Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1992/09/02 - Agenda Packet
CITY COUNCIL AGE1`•TDA CITY OF RANCHO CUCA.rIONGA REGULAR MEETINGS 1st and 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 p.m. September 2, 1992 Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91'30 +.• City Councilmembers Dennis L. Stout, Mayor William J. Alexander, Councilmember Charles J. Auquet, Councilmemher Diane Williams, Councilmemher Pamela J. Wright, C'otencilmemher •~• Jack Lam, City Manager .James L. Markman, City Attorney Debra ,J. Adams, City Clerk City Office: 9R9-1t151 PAGE City Council Agenda September 2, 1992 t All items submitted for the City Council Agenda must be in wri!ing. The deadl(na for submitting these items is 5:00 p.m. on the Nyednesday prior to the meeting. The City Clerk's Office receives all such items. A. CALL TO ORDER 1, Roll Call: f3uquet_, Alexander_,Stout _, W Iliams _, and Wright- B ANNOUNCEMENTSIPRESENTATIOfJc 1. Presentation to Firs Captain George W. Cox Recognizing his Retirement after 20 years of Dedicates Service to the People of Rancho Cucamonga. 2. Preseniotion to the Atta Loma Arsenal Soccer Club for winning the National Cup Championship of the United Slates Youth Soccer Association. 3. Presentation of Proclamations to Steve Wilkerson (Pop Wame0, Jeff Duvol (Summit Grading and Paving). Sam Alarcon (Alarcon Sons, Inc.), and Paul Wiley (C.E. Wiley Construction) for Commundy Effort to Create o Dirt Parking Lat at Chaffey College. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the Clty Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and sat the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to flue minutes per Individual. D. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council et one time without discussion. Any item may be removed by a Councilmember or member of the audience for discussion. PAGE Clly Council Agentla September 2, 7992 2 1, Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 8/72/92 and 8/19/92: and I Payroll ending 8/13/92 for the total amount of S4,OQ2.767.91. 2. Approval to Adopt a Resolution in Support of Proposition i56 -The I1 Rail Bond Measure, RESOLUTION N0.92-230 IZ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C!TV OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSmON 156 3. Approval of Street Bonner Applications. 13 4. Approval of an Appeal of Conditionoi Use Permit 97-24 and 24 Tentotive Parcel Map 13845 -Masi - An appeal of certain Engineering and Planning Division CondRlons o} Approval for Conditional Use Pennii 91-24, the development of 32 buildings }otoling approximately 268,907 square feet and comprised of a mix of industrial, multi-tenant, office, and restaurant uses, and Tentative Parcel Map 13845. a subdivision of 30.2 acres of lond into 37 parcels Int he Intlusiriol Park District (Subarea 7) of the industrial Area Specific Plan, located aY the southwest comer of Foothill 8oulevdrd and Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-011-10. 79, 21.26, 27. and 28. RESOLUTION N0.92-231 24DI A RESOLUTION Of THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RAN: HO CUCA MONGA. CALIFOR NA. CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 13845, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ROCHESTER AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN; 229-011-10, 14, 21, 26, 27. AND 28 PAGE City Council Agenda September 2, 1992 3 RESOLUTION NG. 92-240 2405 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY CCUNCIL OF THE CffY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CAUFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-24 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 32 BUILDINGS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 268,907 SQUARE FEET AND COMPRISED OF A MIX OF INDUSTRIAL. MULTI- iENANT, OFFICE, AND RESTAURANT USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT (SUBAREA 7) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ROCHESTER AVENUE. AND MAKING FUJDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-011-10. 19, 21, 26, 27. AND 28 5. Approval to Award and Authorrze Execution of Conirac} (CO 92- 25 061) for the Haven Avenue Rehabilitation Project, from Fourth Street to Foothill Boulevard for the Amount of 5866,872.36 (5788.065.78 plus 10% contingency), }o be funtled from Systems Development Fund, Account No. 22-4637-8936 and FAU Fund, Account No. 2d-4637-8838. 6. Approval to execute Construction Cooperative Agreement 26 Number B-787 (CO 92-062) with Caltrans for the Improvement of Nineteenth Street from Camefian Street to Amethyst Street. RESOLUTION NO. 92-232 27 A RESOLUTION CF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 8- 787 WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF NINETEENTH STREET FROM CARNELIAN STREET TO AMETHYST STREET AND AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING THEREOF BV THE MAVOR 7. Approval to authorize the Mayo• to execute the Proposal (CO 92- 28 059) from Terry Wolfe of Terry's Fireplace to purchase oulk wastewood from the City of Roncho Cucamonga. (Continued hom August 19, 1992) 8. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement Exisnsion for 31 Traci 13565-1 thru -4, loca}ed on the northeast corner of Summit Avenue and Wardmon Bullock Rood, submitted by Standard Pacific. PAGE City Council Agenda September 2, 1992 4 RESOLUTION N0.92-234 33 A RESOLUTION OF THE CRY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAUFORNIA. APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FGR TRACT 13565-1 THROUGH -4 9. Approval to accept Improvements, Release of Bonds and Notice 34 o` Completion for the West Greenway Trail extentling on from West Greenway Park to Elm Avenue. Relecse: Fa:rfhful Pertormance Bond $ 7370C:7,OD RESOLUTION N0.92-235 35 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE WEST GREENWAV TRAIL AND AUTHORI7JNG THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPL'tTION FOR THE WORK E. CONSENT ORDINANCES The following Ordinances have had public hearings at the tlma of first reading. Second readings are expected to be routine and non•coniroversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one tirtre without discussion. The City Clerk will read the title. Any item can be removetl for discussion. No Items SubmHted F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC itcARINGS The following items have been advertised end/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Cheir will open the meeting to receive public testimony, CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL TQ VARIANCE 9?-02 - SILVA - An 36 appeal of the Plonning Commisslon~s decision to tleny the request to reduce the required interior sido yard setback from 5 feet to 6 inches from the property line for a single family home in the Low Residential Dislncl (2-4 dwelling units per acre). Ixdted at 10077 Ironwood Street - APN: 1077-04 i-64. PAGE City Council Agenda September 2, 1992 5 RESOLUTION N0.92-236 c7 A RESOLUTION OF THE Cf1V COUNCIL OF THE CITV OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING 1HE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY VARIANCE NO. 92-02, A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED INTERIOR SIDE VARD SETBACK FROM 5 FEET TO b INCHES FROM THE PROPERTY LINE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT 10077 IRONWOOD STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-04 i-64 2. CONSIDFRATION OF AN APPEA' OF ETIWANDA SPECIFIC' PLAN 60 AMENDMEM 89.03 - LI S HOMES CORPOf03ATION - An appeol of the Planning Commission's tlecision recommending tlenicl of a request to amend certain development sidntldrds Within the Etiwanda Specific Plon (Continued from June 3, 1992) ORDINANCE NO. 491 ((wst reading) 104 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITV OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAUFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 89-03. A REQUEST TO AMEN,? THE MINIMUM AVERAGE LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT FROM 70,000 TO 8.500 SQUARE FEET FOR B 1.2 ACRES OF LAND ZONED LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN ETIWANDA AND EAST AVENUES, NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND EAST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, NORTH OF MILLER AVENUE WITHIN THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, AND MAKING FINOINGS INS SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100.041-09, 1100-081-12. 11J0-171-01 AND 13, IIOD-181-01, 1100. 14141 AND 02, AND 71CJ}191-01 ORDINANCE NO. 492 (first reading) 109 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CIN COUNCIL OF THE CI1V OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 89-03. A REQUEST TO AMEND THE MINIMUM AVERAGE LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT FROM 10.000 TO 8,500 SQUARE FEET FOfi ALL PROPERTIES ZONED LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL SOUTH AND EAST OF THE DEVCRE FREEWAY WITHIN THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AR"eA. AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF PAGE City Council Agenda September 2, 1992 6 RESOLLTON N0.92-070 113 A RESOLU-ON GF THE CITY CCUNCIL OF THE CfiY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. DENYING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PIAN AMENDMENT 89-03, A REQUEST TO AMEND CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITHIN THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREGF CONSIDERATION OF 4PPEAL OF V SnN NTATI ACT 14 11 - 60 U S HOMES CORPORATION - qn appeal of the Planning Commission': ^_~cision denying }he proposetl Tentative Tract Map and Design Review of the development of 226 single family lots on 81.2 acres of land within the Etiwanda Specific Plan in the Low-Medium Resitlential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), locofed on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue, south of the Devore Freeway, and west of Eas( Avenue - APNI: 1706041-09, 1100-087-02, 1106171-01 and 13, 1106181-01, 1106141-01 and 02, and 11(X}191-01. Related File: Etiwantla Specific Plan Amendment 89-03. (Continued hom June 3, 1992) RESOLUTION N0.92-071 116 A RESOLUTION OF THE CCTV COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14211, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 226 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 81.2 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN IN 1HE MEDIUM AND LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (B-14 AND 4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, RESPECTIVELY), LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE. SOUTH OF THE DEVORE FREEWAY AND WES7 OF EAST AVENUE, AND MAKING ENDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF-AFN: 1100-041-09.11(X}061-12, IIOD-171-01 AND 13. 1106161-01, 1106141-01 AND -02. AND 1106 191-01 PAGE Ciiy Council Agenda September 2, 1992 i RESOLUTION N0.92-072 120 A RESOLURON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. DENYING THE DESIGN REVIEW OF VESi1NG TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 74211, THE DESIGN REVIEW OF A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 226 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 81.2 ACRES OF LAND VJITHIN THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN IN THE MEDIUM AND LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (8-14 ANC 4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, RESPECTIVELY), LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, SOUTH OF THE DEVORE FREEWAY AND WEST OF EAST AVENUE, P,ND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 110D-041-09. 1100-081-12, 1100.171-01 AND-13, 1100- 781-04, 1106.141-01 AND {12. AND 1100-0191-01 3. {70NSh~ DFRATION OF ESTABLSHING AN IMPROVEMENT AREA 124 WITHIN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 97-1 (VICTORIA COMMUNITY) AND AUTHORIZATION TO LEW AN ADDITIONAL SP .IFC'. AI`TF~ RESOLUTION N0.92-237 129 A RESOLUTION OF THE CIN CCLINCIL OF THE CIN OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. MAKING CERTAIN PRELIMINARY FINDINGS, PASSING UPON PROTESTS AND APR70VING FINAL REPORF RESOLU?lON NO. 92-238 131 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CffV CF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, DECLARING AND ESTABLISHING AN IMPROVEMENT AREA WITHIN AN EXISTING COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT. AND AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF LEW OF AN ADDITIONAL SPECIAL TAX WITHIN SUCH IMPROVEMEN7 AREA TO 1TiE QUALIFIED ELECTORS RESOLUTION NO. 92-239 143 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE RESULTS OF A 'MELlO-BOOS' COMMUNITY FACILITIES ACT OF 1982 SPECIAL ELEC?ION ?AGE City Council Agenda September 2, 1992 fl ORDINANCE NO. 502 (&51 reading) 145 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CffY COUNCIL OF THE CTTV OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, AUTHORVJNG THE LEW OF A SPECIAL TAX IN AN IMPROVEMEM AREA OF AN EXISTING COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT G PIBLIG HEARINGS The following items have no legal publication or posting requirements. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. L CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINAN .E ESTABLISHIN ~ R - I ATIONS 153 AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR TAXICAB SERVICE (Continued hom August 19, 1992) ORDINANCE NO. 501 Cfirst reading) 156 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CRV OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE B OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 8.30 ENTITLED 'TAXICAB SERVICE; THEREIN REGULATING AND PERMITTING THE OPERATION OF TAXIS 2. CONSIDERATION OF PROPERTY OWNER REQUEST TO FORM AN i64 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT IN GOIITH ETIWANDA ~ GITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS Tha following Items do not legally require any public testimony, aNhouglt tha Chair may open the meeting for public Input. No Items Submitted. PAGE City Councl Agenda September 2, 7992 g I, GO INCII RIISW FCS The following items have been requested by the City Council for discussion. They are not public hearing Items, although the Chair may open the meeting for public Input. 7. DI~!:~y`ION ON A T RNATIV s TO ASSF SA hi DISTRICTS (Cadinued hom August 19, 1992) 167 2. CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT IBRARV N AS FR P Ah AhD IMP M NATION PLAN J tDENTIFlCATION OF IT M FOR N X7 6 Friti 17G This is the time for City Coune(I to Identify the items they wish to discuss at the next meeting. These Items will not be discussed et this meeting, only Identified for the next meeting. K COMMIINIr`ATIr1NC Fn(IM TNF OII This is the time and place for the general public to address the Clty Couneli. State law prohibits the Clty Council from addressing any Issue not prevlausly Included on the Agenda. The Clty Council may receive testimony and set the matte for a subsequent meeting. Comments are io be I!mited to five minutes per indivWual. L. ADJOURNMENT MEETING TO ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSSION PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on August 27, 1992, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54953 at 1C50C Civic Center Drive. ° : .: Nor.o~aam°oo~woa.°oNO°e~N~o.ooa~ooo_NmoN o ~~oo wo n . v .~ J N : ,. a .- :z ., ~ i o 0 a a i V } a v vvvx~~ eJ[ '+ v v v a 7 7~ ON • J v ' JJn in J O u ==V JlP a u O Ola 0a r Z v v2a 77J7 Jan ula - - wY y u~u rc Oivvvv i.~ . 1 ~ t~ mZN Y22 u i v~H7t7 ~[J~ iu N 0 O NO w u S i~ ~ i. 2 iZ u J Jo wi 2 J } v v Zw OU N a=~ 2 w wia V Sm ~ wO ZV of N V 2ZH OLw J _ NJLrt }22 Nin l Sa _ r~J~000w ~Z ~ R ~OO G ~a~uv~~v~~m•tm nromm~mmTmmmvmVU.~uuuuuV~u ~t~uVU~uV VC JAN m nnn~mm~.~w~~-nnnFFl-rvm rvm~-~.~~-Y n n '-,-N,-~~ mmn n n i; ~ . =y __ .~. •S~ oaP nn~rvN__ m _ nn -Nnn _n --N- °~=nnn n n n ~ _. ~aa~a~aa~aae~~« aaaaaaaa<d<aaaao~tlaaa~~aada « aaa<~~~ - :o - _~=~r _ -::~ _n _ _ _ PPn TP Psa== a ~~: .._.n ... .. .. .. ., °,~ ",° ~~aa~~a~x as ~~ ~ -_ "_= mmmn M, Na~ - ao~ o ~ ww:. o .. :==oo• ~ 2 _ _ __~ ~~~ Nu i JJ~ aFO 2SOVVT V V 1 ~ V n3ZHO U_ ~ o s nSi J~u pLL>Olu u nLLip d mQU u2 V2U euuu04uuHUCtt nvuao4¢¢YNTaprcrcOttCOR¢oP ¢rtnrtVU¢auuS~¢u wu V VN L T ~J ~QO WuZ J P NAB [ OSr YZOJO wp~tf ~ ~ ~ Ow V2S •S~SIr u0o ~~w V007n0pOODOO wwwwwwuuuu~wu i>)VUVUJVVVLSLiLLZSiLivN== ~~V nnnrrrnn NON nrv~nr nT P^/rvNnNnaPatpm+TP nPTPPnmPnTY PP r m,m ~a°_ V r\ V P r u I - ~. pr p oPJ t • 7P >f~ Jm n :.P x rS tiP ¢ ¢ JP rc¢ I i J n I ¢ I I 1 I -. I P 1 J vai~on wl rWi=~ rv SJ2 o m u mn V m]mimnT mla .nltt ] u' a % `T LL~~ w~ > wVjJjw ~J rJ` F N=Y LLau JJ S ~PJJ J2w uJV ~n ILL v+[LL uuu ~[¢ u u nJ7Y R2u>~rr] r 7]rf r >JLL6trv rtrtaLLii¢6>i~n¢¢O tf[V6ri>~nF~Rttjoen¢n a~pt4i min vi]rY~nm.tri~ M Y w Ii[ uw u v n V rcr V V V o v]f nS Jn y[= wtw w:Z ~]OJLu J LL u' rSZ j mJ6 ~ r YSV \• i2KwVarJniu ~ Po ~ 2=u ~M~[ u ~i?a TOw ~[ ~V Wi uWZ u u ~ Jryr ~n] 00 ~ ~. 't 1-i-f~uYY~[~[~JJJJJJJ[ [[I[[i[ii f [ OOU O.aG m:N • 3 ~•• anooooao o~p mc.1 e~np0 oo00oOmOOmeowN~npooopeooeaeeomy 9CN o0Y •i~ o0'J •Y~ n y n u mp0 •e f• J •• t, P \ i ~ .~ f f V ~ it I V ~ •..fn fff~ Z Y fi ie J2o VJ m rcsYm¢n x4'Yrcu¢K n ¢Za ntt Y ~c n0~ ~ X^1 nZw LLIJf mw~~~• f iZi~ •NN aV ~2fiZ f2Zi Z1~+ l\ y70 nOwJ ____ _P _Pi v1YZlaifZ ZJJ GPrca » 7 7JP uOwLLwLL uOJ. wP0 wiw fSi w ¢utt¢i[¢ rcatt¢n¢ ao uY~ a~[ V NZSi ^~ Z7NN Z2V A~~ fo~37 7]W ~'I~ few uVVVVUV'+m~nUJmPVOUruVJtVVVJVUVV~-V U~<ott~Ja~fnN~a ~amu~aVUtt •~ f O O OS C =110 Y w'Jw 2~ f Z lJ w aiw __J _Z_ v~ u fLll a2 it oJr OOm m r22 OOw u V m -~ V U' ~~ Y Y w ~U~+ ~FLL Z332u OOU¢ JJu OPf 7220 Z%nmmmmN"I iim aAmNpmr mmmmmmmsnmx ~ 116mm a m mPmm `1 i i I 2f ooe oo~ >/ r2z u z7~ Ir ryNm J P„i V Z OPa VFJVn YYU ¢ ¢la pim ^ ~ J ~:~Iw ~O~ •, 7FFZSw ~~iJi opo pOV G~pn w~u waw a a~¢ rSV tt0¢ O tiV H NZH MJZ~ •VVVOZJVVZGZM~WUUnV ur 2;; y ~ ~ mfg ~Jt r ti~ti77>»a~ V. Zw ~2~ wZJ ttZ WZV w~Ow ~m V w~ w2tt aTilTIZITIaSIIiZ Z.tti v o~n~ i it . a m nJN Na• niJ oPm N dNTNNN a NnNN min T nrV NNmm nmw ~- \• N my y n i pt n j~ n n n A Px + mfh a a ' IniN mPO-'Nm ndFm a c°d$ - eoe aaaaouoaaaaa e'annuaooa Nd PP^ wPPP PPPw a oo au oadaNaaa daaaaaeaawoaaaaaaaaaaa.aaaaaoaa d.aoa aaa iii i ~ I 1 1 . .. . • . . 1 . w. ~ o z u TPV P t NV J I Y • d aP a O w\Y P\ \\N P\\ ¢o ~i~ m dw \ •JJ ~ i P .~\. . a- ~ i ~ wa ~i ~ .. .P snw l oP ¢\w~ N\w\o ~~.a 2 Vlv P.~PO V> Of V. VVV C\~ i NUN ZNP FI ~ ~ / vl v l ¢ir __ OiUp~ _ 6 w .VO V2> J ~ i = ?1e P mJw2 •~'Jw VwwSV Fru\ 6 =w ¢~ Z i i N p{OW N N ¢ZO V VlU ~ _ rc0\ ¢ y - o _ _ _ w\Z MNl n V_ Aw.(f wY N i N ~O m H i 2 Z\ Z O aN 2uU Y Vl6WWJ .~I3W2¢p J f U NZ6Y6JlW Nr l ~r NN FSN r7r~f ~w~ I ZZNYOiWNJNL •2Vi ZVFZ N\GNrJNN Niw LL ¢~ ~V V V wVfWGf \i• liJ mtF ~W L' 7J>i Nivi\ur ~ LL V\ir I uY VCm FVNU u u ¢ fVwFw V~SJVVN wpVLLfO JU¢Z vNnOW u ZVVY Guz¢la OVO MOr n2 .iU > ~2 ii > JNNO N Jm JZ 1plFWNWWI 12ZN2Y¢. r W y Y J ¢.~ l~wJ • W0[ W1JOWfw-fl Fa¢N » 66Nr6i0¢nfOmGiC¢rYVYN>.>Nf lN4¢ff¢ry¢¢N i Z U 2 2 i st o ~rw fo ~°o ¢ Y ~ p o N u ~ NI J¢ J Rir w WS ui Im ip 6WfUU> J NO mV ItZV>¢ OZ NS VZ ~ E~ iVr> V LLNO f 60Z ¢ wif wli ypy• y V NU JNm Y2Jw l2r lf• fp' NVOO Z. ¢Llw >2~[ GY 3i„ ~ "oi ` o iz ~ ¢ ¢ ~ x r . _ WON• oN lz ¢ aoYwN ii n J 4V¢WJS L'2 pF Wy72o=~ VZV'f w00 N ° •pJW~W i . . i~z¢¢ iz o- Jii ~i~ : O~i r o iii niyea: _ O ff p lf ls. . oo c oaouop¢opof N ON l.llf + O.meee.tlmme.emmuVUUVUV000 uVVyVUVVVUU wndrN mi• N.w .Pn NPO of a .. n .. N NnJmam mnNwNn..nnn Nnn NNwN mm~wnr nn • • '^ iN VZN Om \• ~a ~C• .: 2t ~+PN N:n•0 n -rN • • P rrn Z F an ~ mr+.r m b r .p nNT•N~1 r-r n mom a .. ~ • N ..Nm'N'. asc Na~O°°ao°e$°c aua me °~ Z P .. . f f. • . U P P \ N Wp P N Pip m;\ N N\NO W\ ¢ Pi • P m w pppP \1 \ \~ \ \ LL 0~N w orp w wP •f P F Pub .rW \\O \ mmC b\¢\~ afy I b ~b ~: O;m• W o.r blues buaf.i m; r _ p _ i _JINKV pV6N rr•CO:NbtiNf \1 IVmI1bV_Ui p N+~rr-C a•1 I w w;w ZJKr Vp JJWVJf¢JJZ O VVZ WIOJVWO WPJ~ Nf JFF JyY pJJMWWW 6 w ¢rr PJ p wl0 YIObIO _ 1•LL•JF:.f VN1 bJwQ Za r[O_¢ NpNNW O_ w 00_ w'>U¢W J OyNrrVFO N J• JJOnN OCpO VLOC J7 JZ `mU f~Z~H¢ uCU IVLL OI VpJO o~.W.a a~aow ioi wiio mnfrw~ooi LLzoiz ~~' bwii iiz 'u ¢zbzzz ¢WZi o~Ja~o fLLJIY~O~Y6.~WWa1N wN~~~WW>~' wVWLLLLLLw YLLWZ• fO~Vr¢V ai~noN..~Wp N pp~Npr r N'o~iv¢unaox¢v¢:¢aWf.w> w zF S : F JJJ ~^ ~ 0 p f ~ J=N : 2 Z YN i N NWVJ N J _ LL ~: wVM VN W • w 00 V in2 FtwV FiiL.Y i~Vw _ V aV• LLyV p ~~ ¢VV Obb .pw wiOmwpJJ VwOOb¢O fw ~a as •2J fS0 fVN' X00 W2.2N O bNOr[ONN;wW f W:LLVNLLJJtF• Z;Z •_WO J;ZLV• •JLLLL WF VJ 26 LLpOrU¢W Ju'JO;S bf;y Vi2M16V NZJ¢~FJJJ;F wOVOw2 V Dui 0000!] WWwWLLLLLLLLLLLLLLVVVVVVV~9VVSLS2222222ZZZC;Zy~+uMb~ F•'m 4t •~• 000 aOm eTem ONaoOOONOOOOaONO00nNOOmO OmNNOOnONOONaOrvre ~r nao nf¢ O ~i NCO ON A OOrONa mpJ N.IA dNNN Ha m ~ e~ Nn a=rNac Na N No l - _ .. N.. -. rN m nn N n ..m pia N m N of i i a• z: a• mP0 NaM1 naN mPc NNN •6 TPP PPPP l a• N Z IN 16 ~ V ON uP 0 of ~ i i .nicNJa WN ¢n~ a~ ui i o O WI NN\ v N\ n N\a P m Z w\m N\ •aP \\ \1 ' m iNP ~ rLLmnmsVNmw aV mV L O f\ • r fH1 ~ NV¢w C VC Le ml¢ l wfJ VI ¢ -~ In wlr+~ tiJJ¢ O ¢I Z In WIN 612W.+240\ ¢ N ¢JWIN LL OI 16 {i ¢VI! 6LLLrilr NIN 1 ~ i ZS W\O w LL b22 Iw JV \JOVN ¢ U •2• JVM,+JZNOw ~nJ UI-¢OTJJIw lOri •JJ ¢ rJ\N nVril JWIJ¢ Jiw¢6pJrwJ w\ miu LLJ li\ WAN L C im mO IW ¢O NUIVr 91 INOm NVO WLO u2 uW¢uFwOi uVNOwtiV Npu l f O~+Z •Z UOJ wit! lVVf 26¢fOWOJ fC 2 i O L JC mJOOm p u~ZW lNp ¢J~m rJJ m m iLJU{O VO_V\n fZ T¢ Yr ia ~ l rVJWO w{O ¢J w ~A00 w U 22¢ N22 m Z IL7 ~+J¢r WO WJY 7l~MY Zrr r rVLLfurW VSU VVr FOOT r2ww~W ZS2 ~~wOr[JZ{>WL2w a Nf¢66mGYOV2l0>SLfldi{Z¢mN LKnO¢uNrr¢{I7f F¢a6~ZOC~J6 V N ¢ 2 Cw O 2 r ~+ O 2 Z W Z f S r Z w J Yf J • O JJO i U UOVN N U¢fJ ZVV22K 2/ L 00¢ JSV Z V OVZJW uiOi w>rf]6 f rVV r 0 w2i N W2p YL wuWN •Of ~2~ i i0 ¢1U nHVIJ JS• ~ WN;w NZOO L(~O w2 OVWOrrVW¢Ow w ~ wt ZI _ {fVV W[it`[i OFi2 ~V Z_S ri{OS>>Vwi n1[i¢h¢ ~V122 ¢7• rii OOOJJrr {1\• IJUVVw r000000¢~i ~l ~11YYY~[JJJJJJJJJJiitiii2Z;;ZZiTiTtti22iiitLiZ2Z2 p.nanppnm .~mryP mPmnN PN n PmNpnpNnNN P ^mnNm PnnnN n /~ • • L( : . V• o0a OCo [i~ Om^ NOOmnP : . o oa ;d ~mo n + ~ . ~ u o a . e P V•• rN J9N ..mmnar~ N ~n~ .~ n _I ~ ' VrvN T \11• N a .~ N NN ^ •O• J} a1f NCnb >O.P PmPP PPPPPPPPP OdwW a.n ~Pa ~oNm<aV<O.P Na~pmW a~oN<OOpV O.P .pON mtlmadO~PWC.Pa~Pniwma it Vf • • •• ••• I• • • p V r\ 1 U YP OP m •O\ •Om \ " Y O VNe LL m\ P • Paa r NPJ v IP 1 • P N Y¢O Jlnom 2 r NOY ¢L P W • i m \N • •J pV JWn L N u f pN~Jp + zrWN V ~.VU V ~( NU tIL U1.•wO \ LI n ~Y .• W\Y- ¢NOW ¢ L .e2Jlp ¢I 720 NJW NSW I wi • VW( I hJ• .~O O'~w rJ¢ Oip NJOOe p O w 1¢ • OVL 020 I 2U N uS •~JW •~+JTUrJ 109.~f wV YO NVf VFJ OJp 700NW0 ftlr .~2R6 •JNNWVOJ Sf •(FF fi (02GO V' ~ VL o'\N iNLL~niJ• w.pL a~-R urcN SIN iH: . r pupal NiirN: :of iNrc¢ °zia ~ ~LL NRa -.r . oizzRm JiW :i¢ioi N Nfoz..uJO ~~.~ R~Je nor. p SZ V Jftl 2f J (IlLL hOpuil U' ( V(W p2 W w2N OWOf 2W rJ» Ve f i. E[U ~~+f NNw>.OYN WSIF¢NN.IO ..V NV YZ U'u'p ~ NIwS v9 fSN JNJ Ve oSUZVU• e m 0>O\}J•~FLL( (OJ ¢FwwLSJJt~J PLpofVVfRe•~( 9TwfOf ¢WJJW r U O(UN06UU.•V NU(fV2JUOV}tVLLn666R..UUiNU R¢J (NNa(Om¢ppF .~ _ V_ J u i J O N O 2 w J p 22 2 JS of >VG ( ~~ fo u¢ zo z r ., N li iz~ of wzf¢ I -o ~: if a tl ~ m . w wYJ 7 .fpp w} JPZ N2 ¢U V¢~UL r0¢ f6.~ m 'J •S( ZJ¢¢U'V~UOS•Si HVp R ¢u i2• (t90 YtlVNN 22Sr1i0 • OW¢¢ON.n NUR.[i V • WW ~ J p>N O f w.}SY Cw¢06w`f( w / JO NL ) ¢ JJY f N 2 ¢ W=1 _ _ Y J p NOUtl~wJ p =J0 s___ JLUSL JVO»tOp 20nOppppp6pp6pupltppppp6ppp0¢ ¢RR¢Ytt¢aR¢RRRNNN naN PNnmNmN .. m.. ..m .. ,.. .~., e mNNmmm an NNN .. N NmNN ' . ~ u. Mc ooNeoao Sao oir T• naVMh ° r° ~' m V mNmp o c N ., .. P N .. w .. N .. ~,. .. a i v. N N ai z. o• n o'~e "mmommaa m~mmw ppP wPPP ! ! I .a f ! ! f! ! • • Z F • J •a P Y LL W h VC JP M S I > r NONY W~+ V ^ V 2.6 nN Fa P N i N ¢ V ~ W O ~ w N Jf f 1L N 2 h GJVVWnV V2N O O WJN W7 PV w 7¢W <6V LL F ~. ¢ O¢NI ¢O \¢ Vln W 7 ¢m FV¢yoO i> f : Y z w • J O V SOfN \O ONl nJNJJM.W< J h V V6 Nlw JV ^JnN~ O10 Iw2JOJVwV7J ZJOV2 WMaP}OSZ~ LLF• W.fJWf! v R ' a S<F¢ ie o.. an<I pis °f o.N.n z .z ozzz¢N U nro . u~swN~u~c! ¢h.. NN~zohw<Jw i~~ N ti u• LLWW¢•W< V Zh30WNp• w2< OY. 1y 0Y.O O Zlw .J wOGVWN NJ LL20 ¢J LL ¢J¢ Z6o J¢ OJ> ¢V¢ fhVVi¢iww O w V YSN aNJNSN¢NJ NU JN¢>ZN N n ZNON VuIJ NnNOWZJaNNwV OI Wf hOS ¢JVn aiwfJn NSJW~JJ<J NSJJJGNN¢l wJOOWJOw r JfVNU NOiV¢Y.JJUNl6•O~V6VNWNCCSVw¢puHfPV.N • • • ~ J U J o N 2 Z ^ N • u S r h< J V V 6 w N. J I ~f l ¢W ¢2 L ..u ~ Z VS SSS hxFO LLS. Z J ¢ •1 .S> F V V NVYn wO WVI n62<N FN ,w • nYr 221ZV.FJu ~ JJF ¢ Vl< S¢¢¢i. W<Y m OJUOwZO Zha2\ M6LLJi w >j( ~ •2~ SSS. u 22nw O<OS I? ¢ ffJr NJNG<33¢¢ 4VM> < V S Z O l1 C • S N w 2 .+ w~ f ))~1 i •2• NNNnN NNNNNNNNrFprF~7 » >>}Z ZSZNnNN Y.+ ~ •O• ~ a mrN .~ 9ry wP mNNn~l rvomm~ mm m nn wl .+Nm • to CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ,,,,;f;ry~~,,: STAFF REPORT "~"''' `~`_ DATE: September 2, 1932 - ~~' ... ti_ T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council ~'~' '~''" FROM: Charles J. Buquet II, Councilmember SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TD ADOPT RAIL BOND RESOLUTION Recommendation The City Council adopt the attached Rail Bond Reselution in support of Proposition 156. Analysis The $16.5 billion "Transportation Blueprint for the 21st Century", endorsed by California's voters in 1990 with the passage of Proposition 111, contained three ballot measures. Each $1 billion proposition was assumed to be passed by the voters when calculations were made by the California Transportation Commission regarding the monies that would be available for highway and rail projects for the balance of the decade. Proposition 156 is the second of the three ballot initiatives to fund statewide rail improvements. Due to the North/South split and county minimum requirements in State law, any dramatic reduction in anticipated revenues will trigger a recalculation of STIP funding for every California County. Due to the balance of rail and highway projects throughout the State, a loss in rail funding would lead to substantial reductions in State funding for both rail and highway programs. The probable impact of the defeat of Proposition 156 would be approximately a $60 million reduction in funding for the Measure I projects included within the STIP. Respectfully Submitted, Charleuquet I Councilman Attachment: Resolution R~II7PP~1 ~. q~ _ X30 A RE9JIiBZ(RI OF ZHE COPY OJUNCPL OF Tkfl; CPPY OF RANCfq ate, cnll~arra, lx smrors of PR7POSITPCN 156 WkII~RFAS, in 1989, the legislature provided far three $1 billiai rail transportatiai boon measures ~ the ballot as part of the $18.5 billia~ 'Ilansportation Blueprint for the 7k~ty First Century; and WHEREAS, Proposition 106, the Passenger Pail and Clean Air Baal Act of 1990, wYtich the voters approved in Jame, 1990 was the first of these three meas~ses; and [dffRFAS, the woad $1 billion bad ++~~+*-~ will appear m the Novembers 3, 1992 ballot; and WHIItFAS, the threE rail transportatim bolds are the lind~pins for the entire transportatim prncgam approved by the voters in 1990; and WfBI2FAS, faili¢e to approve Prapositim 156, the Passenger Rail and Clean Air Bard Act of 1992, would ®use San 13exnardino's "oamty m;n;mm,a transporation f.::rlirg frvo the state to be reduced by $71.3 millia~, placiry m~cl~ needed transportatim inprovamnt projects in the ~Y at risk; and WfB~RFAS, California's overall txangxstatim fuidilxl world be dramatically rechsed should the bad ~s~+ro fail to be apluwed, jeopaniizirg h~mdreds of local projects and causing major re-prv~g-amnirg and delays in both highway and rail tra„er.,-ratiat prcxp-ams; alrl WHEREAS, tens of thousatds of jobs will be ¢eated with ~ acme of this ford; NOW 7I8RF1URE, BE TT RE90LVEli that the City Council of the City of Random Cucamonga, California does hereby etidarrse Propo3itial 156, the Passenger Rail and Clean Air Bald Act of 1992, wi the Novanbar 3, 1992 ballot. 1L OI1'P OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ,~u~'x:+;<., STAFF REPORT ,y~:~ >. DATE: September 2, 1992 ~!~ ;';: TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager i FROM: Jerry B. Fulwood, Deputy City Manager/Acting ~ Community Services Director ~/ BY: Karen Matcham, Recreation Supervisor SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF BANNER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDATION The Park and Recreation Commission at their August 20, 1992 meeting recommended approval of the street banner applications to the City Council. BACKGROUND Annually the Community Services Department requests applications for banner display. Last year the policy was changed to incorporate additional banner display opportunities. Those opportunities were: 1) specifying location display between the two locations rather than allowing the display of the same banner at both locations; 2) increasing the number of display periods from seven in 1990 to ten in 1991. ANALYSIS The following banners meat the requirements as established by the City Council: Grape Harvest Festival: September 24 ~- October 11, 1992 Location: Archibald Fire Prevention Week: September 28 - October 11, 1992 Location: Base Line Red Ribbon Week: October 22 - November 2, 1992 Location: Archibald/Base Lina Pounders Day Parade: November 2 - November 14, 1992 Location: Arch 7.bald/Base Line CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPROVAL OF BANNER APPLICATIONS September 2, 1992 Page 2 Art in the Park: April 23 - May 8, 1993 Location: Archibald/Base Line R.C_ Business 6 Community Eupo: May it - May 15, 1993 Location: Archibald Movies in the Park: June 11 - June 18, 1993 Location: Archibald/Base Line July 4th Celebration: June 18 - July 5, 1993 Location: Archibald/Base Line Concerts in the Park: July 5 - July 19, 1993 Location: Archibald/Base Dine Rebp~fully submittRd, i d. '~ ~, ~~ ' n.t. U,~~ ~rry B. Fulwood, Deputy City Manager/Acting community Services Director JBF/EM/kls Attachments ~L~ City c. Rancho Cucamonga Street Banner Application comT,nnity services Department Oroanrzatlon: ~N~/fti' CUGA'~'~(-O•t/GA Contact Person: ~!//`j/U/CSC-E w~~~ Address: O6c Mailing Address: Sf+n-r E Work Phone: 9~7~-~!'~"2. Home Phone: ~~jO ^ x`39 T Event: ~~~~ fff7Q/E37- ES /7 v/4~ Dateis? of Event: ~~- Brief Description of Event Proposed Banner Signage: Use space provldad or attach copy of proposed signage. (-- RANCEtd Guci4„~t~rvG.q G-~~?~~ tf~~VCST F~si~ ~~~_ SGT S, GIB /~~ l / /3ou<r- ~JOM/SS/ r~ C ~ c~r~ ~~/~/ - G~!S77 R~ ~/A ~- r'fbe~ - (o d ° Colors to be Used: y/-mar"~ ~ ~t-rr~ w 7 Requestetl Dates of Banner Display: From: ~P-At~pp'11O~'~ To: (7 cT // Location: Base Llne: ~ Archibald: ICI Both: Q I have received a copy, have read and unperstand, and agree to abide by the limits of :he Giry of Rancho Cucamonga Policies ragartling this Sliest Banner Applicatlon. I have been fully authorized by the above organ¢aLon to submit this form and serve as the primary contact for the organaauon. I hereby hold harmless the City o' Rancho Cucamonga. rts officers. employees and agonts tram any and all liability for damages or loss or mryry edher to persons or plooerty which may be Sustained while this banner /7 ~s posted. S:gnatur~~~~~~.L~~~~/ Date;_G p City Staff Use Only Date Renewed by $Idll' o 'S) ~' ~ Fees: Payable to Chy of Rancho Cucampnga in Atlvance Data Hearp by Commission ~'wC{rl 1 Install 8 Remove: S ~-- Recpmmended by Commission: Yes No Administrative. S Date Heard by City Counctl: Preparation: E Council Acnan~. Approved Denied Total: S IS C;iy of Rancho Cucamonga Street Banner AppliCatlOn Community Services Department Organ¢ation:' Centacr Person: Adorer: /G ~/~. ~yA' ~d i n~t~/'ro Maili,;g Address: ~ (~.