530 foot north of Foothill Houleverd; and on the west by Etiwandn Avenue, as shown on Exhibit "Af". 5. The Mayor shall sigr. this Ordinance and the City Clark sha 11 cause the same to be publiahed within 75 days after its pasenge at lease once in the Inland Va11ev Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general ci rculat!on published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the CSty of Rancho Ncamonga, California. ,377 r ~ ~L _.--#I L LM fqN E) C I' RESOLUTION NO. ~/ i ~],/~ A RESOLVTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C.I TY OF RANCHO CUCAMDNGA~ CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ~ 91-02B, SUBAREA 5, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND US8 MAP FROM MEDIVM RESIDENTIAL (H-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-H DWELLING UNITS PHR ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 30.72 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTHWEST HY THE ONTARIO (I-15) FREEWAY, ON THE EAST BY EAST AVENUE AND EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE SOUTH HY MILLER AVENVE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 7100-031-08, THAOVGH 04, AND PORTIONS'OF 1100-071-01 AND 02. A. Recitals. (i) On Aptil 6, 1981, the City Council of the Ciiy of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the General Plan through the adoption of Resolution No. H1-d0. (ii) On March 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Genetal Plan Amendment No. 91-02B ae described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred tc ae "the application." (SSi) On May 22, and coriinued to May 29, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearirge on the application and following the conclusion of said public hearings, made no recommendation to the City Council. (ivl un Juiy 17, 1991, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to its adcption of this Reaolu ti on. (v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically Finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 379 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION N0. GPA 91-028, 8UBAREA 5 - CITY OF R.C. ]nly t/. 1Y91 Page 2 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council. during the above-referenced public hearing on July 17, 7991, including written and ~ oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically Einds as follows: (aI Subarea 5 of the application applies to approximately 30.72 acres of land, basically a linear configuration, bordered on the northwest by the Ontario II^157 Freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue as shown on Exhibit "A," and is presently underdeveloped with the ee single Yamily reszee w es : -~....•---- - - ^^' ..,..t1^n. Said mrgcerties are currently designated ae Medium Residential^(e-14 dwelling unite per acre); and (b) The property Go the northwest of the subject site ie designated freeway and is the Ontario IL-15) Freeway. The property to the east is designated Low Medium Residential and is underdeveloped with single family residences facing Miller Avenue and on the opposite side of East Avenue it is designated Office (DFC) in the City of Fontana's West End Specific Plan. The property to the south on the opposite side of Miller Avenue is designated Medium Reei dential and is vacant. (c) Thie amendment does not conflict with the Land Uae Policies of the General Plan and will provide fax development, within the district, Sn a manner consistent with the General Plan and with relateA development; and (dl This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) That the properties located in Subarea 5 of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible wltn exi Bring end aujacant 1~.... designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the southeast by the same land use deaignatlonJ and {f) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the sutroUnding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and IZ of the Initial Study and that the proposed designation would reduce the intensity of future residential development on the subject properties; and (g) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan by promoting the retention of Etiwanda's rural atmosphere through reduced residential densities. 3. This Council hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 7970 and, further. this Council hereby issues a Negative Declaration. ~v CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA 91-02B, SUBAREA 5 - CZTY OF R.C. July 77, 1991 Page 3 4. eased upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs it 2, and 3 above, Yhis Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. 91- 028, Subarea 5, amending the General Plan Land Uae Mnp Erom Medium Residential (E-14 dwelling unite per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling unite per acre) foz approximately 30.72 acres of land bordered on the northwest by the Ontatio 11-15) freeway, on the enet by East Avenue and existing Lov Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue, as shown in Exhibit "A." 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. ~~ n ~ r.Ai~cAt VL I L jam-' _____~I`.__ ~ ~ LM ~~•~~ 'i L~-1 ~ LM Lam"" t-oas now IE) ORDINANCE N0. ~~/~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORN SA, APPROVING ETINANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA 3, ~ AMENOI NG THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND UEE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (0-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTS AL (4-0 DWELLING UNITE PER ACRE) FOR APPRO%IMATELY 30.72 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTHWEST BY THS ONTARIO (I-15) FREEWAY, ON THE EAST BY EAST AVENUE AND EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, ANC ON THE SOUTH HY MILLER AVENUE, AND MA%ING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-031-DB, 1100-041-04 THROUGH 10, 1100-051-03, iln n_na i_no 02. A. Recitals. (i) On July 6, 1903, The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of Lhe Regulatory Provisions of the Etiwenda Specific Plan through the adoption o£ Ordinance No. 203. (ii) On March 16, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 91-03 as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordlnanc¢, the subject Etiwan da Specific Plan Amendment is referred to ae "the application." (iiil On May 22, and continued to May 29, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings on the application and following the conclusion of said public hearings, made no recommendation to the City Council. (iv) On July 17, 1991, the City council of the City of Ranchc Cucamon gc held a 3u ly nGliued public hearing anfl concluded said hearing prior to its adoption of this Ordinance. (v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on July 17, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, t:nis Council hereby specifically finds as follows: ~U.J CZTY COUNCIL ORD INANCB N0. EEPA 91-03, EUBAREA 3 - CITY OF R.C. _nny n ~oo~ Page 2 , (a) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Uae Policies ~ of the General Plan and of the Etiwanda Specific Plnn and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and (b) Thie amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (c) That the properties located in Subarea 3 of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are - - .+.y..e.....u= >e evi;,wwcu uy the site's being bordered on the southeast by the same land uee designation; and (d) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impects on the environment nor on the surrounding properties ae evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and ZI of the Initial Study and that the proposed designation would reduce the intensity of future residential development on the subject properties; and (e) That the proposed amendment ie in conformance with the General Plan and the Etiwanda Specific Plen by promoting the retention of Etiwanda'a rural atmosphere through reduced residential densities. 3. This Council hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Council hereby issues a Negative Declaration. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 7, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby approves Etiwanda Specific Plan ;men3~~ent 97-03, Subarea 3, amending the Etiwanda Speci Eic Plan Land Uae Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dael ling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 3G.72 acres of land bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-75) Freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue, a5 shown in Exhibit ^P.7." 5. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after ire passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. ~~ IC VL ~ I I ~~~ ~ ~ + ~`~\~ ~V~ ~ ~~•1 A '. ~ I~, ~ ' ~~.omm ~ Regional lRel,lted wpq,m I(,qc-!, ... II ~ SuWr. ~im~nA~d pwul~ C17~' OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ITEM. ESPA 91-q3, fSPA 91-q2 PLA.\11NG DMSIOti T~n'E:SPecific Pbn gmend ~o r M,p N EXHBIT •Ar SCALE'. RESOLUTION N0. 9/~d~ g A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO ~ CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02B, SUBAREA 5, A REQUEST TO AMEND TNS GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS FEH ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM PESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 30.72 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTHWEST 8Y THE ONTARIO (I-15) FREEWAY, ON THE EAST BY EAST AVENUE AND EXISTING LOW MEDIUM AEEIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE SOUTH BY MILLER AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - AYH: 1100-031-Oe, THAWGH Od, AND PORTIONS OF 1100-071-01 ANDV02. A. Recitals. (i) On April 6, 1981, the City Council of the City of %ncho Cucamonga approved the ennetment of the General Plan through the adoption of Resolution No. 81-40. (iii on March 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for General Plnn Amendment No. 91-02B ae described Sn the title cf this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is Yeferted to ne "the application." (iii) on May 22, and continued to May 29, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings on the application and following the conclusion of said public hearings, made no recommendation to the City Council. (iv) Or. Juiy 17, 1991, the City Counci.L of the City of %ncho Cucamonga held a duly nottced public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to its adoption of this Resolution. (v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. H. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, end resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as Follows: i. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the A~.citals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. ~v = CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA 91-028, SUBAREA 5, DENIAL - CITY OF R.C. ly .,,~ Page 2 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during ~ the above-referenced public hearing on .7uly 17, 1991, includiny written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby apeci£ical ly finds as follows: (a) Subarea 5 of the application applies to approximately 30.72 acres of land, basically a linear configuration, bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue as shown on Exhibit "A," and i0 presently underdeveloped with three single family ~~c='-= cc~ =~ " ~ '~ .. mwac portion. sard properties are currently designated ae MediumVReaidential (5-14 dwelling unite par acre); and (b) The property to the northwest of the subject Bite is designated freeway and is the Ontario (I-15) Freeway. The property to the east is designated Low Medfum Residential and is underdeveloped with single family residences facing Millar Avenue and an the opposite side of Eeat Avenue it is designated Office (OFC) in the City of Fontana's Neat Ehd Specific Plan. The property to the south on the opposite side of Miller Avenue is designated Medium Residential and is vacant. (c) This amendment may conflict with the Land Uae Policies of the General Plan and may not provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and (d) This amendment mey not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) That the properties located in Subarea 5 of the application are not su±table for the uses permitted in the proposed district due to the subjeui properry's incompatibility with existing and adjacent land uss designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (L-15) Freeway; and (f) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed Sn Parts I and II of the Inirial Study but that land use incompatibilities may result; and (g) That the proposed amendment may not be in conformance with the General Plan due. to the potential to establish incompatible land use relationships with single family uses and significant traffic activity. 3. This Council hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Council hereby does not issue a Negative Declaration because the land use change may not promote the goals and obj eutives of the General Plan. -3g 7 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION N0. GPA 91-028, SUBAREA 5, DENIAL - CITY OP A.C. -..ly ~ goo, Page 3 , 4. eased upon the findings and conclusions set forth Sn paragrephse 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hezaby denies General Plan Amendment No. 41- 028, Subarea 5, a request to amend the General Plan Land Uae Map fzom Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling unit6 per acrd to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling unite per acre) for approximately 30.72 acres of lnnd bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (L-15) freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Medium Aeeidential designated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue, a6 shown in Exhibit "A." 5. The City Clerk ehnll certify to the adoption of Chia Resolution. ~1~ YIti DAIA Sf Af[i u ,---~_ A.hlyth. VL '~' ,% L~-~ ~! I ~~ i LM Eriwanda Ana Gaeeral plan Amandmanb 9N~02U LM land Uaa DulpnaOOn ® MDPEAiYS CUAAEhiIY DESNUTAi[D YEDIUY RCCSAIEMiIAI II-II DAELUM6 UNI15 PEA ACRE UMDEA CDNSIDEAATIDN OA RED[SICNAYIDN i0 CDA YEDIUY AESIMNTUI (hl DAEIIINC UMITS PEA ACRE) 1 ~ SuDam Nos. W ~~ / ~ '~ I I om~-mom. ~7r~~ suWna 2 amandad pareab LM ITEM, GPA 91-ozB CITY OF F2ANCH0 CUCAMONGA P~-A.`.~r~~1G D~SIO~r TITLE:Genaral Plan Amand. Location Map 'r EXiiIBIT •A' SCALE, - RESOLUTION NO. 9/-~.Q 9 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, SOBAAEA 3, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-19 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (9-R DWELLING UNITE PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 30.72 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NOATNWE ST HY THE ONTARIO (I-15) FREEWAY, ON THE EAST BY EAST AVENUE AND EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DE SIGNATEO LAND, AND ON THE SOUTH HY MILLER AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS ZN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-031-08, 09, AND PORTIONS OF 1100-071-01 AND 02 A. Re ci tals• (i) On July 6, 1993, The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the Regulatory Provisions of the Etiwanda Specific Plan through the adoption of Ordinance No. 203. (ii) On March 16, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 91-03 ae described in the title o£ this Resolution. Hereinafter Sn this Reap lotion, the subject Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment ie referred to as "the application." (iii? On May 22, and continued to May 29, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings on the application and following the conclusion of said public hearings, made no recommendation to the City Council. (iv) On July 17, 1991, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duiy noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to its adoption of this Ae so lotion. (v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Fan cho Cucamon qa as follows: 1. This Council 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 tc this Council duc -..j the above-referenced public heating on July 17, 199 i, innludi ng written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: ~~ CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. ESPA 91-03, SUHAFEA 7, DENIAL - CITY OF R.C. .. ly i991 Page 2 (a) This amendment moy conflict with the Land Uae Policies of . the General plan and of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and may not provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development) and (bj Thie amendment may not promote the goals end phjectivea of the Land Uae Element; and (c) That the properties located in Subarea 3 of the application are not suitable for the uses permitted in the Proposed dietrf cr d,.e ... .~- ~tSjc y, vyc. ~y'n nncompauoi lily with existing and adjacent lend use deai 9natlana ae evidenced by the site's beir.9 bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-f5) Freeveyt and (d) That the proposed amen Anent would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties ae evidenced by the findings and conclueione listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Stvdy but that land use incompatibilities may result; and (e) That the proposed amendment may not be in conformance with the General Platt and the Etiwanda Specific Blan due to the potential to establish incompatible lc~d use relationships with single family uses and ei gnificant traffic activity. 3. This Council hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Council hereby dcea not issue a Negative Declaration. 4. Hased upon the Eindirga and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby denie8 Etiwanda SnpMfSc Plan Araadcznt riu. >i-03, subarea 3, a request to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan Land Uae Map from Medium Feaidential (E-7d dwelling unite per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-e dwelling units per acre) for approximately 30.72 acres of land bordered on Che northwest by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue, as shown in Exhibit "A 7." 5. The Ciiy Clerk shall certify to the adopticn of this Reso lotion. ~~ 1 '- VL i ~ L .. I mow;' V L i I ~~~ L~ ~---~}~ LM /. / LM I / P .CO M. ~• wI I I _ '~"`~-~ i ENwanda Spullic Plan Asendrnenls ft-eJ .- ! Foothill Blvd. Specific Plan Alnendnrente It-02 LM LM LM - DlNricl DleienaNnn . ®ofs°iciiiie imnn"nr RESpfNTIAL ED-II OtFILIND OP UNITS PfR A RF) UNOER CMSIOFRAiIM rM RFOESIDNAiIOM '+ OP TO LOt YEDNW AESMIFNTIAL (l-D OtELLINC UNIT} PEA ACRE) ~ ~ LM I `alt I I 1 -ESPA Subaru Nna. S I ~J~-~/ '!~A} W ~ - fSPA Subarea Noa. ~~ LM , W Rpl.Cplq r I_ ~~ ~ Comm Regional lRelgte A.wQnim ~ I i . `• ~` Suba~ ~ame~ reeN CI"IY OF RANCHO CUCA;VIONGA TAM' ESPA 91-03, FSPA 91-02 PLA.I~;ING DMSIOti TiTi-Es a;ne Pbn Amentl La~.ra fA.P E.CHEBIT'A t• SCALE. - RESOLVTION NO. 9/tea/Q A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCNU ~ WCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02B, SUBAREA 6, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN BAND USE MAP FROM MEDIVM RESIDENTIAL (8-ld DWELLING UNITS PER ACRP.) TO LOW MEDIUM RESI DFNTIAL (8^8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 11.09 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY BASE LINE ROAD, ON THE SOUTHEAST BY THE ONTARIO (I-15) FREEWAY, AND ON THE WEST BY E%IBTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DEBIGNATED LAND, AND MA%ING FINDINGS IN BUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-051-01 AND OR AND A. ReCl tali. (i) On April 6, 1981, the City Council of the City o£ Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the General Plan through Ehe adoption of Resolution No. 81-d0. (ii) On March 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 91-02H ae described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to ae "the application." (iii) On May 22, and continued to May 29, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings on the application and following the eonclueion of said public hearings, adopted Resolution No. 91-61 recommending to the City Council Chat said application be denied. (ivi vn 5uly 17, 1991, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public Nearing and concluded said hearing prior to its adoption of this Resolution. (y) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of This Resolution have occurred. B. Aesolution• NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facto set forth in the Recitals, Pazt A, of this Aesolution are trve and correct. .393 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA 91-02 E, SUBAREA 6 - CITY OF R.C. Ju lv 17. 1991 Page 2 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on July 17, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) Subarea 6 of the application applies to approximately 11.09 acres of land, basically a triangular configuration, bordered on the north by Base Line Road, on the southeast by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, and on the west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land as shown on Exhibit "A," and is presently vacant Said properties are currently designated as Medium Residential (e-10 dwelling unite per acre); end (b) The properties to the north of the subject Bite on the opposite side of Base Line Aoad are desiynated Medium Residential end era developed with a commercial plant nursery. The property to the southeast Ss designated freeway and is developed with the Ontario (I-15) Freeway. The property to the west is designated Low Medium Residential and is underdeveloped with n single family residence. (c) This amendment may conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and may not provide for develops~ent, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and (d) This amendment may not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) That the properties located in Subarea 6 of the application are not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are incompatible with existing and aurroundirq land use designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the southwest by a freeway on-ramp and on the north by a me jar arterial road and freeway off-ramp intersection; and (f) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties es evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed Sn Parts I and II of the Initial Study but that land use incompatibilities may resulT.; and (g) That the proposed amendment may not be in conformance with the General Flan due to the potential of establishing incompatible land use relationships with single family uses and significant vehicle traffic activities. 3. This Council hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Council does not issue a Negative Declaration because the land use change say not promote the goals and objectives of the General Plan. .39 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION N0. GPA 91-028, SUBAREA 6 - CITY OF R.C. July 17, 1991 Page i d. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, ana 3 above, this Council hereby denies General Plan Amendment No. 91- 028, Subarea 6 a request to amend the General Plnn Lar.B Use Map from Medium ' Aesidenti al (8-14 dwelling unite per acre) to Law Medium Residential (4-S dwelling units per acre) fot approximately 11.09 acres of land bordered on the north by Save Line Aoad, on the southeast by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, and on the west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land as shown in Exhibit "A." 