~/f1~ X7/51) 9~''Y-(0~3 .rZ6/D Wr, rk Phone: Horne Phone: Event //~Z Dates) of Event ~ Brief Rescriotion of Use space provided or attach ccoy of proposed signage. ~L T i/l~!'~r~l/E/v/~Dl~ ~l/~F~~C~~c-ti7,i~re ~"' ~~ DDS ~+.~~ ss.~ ~~~~~ D~fvde~3r io-;~,o,~. Co!crs to be Used: ~~=a~e_ ,/!Ta liner uiiA~lG ~ '/ Reci-'ested Dates pf Banner Display: From: ~o: ~~ ~/~~9Z IIqq /I O q ~ Location; Base Line:.lgl Archibald: ~ Both: Q I have received a copy, have read and untlerstand, and agree to abide by the limits of the Ciry o1 Rancho Cucamonga Policies regarding this Street Banner Applic&ion. !have been fully authorized by the above orgamzanon ro subma this form and serve as the primary contact for the olganizallon. I hereby hold harmless the Ciry of Rancho Cucamonga, ns officers. employees and agents from any and all liability for damages or lass or irqury either ro persons or property which may be sustained whsle this banner r r n is posted. Date: p r ity Staft Use Only Date Reviewed by SIa1L _ o/`~ Pees: Payable to Ciry of Rancho ^_acamonga in Advance Date Hearc by Ccmmrssion~, D ~ Install 8 Remove. $ Recommended by Commission: Ves Ne .4dmimstrative: 3 Date Heard by Cily Council: Preparation $ Ccunctl Acncn~ Approved Domed Total: S W Ci,y of Rancho Cucamonga 1'7~,=i~_T'! Street Banner Application commanay services Department >'~" O rgan¢ahon: hnr.cho Qtcamonga Citizens Flr:a inst ~~ubstanec Ahuse (RC CASH; ~- Contact Person: Paula Pachon Address: CO`'m':mitp $erei ces Dent. IPi00 Cieic ..^,enter Drive Fancho Cucamonga. ~CA Pl"30 Sheet C'~;y ~:p Mailing Address: I'.t~. cos FD' Rnn;:ho (:ucnr„once, i::1 9P?9 Dqn-1F58 z ?l0i qq5-0(136 Work Phone: Home Phone: red llibbon l~cek Event: Datels) of Ev=~!: ~. Cctohcr :-0, 1Gn2 - Oc toher .il, 790? J:at Tonal campaign to shox support for a drug free community. BrieF Description of Event: Proposed Banner Signaga: Use space provided or attach copy of proposed signage. Ci tv Logo FPt~ RIRRDS IfCP.K --- Ortoher 24-St, Inn2 f.hoi ce for `tc ... [)rug Free Fhnx cnnr snppnrr ror a dntg free commnn ity --- x'enr a red ribhon durlnp, Yhis wcela n...i .,.,n ar,.•4 City lopn - regtt]ar co ors wima w ue weu. - - - - RecuestedDatesofBannerDisplay: From: October 92, tpn3 To: Sm~cmbrr =, t^9~ Location: Base Line; Q Archibald: ~ Both. SY I have received a copy, have reatl and undorstand. and agree to abido by the limits of the City of Ranchc Cucamonga Policies ragartl mg this Street Banner Application. I have been lolly authnn2ed by the above orgzn¢arycn Io submit this loan ono serve as the primary contact for the organization. I nereby hold harmless the City of Rancho Cucamonga. ns officers, employees and aaonts from any and all liability for damages or loss or inl ury either to persons or property which may be sustained while This banner is posted. .I S~gr.a:ure ,~~l w~.eL, l"/.,LC~'iwA 2i Date'..{ =.F ,. 'LOT ~~~y v// /City Stott Use Only Date Reviewee by $Ia11' O` ~i'~ Feea: Payable to City of Rancho Cucamonga in Advance Date Heartl by Commission: ~C f' Install 8 Remove: $ Recommended by Cammissiorc Ves No Admimstratrvo: $ Date Heard by Crty CO'JOWI' Preparabo¢ $ Council Achan: Approved Demod Totel: S ~_~~ Street Banner Application Organization Contact F Address: City of Ranc^o Cucamonga Community Services Departrt.ant Mailing Address: r'v~ ~(/ C ~ ~ Work Phone: S!.~f al 02- Home Phone: ~ ~ ~-d``t event: FouN~ERS nR~ PArzA.~!` Date(sl of Event: Br~ie/f Descripti~n'oIf"Event: fSM Artne,,,.k' Ao rode k'cale- tbSE L.r~ne KA ~~om Proposed Banner Signage: use space provided or attach copy dl proposed signage. 15~AhK4~i Mur~t~s 1~A PA~e~~ 1 ~B~° , Ur, @4u1.?w r2~i hvM J; ~ym,l k~< 1 ,~~.,,: x, ` lc~o ~`_ J fo: in{~:,'hak~n~,ca.~Cli'R-ILSL" Colors to be Used: Requested Dates of Banner Display: f=rom: ~! ~°2 ! y 2- 70: ri~L/y Location: Base Line: [~ Archibald: ^ t3oth:~ I have received a copy. have read antl understand, antl agree to abide by ;he omits of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Pobc~es regarding Inis Street Banner Application. I have been fully authonZed by the above orgamzation to submit this loan and serve as the primary contact (or the organ¢ahon. I hereby hold harmless the Ctly of Rancho Cucamonga. its ollicers. employees antl agents from any and all liability for damages or lass or intury either to persons or property wh!ch may De sustained while IhiS banner ~~~/~'y~~~ ~~/y//y~ Is posted. Signature, ]~LWL!//!~~///~~Q/177T/ Date: '~z/~ [.7 (J. ~/ //li / ity Staff Use Only ~ ~/ Date Feviewetl by Stalh. ~~ ~ Fees: Payable to Crty of Rancho Cucamonga in Advance Date Heard by Commission: ~ d Install 8 Raiwve: $ Recommended by Ccmmisson Ye No Ad mimstrauve: $ Uate Heard by City Council: _ Preparation. $ Council Action'. Approved Denied Total: f ~~ City of Rancho Cucamonga Street Banner Application community services Deaanmem W, ,,~ Oraanlzation: Cr'FyaFrdnclronuca~n~°ae [CSD~ !~-ITG'~73 Con!act Person: .~/!(eq~akham r ~c ~w~w~-vi.a- Address: Mailing Address: ~/~, %J/}~ d ~i ~ /C . l" . `1 / 7~- `~ Work Phone; 9PA-r~58 Hcme Phone: ~~7"a9/r5 Event: ~QT 'n ~. hCAI-'`(~ ~ECf l~h~l~~a.k Datelsl of Event: '~+ r Brief Description of Event: PfopoSed ~anne(Slgnage: Use space orovidetl or attach copy 01 proposed signage. ~d7 1 raa'{y~~r rUva~ ~~ Ig43 (l~7 rn- l ~,~ G .-rc l ' ~ M1-l",I ,~~/~V/Y /Vt LC VII ~Llr~ i-G2 ~~v rraiio., ck t~'4-!3 58. Colors to be Used: re Requested Cates of Banner Display: Prom: ~/~ ~ To: S ~Q~~ 3 Location: Base Line: ^ Archibald: Q Both: I have received a copy, have read antl understand, and agree Io abide by the limits of the City of Rancha Cucamonga Policies regarding Ihis Sheet Banner ApphcaUOn. I have been fully authorized by the above arganizaaon to subrnn tF,is form and serve as the primary contact for the organaation. 1 hereby hold Harmless tea City of Rancho Cucamonga. its olficers, employees and agents from any and all liability for damages or loss or iniury either to persons c property whmh may be sustained while this banner is posted. Signature ~p/f/~ ~i:~~>~~ pate: ~ Q-J(f'~ /99z - --- - / ily Staff Use Only Dave Reviewed ny Sta'1: ~j ~ Z Pees: Payable to City of Rancho Cucamonga in Advance Uate Heartl by Commission. d dA n' , Install 8 Remove 3 Recommendetl by Cc.mmSSion. Yes No Admin is tra hve: S Data Heard by Ci!y DonnCll' Counal Acucn: P.ooroved Domed Preparation: Tote l: C~ S S Street Banner Application Organization: ~~~/'~'NGf/7i ~Cff. C Contact Persoon: i'~~//~ E~~G /~(/~, Address: J °Z~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~= r City or Rancho Cucamonga Community Services Department =s~67~ ~MJt4 t~L6 ~e a Mailing Address: T^y° Work Phone: ~~~ iO~o~- Home Phone: ~lO-~'j ~,~ e~ant: ~«sii/i4"s~- Co~z,c,i/~.~ Expo Date(sl of Event: ~~~~/~~~~~5 l9 l~~ L .~.J Brief Description of Event:.:'/w Sin/E5S ~'~s/~f1T /n i l ~ 00~ l/1 S Proposed Banner Signage: Use s ace provided or attach copy of proposed signage. ~S.gwc~ /~.4i/r/o'~. ors .~: ~- RAN G {iy C.U. Ll4~N G~4 / ~ ~ /S~ r2 /~2 r~l-~I ~" i ~ a <- ~,-, o„i T~ R ~ D r_-rr_-~z.h..,~n1 d~nn.+l Colors to be Used: »<~~~"1 ~'K - y~ [5~-,t[,-JjS Requested Dates of Banner Display: From: ' "L~'~" ~ ~ ?o: ~~ Location: Base Lina: ^ Archibald: ® Both: I have received a copy, have read and unoersland, and agree to abide by the limits of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Policies regarding this Street Banner Application. I have been fully authorized by the above organ¢ation to submit this form aid serve as Iho pnmary contact for the organaation. I hare6y hold harmless the City of Rancho Cucamonga, rte oflicers, empbyees and agents from any and all liability 'or damages oJ,loss or injury either to persons or properly which may bo sustained while this banner / / r ._ ~~ ,,,.~reN S:ynature fii~~'~i/!-~~U~//~~~~Date. p ity Staff Use Qnly Dale Reviewed by Sta!f. ~~ ~ Fees: Payable ;c City o! Rancho Cucamonga in Atlvance t Date Heard by Comm~ssiom dA Install 8 Romove: 5 Recommended 6y Cammissmm. Yes No Atlmimstrabve~. $ Date Heard by City Council: Preparation: $ Council Action Approved Den!ed Totel: j zo City or Rancho Cucamonga Street Banner Application community services Department Organlzaticn; 0 ~~[D rt % /!GV[rl C` J~ Contact Person: K Qf-°~, ~~ r ~Of~Y~p /v; I p~; ~'2'fj at-I Sc~_~r+/ISU` Address: l ~ rJOC [ J U; C ~aA.n.~C-r ~.- ~F ~j'r 7 a-g' S;rBBI cy Lp M1Aailing Address: ~~.~ ~ ~"d ~ /~ \ ~'// 7r~-5 t ~~f ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ / Work Phone: lL~~Y - r - - Home Phone: =vent: .r'e~ 'n~-1t P Dark (f0-u,e ek s 1, .~eS Datetsi of Even!: rucSdQtls: ~/st-af~r(}~ rnua.~: ~~7- Brief Description of Event: Proposed Banner Signage: Use space provided or attach copy of proposed signage. /UIG~1~E~ !NT!hEP,~~K Irlo~ Jw-t~2 -/~y545f1YrIQ91~ .a•-cis-A~.S..~ra~,tf93 .~''~' Gy,4c C4rnyo., ~urL ~~~li (~arK lM+~A~{4.a<..'fcr Colors to be Used: Requested Dates of Banner Display: From: ~~ To: -~5:~-~Y~-_~ Location: Base Line: 0 Archibald: ^ Both: I have racened a copy, have read and untlerstand. and agree to abide by the limits ct the Qry of Rancho Cucamonga Policies regaining ;his Street Banner Application. I have been fully authorized by ilia above orgamzat~~on to subma this farm and serve as the pnmary contact tpr the orgamzanon. I hereby hold ha!miass the City of Rancho Cucamonga. ds officers. emp:oyees and agents Irom any and all liability for damages nr loss or m;ur/ either to persons or property whmh may De sustained while this banner ~~jj /~// is posted, n pp Signature /~~//~//y!/ i~~~Q(f~/ _. Date: ~~~lG / / /~ ~ty Staff Use Only ~ Date Reviewed by Slal': / 9~ Fees: Payable 7o Clty of Rancho "ucamonga in Advance Date Hoard by Commission. ~,~ ~~~~.~ Install R Remove: 3 Recommenced by Commission: Ves No Admlmstranve: $ Date Heard by Cily Council: Preparation: $ Counctl Artmn: Approved Denied Total: S 1 f C'dy of Rancho Cucamonga Street Bonne*/' Appli~CatlOn Communi!y Services Department Orgamzahon: %~~-lof ~Ol9c~~~7lti L.ZC[Yln'7pr'r4 ~! ~~~ Contact Person ,C/Qf"/?V7 Nl(.L ~7J'1QiY1. l~l,? J:[/iBY/IS~" Address: /V.~1'.K/ (AU/C lYiroAC/ C/JY- ~f ~. 1/ /o-/ Sheet Cily Zip rAailing Address: ~~~ /~~ ~ ~~, (' ~'!/ ~~9 _ r Work Phone: ~,t'~Yr~ Home Phone: Sd?/ate`' Evert: 7~ Cate!s1 cr Event: Brief Descrotian of Event Proposed Banner Signage: Use space provided or avach cony of proposed signage. ~`l ~1 D~ <~u ~ ~t°~C'fjral5td i~ ~~, 'U'I'^ Sa~urcCu<j, ~~Qy 3, 143 /far"_L/~~ P.Ih°n,{~~ 4~l lh'll C~mnzu>.I ~ ~ k l o ~% ~ l~ wey v,~.ya,.~ S kY r rt ~a~- / _~S Colors to be Used: ~n, ~( Requested Cates of Banner Display: From 6 ~ To: ~~ ;~ Location: Base Line: Q Archibald: Q Both: I have racerved a copy, have read and untlerstand, end agree tp abide by the limits pf the City of Rancho Cucamonga Policies regarding this Street Banner Applicaunn. I have been fully authorized by the above aganaanon m submit this loan and servo as the primary contact /or the organrzation. I hereby hold Harmless ine City of Fancho Cucamonga, as ofLcers. employees and aganl5 Iron any and all liability for Damages or loss or injury either to nersc rs nr property Which may be sustained while this banner S~gna;we NL.U1L/1/U V //~i~~[,([///L//y Date'.-~"'=`5y~/!- _. ~~~y StaFf Use Only o ~/ Date Reviewed by Stall' ~/~ Feea: Payable In City pf Ranchp Cucamonga ir. Advance Dale Heard py Commission: 'r~ ~. Install 8 Remove' 3 Recommended by Commission: Yes No Admimsiralive' $ Date Heard by City COUHCII: Cuuncd Achon. Approved Denied Preparation: 5 Total: S 2 "l Street Banner Application Crganrzation: (=/T~ IlC(l Confect Person: /~Q ttt'1 /V Address: ~~i J~(/l7 I.1~~ City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Services Departmem Uailing Address:_~ l/L~~ n (l ~ ~~• ` ~ ~~ ~ a-~ Work Phone: ,~ f a./C_2- Home Phone: ~ 7 ~ ~'~ ~ S went ~'nnf^£IZ rs /N 7ff~ Dat°(s) of Event: "Thu:'~cF ~~ r) tc ~ - C.CCr.C,~~51 ~'l'~~t~ )~/ ~! ~ ~ ~~ G,GP~.~~`j,\ Brief Description of Event: `Skr•`"~r'r'-~r Cr,On(fi,~5 G d} rrkc( [l~•i%~rn•9 ~r rY~'n~~7r-_ co~cE2~ s ~N -ff~ P,~2~ ~° ~? r2a~ Fh I~ ~omrt~ily O •k ~."9h~~~.°``te.~ `, .~- -Ifrs Colors to 6e Used: Requested Dates of Banner Display: From: 7rli Tc: ~~~~ Location: Base Line: Q Archibald: ^ Both: - I nave received a copy, have read and understand. and agree ;o abide by the limits of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Policies regarding this S:reet Banner Appbcaeon. I have been hilly authonzed by the above organ¢aGOn to submit Ihis form and serve as the pn mary contact for Me argan¢avon. I hereby heltl harmless the GRy of Rancho Cucamonga, its oNlcers, employees and agents from any and all lability !cr damages or loss c• m;ury eRlier !o cersars or property wn:ch may he sustained while Ihis banner ~//y/y~~ j~/'~ is posted. / .~,~j qq/J S~ynalura ~~~/jl~~ i'//U-i/~~ Datn: (~ll~, ////V i;y Staff Use Only Date Reviewed by Sta'h ~~ .Z Peas: Payable to City of Rancho Cucamonga in Advance Date Hearc by Commisston~ ~~~~ Install b Remove 5 Fecommended 6y Commission: Ves f,b Admimstra live: $ Date Heard by City Counml: Preparation: $ Counc,l Action: Approved Demad Totel; f G.~ Proposed Banner Signage: Use space provided or attach ccpy of proposed sgnage. ~t CF1'Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 2, 1992 T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Beverly N19aen, Associate Planner SU&TFxT: APPEAL OP CONDITIONAL U58 PSRMTT 91-24 AND TENTATIVE. PARCBL MAP 73845 - Nl19Z - An appeal of certain Bnglneering and Planning Division Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit 91-2d, The development of 32 buildings totaling approximniely 268,907 square feel and comprised of a mla of industrial, amlti-tenant, office, and reeieurent uaas, and Tentative Parcel Mep 13845, a subdivision of 30.2 acres of land into 31 parcels in the Industrial Park District (Subsree 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plnn, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APNt 229-011- 10, 19, 21, 26, 27, and 28. BAC~MRA: On August 19, 1992, the City Council reviewed an nppeel of certain conditions for Conditional Ube Permi[ 91-24 and Tentative Parcel Map 13845 (see attached ate ff report). At that meeting, the City Council upheld certain reeo:mnendationa of the Plenninq Commission and modified other conditions as indicated below: 1. Planning Condition Mo. 7: Final epproyel of Vintner's Walk and Timing of Inatellatione The City Council concurred Ghat the Planning Co®iatlion should have the opportunity to review the coamiaeioned public art and interpretive public displays but modified the condition to delete the requirement for a consultant. The City Council also de[ermined that ehn installation of the Vintner's Walk hardacape and landscaping tlhould be completed concurrr_ntly with Poothi ll Boulevard improvements, but that installation of the pipe trellis, vines, interpretive panels and public art could be deferred to the releeae of occupancy of any building Ln Phase II. :S CITY COUNCIL Si AFF REPORT CUP 91-24 6 TPM 13945 - MASI September 2, 1992 Page 2 2. Planning Conditions No. e: Cha Efey-Garcia Barn Contribution: T'ne City Council upheld this condition which requires a 510,000 contribution to the Chaffey-Garcia aatn which was originally imposed by t'ne Historic Preservation Commis aion. 3. Planning Condition No. 20: Approval of Unif otm Si qn Program: The City Council upheld the decision of the Planning Comaission which leaves final approval of the Sign Program with [he Convnission rather than with staff. 4. Engineering Condition No. 2(b) and 2(c): Foothill Boulevard Median and NortF. Side Pavement Construction: The City Council upheld the above-noted Planning Comm ssion conditions. 5. Engin eerinq Condition No. 2(d I: Interim Drainage Impzovements: The City Council determined that the existing 18-inch CMP (corrugated metal pipe) in Foothill Boulevard could be utilized on a temporary basis, if it is cleaned and repaired, an adequa is inlet is installed, and it discharges to the new catch basin on the south aide of Foothill Boulevard. 6. F.n gingering Condition No• 9: Deletion of Traf Eic Signal In-Lieu Fees The City Council supported the applicant's request far a reimbur Bement agreement for one-half of the cost of si goal installation if Coltrane permits it to be installed at this tim_. CONCLUSION: The above mod ifira tions have been included in the attached Resolution. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached modified Resolution for Conditional Use Permit 91-24 and Tentative Parcel Map 13345. Respect ful~l~y/''sGu~bm~itted, ~Ca~ ~ 3ra~i Bu 11er City Pla nner 09:BN:mig At ra cements: Exhibit "A" - City Council Staff Report dated August 19, 1992 Resolution of Approval for Parcel Map ll345 Resolution of Approval for Conn itional Use Permit 91-24 zu A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 19, 1992 T0: Nay or and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager F AOM: Azad Buller, City Planner HY: Otto Kr ontil, Deputy City Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24 AtID TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13845 - MASI - An appeal of certain Engineering and Planning Division Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit 91-24, the development of 32 buildings totaling approximately 268,907 square Feet and comprrsed of a mix of industrial, multi-tenant, office, and restauran[ uses, and Tentative Parcel Map 13845, a subdivision of 30.2 acres of land into 31 parcels in the I nduatrial Park Dietcict (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, Located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-011-10, 19, 21, 26, 27, and 28. RECOf!ffii~ATIOH It is recommended that the City Council review each request and uphold the Planning Commission's actions. SDlMARY This 30-acre, mixed-use project was approved by the Planning Commission on July 7.2, 1992, subject to certain conditions, the Planning Commission staff Report with exhibits is attached. Several conditions of approval are being appealed by the property owner. In aunmaryr the appellant is requesti ny the following: 1- That the final design of the "Vintner's walk," including ccnvnis sinned Public art and public displays, be reviewed by staff rather Chan the Plannrng Commission; and 2. That the installation of the "Vintner's Walk" and public 3lsp lays De de's cr ed until later phases of the project; and 3. That the 510,000 contribution Lowards the Chaf Eey-Garcia Barn or other simrlar preservat inn effort, as required by previous City Cou ncii anion, be used fur public art within their own site; and O PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91-24 6 TPM 13845 - MAEI August 19, 1992 Page 2 4. 'that the Uniform Sign Program which will regulate all signs in this project be approved by sl aff rather chap tbs Planning Conwissi on; and o. :hat the construction of the Foothill Boulevard median and related improvements be deferred and "in-lieu" fees paid instea a; an3 5. That certain in^_erim drainage improvements be modified; and 7. That the regvirement for a traffic signal "in-lieu" fee be deleted. The apoe ll.ant's letter outlining these requests in detail is attached following tits report. AIUI.YSIB A brief review of each of these items fellows. Following a public hearing, tie Council may act on any of these items individually. 1. Planning Condition No. 7: Final Approval of "Vintner's Walk"• The design of the project includes a pedestrian walkway with an overhead metal trellis adjacent to a portion of the Foothill Boulevard fzontage. This "Vintner's Walk" functions as a public sidewalk and contains a sculpture and interpretive displays intended to zef le ct the history of wine making in the immediate area Ises Exhibit "H" of the planning Commission utaff Report). The design of the "Vintner's Valk" has been approved, in concept, by both the Planning and Histox is Preservation Commissions. The applicant is appealing the requirement to hire a professional consultant to develop the concept further and to return to the Planning Commission Eor review. At their meeting on August 6, 1992, after hearing of the Planning Commission's modification to the condition and the app Licant's appeal, the Historic Preservation Commission unanimously voiced their opinion that [his further requirement placed on the condition by the Planning Commission was unnecessary. 2. Planning Condition No. 7: Deferral cE "Vintner's Wa 1k" Ins [a llation~ -- The cr ming of the "Vrn[ne is walk" improvements is tied :nto public impro•/ements aio.io Foothill Boulevard. This follows the pattern set in the Terra Vista Town Center and e]sewhere. Although the developer may choose to defer the rons[ructi on of re rta in huildings within tie project, common improvements and amenities alcng public streets, both public and private, are insta lied concurrently. A good example is the northeast corner of Foothill Bnu le vard and Raven Avenue, who r? tiro two bui l~iings flanking the fountain area nave yet to be built. 2`I L PLAhT1ING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91-24 i TPM. 17045 - NASI August 19, 1992 Page 3 The appellant is concerned with potential vandalism and damage to ['re "Vintner's Walk" and public art before adjacent buildings are built and during co ns tract ion. 'Phe Commission's (and staff's) cor.rern is two-fold: First, it is customary to spread the costs of amenities common to each project over the entire project area; deferral to later phases shifts the responsibility to a Sesser area (and potentially another owner if these smaller parcels are sold) and increases the risk of these amenities never being completed. Since the City has no control over the timing of the phastn9, it could be years b_fore this phase 3eve lops. Second, the "Vintner's Walk" is an integral part of the sidewalk system along Foothrll Eoulevard and Rochester Avenue; its deferral woo id leave a mrssing link in a continuous pedestrian connection along the street frontage within this site. If the Council shares the concern about potential damage to the art work, staff could support a modification of this condition to require installation of the walk, trellis, Landscaping, and infrastructure concurrently with the Foothill Hou levard improvements, but defer the actual installation of the required art and historical panels. However, these items should be conmissioned and funded prior to occupancy of Phase I. J. Planning Conditicn No. 9: Chaffey-Garcia Harn Contribution: In Sep tember of 1991, the City Council approved Resolution No. 91-275 requiring a 510,000 contribution to the Chaffey-Gar ci.a Barn project. This measure was intended to partially mitigate the demolition of the La FOUrca de Store, designated Historical Point of .n tr_rest. At the time, the amount of the mitigation was reduced Erort~ 025,000 to $17,000 and an element of Elex ibi Lity was added to the condition which would allow for the allocation of these funds to other similar projects if timing of the Chaffey-Garcia project and this project did not coincide. The cond aion states, in part, "The City CounmL may, upon the input of the Historic Preservation Gorton fission, allocate these funds to another similar type of preservation project, including but not necessarily limited to, the Historic Preservation Site and Land- Banking Fund, dependrng on the timing of the compliance with this mrtiyat:on." On August 5, 1992, the Historic Preservation Commission eeviewed the request to allocate the contribution to the development. of public art nn th:.s site. The Commission determined that the o r: ginal coM it ion was intended to ensure that if pa rchance the ago P La NN ING COMMISSION STAFF PE PJRT CUY 91-26 b TPM 138d5 - MAST August 19, 1992 paye 6 =haf fe y-Garcia House Barn proj zct no longer needed the 510,000, another City-spons orsd historic preservation project wou 13 be 9esi gna to d. Plasm ng Condition No. 20: approval of Jr.i form Sign Pxo gr am: Onif orn. Sian Programs regulate signs in all multi-te rant projects. Staff nornally reviews mast sign programs, except for retail shopping cen[e rs which are approved by the 2lanni nq Commission. Because of the retail nature and the significance o: this mixed-use project, the Commission felt that approval of the Sign Program should not be deferred to staff. Enganeeran3 Condition No. 2(b) and 2(c): Foo thi ll_BOU levard Median and North Side pavement Construction: It has always been City policy that new development upgrade the project side of existing perimeter streets to their ultimate configuration. The ultimate section for Foothill Boulevard includes a median. The normal procedure for shared items is to require construction by the first developer with reimbursement from future development. It r_= Crue that insta 11 irg the median requires some reconstruction on the north side of Foothill Boulevard. Thirty-two feet is the m in imam pavement width Ca It rans requires for two travel lanes and a shoulder on the north side of the median. However, even without Cie median, the ultimate centerline profile will involve capping on both sides of Foothill Boulevard. The developer will be yiven a reimbursement agreement for all permanent facilities constructed north of the Foothill Boa levard centerline. 'Pte st: eet improvement plans which the developer prepares should take into account future widening across the street and make re construction of any is rt of the median unnecessary. This portion of the Foothill Boulevard median will no[ be isolated once the Community Facilities District fox the Regional Ma11 installs the median between the I-15 Freeway and Rochester Avenue. 9ased on recent projects, staff feels Ca ltxans will support the construction of a single median segment. En gineeriny Condition No. 2(d): Interim Drainage Improvements: The existing 18-anch cro rrugated metal pipe (CMP) under Foot'ni 11 m uls vard does not meet City standards for new construction. However, since it is a temporary facility already in pla ca. staff would rnr. object to using the e%isting pipe provided it is cleaned, repaired, an adequate inlet installed, and discharges to the new catch basin on the south side of Foothill Boulevard. 2~t E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91-24 6 TPM 13945 - MaH2 August 19, 1992 Page 5 Engineering Condi tinn No. 9: Deletion of Traffic Bicmal "In-Lieu" Fees: The on iy signals covered by the Transportation Deve lnpment Fee are those with citywide benefit. The intersection of Foothill Sou levard and "B" Street will serve a private driveway on the north side and a local industrial Street serving only the Masi complex on the south side. Vltimately, all median breaks on Foothill Boulevard will require signalization, whether or not they are covered by the Transportation Development Fee• A half-fee was required in lieu of signal installation at this time because signal warrants are not anticipated to be met until the northerly access is installed. Lf Ca ltrans does permit the appellant to install a signal now, payment of a fee will not be necessary and staff will support their request fcr a reimbursement a qr Bement for one-half of the cost aga inat future development. CORID;.SPOIIUB[7C6: Th _s item has been advertised as a public heating in the Inland Valley Daisy aulletin newspaper, the property hae been posted, and notices were sent. to the adjacent property owners within 30H feet of the project. CORCLOSIOti: All of the conditions requiring certain physical improvements and fees are rons istent with estab Liahed City policy. The City Council is requested to hold a public hearing and provide staff and the applicant with appropriate direction. Resoe Lly sub tea, Bra ulle~`~•%C=yG City Planner 9B:O.K,/jfs Attachments: exhibit "A" - Applicant's Letters of Appear Exhibit "B" - PLanning Commission Minutes dated ,7u ly 22, 1992 Exhibit "C" - Planning Commission Etaff Aep~zt dated .7u 1y 22, 1992, with Exhibits "A" - '•I I" Exhibit "D" - Planning Commission Reso lotions of Approval for CVP 91-2d and TPM 13845 Z~F Masi Commerce Center Partners 5416 Electric Avenue San Bernardino, ca. 92407 (714) 882 4592 July 31, 1992 City clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91727 CITY OF RECEIVED RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY CLERK AUG 03 1992 L7i 819110111'1211121 ei Re: Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 91-24 - Appeal of Certain Conditions (City Planning Commission Resolution 92-99 Adopted July 22, 1992.) City Clerk: Masi Commerce Center Partners requests an appeal o£ certain conditions in regard to the above referenced Environmental Assessment and Conditional Uae Permit. Specifically: Planainc Diviaioa condiiioaa Item 7 "A revised concept plan for the commissioned public art and the interpretative public displays shall be reviewed by the full Planning Commission. The revised concept plan shall graphically depict how the Vintner's Walk, commissioned art, and public displays will be developed and maintained and how they will function as a whole. The applicant shall retain the services of a professional consultant to further develop the proposed conceptual plan and to ensure the successf;;1 coordination of the goals of tha Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning Commission. Final detailed plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to issuance of any permits. Installation of the public art and the Vintner's Walkway shall be completed concurrently with Foothill Boulevard improvements." We believe that item 7 is in contradiction to the intent of City Council Resolution No. POI 91-02, adopted September 18, 1991. Specifically, Section B, part 6(b) of the City Council Resolution states: I ) ~1 .'.. 