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. -~--~ /~ YI CFORU rrRrri r1 '1~'7cA~ VL F ~-----~, - L r r- t~ ~ L: ...... I LM I~t• LM ~~. EIIW.ndn Ann G.n.nl Pl.n gm.ndm.nb 91-OPB LM f I~ . V Ofl, OII, 9 `4\ ~~E ',` LM LM L.nd Us. Dwipnidion ® PRDPfATNf CUARENiIT DESIRNATFD YEDIUY RESIDENiUI 11-11 D~FIINIG UNITS P[A AGE UMDFR i0 l tAIED~XIY RffIDEMTIALNATIDX ({-1 DAELLUXI UNI15 PEA ACRE) W 1 . s.e,r.n rl... ~>~--=' LM ICPrr~ml. ~ ~~ ~ rr, /~~, ~, ~ j omm. ~ ~ ~ ~, Comm..-~F,' .. 'r~~ di~\ir li li ~ HF-i-ti MYtt'7'F7 ~ Subnru R nm.nd.d pnrsb LM CITY of R9.n'CHO CUCAMONGA ITEM. GPA 91-02B FIA\NItiG DMSION TITLE;G.nn.l Pbn gmmd. Loc.lian MaD !V It Ek"HIBR~ •n• SCALE: - RESOLUTION NO. ~/ ~d'~/ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO ~ CUCAMCNGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, SUAAAEA 0, A REQUEHT TO AMEND THE ETI WANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE HAP FROM MHDIUM RESIDENTIAL (R-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-H DWELLING UNITS PER ACRB) FOR APPROXIMATELY 11.09 ACRES OF LAND 80RDERED ON THE NORTH BY BASE LINE ROAD, ON THE SOUTHEAST HY THE ONTARIO (I-15) FREEWAY, AND ON THS WEFT BY IXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL CESIGNATED LAND, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THHRftnII - ._,,, „~~-~c~-ul AND 02 AND 1100-061-01. A. Aecita La. (i) On July 6, 1983, The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the ennctment of the Regulatory Pravieiona of the Etiwanda Specific Plan through the adoption of Ordinance No. 203. (ii) On March 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed en application for Etiwnnda Specific Plan Amendment No. 91-03 ae described in the title of this Resolution. Rereinafter in this Reeo lotion, the subject Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment is referred to ea ^the application." (iii) On May 22, and continued to May 29, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings on the application and following the conclusion of said public hearings, adopted Resolution No. 91-62 recommending to the City Council that said application be denied. (iv) On Jn ly 17, 1997, the city Council of the Ciiy of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public henring and concluded said h¢aring prior to its adoption of this Resolution. (v) All legal prerequisites priaY to the adoption of this Resolution have crcurr¢d. e• Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council o£ the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set Forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. .397 CITY COUNCIL RESULOTION NO. ESPA 91-03, 6UBAAEA 4 - CITY OP R.C. July 17, 1991 Page 1 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during ~ the above-referenced public henring on July 17, 1991, including written and oral ataEE reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as Follows: (a) This amendment may conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and may not Frovide for development, within the district, in a manner con8latent with the General Plan and with related developments and fh1 mn+= • _. -vp_ _-, ...: ywuww ~i+a goals ana object sues of the Land UHe Element) andM- (c) That the properties located in Subarea 4 of the application nre not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are incompatible with exi sling and surrounding land use designatlon8 ae evidenced by the bite's being bordered on Lhe southwest by a freeway on-ramp and on the north by a major arterial road and freeway off-ramp intezsectlont an8 (d) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties ae evidenced by the findings and conelueiona listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Study, but that land use incompatibi li ties may reaultt and (e) That the proposed emandmert may not be in conformance with the General Plan due to the potential of establishing incompatible land use xe laeionships with single family uae8 and significant vehicle traffic activities. 3. This Council hereby finds that the pYOject has been reviewed and conside reA i.. comFLan c. with Llie Cei ifornia Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Council does not issue a Negative Declaration because the land use change may noC promote the goals and objectives of the General Plan. 6. Based upon the findings and conclueiona set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby denies Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 91-03, Subarea 4, a request to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (5-14 dwelling units psi acre) to Low Medium Residential fd-S dwelling units per acre) for approximately 11.09 acres of land bordered on the north by Base Line Road, on the southeast by the Ontario (I-75) Freeway, and on the west by existing Low Medium Aesidential designated land as shown in Exhibit "A1." 5. The city Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this 17eaolution. ~/~ VL LM LI j LM T!ON IE) C I' RESOLUTION N0. g/~~/~ A RESOLUTION OF THR CITY COUNCIL OF TXE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENHRAL PLAN AMENDMENT ~ 91-02H, SUBAREA 7, AMENDING THE GENEHAI. PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDNM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACHE) TO LOW MEDIUM 1iES2DENTIAL (d-8 DWELLING UNITS PEA ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 10.09 ACREH OF LANG BORDERED ON THE NORTH AND WEST HY EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENT IAL DESIGNATED LAND, ON THE EAST BY EXISTING OFFICE DESIGNATED LANDr AND ON THE SOUTH BY BASE LINE ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-131-34 THROUGH 36, 52 THROUGH S.r nV A. Recitals. (il On April 6r 1981, the City Council of Ue City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the General Plan thxough the ndoption of Resolution No. 81-40. iii) On March 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Nenmonga filed an application for General Plan Aaendment No. 91-02H ae described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in thia Reaolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (iii) on Mny 22, and continued to Map 29, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings on the application and following the conclusion of said public hearings, adopted Resolution No. 91-63 recommending to the City Council that said application be approved and a Negative Declaration be certified. :. On du iy i991, the City Cow:cii of the City of Fran oho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to its adoption of this Aeao lotion. (v) All legal prerequi sites prior to the adoption cf this Resolution have occurred. H. Resolution. NOWT THEREFORE, it is hereby foundr determined, and resolved by the City Council of the C3 ty of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recital s, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Rased upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on .luly 17, 1991, Including written and oral ataEf reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifi cnlly finds as follows: ~~ CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION N0. GPA 91-02B, SUBAREA 7 - CITY OF R.C. .7uly 17; 1991 rage 2 (a) Subarea 7 of the application applies to approximately 10.69 ~ acres of land, 6eaically a rectangular configuration, bordered on the north and west by Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by exl8tiny office designated land, and on the south by ease Line Road as shown on Exhibit "A," and is presently vacant. Said properties are currently designated as Medium Residential f,H-14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is designated Low Medium Residential and is vacant. The property to the west is designated Low Medium Residential and is underdeveloped with a single family residence. The orooorrv •., tie a ,, _c _cci y.,aln,: J` ana ae vacant. The property to the south of Base Line Road is designated Medium Residential and ie vacant. (c) Thie amendment does not conf lief with the Land Use Polici ea of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a canner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and (d) This amendment dcea promote the goe.ls and objectives of the Land Use Elements and (e) That the properties located in Subarea 7 of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with exi sting and surrounding land use designations a8 evidenced by the site'6 being bordered on the north and west by the same land use designation; and (f) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts 2 and II of the Initial Study and that the proposed designation would reduce the intensity of future residential Ae ve 7.opment on the subject propertiea~ anfl (g) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan by promoting the retention of Etiwanda's rural atmosphere through reduced residential densities. 3. This council hereby finds that the project has Seen reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Council hereby isaue8 a Negative Geclaration. 4. Hased upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. 91- 02B, Subarea 7, amending the General Plan Land Uae Map from Medium Residential (R-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-H dwelling units par acre) for approximately 10.09 acres of land bordered on the north and west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by existing Office designated land, and on the aeuth by Base Line Road, as shown in Exhibit "A." 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. i ~ / vL L I ! ~ ~ LM ~~~.. VL LM ~: Li Ellr.nd. An. G.e.nl pbn Am.ndrn.nls f/~07B LM ' Ofl. Olf. ~y t h~' tt~ ~+ V ~ LM LM - L.nd Uw U.aipnMion ® MOPCATA:S WAAENiLY OESM:AATED 1'[eDNAI AFSpFNTIAI G-It OIFlLN16 UNRS PEA A E UMDCR COASIDEAATXNI OR REDESICMATIDN TD L01 YEANW AESMENTIAI LM II-1 DIELLAIC UNITS PFA ACNE) 1 ~ Subsro No.. el m. perk I ... LM Gi I '~ ~! ! Co~lim. Subaru 2 .mend.d p.r..l. LM CITY OF R4NCH0 CUCAMONGA ISM' GPA 91-928 PLAS!~'1NG DMSION ~~~ TITLE:G.n.nl Pbn Am.nd. L.calion M.p Ty EaN, lE?'f~ •A• SCALE ORDINANCE NO. i ~~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY pF RANCHO ~ CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, EUBAAEA 5, AHENDING THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LANG USE MAP FAOM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (5-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (d-8 DWELLING UNIT3 PER ACA6) FOR APPROXIMATELY 10.09 ACRE6 OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH AND WEST BY EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL bESIGNATED LAND, ON THE EAST HY EXISTING OFFICE/PROFESSIONAL D851GNATEO LAND, AND ON THE SOUTH HY BASE LINE ROAD, AND MAILING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APNS 227-131-34 THROUGH 36, 52 THROUGH Sa; awn 61. A. Recitals. (i) On July 6, 1983, The City Council of the City of Fancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the Aeguletory Provisions of the Etiwanda Speci £ic Plan through the adoption of. Ordinance No. 203. (ii) on March 16, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 91-03 as deeczibed in the title o£ this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment is referred to ae "the application." (iii) On May 22, and continued to May 29, 1991, the Planning Ccmmiesion of the City of Rancho Cucanonga conducted duly ncciced public hearings on the application and following the conclusion of said public hearings, adopted Resolution No. 91-64 recommending to the City Council that said application be approved and a Negative Declaration be testified. (iv) On July 17, 7991, the City Councii of the City of Rancho Cucamon na .held a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to its adoption of this Ordinance. (v) All legal prerequi sites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance The city Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that ell of the Facts set Forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 7 vr~ CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE N0. ESPA 91-03, SUBAREA 5 - CITY OF R.C. Ju lv 77; 1991 rage 2 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above.-referenced public hearing on July 17, 1991, including written and oral xtaff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby epecifica lly find9 as follows: (a) This amendment does not conflict with the Lard Use Policies of the General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan and will provide For development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related developmenC; and I>,1 TF's ^r.._r. _.-.act ....,.., r, ~woca ri,e goalx ana objectives of the Land Uae Element; end (c) mhat the properties located in Subarea 5 of the applicntion ate suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are compaGlble with existing and surrounding land use deeignatlone as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the north and west by the same land use designationl and (d) That the proposed amendment would not have aignificent impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions li eted in Parts I and II of the Initial Study end that the proposed designation would reduce the intensity of future Yeaidential development on the subject ptopett iea; and (e) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and the Etiwanda Specific Plan by promoting the retention of Etiwanda's rural atmosphere through reduced residential densities. 3. This Council hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and mnci dered i.. compile.-,ce with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1990 and, further, this Council hereby issues a Negative Declaration. 4. Rased upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby approves Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No• 91-03, Subarea 5, amending the Etiwanda Specific plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (e-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 10.09 acres of land bordered on the north and west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by existing Office/Professional designated land, and on the south by Base Line Road, as shown in Exhibit "A1." 5. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shell cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Va liey Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. ~~~ VL I OP ~ ~~ r~ V ,~ L LM LM LM Eliwnetlo 6peaNia plm Alnontlwonb l7.0] poolbill Blrtl. Spoelfle Plan Awontlewla /1.02 LM - Diclrfel Daaipnalian ® PIIOPEATA:S CUAAENTLY OESICXATEA 0RW AESPoENTUL I N AtEILWC UNITS PER ACRE) UMER TONLORIA(T.AI~UN RSpENTIAN~ATI9N (t-A AAEllMl6 UNITS /EA ACAE) 1 - ESpA Suboro Noc, Q ~ FSPA Subno Naa. W LM /~ RIg.R@LCgmmt I-' omm.l .a, r' rTi Comm ~Regitinal ~~Rel~ted m ..~. ........ .,. .., i' sa~~~-y~~'L Wry Iparrl.n CI"I'Y' OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PL.A.1N1tiG DiVIS10'~ C ~ [~/ puwlc ['['gM; ESPA 91-03, FSPA 91-02 TTTLE:Spec'fc plan Amend. Locolion Mop N rry~c ~-r -A 1' c~4t F AS SOLUTT.ON NO. 9/'a/~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAL IPORN IA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ~ 91-02H, WEST PORTION OF SUBAREA H, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND UEE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (B-14 DWELLING UNITS PEA ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING JNITS PSR ACAS) FOR APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY, ON THE EAST BY EAST AVENUE, ON THE SOUTH BY EXIBTING OFFICE DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE WEST BY EXIETING LOW MEDIUM RESIDBNTIAL DESIGNATED LAND - APN: 227-141-14 AND 66) ANO DENIAL OF TH£ SAST PORTION OF SUHAREd S. RA7NRSmiwr TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USH MAP IN THS SAME MANNER AS THE WEST PORTION FOA APPAO%IHATELY 10.34 ACRE6 OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NOATN HY THE SWTHSRN PACIFIC RAILWAY, ON THE EAST AND SOUTH BY THE ONTARIO (I-15) FREEWAY, AND ON THB WEST BY EAST AVENUE - APN: 227-131-05, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. (1) On April 6, 19&1, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the General Plan through the adoption of Resolution No. H1-40. (ii) On Harch 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application fcr Cc :~=-- ?lan Amendment No. 91-D28 as descrlF_d !.. t!:e title of this Resolution. Hereinafter ir. this Resolution, the subject' General Plan Amendment is referred to ae "the application." fiii) On May 27, and _on ti.^.ce3 to Myy ?0 1Oe1 t;;c Plaani ng Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings on the application and following the conclusion of said public hearings, adopted Resolution No. 91-65 recommending to the City Council that said application be approved for the west portion o£ Subarea a and be denied for the east portion of Subarea a and a Negative Declaration be certified. (iv) On .7uly 17, 1991, the City Council of the city of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to its adoption of this Resolution. (v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Reso lotion. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Fancho Cucamonga as follows: 1 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION N0. GPA 91-02B, SUBAREA B - CITY OF R.C. .ri~ly t'I 1491 Page 2 1. This Council 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 Council during the above-referenced public hearing on .TUly 17, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) Subarea R of the application applies to approximately 10.34 acres cf land bordered on the north by the Southern Pacific Railway, on the nwv• ho •hv m..w..tn /r_tS~ c..n n... ~.. ~_ .~_ __...~ ~.. _«:__ __. _.. _.. _.._ ____.. _~ ..,_..._..~ ..__-.... .....-y....,..... land and the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, and on the west by existing Low Medium Residential designated land and divided in a north-south direction by Eest Avenue as shown on Exhibit "A,^ and Se presently underdeveloped with two single family zea ideneee. Said properties are currently designated ae Medium Residential (5-14 dwelling units per acre)1 and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is designated Low Medium Residential and is vacant. The property to the west ie des ignaied freeway and Ss developed with the Ontario (I-15) Freeway. The property to the east is designated Low Medium Residential and is vacant. The property to the south is designated Office and is vacant. (c) This amendment 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, but land use incompatibilities may result on the east portion of Subarea a because the east area is adjacent to significant transportation facilitiesi and (,:, ~fnis amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the ~.... Jsn EleaBra; and (e) That the properties located in tha west portion of Subarea e of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and surrounding land use designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the north and west by the same land use designation and that the properties in the east portion are not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed diatri ct because the triangular site is bordered on three sides by significant transportation facilities; and (f) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrouiding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts 2 and II of the Initial Study and that the proposed designation for the west portion of Subarea a would reduce the intensity of future residential development on the subject properties; and (g) That the propoae8 amendment Ss in conformance with the General Plan by promoting the retention of Etiwanda's rural atmosphere through reduced residential densities. 67 CITY COONCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA 91-02B, SUBAREA B - CTfl'Y OF A.C. July 17, 1991 Pa g° a 3. This Council hereby finds that the project has been reviewed a-d conei dered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, Further, this Council hereby issues a Negative Declaration. 4. Based upon the firdinge and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. 91-02 B, west portion of Subarea e, amending the General Plan Land Use Hap From Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling unite per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-e dwelling unite per acre) for approximately 1C.00 acres of land and denies the lard use change for the seat portion of Subarea e, as shown on Exhibit "A. 5. The Ctty clerk shall certify to the adoption of thi8 Resolution. T~V Imo, y~! tt~ ~~ . V perk lM - lAnd Uw Duipn~tinn ® MOPEAi[S CUAREMILY OESMiMATEO MEORW AES~FAppTppU11L 11-~N OtELl016 COXrtSBEAATgM FONw AEDFS10NAT10N PO LOt IADNAI RESIOEXTIAI (A-1 OtELLMC OMITS PEA ACRF( We 1 Subou No.. i W ~.~ LM C I'I'Y' $YGII~ $ ~m~nd~d proc~b (TEAS: GPA 92•o2B OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAn P~~.~tiI~S CT DIVISIO'r ~O~/ T(TLE;GPmrpl PNn Amend. Locption Map 'N ~ EXHId EP 'A• SCALE. ORU INANCE NO. ~ ~~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CF THE CITY OF RANCHO ~ CUCANONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, WEST PORTION OF SUBAREA 6, AMENDING THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND VSE MAP FROM t~DIVM RESIDENTIAL (8-1A CWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (d-8 DWEhLING UNITS PER RCAF.) FOR APPRO%IMATELY 10.00 ACRES OF LAND BORDBRED ON THE NORTH BY THE SOUTNEPN PACIFIC RAILWAY, ON THE EAST BY EAST AVENGE, ON THE SOUTH BY E%ISTING OFFICE DESIGNATED L*PD, AND ON THE WEST BY -..•~TiNG LOW MED IIIM naarnrnm.", ~'olmnax~au LAND - APN:pV 227-141-id AND 66, AND MAXING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recita Le. (i) On duly 6, 1983, The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the Regulatory Provisions of the Etiwanda Specific Plan through the adoption of Ordinance No. 203. (ii) On March 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucanonga filed an application for Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 91-03 as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordi nonce, the subject Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (iii) On May 22, and continued to May 29, 1991, the Planning Commi ssicn of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings on the application and following the conclusion of said public hearings, adopted Resolution No. 91-60 recommending to the City Council that said application he approved for the west portion of Subarea 6 and a Negative Declaration be certified. fiv) On July 17, 1991, the City Council of the City of Rancho C1~camonga held a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to its adoption of this Ordinance. (v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. or di nonce. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ordains as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically fin de that all of the facto set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. ~~ CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ESPA 91-03, SUBANEA 6 - CITY OF R.C. ..,.lr ., ,591 Page 2', 2. eased upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public heating on July 17, 1991, including vritten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds ae follows: (a) This amendment does not conflict with the Land U9e Yoliciea of the General Plan and of the Etlwanda Specific Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development. (b) This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Uee Element; and (c) Tnat the properties located in the west portion of Subarea 6 of the application are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are compatible with existing and surrounding lend use designations ae evidenced by the. site's being bordered on the north and west by the same land use designation; and (d) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and cone!.ueSona listed in Pazte I and II of the Initial Study and that the proposed deei gnation for the west portion of Subarea 6 would reduce the intensity of future residential development on the subject properties; find (e) That tY.e proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and the Etiwanda Speci £ic Plan by promoting the retention of Etiwanda's rural atmosphere through reduced residential densities. 3. This Council herohy finds that *e project has tiben reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Council hereby issues a Negative Declaration. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby approves Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment Nc. 91-03, went portion of Subarea 6, amending the Etlwanda Specific Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (e-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-e dwelling units per acre) for approximately 10.OC acres of land as shown on Exhibit "A 1." 5. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shell cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, Californian and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. I-I ------, vL ~•~_~ ~-~, L~ ~~. .. LM ~. ~: r' LM WI I EtlW.na• $P•riHn Pbn ~ ~ I ' i Arn•ndw•n1a 91.OJ I +~ f•ptAill elvtl. Sp.m/io Pbn ~' Arn•ndn•nls 91.OZ LM LM LM - Oi•vlet D9N9n•tion ® PROPERTES CUAAENTIY ~ DFS AT[0 AIY TU I{ Dt lLUl6 ~--~ AES FN L 1- f UNITS PEA A RF UNDEA TIO OESI N OP O It-~ A N CMSIDEAATNNI OR AE C i0 LOt YEOMAI RESIDENTIAL (4-1 OtELLAN: UNIi~ PER ACRE) ~ ~ LM 1 ESPA Su9u.• No. ~ , , . W ~ •~'~,' ~ i ~ .FSPA Su9•faa Na•. + ~~"'/7 ' / ~ ~ LM lM Rr9.ae1.C Rsyional 'RelAlAed-64Apm ~~ ~~ Su4•rn~•mma•d wre•Is y 17EM:ESPA 9A-07, FSPA 91-02 CITY OF RA.YCHO CUCAMONGA Ir3'i L.Esc.cnl. p„n Am.na. Locaian M.P PLS.\\14G DMS[Oti EXNBE7 -A r SCALE RE6OLUTION NO. ~/~~/T A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA, CALIFORN SA, DENYING ETI WANDA SPECIFIC PLAN ~ AMENDMENT 97-03, EAST PORTSON OF SUBAREA 6, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (H-14 OWELLI NG UNITS PER ACRE) TO LO•B MEpIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PEA ACRE) FOA APPAO%IMATELY 10.3d ACRfiS OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH HY THE SOOTHEAN PACIFIC RASLWAY, ON THE EAET AND SOUTH BY THS ONTARIO (I-15) FREEWAY, AND ON THE WEST BY EAST AVENUE - APN: 227-131-05, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT A. Pecitals. (1) On July 6, 1983, The City Council of the city of Poncho Cucamonga approved the enactment of the Regulatory Provisions of the Etiwanda Specific Plan through the adoption of Ordinance No. 203. (ii) On March 15, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 91-03 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment ie referred to ae "the application." (iii) On May 22, and continued to Mey 29, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings on the application and following the conclusion of said public hearings, adopted Resolution No. 91-60 recommending to the City Council that said application be denied For the east portion of Subarea 6. (iv) On July 17, 1991, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to its adoption of this Resolution. (v) A11 legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. H. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby Found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Han cho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby gpecifical ly finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Aeao lotion are true and correct. 2. eased upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on .IUly 17, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: ~/3 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION N0. ESPA 91-03, SUBAREA 6, DENIAL - CITY OP R.C. Juiy ii, i99i Page 2 (a) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Uae Policies ~ of the General Plan and of the Etiwenda Specific Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development, but land use incompatibilities may result on the east portion of Subarea 6 because this area is adjacent to significant transportation facilities; and (b) This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Uae Element; and (c) That the properties Sn the east portion of Subarea 6 are not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district because the triangular site is bordered on three eidoa by significant transportation facilities; and (d) Thet the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor on the surrounding properties ae evidenced by the findings and conclualone li etad in Parts I and II of the Initial Study and that the proposed designation for the coat portion of Subarea 6 would reduce the intensity of future residential development on the subject propettleat and (e) That the proposed amendment Se in conformance with the General Plan and the Etiwenda Specific Plen by promoting the retention of Etiwanda's rural atmosphere through reduced residential densities. 3. This Council hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 79?0 and, further, this Council hereby issues a Negative Declaration. 4. Based upon the fin din ge and conclusions eat forth in oars graphs 7, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby denies Etiwenda Specific Plan Amendment No• 97-03, salt portion of Subarea 6, ae shown on Exhibit "A1." 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. ~~~ r-- y~I ticA~/ ~tAEFr ~~ H ~7 F ~~ ~ L ~~, ~ i ~', LM Eliwonda SPOel/ic Pbn Am~ndmonb 11.07 Foothill Blvd. SPocrflc Plon Awondmonb 9/-04 C) P I ~~ ~\+``'S`'~t V LM LM - Dhbicl Doign:!ion ® PROPEATRS CUMfNTIY OESWIAfEO YCOMNI AESAIFXTUI IA-N O~ElLIX6 MITT PEA A RF UXOEA COMSIOERATION M REDETICNATIOX 10 l0A YFDAXI RETU)ENTIAI L 1 OAE IRIC MIT PER A - E E CRE) I LM 1 ~ ESPA Suhooo Nos. -FSPA SuEnnc Noo. i LM ~_ _ _ tl/YT % R-91ond ~~Heb1dA ~~k Subago CI'TE' OF RAA*CHO CUCAMONGA PLA.1V!tiG DMSION ~~~r wreob / - ITEM:ESPA 91-03, FSPA 91.02 Tm-E:SPecilic Pbn Ammd. loc~fion MoP ~ EXH16R 'A t• SCALE (`ITV OF RANCHO CTICAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 17, 1991 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Councll Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Jun Hart, Administrative Services Director BY: Ingrid Blair, G.[.S./Special Districts Supervisor SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-2 (DRAINAGE ANll LAW ENFORCEMENT) Staff recommends that City Council approve the attached Resolution establishing the annual special tax for Community Facilities District No. 88-2 (Drainage and Law Enforcement) L~ the following amounts, which represent no increase from the current tax rate for Fiscal Yeaz 90/91. Special Tax A -Drainage FacWUes Residential Class I (3590+ S.F.) $944 Residential Class II (3077-3589 S.F.) $699 Residential Class III (2564-3076 S.FJ $524 Residential Class IV f2308-2563 S.F.) $420 Residential Class V (2051-2307 S.FJ $349 Residential Class VI (Less than 2051 S.FJ $245 Undeveloped Property $456/acre Special Tax B - Iaw Enforcement Residential Class I (3590 + S.F) ffi113.28 Residential Class II (3077-3587 S. F.) $ 50.65 Residential Class III (2564-3076 S.F.) $ 50.40 Residential Class IV (2308-2563 S.F.) $ 40.32 Residential Class V (2051-2307 S.F.j ffi 33.60 Residential Class VI (Less than 2051 S.FJ $ 23.52 On June 21, 1989, City Council approved the formation of Community Facilities District No. 88-2 for Drainage Capital Facilities and Law Enforcement services and authorized the annual levy of special taxes to finance only the drainage facilities and police operations and maintenance costs. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT C.F.D. 88-2 (DRAINAGE AND LAW ENFORCEMENit July I7, I99i Page 2 The spectal tax being levied annually for the drainage facilities are ht special Tax A -Drainage Facllltlea. These faxes when collected will be used to lower the bond indebtedness when bonds are Issued. 'lhe levy of special taxes annually far the police protection services are Listed m Special Tax B -Law Enforcement These taxes will be used to cover the services provided by the police 1n this area. Staff is not recommending any increase !n the fax rate for Fiscal Xear 1991/92. Staff hae determined that the special Tax rate fn place for 1990/91 is sufficient to meet the financial obligations for Fiscal Year 1991/92, therefore. is recommending no increase. Resc~ s tted. Hart Administrative Services Director JH:IE.ymf Attachments: Resolution C.F.D. 88-2, Exhibtt "A" Map ~~7 RESOLUTIoN No. y/-a/~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-2 (DRAINAGE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT) WHEREAS, the City Councll of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, (hereinafter referred to as the "legislative body of the local Agency"!. hag miuated proceeuic,ga, La:u a y..t:1- :~.:: :g, :~^^t^'' elecUOn and received a favorable vote fmm the qualified electors relating to the levy of a spedal tax In a Community FacWUes District, all as authorized pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, T1Ue 5 of the Government Code for the State of California. This Community Facilities DistHct shall hereinafter be referred to as COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-2 (Drainage and Law Enforcement) (hereinafter referred to as the "District"): and WHEREAS, at this thee, bonds have been authorized for purposes of financing the pro]ect facilities for said District; and WHEREAS, this legislative body, by Ordinance as authorized by Section 53340 of the Gaverrtment Code of the State of Calffornia, has authorized the levy of a special tax to pay for costs and expenses related to said Community Facilities District, and this legislative body Is desiro~rs to establish the specific rate of the special tax to be collected for the next ftscal yeaz. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That Ure above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That the spedftc rate and amount of the spedal tax to be collected to pay for the costs and expenses for the next Fiscal Year 1990/91 for the referenced district is hereby determined and established as set forth in the attached, referenced and Incorporated Exhibit "A". SECTION 3: That the rate as set forth above dues not exceed the amount as previously authorized by Ordinance of this legislative body, and is not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. ~~ CffY COUNCIL RESOLUTION C.F.D. 88-2 (DRAINAGE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT) .;Liy :~ taal Page 2 SECTION 4: That the proceeds of the special tax be used to pay, in whole or In part, the costs of the following, in the Following order of prtority: A Payment of principal of and Interest on any outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness. i3 Necessary replenishment of bond reserve funds or other reserve funds; G Payment of costs and expenses of authorized public faclbties and public seMCea. D. Repayment of advances and loans, if appropriate. The proceeds of the special taxes shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECTION 5: The special tax shall be collected In the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes aze collected, and shall be subJect to the same penalties and same procedure and sale rn cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred to collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies above collected shall be paid Into the Community FaclliUes District funds, including any bond fund and reserve fond. SECTION 7: The Auditor of the County is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll an which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of the special tax, and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Exhibit "A". SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to this Agency a detalled report show+sg the amount and/or amounts of such special talc installments, Interest. penalties and percentages so collected and from what property collected. and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection ~I / ~ of RAtycao «7CAlkM~1GA ~s err",- The Resolutbn establlshhig the annual epeclal tax refere to this NSchlblt for an explanation of the rate arld method of apportlonmerd of the Special 7Uxea for Flantl Year 1991/92. SPDCIIIi. TAZ "A' - DDAINASa6 FACD.1T168 PROPERLY GTiSG0Ii~9 Therw a» Iwn rafronriea of nmTMif_v m,hlwrf fn fhn in,...J' Cronlal miler "~^ whlnh "m IA"..HflM_ a8 fOllOws: V I 1. DEVELOPED Pl10PERTY All property ldentl3ed as a single 7'ax Aesessore's parcel for which properly a bulkWtg penNt has been issued as o[ May Sl of arty year, 2. UNDEVELOPED PROPERLY All other property, excluding property which, ae of the date of the election to aulhorfu fhe levy of Speclal'Igx "A:, is: Il) owned by a public entity; IW owned by a regulated public utlllty and being utilized for trensmisslon or dlstrl6utfon purpoxs; or Iw) mad ae open space. TAKING CI.l1SBIFiCAT1ON8 AND BPI'.A`.41f. TAZ "A" RAT64 The taxing class18calfons for the above Properly Categories and the avthonzed Special Tao "A" rates for FYacal Year 1991/92 arc as follows: 1, DEVELOPED PROPERTY A. Residential Class I $944 per year (Noce than 3,590 square (eet of dwelllng untt ltving area) R. Residential II $699 per year (3,077-3,539 square feet o[ dwelling umt Bvtng area) C. Residential 117 8524 per year (2.564.3.076 square fret of dw-lling unit living area) D. Residential Class IV $420 per year (2.308-2.563 square feet of dwelling unit uw,g area) E. ReaNentlal Class V (2,061-2,307 square feet of dwelling unit Irving area) F. Realdentlal Class VI (lte+r than 2,051 square feet o[ dwelling unit living areal Q Comm~erolal or mdustrlal propeRy 2. CJNDEVEI.OPED PROPERLY All Undeveloped Property 1349 per year 1245 per year ~(.,D.'10 pCr HCrC per year •• • The square footage of dwelling unit living area shall mean the square footage of internal Irving space, exclusM of garages and other structures nol used as IrvI*rg space, ae shown on the bulkling permit(s) Lvsued for the dwelling unit. •• The acreage of a commercial or industrial property shall moan the gross acreage exclusve of arty acreage dedicated or offered for dedication to a public agency. ••" The acreage o[ an Undeveloped Properly shall be the gross acreage exclusive of arty acreage dedicated or offered for dcdtcatbn to a public agency. E~THOD OF APPOR77OP11O^Nl' OF RPLK:IN. TAI ".\' Special Tax "A" shall be levied annualty on all taxable property within one o[ the above Identilred Property Categories so long as Special Tax "A" revenues are necessary to pay authotlzed expenses of the CommuNty Facllltles Distnet related to the financing of authorized public tacWies, which may Include, without llmitatlon, payment oC debt service on any bonded Indebtedness of the CommuNty FacWttes District; replenishment o[ any required reserve fund Cor any such bonded Indebtedness: funding of a~ nquied sinking fund necessary to pay for future pubtk facWtles cr debt sen-uc; or disci payuneni Cor public facWtles ICFD Expenses"). The annual lery o(SpecNal Tax "A" shall be apportbned as follows: STEP 1: The Cornmunlty FacWtiea Dlstrkt shall estlmalc the amount of CFD Expenses which must be paid for from Special Tax "A" menues collated during the Fiscal Yeaz for which the Specta! Tax "A" levy is to be estabashed (the "Requied Special Tax "A" Revenue'7. STEP 2: That equal percentage of the Special Tax "A" rate, not to exceed 91% of the maxhnum authorized Special Tex "A" rate, applicable to all Developed Property Taxing Classdicatlona necessary to generate 5paial Tax "A" revenue >n the Fiscal Yeaz of the lery equal to the Required Special Tax "A" Revenue for such Fiscal Yeaz shall be levied on all Devebpcd Property. STEP 3: If additional Special Tax "A" revenues are still necessary to generate the Requied Spetlal Tax "A" Revenue, that percentage of the mardmum authorized Special Tax "A" rate eppllcable to all Undeveloped Property necessary to generate such additional Special Tax "A" revenue shall be levied on all Undeveloped Property. STEP 4: U addltlanal Special Ta: 'A" revenues are st91 necessary to generate the Required Special Tax "A" Revenue, that equal ptrc~ntage of the mazWUm authorized Special Tez "A" rate appbcable to all Developed Property Taztng ChrasdlcaUons necessary to generate such addtltonal Special Tax "A" revenue shall lx levied on aR Developed Property. STEP 5: U addltiona] $peclal Tax "A" revenues are still nettssary to generate the Required Special Tax "A" Revenue, the Community FacWtlea DistrlCK shag: A. Compare {0 the 3pcefal Taz "A" rate which would la` levied oa each Developed Property combining STEP 2 and 3TEP 4 above with (W the product resulting from mulUplytag the square footage of the Developed Property tnnes the Base btarlmum Spechd'l~c "A". The Beae Mazmrum Spxlal Tax A" means an amount equal to SO.o54 per square foot o(the lot or parcel B. U the praluM described th IW above eztteda the Special 1Uz A" rate deecrtbtd m (1) above tar a~ Deveoped Property, the Community FacSlUee District shall increase the Special Tex i-" rate levied on each such Devebped Property m equal peramages up to the rate not to emceed the product described m (W above necessary W generate the addttiorral Special Ta: "A" revenues to equal the Required Special Tax "A" Revenues. BPSCW. TAE "B" - LAW HIUrOACBaBM' Ali Developed Properly shall be aubJeM to the levy of Special Tax "B". Lfie authorised SperJal Tax'B" rates for Parcel Yeaz 1991-1992 are ae follows: ~x1ng C!assdicaUOn TeX-Batt. 1. DEVELOPED PROPERLY A. Residential Class 1 $113.26 per year (More than 3,590 square feet of dwelling unit lrvtng area) B. Resldtntfal Class II 850.65 per year (3,077-3,559 square feet of dweibng unit Itving area} C. Residential Gass R[ 850.40 per year (2,564-3,076 square (cet of dwelling unit avurg area) D, Residental CLras N 840.32 per year (2,308.2,563 square tcet of dwelling unit living area) E. Reafdentud Class V 833.60 per year (2,051-2.307 square feet of dweLmg unit living area) F. Residential Class VI 823.52 per year (less than 2,051 square feet of dwc(llng unit (Wing arcs) G Commercial or industrial property 51,000 per a¢e per year •• SFi F.ET t OP 1 PROPOSED BOUNDARIES !JF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT N0. 88-2 OF TIIE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 'i. :. 6065 S N6P55'}f[-~~~'~38J ~~ 335.3E ' n!9'S5'}6L ~~= 96 >6 -_._sR I° br' 1 330 I' - ... y.- -~ ~ .'. .. M~ w ~/~6 C09, S[f. ~ u ~ ~ / 33 I• R6w~ S@6Y LE I'N6 RCOR, S[C. ' 1/ 33 I 6W. 5@@u ~^, a1~ _ g^.~ ,~ ,y,~, el ~ ~~> ~ g r o i R 6LC. 1, r )36,19 w. 1K _ _ _ _ :_ w ~/'EI iOP, SEC. ' 3 ~w _1 ail SCALE 1- v 600' I S. 1 _ ~[cEno„- - - 1 awoo=. i S93 ' Iv/ • S9 L Sy E, ' '. n I YI, ONAIO.MO fgNIY RCgIX! .,.....~, .~.. ,. wf a`s`.-.: yd`~":''7 M~a~;. :a:.'~"`h-ui'..::.. .. ~-~.. %9-a3y3G9 R[EO neo~esT a _ '~/ 063 a~Y.:P I~r9_ _ ,m. AT _11:56 u r n 1 .. -.u. a.. s.[ n[ .c.E i . ... n.. w, v. r.. eCOK~~ PAGE-JZ .~,-. a, n.}=. = 4, .a.v , .., rave.. of A.... Min SNr WlWlgO 4@YIIY IPA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF $.EFC~~,T DATE: July 17, 1991 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Councll Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Jim Hart, Administrative Services Director BY: Inmid Rlair r. t A /Cna~ml r11cM..~o c....e..a....~ SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL SPECIAL. TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 84-1 (DAY CREEK DRAINAGE SYSTEM) IN THE AMOUNT OF $350.00 PER ACRE Staff recommends that City Council maintain the current special tax of $350.00 per acre by approving the attached Resolution establishing the annual special tax for Community Faellitles Dls[rlct No. 84-1 (Day Creek Drainage System) in the amount of $350.00 per acre. HACHGROUND/ANALYSIS [n 1984 an election was held and the property owners within the boundazies of Community Facilities District No. 84-1 (Day Creek Drainage System) authorized the district to Incur bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $20,225,000. Bonds were issued >n August of 1985 m the amount of $18,000,000 to Hnance flte construction of the Day Creek Channel. [n 1986 the azea bounded on the west by Milliken Avenue, on the north b~~ the northerly City llmlts, on the east by Rochester Avenue and on the south by Hfghland Avenue was annexed into the district. Construction began on Phase I during fiscal yeaz 1987/88. Phase [I construction Is currently being completed, The maximum rate for the special tax was se[ at $550.00 per acre when the district was formed. However, since 1985/86 the rate has remained at $350.00 per acre with additional funding being contributed by the Redevelopment Agency. CITY COliNCIL STAFF REPORT APPROVAL. T'() SET aiyNUP1: ~PECLA? T9SL FUP. C F.D. 52-1 July 17, 1891 Page 2 The curtent rate of $350.00 per acre continues to be sufficient for the District to meet its financial ob9gattona for F7sca1 Yeaz 1991 /92. Respectfully s/~u/b~m~itte~d, ~~~~~i Jim Hart Adminlatrativo GrWran TNrnnMr JH:IB:Jmf Attachments: Resolution Yearly Status Report Map ~}5 RESOLUTION NO. (a/ ~ ~ ~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 84-1 (DAY CREEK DRAINAGE SYSTEM) WHEREAS, the City Council of the Ctty of Rancho Cucamonga, California. (hereinafter referred to as the "legislative body of the local Agency"), has 1ntUated proceedings, held a public hearing, conducted an election and received a favorable vote from the qualified electors relating to the levy of a special tax !n a Community Facilities Diatr-ct, all as authorized DUr6Uant t0 fbe trrma anA n.n.d c~....o s ~~.., ~nr_n_ Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, TIUe~5 of~the Government Code for the State of California. Th1s Communiy FaclUUes District shall hereinafter be refcrred to ae COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 84-1 [DAY CREEK DRAINAGE SYSTT:M) (hereinafter referred to as the "District"); and WHEREAS, at th/s Ume, bonds have been authorized for purposes of financing the project faclliUes for said District; and WHEREAS, this legislative body, by Ordinance as authorized by Section 53340 of the Government Code of the State of California, has authorized the levy of a special tax to pay for costs and expenses related to said Community Facilities District, and this legislative body is desirous to establish the specific rate of the special tax to be collected for the next fiscal year. NOW ~~ HEREFORE, fl IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SEC77ON 1: That the above recitals aze all true and correct. SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of the special tax to be collected to pay for the costs and expenses for the next fiscal yeaz 199192 for the referenced district is hereby determined and established as se4 forth In the attached, referenced and Incorporated Exhibit "A", SECTION 3: That the rate as set forth above does not exceed the amount as previously authorized by Ordinance of this legislative body, and is not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SECTION 4: That the proceeds of the special tax shall be used to pay, in whole or 1n part, the costs of the following, in the following order of priority: A Payment of principal of and Interest on any outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness; ~{~'rP Cl'IY COUNCIL RESOLUTION COMMUNITY FACIi.I'MEC I3ISTp!CT S9 1 3uiy ii, i99i Page 2 6 Necessary replenishment of bond reserve funds or other reserve funds; C Payment of costs and expenses of authorized public fac1ltUes and public services. D. Repayment of advances and loans, 1f appropriate. The Dmeeeria of rh._ e..e".