24 C, ~j(~Ibr7-'Q1 City Clerk/Masi - Appeal of Certain Conditions - Resolution 92-99 July 31, 1992 Page 2 "The development of the site shall incorporate details of the site's history,~in particular the La Fourcade period, through the incorporation of the following measures: comm i.ssioned public art and development and placement of interpretative public displays. approval of the appropriate public art and interpretative displays shall occur prior to the issuance of building permits." (Underline added as emphasis.) we believe that it was the intention of the City Council to have the Historic Preservation Commission review and approve our site's conceptual historic plan and then let the details be worked out with staff. Ir. fact, we had a public hearing with the Historic Preservation Commission on July 2, 1992; the Historic Preservation Coma fission approved our conceptual historic preservation plan and indicated that final details should be worked out with staff. We do not believe that the City Council's intent in its Resolution No. POI 91-02, adopted September 18, 1991, envisioned that the Planning Commission should have this amount of control over the details of our historic preservation program or intended that they have further public meetings on the mattez. We believe that item 7, rewritten at the July 22, 1992 Planning Commission meeting, adds unwarranted expenses and delays to our project. We also object to the additional requirement to hire a consultant to assist us with Final details. Our design and development team, with input from City Planning staff, is perfectly capable of putting finish details on our historic preservation pla r,. In fact, we have been complimented by members of the Historic Preservation Commission for our eagerness in developing our historic plan and for the level of the plan's details. Additionally, we request that the part of the item 7 condition specifying that the "installation of the public art and the Vintner's Walkway shall be completed concurrently with Foothill 9oulevard improvements" be changed to allow us to construct these improvements when the three buildings flanking the public art and Vintner's Walk are built (buildings 5, 6 and .7 on our site plan). We are concerned that the public art and Vintner's Walk will be damaged during the construction of our Phase II buildings (5, 6 and 7). Additionally, we are afraid of vandalism. We are expending considerable funds on the Vintner's Walk and public art; to repair, rebuild or replaces the Vintner's Walk and public art would be a needless waste of our resources. City Clerk/Masi - Appeal of Certain Conditions - Resolution 92-99 ~~ I~ July 31, 1992 Page 3 We request that 'the part of the original language for item 7 in the staff report, presented to the Planning Commission at its July 22, 1992 meeting, replace the revised language of the Planning :omm fission. Specifically, the original language states: "Final detailed plans for the commissioned public art and the interpretative public displays shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of any building permits." We would further amend the remaining part of the origina:~ staff recommendation to read: "Installation of the Vintner's Walkway shall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy permits for any buildings constructed on lots 25, 26 and 27 of the Tentative Parcel Map". (These are the Phase II buildings, F5,/6 and #7, along Foothill Boulevard flanking the Vintner's Walk.) Ztem 8 In regard to item S, we have made a request to the Historic Preservation Commission that they recommend to the City Council that the required $10,000 contribution to the Chaffey-Garcia House Barn project be allowed to instead be used towards the cost of the vintner's Statue (part of our site's historic preservation plan). That hearing is scheduled for August 6, 1992. Item a repeats a provision of City Council Resolution No. POI 91- 02 in that it states: "The City Council may, upon the input of the Historic Preservation Commission, allocate funds to another similar type of preservation project including, but not limited to, the Historic Preservation Site and Land Banking fund, depending upon the timing of the compliance with this mitigation." If we are denied our request by the Historic Preservation Commission at the scheduled August 6, 1992 meeting, we request that the City Council amend item 8 to rsflect our request that the $10,000 contribution be used toward the Vintner's Statue on our site instead of for the Caffey-Garcia House Barn project. Item 20 "A Uniform Sign Program shall be reviewed and approved at a Planning Commission workshop prior to the issuance of building permits." City Clerk/Masi - Appeal of Certain Conditions - Resolution 92-99 24~ July 31, 1992 Paqe 4 We understand that the usual procedure is to have the City Planner review and approve the Uniform Sign Program. We believe that the original language presented in the staff report at the Planning Commission's July 22, 1992 should stand. It stated: "A Uniform Sign Program shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits." We believe that this new requirement for Planning Commission workshops on our sign program is unwarranted and can lead to costly time delays and unnecessary expenditures for us. Enaiaeerina Division conditions Item 2(D) "A landscaped median between Rochester Avenue and "B" Street with left turn lanes to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. If Caltrans does not allow a single segment, in-lieu fees will be required in conformance with Condition 3." Item 2(c) "Thirty-two feet of pavement on the north side of the median." We APPEAL '.terns 2(b) and <(c) for the following reasons: a. These two conditions essentially require us to largely rebuild both sides of Foothill Boulevard. This is an ur~3ue hardship on the project. b. This approximately one thousand foot strip of median will be an isolated strip. When Lewis Homes constructs the improvements for Terra Vista on the north side of Foothill 9oulevard and extends the existing median to the East, inevitable construction "interface" problems will occur. It is highly likely that this isolated median and adjoining Foothill improvements on the north side of the median, now required of us, will be altered or rebuilt to some degree to facilitatfl the Terra Vista development. we believe that conditions 2(b) and 2(c) poses both a hardship and a potential waste of our resources. Additionally, we may spend valuable time and money processing these required improvements through Caltrans only to be turned down because this discontinuous median will be viewed as impract ible by Caltran Engineers. Zy S City Clerk/Masi - Appeal of Certain Conditions - Resolution 92-99 July 31, 1992 Page 5 We believe it is in the best interests of the City and co rt iguous property owners that we pay an "in-lieu" fee for the median, as specified as an alternate condition to the above in Condition 3 (Engineering Division). In our opinion it would be more equitable to allow us to pay our fair share of the cost of the median as an in-lieu fee and let Lewis Homes complete this section of the median as part of their overall plan for the Foothill median between Haven Avenue and Rochester Boulevard. Item 2(d) "A catch basin at the ultimate low point on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, sized per the final drainage study, with an interim lateral to the catch basin on the south side. The north right-of-way shall be graded to direct flows to the catch basin with desilting facilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer." We APPEAL item 2(d) for the following reasons: The condition to build a temporary inlet and lateral for drainage from the low point on the north aide of Foothill Boulevard is not warranted because it is re ither a condition created by this project nor necessary to protect this project from storm water damage. An existing metal pipe under the Foothill Boulevard right-of-way exists. This pipe, with remedial repair and cleaning, will improve the existing condition and in fact may be connected to the catch basin proposed by this project on the south side of Foothill Boulevard. The special construction techniques required to bore a new pipeline under the road are costly and would only be a temporary facility. The existing drain pipe does not conform to current desigr. standards; however, it does serve an existina condition which is not caused or necessitated by this project. we request that condition 2(d) be altered to instead require the applicant to clear the existing pipe under Foothill Boulevard, provide a ma intaina6le temporary inlet on the north side of Foothill Boulevard at the inlet's existing location, and provide a temporary connection to the catch basin on the south side of Foothill Boulevard as proposed oy the conceptual storm drain design. ~~k City Clerk/~~asi - Appeal of Certain Conditions - Resolution 92-99 July 31, 1992 Page 6 Item 9 "An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and "B" Street shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase I or approval of the rival Parcel Map, whichever occurs first. The amount of the fee shall be one-half the cost of the signal". We APPEAL item 9 for the following reasons: We do not believe the City has any basis for charging us an in- lieu fee for this signal. We proposed the signal, not the City. We fully intend to conduct a traffic study and request that Caitrans "warrant" the signal in our first phase. However, it appears to us that the signal possibly may not be in the City's Circulation Element of its General Plan at this time. If this is so, we do not see how the City can require us to pay an in-lieu fee for the signal. Additionally, if the signal was in the City's Circulation Element of its Master Plan, then we would likely receive a credit for building it against fees we would be required to pay in regard to the City's transportation development fees. We certainly are happy about staff support for a signal in this location. The signal is quite important to our project. We understand that Lewis Homes feels strongly that a signal should occur at this location also. We propose that Condition 9 be eliminated. Additionally, we propose that if the signal is "warranted" by Caltrans, than we be allowed `_o request a reimbursement agreement for one-half the cost of the signal improvements with the property owner on the north side of street if development occurs there. we also request that the signal at this location be added to the Circulation Element of the General Plan and also be included in any revisions to the "City-Wide System Fees for Transportation Development" Ordinance (Ordinance No. 445). This Appeal is concurrently being filed with an Appeal to certain conditions of Tentative Parcel Map 1]845 (Planning Commission Resolution No. 92-100, Adopted July 22, 1992). Sincerely, '~-{/{/ / ~,7~ack ~Fia~s~ ~~ L .. iii,? s ~. ~ ~ Si! i ~ i ' ~ .c ~ :'= .. '~ ,d ~ i; i::~i e ~ E f2 r ~O /' om c ~ i5 ~~ ~ ., iii .L 1 ild,l L - D ~ ~ "r Il~~ Ir~Q 1~J0;0~~»770 z-i' J . 7 ~~~ _~ ""~°1u.'~~ ~ •7 7 O I~O~O ~,' ~ ~ - - ._' ~ ~~:J `J~~`J~1'+u :~1~3 /~~~33t~A4n:~jll 8 ~~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ ;.,, i p I : =!r' ~ i~~ i s ~ ~,{ I . ~ ~ ' I. ,i: li. n I ~ .~ ; in4 , At i iil:!~ .. . ....... .... ii„ ~ , :ail ~~II '~~ 3M3~Y ti3153MpOtl •~;- i i ~a ~~ R ti i ~{ u 2 t; F F li ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~!~ ti ~ ~ ~' i _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ce; c~ 3 _ ~ g ,~ ' i! ,. •~ ~ ~~ ti ~ L1 ~ _ ~ ~ w gi ~r ~ I:I _ _.a ii z~ w~ July 31, 1992 Jack Masi Masi Commerce Center Partners 5416 Electric Avenue Sar. Bernardino, Ca. 92407 (714) 882 4592 City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91727 RECEIVtD~ CITY OF CITY C<ERK AMONGA AUG 0 31992 7'x'9 ~10iL'_ 11`{~_.__`6 a Re: Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 13845 - Masi Commerce center Partners - Appeal of Certain Conditions. (City Planning Commission Resolution 92-100 Adopted July 22, 1992.) City Clerk: Masi Commerce Center Partners requests an appeal of certain conditions in regard to the above referenced Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map. Specifically: Baaineerina civiaion Coaditioaa Item 2 (b) "A landscaped median between Rochester Avenue and "B" Street with left turn lanes to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. If Caltrans does not allow a single segment, in-lieu fees will be required in conformance with Condition 3." Item 2 (c) "Thirty-two feet of pavement on the north side of the median." we APPEAL items 2(b) and 2(c) for the following reasons: a. These twc conditions essentially require us to largely rebuild both sides of Foothill Boulevard. This is an undue hardship on the project. b. This approximately one thousand foot strip of median will be an isolated strip. When Lewis Homes constructs the improvements for Terra Vista on the north side of Foothill Boulevard and extends the existing median to the East, inevitable construction "interface" problems will occur. It is highly likely that this isolated median and adjoining Foothill Boulevard itprovements on the north side of the median, now required of us, will be altered or rebuilt to some degree to facilitate the Terra Vista development. 21 "' City Clerk/Masi - Appeal of Certain Cord itions -Resolution 92-100 July 31, 1992 Page 2 We believe that conditions 2(b) and 2(c) poses both a hardship and a potential waste of our resources. Additionally, we may spend valuable time and money processing these required improvements through caltrans only to be turned down because this discontinuous median will be viewed as impractical by caltrans Engineers. We believe it is in the best interests of the City and contiguous property owners that we pay an "in-lieu" fee for the median, as specified as an alternate condition to the above in Condition 3 (Engineering Division). In our opinion it would be more equitable to allow us to pay our fair share of the cost of the median as an in-lieu fee and let Lewis Homes complete this section of the median as part of their overall plan for the Foothill median between Haven Avenue and Rochester Boulevard. ItYm 2(d) "A catch basin at the ultimate low point on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, sized per the final drainage study, with an interim lateral to the catch basin on the south side. The north right-of-way shall be graded to direct flows to the catch basin with desilting facilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer." We APPEAL item 2(d) for the following reasons: The condition to build a temporary inlet and lateral for drainage from the low point on the north side of Foothil: Boulevard is not warranted because it is neither a condition created by this project nor necessary to protect this project from storm water damage. An existing metal pipe under the Foothill Boulevard right-of-way exists. This pipe, with remedial repair and cleaning, will improve the existing condition and in fact may be connected to the catch basin proposed by this project on the south aide of Foothill Boulevard. The special construction techniques required to bore a new pipeline under the road are costly and would only be a temporary facility. The existing drain pipe does not conform to current design standards; however, it does serve an existind condition which is not caused or necessitated by this project. We request that condition 2(d) be altered to instead require the applicant to clear the existing pipe under Foothill Boulevard, provide a maintainable temporary inlet on the north side of Foothill Boulevard at the inlet's existing location, and provide a temporary connection to the catch basin on the south side of Foothill Boulevard as proposed by the conceptual storm drain design. 2`l D City Clerk/Masi - Appeal of Certain Conditions -Resolution 92-100 July 31, 1992 Page 3 Item 9 "An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and "B" Street shall be paid *_o the City prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase I or approval of the Final Parcel Map, whichever occurs first. The amount of the fee shall be one-half the cost of the signal". We APPEAL item 9 for the following reasons: We do not believe the City has any basis for charging us an in- lieu fee for this signal. we proposed the signal, not the City. We fully intend to conduce a traffic study and request that Caltrans "warrant" the signal in our first phase. However, it appears to us that the signal possibly may not be in the City's Circulation Element of its General Plan at this time. If this is so, we do not see how the City can require us to pay an in-lieu fee for the signal. Additionally, if the signal was in the City's Circulation Element of its Master Plan, then wa would likely receive a credit for building it against fees we would be required to pay in regard to the City's transportation development fees. we certainly are happy about staff support Por a signal in this location. The signal is quite important to our project. We understand that Lewis Homes feels strongly that a signal should occur at this location also. We propose that Condition 9 be eliminated. Additionally, we propose that if the signal is "warranted" by Caltrans, than we 6e allowed to request a reimbursement agreement for one-ha if the cost of the signal improvements with the property owner on the north side of street if development occurs there. We also request that the signal at this location 6e added to the circulation Element of the General Plan and also be included in any revisions to the "City-Wide System Fees for Transportation development" Ordinance (Ordinance No. 445). This Appeai is concurrently being filed with an Appeal to certain conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-24 (Planning Commisei,on Resolution No. 92-99, Adapted July 22, 1992). Sincerely, Jack Masi tiyQ I ~-~ 4 ~ :F ~ a ° • .d i ~ 4 s II. I ~ ! 'y ~J, f. ii7 ~ ail ' ° :: ,. ~` c: j .~ r.ai K L_ '-- 2~ F8 YS Ilil; nl~~ 'I i I +I c Y- y ' {' ~, 7 1 71 j_! ~. i i a i L ~ ;iii; i il, i , - ~~ l ~1'' ':'ii ill' ~ y - 1 -- ~ ^II ]li 3~w3ee n3i53M00n ~ 111' ^ _ .~- -~-:_C~--.._. ail = '. ~, ^*~:~_. ~~id 1 -j; .~~~. 01 ~~ y ~~:'~~ ~o~a~aoboooc~ - ~ :"~ e I~a,~ ~3 J ~I~ ;~ is la;o a ao 0 0 0 ;'~ Iii ~ ~ i .~?~ i - f, ~ ~liu ~.~ ~$ ~i~ocao~ . -i ~ d~ o ~ ~ - i 3 = ~!i O : ~~ ~: :~o:aooooooQ~ ~- w e = ~~ ~~a~a:a~aooeo~ . ~! - ~ _ s ~ ; ~c2 ~~ ~~ ~ t~ . ~ a i!I e ~; - .y , ~~ .. ~i"~S l - r~ . ~~ s ~~ ;a ~I~i ~~ 2 ~{ Q G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL L'SE PERMIT 91-24 - HASI - Th. development of 32 build Inge totaling approximately 268,907 square feet and comprised of a mix of intlustri al, multi-tenant, office and reetaucant ueee in the Znduatrlal Park tlietrict (Subarea 7) o! the Zntluetrial Anu Speci!ie Plan, located at the soot hweat corner of Foothill Boulevard and Roche et ar Avenue - APN: 229-011-10, 19, 21, 26, 27, and 28. Aaeaciat ad with the project ie Parcel Map 13865. Staff recomme nde Laeuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration. H. E N A N T MA 76 B- 5 - A subdivision of 30.2 ac ree of land into 31 par<ele in the Indu atrial Park district (Subarea 7) of the Indu atrial Area Specific Plan, Located at the soot hweat corner of Foothill Boulevard and Roc heater Avenue - APN: 229- 011-10, 19, 21, 26, 27, and 28. Associated wlih thin project is Condit ionai Vee Permit 91-2 d. Staff recommends iaeu ante of a mitigated Negative Declaration. Beverly Nieeen, Aaeociate Planner, presented the et off report. Commieeio net Valletta asked if the Vint net's Walk would be in Phase I. Ha. Nieeen replietl that staff proposed Lt be included with the Foothill Boulevard improvements, which would bs part of Phase I. Commis aicner Valletta aeketl if the designs had bean through Planning Commission Design Review or through the Historic Pruervat ion Commiae ion, Me. Nieeen replied they had bean rev lewad by a eubeomm ittas of Planning Commission and the Historic Praaervat ion Commission members and the subcommittee's recommendations were forwarded [o the Htatorlc Praaervat ion commie eion, which granted conceptual approval with staff to do further review of the details of the project. Commissioner Valletta asked if the Maei family would be tlapicted in the Vintner's Walk. Ma. Nieeen responded ono end of the Vintner's Walk Will have a story board of the Mast family. Commie eioner Chit ins asked if [hare wa• a condition requiring that grace or ground .:over ba planted on all the parcels along Foothill Boulevard which will no[ be developed with Phase I. Ms. Nieeen responded off irma[ivsly. Commiae Sonar Helchaz ae ked iE the City will ba exert is ing any control over the preparation of the graphite, artwork, and text of the interpretive exhib it e. He felt that a epecialisc in the [Sa10 Bhouid provide [bete items. Ms. Nieeen replied that the Historic Prawrvatlon Commieaion Eelt comfortable in allowing staff to review the details of hcu the historical displays will to put tag et her and what they ui11 contain. P iar,n ing Commiae ion Ninutee -14- duly 22, :. ,. Z~~ ~Xh h'~ 6~' Commiaeioner Helcher felt there are many technical and artist is aspects to be conertleratl; each ae how it will endure in weather including rain, sun, and air quality( etc, He did not want a tlieF lay that would become Useless in a matter o£ a few yeere. chairman HcN iel opened the public hearing. John Hannerino, 933' ea ae Line Road, I110, Rancho Cucamonga, introduced project owners and davalopera, Hr. and Mra. Jack Mae i; project comptroller Michael Scandif£lo; project architects Byron Pinc kett and John De Frenz a; engineer Todd Bremner; landscape architect Ray Dieeell; and broker Doug Nya from Bishop Nawk. Jack Maei, 5416 Electric Avenue, San Bernardino, et ated he was anxious to get the project started. He indicet ed he had a lender and eevoral tenants. He showed a wax sculpture of a figure he planned to include in Vintner's walk. Mr. Manrerino noted that the development of the inf restructure and the development of Vi ntner'a Walk in Phase i would aigntf scantly impact the economics of the project. Michael SeandifEic, 1510 Riversitle Drive, Hurban k, die cusasd the proposed phae ing plan. He said Phase I would include the auto court area, Jack In The Box, and a 6,000 equate Eaot restaurant on the northwest corner of the Bite. He est imeted they would start their second pheea within three to EoUr months of Phase I and Phase II would be tM northeast corner of the alts. He acid the Vintner's Walk woo ld be located batwun Phnees I and II• He remarked the chard phase would be the center o[ the site and Pheee IV wou ltl be the entire aout hero area. He said they intended to construct "B" Street (Masi Dr Sve( in connection with Phase i. Ha said the rand It loos also require that all of the improvements along Foothill Boulevard ba installed with Phase I. Ho nosed that Aocheatez Avenue has been sub at antially improved in connect San with the spa rte park with the exception of sidewalk, irrigation, and land ecaping. He diecueeetl the Vintner's Walk concept- Hs acknowledged commLsioner Me lchsr's concerns about weathering and indicated they are expsrimenttnq with a Eew processes including a photographic procee• whereby a paint i• made on a wall. Xe noted PLanning Cond scion 7 require• Lnetallat ion of the public art with Phase I. Ns acid the statues along Vtntnsr•a walk wLll be somewhat delicate and ha feared they may be vandalized prior Co construction of the adjacent buildings of damaged during construction of the second phase. He requested they bs able to construct Vintner's Walk in connscelon with Phases II. He said the total construct ion coax of build ing• for the fire[ phase as they propose it will 6s $2.4 million and the entire project's construction cost ie approximately 513 million. He said the total development fee coats are 51.4 million and Phase I development face era apptoximataly $436 thousand, while the total Ph see I caste including dwelopmant face, plan check costa, Foothill Boulevard median, Foothill Boulevard imProvemsnta, additional Roc hes[er work, and Masl Ortve work tots: 5928 thousand against cona[[u ct ion co sca of $1.4 million. He Ee It Lenders would be very reluctant to include such heavy infraatrueture costs in collection with the Phsse I development. Hs objected to the requirement to construct the mod lan in Fooihill Boulevard. Ma sold [ha rand It ions wore wrtttan so that Lf calTrsns permits P loon rng Comm ise ion Minutes -15- July 12, 1991 Z~ construction, the median and 32 feet of pavement on the oppoa its aide of the median will be con et rutted at a coat of approximately 5162 thousand. He said if CalTrane will not permit them to build the median, they are then required to pay an in-lieu fee toward half the coat of the median, or 5'18 thouenntl. He said the median etraine the first ph see and the coe[e may be higher because Cal Trans may require them to reconstruct the entire etrest because of n low point rn the current street. He felt it ie a small segment and would be better boil[ by Lewis. He said it would be bettor if they could pay the in- lieu fee for the median and improve Lheir half of th¢ street and have Lewis Hemet build the median when the median is extended down to Rochester. He said the City could give their in-lieu fees to Lewis. He felt iF [hey constructed the Foothill Boulevard median, Lewis may change the design after deinq their grading. He said they planned to petition Ca lTrans for a madlan at Poothill Boulevard where it interescts with Maei Drivs end they would have to add 12 Ee¢t an the north vide of Feothill Boulevard the Lewis Bide) in order to create more road bad, so they could Snstall a paln[ed mod ion. Hs rsqu sated that Eny ineering Cond [[Lone 2b and 2c requiring the median between Rochester Avenue and Maei Drive and the 32 feet of pavement on the north Bide of the median, be deleted and Condit ice 3, permitting the in-lieu Ees, remain. He objected to Engineering Condition 9 requiring an in-lieu fes for Snatallat ion of a traffic signal at the intersection of Nasl Drivs and Fcat hill Boulevard. Hs said they woultl bs pursuing a Lr •ffle signal. He Bald Lt was not clear if the light Le in the City's Master Plan. Hs thought the other a ignale in the area era in the City's Spacial Assenmani DistrLet so that developer receive a crsd it. He sold it seemed to be a light iheC only Lawi• and Maei want with the support of staff. He quest Toned why Chey would have to pay an in-lieu fes of 550,000 when !t Ls not in the Clty•s Epscial Asssssmsnt District and perhaps not Ln [he City's General Plan. He felt the burden ie on them to obtain the light because they need the signal to make the project work properly. Chairman HcNiel nc[ed that was why they And the arcompanying burden. Mz. Stand iff io noted that EngineerLng Condition 4 tequi rte that all of Rechester Avenue be constructed with Phase I. Ne remarked that a good pare of Rochester has n delicate, decoret Lvs streatscape going up to iha build loge, so he requested they be permitted to install the sidewalk, landecaping, etrest t rase, and [[rigs[ ion at the time of Phase II. Othsrwiee, he feared they would he damaged during construction of Phase II. Hs objected to Planning Condition 9 requ Lrinq that lendecapinq from the eidewelk to the curb Eace along the entirety of Mast Drive be completed prior Co occupancy oC the last building oC Phase I. Hs requested they be permitted to construct the street but delay Lnstallat ion of the •idewalke and Landecaping until construction of the atl}avant phaeee because he feared tt would be eubj act to being damaged during construction. Mr. Mannerino cequested approval of the project with their recommended changes. Hear inq no further teat imony, Chairman McNiel closed [he public hearing. Plane •nq Comm is aloe Minutes -16- July 22, 139] 2~ `i." Commies inner Toletey noted that one of his great concerns hoe been with parking lore becoming more prominent along Foothill Boulevard. He tlld not see anything on the submitted drawings that would mitigate that concern. He said there were many areas that do not appear to be finalized in the design. ecmmissioner Vallette recalled during the workshop there had been discussion regarding the streetscape along Foothill Boulevard and whether it should be packing or bu ildinga. She eheught it had been determined it should be parking, but it should be heavily betmetl. chairman McNiel agreed the first presenter ion had been for bu ildinga and p Lazaa along Foothill Boulevard, but there were queetione about the functionality o£ the project- He said the project waa redesigned eo incorporate parking between the buildings. Ccmmieeioner Toletoy recalled those diseussLOne and /aid hs agreed parking would be necessary in those locations, but he wanted the packing to be somewhat ehle lded from the traffic on Foothill Boulevard. chairman McNiel asked the berm height along Foothill Boulevard. Me. Nieeen said it ie approximately 3 feet atljecent to Jack In The Box and the Texaco eta[io n. Commieaionsr Toletoy questioned what it would be adjacent to Ph sae II. Me. Nieeen noted it would have Vi nt ne['e Welk antl Che Beat wall. chairman McNLe1 reopened the public hearing. Byron Pinc Kett, Nill, Pinc Kerr Architects, 16969 Von Harman Avenue, j}06, Irvine, said that n berm occurs between Foothill Boulevard and the Vintner's Walk and a low wall will sit ngeinet the berm. He notes trellis work will go aver the walk with vines on the trellis. Cammiseionar Toletcy ae kad iE there ors u/er• for the other 6uildinge. John De Frenza, Hill, Pinck/rt Architects, 16969 Von Rarman Avenue, /105, Irvine, ea id they are in negot let ions. Chairmen MtNlel again closed the public hear Lnq. Comm lee inner Chit lea remarked she had eho privilege of being involved in the various sessions and the subcommittee meeting with Historic Preservation Commieeionec• had been very enlightening a/ Co how the project will work. Shs remarked that the pha/ing plan had been presented at eho previous week's Design Review Committee meeting. Shs felt it ie imperative that public improvements be installed with Phase I• Shs had mixed feelings about whether the VLnt net's walk should be built with Phases I becauw sh/ understood the the argument for poet paving i0. Shs competed tM project to Terra Vista 'town Center, noting that trellis work and public art have bean in/t/lied with grass behtnd, present in9 an attractive et rsseseape while awaiting con etruction of Planning commies ion Minutes -17- July 22, 1992 Zu 4 the adjacent bu ildinge. She feared that some of the buildings in Phaee :I would not be built for some time and observed that the sports park and hotel will be built. Sha thossght it important to have the public connections to the project from the other facil it ie e. She realized it may create a large burden on Phaee i and thought pe_hape Phase I should be enlarged to incorporate more build inge. She thought an in-lieu fee Eor the median may be an opt ron. Comm ise inner Vallette asked if the eubcomm ittee had reviewed the artwork Eor the Vint net's Walk. Commissioner Chitiea stated they had reviewed examples of work by the art isle being eugge s[ed and the suggested locations were reviewed. She said they had come to mutual agreement with regard to the type, location, and appropriateness, as wall ae the design of the amhwaye and the plantings. Commies inner Valletta noted she had been impressed with the grapes in the original proposal. Commies inner Chitiea noted that would be incorporated within the wnikwey with various items along the walk end at the terminus. Cha Lrman MeN Lel again opened the public hearing. Mr. De Frenza ea id they are at ill working with the graphic designer to doe iqn the logo for the complex and finalize the name for the complex. Commies inner Vallette asked if it would be incorporatetl on Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Da erenza said they have prepared a project identity sign with a circular farm ae logo in the eignage. Hs said they woultl be showing that ae part of the VniEorm Sign Program epplieetion. chairman HcNiel recalled that the Historic Preserver ion asked to be involvetl in the content of the interpretive eignage along Vintner's walk to ensure the text is valitl. Commieeloner Chitiea proposed that the Landscep inq should be included up to the sidewalk with Phaee I while the lnntlecaping behind the eidewelk could wait until Phaee II, eo long ae Che area ie hydroeeeded and irrigated. Mr. De Frenza felt it wee the HLatoric Presarvacion Commission's Opinion that it was the it decision to review the text of information being presented on the boards. Ha concurred with Mr. ScandiCf io that it would ba better to construct the Vint ne r'e Walk with Phase II. Chairman McNisl again closed the public hearing. Commies ionwr Vallette stated eha was comfortable wLth the proposed phasing and was willing to cone ader some of the concerns of Che applicant. She Bald she was pleased ulth [he architecture and expressed appreciation for the architect's willingnea• to work with the Commission. She Chaught the Historic Planning Commission Minu[ea -19- July 2Z, 1991 Z~v Preservation Comm ieaion should work with the applicant eo far ae the walla along the Vintner's Walk but felt the Planning Commise ion ehoultl be involved with some of the artwork and agreed with Comm is eioner Melchor Chat it ie important to be cure that the artwork is of the appropriate materials eo it will age well. Commissioner Melc her noted that the technical aspects are important, art ie the purview of the art iet, and the material presented would be the purview of the Historic Preservation Commiae ion. However, ha Eelt a proteeaional should be involved to be sure that everything ie put together properly or the message will be meaningle ae. Ha said he had done some mua sum work and ie aware of what it takes to interpret <hinge succeea fully. He Ee1t the attention span of moat pedeatriana ir. the area would not be conducive to reading long blocks of text. He therefore felt it ie important to employ an expert to be sure it ie done Properly. Ch ai [man McNiel noted that Mz. Scanditfio had tliacuased the median in Foothill Sou levartl. Commissioner Me lcner felt the Commiae ion's reepone ib it ity ie to sea to proper planning. He au ppcrt ad etaft'e reecmmendaCiona and felt the app Licant•e objection should be addre coed by the City Council. Chairman Valletta noted the condition ie typical with requ iremente cE other developers in the City and she supported etaf is recommendation. Chairman McNiel commented that the applie ant had qua s[Soned tre need for the in-lieu fee £or the er off is signal et Masi Drive and Foothill Boulevard. He felt that if Maei Drive were not being canatrucLed and Che applicant did nor wish to et op traffic to provide bettor accea• to their project, there would be no need for a traffic signal. He thought the signal cervea only ae a function aE the project. Can James, Senior Civil Engineer, noted the applicant ie conditioned to pay the in-lieu fee prior to the recordation of the map but if they pursue the signal and hove it approved by CalTrana, that would meat Cha infant of the condition and an improvement agreement would guarantee installation of the signal. He felt Engineering staff would have the authority to negate the requirement to pay the In-lieu fee because the infant would be mat. 5hintu Boee, Deputy enq Lneer, stated Lha condition was writ tan eo require the in-lieu faa because etaft feels CalTrane will not epprovc the signnl until the northerly lag of the street ie built and the median i• completed [o the and of Che block. chairman McNiel observed that experience has shown that phases do not necessarily get ronetructed in the older originally planned. He noted that the applicant had requaated that the eideualk and landecap ing along Eocheater venue be incorporated with Phase II. Commissioner Melchor agteed with Commiae toner Ch it tea's point that pedestrian co nnecticne to other develapmente in the aces are important end he fait the improvements should remain in Phase I. Planning Commission Minutes -19- July 1Z, :?