~..r .....~_ _.._.. ~_ . shall not be used for an other "'~"~' "` "°"' m xi iorrn above, and Y PurPose• SFf"L?ON ~: The special tax shall be collected to the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale to cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector to hereby authorized to deduct reasonable admintatrative costa Incurred In collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies above collected shall be paid Into the Community FacUfUes District funds, including any bond fund and reserve fund. SECTION is The Auditor of the County Is hereby directed to enter In the neM county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or pazcel of land effected rn a space marked "public Improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable destgnaUon, the installment of the special tax, and for the exact rate and amount o: said tax. reference is made to the attached Exhibit "A". SE-~'I?ON 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to this Agency a deta[led report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such colecton. 107 CnY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COiotMUNR7' FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 84-i (DAY CREEK DRAINAGE SYSTEM) EXHIBIT "A" The CommuNty FacWtlea District has been divided Into two zones: 1, ZONE "A": General areas to be served by the drainage facllitles, exclusive of Zone "B". 2. ZONE "B": A limited azea, befog only partially served by drainage facllitlea. Zone "B": rnrislats of those properties hounded nn fhn an..1{" ti~ ~;~~' ~i.u rtuw utl If1C L'aS[ by ROCHESTER AVENUE, on~the North by BASEIlNE ROAD, and on the West by MII.LIKEN AVENUE. The rate, method said formula for the levy of the special tax for the respective zones, being Zone A" and woe "B", is as follows, based upon an estimated bond amount of $18,000.000 payable over a period of twenty (20) years. ZONE "A": $350.00 PER ACRE. ZONE "B": $350.00 FER ACRE FOR 190 ACRES. For the purpose of defining the maximum special Tax, "ACRE" shall mean acres contained h1 the area of the parcel as determined using the acres as shown on the latest San Bernardino County Assessor's maps. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIE8 DISTRICT NO. 84-1 DAY CREES DRAINAGE 3Y8TEM YEARLY $TATUB REPORT JULY 1991 On June 26, 1984, the electors within the boundaries of Community Facilltles District No. 84-1 (Day Creek Drainage System) authorized the District to incur bonded indebtedness In the principal amount of $20,225,000. In August 1985 bonds m the amount of $18,000,000 were issued to finance the constructon and lnatallatlon of public capital drainage tactli+r±es *_o serve and provide drainage protection to all properties located within the boundaries of Communty Fadlltles District No. 84-1 (Day Creek Draina¢e Svsteml. In March of 198fi the area Ffnnndrd nn the afar h., MIDtken Avenue, on the north by the northerly Ctty limits, on the east by Rochester Avenue and on the south by Highland Avenue was annexed into the district. The first annual special tax rate of $350 per acre was set by City Coundl In Fiscal Year 1985/86. '!tile rate has never been increased In the ensuing fscal yeazs. Under the Loan and Pledge Agreement the Redevelopment Agency contributes sufficient funds each flees] year, that when combined with the special tax meet the requirements of the annual debt service payment. During fscal year 1987/88 construction of Phase [Improvement began and was completed in 1988/89. Construction of Phase IfA began shortly thereafter and that was completed 1n Fiscal Year 1989/90. The construction contractts adnumstered by the Connty of San Bernardino. Construction contract payments to date total $22,000,000. FISCAL YN.AR (991/92 The current rate of $350.00 per acre for fiscal year 1991/92 along with the Redevelopment Agency contribution of $845.248 will provide sufficient funding to pay debt service in the amount of $2,032,290. COlO[UNi1'Y FACII11`ISB DffiTRICT FROF08ED USEI9 AND 8OU&CES OF FUNDS UgEB: DEBT SERVICE $2,032,290 ADMINISTRATION w itf,eW uELINQUENT ASSESSMENTS $~ 33.573 $2,084,263 INTEREST REVENUE $ 47,654 SPECIAL TAX $1,191, 361 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~ 845,248 $2,084.263 $350 PER ACRE b~l~\~ pYYl11 IOYYUIII ® IICLYNI MN IlY YblOWllOb Nell nal Poor Quality -r-,n. 1 3 lWl I•.1~ ~~ ivo +'illas+or ravair per r av air r rr~»'a cxulrri rn~e.. ~ aY r v / ,~IIII •si _d l.I(/.N'N M 4[IO.FA~4 C/.~Y i.111YM%C/lY 6'AL C/M1 M 1fMMb LYdMY~YY rF00 M' ~ ~ ryV ANY /M/Al/l rfW CVI r.fMC%W Cf/GIAWMI /.Mf~AIYY u.. , ,,,~ 7j~i~'1 °.II~IIiJ-- C 1Y /~Ml'Mli! cnr r a+wr anr.«rvF Shy.. ...S~i t/!/.f/M O K4~f~l. ~.M - c // avM' N.~/4/Y CtK! N r ~W ~ / 4N f1MN M C/lv /µryyt /G/ry <[lrff C//Y G' .CAN/A/O m[YMYW V EXHIBIT A YELLO ROOt COY cm COINITY Of {AN OF cILIFORNI~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF` RE~'ORT DATE: July 17, 1991 T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager ~i ~. ;, FROM: Joe Schultz, CLP, Community Services Director SUBJECT: ORDINANCE PROHIBITING 6KATEBOARD RAMPS, HALF PIPES AND OTHER SIMILAR PHYSICAL STRUCTURES ON POSTED PUBLIC PROPERTY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AMENDING CHAPTER 10.68 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 10.68.055 PROHIBITING THE PLACEMENT OF "SKATEBOARD RAMPS," "HALL PIPES" AND SIMILAR PHYSICAL STRUCTURES FOR USE IN SKATEBOARDING Z.ND SKATING, ON POSTED PUBLIC PROPERTY, AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF. CRGR_OUND The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code prohibits skateboarding on posted public property where it ie deemed unsafe for the activity to occur. Currently, skateboarding is allowed in all city parks; however, many skateboarders are bringing ramps into the park that measure approximately three (3) feet in height. ANALYSIS C.M.I.A., our insurance carrier, does not deem 3' ramps a "low-hazard" activity related to skateboarding. The ordinance above would give the city police powers to have the ramps removed from public property after we post signage declaring skateboard ramps are prohibited. CITV POnyrlr, MEETIiv'G ORDINRNCE PROHIBITING SKATEBOARD RAMPS, ETC. July 17, 1991 Page 2 SDIMARY Currently, staff is working on direction you gave on April 17, 1991. You had asked that the Park and Recreation Commission and staff report back to Council. There has been a delay due to C.M.I.A. not conducting their skateboard symposium and issuing insurable criteria. However, as soon as C.M.I.A. meets, staff will proceed to accomplish the following i*ame• o That standards be studied and reviewed by C.M.I.A., Experts in the field and local skateboard enthusiasts for "low-hazard^ designs that would be acceptable to all concerns. o That sa £ety guidelines, rules, standards and aupervis+': en issues 6e explored fast are acceptable to C.M.LA. and the City of Rancho Cucamonga and its commissions. o That staff research costa and budgets and prioritize this activity with other park development items that era currently in the planning/design/priority list. o That a "citizens task force" be formed that would include Community Services staff, Park and Recreation Commission members, Public Safety Commission members, the general public and skateboard participants for the purpose of studying the above issues and be responsible to bring back findings and recommendations for consideration. Staff anticipates advertising for the citizens task force as soon as informative guidelines have been researched and prepared. Respectfu].~.y submitted, I 1~-„ 1 Jo S ultz, C P Community Se a Director JS/kla Attachment ~3~ ORDINANCB NO. AN ORDINANCB OF 4'HB CITY CODNCIL OF THB CITY OF RANCHO CDCANONGA AMffi7DING CHAPTER 10.68 OF THE RANCNO CDCANONGA NONICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NSN SSCFION 10.65.055 PAOffiBITIliG TH8 PLACEIDINNT' OF wSIUTEBOARD RANPS,w nHALF PIPES" nriu auiiuut YnIJ1l:AL D1'lOJl: i'ulOt~ FOR USE IN SKATEBOARDING AND SKATING, ON POSTED PUBLIC PROPBATY, AND DBCLARING TH6 DRGffiICY THHRHOF. TH8 CITY CODNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO COCAMONGA GOES HBREBY ORDAIIi AS FOLLOWS: SECTION ~: A new Section 10.68.055 is hereby added to Chapter 10.68 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Cofle to read, in words and figures, as follows: "10.68.055 It is unlawful for any person to place any 'skateboard ramp,' 'half pipe' and/or similar physical structure upon which skateboarding and/or skating is conducted, or which is used in conjunction with skateboarding and/or skating, upon any public property where notice of such prohibition has bean posted." SECTION 2: Based upon the fact that the activities specified in Section 1 above are now occurring and creating risks and liability exposure to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the city Council hereby finds and declares that in order to preserve and promote the public health, safety and welfare, it 1.s necessary to adopt this ordinance as an urgency measure which shall take effect immediately upon adoption. SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause tha same to ba published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in he Daily Bulletin, a newspaper o£ general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. ~/",J-J CITY{OF~7R~AyNCaH,O,t7C~UpC~AttM~O7NGA DATE: July 12, 1991 T0: Mayor and Members of the Ciiy Council Jack Lam, AICP, C1ty Manager FROM; Debra J. Adams, CMC, C1ty Clerk y'~~Ikl\w\J,~Je.'^',~'W~~/, SU8J6CT; I,LM1 p8C11Pe 101IMx61W7C6 ~I BTRICl 7 \ Tha draft report for this item hea not been reviewed by the Public Worka Subcommittee to be included in your agenda packet. Once the subcommittee has reviewed the report, it will he delivered to you prior to the Council meeting Of July 17. Thank you for your cooperation. /dj a J - ------ C[TY rO~F~tRyA~NCHU CCCAMONGA Date: July 17, 1991 ~~,(~ (('(lT~-,~ To: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, Ciry Manager From: Rick Gomez, Community Development Director By: Wm. Jue O'Neil, City Engineer Subject: CONCB)ERATION TO ADOPT A FCO 1TTON APPROVIN ~ THE MOD D N R'c R PORT A FOR ANMtA . L VY OF AN ACS CS .Mf WI1H N .wrv ~l_AY ~ w wLLV ~ w' ~ '~ NO 7 (ETPNANDA NORTHI FOR F[S . 7. .AR 1991N2 ~' It is recottunended that the City Council adopt the resoludon approving the Modified Engineer's Report for the annual levy of an assessment within Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 for fiscal yeaz 1991/92 On July 3, 1991, the Ciry Council approved by Resolution the annual Engineer s Report and the annual levy of assessments within Landscape Maintenance Districts (LMD's) Nos. i, Z, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. In addition the Ciry Council directed staff to further review the proposed $400.54 assessment rate for LMD 7. Because of the substantial increase within this district the possibility that sorrc of the projected areas in the Engineer s Report could in fact be phased until after June 30, 1992, thus the projected maintenance costs [o the district could be lowered thereby resulting in a lower assessment rate. Since that initial projection of LMD 7 staff feels that some phases of the Brentwood developt[unt located north of 24th Street, and Watt development located west of Edwantia Avenue and north of Highland Avenue can be assumed for maintenance after June 30, 1992. This decision was made after further review of the economic conditions and discussion with the parries involved. It was determined that construction of those phases of the Brentwood project woWd not proceed at the rate staff originally projected and activity on the Watt development has not prcgressed as cazlier anticipated. The amount of 43~ ~ CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0.7 3u1V 17, ii9! Pagc 2 maintained area which these developments were contributing to the district (4.46 acres) was removed fmm the Engineers Report along with their accompanying trtaintenance costs. This reduced the maintained area down from 14.36 acres to 9.90 acres. This reducdon in maintenance costs has resulted in a recommended reduction in the assessment rate frrnn $400.54 m $305.43 per assessment unit. The possibility still exists howevtr that these areas could come on line in 1991N2. If that were to occur then the district would bt forced to maintain those auras for the remainder of the year from revenue collected based on the reduced assessmnt rna. Since no Getters! Fund moray is available to support the district service levels would be cut in order to provide continued maintenance. For Fiscal Year 1991!93 we andcipa[e the assessment rate will rehtm [o at 15,;,.c the 54001evel. ~3~b RG/WJO/ws Attactsncr,U 1. 1, ~% RESOLUTION NO. "~ I ' d,i ~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN [.ANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 AND FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1991/92 PURSUANT' TO THE LANDSCAPE AND IdGIiTING ACT OF 1972 IN CONNECTION WITH LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 urt]PDCAC H,n lYh. l~n..nn/7 nP /ha iMfv of Aonnhn !`nnomnnas .hd n .._____. ___ ___~ _______ __ __.. ___~ __ _.__._.._ ....__ o_. ..._ _^. the 5th day of June, 1991, adopt its Resolution of intention No. 91-149 to order the therein described work 1n connection with Landscape Maintenance District Nos. I, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 which Resolution of Intention No. 91-149 was duly and legally published 1n the time, form and manner as required by law, shown by the affidavit of Publication of said Resolution of Intention on fde in the office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, said City Council having duly received and considered evidence, oral and documentary, concerning the Juriadlcfion facts 1n tills proceeding and concerning the necessity for the contemplated work and the benefits to be derived therefrom and said City Council having now acquired Jurisdiction to order the proposed work. SECTION 1: It is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga that the public interest and convenience requires the levy and collection of assessments wlUUn landscape Maintenance District No. 7 fnr the Fiscal Year 1991/92. and said Ctty CouncU hereby orders that the work, as set forth and described fn the report of the City Engineer as modified by this City Council ("Modified Engineer's Report"1 be done and made; and SECTION 2: Be it further resolved that the Modified Engineer's Report is hereby finally approved; and SECTION 3: Be it finally resolved that the assessments for Fiscal Year 1990/91 and method of assessment N the Modified Engineer's Report aze hereby approved, confirmed and levied. q~c~~ ,9 ,;~ Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 Projected Maintenance Dates and Areas Annexed Tracts 1?h~ 13565 1,2,3,4 i3566 lla/U 13565 1,2,3,4 13565 1,2,3,4 13566 I,3 Areas To Be Maintained in 9ll92 Estimated Ground take-over Cover Turf Trails Total CIS IAGLC51 (acresl IaLTecl (acted Sep-91 1.73 1.27 0.75 Sep-91 0.88 0.10 0.04 San-v~ Jan-92 i.o9 0.67 0.84 v.i> Jun-92 0.58 Jun-92 0.40 0.55 Annexed Tracts in which maintenance will commence in latter years Estimated Ground Annexed take-over Cover TrAGIS phase ~ S84~SI Brentwood 13565 5,6,7,8,9,10 Jul-92 0.96 Watt 13812 Sep-92 0.69 12462 Nov-92 12870 Nov-92 12659 Jan-93 1.00 13566 2,4 ]un-93 1.26 12462 Jul-93 ~3~~. Turf Trails Iacresl (acresl Total from above 2.34 0.34 0.13 0.13 0.68 0.34 0.99 0.15 Running Total (acres) 9.90 13.54 14.36 14.50 15.18 16.52 18.78 18.93 Or1~ ~a, Foar G.,~aC;tY .~^' .. ~~ ^• s O N r O ~ v ~ M ~) ~ ~ Z W ~ ~ ~ ~ U1 v n N ~ w ~ N p ~ 6 N H p P M P O < C U ~ C C 0 0 c c i i 0 0 m m \\ W ZW W y W O <l 4 y y n~ w1 1 < O N( Q 2 `Q p 2 Y U ^~-r+ H J F y ~:::..f ~... ... .....i 0 N Ol Z ~ p O ~ ` ' \ \ O C ~.. p F V } ' C s ' fl W 3 S I^ .X%' N ~ i pp Z < ~ I • i h f <1 3 ~ ~ ¢ i f N ~ J up Pr N ~ 3A~ ~pN MI 3 ' t N • ~ {~~. a ~® ~N/• ~0 i 4 1y l ~Q f 1 ~3~p~ C~£~j cif' ,' ° a~c~o C~c~~~~ga Modified Annual Engineer's Report Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 (Etiwanda North) Fiscal Year 91/82 Approve gitl~ William J. ell. City Engineer da of Ratnrbo coomoap nmau >. aepoet Lndarape ELdnlenana IHstrlot No. 7 (Ellw~nda North) Fbcd Year 91/91 The 91/92 annual report for Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 (Ettwanda North) 1s prepared in compliance with the requhements ofAriicle 4, Chapter 1, Dtvtsfon 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). .....,.ia.apc iviauuenance uistrle[ X7 ILMD A71 represents landscaped sites throughout Ethvanda Highlands. These site are associated with ateas within that community and as such any benefit derived fmm the ]andsrape lnatallatlon can tx directly attributed to those parcels within that community. Fleeause of this, assessments required for this dlstnct are charged to those paroeLS within that planned community. As the Etlwanda Highlands devebp, more parcels will be annexed into the district. The sites maintained by the district consists otground cover and shrubs, turf and equestrian trolls. 91/92 will be the first yeaz in which the district will atalntaln the landscaping. The quantities of maintained areas consist of: Ground Cover and Shrubs Turf Equestrian Trails Total 6/30!91 Protected fL34LJ2 N/A 6.16 Acres N/A 2.21 19 N/A 9.90 " The ground cover and shrubs arc maintained under contract. Capital Improvements within LMD fl7 were paid by, and constructed in conJuneuon with, development by the F,fiwand2 H~eh?a^: ±s. The majority of the budgeted costs for LMD #7 are for dtrect maintenance of Ground cover and shrubs. These functions are provided through a Contract Services Agreement the Cify has with a private ]andscape maintenance company. The proJeoted costs to operate and matrdain LMD M7 are as follows: 91/92 Regular Payroll $3,750 Fringe Benefits $1,250 Maintenance and Operations $25,417 Equipment Maintenance and $1,334 Operations Contingeney -'free Replacement $14,000 Contract Sexviees • Landscape Maintenance $122,554 • Tree Maintenance $18,400 • Hacldlow Testing 6260 • Mfac. (elec.. Plumbing, etc.) 65,020 Capital Facpendltures - ProJecta 90/91 freeze/wind damage • 'flee, shrub & ground corer $0 replacement • Moisture sensor and 610,000 controller/enclosure installations Capital F7cpendltures - Equipment $0 Capital FScpendltures - Vehicles 60 Water 621.251 Gleclrlc 6737 c..w~.,a,.,. ~~r Add: Assessment Administration/Overhead 621,461 Total '~5~' I,e55: Interest and Penalties ffi10.557 Assessment Revenue Required $2.44,676 PmJected costs have been reduced by the elunlnatlon of the replacement of weather damaged trees, shrubs and ground corer. Whde Moisture Sensors wdl be installed at the dweloper's expense, a budge[ t[em of $10,000 has been added to cover possible modifications beyond the dweloper's responslbllity, Moisture Sensors are expected to decrease water usage. Most damage wlll be replaced at [he developer's expense. The budgeted amount for water 1s 621,251.. No vehicle or equipment pumhases are budgeted for to 91 /92. Air glvels• In 90/91, the Assessment Rate for [MD N7 was $75.00/AU. The increase to $305.43/AU. Is atMbutable to increased water costs of$7,455 and Contract Services of $123,714 over that of 90/91. IR 91/92 Aosewmmt ILte: The fallowing itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit Not Hale Unlt AdJusted n Sty 'Noe nit $/Unit Factor Fatc ev n," Single Family Parcels 769 $.405.43 1.0 6305.43 $~ 672 Total Rwrnue $234,876 landscape Malntenanet Dfalrlet No. 7 Rlvlew of Fiscal Yter 1991 /92 DuHng Flscal Year 199U/91, the foilowing heels have been annexed Into this dlsMct: ANNEXED TRACT ~ 16. 1990 13565 30 AU. ANNEXED ~ 16. 1990 TRACT N 13565-5 990 6 36 AU. p:XF.D AN TRACT XF Mav 1 . 1 13665$ 1990 6 36 AU. ~]~~ D TRACT . ~ 1 13565-7 44 AU. ANNEXED M~Le.lsso TRACT 13665-8 16 1990 93 AU. ALVN.~4 TRACT XF . Mav 13565.9 h 19 1990 40 AU. .D 0CINF TRACC Syp[mi er . 13612 153 AU. nritrino~ Pnnr (1„-..CM.. v~~r'.u ~u~ ~ vv ~uuuty i'i 1, ,.~- i GiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~.- _- a• ASSESSME!!T DIAGRAM COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDIN STATE OF CALIFORNIA _ s r vrt:n~n~ ruuL vu.. ~..r virb.. ..,.. __. .. - ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 ~~ piTV MAWUklED LANDSCAPE ARE4 ~ TgEE MAWTENANCE •~~~• EDVESTRAW TRAA MAWTENANCE l ~! _I ' r TRACT 13565 PHASE 5 o" ""':pT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONC?. L'L~`' ~/ ~~.' 'EXHIBIT A' i:; -1~? 6 is vl i' ern Y ,~1',`.y cY;r n:.l f'GGC ~ ASSESSMENT DIAGRAIvI LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTflIGT ND 7 ~~~'~ CRY NAMAfGU 1A1ID5GPE AflFA _~ ...,.. E°°FSTNAN rnAL WMFNN+CF TRACT 13505 PHASE 6 ~o ""0~~ CTTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~: ~~.a'F'.'i :~ ~ ~ ~_ ;r ~~ un T~t~~; A 'EXNi81T A" N\\ , ASSESSMENT f~IAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 9 \ "'' ~C \`1/ ZF/ ~. , 9~ F ~~~~ CITY MAWTAINED LANDSCAPE AgEA THEE MAWTENANCE •~e~~• EDUESTRAIN TRAIL MAINTENANCE G TRACT 13505 PHASE 7 o" ""0:~, CITY OF P,ANCHO CUCAhiODIGA ~~ `c, ~} jam` ~i ~~'~ :n ii ~t ~ iY un w title; 'EXHIBIT A• ~T - ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 ji t I' ~~,o~` ""O:~b, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA title; ~, 77 ~ ~,~ ~ 'EXHIBIT A' `c' 4JX ~^•~ •_ ~, ;r N I= V! IY un ASSESSMENT DIAunAIJI LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CISTFICT NO 7 // / ~ ! s7 ~ .~ 7 ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ n zE ~ zm s \ ~. JO -' V .. ~ / ~~ ,~ ~z m zi „ ~O~`' """" ~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCALi0N0A ~'• f i \y i j ~~ i tm zc ~ iJ ,i~ ~ ~` 18 H l 6 gq,, rs C ~ ~• '` /U ~ ~: n ~ 5 1 ~~° `\ , ~~~~ QiV MAINTAPlED LAlIDSCAPE AflEA ....~ Ti1FE MAWTENANCE ...... EOUFSfww T1A1 MAWIENANCE TRACT 13505 PHASE 9 ~~cle; A 'EXHIBIT A' N ~,~, -„- AS3ESSMENT DIA6RA~ STREET LLlGiiTNG PEPE IYI~NEE Di8TAICT Nd. 7 1 ~ DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 7 W1~I.~4 YY~-N ~~Y ~.MrimN~Y w.[~~: .N `~ r W..e.~ ~u~.~I e Chi .V,w r NN\~s~w.NRY[N. ••~ •Yy~ ~+_ ~Nw..v uYN ~ ~I ''. ~~ . ~~ 3 !, ~ :i ~ I~-' a ' I i. '~--. .. ::~ al ._........ ~ 6 t ;~ e x ~ it • s s a i ~ i. ;i '.i ii 'yi I i I i _~ ~~ .. wn~ 1 ~DJI_~ 0 sK~ ti.(~ N.,~ ."{ 1 ~1I n e~ n d~i •. {j ^p~ 1~` i~! : ^yy~ .i I. i CCI ~, ' i~ it 0 f3 ,~ i P ~' a3~ !, Wi .. K.~...:w„~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO n i STATE ®F CALIFORNIA TR f~_ v LnynSrnor yn plic un uCr ,9ISiRICT MAINTENANCE SPECIFICATIONS THE SERVICE LEVEL fOR TURF MAINTENANCE 1S: 1. The Contractor shall mow all turf areas once per week during the period of March 1 to November 1; and not less than biweekly during the period of November 2 to February 29. 2. The Contractor shall edge all turf grass borders concurrently with each mowing. 3. The Contractor shall fertilize all turf areas in accordance with Schedule [I-A. 4. The Contractor shall mechanically aerate all turf areas both in tl~e spring and the fall of each year and more often as required to reduce compaction and stress. 5. The Contractor shall mechanically de tha tcli all turf areas once per year. This operation should be scheduled immediately prior to over seeding for those areas that are to be over seeded. 6. The Contractor shall on an annual basis over seed all areas that do not have a high quality stand of turn. 7. Concurrently with each mowing, the Contractor shall mechanically "bowl" around all irrigation heads that are blocked by grass between moorings. 8. The Contractor shall on a weekly basis remove any trash or debris that accumulates on the turf. T11E SCRVICE LEVEL FOR PEST CONTROL iS: Complete and continuous control and/or eradication of all plant pests and weeds. THE SERVICE LEVEL FOR GROUND COVER MAINTENANCE IS: 1. The Contractor shall trim ground cover adjacent to any hardscape, structure, fixture, plant, or other area in which it would not encroach such that a neatly trimmed appearance is consistently maintained. 2. The Contractor shall on a weekly basis clean any accumulated debris or trash from all ground rover areas. 3. The Contractor shall fertilize all ground cover areas every ninety days with 6-6-6 or approved equal. 4. The Contractor shall annually, at the direction of the f.i ty Engi Weer, mow, ^tf:2r::l sc lower, ai i nYarg rbwn around iGre"r w .. !:c!g!;t of fhrno inches. 5. The ConLrac for shall mechanically "bowl" around all irriga t9 on heads that are blocked 6y ground cover. THE SERVICE LEVEL FOR SHRUB MAINTENANCE IS: 1. the Contractor shall selectively prune all shrubs whenever required such that each shrub grows vigorously and healthily in its natural form without encroaching upon any adjacent area, improved street or sidewalk, or otherwise becomes a public hazard. 2. The Contractor shall fertilize all shrubs every ninety days using 6-6-6 W1 th trace el elnegl,0 u, ayy~Jri.', 2yG3',. THE S`cRYICE LEVEL FOR VINE MAINTENANCE IS: 1. The Contractor shall trim vines once per year in September. 2. The Contractor shall re-attach to a wall or fence once per year in September vines that fall off the wall by using the attachments required on the construe tf on plans for Lhe site. 3. The Contractor shall annually, in September, remove all vines that grow into undesirable places such as trees or shrubs. 4. The Contractor shall fertilize all vines every 180 days with 6-6-6 or approved equal. THE SERVICE LEVEL FOR TREE MAINTENANCE IS: 1. The Contractor shalt trim to a height o' fifteen feet above y,~a de, trees on the work sites to maintain them in a safe condition including vehicle, pedestrian and equestrian clearance and free of dead, diseased and dying wood and "hangers" or other public hazards. Any hazard above that height will be reported to the City Engineer. 2. The Contractor shall "tip-back" young trees whenever they encroach upon adjacent vehicular, pedestrian or equestrian traffic. 3. The Contractor shall fertilize each tree on each wgrk site once per year with the appropriate number of Agriform 21 gram Plant Tablets, or approved equal, per size of tree. 4. The Contractor shall re stake any tree needing restaking. ------ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA ~~`~~'1~' FsEFf1~ItT ~~'°" DATE: Iuly 17, 1991 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Linda D. Daniels, Deputy City Manager BY: Olen Zones, Senior Redevelopment Analyst SUBJECT: Consideration of an Inducement Resolution for a proposed $20I Million Multifamily Rental Housing Mortgage Finance Bond For Victoria Woods. RECOMMENDATION : Adopt the attached Resolution, providing for the issuance of $20 Million in Multifamily Rental Housing Mortgage Finance Bond<, for the Victoria Woods project. BACKGROUND: The Agency Board previously has directed staff to explore the possibility of participating in the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Victoria Woods project, located on Arrow Highway and Etiwanda Avenue. ANALYSIS: Victoria Weods Apartments consists of 328 units, divided as follows: 80 1 bedroom/I bath, 80 2 bedroom/1 bath, 80 2 bedroom/2 bath, and 88 3 bedroom/2 bath units. As currently proposed, the Agency would participate in the project by purchasing 20'% of the units. The exact structure of this purchase is still being developed. Thus, 66 units (2046) would be reserved for the income groups identified in the Affordable Housing Strategy. Recognizing the unique resource available to the Agency, staff recommends that a significant proportion of the 66 units be the lazger unit sizes, in order to accommodate larger families. As demonstrated in the Affordable Housing Strategy, a need exists to provide affordable rental housing to large families. As proposed, Allmark, Inc., would manage the entire project. A separate contract for [he management of the Agency's units will be developed and submitted for Board approval. As apart of the overall financing package, Allmark, Inc. has requested that the City issue Multifamily Rental Housing Mortgage Finance Bonds for the project. As you will recall, these bonds are not an obligation of the City nor the Agency, but aze secured by the rents collected on the project. Initial discussions have been held with bond counsel and the underwriter to begin structuring the financing. However, in order to comply with federal law, it is necessary to adopt the attached "inducement resolution" indicating the Council's intent to provide the financing. This resolution has no binding effect on the Council, but serves to mazk the beginning of financing process. Further action 6y the Agency and City will be required on the uaztnershio agreement, the bond financing, and the management contract. Re/s~pectfully submitted, l/ 1 Linda D. Daniels Deputy Director ~3~ RESOLUTION NO. ~/. ~~~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY C6UNCIL OF THE CIT'I OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INDICATING ITS INTENT TO PROVIDE FOR THH ISSUANCE OF OBLIGATIONS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $20,000,000 FOR THE VICTORIA WOODS APARTMENTS PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") is authorized pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 52075 et seq. (the "Act") to provide assistance in financing multifamily residential rental housing developments within the v -I , .~..... WHEREAS, Victoria Woods Limited Partnership, a California Limited Partnership (the "Developer") has requested assistance in financing the acquisition and rehabilitation of an existing 328- unit multifamily rental housing project (the "Project") which will be owned by the Developer or its successor or assignee and which is located on an approximately 27.7-acre parcel of property located at 8493 Etiwanda Avenue in the City; and WHEREAS, this City Council, in order to encourage and foster the construction of multifamily rental housing development within the City and as an aid and inducement to the Developer, is willing to authorize the issuance of obligations by the City in an amount sufficient to provide financing for the Project subject to the restrictions of the Act and all applicable California and federal laws as they presently exist, and provided that the Project receives all necessary local government approvals of the City, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED HY THE CITY CC(RICIL OF THE CITY CF RANCHO CUCANOHGA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. The above recitals, and each of them, are true and correct. Section 2. Findings. This City Council hereby determines that the undertaking of the financing of the Project by the City will Le a substantial factor in the accrual of public benefits to be received from the Project, and that the proposed financing is in accord with the purposes and requirements of the Act. Section 3. Issuance of Oblieations. Subject to the completion of the proceedings and other matters relating thereto to the full satisfaction of the City, and subject to the Project receiving all necessary local governmental approvals, the City hereby agrees to provide financing to the Developer or such other person or entity approved by the City for the Project through the FJB57967 ~.3 9 issuance of obligations as described in 6action 6 of this Resolution in an amount not to exceed $20,000,000. iJ"57967 Section 4. Nature of Obliq{tn tons. The obligations to be issued shall ba special obligations of the City payable solely from , revenues to be received by the City pursuant to all agreements in connection with the financing of the Project, all Sn a form acceptable to the City, and shall not ba a general obligation of the City, the State of California, or any political subdivision thereof. Section 5. official Action. It is intended that this Resolution also shall constitute "some other similar official action" toward the issuance of indebtedness within the meaning of Rcnfi,... ins s «tio r..«.....a a ............ .. the regulations thereunder. ~_._..__ ___= c_ ..,. cc rr."-".- r._~ Section 6. other Auorovale. The adoption of this Resolution shall not bind the City to issue bonds or other obligations until and unless all other necessary actions and approvals are taken or received in accordance with ali applicable laws. The adoption of this Resolution does not and shall not limit in any manner whatever the City ~ s full discretion to deny any further permit or approval that may be necessary in connection with the Project. In this connection: (a) All contracts relating to the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, installation and equipping of the Project shall be solicited, negotiated, awarded and executed by the Developer, for its own account, subject to applicable federal, state and local laws. (b) The City shall have no pecuniary liability to the Developer for any fees in connection with the Project. (c) The City shall recover any and all costs to the City which are incurred in furtherance of or attributable to the issuance of bonds for the Project. If no bonds are issued, all such costs shall be paid by the Developer. (d) The adoption of this Resolution shall not in any manner obligate the City to grant any other approvals that may be required in connection with the Project, including but not limited to the grantiny of approval of a conversion by the Developer of any portion of the Project at any time to condominium units. _2_ ~~D Section 7. Efiactivo Dste. Thin Rsoclettinn shall take effect immediately upon adoption. ADOPTED this 17th day of Suly, 199Y. riayor of he C ty of Rancho Cucamonga fJB57937 ATTEST: u~~y - -- nc fhw C1LY of Rancho Cucamonga -3- ~~I GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ~3 ~~ ~-5 APPLICATIONS LAND USE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Low Low Medium Nedlum Commercial Office GPA 90-028 ~ existln -'';K:xta~t ~;, Res.Bl-195 Ree.e1-198 / GPA 91-01A u existln x. i,~., , ~ l J r Rea.91-197/ Res.91.193 / GPA 91-028 Subarea 1 "~ Rea.91-199 / Rea.91-200 / Subarea 2 ~ existln , Rea.91-201 Ree.91-202 / Subarea 3 ' ~ ~ existln .~ PL Rea.91-203 Rea.Bt-204 Ord.450 Rae.91.205 /' '~ " Subarea 4 ~ exlstin Rea.91-206/ Ord.451 / Subarea 5 ' ~ ~ existing ~ ~G Res.91.207 Rea.97-208 Ord.452 Rea.91-209 ~' ~~ '~ Subareas "' Rea.91-210 Res,91-211 Subarea 7 existln !~ ~,~ / ~ Res.91-212 ,p.~.r- / Ord.453 ,- ~i Subarea 8 east portion ~ ~ r: r f Rea.91-213 Rea.91-274 West pOrtiOn ~ ~'~'~'~,~.,i~s}T~~':} B%16I1n rl P Ras.91-213 Ord.454 Planning Commission Recommendation Res./Ord. with adopting Resolution E OMinance Nos. ' Planning Commission vote waa tied regarding staff recommendation. ~~~~yBulletin Michael R. Ferguson, Publlah~r Donald A. Ruaaell, General Manager Grorge L Collie, Edllor loma A. FredoldP, sobE 6 MadNlnp DIleller lamsf Fulton, Affaiab Edlbr John Sauro, Dlfploy Advarilflnp Dlrodor Eddy Meh. Prodw~ian Monopa Peppy dd ioro, Cloallbd Adverlbinp Dlretler PaNohmon, amino, MC~ager Amato 4onmla. CIILVICrion Manager Ellimf Andarko, aeman Resourcef Dindor A LOCALLY OPEMTED MEM()Eq OF THE DONKEY MEp1I~ G7ona ~e Donald W. Reynolds, Founder U Editorials Local effort is way to face home costs presidential commis slon issued a report Monday confirming what most of us already knew intuitively: The price of hous~ ing has ~ me unmanagea~ ble. ,'~,yL~_ fer~. ~^r' Advisory Com~ mip7`Ah, egulatory Bar rfN'''"FFFFFF333333"'''' R dnble Housing, rePotring. to President B;:nh ~nd Housing Secretary Jack brrfA,'offered its explanation - and thinks it knows what needs to be done. Its diagnosis is correct; at leas[ part oC the proposed cure is disputable. Blame fbr the skyrocketing costs should go to excessive local regulations, according to the report -entitled "Not in S(y Back Yard." These add up to 35 percent to the price of a new house, the panel found. Federal officials have of~ fared examples -including a finding that new houses in parts of Southern California carry permit and other fees that add $20,000 to the price of a hous¢. Many of these regulations, the 22-member group said, are rooted in the NI,MBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome. Hes~ idents worry about the lower- ing of ]and values that might result from the addition of moderately priced housing. He(ty permit (cos and regula- bans governing everything from ]ot size to driv¢way paw ment act as a moat to keep newcomers out. Builders thus cater to the high end of the housing market, seceing only those who can afford the inflab ed prices. The problem is serious, but one of Kemp's solutions - ex~ pauding iederai control - seems draconian. He proposes conditioning federal housing assistance and tax credits on a state's effectiveness in strip ping away needless regulation. Tightening the federal screws over selGgoverning municipali~ ties seems an odd prescription 1'or a conservative adNinistra~ lion to espouse. The commissior, itself of~ fared 31 major recommenda- tions, ranging from setting an example by removing or relax- ing federal housing regula~ lions to easing the requirement that requires con- tractors to pay Drevailing local wages to workers building fed eral housing projects. Perhaps a few solutions lie in these recommendations, but basic effort to reduce housing costs should come from the state and local levels. The American dream of home- ownership should not be in~ compatibl¢ with the principle of federalism. PpRSPECTIVE ON HOUSING ~e~ 'Tapp ~~~ do ~ynerica~ Dream Make ownership affordable again tying federal aid the removal of st regulatory battle r" ` By TXOMAg H. XEAN eth and Jack A1eCrandell got mar- Bried last weekend. Jack, 29, is a firefighter, riding the same Southern California streets his father, Mac, once did. Beth. also 29 ta:,..hea i mntn-graders al the school where she met Jack. Just like their parents, they Plan W start a family soon and dream of striking it rich someday, But, unliko Mae, Jack and Belh are still years. perhaps decades, away (mm the Ameri- can Dream: owning a home. Beth and Jack are composite charac- lers,~but their story is real. Like 94% of their peers under 25, they cannot afford a starter home. They commute at least 90 minutes to work because they cannot afford to live in their hometown and still save inward buying a house. The American Dream is choking on a knot of federal, slate and especially local regulations. Problems like exclusionary zoning, exorbitant impact tees, long delays in pcrmd approval and rigid environmental restrictions have raised the cost of housing by as much as 20;0 ~25%. Home ownership is now beyond the reach of mne out of 10 renters in America. Cowidcr worxers m Orange County whose day may begin at 4 a.m. because Lhcy ran afford to live no closer to their jobs than a 70-mile congested commute away. Or the San Francisco-area buiid- ere whose costs jumped 126q in six years because of fees. Or the Southern California home buyers who pay;20,000 just to offset builders' impact fees. Some may believe that this is primari- ly aCalifornia problem, but the Fast Coast view is not better. A5 New Jersey's governor for most cf the 1980s, I tried to attract jobs ono people. But I was handicapped as Ices and delays bumped the sticker price of a home up 30 0. One report showed that paces in same developments rose 100q, in silt years, due mainly to permit and reguia- torydelays. Secretary of Housing and Urban De- velopment Jack Kemp saw trouble looming, not just in states like New Jersey and California, but nationwide. By accident or design, regulatory barri- ers were diverting developers tram affordable housing and block- ing most households (ram ev- by er holding the deed to a home. t0 So last year, Kemp asked former Ohio Congressman ate Lud Ashley to join me in ~ studying the regulations that impede affordable housing and recommonding ways [o remove those barriers without endangering human health or the environment. Together wieh a 20- member commission drawn tram gov- ernment, private Industry, housing ad- vocacy, finance and academia, we held %~. h,xs uuuna me country. We found suburban statutes that make multifamily housing units all but impossible to build. In many Connecticut towns, you cannot bmld a home an less than two acres of land. In same areas near Chicago and Seattle, you need Hve acres per house. Some Ohio cpmmunihes require col-, de-sacs with a radius wide enough far the largest piece of fire equipment, the hook and ladder, even though these [rucks are never used in single-family neighWrhoods Other towns use envi- ronmental regulations, na[ to preserve [he ecology but to preserve the social status quoin their neighborhoods. I(suhurbia's most dis!urbing problem is deliberate, exclusionary zoning, city housing policy is often a bureaucratic nightmare. We found city codes that cripple rehabilitation protects, such es requiring [hat a whole building be rewired to meet state-e(-the-art elec- tr; o] codes when. only small repairs are necessary. Many cities disallow worthwhile housing solutions like single-room occu- pancy hotels, prefab housing or mobile homes. Others forbid what 1 call the "Jimmy Stewart solution"-the single room in Grandma Smith's home thatlhe wants to rent out to "a nice young fellow." We did wlmess a desire to cut red tape, especially al the state level. That's where the leadership must mme from. Washington can give incentives and lend expertise, but states have the constitutional authority, which they delegate to local governments, [o can- tral lane use and development. Thor .~.r ,,, dent Bush and Secretary Kemp urges HUD to Ile state housing aid to the efforts of state govemmenta to remove regulatory barriers. This u one among 30 recommendations, which include cre- ating model codes and zoning acts for states b follow; piecing time limim on building permit reviews and developing a one-smp permit process. We must move quickly on these reeommendatinro. Increasingly, we live in a land where our childrtn cannot afford a decent place to live, We believe that our recommendations could lead to a 20 q, to 30% reduction in the cost of the averzge home. If implemented, hun- dreds of thousands of families like Beth and Jack's could afford a home. When they do, they will have security and- like lheirparents-apiece of [he Ameri- can Dream. ,Former New lerseg Repubfkan Cov. Thomas N. Kmn i.s pr:srn..:. sf Drew University in dfadison, N.J., and rhair- man of the Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to AJlordable Hous- ing. "The market's never been better for the first-time buyer." V ¢ gc i ~ i ~ } ` ' ' ~ I f ~ ~ ' I . ' ~ ~ I fV ~ 1- I. . _ . _ CALIFORNIA HOUSING ADVISORS RIG'HARIJ O. N'ERA'ER J•...;La July 17, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Couaoil City of Raaaho Cuauonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. HoY B07 RaaohO Cuoamonga, CA 91729 600 MOM'GOMERI' STREET JAn ~RnnCGCv, v.4 r'4i ii (415) 627-2500 (818) 986-0619 RB: ENVIROIDIBNTAL A88B88MBMf ABD BTI1AlTDA BPBCIFIC PLAN 11MSNDMBNT 91-03 - CITY OF RANCHO COCAMOMOU DATE OF HBARINd: July 17, 1991 Taira latter is meat oa behalf oL Fu Mai Limited partsermaip, owner o! tro paroela aoasistiaq o! appro:imatelp 38 aosem. one parcel oL appro:imatelp a0 eaten is located east of Btiwanda Avenue and along the mouthara boundary of Bub-area four (~) and a mecoad paroel of appro=imately 18 acres im bordered on tae northwest by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, oa tae east by Baet Avenue, oa tea moutheast by ekietiag Low Medium Residential deaigaated laced, and oa the south by another lead oraer (D.B. Home) all within Bub-area five (5). Aa regards the property in Bub-urea ~, we object to the propoaed down aoniaq as follows: A. Tne Citpra failure or rsfuaal to adopt a Drainage Plan until about two years ago has precluded Fu Mai frog properly pianninq and aubmittinq a dsvelopaeat plan to vest their property rigata. B. Tae ooat of implementing the Drainage Place on !ewer noosing unite will plnee an unusual fiaaaoial burden upon the potential homebuyera sad may make it very difficult to obtain bond financing to complete the work taus delaying all development until property values inflate nigh enough to make the uaQSSwritinq posaibla. C. The decision by the City to disproportionately apply the propoaed aoniaq reductions to the Btiwaada Area is not only a posaibla violation of egos! protection under atata and federal law but also quamtionable from a transportation, air quality, sad aaalth, safety sad nuisance environmental impact viewpoint given tea proximity of sub-area ~ to the regional mall site. To allow further multi-Emily development in tae general city over Btiwaada ie inappropriate is our view. Montgomery Securities is a Limited Partner in California Housing Advisors D. The deoision by the City to prooee4 rith the proposed ueadaents to the general Plan sad Etiranda apeoific plea through a Reqative Declaration on the Environmental 7leeeesmeat i• inappropriate is our vier due to significant unantioipated ohaages rhich have ooourred in the plan area since the final SLR ran approved is 19s~. Ile believe the iapaots on air quality; population/eocio-eooaomica; traas- portation/ciroulation; health, safety and nuisances; sad utilities and public aervicea are aigaifioaat .aovgn to require the aity to update those portions of the BIR. As regards the property in Bub-area 5, ws object to tDe proposed down soniaq as lollora: (wa inoorporata our objeotioae a., a., c., sad D. from above.) 8. eaaauea this property is boated adjacent to the freeray (L-15) the cost aompatiDl• land use is Medium Deaeity Reeidehtial, l.a. lead suitable Lor multi-roily development. Thin foot is supporte6 by the planning ooaaissione "ao reaommeadatioa" in passing this BvD-area oa to the city. The lack of clear support within the plaanigq commiasioa for flora aoninq ahovld cause tDa city to reigh the aarita of retaining the eziatinq density for the Lolloring reasons: 1. The freerap ie an uaattraetive nuisance to prospective homsbuyera. eingle-family projects adjacent to ireeraya coneietently hsve lover valued than those further removed and the turnover of homeornera is coasidsraDly higher than is more daairable areas. 2. Medium Residential (xulti-family] development nerves as a Duffer to Lor-xedium (eingle-family) providing better aasthatics an6 quality to those Done oraere receiving beasfiL of the buffer. 3. There is greeter deeigs flezibility rhea planning a xedium Reoideatinl project to provide ror dyer apacea rhioh eaa act ae noise and air quality buffers to the residents. Ifhil• the tone or this letter may •eaa oontaatious it ie not our intention to ba so. Ile believe that a better oourss of action ror the city, rather than dorm aoninq tea various propsrtiea, would be to work with the respective land owners to achieve the desired goals or the City to reduce density chile striviaq to aohieva a batter plan that takes into aoasideratioa the highest asd Bast uses of the paroel• given their looation aad aaviroaaantal iipaot. lle look forrard to a deoision Lroa the city not to prooeed rith Haeadaaat g1-03. Turthar it L ovr fervent hope w oaa prooaad rit6 the planainq proaasa rithia the city in a spirit of oooperatioa betraea the private aad public seotors to aohiava the best possiBia resuita. siaoerely, ~.