+: 2 ` Tha remaining Commieaioners concurred chairman McNiel noted the applicant had requested that Vintner's Walk be con etrv<ted in conjunction with Phase II. Commissioner Chit iea felt it should be with Phase I. Commissioner Malcher felt it could go with Phase II. He agreed that a suitable level of tlevalopment ba placed at the corner but ha felt the Vintner's Walk will ba well off the corner and out of the public right-of- way. He thought it could wait until the development of the coot iguous phae¢. Commissioner Chit iea was concerned that the building pad ei[ee could be parceled off and the burtlen urou ld b¢ too great to be placed on a small project with the ceau It that the Vinine['• Nalk may not be built. Sha felt the Vintner'e Walk ie part of the mitigation agreement to build the entire project and the feared changing economic times may preclude it from being constructed. She agreed construction would not need to reach up to the proposed buildings until they are built. She noted there are no surround my buildings to the ace lpture and trellis work at the northeeet eornwr of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue and the felt that cite hoe been an improvement. commissioner Valletta concurred with Commissioner Chit iea. Comm iaeioner Tolet oy felt Vini n¢r's Walk and the statues ¢ROV ld not b¢ constructed until the surrounding bu ildinge are built. Commissioner Melch¢r asked iE Lt wcu ld b¢ pose ibl¢ to combine Parcels 25, 26, and 2] to preclude the eeliing oE[ end individual d¢v¢lo pm¢nt of the pa rcele. He noted that Commies ions[ CRit iea had raiead a valid point that the pa rcela may be ao ld and developed separately with the argument that the cost of constructing Vintner's Walk is too great for an individual parcel. Comm iaeioner To latoy agreed Ghat was a valid concern. However, he felt there may be vandalism iE there ie no building in proximity to the improvements. He felt Ghat installing atatuee without the adjacent build inge woe ltl inv _Ce candaliam. Ne oleo wanted to be eats Vintnsr'• Nalk ie coneCrueted. Bratl Buller, City Planner, euggestad the Commie ion may wish to have the walkway and public improvsmsnt• completed with Phase I. He Ee1C the area where the statue will De installed could bs roost rutted with the walkway but the commiasion¢d art couid b¢ put in etoregs and not instal Ld until the ad7acen[ Du ildinge are cones rust ed. Comm isa loner Chit iea asked if there had been any vandalism to the large sculpture at Haven Avenue and Footnill Boulevard. Mr. Buller responded that ha had not heard of any. Chairman McNiel noted chat the parcel idsnt if led a• Phase iI L¢ a separate entity. rye wondered it the walk would ever be built if noL included with Fhase I. He was not sure Chere would be a problem with vandalism. Planning Commission Minutse -2C- July 22, 1997 Z`t ~( Commies is ner Toletoy felt theta would be va rdalism in that location, especially with people going to and from the sports complex. Cha!,-man HcNial felt there will be adequate parking at the complex. He indicated he would like to delay the in et allot ion of the walk but was concerned it may not be built. commiaeio nor Chittea fsl[ the area will be a gateway :o the sports complex. She Eelt it will make a statement LhaC more dove lopment ie plennad instead aE leaving an empty appearance. Comm ieaioner Toletoy agreed that Foothill Bou Levard and Rochester Avenue ie an important intersect ion, but ha did not feel it can be compared to Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue. Chairman McNiel recapped that Commissioners Toletoy and Melcher favored delaying the construction while Commissioner Vallette, Chit iee, antl hw favored the inataJ.l ation with Phase I. He noted the applicant had requewted that the landscaping and sidewalk along Naai ^rivw bw deferred un[il construction of the contiguous pheaee. Commissioner Melcher noted chat the proposed phasing plan had inc ludetl a temporary col-de-sac souti~~ of Phase I, but the candit ions now require that all of Naei give be built, ineluding the Beet-west section. Nr. Bu Llwr agreed that wow correct. commieaio ner Vallette indicated that she did not oppose daferr ing the landscaping on the east-neat section. Commissioner Chitiee Ee1t it should be left ae conditioned. Commissioner Ne Lcher favored installing the landscape end aidewalke with Phase I. Comm ieeioner Toletoy eg road. Commiaeioner Valletta request ad that Planning Condition 7 bs rev iced to require that the commLeione0 public art and interpretive publ is display he reviewed by the Planning CommLeion instead of the Clty Planner. She wanted to sew chat some of the original art proposals ors Lncorporatsd Into the final design. Mr. Buller stated that if any aspect of what wee presented were to change, he wow id not approve the plane without returning to the Historic Preesrvat ion and Planning Commiee ions. Commissioner Chitiee E¢lt the condition should incorporate the concerns cf both Comm ieeianer^ Vallette and Me leher, which would requ Lre Chs Commission to see the entire package before final approval. Planning Commies ion Minutes -21- July 2Z, :93: 2~Y Commissioner Melchor noted he did not feel the appl leant should employ a consultant to review what had already been prepared, but rather to sea iat in the, preparation of the matecial. He thought the concern was that the Commission should see the public art in ire total concept. He fa It perhaps it could be as eimp le ae a working aeeeion with Che appl kart to review what hatl already been presented. Commies io nor To letoy quest ionetl if the Uniform Sign grogram had been presented to the Planning Commission. Chairman HcNiel stated it hatl net. Commiaeioner To lstoy felt the full Commie elon should revive the uniform Sign Program. He noted that when reviewing building elevations he likes to know what the eign program will be to tletermina if aigne can be taste fully applied to the bu ildin9e. He Bald he was uncOmEOrtable with approving the project, in that he aid not Eee1 that all of the ieeuea have been ra iaatl let alone been salved. Chairman McNiel indicated the Commission could review the eign program. Commies loner Valletta asked if there wars other items that Commis loner Tolatoy did not feel comfortable with other than Che eign program. Commies loner Tolatoy said ha sew a lot of items that will be approved by the City Planner and M felt lhoe• ieeua• •hould have Dean resolved and presented to the Commission as a finished package. Motion: Movetl by Chit iaa, seconded by Val lens, to ieeua a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Conditional Uae permit 91-Z4 with modifications to require the submiee ion of a revised concept plan Eor the public art, the retention of the servitas of a professional to asei si in developing the plan, and approval of the Uniform Slgn Program by the Planning Commission- Motion carried by the following voter AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCN IEL, MELCHE R, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -cart led Hot ion: Moved by Chitise, eeeondsd by Nslchsi, to issue a Negstive Declaration end adopt the resolution epprovinq Tent at ivs Parcel Map 13845. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCNER, TOGSTOY, VALLE TTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMHISSIONEAS: NONE -cart led COMMISSION BUSINESE Planning Comm lesion Minutes Ei?~ duly 22, 1992 ZE-(~. CITY OF R9NCH0 CUCAJ10tiCr~1 STAFF REPORT n_~ - v DATE: July 22, 1992 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission c-ROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner S L'BJECT: EN`i IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 9ND CONDZT IONAL ^SE PE RM ZT 91-26 9ASI -The development of 32 buildings totaling approximately 258,907 square fee^_ and comprised of a mix of industrial, multi-tenant, office, and restaurant uses in the Industrial Park district (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Fochester Avenue - APN: 229-011-10, 19, 21, 26, 27, and 29. Associated with the project is -arcel Map 13965. Staff recomoe nds issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. .fiction Requested by Applicant: Approval of Conditional Uae Permit 91-2d to allow the development oL 72 buildings cons iating of a mix cf industrial, multi-tenant, office, and rea tauzant uses located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue and rssuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration. B. Surrounding Iand Uae and Zoning: North - Vacant; Terra Vista Plt nned Comnunlty; MOC (Mixed, Office, Conine tcia 1, Residential) South - Spor tB Complex; Suhacea 7 (Industrial Park), Industrial Area Specific Plan East - Aggazz otti Winery; Suba [ea B (Industrial Park), Industrial Area Specific Plan seat - Vacant; Saba rea 7 (Industrial Park), Industrial Azea Specific Plan _. C,ene ral Plan Designations: Project Site - Industrial Park North - Nedinm Residential (e-14 dwelling um to per acre) South - Industrial Park East - Industrial Park West - Industrial Park ~Xh~b~ PLANNING COMMIBBION STAFF REPORT CUP 91-24 - MAST July 22, 1992 Page 2 Site Characteristics: The site is appro zimate ly 2.7 acres in size and slopes approximately 2 percent from ,io rth to south. The site is generally vacant except for the existing "La Fourcaoe" stucco building at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester which is currently vacant, but which most recently housed the Cowgirl Theate-. Prior to this, the building was originally utilized as a store and gasoline filling station and later as a restaurant. The building is slated for demolition, however, it was recently designated as an Historic Point of Interest by the City Council. Approximately five Olive trees (Oleo europa) were located along the eastern side of the parcel and were removed with the widening of Rochester Avenue• Parking Calculations: See Exhibit '•A". ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is proposing to develop 32 buildings on 27 gross acres of land. Building 1 is a .Tif fy Lube facility; Huildi ng 2, a Texaco gas station; and Building 32, a Midas Muffler Shop. Buildings 30 ar.d 31 are also automotive-type uses. An Automotive Service Court concept wes approved ae part of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment (ISPA) 92-02 (Bee Section C). Building .. is a fast food restaurant. (.Tack-Zn-The Box) with a drive-thrn lane. Bull di nq 5 is a proposed restaurant of 14,000 square feet. No architectural elevations have been submitted for Building 5 as i.t is currently the rile of the Victory Chapel. In the future, a Development Review application wi.il be requ!red when architectural elevations for the proposed restaurant are submitted. Building 74 may possibly become the future >cation of the Victory Chapel facility which is currently located in an existing building on the site. A portion of Building 4 (4,000 square feet) is also proposed for restaurant use. All of the above uses fall under the currently p: oposed Conditional Use Permit, except for Victory Chapel which has a separate approved Conditional tJSe Permit. Huild.ngs 15-29 in the southern portion of the site are proposed to he used Eor multi-tenant industrial uses and possibly warehousing. Buildings a-13 in the center of the site are pzopoaed for Speciality Building Supplies and Nome Improvement uses or possibly multi-tenant industrial. Buildings 6 and 7 will most likely be used as some type of office space. H. Back yr nund: The Planning Commission has conducted preliminary cns'tesy workshops cn this project nn August e, September 5, and 2~ A g ?CANNING COl41ISSION STAr^F RE POAT CUP 91-24 - MASI July 22, 1992 Pa qe 3 September 25, 1991. After the third workshop, a subconm:ittee of the Planning Cov¢nission (MC:1ie1, Mel cher} was appointed to address architectural issues. The subcommittee and staff met with the applicants on October 10, and October 31, 1991. The subcommittee then forwarded two alternative architectural concepts to the full Planning Conmissi on foz review on November 13, 1991. At that meeting, the Covmiission fell the more traditional of the two architectural styles was the preferred concept and directed the applicant to proceed in that direction. C. Industrial Specific plan Amenfine nt: Concurrently with the CUP application, the applicant suGnitted a request for an Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment. IS YA 92-02 was a three part amendment which was reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 11, and March 25, 1992 and approved by the City Council on ,lone 3, 1992 through Ordinance 496 (Exhibit "B"). The amendment modified the three following aspects of the Industrial Area Specific Plan: The local circulation pattern along Rocheater Avenue was modified to shift access points in a southerly direction. An Auto Court use, consisting of automotive services and related activities was added as a conditionally permitted use in Subarea 7, subject to design guidelines. 3. Specialty Building Supplies and Home Improvement was added to the list of conditionally permitted uses for Subarea 7. A11 thr. ee of Che above elements have been incorporated into the Conditional Use Permit application. The northernmost driveway on Rocheater Avenue current]y coincides with the revised access location. An Auto Court. use has been proposed in Lhe northwest portion of the site and has been reviewed foz compliance with the newly adopted design gut delinea by [Ae Design Aeview Committee. Additionally, Specialty euilding Supplies and Nome Improvements uses may potentially be located in the but ldings in the center portion of tF.e site which are 25,000 square feet or leas. D. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Conm~ittee (MCNiel, Melcher, Kroutil) reviewed site plan issues on April tfir 1992. The applicant presented two alternatives at the meeting. Alternative A indicated Buildings fi and 7 at the extreme northeast corner of the site and euilding 5 (proposed restaurant) with 10,000 square feet. Alternative B indicated the deletion of Building 7 end the expand ion of Bui ldin5 5 to 14,000 square feet. The Committee did not approve the project and requea tea that the following items be re vlsed and re-reviewed by the Design Aeview Committee: 2~{ A G PLAN2JI NG COMAIE SIGN STAFF REPORT CUP 91-24 - MAST July 22, 1992 Page 4 The Activity Center concept requires additional analysis and the applicant sF.ould study all four corners of the intersection to ensure that spatial relationships are compatible. The applicant may wish to consider relocating the drive aisle on Foothill Boulevard westerly in order to expand Building 5 (Spaghetti Factory) to the west which could create a more pleasing syvmetry at the corner. Tne applicant might also consider creating a pedestrian oriented courtyard oc other focal point at the corner and flanking it with buildings along both Foothill Hou levard and Rochester Avenue. 2. The screening of the Auto Court is acceptable as presented; however, the on-site circulation pattern is problematic due in part to the northerly driveway. There may also 6e on-site traffic conflicts with automobiles exiting the car wash and those entering the Jiffy Lu6e. The on-site ci reulat ion should be carefully recorsidsred and the northerly driveway into the Auto Court should be deleted. The applicant should provide more details for the Jack-In-The- Hox Facility. The t: ash enc insure snould be relocated closer to the building. The applicant should consider a small retaining wall at the corner to further screer. the drive-thru aisle. It would be awkward to screen the drive-thru lane with the building; however, the use o£ trellis work and low screen walls could be incorporated. The drive-thru policy also requires that the buildings orient public entrances to the street which the applicant has complied with. The southern side of the facility hat the potential for pedestrian plazas and eating areas which has not been explored in the proposed desi 9n• 4• The alignment of "A" Street (Masi -rive) is acceptable as a s traiyht street. The sidewalk should also be straight, however, extensive landscaping should be provided along the street frontage. 5. The landscaping adjacent to the buildings should be re-worked as much as possible to provide wider planter areas in order to accommodate tree plantings. 6. Details of lunch court areas should be worked out with staff. The size of the eating areas is acceptable, bu[ the applicant should review tF.e landscaping and street furniture details with staff. 7. The parking layout adjacent to Buildings a-12 should be zedesi geed in order to provide the majority of the perking aisles in a north/south direction. The Committee au ggested ~~AD PLANNING COMM IS EION STAFF AE PORT CUP 91-24 - MAST July 22, 1992 Page 5 that there should be some type of continuous east/west drive aisle chat did not have parking spades backing up onto it. It was suggested that a scheme similar to the K-Mart Center cou13 be utilized which has a parking court in front of the main row of buildings. e. Tne required historic element should be incorporated into the site design and presented to the Cosm ittee for review and approval. 9. Tne wind chimes tower and the two fountains should be integrated more carefully into the site plan. 10. The applicant should work with staff to resolve the on-site circulation in the southern portion of the site. The triangular shaped planters could be flattened out to provide a straighter driving path Erom east to west. 11. The median along "A" Street should be deleted unless Engineering staff will permit it. The applicant could also move the median to the private drive aisle off of Foothill Boulevard which would alleviate Engineering concerns. The Design Review Cgmm ittee (McNiel, Krouti l) reviewed architectural issues at their May 7, 1992, meeting. In response to written staff comments, the applicant brought modified architectural elevations Eor several buildings to the meeting. TF~ese modi Ei nations were reviewed by the Committee and the following observations were made: 1. Tne design of the canopy element used throughout the project needs to be explained graphically, in a larger scale. The Committee also expressed serious reservations about the use of fabric/mylar awnings in this high wind area. 2. The detailing of all auto court structures should resemble more closely the other commercial/service buildings in the pro; ect through the use of appropriate base material, mrnice, and window treatment. In particular, the car wash enclosure and Bui ].d togs 31 and 43 require additional attention to be more consistent with the rest of the ptoj ect. 3. Tne 9-foot high auto court screen call should retain 2-3 feet of Eill to reduce its apparent height £rom Foothill Boulevard. 4• In general, all structures should be more three-dimensional with varying degrees of architectural treatment on all sides. Appropriate architectural treatment should wrap around the west elevation of Dui ]ding 8, the west/northwest elevations of Building 19, and south elevation of Building 20. 2 ~-t A E PLANNING COMM IS ST ON STAFF REPORT Ci7P 91-26 - MASI July 22, 1992 Page 6 The applicant also introduced an elevation of the south property line. It was the Committee's consensus that a 6-foot high wall, as measured from the north side, would be adequate. It was noted that tree plantings would be needed just south of Building 20. (Please note the question of required fill/r'otention along the southerly property line is yet to be resolved. Staff's recomsendation will continue to be that the amount of fill and subsequent overall height of the south bank of structures be minimized.) The applicant also brought a new concept fot the activity center/ "Vintner's Walk." While the idea appeared imaginative, the presentation was very sketchy and needed to be developed in some detail. Staff su gges [ed a joint Historic Pr es ezvati on Convn iss ion /P).a nni nq Commission subcommittee meeting to review this concept. Although the site plan was not on the agenda, a revised site plan was introduced at the meeting by the applicant. Engineering staff had again indicated their objection to the proposed median within the local public street. The applicant was directed to submit a complete and internally consistent development package, including a fully dimensioned site plan, landscape plan, and all elevations for approval by Technical and De si qn Review Covmit~ees. The Coamiii tee (MCNiel, Chitiea, Kroutil) met again on June 4, 1992, to discuss the remaining site plan and arcrtitectuzal issues. The applicant made alterations to the plane which effectively addressed the above noted issues: Site Flanning: No. 1, 2, 3, d, 6, 7, e, 9, 10, and Architecture: No. 3. The Design Review Committee (Chi flea, McNiel, ICroutil) requested that the following item be reviewed by them prior to scheduling for a Planning Commission hearing: 1. The applicant should provide material samples and colors of the mylar/canvas canopy element and the perforated steel canopy material so that the Com•1littee can make a final selection. The following items should either he re-reviewed by the Coam it tee or placed as conditions on the project: 2. Vines should be added adjacent to Hui ldings 11-18 along the alley-aide where area for planting Ls severely limited. 7. 'Frees within the lunch court areas should aceually be planted in the ground rather than .in pots. Each eating area should be 2~-E ~ PLA.NN ING COMMISSION STA F<^ REPCAT CUP 91-24 - MABI duly 22, 1992 Page 7 provided with, a trash receptacle. The Furniture should be revised to have backs on the seats for greater comfnr^_. 4. The buildings comprising the Auto Court have been designe3 with 4-inch stucco recesses. The recesses should be redesigned with a bu 11 nose or something other than a strictly 90-degree angle. 5. The revisions to Buildings 8 and 19 were acceptable; however, the south side of Building 20, due tc its preximi ty to Rochester Avenue, will require additional upgrading. Additionally, the rear elevations of Buildings 21-23 should be upgraded. be reviewed by the Design Review Committee prior to Planning Commission hearing or added as conditions to the Resolution of Approval: Vines adjacent to Buildings 11-1R should be planted in a continuous 2-foot planter, rather than vine pockets, if permitted by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District. The Jommittee (McNiel, Chitiea, Kroutil) approved the myla r/canvas canopy element in the thickest gauge available. Color schemes of the canvas should be carefully worked out. A diagram providing color locations should be submS ^_ted for review and approval by the Committee. The possibility of keying the awning color to the type of use was also disc seed. The glass along the south elevation of Building 20 should be recessed in a manner similar to the other proposed boil dings. 4. A reflective coating should be applied to the glass portions of those boil din ge which face drive aisles and Rochester Avenue. The purpose of the reflective coating is to provide an opaqueness to the glass so that storage areas will not be visible. 5. Vines planted along the Bports Park property (south of the south property wall) should be allowed to extend un and over the wall and o;lte the buildings in order to discourage gaff iti and to soften the wall and buildings. 6. The 6ullnose edge for all buildings with the 4-inch stucco recess should be reviewed and approved by the planning Division. z~(~~ PLANNING CCtM1I5 SIGN STAFF RE PCAT CNP 91-24 - MASI July 22, 1992 Page 8 Lunch court furniture should be revised to include wire seats and concrete tables. Wire seats should match the proposed arming color. The applicant should cons:.der providing a stone base along the bottom portion of Buildings 4, 7, and 20 in those locations where glass extends all the way to the ground. The applicant has incorporated Items No. 1, 3, and 7 into their final submittal package. Items No• 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 will be added as conditions of approval. Fast-Food Pad: A fast food restaurant (Jack-In-The-Box) is proposed on parcel JD (directly east of "B" Street, along Foothill Boulevard). The facility was reviewed by siatf and the Design Review Committee (MCNie 1, Meluher and Rroutil) on April 16, 1992, for conformance with the interim drive-thru policies as indicated in Section D above. The facility is inconsistent with the drive- thru policy in that the stacking aisle is directly adjacent to Foothill Boulevard. The applicant has mitigated this concern, however, by adding trellis work with vine plantings and low screen walls along the nor, th side of the structure. Additionally, a 3-foot earthen berm is located between the structure and Foothill Boulevard. Historic Preservation Commission: The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) requested that the property at the southwest corner of Pochester and Foothill Boulevard be reviewed to determine its historic si gniEicance in response to a demolition request for the structure known as the Cowgirl Theater. The HPC reconmended that the LaFOUrca de store be desi grated an Historic Point of Interest. The recommendation was forwarded to the City Council on September 18, 1991. The designation was approved on that date along with a mitigated Negative Declaration. Mitiyation measures for the demolition are noted in Exhibit "C." The applicant has complied with Conditions No. 1 and ]. Condition No. 4 deals with a monetary contribution to be collected prior to the issuance of building permits. Although this condition has previously been reviewed by HPC and City Council, it has also been included in the Resolution of Approval for this application, since it is tied to building permit issuance for the project. Condition No. 5 dealing with oral history interviews is being worked out with HPC staff. Condition No. 2 states the following: The development of the sits shall incorporate details of the sites history, in particu lac the LaFOUrcade period, through the incorporation of the following measures: commissioned public art and development and placement of 2u ~t+ PLANNING CCtR4IS5ICN STAFF RE PORT CUP 91-24 - MASI Ju 1y 22, 1992 Page 9 interpretative public displays. The final sneciEications of such measures she 11 be reviewed by the Hrstocic Preservation Commission and forwarded with the recommendation to the Planning Commission during development/design review hearings on any development proposal For this site. Final approval of the appropriate public art and interpretive displays shall occur prior to the issuance of any building permi is .'• In working towards fulfillment of eh is condition, the applicant met with a subcommittee of the Historic Preservation Commission artd the Planning Commission (Marsha Banks, Steve Preston, Larry McNiel, Suzanne Chitiea) on May 27, 1992, to discuss their proposal for commissioned public art and the development and placement of interpretive public displays. The applicant presented their concepts to the subcommittee, which were essentially acceptable. The Following proposals were approved by the Historic Preservation Commlssion on July 2, 1992. Interpretive Public Displays and Vintner's Walk: The walkway will extend approximately t6D feet along Foothill Boulevard as originally proposed. The names of the Vintner families, along wish the dates their wineries were established, will be incorporated into the walk on inscribed pavers. The walkway will have a metal trellis along its length and historical 3isplay panels with text and photos depicting the history of wine making in the area starting with the LaFOUrcade period and covering the immigrant grape growers and vintners of the 1920s to 1930s. Areas for seating wi 11 be incorporated along the walkway. The applicant has proposed four to six display pane la; however, aieff would recommend that six be utilized along the length of the walk. The applicant has also proposed a 7-foot wide "story board" at the eastern end of the Vintner's Walk where the original LaFOUrce de store stood. The story board would be a bee relief depicting the Laeourcade winery. The applicant has proposed that the relief pictorially show LaFOUrcade di rect:ng the construction of the first wells in Cucamonga as well as views of some of the 6ui ldinga he constructed. Also in partial fulfillment of the interpretive display requirement, the applicant has proposed an additional story board locaticn at the western end of the Vintner's Walk depicting the Masi family. The bas relief would portray the hillside vineyards of the Mast's home town in italy, members of the Masi family, and their lands and winery in Cucamonga. 2`i '~~ PL,ANN ING COMMS SSION STAFF REPOAT CrJP 91-24 - MHSI July 22, 1992 Page 10 Commissioned Public Art: To fuif ill this cegvi rement, the applicant has proposed a sculpture o` a vintner carrying a basket of crapes which would be located approximately midway along the vintner's 'v7a 1k. The sculpture is intended as a tribute to the wine making families of the area. A 12-inch wax model of the sculpture will be available at the meetin g• A condition of approval has been incorporated into tY.e Resolution o.` Approval which requires final detailed plans to be reviewed and aFProved by tha City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. .,. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee reviewed the proje rt on April 15, and June 3, 1992. Comments from the Tech viral Review Committee have been incorporated into the recommended Conditions of Approval. H. Grading Committee: The Gra di r.g Committee reviewed the project on April 1d, and June 2, 1992, and -ecommen ded approval on June 2. I. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and found that, although the project could have a significant effect on the environment in several areas, including traffic and cultural resources, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this case because of the mitigation measures which have been included in the project design or as Conditions of Approval within the attached Resolution. Therefore, if after reviewing the propoaed mitigation measure6 specified within the Aeao lotion, the Commies loo concurs with staff's findings, then issuance of a mitigated Negative Dec is ration would be in order. FACTS FOA FINDINGS: In order for the Planning Commission to approve the project, the following facts for findings must be made: A. The proposed use ie in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and the purposes of Che district in which the site is located. B. ine pr opcsed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. The proposed use comFlies with each. of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and Industrial Area Specific PSan. COftRESPONDENrE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland 'Jai ley oai~ Bulletin newspaper, the project has baen posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. 2~{ Ps PLANNING COMN IS sION STAFF REPORT CUP 91-24 - MASI Slily 22, 1992 Page 11 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recoam~ends that the Co:mnis lion receive all public testimony on the project. If after receiving all testimony, the Corunission concurs with the findings suygested, then issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of Conditional Use Permit 91-24 through adoption of the attached Resolution would be in order. Res u11 itt d, Bra ller C.it Planner HH:BN:js Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exh iblt "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Exhibit "E" Exhibit "F" Exhibit "G" Exhibit "H" Exhibit "I" Exhibir "J" Exhibit "K" Exhibit "L" Exhibit "M" Exhibit "N" exhibit "O" Exhibit "P" Exhibit "Q" Exhibit "R" Exhibit "5" Exhibit "T" Exh iDit "U" Exhibit "V" Exhibit "N" Exhibit "X" Exhibit "Y" Exhibit "Z" Exhibi! "AA Exhibit "BE Exhibit "CC Exhibit "DD Exhibit "EE Exhibit "FF Exhibit "GG Exhibit "HH Exhibit "II Resolution - Parking Calculations - Ordinance 496 - Resolution 91-275 (Riatoric Point of Interest) - Parcel Map 13845 - Detailed Site Plan - landscape Plan - Street Corner Study - Activity Center - Lunch Area - Shared Entries along - Section at Auto Court - Building 2 - Building 3 - Building 3 Section - Building d - Building 4 - Building fi 6 7 - Building 6 6 7 - Building 5-12 - Building 13 - Building 13 - Building 14 - Building 15 s 16; 17 - Building 19 - Building 20 - Building 21 - Building 22 6 23; 24 - Building 26 - Building 27 - Building 28 - Building 29 - Building 30 - Building 31 - Building 32 "A" Btreet 6 1B 25 - Section at South Property Line of Approval with Condir,iona 2y~1k PARKING CALCULATIONS FOR CUP 91.24 Bl-DG. TYPE OF SOUARE PARKING RPTIO # OF SPACES k OF SPACES NO. USE FOOTAGE PER 50. Ff. REOUIRF~ PROVIDED 1 Jifty tube 1800 (3 bays) 3 + 2lbay 9 1 2 2 Texaco 1800 10 11 -salt service car wash 2.5 - gas station 3+2/bay 3 Jack-in-the-Box 2770 1/75 37 36 4 Restaurant 4000 1/100 40 45 Office 5400 1/250 22 22 5 Restaurant 14000 1/100 (< 6000) 205 150(' ) 1/55 >6000 6 Office 5400 1!250 22 22 7 Office 5000 11250 20 20 8 Office 20000 1/250 80 90 4 Office 22000 1/250 88 100 10 Office 20200 1/250 81 101 11 Multi-tenant Industrial 10000 11400 25 44(") 12 Multi-tenant Industrial 10000 11400 25 44(") 13 Multi-tenant Industrial 8800 11400 22 43(") 14 Multi-tenant Industrial 8096 1/400 20 25 15 Multi-tenant Industrial 5682 1!400 14 16 16 Multi-tenant Industrial 5682 1/400 14 17 17 Multi-tenant Industrial 5325 1/400 13 16 18 Multi-tenant Industrial 6395 1/400 16 17 19 Multi-tenant Industrial 8200 1/400 21 26 20 Multi-tenant Industrial 8900 11400 22 34 21 Multi-tenant Industrial 7500 11400 19 20 22 Multi-tenant Industrial 6304 1/400 16 18 23 Multi-tenant Industrial 7145 1/400 18 19 24 Multi-tenant Industrial 7145 1/d00 18 19 25 Multi-tenant Industrial 6724 1/400 /7 18 26 Multi-tenant Industrial 6300 11400 16 17 27 Multi-tenant Industrial 7200 1/400 18 18 28 Manufacturing 14000 1/500 28 28 29 ManufaCWfin 12000 1/500 2a 24 30 Auto Service ~ 9568 3 + 2/bey 13 25 31 Auto Service 7079 3 + 2/bay 19 20 32 Auto Service Midas 5060 3 + 2/ba 11 19 TOTAL 1023 1136 (') ~ A parking easement will be granted from Parcel 24 (Bldgs. 11, 12, and 13) to Parcel 27 (Bldg. 5) providing the additional 55 spaces required for the restaurant facility. (") - Buildings 11, 12, and 13 have an excess of 59 parking spaces which will be allocated to Building 5. Note that parcel lines can not be changed to equalize the parking due to different ownerships EXHIBIT "A" zit A ~ OFmJNA[7CE ND. 496 AN d~]NAHCE OF '1F~ Cf1Y a(47CII, OF 'D~ CITY OF F~ "~, CAI.IFd[dJIA, APP%1/ING RQ7ClSII22AI, ARFA SPDCIFIC PfAN AMFSIII~¢T7P 92-02, PAKIS A i B, EL4~@~IATINO DFSI(2U~TID A(LFSS POIIlI5 AI1N(: 9Dag5IRItR AVfM1E HEIWEEN FVOIIQIZ BWI.EVAIm Arm ARM7W Fr7f7IE, AM1 ACDING AN "AUItM7PIVE SIINICE OJlffQ" LlSE Qt75ISI'INu OF AU1Q37FNE SFRVIC~S A!ID RIIATED ?Ct2VT1IFS AS A Rr~ITiQ~AILY PER~II'ITFD CSE WI7.liII7 SGBARFA 7, AM) "SPDQALIY 6UIIDITX, S[7PPISFS AFID tirNE 12~fiOVIIgr7I~" AS A OQIDITIQO,LI,y SUBlII7TID [15E WTR$7 SUBAREA 7 Rf~BCITVFSX - APM: 229-011-10, 19, 21, 26, 27, AND 28 711e City Council of the City of Rarldlo Cucamvga does Msp2~• ordain as follows: SFS.TZCM 1: Part N, Figure N-9, ie hereby amended as shown on the attadfed E#tibit "A." SYC1ZQf 2: Part III, TabL III-1, ie herety ame7ldgd to read, 371 wortis and figurea, as shove in ttr a+*Y+~-~+ F)dtibit "B.^ SFi'FION ]: Part N is heeby amended t4 add "mrtm.w;ve Service Court" and "Specialty Builditg Slppliee and }i0me I7cpcov®mts" as mnd.itionally permitted use within Subarea 7 as ehovrl 171 the attactrd F~d7lbit ^C." SFX1'ION a: Part III, Teble III-2, subsection D, la7d use type defi7li- tian for "Automotive Service 0717Ct" arcl "Specialty Building Stgplies a7d trams Imo" are hereby added to read, in words arcl figures, as follows: °i-~!^-'~'^TS'"' °F~'~~ ~~': M intsgaled cluster of related automotive serviw activities, whtd7 typimlly include: g~ statiorla; service statime, with or witha7t ancillary uss m,d7 a. car washes and rood marts; au[®otivs service and r~r itlcludirxJ mufflers, shocks, aligrmlents, brekes, oil dangr, lubcicatiaro, hulo-upa, smog cdlar]cs, and fire repair and replacement; lmtallation of air cmditioniry, car pholee, stew, wi7de11talds, and uptnlstezy; wi7dshield tintirq; sale of auto parts; and other related services. Services typically prwiderl in ttw category na,.r..~..•ive and T1'UCJC Repair -Major" are specifically prohibited. Auto Colnty shall Imply with the followirlq design ¢iteria: - wvi~nvw slr4: 4 ease. - Mist be ara3>@ed by a gas aoc serviw station. - Maximum frrntage alag a major ¢ seoQdaty arterial street: 700 feet. - ib emcee to the site will be permitted directly off arty maj¢ arterial. pJI e u 2~{ -~ ~i'~'1 1 A~?"OG~y, rum ,~'.. ,.1~B~T i1 Pti11 Ordinance No. 496 Page 2 - Service bays std pimQ islards shall ba srseened frcm all major arcl semrdazy arterials thtnxyt a o®bination of hexta, ]atd- scapiry, law walls, and building orierrtation. - An appropriate ~bination of terms, lardarapitg, and ar~i- r°^^mt elemer'cta shall he ptovidai aramd the entire perimeter of the site to minimize the iapact of the auto Gnat uses frtm the efti grim std futrae starorrnditg uses. - Otrtdoor storage of itnpexative vehiclm, parts, or ~_~..~..r is pznhibited. - All wrak shall be cad<rted indoors. - All aignage shall fx limited to sigro approved urdsr a thtif'am Sign PrograID. coFl^rar.mv fiPIIDINC: StlPPLr*'-< AND FII4! Il4+POVEMF}lPa• Activities typimlly include, but eta mt limited to: retail std wholesale sales std iratallation of specialty itas, audt as paint, well/flan/witdw coveritsp, doss std windows, WildL'4 mtaials, hatdware, pludxitg std electziral s~plies, both and kitd>an fitcha~s std ag:pliee, lightitg, swimein9 pool std s~plias, std gard~t Saninhitgs, mnteria.LS std supplies. Activities shall be m~~+M !n enclosed buildings of 25, OOO egrets feet Qc less. [Tees e>sludsd firm this ~L~3aY ax's 9~'al mrrr3atdlse stoles. SFX.TZON 5: lhis Catrcil fSnda flat this aIDetda~rtt will rot adversely effect the envixament std hereby isnms a Negative Dsclaration. SF1'I'ION 6: 2lle city ooimcil declares that, should any provision, suction, paragraph, santsce, Q wad oL this Oiditarce a rerda'ed or declared ;ntii;n ~, any fiml cast action in a axst of otapeC.ant jurisiiction, a• by reason of airy preemptive legislation, the t:+mnittitg pswlsiotr, ssctioro, para- 4~[~r setrtertas, std wrcds of this Otd'^ato shall main in full forte and effect. $lX'1TCl1 7: 'ihe Nsya• doll sign this Orditfenoa and ttr City Clark shall muse ttr soma to b publLlyd within l5 days attar its pnssegs at least once in tta 7n7iM 11N +tv rater; a trwspepsr Of general circulation published in ttr City of artario, chllLornie, std eirtulated in the city of Parrho araIDCrr~a, cbl.ifania. PASSID, APl%NID, std ACbP;ID this ltd day of Jima, ]992. AYES' Almmnd~, Baguet, StOUt, Williams, Wright NOI'S: None z~A~~ ~~I :1rduiarrx No. 196 Page i~ 'I~-~\ OeNVS L. Stout, Mayor AT!'fSI: ~~ ~ 1 i oelaa J. ,city Cleric I, DFHIA J. AdIT6, CTTY QFIatC OZ the City of Fen~fo CuCam7ttp, California, do hereby oertity that the foregoing OaUinnOe use ilttivd<~oed at a regular IDeetlllg of fife CgY1Ci1 of the City oT 1ta77GhD Cuoemvxp held m tkY 20th day of May, 1992, arrl ree finally paned at a ~ eeeticg of the City CUacil of the City of Rardn held on ttr ]rd day of Jun, 1992. F]oe[alted this dth day of Jlme, 1992, at itard~o Ctremcrga, CaliPalnia. '~a. Debra J. letk~~' z~tAa 45 -Z T'.-:.'dIC'e :a. 53 ?age 4 ~, .~ =~ ~~ .a ...~ /~I ~~.,~ ~vr~14~ / M I 1 w 1 i®~ ©! 8 ~1~~ ~~~*0 IM ~~ ~~li :. , ,. ~I':,~, .~ :.~ :: i~ =i~ ~. z~ ~~ g-3 i tj 1 :~ 1~ ~ ~~~ ~ „3 ~ ~:~ ~ iil • ~~t ~~~ ~.t.tt ~ ' Yi:.'artre tio. 136 ~ 6 SUh"MARY CF .AN~a c=~~l-t c 0 ~..c I YF~ 9Y S~oAP~A • eUYIT[p U3l ~ CO«OITtO«alT P•.YIT'!7 .4[ VOTl. ran-+nr•.. 'J q• Vot •.r-.i..P J3! !Y•[! JnP L.P~ • i! ~ it it it P . .. .e. .. .~ . ... _. _ _ _ . ~nl Y..irn -.... .•ebw N.v Owgn 3. v.1<o L~.n1 Y.~~ IESE~RCN ~ • I _~~ I •t •I •~ ,f 'TI.I.I. ~.P~.~•i •I y7.1'if. ~- ~ ~~*~ ~' ~1+1:1~9G•~~eC . nIT11 CI/• .Yl.f..u.. nN1 [tr.q. .w.r«eUw ..nl.lrldul.. ~f..wotl.. /IJ.M TfY.. I1.w-rr Iu1M.fIM / TN.1 RM.Y•Y.IM •Yr11Nlq NI.• ' Aut CmOCiV. S.CV iC• COYIL •Ylf«MN.....w. l1.tIN ~YWY1l G..r..t~. OH1.. \ ~YN .WI.MI CNWNIfl1'. lII... It/. U/fall YNlllyf.p~. IlM•...r lWfMl [41.«0.1. lYllrll ll/....~~I rr.. w.ts R.ul a Ma... IIYN..M [1MM l..'.1.N C.I~gw1..0.f1 Nl+.r Cam.w.n.. l.Nl.. tN'•MN /.t.tl [ 0..1t11~ 4W.YI.YIII[0 lJ1t.f1.11.M.t 0+t.f1.f.. ..1...t Crls tl /Nt ItYM !NN IIINWNr S.Yfa1M ~ Y..1 I[rl. ~tnt.A IeN \ M.M.M 1W. Mn.fN [ Cl'.11010^ tl.'.Il.. «...T I.YYIIM.I 3W. ~ R.11tN. N.IN/L.Ir t.YnN'1 ~MV..N W1~.{/Nlyw CJ. M.1.. .M..1W M•e.N ..e.r~ rN~l..l Sr.Et~ ..en.YSr IMYu Serq Of/w.fl.fl CYf1YrN (fi.f1.1.. i.tM.l UUp RM*N ne.1[ Cars.t.wry t«.r. *w [..Y1ffMl wll. S.I.IT ~ NINI SflI.1.N •.y.,. [....11... ~ •-II1.Y1\fl.l R.1. «0•q.N •... O.IIU- OUIfNt l+~ i~ ~ i .,. r ~~~•~~M• ~ ~ • I`• ~ • + ~ . 1 I • • • • ~ • . ~ ~ ~I• • . ~ ~ • • ~ + I • ~ ~ ~ • • • • ~ ~ ~ ~ * ~ ~ 41 • : • : ; I ~ • . . • . ISl 4- I F. ~..~ •I +.+ • ~•v ~ 1 +I ~ i~l v ~ • ~ 1~ •I ` • ~ • ~ • • i •~J~t7•.77 ~ • •I •:.i~:• •. '~~I~G7+~~~~~ . ~ n • n • • • i 1 • • ' • • ~ ~ F~.P' ~ Cr7 •~ f.~ •~ •i• ~~I ~'~ ~' ~ © i^ • ~n~ • i i : I I I I '..i®~'~ '. • • I • • I • • I • • • e •'• •' ••i0i• •'~i t'~,• I • • • '• GI-0MMN If1.WYIN W/Yw1111f1Y.« ITN.I «.n. ^a..:~ a «I-1....T In.Yaf41 v, -~- Z~ fl 4 _. ~: a-ce :.c. .35 ?aqe 6 S:IBAAEA 7 Land 'JSe Jestgn+tt on Industrial Dark Drl wary Function Suoarea 1 occuoi es an area dt nctly south of Footr,111 Baulward rnfcn nvresents an I~ortant tend use edge Detwen tM Uty's :ndustrt al Ana and caseuni ty or/ented non-Industrial am and Is a gateray t0 the C1 ty. A t~lor inaustrt al, off/te, and coieaercl al dwelopMnt On approsi ~a qly ]00 eons 1s curnntty undergoing phased canseructt on. MitMn tMs area Is a planned Ctvlc Center ^MCn r111 Include Sn Bernardino County and Ctty offtcei. Penal trod Uses Custa Manufacturt ng Light taanufatturing Adalnlstretlve and OfNee Profusloiul/Design ServtcN AefNRh SerW Ces Light YhoUale, SWraga, OlatMautlon 8u11dlnq MalnuMnce SNVtcoa BuslnNa Supp>•y Rautl $a1N and SeMaa Buatnna Support Sarrlcu Coe~lMUtlan Sarrlees EK1nq and Orlntinq [su011ahMnta Finanetal, Inauranee and IlN1 Esuto Servitor Noul /NOUI Ad~lntst-atlw C1v1c SarrlcN flood Control/Utility Corridor Conditional Usn Autaotlw Rantal/~aaslnq Autaalotl w Sal N Autolotiro Sarrlea Station Cdnrontanco SaIN and Sarrfua Entar4lnarnt last food SaIN Food and ldr.ragd Sal as INd1u1/MN1t11 Card S.McN rartonal SKrlcaa Aacnatta- -ae111t1N Cultural ru011e AssaOly -udlic Safety and Ut111ty S.rr1cN , Rollgtow Asaaely 1 Autoawelve Seawsee Couatl Specialty Building Supplies and Home [mnrovements zu A~ ~r-.ti-,Le.~JC~,: ~vu~s r Vu ~'G ~ Hen lv~T lu $'~ RESOLVl'ION N0. 91-275 A RF9DLUITON GF THE CITY NCmPCII. OF 1HE CTPY OF RANC110 CUCAMYJ('.A, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING HISTORIC POINT OF IISTFREST 91-02 DESIGNATING T4iE LAFOfJF2(ADE S10RE, IOCATID AT 11871 EOOlliti r. BOULEVA[YD, AS A POD7L OF D!I'fRf,^I' AND CFHI'IFICATION OF A MITIGATED NFGATTVE DEOIP.RP.TION FC&i DEMJLITZCk! OF 7HE SD2(KTVRE - APN: 229-011-10 A. Recitals. (i) The City has filed an applimtim fora Point of Intere5-t as described in the title of this F~olution. Hereinafter in this Re .olution, the subject point of Interest is referred to as the "applimtirn.~ (ii) On September 5, 1991, the Historic Preservation Camiissiai of the City of Fandw wndusYed a duly noticed public hearing on the applimtion and concluded said heari~ on that date. {iii) On September 18, 1991, the City Claatcil oP the City of Raton CUCatmorcp ~~+~'~+~ a duly noticed public hearing on the applimtion and concluded said hearing on the date. (iv) Ail legal pre .:~,;~itess prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. 8. Resolution. NOW, T}D~ORE, the City C}xasil of the City of Rancho Curannrga does hereby find, determine and resolve as follws: 1. This Cauicil hereby specifimlly finds that zll of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Fart "A," of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The applimtim applies to appzoxinutely ore acre of larcl, basimlly a zectarrgiilar configuration, lomted m the sarthwest corrwr of Foothill Boulevard and RoGiester (Orange) Avenue intsxsection. 3. Based upm the substantial evidence presented tv this council during the above^refererced public hearing m September 18, 1991, inclui:ng written arcs oral staff reports, together with public testimxiy, aid pursuant to Section 2.24.090 of the Rarrho CucaIDOrc]a MmiClpal Code, aid pux~ant to the historic preservation Crnmissian policy reganlitq landmark designation over an owner's objectim, this Council hereby nakPS the followltq firdircls and facts: A. Historical and Cultural Signifimnce: Hiding: 1. T1fa proposed point of L^.te.L'e3t was mnnfectgl with sanenxia relnmed, inQortant, or a local persomlity. Zy Rs ~ctnn~r uc(( Resolution ;lo. 91-275 Page 2 'act/s: john B. iaFOU.-cede asta6lished an Td~anc~3 and elatcrate winer.~aki n7 arrl grape-handling b.~sirw_ss in an era m?z-kei by failed attagns at such etxieawrs in Ghe Rnd:ester/CUCa:rorga area. Seam.-cJly well known thrax}haxt the County, iaFOUrcade represents an important epocy and entrepreneurial spirit of this valley. Finding: 2. 'fie arCutect or lviider was important. Fact/s: In choosing J. N. Johnson to design and constrict his winer}• complex, :aFarxoade was one of fe++ local prope~.ty awneSS in the late teens-early 1920s to elploy a contractor who was very well known in the Canty. Jctvt'sen acoid~cted marry large and impressive public private buildirys in San Be~.Tardino, Pedlards, and Colton. B. Historic Ardritectural and Ftgirnctirg significance: Finding: 1. 'fie contstruction materials or engineering methods used in the proposed Fbint of Interest are unusual or significant or uniquely effeLtive. Fad/s: Although it has been altered, the main entrance of the buildircJ whidr is marked try a parapet and flanked with Corinthian pilasters, remains as a testament to a design palette created h]' Ia£ourcade and Johnson whidt was uni Ana to this area. C. Neighborhoai and Gmgraphic Setting: Firldirxl: 1. 'ihe proposed Point of Interest in its location represents an established and familiar visual Feature of the reir~-,bonc~od, amity, or city. FactJs: As a gas station, stare, and eastern-arrt, the subject stsucttiue stands as a 70-year-old notable fixture in the mlanmity~s landscape. 4. 'this atvicil hereby finds that the project has been reviewed aM considered for cweplianee with the California IIrviranmesltal Quality Act of 1970. If properly mitigated, the requested demolition of the LaFOturade Store wand not regatta further ernirotmental review a~ a mitigatffi Negative Declaration will be issued for suds demolition. ZU ~' (, - I P~~solution ;la. 3.-2'S Page 7 5. based upon the findings and corclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, an3 4 above, This Council hes'elry resolves that nn~+urrt to ~apter 2.24 of the Farrho Qtcammiga Muiicipal rnde, the City Camcil of the City of Rancho Cucairorrla hereby approves, on the 18th day of m..t~rn~ 1991, Point of interest 91-02 for the laFOUrr A° Store. The Council further adopts the following Conditions of Approval mitigating the requested da;nl.ition: 1) ~ No demolition permits shall be issued for the exvstixg ,.'~~~,:~..~,~ ~, structures prior to the property owner's written arJonwl- ~." Il, l_.Ll [[,~ I HiylfEnt aId dCCaptanK;e Of tha Culttual Rcc`+,mn Mitigdtlon a~ Measures per the mitigated Negative Declaration; 2) The development of the site shall incorporate details of ~ ,~~ the site's history, in rurtiarlar the LaFourode period, ~,mad~i, thrux)ir the incorporation of the following measures: oonxiissioned public art and development and placement of int°rr~,-etive public displays. The final specificatirns of such measures shall be reviewed try the Historic Preserva- tion Commission and fo with a remcmudation to the Planning Commission ~~ developrent/design review hearings on any developrent proposal for this site. Final approval of the appropriate public art and int°*p*etive displays shall ocatr prior to the issuance of building permits; 3) The decorative parapet at the northeast col:rt[~ of the buldirg datiix7 fxan the IaFUmade period shall he reroved f~iy Apn.~ asi~ reasonable efforts during deuolitia~. City staff ~Fp~/}f,aep shall he present d~irci this de=rolitim to inspect the parapet. The Parapet element or reproduction thereof shall v'( 3D"' ~ vu kctn ~ wnsidered for inoorporatim into the above public art or interpretive erdribit. The decorative parapet shall be doannented per HABS/HAER stardazc?s, the_Ejnal form of which shall be approved yy the City Planner prior to demolition I permik heingissued; ~ - 4) The developer shall contribute $10,000 to the Qmaffey- Garcia Hake Barn project, whidr will he used to develop a ruseman/alltural center depictirxl and e~dribitirg the agriaIIhs-a1 heritage of the area. The City Caumcil may, ~ tM input of the Historic Preservation Camtis=ion, allocate these fords to arwther similar type of presetva- tion project, including tut not naoessarily limited to, the Ilistaric Preservation Site and Iarc]-Banking fUn3, deprsdug upon the timing of the oagrli.anoe with this mitigation. This contribution shall be provided prior to the iem+~rrn ~~of building permits of any phase of the Masi canmi'ce }, Center; v' !2 H ~~~ Z.u -q u G~~ Resolution No. 91-275 Page 4 5) 'R~.e site developer shall sponsor four Drzl History inter- vies of ildividuals kmwledgeable of the LaFourcade/Masi era of significance. 'fiese interviews, which shall rot excea9 a Est of 55,000.00, shall be conducted bi` a consultant approved try city staff. PASSID, APPFYi~'FD, and ADOPTED this 18th day of September, 1991. AYES: AlP~~ar, Baguet, Stout, Williaire, Wright NOES: Note AHSESIT: Nene ennis L. Stout, Mayor ATi'6T: Detsa J. Ci~ ty Clerk I, DEIG~A S. ADAMS, CI2'Y CLfFa: of the City of Rancho Cucanorxla, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Camcil of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 18th day of Septal~ber, 1991. flce~vted this 19th day of Septenber, 1991 at Ranclw , California. J. City Clerk ^~ ~ V V .-r ~~ z LL. Q L W ^^~ I..l~ ~r S.. • m ~_ 2 g ... ~~. _. _-_~_'1 ~. 'N~ ? ~ '`iE z i ~ A `j '" ~•s_ i: i ~ :z y~'Ii~,kG«7CRARAA':.jo s y'. m 3 3 _ N_ - e ~ d a ~ r a ~ 3 F .. ~ ~ m^ ~---r..~ +^~•^ •^ ' ^ Q r j _ 3 e^. a . YY.' 8 N8 Ba Y ly 'roo~o~~ ooo o_o o l ~ "a r r - - _ q g ~o o l oao i ~ ..... .... _ ~ \e n__:'~r 1`i : :'r. °z ~ r oL«~_na_ma~ ~- n_ao~a _~. """MM111 ~ c 1 1 ,,,, [ ~ ` ' ii6 r): ;Fs 3;;~ . r iS ~ ~ ~ t k + 4 ~ j g ' ! ! 1 i. - - -•- -ate - r ~y. -a az .< . ~G!i r95 ~y .P_ a 2-F3 4dax--~• d ~ ~ 4~e: f~ I ~ ° ;~ i <40~5 Y; r i;, ~ - yy '3rCt ~ a b~ °a9r jii+ i' P ~ ~~~ 9"-p~ L i '' ~ i ~ ~ "; " <3 a g:. a ...... ~ r. crag a $: ~ rt~=y t ny Y ! I T L F non ~.e ~ °~ ye y des o i !3sa ;!,s " <r i LL.,,~ . die :, nv y"e,i ~ L' i '~ e e9m. tlve: i o _ f • ~` 3 b 'c ~ r~sq J 9~~' ' I i . , i ~. i;~i :~;Y9 ~ 'AI : I ': vvc, r r' I r ....: i~ ..rrv..r r..o•vi a4r rv^e.j r~ ...:....... .. ~ .., ' ~. rev ee'. rvrn ~ne ue .~ ~_: 1' :.., rt:.q.e: s.a ... ~"rr Fs .el~rt'~ 'r i~RG5S1 ~: :e a:-i \~ ~ wca - ..a:sw .+.m ev ~~ q s .Y i j p 0 ~~ ~A~~ :~ ~ R'•= i 1' d ~^.JE C f`o y.~ ~-II- 111111111111L `V .~ U y J Q 41 m ~~'. wof . noun -_'O~ ., ~ u~r. la,,.., n::::;:n nl: uitualr ~:'j~: ;, ;::;~:-T--~ ~ j E ' I I ` E ~ ~ irj~4rvr. v:nvsaili:~iie fi~ [ E P~ iS : t 111';1 ~ ;?Ir ull tltill!tlil!q'~,. L!~~ R, ~ __._.._.___ ____ a.~.~sus...- _- _.._ _-._._-_.. __. r -_ ; .__ •.~__ .__ _. __.______ . . .~~ 1 _ C _ ~ _ - __.::_ ~ F N~ ~ +i. l~ 'lam[ _ ] R \ {il - a 4. _ __ _.; ..-nom - +... ..~ ___ .,. .. ,~ .... _ _ .= -c• „yr = .. -__-r ~_ _~ - ~ __ _. _ '( _ __ -~ r _ y, !-~ Liz a ~~___.____~_ _.. _ _.__ __ ` _ ~ ,.` ~v ~v ~,` _ _ _ _ : __ r ~ _ _ _ .. _ _ _ _. . ° ... ~- .. -~-. ~ .• .. ~ -.ray. y - _ _. :~y .. .r _. I __R__ c __- ~ k 3 .__. `~ _ J _- ._.. - ? ~~;ti~ _~ Jl:uf 1. _.. _ '~!7 :.~rr -~ J- ~ t I . F.S~ ~ R R _ _ _ _ C~_.. =s~ : • • ' _ :J a .a-_t ~nL ~: .._p a_•ir _ __ ~ __ n . _ .~. ~ _ sl --lr....._1 ~ 2`i X L 11 ~ .. i ~ fi g F3 6 ~ a= i € 'f. C bp e` . II , 6 ' t~ ~ ° .,'i • i~~. ~t '' i ;i if °s% `r~ _ is •- ~ _~ ~: ~ • = i~ ~ i~a ~.J ~, T i 1i ~lll~ly,i~ii,i,~~i„iil . ~, :: p . r- ~ ~,. ~:. ff ~i i , :. :fd 4..: ....,:.. ... ce:uim:i: i:uimulu ` p . .ff. III ~ L.i ~.i 3nrv3A~ p31 S3XDOb f ~~ L~~ -,: !].~~ ~~ ~ I~l ,~N~ i %~ -+ ~~~~ J ?~ ~ J ~ ~ ,~ ~ ':.f s qa y ~~~~ '!„~ ' -fi't' ~ ~ . _i k r q~.~ lT ~_ a e., ~ °I ~ S.w° k .1 ~ ~ ~ b !•l i ~. 4 ^~I e ~ -~ yi ~ ' . .T :., ~ ~~ •~ u' ~ y ~ ~-- ~; ?~ ~ ,~ ~~ ~ l ' ~'~ z 1 H F i T _ ~ = '~ 0 __ - « R U j' -" v R 2~'F1Y `s --?~eiD ~'^}e~ R S riY.)P~1 IfF' 4 5 ~ M M i ~. ~; I 7 ~. _ 1 ~ .•. ~ ,. , axanr auu~w X ~ u y ~~• ~ m z ~ ~ ~ C J z~-{ ~ z it lI ~_~_~ _i _`T T4 x 4~ }~ ~~ - ~. ~i ., ,,. I ~f yySA dp N e I ) `iif - ij 3 ~' i~ -- i? - r~ m 2 ~f .B /~ 0 a r w J m ~) _ e "- }~ o° LL ~~ 3i LL LL 1; Jl x 3 4 I W .~ i~! ~~9 a ii I J Q. H J Jl ~I r ~' x F w S C7 Z Paz U v ~ ~ U ~ O 'n .,.._ U~ Z w4 o- ~~ U 'H' TYPICAL LUNCH COURT ., '~ ', I1Y OF RANCHO. CUCAMONGA PLANNING DN(SION ITEM: up aI-,~ TITLE:- 11J/' N COt) r EXHBiT: ~ SCALE: ~~~L it:~ ~ ° }f ~k t ~ ._'~ -~ .. , __._ ~ {I I ~~ 3 '' "---~ U Z O O U Oq T U U ~z o~ U J v, w X Z~{ pD Sf i j i' Sv ~~ 35~~~ f~.~3 9 ~ ~~ 3 3~ .o `L i 'i M t~ ~~ s ~~ R ~e ~~ ~~: EsE. a di -- x~ 0}i~ 1 i ~'~ 1 a.. ~ • .5~.- ,;~ f •'. ~S 35 3, Q3 o~ ~ s M1 ~ V ~ ~ Y v i- X i C O z 0 ~z UO ~ ~ U ~ OQ U U ~~ O„ U z4 II E ~ 4 ~.-~ a~ x Y z 1 R__~ 3 O j n 3 ill Iln-,~'L W z ~. - f~ f ~ x _~ o 3 __r, •i- +1 x Y 3 1 ~* f i q~ 2~°~' °v s i ro ~1 J F '-x'.1 Q V Z O Z UO_ U~ 5 Op ~. U C7 ~~ O~ ~~ ~. U =1 ~II 1 7 7 ~~ 95,4 ~I~~~ Ett ~:: s ~-~- -~a ~~ e~ .~ fW ! ~I ~I e a 9~~ i*'~ o~ ~r ~ r • J ~ [:: ~ X z 0 adz ~ O U On_ U~ ~z o~ v Z~{~C~ ~<` IS'!`'" ~~ II w,. I~~ i ~l--,1 ~- ~9 !4 '' e?; ~x: ~-~ C ~ U H 2 ~n c: `m c~ z 0 ~¢z UO U O n .~, -~ U r_7 Z O~ U zL{~!~ ll _' F l ; ' ~i ~ I 1 t ~ ~ ~5 } C ~ , t~ ~: i I Ij ~s 5 : r ~A -I is Yi `_ _.~ A~ IMF ZZCC l,e Yl Ul ~3~~I 7ii~ ...~ s ~_~ -_-~ W ~i ffi i i I 8 r-' i-~ -_~l 2<{'g ~ - - ~ W W n ` a e ~ ~ y 1 k ~~ 3° E 9 9 tt d i i ~-~ ,~~ I ~\ ~ ~~ I ~~ ~i ~, ~I it i -~.~ r~ t~~' 'i ~I _ ~ _, p U J ~ ..] .. Q C7 O ~z ~O 5 oa U ~ ~~ w O„ r~ U } P ~~Fr~y- tf ~~ ='~ ~~ i~ a i~ ~~ I .' 5 P Sy y9 e "s~ e ~ -"~ W ~~ e ' z .-~ 3. ~ j I i 6N ` J I j I ~ -~ r __-~' F~ 5I .~ ]E i rF r 3 ~~ ~T i ~~ U L V z o_ ~z UO_ U~ Oq .,. w U c7 ~~ O„ ... U 'Z~{ B7 5 P~ i~ ~? :y W W _~' y0 2 8 ._' . W ~\ i ~i /-`~/ 9 ..~~ y.' ryty ~ i ' EY'i~ ~ i ~ ~ipi~ Ec~~3 ~ily~ ~t __~ W~_ W N 1 3 i9 ~~ e: ~- 54 € s, n << ~ ~c .1 I ~ u i i ti -~ r I --~ W _ U ~H V ~~7 [:J ~ F E- '-~i Q V Z O ~O ~~ U~ OQ UV ~~ O~ ---~--•. ~---r ~s ri 'I :~ ;s o ~ ~ I - ' , ~ ~ ( ti Yi I y >~ S;- ~i3 ? ~ i ~: •:i ' s ~ ~ ~ Y _ `~ 'F3 9 Y~ i Z} ~ Y 9 `` ~ -~ `-- ~ ~ " ~ i ~i~_ ^ k ~, ~~~1 w'i g ¢, r x' ~__s __ .j Z~{ ~ L ~ t ~9 ~ o F X S ~'~e < O ~~~ = p U j ~ ~ S i - dl U~ ~ z ',, q Z E ~,, ( (z ~ ^~ ~% =--:r.T. S ~.`- k, ;~ ~ '~~;:i t; I'Si +~ : is ~ ~ o " "~ ---- ' ~ ~ r- 1 i ~ ~~ ~t~ie~:~ id?' ~ ~;:~ ~ i ~ a 9:~ . i ~a~°~, tl l~i:?; J 3~; ~~ ~_,~~ d~ ~j P 3 ~~ ~~ ygs ,y,l ~3~ a ~ 1~. '~`~ ~ _ _ " axis ~ .•.: :; N a ~ X C7 z c ~¢z UO ] ~ U ; O n ~ `. UU Z O~ Z~ 3 ~ U YT 4'rii ~~ .: ~~ E~ N `` u 4_ `> W i 3 w ~ I ~ `~_ i W ti ~ y ~~ W p1 ~t. 8 s iS e,~ ~ygf~a E'l~3~c ~3~~ ~~:aa~ ~~ ;. i C J 1ti 1 d .~.] X ~~ z z UO ~~ U Oq U ~ Z :z, Qi O~ U 2~{ 6~ 8- ~. a ~s~i ~3 rte, ~~e ~i° ~3°3`f t ~~ i! . ~~<<~~ 1~~5: ;:~.:a a-'-F ~ M 0 h $I '~ I} W i -~ < I 5~ ~ t `J i..' ~ ~a ~~ I ~d ~ i Fa ~ i J _~J CJ ~`S S'~~ ~ a a~~ Rr~ E ,w ;ya ~~~yyy 9 ~ S ~~g o! >(! W w w 3 2~ ~ d A . e 5' j 1 ~, ~i it ~, I r~ 4', --- 14 i ~ G U V ~ W U O Paz UO_ U~ 5 ~ ~ UU ~? O~ W U a~ Wj W` i _. Y 9 .! lj ~~ i :~ ±„ .~ `z:s. ~ -:? ': 3ie. ,.:;~. of vi o~ I d' ~. ,_ ~ G • U J ~ ~ .r K a 1 r° (~ =S ~' d ~~ z e ~o + ? ~~ ~. _~_.._.. z y I 9 s v a. z U O W p ~p ~;" ~ ~ ~ oP ( ) 5 -- -..} p y ~.• -,~ .:» C7 ~ _ z ,~ ~ .o z .f r~ ~ : . C) Z((. B~ _-_a ._., .~~.. _ __ .-,-. ~5 it b+ 3 :$ i - ~ i. Q 5 ~~~. ~~ a ~ _ Z ~~ p ^_ i' QI - - c a W ~`.. " i~ i ~~ W W 4t b ~ ~~ ~ ~ J I - ~! li ~ .~ 1 _ i c ti ~ I ~ ~ 3 ~~ I ~-- i o 3~ c j i'~ ~~ '9' i 1P~1 e' I ~ i~ ~ ~~ °~~~ I ~~r, ~~~~ J yc N ~3 ~_ ~~ o '~ (' W ~, - z O N ~ i ~ ~ W I _~ O 4 ~ `~ i' _ '" ~ 3 U 5 ~ /~ i Qo ~ i@ ~s ~r e 4E' ~-...r-+ U V ~ Z ~~ ~ 9 s O - r Z~{ B ~ ~z _ {~ r p'6 eve=r F y5q K iQ ~, --- . I W M w 3 : ~i' . ~. ~ I ~ --~ -m y i '"~ ~+ ~'. i iie ~ i~° i TY ~ C 3 ~,~ . 2 p W W °z a ~~ 5 Sy ~~~ai `„~ l l Z ~{ O W w. N N P J a5 3 X !! i ._ $~ C C X f- :a ¢ €p y~ I i, n V ZO W ~$ ~ ~ g d Z 'i ,~ U O W V ~ O ~ _ C~ U ~~ ' Z F e C:' ~y ~ `~ j U _-s: ~~ ~ W ~ W FI of ox r ~ Ci M~ as ~~ -_ -- f __.; ! _ } ~ E il.~, ~ - d ~ ip i ? ~: ., i^ ~ ----- ~ p; 3 .. i 1 ao, .., , .~ ,, t~'~~,7=pi? a ~ i, ,` %.pa 1? iz !! ___F_~ +dge •_~_ ~~~p ~~ 3 ~.+r +--..,- 9 W zl W ._ ..._--_77__~ Jr _Q __~ ~/ } Bs O N :J I ~ '"~ _ C X F t:+ Q U Z O ~O ~ ~ U~ O ~ .,- C.i ~; Z Z Lc 0- ~` U p ,? Si 1:'. 3~ ~{~'i .b d' I ~: ~~ ~ 8° ~ C pi ~$ ~~ ~.- O~ `> W 3 o~~ ~~ W~ 3 2 0 W e h a ~5 S: i? ~G SI :9 ~_ a~ f~ S± ~. i~ .~ ~~ . ,a ~ ~= 9 qi F S ~ Of • ~ 1~ W 6 2 a ~~~ ~p H ~~ ~; l ~ I L. '. R V J ,t E- X Q U Z O 4 UO ~ ~ U~ oa U c, ~~ o- ~~ U ~ ~{ ~~ 4; c C ~~ W ~ W i j 5 . a ~{'K IS b N v ~i / o ~C P fi ~ ~ c ~ j ;;? a b. ~ ~ ~ $$~ tj r d ~ 1 1 r C .., a o, W W „5 w a l8 Qa ~o p i4 ~ a ! ~ ~~ ~ t ~; ~ ~ W --~-~ e5~ ~~ ~-~ ~--'~`. 2 ~{ .~ U L•1 ~ U Q ~r J apep ~WC I¢ V Z O O U ~ Oq U~ ~? O '~~ ~` ~.~ _ _ o °- ~ ~ i I y ¢F y w~ w i~ ti a :1 /'... o 1 3 ~ m ' !~ g ~ ~' ~ 5 ~- ~ ~ ' a 3 - ~ a 3 9 .- ;~ 3 ~ ~ _ ~,Ex I a~ ~ W W N '-n--+ 9 ~ . Y~ ~tY w i.__l ~ ~ I ~+ N M3 3'. Z S I N - ~~ m, ~ r ~ ~' F t:.l U Z O Paz UO Uj On_ U ~; Z .. ~ y 4 O r -~ ,~ ;, ;; . .;::, :, :_ r =i E: ?: dp7i .~ ;I .' .s ~~ '., _, iQ ~~ . ,~,a~ ~~~;~ ~ I r doP_'; ii i9°~c_ ~ I a~ Wi !--n-~ 4 ~~ !----~r~ W `' e ~! ~ i ~ € N v a F z 0 ~o U~ 5 Oq Uv ~~ 0- ~^ U Z`~ ,Rw .~~ ~1 )i +Y 3 o - -- s ? N ~~ S~ ~~ P ~? ~ f~ ,. ~a ». yt. ~~~: ~~ `~ ~ ;: a 9t :a _~ 0 ----~ 3s s~ ~~~Y __ °~_ :' \` 1 ~_J /~ I ~ c`~1ryI G q~ A a C X r ::7 _-_ z a ~" 9 ~" 'f', N ~ ~`~ j ' l,oti ~ ~~ g sE ~i ~ ~~ ~~ 7 l{ ~jX Q Z z US o~ U ~ zz ~z o~ ~r U ": ., ~ £ +.~5' Pi ', W. :~ i~ O~i ---- ;- i .-__~ --... ---- c( W ;~ 6 -- ~3 a ii e ' t j ~ 1: i a F p~ S ;;;.', ~ ~' a.~; •-- ~ ~~ W } 4~lai °,,sr `~1 :~iic i .. 