~ , J f...l.-o-~ J! U~ Wo-1~_ aiohard o. 1leraer Consultant to aad epokesaaa tors pu Ma3 Liaitad Partaerahip, oraer. ~/rW OV,iC ES O! ROAERT D. ANURHWS -~ sego en~nir.(W~nu suire o~ ,ia 9ac ..~v RA.~'C 130 Cll ('A fl Ot3Ci A. CAf.I F'U RYI? EII>OI July 15, 1991 ~~ L~ `~' Pla Wing commission City of Rancho Cucamonga Poet Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga. California a n~o Gentlemen: Our office represents the owners at 7198 East Avenue in Rancho Cucamonga. My client informs me thnt the City is contemplating changing the usages to which he can put his property. As you are aware, his property ie bordered on the north by the Santa Fe Railroad, which is now an approved blue-line track; and bordered on the east by the 15 Freeway. if you have had the opportunity to drive the to Freeway, you will find that any place where there is residential housing, or single- family unite, abutting a freeway or a railroad, it is generally considered what I would call "slum housing~~. There appears to be rapid deterioration of those tracts or developments which border either a freeway or a railroad. As a result of the impediment to single-family construction on this type of property, you are going to significantly impair any development of this land whatsoever. It appears absolutely imperative that the property be used £or either commercial or high- density residential where the care and maintenance of the property is not left to the individual homeowner. I understand that there is an influential group of oeople that want the old tiwanda area to remain similar to Montana and Wyoming but fortun sly, or unfortunately, that is not going to happen. THis land ong this freewa a going to be developed and it should not be z d in such fa ion as to make it undevelopabla at all. D. ANDREWS BERT D. ANDREWS ~L4'.'y~~~~ RDA:jks /r„~ '~' v'~~\ :;,~ '~ 15 19 - 91 RECFIVE~ - iaa~ JUL-17-1991 1327 FRIX~I DRISCOLL 't PETERSON TO wgUAN e, ORIYCALL Jo.,N e. RT[neON tt LCM r. OwyOOLL 17149481648 P.02/03 Dalscozt & ParExsox ATTOIINt'W AT tAW ew~t eeT S61 tOU TM I.w Mt wVtHU[ PdB~DEX~r Gai1PO1t1tW pllOl •tL[pwene (oeI ne•:wi eA. (up +n~woe Ju1Y 17. 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P-O. Hox 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02B - CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA In addition to the points raised in our letter of July 11, 1991, we, on behalf of Gramercy Properties, Inc., raise the following objection to ceYtification or adoption of the proposed Negative Declaration with respect to the proposed land use change. We have undertaken a basic review of th? Etiwanda Specific Plar. Final Environmental Impact Report and a review Of the Environmental Checklist Form which provides the basis Eor the subject Negative Declaration. In light of the proposed land use change, we submit, based upon the findings and conclusions of the earlier EIR, that it would be impossible to determine that there is no impact upon water, population, housing, or transportation. At a minimum, an appropriate analysis of (1) water, inclusive of drainage, and (2) transportation requires preparation of an EIR. Adoption of a Negative Declaration will not meet the requirements enunciated in cE4A and the regulations implementing the same. Upon the foregoing points, we submit that the instant land use ?lp_-17-1991 13 28 FRGP1 ORIBCOLL & PETERSON TO 17149481648 P.83/03 Honorable Mayor and Itsmbers oI the City Council July 17, 1991 Paga 2 change must be postponed until an appropriate EIR is oompleted. Vary truly yours, JSp\dot ec: Angela Sabella SUL-1G-1991 1©: 3J FRDPI DRISCO~L PETERSON TO 171-094816J8 P. 02 Daxscox.x. & PRrsasox ATTORN(YS AT LAW MtiLUAM e, 0913C0LL 3yrt( (O) JOMN e. n[TCe90H Lai eOUTM LAM( AvCNVC CLL(" q OM(COU Pd3A.DRN'dr C6Ln~0E3CTd, 01101 TCL pMOH[ (n~9) TOLLeO~ .Ax (ei e~ To6~•een July ii, 1991 Eonorable Mayor and Members Of the City Couneil City o£ Reecho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive PrD• Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND (L FRnT. vT.nu AMEMM MDM-Et??' 91-02B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA This firm represents Gramercy Properties, owner of a parcel consisting of approximately 1o acres located on the south side of Miller Avenve and east of Etiwanda AVenue in Rancho Cucamonga. Said parcel is located within Sub-area 4 of the Etiwanda Area, which Sub-area has been targeted by you for downzoning from medium residential (8-14 dwelling units per area) to low medium residential ( 4-8 dwelling units per area). we, on behalf of our client, object to the proposed downzoning as follows: We are informed that Sub-area 4 Of the. Etiwanda Area is subject to significant drainage problems. For many years, such drainage problems rendered the subject property virtually undevelopable. We understand that although the City was incorporated in 1977, a Master Plan of Drainage ("Drainage Plan") with respect to the Etiwanda Area was approved by the City Only two years ago. We understand that the Drainage Plan proposes workable albeit expensive resolutions to the drainage problems. Now, without permitting a reasonable period of time following the approval of the Drainage Plan, the City's proposal to downzone the property prior to such time as Gramercy Properties' development plan may become approved and vested cannot be condoned. Under the circumstances, we have analyzed several problems with respect to the proposed downzoning. First, to the extent that the city faiied or refused to adopt a Drainage Plan until approximately two years ago, we assert that the City's dilatory conduct precluded Gramercy Properties from earlier developing its property. The City now seeks to downzone •• :{1L-12-1491 10 35 FROM DRISCOLL & PETERSON TO 17149481648 P.03 deveioping the subject property by not nllowing a reasonable time for Gramercy Propartiaa to obtain approval of its map or development plan. Under these circumctances we contend that at a minimum, the City , is astoppad from downzoninq the aubjact property until a sufficient period of time has elapsed in order to enable Gramercy Properties to process a mnp and its development plan, taking into account the Pact that prior to adoption of the Drainage Plan, Gramercy Properties was effectively precluded from development of its property. Secondly, to the extant the general and specific Dian .~..-+=_-~~ are not b.:+... ---++td --- a uni=orm oasis, i.e. proposod reductions of Ts; 3n Etiwanda Area, SOt-78i in Viotoria Area and 28t in the general city, we rubmit that any such plan amendments era violative of equal protection rightc under state and federal law. We have stated cur concern that the dilatory tactics of the City with respect to adoption of the Drainage Plan may have resulted in the City's precluding development prior to approximately two years ago. such dilatory action, coupled with tba City's downzoning of the property before allowing a reasonable amount of time subsequent to such Drainage Plan approval, may be actionable. We will carefully review the actions o£ the City with respect to an analysis of any potential claim for inverse condemnation which Gramercy Properties may have in light of the City's dilatory tactics coupled with an otherwise permissible regulatory act. In Sight of the foregoing, we urge you to foresY.all amending the Speci f.ic Plan fcr Su;v-area 4 of the Etiwanda Area. Tt]ank you for your consideration. vary truly yours, DRISCO(L~L & ERSON . d~ ahn 8. Peterson ~~ JSP\dot cc: Jack Lam Angela Sabella N f 2 .. W ~ = IL W '~ e° Q o 2~ 4 J v a J r s lY O1 W ~ Z ~+ W C7 N O a 0 N C O O O O ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ I % a a U' LL C7LL (9WLL ~ + ~ '.t;' f ~1 JULY 1,1991 f ,\ ~~ ~` ' NN 1 1aN1 ~, ~~ rIL l WJ~ ~~ RECEIVED, Donald Phillips 6011 ETIWANDA AVE. ETIWANDA,CA.91739 TO. THE CITY COUNCIL ~~!'.1°.~ RANCHO COCAMONGA,CA. IN REF. TO GENERAL AMENDMENT #91-03 Dear Sirs, I mailed you a letter,6/14/91. (copy enclosed) in which I AM sorry to say I gave you an incorrect Gen.Amendment number. I stated I was interested in Gen. Amendment # 91-02H which is -__~~___ .::1 - _~__ :~ '- ~.-....-.~:.. ~.-. - _. __ of~land~located Von~the northeast•corn er of Foothill .Boulevard-V and Etiwanda Avenue.My property (map enclosed) is the 1/2 acre lot located directly north of the 2.0 acres referred to above. I feel that if these 2.0 acres are changed to commercial, mine should also be changed.If you look at the map you can see *.hat these two properties should be zoned the same.I thank you for your time in this matter. Sincerely ~~~ ~~:~: June 14.1991 Donald Phillips 8011 Etiwanda Ave. Etiwanda,Ca.91739 To The City Council In REF. To General Amendment-1h%-6s~&- Rancho Cucamonga,Ca. ~~_ G ~ Dear Sirs, I am the owner o£ the property located at 8011 F.t iwanda Ave. (APP1 1100-161-01).I am writing this letter to express my intoroct _ i:y ;, - aac~uing or my property to community commercial.I„believe that the community commercial designation would be consistent with the historical uses in the area,and will allow for the highest and best use oP my property.I would like to thank you for your time,and I know that you have the best interest of the community at heart. Sincerely ~Jo~~-l M~t~r- • ~ 'Original Poor Quality ~, a i I \ I ~ u ~: ~I~ z m i i o O a ~ I ~ ~ ~ F ~ ~2 i p : ~ i ~°. v a ~ e f' N CZ ~ ~r ti' J Z ? ~ I i~~~` u ° ° V ~ 1 w ° ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ a ~ FI Z i l w~a 5~ w Q ' o p I '•; ~ ~ ~ Y . a ~ ~ y° " y a Vl) w I a ~ I w w `° ~ m m~ o • • ' m x w • ° O n.' y~ O ~. Y : • m ~N -? ~ .;~.T~ e m. r a _ ... F - ;Y~' a ; ~ q' ,' m f m ~: o ~,,, a yF 2 ~ -~ ,~ a : ~ a ~ V ' tl a W "~ o o~wY: m, a w • O w w 0~ C• o\ Y ' ~ ~ 9 a } E I O ° p.' __ Q ~ ~ • O O •. ~ O 5 Ou p I I• O~ pu ~~ ~ = 2 ~ ~^ QQ ~ 2 0 ~o J `Biala. O: ~ ) U w° o a_ F u e o • w e` = J o t ~ e ~ w w 'a 7 •~ w o i ~ -- -- •a a a' ~Q~ ~ ~ ~.. , /// ':.m ~ ~o n~w~wo• ire. orapur our ~ ~ a Q W f g ~ // '~~`~, o ~.-i . T. i m ~~ l• w w ° ~~ m 2 II 2 J 's i Q i Q ~~ rs o ~s~u ° a °~a °. iii x ter ntxiv~nv ~~t,r~ivivivuN MEMORANDUM ,.: DATE: Juty 17, 1991 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Councii Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager PROM: Wm. Jce O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Betty A. Miller, Associate Engtneer~~ SUBJECT: Appeal of Tentative Parcel Map 13693 Additional Infonaati on The attached Executive Summary of the Dertlnent CCBR's for the Northwood Properties Comfnunity Assoctatton was submitted on July 11, 1991, as requested by the Council at the July 3 public hearing on the subJect appeal . MJ0:8AM:sd Euclid 1'~~ana~;emEnt -.Company July 11, 1991 City Council Members City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rarlrhn Cucamnnaa. fA 01790 RE: Northwood Properties CC&R's Dear Council Members: Attached are the Northwoo8 Properties Community Flomeownel-s Association CC & R's as requested by the City Council. This is an executive set of the sections most pertine~'lt to the applicants property. Certain areas are highlighted For your convenience. Sincerely, Board of Directors Northwood Properties 125 South Mountain Ave. Suite E Upland, CA 714/9R1-4131 Mailing Address: Box 1$10 Upland. CA 9L785 t; , a ~w . V~ 9'tiv:3 (.ii Z - 11 - fe<a payable to the Asxocfa Lion for any delegation that results in a more intensive use of the Common Area. section a.06. Waiver of Use of the Common Area. No Member may exempt himself from personal liability for As6essmenC9 duly levied Dy the AaaoCiati on, nor effect the release of his Lot from the liens and charges ChereoE, by vaiver of his beneficial interest 1n the Cocuson Area or by abandonment of his Lo [. Section a.D7. Damage to the Common Area by Members. Except t0 the extent prohibited by Glifornla law, each Nember shall be liable to the Association Par any damage to the Common Area not fully covered by insurance that auy be sustained by reason of the negligenc< of willful misconduct of the Member, or the Fersom deriving their right oP use and enjoyment of the Common Area fray the Member, including employees of the Member, and lncludin9 the Family and quests of any such persons. Notvithstandtaq the foreeg9oing, the Assoclat! shall have the right, after Wtice and Hearing, to levy a Reimbursement Assessment equal to the increase, if any, in Lnaurance premiums directly attributable to the daaage caused by the Member or the Fersona for rhom the Member may bs liable as described above. In the case of joint ownership of a Lot, the liability of the Ovnere shall ba joint and several, except to the extent that the Association shall Aave prev3ouily contracted In vriti nq rich the joint owners to the contrary. After Notice and eeari nq, the Association nay ltvy a Reimburse- ment Assessmene against the Member and Dia Lot to recover the cost of correcting any such damage not covered by insurance, pursuane to Section 8.13 hereof. Section 4.08. Damage, Destruction and Required Improvements If the Common Area is da: eyed by Eire or other casualty, [he insurance proceeds payable by reason thereof shall De paid ro Che Association, In the event of any such damage, or if any governmental authority requires that any repair, replacement or Improvement D¢ made to the Common Area by virbie of any law or regulation no[ in existence as of the date of Recordation of this Declaration, the Associa Cion shall, as soon as practicable and su bje<[ to the provisions see for [h in [his Section 4.08, contract to repair, replace or improve the Common Area so damaged or so required [a De repaired, replaced or improved. IE [he insurance proceeds are insufficient [o pay all the costs of repairing or rebuilding the damage, or if the Association is required to make re pa its, replacements or improvements by a governmental au charity as described herein, Che Association may, in order to make up any deficiency in the insurance proceeds or to pay for the required repair, replacement or rmprovemen[ and no[ui thstandin9 any other provision of this Declaration, levy a Special Assessment on all Ovnera Sn accordance with the provisions~of Section 8.12 hereof, ar if any Wner is liable for any damage, the Association may levy a Reimbursement Assessment against the Owner responsible therefor in accordance with Section a.07 hereof. In the event the Assn<ia tion is obligated to provide for the repair, re Placement or improvement of any portion Of the Common A[ea pursuant to this sec[1on a.08, the Board shall obtain firm bids (including an oblige tl on tv obtain a performance bond) fYOm at lease evo (2) responsible contractors to repair or rebut ld the damaged portion(s) substantially in accordance vicn cne original plans n rrC ~i l11 A - 11 - fees payable to the Association for any delegation [not results in a more intensive use of [he Common Area. Section 4.06. Naiver of Use of the Common Area. No Member may exempt himself f[om personal liability for Assessments duly levied by the Association, nor effect the release of his Inc from the li ens end charges the reotr by waiver of nie beneficial rote rosc in [he Common Area or 6y abandonment of his Lot. Section 6.D7. Damage to the Common Area by Members. Except to the extent pcohibit ed by California law, each Member shall be liable to the AscociatlOn for any damage to the Common Area not fully covered by insurance coat may be sustained by reason of the negligence or villtul minconduct of the Nember, or the Persona deriving their right of use and en ioyment of the Common Area from the Member, including employees of the Member, and including the Family and guests of any such Persons. Notvithstandinq the foregol ng, the Association snail have the right, after Notice and Rearing, [o levy a Reimbursement Assessment equal to the increase, if any, in insurance premiums directly attributable to the damage ea used by the Nember or the Persons for whom the Member may be 1la ble as described above. In the case of joint ownership of a Lot, the liability of the Owners snail be joint and several, except to the extent that the Association shall have previously contracted in writing with the joint Owners to the contrary. After Notice and Rearing, the Association may levy a Reimburse- ment Assessment against the Member and his Lot to recover the cost of correcting any sucn damage not covered by insurance, pursuant to Section 8.13 hereof. Section 4.08. Da ma ee, Destruction and Required Improvements iE the Common AreE i5 da ::gad by fire ac ocher casualty, [he insu ran e! proceeds payable by reason thereof shall be paid [o the Association. 1n the event of any such damage, or if any governmental authority requires that any repair, replacement or Improvement be made to the Common Area by virtue of any law or regulation not in esis fence as of the date of Recordation of this Declaration, the Association sha il, as soon as practicable and subject to the provisions set forth in this Section 4.08, contract [o repair, replace o[ improve the Common Area so damaged or so required to be repaired, replaced oc improved. ff the insurance proceeds are 3nsuffieient [o pay all the costs of repairing or rebuilding the damage, or !f the Association is required to make repairs, replacements or improvements by a governmental authority as described herein, the Association may, in order to make up any deficiency in the insurance proceeds or [o pay for the required repair, replacement or improvement and notviths[anding any other provision of tors Declaration, levy a Special Assessment on all Ovnera In accordance with the provi sions~of Section 8.12 hereof, or if any Owner is liable for any damage, the Association may levy a Re imbursem<nt Assessment against the Ovnec responsible therefor in accordance with Section 4.07 hereof, in the event the Association is o63igated Co provide for the repair, replacement ar improvement of any portion of the Common Area pursuant to this Section 4.08, the Board shall obtain firm bids (including an ebiigation to obtain a performance bond) tYOm at least two 12) responsible contractors to repair or rebuild the damaged porti cols) substantially !n accordance vicn use original plans O `O~~J~ijiY -lz- and apecltlresenu otetheorovernmentaloadence vlin the event able raga q q y, coat the luau once proceeds available for the repair of the Common Area, or any portion thereof, art !n excess of the amount required to perform the repair and remnatruCtion contemplated by this Section a.OQ the eYCeas shall be Aeld by the Board and Beposlted in the appropriate Maintenance Fund far she Luture min[enance, repair and operatton of Che Common Area. Section d.D9. Condemns [ion. ' If at any alma all or any portion of the Comm,,.. a•-_ or any lot ereac therein •n ••~ ~ .,. rn roc any public or ---': pdviic use, under any statute, Dy right of eminent domain or~by private purchase in lieu of eminent domain, the award in condemnation allocable to the Common Area shall be paid to the Associaeion. The award shall be tlepoaiced in vhicAtver of the Maintenance Fonda the Board may, in its sole discretion, determine. No Member shall Dc entitled to partiei pa to ae a party, or othervisa in any pwttedings rtla tang to such condemnation, other than the Member or Members on whose Loca the Common Area may be located !f the proceedings involve a caking at any interest owned by the Member or Membtrs individually. Tne Association 6ha11 Dave khe exclusive rlq h[ to participate in and represent the interests of all Members in condemnation proceedings affecting the Common Area. The Bca rd shall yrompcly notify all owners (and all in¢urera, guars ntors and holders of first Mortgages on tats who Dave requested written notice in accordance with Section 12.0a(f) he roof j, as soon as the Hoard becomes aware of any taking or threatened kak ing of any Cemmon Area. Seel ion 9.10. 9eservataon of Easements. Thee is hereby reserved to Ceclarant and (he Ass ociacaon, [hear successors and assn gns, an easement an gross, over all pn-- taons of the Sub]ece Property as the se: varnc tenement, ant ludo ng the r - ;cry and access, for (i) the ans[allataon and maan- cenanceFOfVsewe:s, storm draans, drainage facility es and utalacy lanes and fact la toes; and, (ial for the pelf ormance generally of theaY rights and du a es under rhos Declarau on, anQ udang land- scaping and maancenance; procaded, however, (a) such easeme nc5 and n ghts sha17 not unreasonably incerte re va th the use and en7 oyment by the Members of Cheu respective Lo[s oc the Common Area: and fb) such easeme his and rights reserved co Declarane shall be lirt~ aced to the period provided in the first paragraph of Article X, Setcaon d.ll. Solar Access £asemeacs. There as hereby reserved over every Lot reciprocal solar ac- cess easements vh ith shall be appurtenant to each adjacent Lvt, as for fully de scribed in chic Section d.ll, Excepting for resi- dences and vcner ict impr ovemenes constructed by Oeclara nc, no Owner of any roc shall cause or permit any vegetation, st sucture, fa xture or other object fexcepcing any utiliKy vi res and sl milar oblec cs) to be plac¢d or maintained on said Lot so as co cast a shadow between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p,m. g[e star than ten percent (l0i) of the collector absorption area o[ cRe solar collector surface of any solar energy system as defined in Ca11- fornia Civil Code Section 801.5 located on any adl scent Lot and nnstalled in comp] soots vi t.h local setback regula taons; provided that than 5¢ctaon shall not apply io speu fit trees and shrubs which at the tame of installation of a solar collector or dura rg the remainder of that annual solar cycle cast a shy dov upon [hat solar collector. In the event any O.•n er permits any vegetation, structure, C txture ar oche: object to to p7 ac ed or may r.t aieed en his Cot char .,. ,., ..... __~._ .-,.___ ...~____. - la - 86-259019 cases where he has committed a willful mis[easance or malfeasance in the performance of his duties. Section 5.05. Requirement for Approval by Members. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Declaration, the Board shall nor, without the approval of Members representing at least a majority of the voting power of the Asaociati on (a) incur aqg regace expenditures for capital improvements Co the Common Area ir, excess of [ive percent (511 of the budgeted gross expenses of iAe Associau on for that fiscal year: or, Ib) sell during any fis- cal year property of the Association having an aggregate fair mar- ker value greater than five percent (511 of [he budgeted gross ex- penses of rile Association for chat fiscal year; or, (c) paying compensation to directors or to officers of the Association for services performed in the conduct of the Association's business: nvf AeA A,. .. •1.. mn.. _ _ _ _ _ reimbursed for expenses; Or, (d) filling a vacancy on Che Board - ereated by the removal of a director. ARTICLE VI ARCHITECTURAL RFVI EYI COMMITTEE Section 6.01. Re_m_b_e[s O[ the Architectural Revi<v Committee .