4 ~3 ~~ ~:~_ _ .',f1ll - ' ~.; ~ v, , _ o WI ~~ r -~- -_ - ~F 7 i R t .~ 2~t 8 ~ N :J ~ I '~ X F- -. d u z d O V ~ UV ~~ O~ ~. Ci A _ 1 e si ~~ ~ W ~I~ ; ~` ~ N~ i V '~--- W ~ ° , x o x ~ . ~' 's IY '. ~l "I sS n! y p, ~Y ~ f ~ ' e=, 1 ,a ~4 i;Y ;S is ; 7q~ z~ B z ~i II Ie ~'_ ~~;s Eli ~: ~~ 33~' 74i }ii o °, M ~ :1 ~W c:i C F Q z 0 z U O Oq U ~ ~[rOy'~~ fin 's S• o Y~ ~ Lf YY yWj 4 ~~ - ~ ~- 5 L ~: oji ~~1 a.: 2 0 i r n O 2 o~ w W W W .t ,~, r~Y e .g; If ~~ ?; ?d ~ [a sa 1 S ~' ~ ~g 4t " gd !i i „3~ s ~q Y ~~f;;~ .n (t S P i~ii,~7 III z~~ A- ~ m ~Q-{ c'~ _ ~ /~ V z O ~z U O O ~ U ~ O n L ~7 ~z ~z z o~ r~ 3: ~~~z 3~°3< ~" W ~ .~ 3i%E~ i:3FQ W c Q I W _ ~ ` c ~ W ~ ~ o N d _ 3 ~ ~ Y ~ pii ti~ '3 97~ 5 ~E ]f ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~9q~~ j~ e~ ~ .r q g q g ;6 C3 t~ Y j p e~tii ~ C- ~ ` ~ J o ~ i q~ ~~. __-_ i ~yy; '. I ~Y f ~ ,~ 9 i ~ ~ ~2 Z `~ W ?0 7 W 3 S S Y U z 0 ^o ~../ U ~ O`n_ U ~ 2 Q ... U J 61 i - ~ I i ' I \ I wl ~r I ~' ~i i Q ~ t^ K `` !? j ip .q I N I " F ~ ° t( R iy Via,- ~i -1 ~ ,~ i{ j'~1i' ~ t ~`1 i ~ ~ z ;~~ ii~ e~ ° ;~ ~' it~ iS i- ~ ~ !6 a` ' ~ O y R Z ~~ US g~ ~' I ~ O ~ $ ~ b} U C7 Z s Q O~ ~r J ~~ ~~ RESOLUTION NO. ~=-'9 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PE RH IT NO. 97-26 FoR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 32 BUILGINGR TOTALING dPPROXIHATELY 268,90] SQUARE FEET AND COMPRISED OF A HIX OF INDUSTRIAL, HULTI-TENANT, OFFICE, AND RESTAURANT USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARR DISTRICT (SUBAREA 7) CF TE{E INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE S OUTHWF,ST CORNER OF FOOTHILL eOVLEVARD AND ROCRESTER AVENUE, AND MAXING FIND INCS IN BUPFORT THEREOF - APN: 229-011-10, 19, 21, 26, 27, ANU 28. A. A¢cit aie. (i) Maei Comme ree Center Partners has filed an application fer the issuance of Conditional U9e Permit No. 91-24 ae deecr ibed in the title o£ th ie Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subset[ Conditional Vee Permit request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 22nd day of duly 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public he ar inq on the application and concludetl ea Sd hearing on Ghat date. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. A. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it ie hereby fountl, determined, and reeolvetl by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby epecif ieaLly finds that a}1 of the Eacte set Eo rth in the Recitals, Pe rC A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon eubetant ial evidence presented to this Commies ion during the above'referenced public hearing on duly 22, 1992, including written and oral staff rsporta, together with public teat imony, [hie Commies ion hereby specifically finds a• follows: (a) The application applies to property located at the soul tweet corner oC Rochester and Foothill Boulevards with a et rse! Eront age of 1,250 feet along Foothill Boulevard and lot depth of 950 feet along Roc heat¢r Boulevard and is presently improved with the vacant Cowgirl Saloon; and ~b~ The property to the north cf the subject site is vacant, the property m the south conaie to of the Sports Complex which ie currently under construct ion, the property to the east ie the Aggoxzotti winery, and the property to the west ie vacant. (c) The property ie designated "industrial Park" by ..e I ndue[rial Area Specific P1anI and PLANNING COMMISSION RE SCLL'T lON NO. ,_ CUP 91-24-MASS COMMENCE CENTER PART NEHS July 22, 1992 Page 2 (d) The project requires the tlemalit ice of the Cowgirl Saloon, formerly known ae the LaPOUrcade store and gee stet ion. Tha at ructure was designated an Historic Point of Interest by the City Council on September 18, 1991. (e) An Industrial Area Specific Plan Amentlment was approved by the City Council on May 20, 1992, which motlit led circulation access po in to along Rochester Avenue, added "Automotive Service Court" ae a conditionally perr..itted uee and added ^BUild ing Supplies and Mome Improveme nt^ ae a conditionally permitted uee wzthin Subar¢a ]. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during t-e above-referenced public hearing antl upon the specific find inge of forte set Earth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, thia Commission hereby finds and c or.cludee ae fcllowe: (a) That the pzopoaed uee ie in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development code and the Znduetrtal Spe<if is Plan, and the purpoee• of the di strict in which the Bite ie loceted. (b) Tha[ the proposed uee, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental tc the public health, safety, ar welfare or materially injurious to pro pert lee or improvements in the vicinity. (c) That the proposed uee complies with each of the applicable provieione of Che Development Code. 4. This Commies ion hereby finds and certif lee [hat the project hoe been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 197C and, further, tnie Commission hereby ie sues a mitigated Negative Declarer i.on. S. Based upon the find inge and conclueLor.e set forth Sn paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every send it ion set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto antl incorporated herein by tnie reference. Plane ins Div ie is 1) Pu reuant to provieione of California Public R¢eourcea Code Section 210R9~b), this application shall not be operative, vested, or final, nor will building pe rmite b¢ issued or a map recorded, until (i) the Notice of ^etecmina[ion NOD) regarding the aasoc iatad env ironmentel action •e filed and posted with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San 9ernardino; and (2) any and all requ iced filing fees assessed pursuant tc California Fish and came Cod• Section 711.4, together with any required handling charges, Z~{G~ PiANNINC COMMISSION RESOLV TION NO. CUP 91-24-MAST COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS July 22, 199e Page 3 are paid to the county Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. The applicant shall provide the Planning Department with a stamped and confo rn:etl copy of the Notice of Determination together with a receipt showing that all Ease have been paid. In the event this application ie determined exempt from such filing tees pursuant to the provisions of the California Pieh and Game Code, or the guidelines promulgated thereunder, except for payment of any required handling charge for filing a Cert if icats cE Fee Exemption, this condition shall be deemed null and void. 2) A diagram providing color locations for the mylar/canvas canopies shall be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Committee prior to the ieeuanca of huilding permits. 3) A ref Lett ivs coating shall De applied to the ghee portions of those buildings which face drive aisles and Rocheetar Avenue. Tha pu rpoee of the reflectlva coating i• to provide an opaqueness to the ghee eo Chat interior storage areas will not be visible. 4) Vines planted along the Sports Complex property (south of the south property wail) shall be allowed to extend up and over the wall and onto the buildings in order to discourage graffiti and to soften the wail and buildings, if acceptable to the Community and Park Devalopmant Department. 5) The bullnose edge for all buildings with the fl- inch stucco recee• shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the ieeuenca of building permits. 6) The applicant shell provide a atone 6a ea along the bottom portion of the Buildings 4, 7, and 20 in thce• locations where ghee extends ell the way to the ground. Detailed drawings shall be reviewed end approved by the City Planner prior Co Che iesuanc• of building permits. 7) A revised concept plan for the commies TOned public art and the interpretive public displays 2~{ L F PLANNING COHMIHBION RESOLUTION NO. .~- " CUP 91-24-MAGI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS July 22, 1992 Page 4 e ha 11 be reviewed by she full Planning Commission. The revised concept plan shall graphically depict how the Vintner's Walk, commieaioned art, and public tlieplaye will be developed and maintained and how they will function ae a whole. The applicant shall retain the eervicea of a pro£eseional consultant to further develop the proposed eonceptuel plan and to snooze the successful coordination of the goals of the Historic Preservation Commisalon and the Planning commie eicn. Final dot ailed plane shall be reviewed and approved by rho City Planner prior co the issuance of any perm it e. Installation of the public art and the Vintner's Walkway shall be completed concurrently with Focthlll Boulevard improvements. e) The developer shall contr ibuts $10,000 to the Chaffey-Garcia Nouee Barn project, which will be used to develop a museum/cultural canter depicting and exhibiting the agricultural heritage of the area. The City Council may, upon the input of the Historic Preservation Commies ion, allocate Fonda to another similar type of preserve[ ion project including, Dut not necessarily limitetl to, Che Historic Preserve[ ion Sits and Land-Honking fund, depending upon the timing of the compliance with Chia mitigation. This contribution shall be provided prior to the issuance of uu ilding permlt• of any phase of the Naei Commerce Center. 9) Lantlscaping along the entirety of Masi Orivs Erom the eidewnik out to the curb face shall be completed prior to occupanty of the last building for Phase 1. 10) A trash enclosure shall ba provided for Building 5. 11) The Crash enclosure for Huilding 3 (Jack-In- 1he-HOx) ahail be located closer to the building. 12) Zf it ie determined that the Victory Chapel facility will bs located in Building 14, it shall be verified in writing that !'arcel 13 will not require parking spaces on Sunday morning (or during the hour of operation for Z~~~ PLANNING COMKIESION AESOL'JTION NO. ._-~~ CJF 91-24-MA3I COMMERCE CENTER PAP.TNE RS Ju 1y 22, 1992 Page 5 Victory chapels eo that the proposed reciprocal parking arrangement can be implemented. 33) The etreetseape treatment )i. e., landscape, furnit:u re, antl ha rdecape) shall comply with the requirements and qu idelinee of the t'oothill Boulevard Specific Plan Design Supplement. The detailed landscape/irrigat icn and street improvement plan¢ shall ref le<t this [equirement tc the sat iefaction of the Planning and Engineering Divia ions prior to the ie¢u ancs of building perm it e. 16) All parking spaces fronting Foothill Boulevard antl Roche star Avenu¢ shall be scree nod through the use of berming, low walla, evergreen ehru6 hedgerows, or a combination thereof, tc the eatisfnction of the Planning Division. 16) There shall be provie ion for the fallowing design fentuzee in the trash enclosure to the eatLdfaction of the City Planner: a) Architecturally integrated into the design of the center. b) Separate p¢deetrian access that dose not require opening the main doors, to include self-closing petlestrian door. c) Lacge enough to accommodate two trash bins. d) Ro11-up doors. e) Tcaeh bins with counterweighted lido. f) Architecturally treated overhead ahnda troll ie. g) Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of enc loaur¢ and designed to be hidden from view. 16) A uniform hardacnpe and street furniture treatment, inc ludinq trash rec¢ptscles, Ecea- ecanding petted plants, hike racks, light bollards, benched, stc., shall be utilized for the prcject and shall be designed to be compatible with the architectural style. Det stied design• shall ba submitted Eor City z~tL l~ PLANNING COHHISSION RESOLOTION NO. ..-~~ CVP 91-24-NASI COMHERCE CENTER PARTtJERS Suly 22, 1992 Pages 6 Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building perm it e. 17) Graffiti shall be removed w'.t hin 72 hours 1R) All future building pads shall be temporarily seeded and irrigated for erosion control. Detailed plane eha 11 be included in the la ndecaps and irriga[ion plane to be submit fed for City Planner approval prior to iaauance of building permits. 19) The entire Bite shall be kept free of trash and debris at all times, and in no event eF.a 11 trash and debris remain far more than 24 hours. 20) A Uniform Siqn Program shell be reviewed end approved at a Planning Commission workshop prior to the issuance of building pe [m its. Bald ins and Safety Divie ion: 1~ Provieion• shall be made to resolve to the eatisfact ion of eha euiltling Official the following issues ralaiive to inetallat ion of new walla in close proximity to existing walla: a) Structural loads from new wails (vertical snd horirontal) shall not be allowed to be transferred to ex iet ing walla. b) Bnckfill of gape created between new and existing waLie aha11 ba untlertaken eo ae not to exceed the design capabilit iee of existing walla. c) An imperm¢able surface shall be provided at the top of the existing lower wall to prevent water E-om penetrating the backfill. d) Weep holes shall be added to ex iet ing walla tc provide drainage of the backf ill. Eno ine¢rinc D~vielon: 1) The existing overhead unlit iee )telecommu nic ationa) on the project ride of Rochester Avenue shall be undergrounded from the fire[ pale oEf-site south of the project's ~Z PLANNING COHHISSION RE JOLUTION NO. .-- " CUP 93-24-MASS COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS SuLy 22, 1992 gage 7 south boundary to and inc lutl ing the end-of- line pole just south of Foothili Boulevard, prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. The eety ice to the ex iet ing et ructure on the seat aide of Rochester Avenue shall be urdergiounded across Rochester Avenue to the pole on the east aide of the street. 5ervicaa tc the existing structures un-site frcm the east aide of Rochester Avenue ehnll be undergrounded ae well. In eddit ion, an in- lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the ucilitiea an the oppoeiie aide of Rochester Avenue shall be paid tc the City prior to [he issuance of building permits. The fee shall be one-half the difference between the undergrounding coat of the unlit ie9 (electrical, except for 66 RV electrical) on the opposite aids o[ the street m inua those (telecommunicetione) on the project aide times the length from the center of Foothill Bouleve rd to the south project boundary (9902 Eaet). 2) ee^oothill Boulevard shall be constructed as Eollawa, subject to modification by and approval of Caltrana, with Phase I: a) Full improvements on the south eitle from Rochester Avenue to the wee[ project boundary including a wn[inucue right turn lane beginning 230 feet west of the Foothill drivswav. b) A lands Avenue a to the Erg ineer single required c) Thirty-t e ids of pad "8" d) A catch bee in at the the north eids of aired per the final an interim lateral the south aide. T shall be graded to catch basin with de the eat iefaction of een Rochester aft turn la nee f the city e not allow a f eea w•i 11 be Condition 3. on the north ultimate low point on Foothill Boulevard, drainagr study, with o the catch basin on e north right-of-way direct flown to the ilt ing Cacilit iee to he City Engineer, z~ ~S ca median batty nd Street with 1 eat iafacc ion o If Coltrane doe aegr.ent, in-lieu in conformance with wo fee! of pavement the median. PLANNING COMH SSSION RESOLUTION NO. ._- CUP S1-24-NASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS ,]u ly 22; 1992 Page 8 e) Transitions to ex iet ing pavement west cf the wvet p: of act boundary to the eat refection of the City Engineer and Ca1T.•ane. f) The tleveloper may request a reimbursement agreement far permanent improvements north of the centerl ins, including half of the landscaped median coats, from future devslepment ae it actors an the north aide of the street. 3) An in-lieu fee as conttiDution to the future construction of the median ielend within Foothill Boulevard shall bs paid to the City prior to the lesu once of building perm it• for Phase I or epptoval of the Pinal Parcel Map, whichever occurs first, The amount of the fee shall be one-half the cost of the median times the length from the we et project boundary to a projection of the westerly right-of-vay line for "B" Strse[. If CalTrana doo not allow toner ruct ion of the median in condition 2; D), the fee limits shall extend to a projection of the westerly right-of-way line far Rochester Avenue. 4) Rochester Avenue shall be constructed per approved Drawing No. 1431 with Phau 1, un len completed by others. In addition, •Ldswe lke, street trees and a combined Due Dny/right turn lane north of the project driveway shall be installed. The right turn lane shell Dagin as close to the Foothill Boulevard intenectian ea poulble. S) All public storm drains and interior public strgt improvemmL shell bs constructed with Phno I. 6) Public street wmp cond it ions shall Da designed ae foLlowe: a) Provide an overflow route from "A" St zest to the south project boundary end • method for chose flow to pees through the per imetar wall in CN event of blockage In the rat ch baain• (method shown cn ihs conceptual grading plan hoe not been reviewed). z~t~k PLANNSNC COMMIBSION RESOLUTION NO. _-~~ CUP 91-24-MASS COMMERCE CENTER PAPTNE RS Su 1y 22, 1992 Page 9 b) Provide an ovarf low route from Foothill Boulevard to either "B" Street or Rochester Avenue Ln the event of blockage in the Faotnill catch 6aein and provide additional caLCh basin capacity on Foothill Boulevard to minimize the poeeibility of 6loekage to the satisfaction o£ the City Engineer. c) Provltle surface drainage eseement• and drainage acceptance agreements allowing pub llc water tc enter private property from both ^A^ Street and Foothill Boulevard. 7) The public storm drain in Foothill Boulevard and "B" Street shall be ups ized to accommodate interim undeveloped flows from the north aids of Foothill Boulevard, per the final drainage study, to the eat isfact ion of the Clty Engineer. The minimum diameter for permanent public storm drain mains i• 26 Lnchee. 8) Construct the earthen berm north of Foothill Boulevard, as designed fot the Bporb Complex, with Phase I, unless completed by others. 9) An in-lieu fee ae contribution to the future installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Foothill sou lavard and ^B^ Street shall be paid to the CLty prior to [he iseuanw of building permit for Phase I or approval of the Final Ferrel Map, whichever occurs first. The amount of the feo shall be one halt the cost of tM eigna 1. 10) Parkway Lmpzovemente along Foothill Boulevard shall conform to the Foothill eoulovard SPecitic Plan Uasign Supplement, to the eat LEaction of the City Planner and City Eng lose r. li) An in-lieu fee fot one-fourth the cast of conatru ctirg epeeial paver within the Foothill Boulevard/Rochester Avenue inNreection shall 6s paid to the C1[y prior to the lsauance of building permits Car Phase I. The fee amount shall be based on the square footage of the intsceection. 2~L L PLANNI NO COMHI6aION AESOLVTION NO. -~ CLIP 91-24-MASS COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS July 22, 1992 Page 10 12) Modify the traffic signal at the irtereect ion of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue ae needed to the eat iefaction of the City Engineer. 13) A public sidewalk easement shall be provided, with an encroachment/maintenance agreement for the plaques, o=~e the ad arcade, and other features eauth of the Foothill Boulevard r lght-of-way between Rochester Avenue and [ha project driveway. The agreement eha 11 hold the City harmless for damage to or liaDil ity Erom psivataly maintained spacial featurea. Tha agreement shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the Final Parcel Hap. 14) All drive approaches shall conform to City Standards. Larger radii (up to 20 feet maximum) may be used when transit ioning from a 40-foot width at the right-of-way to leaser aisle widths on-site, ae shown on the approved plane, for ^e" Street dt iveways in particular. 16) "NO Parking/Stepping" shall be posted on all public street frontages. 16) No portion of the ^Vintner'e Walk," including the east wall, shall encroach on the Foothill Boulevard right-of -wny. i7) Provide hardscapa to the curb in the bus boarding area along Rochester Avenue. 18) Sidewalk shell cross drive approaches at the zero curb fete. Handicap ramps era only required at st coat intenectlons. Cross walks shall conform to City Standards. 19) Tha areas tributary to Rochester Avenue and the Sports Complex storm drain system shall be adjusted as necessary in the Final DtaLnege study ao that Elows will not exceed the capacity of the existing dowretream ayatam. 2G) The section of ^B" Street between Foothill Boulevard and the 4-way driveway intersect ion 200 feet south of Foothill Soulsvard shall be 56 Eeet curb-to-curb, tc accommodsta tour traffic lance. Provide a 40 mph transition for the outer lanes south of the 4-way driveway intersection. 2~( C,M PLANNING COHMISEZON RESOL'JT ZON NO. _-, CNP 51-24-MASS COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS Jaly aa, 1,9a Page 11 6. The Secretary to this Commieeion shall certify tc the ndopiion of this ABaolut ion. AFP ROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JULY 1992. PLANNING CORIf{ISSION OF THE CZTY OF RANCHO CDCAMONGA BY: ATTEST Le 1, I, Arad Euller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamong e, do hereby certify [hat the foregoing Aeso lotion Wae duly and regularly Lntroduced, passed, end adopted by thw Planning Commission of the city of Rancho Cucamonga, et a regular meeting of tM Planning Commission held on the 22ntl day of July 1992, by the tollowinq vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: C?Q TI EA, tlCNIEL, MELC HER, VALLEY TE NCES: COMMZSSIONEAS: TOLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSZONERS: :wO NE 7~(L ~U ,,7., ,} DEPARTMENT OF ~~t;,~;~ ~~~~~~~»~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PRO~ecTn' SUP ~tl-~4 sue~ecr ~btt.~~ld.~: a, Dr. awn a~ aere~s APPLICANT. _ {' J 51 ~ .!i ~ pG~Lti~'I"L( 'PQ.(-I-AS/S LOCATION: _SWG I~'~~ Fr w[,Ap-Ofr~ Those items checked are Conditions of Pppfoval. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING ONISION , (714) 98&1861, FON COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDRION3: A. Time Llmba ___~ t Approval shall ezpve, unless edended by the Planning Commission, A building permits are '~, J_J- not issued or approved use nos rwt commenced within 24 Inomhs from the date of approval. ~, 2. DevelopmerM1~Desgn Review shall be approved prier to / / ~' Jr~_ I 3 Approval of Ternative Tract No. is granted subjeq to the approval of ~ J-/__ a me devebpershall commence, panbpale in, and oonsummateorcause to be commenced. -J_/__ panicipatetl m. or consummated, a Mello•ROOS Comrunity FadlAies District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protegbn Distnq to linarbe construgbn anNOr maimenance of a fire statan to serve the davebpmem. The statbn shall De boated, desgned, and buAi to j all specd!tatbns of the Rareho Cuwmorga Fire Protedbn District, and shall become the i Distnct's propedy upon Completion. The aquipmertl shall be selected by the Dislriq in accordance w%h As needs. In any OmWinp of a statbn, the davebper shall compty with all 'i appl!cable laws aM regUW110ng. The CFD shall ba lormetl by Ih0 DiStlict af10 the devebper I oy the lime recordatbn of the linal map occurs. i Prq rto recordation of the llnal map or the issuance of twibirg pemuts, whichever comes '~ _/__,_~____ hrsl. !ne applicam shall wnsem to, or pan!cpate in, Me estaGUhment of a Melb~ROOs Community Fac~lAies District for the constructbn and maimenance of necessary school ~~ !aairties However. d any school dislnct has prevbusy established wch a Community Faplme5 Distnct, the app6Gm 5ha11, in the atlernatne, consent to the annezatbn of the proved site inb the temnory of such exlshnq Distnut poor to the recordation of the boat map or the issuance of buiding pennrts, whchever tomes lirst. Further, A the atlected sctgpl distrKt nos not boned a Melb•ROOS Community Facilmes Cistnct wdmntwelve momhS lrom one date cl approval of the protect and poor to the recordatan of the final map or issuance of building permd5 for sad protect, Ibis GontlAbn shall bB deemed null and vod. x: z, 'i'' l or l2 ~ ~ ~~ . ,~~ ail-Qy -_~~ ?hs condition snail be waived d the Chy rece;ves notice that the applicant and all affected school d151nGS have erneretl into an agreement to privately accommotlate any and all school impacts as a result of this projeq. 5 Prar to recordation of the final map or prar to issuance of twilding pennns when ro map ~s J-r-_ ~nvolved, carmen ceddication Imm the dilecteri water tlisirah that atlepuate Sewer and water i lacdrt:es are Or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the ~~ Depanmeni of Commu My Devebpmem. Such letter must havo been Issued by the water d~str;ct wnnin 5p davs pr;orto ling! mapapproval inihe case of subdivisan orpnorto ssuance of permrts m the case of all other resbemial projects. B. Site Development ~. ' the srte shall be deveblxd and mamtamed in aocordanca with the approved plans whah _J~- includa she plans, arcndedural elevatbns, exterior materials and cobrs, landscaping, sign i program, and grading on file in me Planning Divi5i0n, the CAndebns comaered herein, I Devebpment Code regulations, and SAc1uS '}~Specsic Planent -PIe~1y l~, 2 Prbr to any use of the project srta or business acliviry being commenced Thereon, all ! _/_/_ Contldicns of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction o1 the City Planner. li 3. Occupancy othhe faaldy shall not commenceumil suchtime as all tJOAOrtil Building Code and 'i J_J__ State Fire Marshall's regulations have been complied with. Prior to accupamy, plans shall be submmetl to the Ranctw Cucamonga Fire Protlxaon Distrk.Y arM the 8uifdirp and Safety Division to show compliance. The briWing shall be inspected for cortgliance poor to occupancy. _/ 4 Pevised sde plans and balding elevatbns incorporating all Conditbns of Approval shall be ~'~ J-,r- submmed for Ciry Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building pennrts. ~%_- 5 All sde. g; ading,laMscape, imgatbn, andstreet irtprovemem plans shall be ceortlinated for ~ --'~- wnsslencypnortoissuanceofanypennils(such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, I bu;beg , etc.l. or prar to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or ~'~ approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. / s Approval of Nis repuest shall rot waive wrrpliarice with all seabre of the Devebpment J~- Code, all other applicable CAy Ordinances, and appNCabb Community Plans or Specdic I, Plans m effect at the time of Buildup PennX issuance. ' _~ 7 A tletaded on•sfte IpMlnq plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Cily Planner and ~ J_/- Snerm's Cepanmenl (989°_511) prar to the issuance of bwbirg permts. Such plan snail ~~ndaate style, illummatan, bcatbn, M1egM, and method cl shielding so as not to adversely ~, anew atllacern progenies. ___ 8 II ra centralized (rash receptaUSS are provided, all Vash pia ~up shall be for individual und5 _/~'._ wdh all reCeplaCl^5 sNebed Irom publa VIeW. __ V,__9 Trash receptacle(s)~ra reWiredaM shall meet Cily standards. The final desgn, bcatbn5, l~ -f~- and the number of trash receptacles Shall Da subject to Cily Planner revraw and approval I prior to ssuance of lwlbrtg permds. ' _ _,_y ~ ~C All grom~d~mounted ulndy appurtenances such as Iranstormers. AC condensers, etc., shall ._ ___ _ ce boated out o/ public view and adepualery screened through the use of a combmat;on of concrete or masonry walls. berm;rg, and'or landscaping to the saI151agan of the Cdy P~anner v: 1;31 7o(I] '7 ~ ~~ c~'r _.. 9 L~-4 t t. Street names shall be submitted for Ctty Planner review and approval m aaorCance whh -_ the adopted Street Naming Policy prar to approval or the boat map _ ~ t 2, A:I buibirg numbers and indivitlual unns shall be bentsied m a clear and concise manner. ~ - ~_~- ~~ncluding proper illuminatbn. i t9 A delaiietl plan intlbating trail widths, maximum sbpes, physical contlkions, ferGng. and ~ J~~_ weed cornrol, in accordance with Cary Master Trad Drawings, snail be submitted for City ' plannenev~ew and approvalpnorto approval and recortlauonof the Final Traq Map and prar ~', to approval of streetimprovemern and grading plans. Devebper sha8 upgradeaM Construct ~I all trails, including fencing and drainage devbes, in conjunction with street improvements. '. t a The Covenants. Condabns and Restrictions (CC3RS) snail rot prohihe the keeping of equine '~, JJ- arnmalswhere zoning requrtemems for the keeping of sect animals have keen met. Indivitlual ' btowners in subdivisans shal!navethe optbn of keeping said animalswRMutthe necessity Of aDPealing (0 Boards Of difettOrs or t10meOWnerS' aSSOCia1an510r aff100dR1erns t0 the CC8R5. t 5 The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictbns (CCBRS) anD AniUes of Incorporation of the '~ -J~- Homecwners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning aM Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded conanamly with the Final Map or prar to the issuance of dtibing permits, whichever ocars first. A recorded copy shall be 'I provideC to the Ciry Engineer. is All parkways, open areas,aMlandswlrrgshallbepemnanernlymaiMamrri.bythepropeM J-/- owner, homeowners' associatbn, Or other means acceptable to the City. Prool of this landscape maimenance shall be 5ubnuttetl Ion City Planner and City Engineer review and approval prar to asuance of DullOinq permns. ~, t 7 Solar access easemems snail he dedicatetl for the purpose of assuming that each lot or -/_l_ dwelling unit snail nave the rgM to receive sunlgM across aDjacem lots or unfls for use of I a solar eneroy system. The easemems may be comained in a Declaratbn of Restrictions for ~I the subdivsan whah snail be retooled corcumemry with the raconfatbn of the final map or asuance of permits, whichever Comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of ' shadows by vegetalbn, slmUUres, IBctures or any other object, except for utility woes and smdar oblects, pursuant to Devebpment Cade Segbn 17.08.060-G-2. t B The protect contains a desgnated Historical landmark, The site shall be devebped and ~~, J~- maintametl inaccordance with the Historic Landmark Allaration Permit No, I Any tunher modAaatbns to tM site mGuding, put rat limned to, eztedor atlerations and/or ~I imerar aserations which ailed Ina exterbr of the bwkfirgs or structures, removal of landmark '~, IB25. demolitbn, rekxalbb, reCOnStNCilbn 01 bU1Wings Or slNdufes, of ChdfXJes to the site, "~. shall ragwre a madilicatbn to the Hstoric landmark Atteratan Perrot subject to Historic I Preservatan Commissbn review and approval. ~, C. Building Design ___ t An atternahve energy system is regwred to provide domestic Mt water for all dwelling units ~-- -- and tdr Heating any swimrMnq pool or spa. unless other alternative energy systems are '~ demonstrated to be of equivalem capacity artd etfaiency. All swimmng pools installed at the "~ lime of initial Devebpmem Shall De Supplemented wdh Solar heating, Detatls shall be ' ~ncludad m the buibmg plans and snail be submitted for City Planner review and approval prar to the issuance of buibmg permns. _ _ ___ 2 All dwellings Shall have the Iron/ Side aflD rear elevatans upg/abed with arChitecNral -....._ treatmern. detaihrg and increased delineatan of suAace Ireatmem subtecl to City Planner review and approval poor to issuance of buibing permits `r z fi aor 1Y i GC.a ~~~~ - 7. Standard patio cover plans for use by Me Homeowners' Assodation shall be submmed br ~ / City Plannerarq Bwbirg Ohicial review aril approval prgrto issuameol bwbing permits. J~ V a. All tool appuRenances, including 2" :nMdbners and ocher rpol mourned equipment anNOr ~ J-/- projeanns,shallbeshieldedfrom aw and the scund tweeted from adlacentproperties and '~~ streets as required by the Planning Divieipn. Such screening Shall be arohfleclurally ~ntegratetl with the bulling desgn and constructed to the satistaabn of the Cuy Planner. I Details snail be included in budding plans. D. Palling arW VehkuWr Acceu (Indicate detalb on building plane) t. All palling bt landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimensbn of 61ee1 and shall ~ J~r- comam a 72-inch waac adjansm to the parking stall (imludirg arb). 2. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavemem across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the tlevebpmem toconnect dwellirgs/unAS/buildirgs with open spacesi plaZas4ecreatbnal uses. 3. All parking spaces shall be tlouble striped per CAy standards and all driveway aisles, emrames. and ex AS shall be striped per Crty slantlaMS. 4 All onus shall De provided wBh garage door openers a driveways are less than 16 tact in depth from back of sidewalk. ~~- ~~_ ~-1_ The Covenants, Conditions arW Restrictions snail restrbtthe storage of recreational vehicles on this site unless They are the principal source of transpoRatbn for the owner and prohibN parking on interior circulatbn aisles ocher loan in despnated visitor parkirp areas. 5, ~J- Plans rot any scarify gates shall be submitletl for the City Planner, City EngirWer, and I, --/_/.- RamMCucamonga Pire Proteclbn District review arW approval prior to issuame of buibirg '~, permits. E. Landscaping (lot Dubllcly malmalned 4rWtreap areee, reNr to Section N.) _~t Adetailedlandscapeandingatbnplan,includingslopeplantingandmodeihomelafWSCap- ~ng in the case or residemial tleveb{xnent, shah be prepared by a Ibensed landscape archAect and submitted br Ciry Flannel review and approval poor to the issuance of building permAS or pmt linal map approval in the case of a wstom bt subdivfsbn. 2 Exisurg trees requiredto be preserved in place snaill>s proteuRed wdh aconatructbn barrier in accordance wAh the Municipal C.ode Secion 19.oe.110, and w mledon the gradirp plans. The kxatbn of those trees to be preserved .n place and new bcatbns for transplantetl trees snau be sfxnvnonthe detailedlandscapepWna. The aixlbam shalllolbw all of lne arbonst's recommendations regarding preservation, Iransplam,rq and Trimming methods. -J_i-- J_/- 3 A.mmimumof Trees pergross acre,campnsed of the lolbwirg saes, shall be provided ', J_/_ wrthm the protect: %-48-imhbox orlarger, %-3fr inch box orlarger,' _ ° ~ 24- imh box or larger, _ % - 15-galbn, antl % - 5 galbn. ~, 4 a minimum of % of trees piamed within the project shall be specimen sae trees • ~--,~___ 24-inch Doz or larger i~ .~ 5 Within parking lots. trees snail be plamed at a rate of one t5-galbn Tree for every three ! _.J~'___ paMUg 5!all5. SuRiciem !o shade fill % of the palling area at SoWr noon on Augusi 21 ~,~~~ <ons 2~CL~ ~~~~ __9i_a4 _~5. Trees mall be planted in areas of public view adjacenito and along structures atarale of cr.e -""-- tree per 301inear feet of bwbing --- __~ 7 Allprivafe sbpe banks5teetorless in vertbal neghlaM of S^orgreatersbpe, butless than ~r-;- 2:1 sbpe, shall be, at minimum, ~ngatetl and landscaped wrih appropriate ground rover for I erosan control Slope planing requred by nits section shall include a permanem ingatan ~, system to be installed by the deveoper poor to occupancy. 1 F qp QUGA Of$ ~_g. Allprrvatesbpe5 inexcess of 5feel,but lessthan8 feel invenbalhegMantlot2:l orgreater ;bpe shau be landscaped and irngafetl for erosan conrol and to soften their appearame as tolbws. one t 5-galon or larger size Tree per each 150 sq. M. of sbpe area, ! yalbn or larger size shrub per each 100 s7. h. or sbpe area, and appropriate ground cover. In addtion, slope banks m excess of 8 feet in venical height aM Or 2:1 orgreater sbpe Shall also irlcluda one 5-gallon or larger srze tree per each 250 sq. h. of sbpe area. Trees and shrubs shalt Da planed in staggered clusters to soften and vary sbpe pWne. Slope plamirq required by this secuon shall include a pennanern irrgatbn system to be installed by the developer prbr to occupancy. IF APP4cADCE 9. Por srtgie lamily resdenial devebpmem. all sbpe planting and inigatbn Shall be coninu- ousry maintained in a heatthyand ihnvirgcondition bythe Oevebperurnileach intlivitlual untt ~s sold and occuDled bytne buyer. Priorto releasaq occupancyforttase units. an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that They are in satisladory rnnditan. _~ 10. For nwtti-lam~y residential and non-residential devebpmerA, property owners are raspon- sible for the continual maintenance of all larldsoaped areas on-sile, as welt as conguous planted area; within the public rgMOl-way. Ail IarlQSCeped areas shall oa keg free Irom weeds and debris and mairnalned in a healthy and thriving mrditbn, and shall receive regular pruning, lenllizlrg, nbwing, and trimming. Arty damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plain material shall be replaced within JO days from the date of damage. J~'- i ~<_/- J_/- 7 7 front yard landscaping shall De requiretl per the Developmem Code and /or ~~_ _ .This regmrement shall be in addition to the requred I street trees and sbpe planing. ', _~ 12 the final desgn of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be Ji~- ,ncludeO mthe required landscape plans and shall be subject to City PWnner review and , approval and coordinated for COnsistenCy wdnarry parkway lafdspapirlg planwhbh may be I, requred by the Erglneenrq Oivisbn. V/ i3 Special lands;,a(fe teaNres such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meander- ~~. -~--~- intq,sdewaac$ (won horizorllal challge^), and iMensAied IandsCapirrg, is required abng f V I r(C~.f.al1~ . '. _-~ 14 landscaping and imgatbn systens required to be ~nstalledwithin the public right-0l-way on _/_____._ ;he perimeter of IhiS prated area shall be COnmWUaly maihiarntd by the Oevebper. I ,~_. 15 All wallsshall beprowdedwtthdewrahve lreatmaM.lt boated inpublic maiMenanLeareas, ~l ~___ the desgn Shall ba coordinated with tna Erlgineenrg Drvlsien. ~~ _._~ 16 iroe maimenance cnena Shall be tlevebped and submitted for City Planner review aM '~, -. _._. __, approval prar to issuance of Omding permits. These cmena shall encourage the natural ' growth cnaradenstbs of the selected tree species. __ ~! . !' Landscaping antl ~ngatan snail be desgned to conserve water through the Onnclples of -_. %enscape as defined m Chapter t 9 t 6 of the Fancho Cucamonga Munx;pal Cade N =al sariz Z~LS ~'~P -- -~lr.~ F. Signa -~-~-•~-°-- t .he signs intlicated onlhe submtted plans are conceptualonly and notapart of thisapproval ~--._ Any sgns proposed for this tlevebpment shall comply with the Sgn Ordinance and snail require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prat to mstanatbn of any signs. 2 AUndorm Sgn Program brthis tleveapmem shalltx submitted for Ciry Planner review and I _i~- approval poor to issuance of building permAS. 3 Directory monumern sgn(s) shall be provided for apartment condominium, or townrames ''~ ~'_J- Dnor to owupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Planneg ~'~, Oivisan pnorto issuance of bmbirg permits. ' G. Environmental __-_i. The devebper shall Drovide each DroSDective buyer written ratite of the FOUnh Street ROgk' __rJ~_ Crusher prolM In a staMard format as determined by the CAy Planner, prior to awepting a ', cash deposA on any property. ' 2. The developer shall provide each prospectNe buyer written notice of the CAy Adopted ~ -~'-J- Special Stutlies Zone for the Red Hill Fautt, in a standard format as deternmed by the Ctty , Planner, pror to accepting a cash deposR on arty property. 3, The developer shall provWe each prospegive buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway III _JJ_ proles in a standartl format as determined by the Ctty PWnner, prior to accepting a cash depose on any property. i d A final acou slical report shall be submRted for City Planner review and approval poor to the ~j J_/. _ issuance of lwiltling permAS. The final repcrt shall discuss the level of imerior rolse anenuatbnlo bebw 45 CNEL,Ihe building materials and construction technques provbed, and R appropnate, verily the adequacy of the mepatbn measures. Toe building plans will bo '! checked for wMOrmance with the rMgalbn measures comained in the final report. ~' H. Othxr Agencies I t Emergency secondary access shallbe provided in accoroaraewdh Rancho Cucamonga Fire' --~--~-- Protectan DislraY Standards. ~'~ ~2 Emergency access shallbe provided, maimenance free andclear,a minimumof 261eelwbe I -y---J_ at all limes dunrg constnutan in accordance wAh Ranch Cucamonga Fire Protecton D15trat fequllBRlebtS. '~ _,~ 3 Prar to issnartce of building pemnls for combustible construdbn, evidence shall be I -/~-_ submAled to the Rancta Cucamonga Fire Protectbn DistriC mat temporary water supply for ~~ !ire protection is avaAable, pending completbr, of requvatl Ilre protenon System. i . ~ a The appliUm shall contact the U S Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and ~! ~~r_ acatan of mad bozes. Muttrlamny resrdemial developments shall provde a solid ovemead structure for mall boxes wnh adequate Ighting. The final bcatgn of Ins mad boxes and the I desgn of the ovemead struqure snail be subject to CAy Planner review and approval prat !O the Is SUdfae Of Wlltling pertnRs 5 For pro;egs using septb tank laclhnes, wntten certRicatbn of acceptabRRy, including au supponrve ~rAOrtnalan, shall be obtained from the San 8ernardrta Coumy Depadmem of EnvironmeM21 Heatlh and submmed to IhB Bwldirg Oftkial poor to the issuance of Sepllc Tank Permds, end prbr to issuance pl bmWing pertrut5 u vnl e,rls Z~! LT ~~~ ~ -_~t ~1 APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AHD SAFETY DIVISION, (714) 989.1863, FOR COMPLIANCE WITN THE FOLLOWING CONOITiONS: I. SNe Development __~! 1 Tne applicant shallcortply wrtn the latest adopted Undorm BUibing Code, Unrtorn Mechani- ~.~-'- cal Code, Undorm Plumbing Coda, Natbnal Electric Code, and all other appliUble codes, '' ortlinances, ant regulations in ettea at the time cl issuance of relative permits. Please cornea the Bwbing and Safety Divisbn for copies of the Code Adoplbn Ordinance and ' apphcaDle nandoNS. 2 Prior to issuance or building permits for a new residential duelling unN(sl or mapr adddion ~ JJ- toexistingunrt(sl, the applbaMShallpaydevebpmentlees at the sstablished rate. Sucnfees ~j may include, but are rot IimNed to: Cdy BeautNicatbn Fee, Park Foe, Drainage Fee. Systems ' Devebpment Fee, PertnN ant Plan Chedcirg Faes, antl School Fees. / 3. Prbr to issuance of building permits nor a new commercial or indusMal developmern or I' J_J- addihon to an ex~stirg devebDr*ieM. the applicant anall pay devebpmeM lees at the established rate. Such lees may include, hM are rql IirtHed to: Systems Oevebprmenl Fee, Gra~nage Fee. School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, i a, Street addresses shall beprovided by the Building Olibial, aflertracl/parcel map resortlatbn ~J_i- and pror to issuance of Duildirg pernrts. J. Eilsting Strudura t. Provde compliance with the Undorm Building Code for the property line clearances i J___/_ consdenrg use, area, and lire-reslsliveness of existing OuiMings. ~, 2 Exists twibin s snail be made to co ~' rig 9 rttply with coned building and zoning regulations for ~ - - the ~Mendetl use or the building shall be demolished. 3 Existing sewage disposal laalNies shall be removed, lilted artdrorcapped to comply wdh the ~I ~~r- Unrtolm Phtnlblrg Code and UnNOrm BI111dN1g Cbde. ~, a Underground on-srle utNNies are to be boated arq mown on Nuilding plans submitted for I'j J~_ building pertnN applicatgn. i K. Gra/ding 'I V 1 Grading of the subjea pnopeny shall be in acoordaroe with Ihs UnNonn Building Code, City ~~~~ -J-~- Gradlnq SIalWarde, and aaepled grading practices. Tne final gradirtq plan shall be in substantial contormance web the approved grading plan. _ ~ A sods report snail be prepared by a qualified engineer Ibansed by the State pf CalNomia to J-%- penorm such work. ,~ 3 The development is located within the soil erosgn control Doundanes; a Soil Disturbance ~~~ J-~- Permrtisrequaed. Please oontaa San Bemartlino Courtly Depantnerttol Agrlcunure atpl4) ~'~. 387.2111 br pemwl applicatbn. DocurtteMatbn of soon pennN Shall be submdted to the Coy j poor to Ire issuance of rough grading permit. '~ __ a A geological report snail rte prepared by a qualrtied engineer or geologist and submNted at '~~ --r~--- --- Inelime o1 apphcatgn for gradng plan check, ___~_5 The l~nal grading plans shall be completedarq approvedprorto issuance oftwildirq permits -._ -_- X x,31 rnriz Z~lG4 _ CuP 9/-Z4 6 As a cug'dm~lpt Sut%7rvi5q n. Ins IOllowmg requ verve nt5 snail De Tel a Surety shall6e posted and an agreerran!executed guaramee~ng cornpletxJn o!ailon~srte ---~ drainage tacJises necessary br dewatennq ai parcels to the satlsagan of the Bwdlrlg arq Salety Drv15gn prom lanai map appmvai and poor to the issuance of grading permits. 7 Aporopnate easemems for sale disposal of drainage water that are wMucted onto - - - nr over aolacem parcels, are to oe delineated and recorded to the satl5fapign of the 9ullding and Sarery Dmsgn pror to issuance of grading and Iwidirp permits. c Omsne drainage imWOVemems, necessary for tlewatenng and p/otectirp me subdnrded -- -- properties. are to be mstaned poor to issuance of huignp pemtns for constructgn upon any parcel Inat may be sublett to drainage lbws ernennq, leaving, or wrtnrn a parcel relative Id whlcn a twlaing pennrt 1s requested. d. Final grading plans for each parcei are tp be 5ubrtMted to the Building and Salety ~ - -- Divisgnforapproval prgr to iswance pf buiairgand padinq pertrns. iThts may Oe on an ~ncrememal or cdrtposrte oasis 1 e..411 5bpe banks m excess Or S lest 1n vertical Mpm shad W seeded wan native grasses ~ --r-- or pWrsed with ground rover for erosan comlol upon compklan M grading or some other ', aaematrve metfgd of erosgn oprrtrol shall W cortiplet W a Me satisfaction of the Buldirg ~, Official in addition a permanent irrpalbn system snap W prpvded. This requlremern '. does not release the applgar!VOevabper Iron compliance won the sbpe plant••ng i requlremems of Sectbn t 7 OB 010 I Of tr>s Devebpmem Coda. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DNISION, (711)9Ba1E62, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH T7rE FOLLOWING CONDfilON3: L. t)•dbarlOn arse VMkUW ACCetN t hprnsar~way and easements snail De dedicated to the City for aN interior public streets. ----- comrtunrty trails. publq paseos. public WMeCape anae, street trees, and public drainage 'acllAies as crown on tM plans antlror Ismafwe rttap. PrNate easemems for nonpublic iaalnres (aoss~at tlralnage, bcal feeder trait, etc.l snail W reserved u sfawn On the plans arttlror tentative map. 2 DediWlan snail be made W tfie lolbwirp nphlsal-way on tM perimeter streets - - - Imeasured Iron street ameninel: ro - ~~ ta,l r«t dh F~~ 8ma~ta v~~ b~'S ~ loin rest do K.OC,i~c s ~ ~1~e v~AJ.A total leer on total leer on 7 An lrtawcableotlerol OedtWlgnlOr_--1001 rode fbidwiy ea3ertlem shall be made ---~ for au ornate streets or Doves __ 1 NonvehquNr access snail be ded¢aled 10 tM City for tM lolbwtrp strasts, _. __ _~_, 5 Reciprocal aaess easemems snan be Orovded amunrtq arxess to all parcels by CCBRs or Dy deeds and snan be recgn7ed wncurremly won iM map or prat to Ifte 153uance cl Iwlainq pertnns roosts no map 1s 1nw4e0 K 191 9of 17 ~~~~ ~p 9(-Ly _~, Wrvate damage easemer!s rot cress~o~..ra~rage sra~.~ceso. bec arc sr _':. __ ~re'^- -_`-" cr noletl cn the anal map - -- -- - . ' 'Te linal map mall clearly delineate a tp-too( minimum bu~.bing resrK;ar, area cn !ne _ _ ne~.gnbonnq bt atlpmirg the zero lot line wail and cornain the mllnwing language -..We hereby dedicate ro the Crty of FancM Cucamonga the ngnr ro proMbrt the constmaan of (res~dennal) owldings !or oMer srnicrures) wchm those areas des~gnafed on me map ds fwildmg r95frK;iOn dress.' A maintenance agreemeM Shall also he granted from each bt to the atlyceM bl through;na ' / CCBR's V B Aa existing easemerns tying within suture rgMS41-Way shallbe Quaclaimetl or Oelinea;ed On -_- thefinal map _~ 9 Easemerns for public 5idewalk5 anyor Stre9t bees placed outside Ina public rgMOl-way Shall be dedicated to the City wherever they encroxh onto pnvete property. ~_ t 0 Additional street rgM-at-way Shall be dedicated along rpMtum lanes, IO provide a nanimum _ _, of 7 feet measured from the taco of cuts. it curb ad(auM sidewak is used abnq the nqM ' tam lane, a parallel street troe maimenance easement shall be provided. n Thedevebpershall makeagoodlaith edonto atpuire the repaired oe-sN propenyiMerests J-~ necessary to construe the reQuved pudic arprovemsrae, era A he/sM sMuW fail to do so, the deveoper Shall. it least 120 days pnorro wbmittal of the linos map for approval enter irnp an agreemeM t0 rArrplete the ImproWmBMS pursuits IO GovemmeM Code $CGfgn 66x62 at such time astne City aopulrestMproperry tMareata repaired fortfM imtxovements ' Such agreement Stull provide for piymeM by IM deveoper 01 aH c06tE inalfted by the CAy to aoqulre the od-site txopeM rMerest3 reGuved in Conneclgn whh the wbdiviSan Secunry for a pongn Ot arose costs Stull be in IM form of a cash deppee in the amount given m an appraisal report oblame0 by 1M developer, b developers cost. Tha appnrNr shall have been approved by the Cny prgr to commencement of tM apprasal. M. Streit Improvememe t All public improvements (iMenor strNts, drainage IxHXiea• communey trails, paseos, -. _, _ landscaped areas, etc.) shown on dv paro aMror taMatiw map shah G cortsiruaed to Cny Standards. Interior street rnprovefMMS shah inchde, Wt aro not IirtHBd to, orb ono gutter, AC pavement, dme approxnea. stlewaaLS, street GpMs, and Streal trees. __ 2 A mMmum d 26• fool wide pavement. weltin ^ a0 dod wde dedicated rgMcl-way shall be ~ _ _ GOnSIRlded for all half•eeCtlpll strNls. 'vim ; wunsuv5 dw ioibwirtq perkneter street irrlprbvenfeMS Including, but rqt Ilmted to: srzEe-4,utE cuaee clfiTER AC. PVMy 91DE WAIJ( DRIVE APPR SfF1EET IJGHID sf7OET 7REE7 coMM. T1iA1L MED ISLAND 07HER 1, (~~!~ R.oc-6.etJ..r / / ~`- / / / e I SC 7.9'. 9of .7 '7~~, l cLP 41-2y ~d NGIes a'. Metl~an i5'~antl ~nclutles anCSCaprt>g anC vrgdli0n cn ^.eler p °aver'=^~ --` ~ - ~ - reCCOSINapn antl pve~lay5 will be determined du nrg plan pneck 'c; II 5o markM 5A9~ walk snail be curvdmear per S7D 30d idl If so mdrkBd. an m-lieu of construction lee snail be provded rar Ih~s item /T\ ri a~~U.Iw In,w :morovement plans and construaan: a Street ~mprovemem Olans incWding street Trees and street ligms, prepared by a regis- -r- - lered CMl Engineer, snail De submatatl to aM appiovBO Dy Iha City Engineer Secumy snag M posted antl an agreemem ezecute0 to tM satalaaion of tM Gity Engineer and me CM Attorney quarameemq comlNetbn of Ihs puW~c and/or pnvata street improve- mems,prortofinalmap approval ortM Ueuance of bnbirg permits, wnichever occurs hrsl. b. Prior to arty work beirg penonned in public nghto!-way, fees shag be paitl era a ~- __ cpnstmaan permA shag be oolaxieo lam Me Cay Ergxbars Otlka In addNan to any other gamuts repaired. ,,. Pavemem siripirg. maAcinq, Iraliic. street name Sfpnirq, and Imarconnect conduA ~___/_ snail oe ~ngallsd to tM satlsfaaion of tM CAy EngiMar. '~ d. SgnalcoMuA wnhpull OOZSSSMII De irataNed on arty new mnstnrctbnor reCOnstlUaan ~'~~ J_/_ of mapr . seooraary or COlbelor arrears whch internee wan otMr mapr, seeondary or '~ colleaor streets for future xaflb sgMla. PuN Doses Shah G placed on both sbes of tM street al3feet oulsbe olBCR,ECROrany otMrlOCatbM appovsd DytM City Ergmeer. ~, Nolen: _ _ _ _ 111 !ul pun bones snarl M No 6 unku otMrwise speceied by IM City Engineer (2) CoritluA shall be 3-incn galvanized steal weh puNnope e Wheel chat/ ramps snaN W inytaUed on aN lour OoRNfe of imsrseclbM per City -~ -' - Stanoards or as dneaetl a/ IM City Enpinasr. I Faishnq CAy roads reouirinq mrutruabn sMa remain open ro iraMb at all times wAh -. -~ - adepuatedettwratluringcongructbn. A3Vaalcbaun pemtil may bs repuxad. Acash deposA sMll (M provinled 10 WVaf die rssq Of grading iHW pavlrg, which sMli De relunded upon wrtpMtan of iM aantnfctnon to tM salialadion of IM Cdy ErgiMer. ~~ g. Concamrated drainage lbws shah rat aou sidawaka. Untlerabawak dratM Shall be _,.~_ etgaNed to City StarWarde, eaoaq br sxlgN IartMy bts. ' n Handicap acase rartp Oesgn shag W as spaahad by tM CNy Ergntesr. ~ ~ _ ~ Slresl MRIea S1faN G approved by IM Csy Plainer pnorto wbmalal lorlirst plan check. ~ _. _ _ __ 5 Street improvamertl W rq per CNy Standards la 7a pMale grtNS Shah be provnde0 br - ___ _ renew aM approval by IM CNy Ergxuer. Pror to any wod Wkg performed on Ins pn- vate greets. lees sMN M gab arttl COMiNgbn penmen snaN W oOlatMd from IM CAy Ergmss~s Ollcs ~n adddan to any otMr pemnes raWUad. 5 Shaer :r9es, a minimum of 15~albn s¢e or larger, shah a ingalled per City Slarfdards m _ -_ accordarce wnh the CAys street tree program. 5C 2.91 to onz 2.~ Lx __ WP 9!-2i 7 ~nterSeCtan Ine G see desgns sra~.i be rev ewec oy ;'re C1y E^glree"o~ car'c'-a^ez .~ •- adopred polay a. On collector or larger streets, tines of sgm snail be planeo'cr all proied u`IerSectlons. - - - incUtling dlrveway5. Walls. signs. and sbces snail be bcaled OutSbe !tie Imes Ot S~gnt Landscaping and o]her obstruct any wnh~mhe ones of s~gM span be approved by the CAy Engineer. b Lxal ~esdemial street Imerseq ens shall have Ihev rbl4eabdity improved. uwalty by ,-- - mcv mg Ine 2 ~~ ~ CbSesl stfeet IfeBS on each sdB away Iron Ine 51rBB1 and placed In a Street tree easement. 8 A permn shall be obtained from CALTRANS br any work wdhin the lolbwmg rgmcbway - - - Foo7'F1 11_t_ gofJt. E V Art D 9 All public improvemems on the Ioibwmg streets shall be operatgralty compete poor to the - - - Issuance of building perrtuts: N. Public MelnterWnu Areas ~~ ! A separate set of landscape and imgation plans per Erpineerirq Public Works Slandartls -'- - shall De submAted to the CAy Erglneer for review and approval prgr to final map approval I or Issuance of bulbirg permits, whghever occurs lust. The following landscape parkways, 'I medians, paseos. easements. !reds, or other areas are reposed IO DO annexed into the Landscape MalMenance District: FooTH Its Bour_EVAQU Mb.bIAN 2 A sgned consent and waiver torte to pin arMror lone the appropriate Landscape arW Llgrning _ - DISVIGYSShallbe tiled with the CAy Erglneer prbrto anal map approvalor Issuance of bulking permAS wn~chever occurs first. Formation msts shall W borne by tM devabper. ~J All reflulred public larkscaprq andirrgatbn systems shallbe continuously malntamed by the -.-- developer until acceped by the Crty. a Parkway landscaprq on tM Iolbwlrp street(s) shall coMOnn to the rewas of IM respective -..-.. BeautAratgn Master Ran: O. Drainage arW Fb00 COMrt11 I The proNq (or portions Ihereol) is bated wehin a Food Huard 2onr, IMrelore, lbod -'- prolectgn msaetlres 6rtaa W provbed >a canAied by a ragrstersd CivA Engineer and approved oY the CAy Engwleer a shall be tM devebpers reaponsibMy to nave tM curtain FIRM Zone _; __ ___ desgnahon renbved from IM proNCt aria. The dsvebpe/s ergexer sMll prepare all necessary reports, pans, artl Morobgrf/hydraulb calCUlatbna. A COndAbnal Letter of Map Revlsgn ICLOMR) sMll be obtalneo from FEMA prgr to final map approval or asuance o1 bulbinq permAS, whrcMver ooeurs first. A Latler of Map Rsvrogn (LOMB) shall M asued by FEMA poor to occupancy or Irrprovemem accagance, wnbnever oaurs +vsl ... ~ 7 A I~nal drainage study shall be wbmAled to and approved by IM CAy Ergrnaer prgr to llnal map approval or Ine ~ssuanca of bulking pelmts. whCMver occurs brsl NI tlramage IacdAles snarl be installed as reported by Ine CAy Engineer 2'i C ~ K ], 9, ll at l9 LvP 91-LS 4 Ape Ttl hom !ne COUrty Fb OC Control :'~SVQ 5 r20uireo 'cf wcrk w,l nin 'is'igr1 ~0'~way $ Tees are prOhlbned WAmn $ leaf 01 the Outside d~dmeief Of dny pUDI~C 510rm dfaln pipe n"~eaSUred Irom InB out¢! ¢CgB Jt d nldtUre llee In.'Ok. - - --- ~ r~__ _ 6 Public storm Oraln easemeMS mall HB graded to Convey Ovenlow5 m the Bvem of a Dockage Ina 5um0 Catch Dasln on Ih0 publb slfe¢I. I P. Utllitles _~ ' Provide sepdrdte Utl6ry selblCBe to Bach parcel inpglding SanAary SBWBrage system, W2I¢L li -' - - gas, electnc power. telephone, and wGe TV (all urgeryrnund) In accordance wah the UtAAy I S;arbards. Easemems shall De provided as regulred. ~_ 2 The devebper shall be responsible for the rebcation of exislirg utilities as necessary. I .-'-_'- 3 Water and sewer pans shall be desgned aM construaed ro meal Ine requlremems of rite I 1- - Cucamonga Counry'Nater District ICCWD), Fancno Cucamonga Fire Protegbn Distnct. and Iha Enwronmemal Hearin Depanment of IM County of San 8emardlro. A otter of ~mplance Irom tM CC WD is required poor to final map approval or iswarce d pertnss, wnx;hever occurs lirsl. O. General Requlrementa and Approveb I ~~ t The separate parcels cornained within the pro)ecl boundaries shall De bgalty combined into I JJ- one oamel poor to Issuance of twloirlq permits. 2 An easemern for a plrn use driveway sMll M provded prior to final map approval or I -~-r- ~ssuance of bwldinq pemns. wnlchever Doan lirst, loc 3 Prar to approval vl the final map a dBposA shah tM posted with the Ciry wvenng me I' J-~ eshmared cost of apportioning IM assessmerxe under AseesameM District among IM newt' created parcels. ~ 4 Etreanda/San Sevama Aroa Psgk7nal Mairtlins. Sawndary fiegonal, arW Master Plan J- Oramage Faes span M paid prbr to linal map approval or pror to bulging perms issuance A ro map Is mvoNed. I $ Permits shall fM ogaxwd Irom IM blowing agencies for work wiMin Moir rigMOl~way~. ~ J~ - 6 A sgned consent aM waiver lone to join anaor Corm IM l~rr EMoramant Comrtunny J.-' - FaulAies Otemd shop a filed wAn IM City Engineer poor to fiMl ma0 approval or IM Issuarrw d dlildirtp permiU. wfeCMver Obr.Uf3 Ikst. fOnnatton costa SMN be dome q' tM Developer. 7 Prbr to nna69atcn at arty devebpmern pnass, sunidant im{xovemertt plans shall De cqm- I, _: -. __- peted beyond IM pnasa Uoundanas to assure secondary access and drainage prolethon to I, Ine sahslaawn of IM City Englnear. Phaaa boundaries shall cortespond to of lines mown on Ine approved tentative map. ,. z ~{Lz ~- 1, 9, 110( 19 RESOLUTION NO. ~--~=~~~- A RESOLVTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIF0P11I A, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL NAP NUMBER 13045, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHNEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD ANC ROCHESTER AVENUE, AND HARING PZ NDINGG IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-O11-lOr i9, 21, 2fi, 27, and 28 WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Nap Number 13045, submitted by Masi Commerce Center Partners, applicant, for the purpo ee of eubdiv id ing into 31 parcels, the real property situated in the City of Rrncho Cucamonga, Councy of San. Bernard inor Stets of Ce Liforr,ia, identified ee APN(e) 229-011-10, 19, 21, 26, 27, and 28, locnted at the southwest co:nar of Foothill Eoulevard and Roche etez Avenue; and Wk1EREA6, on Su 1}• 22, 1992, the Planning commission held a duly etlvert iced public hearing for the above-described map. FOLLOWS: NOWT THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAHONGA PLANNING COMNIBEION HE SOLVES AS SECTION 1: Thai the following findings have been made: 1. That the map Le coneieteni with the General Plan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed eu bd iviaion is consistent with the Genstal Plan. 3. That [ha site le physically eu it ab le for the proposed development. 4. That the pronoaed eubd iviaion and improvements will not cause eubstant iel environmental damage or public health problems cr have adverse effects on abutt inq propert ice. SECTION 2: Thin Commie eion flnde and cer[if iee that the project Rae been reviewed antl considered in camplience with the California Environmental Quality Act of 197C; and further, this Commission hereby ieeuae a mitigated Neqat ive Declaration. SECTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map Number 13045 is hereby approved eu bject to the attached Standard Conditions and the following Spacial Conditions: Emineerina Divieis ' 1. The exietinq overhead unlit iee (telacommunic at ions) on the project side of Rochester Avenue eh all he undergrounded from the first pole ofE-e its south of the project's south boundary [o and including the end-of-line pole ju en south of Foothill Boulevard, prior to public improvement Z l~~ PLANNING COMH:BSION REBOLOTION NO. ...-. . PENT PM 13845 - MASS COMMERCE CEN^.ER PARTNERS .I Uly 22, 1992 Page 2 acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. The service tc the ex ieiing structure on the east aide of Aocheeter Avenue shall be ~.:ntlergrounded across Rochester Avenue to the pole on the east aide of the arrest. 5ervic¢a to the axial lnq •tructu ree on-e ire from the east aide of Rcchester Avenue shall De undergrounded ae well. In addit Lon, an in- lieu fee ea contribution to the future undergroundinq of the ut it it lee on the oppoe Lte Bide of Aocheeter Avenue shall be paid to the City prior to the ieeu ante cf build ing permits. The Eee shall be one-half the difference between the undergroundinq coat of the utilities (electrical, except for 66 KV electrical) on the oppoa its •ida of the street minus t hose (te leeommu altar ions) on the project eitle times the length from the center of Foothill Boulevard to the south project boundary (990x feet). 2. Foothill Boulevard shall be coast rutted ae tollowe, eubj act to modification by and approval of Ce It Tana, with Pheee is a. Full improvements on the south eitle from Rochester Avenue Lo the we et project boundary including n continuous right turn lane Beginning 230 feet we et of the Foothill driveway. b. A landscaped median between Rochester Avenue and "B" Street wi!h left turn lanes to the sat iefantion of th¢ City Engineer. If Caltcane dose not nllcw a single segment, in-lieu fees will be required in conformance with Condition 3. c. Thirty-two feet of pavement on tht north side of the median. d. A catch boa in at the ultimate low point on the north Bide of Foothill Boulevard, sized per the final drainage study, with an interim lateral to the catch basin on the south szde. The north right-of-uay shall be graded Lo direct Howe to the catch basin with deailt ing facil it lee to the eetiefaction of the City Engineer. e. Traneltione to ex taring pavement we et of the wcet project boundary to the eatiefaction of the City Eng_neer and Caltrana. f. Ths Developer may request a reimbursement agreement for permanent improvements north of the centerline, including half of the lends ra pad median coat e, from future developnent ae i! occurs on the north eitle Of the et rest. An in-lieu fee ae contribution to the future toner ru ct ion cf the median ielantl within Foothill Boulevard eha 11 be paid to the City prior to the issue ace of building permits for Pheee I oz approval eE the Final Parcel Map, whit haver occurs first. The amount of the fee shell be one half [he cost of the median times the length from the west project btu ndary to a projection of the westerly right-of-way line Eor ^B" Street. If Caltrana does not allow oon et ru ct io r, of the median in Condition 2b, the tee li¢ita shall extend to a projection of the westerly right-of-way line far Aocheeter Avenue. Z ~ ~:> PGANNINC COMMISSION RESOLNTION NO. .