-The A[eAitectural Revlev Committee sha71 consist of three (3) members; provided, however, drat the nwber of members may be increased or decreased by «solutlon of the Board of Direc- tors, provided Chat the number of members shall Dever be leas than three i7) aor more than five IS ). The members of the Amhitec to ral Aevlev Committee may be irawved at any time without cause by the person appoinei ng the member under the authority granted by section 6.01 hereof. Onless changed by resolution of the Board, the address of the Archi teetotal Review Committee for all purpos<a, including the submiss ion of plans for approval, shall be a[ the principal office of Cne 'Association as designated by the Board pursuant to the Bylaws. Members of the Architectural Review Committee shall serve for Germ of one (1) year, or until such time as the member has resigned or been «moved. Members of the Architectural Aevlev Committee may serve one or mote terms. Section 6.03. Rights of Appointme n[. Declarant may, at its sole option, appoint all three of the o[igi nil members of the Arth![ectural Review Committee, and all replacements, until the first anniversary of [he original issuance of the Final Subdivision Public Report for the first Phase of Development requiring a Final Subdivision Public Aepor [. Thereafter, the Board shall have the right to appoint a[ least one member of the Architectural Review Committee, but Declarant may, at its sole option, appoint a majority of the members until (i) ninety percent (90t)~ot the Lots within the Subject Prope[ty (including any Lo [s within any real property annexed pursuant to Article %I hereof) have been sold, oc (ii) until the fifth anniversary of the original issuance of the Final Subdivision Public Report for Phase I, whichever occu[s first. Thereafter, [he the Board shall have the right to eppo int the remaining members of Cne Architectural Hevinv Committee. Members of the Architectural Revlev Committee appointed by the Board shall be members of the Association, but those appointed by Declarant need not be members of the Association. 1B - AA-~sgma cases where he has cxr.r tied a will[ul misfeasance or malfeasance in the perfor manee of his duu es. Sec cr on S, OS. Reqvtrement for Approval by Ne tubers, Novi thstanding any other provision of this Declaration, the Board shall not, without the approval of Hembers re pre sen a ng at lee st a ma7ori ty mf the voting power of the Association (a) incur aggregate expendrtures for tepstal improvements <o [he Common Area in excess of frve percent (St) of the budgeted gross expenses of the Association tar char fiscal year: or, (b) sell during any fis- cal year property of the Assom anon havi n9 an aggregate fair mar- ket value greater Loan five percent (St) of tAe Du dgeted gross ex- penses of the As socra ci on for that fiscal year; or, 1<) payrng eompe nsation co directors or [o off rc ers of the Association for se rvrces performed rn the conduct of the Assac iation's business: provrmee, noveve r, the Board may cause a du error or officer to be reimbursed for expenses; or, (d) frllrng a vacancy on th< Board cre aced by the removal of a director. ARTICLE YI AACtlITECTUML REVI EN COMMITTEE Section 6.01. Members of the Architectural Review Committee _The Architectural Review Committee snall cons isG of three (?) members; provided, hoveve r, that tAe number of members may be ine[eas ed or decreased by resolution of the Board of Direc- tors, provided that the number of sembers shall never be less than three (3) not note than five (5). The e:embers of the Architec[u rai Aeviev Committee may be iemoved at any Cime without cause by the person appointing the member under the authority gra need 6y Section 6.02 Hereof. Unless changed by resolution of the Board, the address of tAe Architectural Aeviev Commit Bee far all purposes, including the submission of plans for approval, shall be ac the principal office of the 'Association as designated, by [he Board pu rsuanc to the Rylavs. Hembers of the Arcni[ectu [al Revrev Cocmircee shall serve for term of one (1) year, or cntil suc.". tiee as the member has resigned or been removed. Members of the Architectural Review Committee may serve one or mare Germs. Section 6.02. AigAts of Appointment. Declarant may, ac its sole option, appoint all Chree of the original members of the Ar ehitectu ral Review Coaaai ttee, and all replacements, until [he first anniversary of the original issuance of the Final Subdivision Public Report for the first Phase of Development requiring a Final Subdivision Public Report. Thereafter, the Baa rd shall have the right to appoint at least one member of the Architectural Aeviev Couuoittee, but Declarant may, at its sole option, appoint a majority of the members until (i) ninety percent (901) tf the Lots vllhin the Subject Pope rty (including any Lots within any teal property annexed pursuant co Ac title xI hereof) have been sold, or (ii) until CAe fif [h anniversary mE the original issuance of the Final Subdivision Public Report Eor Phase I, whichever occurs first. The[eaf ter, the the Board shall have tAe right to appoint the remain inq aeabers of the Architectural Review Committee. Membe[s of the Archit<t[ural R<viev Committee appointed by the Board shall be members of the Association, but those appointed by Declarant need not be members of the Association. Rfi ~SOp14 - 19 - Section 6.03. Architectural Pevlev Procedu res. (a) Review of Plans and 6 eifleatione. Subject to Subsection 1 1 an to Art c e ereo no Improvements. tncludlnq any exterior changes of alteutiona Sn any exSsting Improvement, aAall be commenced, greeted or wlntained upon the Common Area or upon any real property lyl nq ri thin the Subject Property until the plans and specifi<ations therefor shoving ene nature, kind. srtape, height, width, color, wterlala and location of the same 6ha11 have Deen submitted to and approved !n vrl Clog by the Mchi[ec[ural Review Cowi[tee. The Beard of DS [ectora from time to time shall adopt and promulgate architece u[al standards ('Architectural Standards•r- wk;.-w - lnelua.. c,„_.- ,.d..v^, cne rouoving restrletions and ~~ limitatlona:~~ (i) Reasonable time limitations for the compleeion of the Smprovemen ts. (Si) Such other limttationa and restrlctlona as the Board, !n Lb reasonable dSSeretion, wy adopt Sncludlnq, without limltatlon, the nature, kind, shape, height, wterial a, exterior color and location of any butldinq, wall, structure, fence or other Smprovemen[; the type, lOCatlon and height of trees, bushes, shrubs, plants and other landscaping; prsserva- tion of vi eve and aesthetic beautyr the harmony of ekterlor design and color [o other Improvements !n the Subject Property; grading and ground elevations; vi th respect to fences, walla, and landscaping, assurance of adequate access by the Aseocia- cion in connection with ene performance of its duties and the exercise of its powers he[eunder; conformity of the plans and specifics [ions to the purpose and general plan and intent of this Decla rati en, including the provision for adequate parking, driveways, walkways and parkways. The Owner shall obtain a receipt fot the plans and specifications Eroa an autho[ix ed agent of the Archi [eciutal " Review Committee. TAe Architectural Review Committee shall approve plans and sped [ications submitted for Sts approval only if it deems in its reasonable discretion that the construction, alterations or additions contemplated thereby ir. [he location indicated will not be de[rimen [al to the appearance of the Subject Property as a whole, that the appearance of any structure affected thereby will be in harmony vi th the au grounding structures, that Ghe construction thereof will not detzact from [he beauty, wholesomeness and attrac- tiveness of the Subject Property as a whole, and that [he upkeep and maintenance Chereot will not become a burden on the Association. Tne Architectural Review Commi[te¢ may condition its approval of proposals or plans and spectEica [lone upon each changes [herein as it deems appropriate, or upon Che agreement by the Person (referred to in Chia Sec[!on 6.03 as ^Applicanc") submitting the same to grant appropriate easements to the Association for the maintenance thereof, or to reimburse the Association for the cost of maintenance, or all [Area, and may require submission of additional plans and apecificatlona or other information prior to approving or disapproving any material submitted. Tne Architectural Revier Committee may also issue rules or guidelines setting forth procedures [or the submission of plans for approval, and may require a fee to accompany each application Eor approval, and unless such rules ate complied wit F., the plans and apectficafions shall not be - 10 - 86-259014 deemed received. The Architectural Rcviev Commutes day provide that the amount of any fee atoll be uoiterm, or that it snail be datereined in aey other teaaonable YMt[r sueA as by ~ the reaeonabla cost of the eonstruetlon, alteutiona or addi- ctons contemplated. The Architectural Review Committee may roquire such detail in plans and specifications submitted Eor its revier as it deems proper, including without limitation, ~ floor plant, site plena, drainage plans, elevation dravings ar.4 ' description or samples of exterior material and colo[s. The Ar chiceCtu cal Review Committee say postpone levier OE any plan submitted Fo[ approval until it shall Rave received a complete cat of the plans and specifications. -.+_+,..• of the Architectural Revicv Committee and the reasons tharetor shall be tranYiteso oy cnc :...L::.:cc Review Ctswittee to chs Applicant at the address act forth in the application Eor approval within aiacy (603 days afttt receipt by the Ac chitectuul Ravlev Committee of all materials t<qui and by the Architectural Revive Comit tee. Any appliea- cion submitted pursuant to this Section 6.03 shall be deemed approved, unless written disappcrrval or a request for addition- al informstion or satadals by the Architectural Revicv Commit- tee shall have be<n ctansmitied to Che Applicant within dirty (60) days after the dais of receipt by the ArchikecWZal Review Committee of all required materials. Dpon completion of the contemplated Improvement, Che Applicant shall give written notice to the Architectural Rcviev Crxsmtttee of such completion and, Eor purposes hereof, tAe date of [eceipt o£ the written notification by the Architectural Rcviev Committee snail be deemed [o be the dace o[ completion of. the Improvement. (b) Vacia net s. Th< Arehite<tu cal Rcviev Committee may auchori[e wcaancvs from compliance with any of th< a[chitec- tural provisions of this Declaration, including, without limitation, restrictions upon height, size, floor area or placement of structuresr or similar restrictions, when tircum- scances such as topog[aphy, nacuul obstructions, hardship des chetie or enviconmencal considerations may requite. All variances must be evidenecd ir. wilting, must 4e si fined by ac leas[ a majority of the members oC the Architectu cal Review Committee, and snail become effective upon Recordation. If a variance is granted, no violation of the covenants, conditions and cestxiccions contained in Chis Declaration shall be deemed to have occurred with re spec[ to the matter fo[ which the variance vas granted. The granting of a variance shall not operate to va iv< any of the cecros and provisions oC this Decla cation for any purpose ezeept as to the particular p:oper- ty and particular provision hereof :eve red by the variance, nor shall is affect in any way the Wne is obligation to comply with all governmental lays and regulations affecting his use of [Ae property, including but not limited to toning ordinances and Loc se[-hack lines or any oche[ requirements imposed by any governmental au[hocity. (c) No waiver of~F~u [u~[e A~p~rove~ls. The approval by the Atchitectura Rev rev Commatt- ee of any proposals of plans and specifications or dravings Eor any cork done or proposed or in connection with any other matter requiring thq approval and consent of [he Architectural Ravlev Committee snail not be deemed t0 constitute a va eve[ of any right to withhold approval of or to consent to any aimil+r proposals, plans and spec Ci- ta~ions, dravings or any matter whatsoever that is aubsequencly or additionally submitted for approval. 86-259014 (d) Correction o[ petec[s, Inspectloa oC work and correcclon o e errs t stern shall proceed as follow[ (i) The Architectural Revler Ctarmit tee or Sts duly authorized representative wy at any t1sK inspect any Improve- / ment, or change or alteration thsreot, Eor which approval of plans are tequix ed under this Article VI: provided, however, that the Attnitectural Review Committe's right of inspection shall terminate eirty 160) days of tar the Wnet shall have glvcn written notice oC the completion of the work to the Architectural Review Committee, provided that such Improvement vas actually completed as of CAe date of ouch notiEica [ton. It, as a result of it9 inspection, the Architectural Review Committee Eindz that xha InprovemenG or change or alteration thereof, vas done wlthrwt phis chips aooroval et the miss. ,vw iur o[ vas hoc Done an substantial compliance rich the plans approved by the ArehlLeeCUral Aaviev Committee, it shall notify the stoat in writing of the failure to comply rich this Article VI within thirty (30) days alter the inspection, specifying the particulars of n fiance Ithe "NOtl ce of Noncompliance'). The Architectural evict Committee shall nave ~ Che au tnority xo require Cbe Ovnsr to take corn action ae may pe necessary td remedy the noncompliance. (ii) IE upon Lhe erpi utioR of thirty (36) days from the date of the Notice of Noncompliance, the Owner aha]1 have failed to remedy the noncompliance, then the Archlteetutal Review Committee snail notify the Board 3n writing o[ such failure and the nature thereof, and the estimated cost of correcting or removing the same. The Board snail then have Ghe nigh[ ax its option either to pursue such remedies against the Owner as it may nave in any court of competent jurisdiction or Co determine whether mere is a noncompliance after Notice and Searing, in [he manner set forth in the Bylars. If a noncom- pliance is determined to exist at the Notice and Bearing, the Owner she 11 remedy or remove the same within a period of not more Chan thirty (30) days from the date that notice of the Boatel ruling is delivered to Cne Wner. If Lhe Owner does nor comply vitA Che Board ru ling vitnin such period, the Board, ac its option, ^.y P.eto:d a Notitt of Noncompliance against the j real property in which the noncormpliance exists, remove Gne noncomplying Improvement, or remedy the noncompliance; and the Owner shall re imbucse the Association, upon demand, fo[ all expenses incurred in connection therewith. IE such expenses II are not promp<ly repaid by Lhe Owner to the Association, the ~' Board shall levy a Reimbursement Assessment against the Owner for reimbursement pu [sushi to Section 8.33 hereof. The right of the Association aeG forth in this Subsection 6.O3(d) to remove any Improvement or remedy the noncompliance shall be in addi Cion to all other rights and remedies rhich the Association may have at law, in equity of under this Declaration. (iii) As to any Improvements cons rutted in compliance with Lois Article VI, the Association ah'sll, upon written request, provide to the Owner thereof a notice (the "Notice of Compliance") in recordable form, signed by the President and Che Secretary of the Association, evidencing such compliance. The Notice of Compliance, Then Recorded, shall be conclusive evidence of compliance with the provisions o[ this Article VI as to the Improvements described in the Recorded Notice of Compliance. (1v) The Hoard shall adopt a procedure by vniclr a prospective Owner intending to erect Improvements on any 86=F ~3~1~ _„_ portion of the Subject Property may subal[ and obtain the advance approval o[ the Arehiteetural Asvlev Committee [or the prospective owner's plena therefor prior to iha purehaae of the property. Section 6.Oa. Neetinga of th< Archit eccural Review Committee. The Arohitectural gvler Com:ri tree shall meet from time to time as necessary to perfe:• Stf duties hereunder. The Archi- teewral Review Committee may [rom time to time by [esolutlon unanimously adopted in rrl ring dedgnate • "COmittea Rep[eaen- tacive" (rho may, but need net, be ons of its meabeu) to take •ny action or Dertorm any duties for and or. behalf oL the Arehl betur.3 s...r ~., r .--1•.-- ~~yv Ws granctn9 of varlane- n pursuant to 6ubuctlon 6.O7(b)~above. In the absenu of such designation, the vote of a major! ty of the memDen of the ArchSteetuul Review Committee, o[ the vriiun consent of sajority of trte nembera o[ the Arehitac[ural Aevier Comietee, shall constitute an set of the A:eAitsetural Aevier Committee. Section 6.05. Notice of Appointment. Nhenever a member oC the Architectural Review Committee is appointed or removed while both Declarant and Che Board have rights of appointment, written notice to the oche[ party of such appointment Or removal shall he given by the party ap- pointing or removing the member. Section 6.06. Scope of Review. The Architectural Review Committee shall no[ be responsi- ble for reviewing, nor snail its approval be deemed approval of any plan or design from Cna standpoint of structural safety nr conformance vi th building ar other codes. Notvit hstanding any otner provision of this Declaration [c the contrary, Oeclaranc need not seek Oc obtain tAe approval of the Architectural Aeviev Committee for any Imn roveme.^.t con- structvd or placed by Declarant on any portion of the Subject Property owned or leased 6y Declarant. ARTICLE VI3 INSURANCE Section 7.01. Obligation t0 Obtain Insurance The Board shall cause to be 6Dtained and maintained the following insurance: (a; Fire and extended coverage inzu ranee, to the extent reasonably obtainable, on all Improvements, if any, under Che con U Ol or ovnershiD of the Asso<iation, Sn an amount of not less than one hundred percent (100i) of the actual current replacement coat. The insurance shall insure the Association and its Mortgagees, as their interests may appear. As to earn such policy which will not be voided or impaired thereby, the Association hereby waives and releases all claims against the Hoard, Declarant and the agents and employee^, of each of the foregoing, with respect to any loss covered by the inau ranee, whether or not ea used Dy negligence or breach of any agreement r .. -ti~^C1Q I1 portion of the Subject Property may submit and obealn the advance approval of the Architectural Review Committee for [he proapec[!ve Owner's plans therefor pelor to the pureNSe of the property. Section 6.01. Meetings of the Architectural Review Committee. Tne Architectural Rtviev Committee she 11 meet Crom time to time as necessary to perform !ts duties hereunder. The Archi- teeWral Aeviev Committee may from time to time by reaolu[ion unanimously adopted In uritin9 des igna tea 'COmmittee Repreaen- Gtive" (who may, but need nOt, be one of !te membe[a) to Cake any ac clon o[ Perform any duties far and on behal[ of the Architectural Revlev cnm.~.... - ; ~; y,,;l,,.y vL vauane- es pursuant to Subsection 6.03(b)-above.` In the absence of such tlesignation, ens vote of a majority of the members of the Archltectu ral Aeviev Commlt[se, Or the written consent of a majority of the members OC tae Archlt ectural Review Committee, shall cons citute an ac[ of the Architectural Review Committee. Section 6.05. Notice of Aooointment. Whenever a umber of the Architectural Revlev Committee is appointed oc removed while both Declarant and kbe bard have rightm of appointment, written odtiee to the other party of such appointment oz removal obeli W given by tae party ap- pointing or removing tae member. Section 6.06. Scone of Aeviev. Tae Architectural Aeviev Coauni tree Shall not be responsi- ble for reviewing, nor shall its approval be deemed approval of any plan or desig^ from the standpoint of structural safety or conformance with building or Other codes. No tvithstandin9 any other ptovisi on of this Declaration to the con t:ary, Declarant need not seek or obtain the approval of .. the Architectural Aeviev Committee for any Improv¢ment con- ' _cted cr p:aced by Declarant on any portion of the Subject Proper Gy owned or leased by Declarant. ARTICLE VI! INSURANCE Section 7.0:. Obligation to Obtain Insurance. The Board shall cause to be dbtained and maintained tae following insurance: (a) Fire and extended coverage insurance, to the extent reasonably obtainable, on all Improvements, if any, under the conerol or ovnetship oC the Associatinn, in an amount of not less than pne hundred percent (100i) of the actual current replacement cost. The insuwnce eha 11 inscre the Association and its Nottgagees, as [heir interests may appear. As to each such policy which will not be voided Or Smpaired thereby, the Association hereby waives and releases all claims againct the Hoard, Declarant and the agents and employees of each o[ the foregoing, with respect cm any loss covered by tae insurance, whether or not caused by negligence or breach of any agreement 86-~5Q414 _,~_ portion of the Subject Property may cubmit and obtain the advance approval of the Architectural Aeviev Committce Eor the prospective Ovner'9 plena therofor prior to the purchase of the property. Section 6.0 a. Neetings of the Architectural Reviev Committee. Tne Architectural Review Committee shell meet from time t0 time as necessary to perform lta duties heteunde r. The Archi- tecWral Reviev Committee may from time to time by resolution unanimously adopted in vritin9 designs to • 'Committee Represen- tative' (who may, Dut need not. be one of its members) to take any action oc perform any dud ea Eor and on behalf of the Architectural Aeviev Committee, except the gpn[ine of + _;_ es pursuant to Subae~t+~• a ;:,~ .;,vve, in the absence~of .v.i, oesrgnation, the vote of a majority of [he members of the Arehiteccural Reviev Cmmmitcee, Or the written consent of a majority of the members of the Archtfectural Review Committee, aha 11 consti cute an act of the Architeckural Aeviev Committee. Section 6.05, Notice of Appointment. Whenever a member of the Arehiteccural Aeviev Committee is appointed or removed while born Declarant and the Hoard have rights of appointmen4 written notice to the other party of auto appol ntment or removal shall be given by the pa cty ap- pointing or removing the member. Section 6.06. Scope of Aeviev. Tne Acchl[eecural Aevtev Committee shall not be responsi- ble for revi swing, nor shall !ts approval be deemed approval of any pia,: of design from th< sCandpolnt of seruecural cafeey or conformance with building or other codes. NatvltAs Landing any ether provision of this Declaration Co the contrary, Declarant need not seek or obtain the appraval of the Architectural Reviev Committee Eor any Improvement con- structed oc placed by Declarant on any portion of the Subject Property awned Jr leased by Decla [ant. ARTICLE VIJ 1NEOHANCE Section 7.01. Obligation [a Obtain Insurance. Tne Board shall cause to be dbtained and maintained the tollovin9 insurance: (a) Fire and extended coverage insurance, tp the extent reasonably obtainable, on all Improvements, if any, under the control pr ovnershiy oC the Association, in an amount of not less than one hundred percent (1001) of [he actual current replacement cost. Tne Insurance shall Insure the Association and its Mort ga9ees, a5 their interests may appear. As to en ch such policy vhi ch vii] not be voided or impaired thereby, the Association hereby waives and releases all claims against the Board, Declarant and the agents and employees of each of the foregoi nq, vi ch respect Co any loss covered by Che insurance, whether or not caused by negligence or breach of any agreement A6-tiS9(;~r2 _ ,_ _ portion of the Subject Property may submit and obtain the advance approval of the Architectural Aeviev Co¢sit[ee for the prospect! ve Ovner'a plens therefor prior to the purchase of [he property. Section 6.OE. Meetings of the Arehitectu cal Reviev C mm'tt The Architectural Aeviev Committee shall meet from time to time as necessary to perform its duties hereunder. The Archi- tectural Reviev Committee may from time to time by resolution unanimously adopted in writing designate a 'Committee Rep[eeen- tacive^ (who may, Dut need not, be one of its members) to take any action of perform any duties Eor and on behalf of the ArMitectural Reviev Committee, excemt th... -- .u ianc- •s wrion o.od(b) above. In ^the~absence of sucT designacion,ythe vote of a majgrity of the members of the Architectural Aeviev Commi Ltee, o[ the vritten cpnaent of a majority of the members oC the Architectural Aeviev Coruti tree. shall constitute an act of [h¢ Architectural Aeviev Committee. Hection 6.05. Notice of Apoointmen t. whenever a member of the AmhiLeccural Reviev Committee is appointed or removed vAtle both Declarant and the Board have rights of appointment, v[iiten ndtice to she other party of such appointment or removal shall be given by the party ap- pointing o[ removing Che member. Section 6.06. Scope of Aeviev, TAe Architectural qe viev Committee shall not be responsi- ble for revieving, nor shall its approval be deemed approval of any plan or design from the standpoint of structural safety or co ntorma nce vith building or other codes. Not vithsta nd ing any other provision of this Decla ra cion eo the contrary, Decla[a nr need not seek or obtain the approval of the Arch:.t ectural Review Committee for any Improvement con- structed or placed by Derlara.^.t en ary )wrtf en of the Subject Property ovned or lezsed by Declarant. ARTICLE VII INSURANCE Section 7.01. Oblige ci on to Obtpin Insurance. The Board aha 11 cause to be dbtained and maintained the Eollouing insurance: (a) Fire and extended coverage insurance, to the extent reasonably ob[ainaDle, on all Improvements, it any, under the Control or ovnership o[ the AssoUation, in an amount of no[ less than one hundred percent (100t) of the actual current replacement Cost. The insurance shall Snsu [e Che Association and its Mortgagees, a5 their !nieces is may appear. As to each such policy vhi rh viii nut be voided or impaired thereby, the Associa Lion hereby valves and releases all claims age incc the Hoard, Declarant and the agents and employees of each oC [he foregoing, vlth respect to any loan covered by the insurance, vhecher or not caused by negligence or breach of any aq reement _ „ _ ss-zssola oy such Aersons. Dut only t0 the extent that insurance preeeeds are ie- ceivad an eompenaacion for the loss. (bl Bodily injury liability insurance, with limits of no[ less Chan 5500,000 par Daraon and SS. DD D, DOD par occurrence, and property damage Ii ability with • de duct iDle of not more than 35,000 and a limit of nnc leas than 55,000,000 per oecutrance, insuring agai not liability for bodily injury, death and property damage arising Isom the aetlvi[tea of the Association or witA reapect to property under its jurisdiction, including, ff obtainable, a eroea-liability endorsement insuring each insured againat liability to each other insured. (e) workers' compensation insurance to the extent necessary to comply with any applicable laws. (d7 Bueh Other insuunce, including indemnity and other Donda as the egard aha31 deem necessary or expedient to tarty out the Association funetione as set forth in t0ia Deelanti,.n .~- ;; -,~~„~ ono the sylawa. (e) The Association :hall maintain a fidelity bontl in an saeunt equal to at least the estimated maximuw funds, including tuetvas in cun- [otly of the Association or Nanagemmnt Agent ac any given tlma during the term of the Fidelity Bond- Nuwewt, the Bond shall be lase than a sum equal [o three (3) wntha of the assessments on all Lau, plus reserve funds, change the Association as insured and induces againat lost by sea- son of the data of members of the Board, officers and employees of the As sotiation and any management agent and his employees, whether o[ not such persons are compensated for their ee[vicea. The liability insurance referred to above shall name, as separately protected insureds, Declarant, the Association, the Board, antl their rep- resentatives, members and employees, with reapect to any liability aris- ing out of the management, maintenan to or use of any of Coawon Area. Ev- ery polity of insurance obcainetl by the Association ahA33 contain an ex- press waiver, if evallable, of any and all rights of subrogation against Declarant, the Boar d, and their representa[ivea, members and employees. The fire and liability insurance pollCiea may be blanket policies covering the Common Area and any property of Declarant, in which rase the Association and Declarant shall each Fay [heir proportionate shared of the premium. Bert ion ], 01. dssotlation as Trustee. The Association, acting throuyh the Board, is hereby appointed and shall be deemed trustee of the interests of all named insureds under pol- icies of insurance purchased and main Gained by the Association, All in- surance proceeds under any such policies as provided fur in Sec [ion ]. C1 shall be paid to the Board as trustee. The Hoard shall have foil power to recevve and to receipt for the pzoeee ds and to deal therewith as provided herein. Insurance proceeds shall be used by the Association for the re- pair or replacement of the Improvements for which the in suranee was car- raed, whl ch repairs or replacements shall be made in accordance with the previsions of Section <,OR hereof. The Board is hereby granted Che au- thority Co negotiate loss settlements with the appropriate an su ranee car- rters. Any two tli rectors of the Board may sign a loss claim farm and re- lease form in connection with the settlement of a loss claim, and any such claim, release or settlement shall be bindino on all the named in- sureds. Section 7.C3. Annual Insurance Review. The Board shall review the insurance carried by [he Association at least annually, for the purpose of determining tae amount of the in sur^ once referred to in this Article VII, The Board may obtain a current ap- ptaisal of the full replacement value of any Improvements owned by the As- sociatipn, without deductf on fo: depreu a[ion, by a qualified independent ~b-259O14 _„_ an the rritcen Architect oral Standards promulgated from time ca tame by the Architectural Review Committee. The Lots and the Common Atea snail be improved and used only for residential purposes and~purpo ses incidental thereto, No more [non one Family Resad¢nce shall be erected on any Lo[. No portton of [he Subject Property shall be improved ar used for any busi- ness or commercial purpose. Section 9.01. Antennae. No exCertor radio antenna, television antenna, or other antenna of any type, including satellite televidon dishes or similar devices, shall Da erected or maintained is the 8uhject Property rithout the approval of the Architectural Aeviw Committee. A mss ter antenna or cable television antenna or ant. .. w... or aaaroum~~ -- --- ~~- ~ a"""iueu toi use of all Ornery 9 p OE Orne ro,'andDeclarant may grant easements Eor such purposes, subject to the provisions of Section 11.09 of Chia Declaration. Section 9,01. Insurance Rates. Nothing shall 6e done or kept in the 5ubjeet Property rhich rill increase the rate of insurance on any Common Area ri thou[ Che approval of tat Aoard,:~oor shall anythtno be done mr kept in the 5ubjeet Property rhich could result in the cancellation of insurance on any Common Atea or rhich could oe in violation of any lac. The Bnard may eontlition any approval given pursuant to this Se<tion 9.07 upon the Orner's eg ceemenc to pay the increase in insurance premiums caused by such Owner's activity. Section 9.03. No Further Subdivision. No Loc or Common qua may be further subdivided, nor may any easewent or other interest therein less than fee Cit3e ~includin9 a time-share estate or time-share use as defined in Ca lifoi nia Ausicess and Prcfessions Code Section 11003.5) be conveyed by cht Orner therdof (including CAe Association) rithout tar prior written approval of the Arent tectural P.e td ev Committee, out excepting any subdivision or conveyance made by Declarant. Nothing in [his Section snail be deemed to prevent an owner Erom, or require the approval of the Architectural Aeviev Com ~itf ee for: (1) selling or leasing of entire Lots [o more than one person [o be held 6y them as tenants in common, join[ tenants, cenants by the entirely or as community property. Sec tlon 9.Oa. Signs, No stgn, poster, balltroard, advertising device or other display of any kind shall be displayed to the public vier on or from any por- tion of the Sutrject Property rithout the approval of the Architectur- al Review Committee. Notwithstanding [he foregoing, (i) one sa gn of reasonable dimensions advertising a Lot for sale or for rent may be placed within the Lot by the Owner thereof or by his agent and (ii) nothrng herein snail be construed as preventing Declarant and its agents and assigns from engaging in all forms of construction antl sales activities vi thin the Subjee[ Property, including, rithout limttacion, the use o[ al] forms o[ signs, flags, markers and sales devices for periods of time not to exceed the date on rhich Che last Lot in the Subject Preperty is soltl by Declarant or seven (~) years from the date of recordation of this Declaration. 86-'~'~ 514 - 31 Section 9.05. Animals. No anlula of any kind shall bs raised, bred or kept on the Sub]e0t prowrty, except that a rusonable number of dogs, eats or other household pais uy Da kept, ptovldsd that they art not kept, brad or eaintalned for any cmmeerclal purpose, nor !n violation of any ocher provision of tole beelaratton, and such limltatlons as uy be set forth in'the Board Rules and Regulations. A "reasonable number' as used in Chia Section 9.05 shall otdlna rely mean no more than two (Z) pert per houssholdr provided, however, that the Aasoclacton (or the Archltectu cal Aevieu Committee o[ •ueh ocher Person or entity at the Asaociati on may from time to time desion+r.. - - -- -' c number m any instance may be more or 3esa.•sThe Asaoclation, acting through the Board, shall have the right to proni bit malntenanee of any animal which eonsti- titea, in the opinion of the aos rd, a nuisance to any other Wner. Animals belonging to Wners, occupants or their licens- ees, tenants or invitees vithin the Subject Property mutt be ei tner kept vithin an enclosure, an enclosed yard or on a leash Deing held by an individual capable of controlling the animal. Each Wner Shall 6e lla ble to each and all remaining Woe rs, their Families, guests, tenanGa and lnviteee, for any unreason- able noise or damage to person Or property caused Dy any animals brought or kept upon the Subject Property by the Wner or Dy members of his Family, hi9 tenants or his quesCS; and is shall be the aDsolu ce duty and [esponsi bili ty of each Wner co Clean up after his animals vhith have used any portion of the Subject Property. Section 9.06. Nuisances. No rubbish or debris of any kind shall be placed or permitted to accumulate anywhere upon the Subject Property, and no odor shall be permit red to arise therefrom so as Co tentler the Subj<cc Property or any portion thereof unsanitary, un- sightly, offensive or de [simental to any other property in Ghe vi einity thereof or to its occupants. Ao Heise o[ other nuisance snarl De permitted to exist or operate upon any portion of the Subject Property 5o as to De offensive or detrimental to any other property in the vicinity [hereof or to its occupa nC S. Section 9.07. View Festrietion. No vtq elation or other Imp cavemen[ shall De planted constructed or malnca fined upon any Lat in such location or of such height as co unreasonably obstruct the view Erom any other Lot to the vicinity [hereof. In Me event of a dispute be eveen Owners as to the obstruction of a vi ev from a Lot, such dispute shall be submitted to the Arcnitectu cal Re vi ev COmmittee, whose decision in such matters shall De final and binding and not subject [o appeal of any kind. Any such ohstruction shall, upon request of [ne AcchiGec [oral Review Committee, be removed or otherwise altered co the saCisfac[ion of the Ar chiteetucal Review Committee, by the Owner of the Lot upon vnich [he obstruction is located. Each Owner o[ a Lot shall be responsible for periodic trimming and pruning of all hedges, shrubs and [tees iocated on his Lot, so as to hoc unreasonably obstruce the view of adjacent Wners. ~~°2~3i;14 -3a- Section 9.0e. Exterior Maintenance and Repair; OunerS' ~I'ivattona.~ No Improvement anywhere vi[hie tAe Sabjeet Property shall be permitted to tall isto disrepair, and each Omer shall keep all ImprovemenL• located on his Lot !n good condition and repair. In the event that any Ovnec shall pe rmii any Improvement which is the responsibility of such Owner to maintain, to fall into disrepair eo as [o cceake a dangerous, unsafe, unsightly e[ unattractive condition as determined by the Architeotural Review Committee, the Board, attn consulting with the ArchiteRUtal Review Committee, and, of ter Notice and Bearing, followed by not less than [if teen (19) days' prior writ ten ~- -- •• ~ n p...yvaay, euaii i urc ai yut w correct"the condition, and to enter upon the Owner's Lot of any Common Area fo[ the purpose of doing so, and the Ovns[ shall prasptly reimburse the Association !or the coat thereof. The owner Of the offending property sha21 be personally liable, and his property may be subject to a mechanic's lien Sn favor of the Association or its contractors o: subcontractors in accordance with Chapter Z of Title 15 of Pazi < of Division Third of the Civil Code of the State of California, as the same may be revised from time to time, o[ any atatu to or govern- mental regulation which may be enacted in lieu the[eoE o[ in furtherance thereof, Eor all costs and expenses ioeurced by the Associa [i on in taking such cor[ecti ve actsr plus all Costs incurred in co33ectinq the amounts due. Each Ovnet shall pay all amounts due for such work within ten (30) days after [eceip[ of written demand therefor, o[ the amo cots may at the option of [he Board be made payable try the Owner, after Notice and Hearing, d5 a Rei mbu[semen[ Assessment. Se c[ion 9.09. D[aina qe. There shall be no interfe[ence with the established drainage pattern over any part of the Subject Property, unless an adequate alternati vx provision is made for proper drainage and is first aooroved in writing 6y the Archit<ctu ral R<vi ev Committee. The term "established drainage pattern" shall mean the drainage pattern that exists at the time the ove[all grading is completed by De cla[ant, o: Coat vhi ch is shown on any plans approved by [he A[chi[ectu[al Review Comanit[e e, which may include drainage tram the Common Area over any ocher portion of the Subject Property. Section 9.10. NO Hazardous Activities. No activities shall be conducted en any portion of the Subject Pcope[ty, and no Improvements shall be conatrueied on any Lot which are or might b< unsafe or harardous !o any Person or grope try. Nithouc limiting the generality of the foregoing, no firearms shall be discharged on the Subject Property and no open fires shall De li ght<d or permitted on Che Subject Proper- ty except Sn a contained barbecue unit chile attended and in use Eor cooki nq purposes or urchin an interior or exterior fireplace designed to prevent the dispersal of burning embers. Section 9.11. Unsightly Articles. No unsightly artielea shall be perml tied to remain on any Lot so ae Co be visible tcm any other portion of the Subject Eroperty. Nithout limiting the generality of Lha foregoing, refuse, garbage and [rash shall b< keg[ at all times in cov- ered, eani Gary concaine rs or other areas as mny be provided by .. ... r the Association. No elotheal inea shall be installed on any Lot. No clothing or household fabrics shall be hung, dried or aired on any Lot, and no lumber, grass, shrub or tree clippings or plant vast e, metals, bulk materials or scrap or refuse or trash aha 11 be kept, stored or allowed to accumulate on any tot, except within an enclosed structure or otAerwiae appropriately Screened from view. Section 9.12. No Tempcrary_Strue[ure s. No tent, bhack or other temporary buildi nq, improvement or structure shall be placed upon any portion oL the Subject Property, except Chat the Architectural Review Cowai tree may permit temporary etruciure6 to be used !n connection with construction on parts oC the Subject Property. Section 9.17. No Mining of Drll2ing. No portion of the Subject Property shall be used without the express prior vrf teen ronsent of the ArcAi teetural Review Committee for the purpose of mining, quarrying, drilling, boring or exploring for or removing water, oil, qaa of other hydrocarbons, minerals, rocks, stones, gravel ar ea rCh. Section 9.1d. Improvements and Alters lions There Shall b< n0 excavation of cOnat[mctlon Oi alCe[dti00 vhi ch in any way alters the exterior appearance of any Improve- ment without the prio[ approval of the Arehltectu ral Review Commi tree pursuant to Article VI hereof. Section 9.15. Pa rkinq and yehi eular Restrictions. No Owner shall park, store or keep on any street (public or private) within the Subject Property for over twenty-four (2d) hours any large commerctal type vehicle (including, but not limited to, any dump truck, cement mixer truck, oil or gas truck, or delivery truck); recreational vehicle (including, but not limited to, any camper unit, house, car or motor home); or any bus, trailer, trailer roach, camp iztlle:, beat, aircraft of aobile Home; or any inoperable vehicle or any other similar vehicle. In addition, no Owner shall park, store, or keep anyvhe re vi thin the suhje ct Pcopecry any venicle or vehicular equipment, mobile cr oche[ui se, deemed to b< a nuisance by the Board, upon any unenclased parkl ng space, eo as to be visible from anywhere in the Subject Property. All trailers, campers, motor homes and simila[ recreational Vehicles shall be parked in enclosed garages or otherwise adequately screened from view by way of a structure approved by the Architectural Review Committee. The above excludes camper trucks and similar vehicles up to and ir.c lading three-quarter (3/d) ton when used For everyday-type t: ansporcation and subject to approval by the Board. No Owner of a Lot shall conduct major repairs or major restora [i ons of any motor venicle, boat, trailer, aircraft or other vehicle upon any portion mE any Lot or elsewhere within the Subject Property, except wholly within the Owner's garage; provided, hoveve r, coat suoh activity shall at no time be permitted iE it is determined by the Board or its agent to be a nuisance. F,aeh owner shall keeF his garage space readily availa- ble for parking of his respective vehicle ls) and shall not store any goods of materials therein, nor use any pc rtion of the garage space for a workshop or ocher use if such use would prevent said owner from parting any of his re spec[ive vehic lrs therein. Garage doors shall remain closed at all times when not in use. No[vith- scantling the foregoing, these restrictions shall not be inter- preted in such a manner so as co permit any accivi cy which would be contrary to any ordinance of the City of Rancno Cucamonga. 1 • ~ - " - 86-25901e Sacra on 9_l6. tandsca`i ng. tai near rare Slo < Bank Lentlaea in Each O..'ner has the • obis gation o cu tavau ng, maa ntaanang an replenu ng ell trees, bushes snd other slope plantings, and any lsntlscepang improvements as were originally placed on tueh Lot by Declarant end of generally maintaining the landseepinq on such Loc. There is hereby reserved in Declarant, so long as Declarant Duns a Loc in the Subject property, and the Association, their successors and ecsigns, an easement in grass over that portion of every Lot that eontei ns a rear yard slope bank in ezcess of five (5) feet in vet rata] height for the purpose of performing the obligations he reinabove Set forth in this paragraph (al which easement may be axe teased in the event Owner defaults an has oblig scions under toss pardgra ph (al. No such Owner shall remove any trees, bushes or ocher slope .~ plantings, or alter any landsca pang improvements with an an}' such zest yard slope bank without first securing the written approval of born the Archit¢tcural Reva¢w Committee and the Cary of Rancho Cucamonga. Declarants the As$OC3dC10n and [hear agents and independent contrar ror~ _ - - - ..yui co auy a,oi from came to time uathouc now ce for the purpose ot~performa ng any landscape maintenance obligati ons created hereby; prove tled, Aovever, that except in the event of an emergency, no Such entry snap be made Def ore ];00 a.m. or after 7:DU p.m. Such e r.i ry shall be made oath as little inconvenie nee [o the Owner as pos- sable and any damage caused Uereby shall Le repaired by the Assoca- atvon. No person or entity entering a Lot puzsu ant co this Sect son shall be deemed guilty of a trespass thereby. In the event any Owner removes any [fees, bushes or other slope plan tingsr or alters any landscaping improvements, or causes the rear yard slope bank area to fall into disrepair so as to create an unsightly, unsafe or unattractive condition as deterai ned by the Arcnitectural Review Committee, the Board, after consulting vein the Arcnitectural Review Committee, and, after Notice and Rearingr Colloved 6y not less than fifteen (15) days' prior vritt en notice to the Owner of such property, shall have the right to correct the condition, and to enteL upon the Owner's LoG for the purpose of replanting, restoring oc otherwise correcting [he rear yard slope banks, and Che Owner shall promptly reimburse [he Association for the cost [hereof. The Owner of the offending property shall be personally liable, and his property may be subject to a mechanic's lien in favor olt the Association oc its ten:: ac tons nr subtontratturs in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title 15 of Fart a of Oivasa0n Third of the Civil Code of the Stare of California, as she same may be revised from time to time, or any sf atute or governmental regulation which may be enacted in lieu thereof or in furthers nee thereof, for all casts and expenses Incurred by the Association in taking such co[rective acts, plus all costs incurred in collecting the amounts due. Each Owner shall pay all amounts due Eor such work within ten (101 days after receipt of written demand [her efor. or the amounts may at the option of the Board be made payable by the Owner a5 a Aeimbur semen[ Assessment. (b) Other Landsea in Nithin One hundred and twenty (110) days o tn< conveyance of a Lo[ improved with a Residence to any Owner, such U+ner shall install and shall thereafter maintain (except for that landscaping to be maintained by [ne As soeiation) the landscaping of his Lot in a neat and attractive cdndition, including all necessary landscaping and gardening to properly maintain and perio83tally replace when necessary the trees, plants, grass and oche[ wagers Lion originally placed on such Lot by Declarant, if any. As to any Lo[ in a Pnase of Development that is not Improved with a Residence when title the: eto is conveyed, the Owner shall install such landscaping vi thin ninety (90) days after issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Residence that is eons[ ruc[ed on such Lot. NO plants o[ seeds, infected with insects or plant diseases, shall be brow qht upon, groan of