--. ,. TFNT PH 13845 - MASZ COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS July 22, 1992 Paoe 3 4. Rochester Avenue shall be cone[ ructed pax approvetl Drawing No. 1431 with Phase I, unless completed by others. In add ii ion, sidewalks, street trees, and a combined bus bay/right turn lane north of the project driveway eha11 be installed. The right Curn lane ehail begin as close to the Foothill Boulev ezd inters act ion ee poveible. 5. A11 public storm drains and interior public street improvements shall be constructed with Phase I. b. Public street sump coneitione shall be tlee i9ned ea follows: a. Provide an overflow rouia from ^A^ Street to the south project boundary and a method for those flaws to pees through she perimeter wall in the event of blockage in the catch baeine imet nod shown on the conceptual grading plan has not been reviewed. b. Provide an overflow route from Foothill Boulevard to either "B" 5treei or Rochester Avenue in the event of blockage in the Foothill catch basin and provide add itionel catch basin cspacity on Foothill Boulevard to minimize the poesiDility of blockage to the eatisfact ion of the City Engineer. e. Provide surface drainage aeeemente and drainage acceptance agreements allowing public water to enter private property from both ^A" Street and Foothill Boulevard. '/. The public storm drain in Foothill Boulevard and "B" Street shall be upeizetl to accommodate interim undeveloped flows f[om the north Bide of Foothill Boulevartl, per the final drainage study, to the eat iefaction of the City Engineer. The minimum diameter for permanent public storm drain mains ie 24 inches. 8. Conaccuct the earthen berm north of Foothill Boulevard, ae designed for the Sports Complex, with Phase I, unless completed by othsre. 9. An in-lieu Eae a• contribution to the fu Lira inatelletion of a traffic eignnl at the intersection of Foothill Bou leverd end ^B" Street shall be paid tc the City prior to the ieeuance of building perm ire for Pheee i or approval of the Final Parcel Map, whichever oecute fir et. The amount of the fee eha11 be one- half the coat of the signal. la. Parkway improvements glory Foothill Beuleva rd eha11 conform to the Foothill Specific Plan Dee iqn Supplement, to the eat re Faction of the City Planner and City Engineer. 11. An in-lieu fee for one-fourth the coat of conetrucring special pavers within the Fuot hili eoulevartl/ROChaeter Avenue intersection shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building perm ire for Pheee I. The fee amount shall 6e based on eha square footage of the intersection. 12. Modify the trefEic signal et the Lnteraect ior. of Foothill Boulevard and Roche stet Avenue ae needed to the eatiefact ion of the City Engineer. Z~{~D C, PC.ANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. .--_.. TENT PM 13845 - MASI COMMERCE CENTER UPAATNERS .IU ly 22, 1992 Page 4 13. A public sidewalk sae smear shall be provided, with an encroachment/maintenance agreement for the plaques, overhead arcade, and other features, south of the Foothill Aoulevertl right-of-way between Aoc heat er Avenue end the project driveway. The agreement enall hold the City ha:mlese for damage to or liability from privately maim ainetl special features. The agreement shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the Final Parcel Map. la. All drive epproachee shall conform to City Standards. Larger radii (up tc 20 feet maximum) may be used when transit ioninq from a 40-foot width at the right-of-way to lesser aisle widths on-site, ae shown on the approved plane, for ^B^ St teat driveways in pnrticu lat. i5. "NO Parking/Stopping" shall ba posted en all public street frontages. 16. No portion of the "Vintners Halk," including the Beet wall, shall encroneh on the Foothill eoulevezd right-pf-way. 17. Prov ids hazdecape to the curb In the Due boarding area along Rochester Avenue. 18. 5itlewalk eha 11 cross drive epproachee at the zero curb face. Handicap temps are only required et et rest intereectiona. Crops walks shell conform to City Stantlards. 19. The areas tributary to Racheetar Avenue and the Sports Complex storm drain eyetem shall ba edjue[ed ae necessary in the Final Drainage Study eo that flows will not exceetl the caper ity of the ezlating downer ream eyetem. 20. The eaction of "E" Street between Foothill Boulevard and the four-way driven. ~~y intersection 200 feet south of Foothill Boulevard shall De 56 Eeet c.:rb-to-curb, to accommodate four traffic lanes. Provide a 40 MPH transition for the outer lanes south of the 4-way driveway intersection. Bu i_l,d ing and _~afety Div e'p 1. Provide a 60-foot non-buildable eaeeme nt un the wa et Bide of the existing building to remain on Parcel 27. 2. All prepoeed structures mu et comply with the wall and opening protection requirements of VBC Chapter 5 with respect to new prpperty lines. 3. on-e its et ocm drains shall be designed for 0100. ~1 gnQi no Div ieion 1. Tentative Parcel Map 13&45 ie con r. ingent upon epprovnl of Conditional Uee permit 91-24, ae lots cf lees than 2 acres along Foothill Aoulevard are only allowed within an approved master plan. 2~{ ~ D PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 92-1 ~~J TEIiT PN 13845 - MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS Juiy 22, 2992 Page 5 A PPAOVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JULY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA BY: Larry i- I, Brad Bullei, Secretary of tha P1annLng Commission of Che Cliy of Rancho Cucamongn, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution vas duly end regularly introduced, passed, and adapted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cu<amonga, at n regulsr meeting of the Planning Cammio ion held on the 22nd day of July 3992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHI T*_EA, MCN IEL, MELCHEA, TO LSTOY, VALLETTF. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Z4 ~E c\,° o uT'gl 4 s m =~J ~~ 0 4 C O U 2 U C d _C N {J 2 J Q2 ~ W ~_ 4 ti 2 4 O C W } L T O ti U Q ti ~~ 2 W r~ .~ - v ~e ei `kc p: L ~~ iu r p _ _ - ~iin~ _ r ~Y°' Y i Y T ~`a_ i 3 ' ~ ~a ~ aY Q.'~E' ! P:.-o[ ba Y~ t~ ~,, C.)I tD p- J _ t ~ L--~ ~~ ~ I , ~ C' ] -~'x I d ~ :I I I J .a t .7 ~ I ~Q =i v _ ~~ i ` e ~ /EY _ ~ e , i a - lYy~~= . ~ 1 1 i ~ 7 7 '°4` ~7 r £ __.'_ _: ~~ _ of `.~1 S } ~ :x _ _ e; .y~~ e; - _ _ €€ ~ ~ _ _ s _ Q~ g ~ _ _ - y ~ + 7 2~ ~I- -d - - __ a __• __ e. - - -" - =" -_ -_ - S~ n_o ece = -~_ c c ~e = _ a ~J, I Ca ~ _J ~ :a~.2 ~ ! !'._ &fi } ~aBY o~}E2':.YE _ _ 7. F. __ - _ `60 Y: ~. C ~ .e..~ ..... V ~ ... e. .L~ - e- P { _ ., ~ _ ~ .. M a _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ v el ai 1 ~ I ~ i ~' ~ ~' _ __ _ .Y ~__ ~`_ '4 _ .. _ ~yg i~~~ - _- ~__ _` -^ _ 'fie F! :X2-YY '''S ~2 0 _c_ _ ~ ..:W :Be .__ ~,. . ~ ~~a~ > > ==d `~a °-Ep'~gcY= S a~`ofr --_~_°''~ :~2 `s. __-X45°.E= ca __ uae _ayF '~D~YE.o" S. "~$..~: Y:e2:°D g~ l°- DS~. `? _„^..~ _,._ a a _ ~I __ ? sej Yy~li it .Y~• g~•=b =oF ~So dE = I E"o I ' ~_ " --_ Y DYE 8. ~ _ °~ _" c Q Q - - y J '73 ;3• xE~ ~ SE ~- '~^ 2 - .~ Z I __ ~ .I,a:- x€ ~ ;s_ aF~ _ is ~2 - ~ "'a sags c! - - _ =~ g; -- .- _ ;, e - , .o v. - - - •- t-. ss.s - _ - __ - _. :x . > .. d _ _ - - _ - ~ - _ IM = ! le Z.~( pN RESOLUTION N0. (.12 "Z J A RESOLUTION OF THE CI'Pk COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, COND ITIONALi't APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP tiUMBEA 13845, LOCATED AT THE SOCTH47E ST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ROCHE9TF,E AVENUE, AND MAKING FI ND I:iGB IN SUPPOR'P THE AEGF - APN: 229-011-10, 19, 21, 26, 27, and 28 A. Recitals. ( U Masi Commerce Center Partners has filed an appiica Linn Eor the aoor oval of a Tentative Parcel Map (cumber 13845) for the purpose o`, suhdivi ding into 31 pazcels, the real property situated in the City of Rancho Ptcamon ga, County of San Hernat din o, State of Ca lifnrnia, identified as APN (s) <2)-011-10, 19, 21, 26, 27, and 28, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Hovleva:d and Rochester Avenue. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Map request is cefer red to as the aPPlication. fii) Dn the 22nd day of July 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a du iy noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted their resolution No. 92-100, thereby approving the application. fiii) or: July 31, 1992, the applicant timely appealed the approval cf. said Resolution No. 92'99 based on conflicts with the fo llowi n9 conditions of approval.: (a) Engineering Condition No. 2(b) and 2(c): Foothill Ea f_eva rd Median and North Side Pavement Construction; and ;b) F.ngineerinq Condition No. 2(d1: interim Draina qe imprcvements; 'and Engineering Condition No. 9: Deletion of Traffic Si gr.al Sn -l.i eu Fees• (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resro lotion ^.a ve occurred. 3. Resn Ult i.on. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, ana Yesolved by the 'ity Conn a`.i nP the city of Aanchn Cucamonga as follmas: 1. T,*,is Council ne reby specifically finds that at1 of the facts set fnrt.h in ihn Re r, ;. to ls, Parr A, of this Rs sn lotion are true and correct. 2~~ CITY f.OUNCID RF.SOL'JT iON NO. CUF 91-24-MABZ COMMERCE CENTER 2~~RT,vE RS September 2, 1992 Page 2 2. Ha sed upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during t?:e abc ve-re.`e rented public t,earina on August 19, 1992, inc lu dint' written and ora i. sta`f reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby sped `v caaY `.in ds as follows: (a) ':"r:e appl.i ca Lion app:ies to property iota ted at the southwest corner of Rochester and Foothill Boulevards with a street frontage of 1,250 feet along Foothill Hou levard and lot depth of 950 feet. along Ro cp,es t?r Hou lava cd and is presently improved with the vacant Cowgirl Galcon; and (b) The property to the north of the subject s'_te is vacant, the property to the soutF. tens fists of [he Sports Complex which is currently 'a nder construction, the property to the east is the Aggozzotti Winery, and the proF°-r tY tc rile was Y. is vacant. (c) TF,e property is designated "Industrial Park" by the Industrial Area Specific P1a n; and (d7 The project requires the demon tion of the Cowgirl Saloon, formerly known a=_ the LaFourcade stoze and gas station. The structure was designated an Hi stn ric Point of Interest by the City Council cn September 18, 1991. (e; An Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment was aoproved by the "ity Council nn May 7.0, 1992, which modified circulation access points ala r.g Ror:h estar Avenue, added "Automotive Servrce Court" as a con di Clonally permit ed ase and added "Building Supplies and Home Improvement" as a comiitinnally permitted use within .Subarea 7. !f) The requtl.rement of the landscaped median, together wi U~~ reiac_d sr.reet improvements north of the proposed median, is necessary to maintain the sa`. ery of persons traveling along Fcothili Hou levard adjacent to the proposed project. Fn othill Boulevard is a ma jnr arterial and al.rea dy ra cries subs tantial traffic volumes. Unregulated left-hand turns for Lngress and egress, even at the initial phases of the project, would promote an unsafe traff L~ pattern. It is therefore cecessary for public sa.`ety that such inprnvemevts be installed at the earliest feasible time. !y? The existing 18-inch CMP (ccrru gated metal pine) in Fpochill Bcu is vani rn:Ild be ur.i ii zad nn a temporary basis, if it is cleaned sod ropy iced, as adequate in'.et is installed, and it mach ar qes to the new a b:'^, basin nn thr 5ou<h side of Fnnthi7.1 Pou lava r9. ~'n) The applicant's renuest fcc a relmbursemen ~. agreement for one-hat! of `h n, cost of signal installation if Galt raps permits it to be inste lied a': ~!;s "n me Ls appropriate. 3. 9asrd upon the subs tantial evidence presen tad t.n this Cnmmi t don cy !h,+ above-refs ran red public hearing and apon the speci.f io findings of fac:'e ~.`. forth :n na rayraphs 1 And 2 abn ve, this Ccun oi.l hereby Pinds and cnn~tn-ies se `ell vw.^,: ?(t0J CI'^Y CGUNC IL RE °OL'GmI O"1 CO. CUP 91-24-M.A SI COMi7ERCE CEN TEk PART4E R5 September 2, 1391 2a ge 3 (a) That the map is cons is trot with the General Plan. (b) 'Gnat the inorovemen t, of the proposed su6di vis ion is oc ns is is of ~,i th the General Pia n. (c) 'Ph.at the site is physically suitable for the proposed de velnpmen `_• (d) That the proposed subdivision and improvements wili r.ot cnu se subs tanrial envi ronmer.tal damage er public health problems nr have adw rse e`fe cts on abutting properties. 4. 'Th a Cour. cil .hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Council finds that the application is to substantial compliance with the on gi nal approval for which the ~'e gative Ge <la ration was issued. 5. Rased upon the findings an3 conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, ?, 3, ar.d 4 above, this Ccuncil hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, aitached hr re to and incorporated hereir. by this reference. En giver rinq Conditions 1? The existing overhead utilities (telecommuni.cat ions) on the project side of Rochester Avenue shall be undergrounded frcm the first pole cff-site south of the p~~oject's south boundary to and including the rod-of-Line pc le just south cf Foothill Boulevard, prior to public improvement acceptance nr occupancy, whichever occurs firs t. The service to the existing stru<ture on the east side of Rochester Avenue shall be under grounded across Rochester Avenue to the pole cn the east side of the street. Services to the existing structures on-site From [he east side of Rochester Avenue shall hr under grounded as well. in addition, an in-lieu fee as contribution to the Euture under grounding cf the u[i li ties cn the oppnsi re side of Po ch es ter Avenue shall be paid to khe City prior to the issuance of building permits. The fee shall be one-half the difference he tween the un dergrounding cost rf the ut ilitirs (electrical, except for 66 K7 electrical) nn the opposite st de of the street minus those (tele rnmmuni cations) on the pre~ect side times fhe length from the center of Foothill Bru le va rd to the south yroje ct b~;mtda ry (390t Eeet). 2) Foothill Hou leva rd shall be cons trusted as follows, subject ,n mo di Y; rat inn by and ap provai nE CatCra ns, with Phase is zl( OK CITY CGUNCIL RF.o OLUTION N0. CUP 91-24-MASL COMMERCE CEN': ER PAR;^.JE RS S=p'emA.r 2, 1992 Page 4 a) Full improvements on the south side From Rochester Avenue to the west prove ct boundary including a continuous right turn lane be, g+nning 230 feet west of the Fo oth ill driveway. bi A landscaped median between Roch es to Avenue and "B" Street with left turn lanes to the satisfaction of the City Enyt nee r. If Ca It tans does not allow a single segment, in-lieu fees will be required in conformanre with Condition 3. c) ;fi irty-two feet of pavement or, the north side of the median. d) The 18-inch CMP (cot n34a ted metal pipe) in Foothill Boulevard shall be cleaned, repaired as needed, an inlet installed with desilr.i nq facilities, the north right-of-way graded to direct flows to the inlet, and an outlet to the catch basin on the south side of Foothill Boulevard installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. e) Transitions to existing pavement west of tY,e west project bounds zy to the satis Eaction of the ^_i ty Engineer and Caltrans. f) She Developer may request a reimbursement agreement for permanent improvements north of the cente-line, including half of the landscaped median costs, from future development as it occurs nn the norm side n`. the street. 3) An in-lieu fee as mntr ibution to the future construction of the median island within Foothill 9oulevard shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase I or approval of the Final Parcel Map, whichever occurs first The amount of the fee sha 11 be one half the cost of the median times the length from the west project boundary to a projection of the westerly right-of-way line for "6" Street. If ra ltrans does not allow construction of the median in Condition 2b, the £ee limits shall ext er.d to a projection of the westerly rlaht-of-way line for Roth es ter Avenue. 4) Rochester Avenue shall he constructed per approved Craw ing No. 1431 with Phase I, unless completed by others. In addition, sidewalks, street trees, and a combined bus bay/ri gh r, turn lane north of [he project driveway shall be ins ta'Led• The right torn lane shall begin as close to the Fnothil.l aouie yard in1:r_rse rtion as pos siUle. 2~(DL c1Ty rovnc r_u RESODUxxcN No. CL'P 91-24-MABI COMMERCE CENTER Pr.RTNGRB Sep re mbar 2, tg92 ?a ae 5 $) All public storm drains and interior public st:~e et improvements shall be constructed with Phase I. 61 Puhlic street s~.vnp condrtxons shall he des iyned as follows: a) Provide an ova rfiow route from "A" Street to the south project bnuadary and a method for those flows to pass through the pe rimetex wall in the event of blockaye in the catch basins (method shown on the conceptual grading plan has not been reviewed. b) Provide an overflow mute from Foothill Boulevard to either "B" Street or Rochester Avenue in the event of blockage in the Foothill, catch basin and provide additional catch basin capacity on Foothill Boulevard to minimize the possibility of blockage to the satisfaN ion of the Crty F.n gi nee r. c) Provide surface drainage easements and drainage acceptance agreements allowing public cater to enter private property from both "A" Street and Foothill aoulevard. ]) The public storm drain in Foothill Boulevard and ''B" Street shall be upsized to accommodate interim undeveloped flows from the north side of Foothill Boulevard, per the final drainage study, to the set isfaction of the City Er, ginee z. The minimum diameter for permanent public storm drain mains is 24 inches. B1 Construct the earthen barn north of Foothill Boulevard, as designed for the Sp>rts Complex, with Phase I, unless completed by others. 9) A traffic si goal shall be its tailed at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and "9" Street with Phase I. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement for one- haLE the cost of the si gna). from future development as it occurs cn the north side o,`. Foothill Boulevard. If Calt cans does not, allow the signal installation at this time, nn in-lieu fee for one-halt the cost of the si anal shal.i he Paid to the City Prior tr, the release of nc cupan cy n' the first building in Phase I. 101 Parkway imprnvemen is along Fnoth ill Bou].eva rd shall ronform t~ the Foothill Specif is Plan Design Supplement, to the satisfaction of the City Planner and City Engineer. 111 An in-lieu fee for nn e-fourth the cost of rnnstnactinn speeiei pavers within the Fnnth ill Bnule va rd/Ao ches in., Avenue lore rsectinn shall he pa i.d to the City pri ne' to tti" 2~ ~~ CI'PY COUNCIL ftESGLiJT ION N0. C7P 97-24-MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTyE RH September 2, 1492 ?ace 6 issuance of building permits fnr Phase I. The Eee amount shall be Sase3 on the square footage of the inteaection. 12) Mod_fy the traffic signal at the intersection of Foothill Houle vard and Rochester Avenue as needed to the sat iaf act ion of the ^_ity Engineer. 13) A public sidewalk easement shall be provided, with an sr.croachment/maintenance agreement for the plaques, ova rhead arcade, and other features, south of the Foothill Boulevard right-nf -way between Rochester Avenue and the project driveway. The agreement shall hold the City harmless Eor damage to or It abi lity from privately maintained special features. The agreement shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with t*.e Final Parcel Map. 14) All drive approaches shall conform to City Standards. Larger radii (ap to 20 feet maximum) may be used when tra nsitinning from a 40-foot width at the right-of-way to lesser aisl_ wx dths on-site, as shown on the approved plans, Eor "B" Ht rret ari veways in particular. 15) "NO Parking/Stopping" shall be posted on all public street frontages. 15) Nn port inn of the "Vintners Walk," irc lading the seat wall, shall encroach on the Foothill Boulevard right-of-way. 17) Provide hardscaoe to the curb in the bus bnazdi nq area aLonq Rochester Avenue. 18) Sidewalk shall cross drive approaches at the zero curb face. Handicap ramps are nn lp required at street intersections. r_rnsc walks shall conform to City Stanrla rds. 191 The areas tributary to Pochester avenue and the Sports Complex storm drain system shall be adjusted as necessary in the Final ora ira ge Study so that `lows will not exceed the capacity n.`' the existing downstream system. 20) The eeeti nn of "B" Street between Fonth ill Bnu 7.e vac: and the four-way driveway intersection 200 feet soutt: n` FnnthiLl Bnuleva rd shall be 56 feet curb-to-curb, to axommn date four traEf it lane s. Provide a 40 MPH trans itinn fnr the outer lanes south of the h-way rlr iveway in terss cti nn. enildina a`d Safety Oivis inn 1) Frnvi~?a a 50-', nn t, non-bu it dable enseme nt nn the west sh?e of the exi.st~n9 building hn remain rn1 Parcel 27. Zc-(p U CITY CDUNCIL RE90LOTIOY VO. CUP 9144-MABI COMMERCE CEV:ER PART»EILS September 2, 199? Page 7 2) All proposed structures rust comply with the wall and opening protection requirements of UBC Cnapter 5 with respect to new property lines. 3) on-site storm drains shall be designed for Q1CC. Planniny Divia ion 1) Tentative Parcel Map 17845 is contingent upon epproval of Con ditionai Vse Permit 91-24, as lots cf less than 2 acres along Foothill Boulevard are only allowed within an approved master plan. 6. This Council 'nereby orovi des notice to Masi ^_nmmerce Center Partners that the time within which judicial zeview of the decision represented by this Resolution must 6e sought is governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Proceduze Section 1094.6. 7. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to: (a) terrify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certi.f ied copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, re hurn-receipt requested, to Masi Commerce Center Partners at the address identified in City records. 2'i .Do ~~ 0 J /[~ a c ~ ~# ~ z ~6 4 q O U_ 2 U 0 6 C N S 2 Z ~Ow z ~~~ o a LL z ~~w ~u= o~ c. Q a ow C ~ N E~`_-- _ ~~e ~zog' _ =-.=i~ - ~e~e~S~eB~_- __.°~20=.. .. oEa y2ge e4vFe !~ _ _ .' ~~ -- wLU .~ Z e~Y: ~e > ~Pt= _ (sJ B4g b! ~~ v ~ '= _ ~e=~ E} - _ P ~I~ Y G i~ } e k e V' i - 0.' e's Ila' ~ ~- ~ vl m , _ :a~ z' ~ Y ~ g ~ r--_`~~ l - Z ~ iEa,~1' r~s ' i ~~ y '~ ~ ~ " i u ~ ~ e .7 i Ix I ~~ ~'' __ it e _ = ~x C=s- -_ [a a~C _ _ .~_ _ - _ _ _ . ` e - _ ' ~ C /~ Ix P _ _ ~ e = _ _ _ __ E~ -:e .-. de ~ .7 ., ,- >~ ~ fee 3:x. 7 :X. WE >e F 5'_.e _. ~ ] Y' y~ ~ ~~ .y~ Y'~ ~ +~~ Yi y~~ - -~-'~ = - - - ., mss;=°= __ y ~ P ~gY " 9 s:~6:P -ec ; " .E _ c 8E '~ aficY~ ~ [° g Q ~ ~ ~ 'z ~ _ La , - E _ ~ -ma ' `' ' - i'qe os y6 .- i "`b£ `°° c`a =-_ y - - _- y y V" - _ ~yI '!~ ~ :E fr~ i ~ AYES .` ~ -_ _ ., ~~ ~ _ °>Y i o Y ` Q- v ~ _ ° -_ ~ s Y _ _ ~ I o ~ € o7 - t 2. r 4~ E l 83 ~ - ~~ _ e ES _ f `• II =L [ ~ a R _ _ kl a I Y: T° ~ e3E =.~~<d a~2' ~ F' - .~ l1:.oe e .,__n~ ' 1Ti i ... ~ ~ :,,~ 0 ?3 ' 3 ~3og -,.a:~acs <~_ • s`~ .s _;i s_ c s ~ Al . ~ ry ~ ~ i ~~ ~ ~ 1 i ~ ~ ~, I - _- _ ;~ _ Rig _ ,E OgE E_ o~ - --=R- [~F ~~`_ _ _ .-Ya _ -- - _c _[' a^ - - Imo. c~ __ ~~;€ sa - ~c- _ _ .~ - _ - •~ - `! P•6~EE ~E "~ is Y~Y _ _ F ___ _ _ _ ,_ _2 _ _ __ _ c_ _ ~ ' _ __- y~_ ~°t[= F'~` Eva - =_-_`~~_ :F a _ - - _ _ _ ~ -= ~ - nG" _ ° s~` :d " fi • ' ~a '~ - ~, _ Y p . < d c _ i yfi i •_ ikl~ ~?SY~Ee `_ a< te r ~ V - ~ - 1 - YF`V~~d ~~ e. 6~i ~o •g`°E oC y ~ " ~eC_F9°~. ~_~ 2 - _ ` :c ' ~' _F -~a "~_ ° ' _ ~8-=` - .yfi " .,, E~ i ,. ;, sap s g ~~az _ =' -a:-: ^ ~-yy a a: ~~ ~ z: <~"., v~-7 2~.~S~m e~~: <°,. _.._.'I e d?X4`•Sw €O eeir~ ."~F ~ 2~~$~2 Y~ ~ ~ ~ `\'111 ~ - _ ti ~I ~ ..._;r pie e Faa -- 1 - -- .` 1JI -'" ~ ~, , o' ~i v~~.k_ g_, y sYy . _ _ o' cc Y , Q r = ~ e _ fi €~_ ~I ~~_ ~~~ ~ ~` € 8 =~E 2 79 ~~ _ i 9 0 F ~ 7 4 ~ i `g~~ • ; `Yo: ~ ~~y~ :° ~ ~ ~ ~s ^ `Y :~ " ~~ I s • ~ ~~ ~ . a: ta= ` s ~' Y ~ [~ ~ ' t;^~~ : - s e aVa..a Y$~ - .ya _ -_ s ? ~~~ _ 2'y ~ ~ gYY j :tie _~s~, iYd _~.. oo _ - i ~~~ _ - -- - ~ _ -1 = -- - z- - i' _ 3n~ _ ~ og _ < - - s g. - f V 5 , ~ - IVII~ ~t~ tJ~~! a¢ I -F< `F ~° E7 _ X 1 _ ' ' < • • c a p i' 'I - i - ~ \ } I I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \I y J~ l ~ l I _ - ~ ii of ! I RE=,L'~:':IJV No. c~Z.L.yU A RF.S GLU^.?ON OF THE C1'PY C0L'4C IL (:P THS-. CITY OF RANCHO SUCAMOSGA, CAL?FGRN I:\, APP R0VI3G CONDITIONAL USE PEAM IT N0. 91-2J FOA THE DEV ELOPM EN'I GP 32 BU?LDi9G5 'TOTALING A PP RO XI M:ITELY 26 B, 907 SQUARE. FEE: AS^ C:OMPRZSED OF A t1T% GF Z9 C'JSTRZAL, MULTI-TENANT, OFF iCE, AND RESTAURANT UEES LN THE I`iDUBTRIAL PAAK DISTRICT (EUBA REA 7) OF THE N DUG^: RIAL AFLEA SPEC LFIC PLnN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST 7.RNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ROCHESTER AVEN VE, ANU MA ALNG FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-011-10, 19, 2i, 25, 27, AND 29. ~• to ls. ,. Masi Conmerce Centar Partners has filed an application for the issuarve of rcn ii tional L'se Permit No. 91-24 as describe3 in the title of this Resolat inn. Hereinafter ,... fh rs Resolut Tor., the subject Cond a Tonal Use Permit request is re Eerred ^to as "the app lira ti.on." this application was s:;bm itt=d rn ron7unct.ion with a T_n tati ve Parcel Map (13845) to subdivide the subject pro oe rty into 31 parcels. 1 ii) Gn t'ne 22nd day of July 1992, the Planning Conm fission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly not i~^ed public hearing on the appl ra ticn .:nd concluded said hear ng on that date. At the conclusion of C'ne pu bl n: hsar .r.q, the 2lanndnq Conmiss ion adopted their res nl ution No. 92-99, _;a reby ap pr ~~: ing the appl:ca *. icn. l:r:i On July 31, 199', the applicant timely appealed the approval of sa.d aesoiut .on No. 92-99 based on cnnfLicts with the following conditions of ~^o:ova 1. (a! Planni :n Cnnd it:on No. 7: Final approval of Vintne r'e Walk acd T:m Tag o' installation; and (b; Pla nninq CondiCion ;ic. 8: Chaffey-Garcia Barn Cnnt;ibu tion; and i_I Pianninq Condition ;:o. 20: Approval of Uniform S: gn Pe^yra ~: ae,9 (d) Enyi~,eerrnq r,~nditrnn No. 2(bl and 2(s)~ Foothill ?^';:evari Nedinn and "lor!h Sr d= Pavement Construct ion; and E'm3iner. r:nc Com:i tion 4n. 2(d ); Interim Dral~a ye ri•,p rov.,n.,nt,: and ~f) Fngi v.e nnq Co nd;tion Nn. 9; De 1e t;.nn nE Traf f.ic SianaL :n-L:r, Yoe ,. ~i':l .~ ~qa; pr~r=_.;,is rtes pn or to thr- adoption of this Resolut wn Lt-t .D5 C??Y CJUtiCiL R'_'SJ LuTI JN 9G. CrJP 91-24-MASI CO ^L^iG 0.('E CENTER ?ARTNG?5 5epte mbee 2, 1992 Pa ae 2 3. Re ec:•yt ion. W',S, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved Sy the .. b( _ocn ;:': n' the City o`. Ranche Cucamonga as follows: 7. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of r;:e L~cts set Fcr t'^. Ln tl^:e Re cit 315, Part A, of this Resolution are true and cn rrect. 2. Based upon substantial avidence presented to this Council &u'tng ,..~ above-re.`.erenced public hearing on August 19, 1992, including wri t`en and n-a: st ell re pc as, to ge :her with public testimony, this Ce uncil hereby spe=:f ica liy finds as follows: ;3) The application applies to property located at tl:e e 0o ti:west corner of Rochester and Foothill flou levards wit'n a streer Eronta ge o`. 1,250 leer along Foot!:ill Bou1_vaz3 and lot depth of 950 Eeet along Rochester Bou l=yard and is presently improved wi tt: the vacant Cowgirl Saloon; ami (b; The property to the north of the subject site is vacant, the property to the sou t'n consists of the Sports Cortip lex which is currently under roost rust ton, the property to the east is the Aggc zz otti winery, and the property tc Cho west is va rant. (ci The property is dent mated "Industrial Park" by ,he -^.'.ostrtai ,l roa Spectf l^ Plan; and f9) '[ha pm jeer requires the demoiiticn of the Cowgirl Saloon, fir. °r1y kno+v as ..~._ LaFOUZCa de store and gas station. ': he structu rc. was l~st:rna :3d 3n Historic Point of L-,terest by the Ci [y Council cn September 1A, 1??1. (_) An Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendmen0 was approved by -.,_ Ctty Snuncil on May 20, 1992, whtrh. modrfied ci rcu la [ion access points alrnt9 Ro:: `:ester Avenue, added "A Utomof.ive Service Court" as a condtttonally pa rmt[ted use and added "guild ing Supplies and Nome Improvement" as a co r.d:oronally permuted use within Subarea 7. ffl The Pla nntng Conmiss ion is beet ro revi.ew smin unique :mF rev-~nevt; .inn shoo l9 'na vr. the opportunity fc rev.ew th? comntssinned pu blir ,rt ~-, ~? ~~-,r er:pra[tve pobl is 9tsn la ys, 6u' the .^.uy staff is Fully capabl°, to e;s at .. PL~nntng Cnrmn tss:on and the rc.Gu+.remen•: for e conso Kant ... not . .n •; s:r7( The tuning of the rnsta ila Cton of th.) Vrn tner's ila lk hard sea pe and 1 t^,d sea p!ma shoo l9 txt ;mmp le. :ed concurre nt.ly with Foor.hi ll. Bnu ie vard ', T,nr n~ernc::^„ Wr [hn safrty nE pedestrians, bur, tnstalLatioe cf the pt pe ••l!ts, s.~•,~s, interpretive panels, ani pia bl tr, art mold be def er r°d to ihe+ t .~mr of U'~er .;nn st. r~;•alnn. z << pT c1Ty couvcl;. RESOi.oTioN No. CVP 91-24-I^.ASi COMME P.CE l'Ei:TER PART:J F.RB September ?, 1992 2a qe 3 (a) The 510,000 contribution to the Chaffey-Garcia Bari was ^g'n.a: b/ imposed by the His Mric Preservation Commission as an important altarna .i ve to other on-site historical imprnwment5 and was not contested by tie anpL cant at the public hearing. (y7 Final approval of Ln if nrm Sryn Programs for such large projec YS is most appropriate with the Commissi or. rather thar, with staf°. (il The requirement of t:^.e landscaped median, together wirh related street improvements north of the proposed ma di an, is necessary rc maintain the safety of oersons traveling along Foothill Boulevard adjacent to C^e proposed project. Fnothi'_1 Boulevard s a majnx arterial and already carries substantial traff in ve lames. Unregulated left-hand turns `. or ingress a-, r? egress, even at the initial ph a_es of the project, would promote an unsafe `saff is pattern. It is therefore necessary for public safety that scch imprcvemen is be ins tailed at. the earliest feasible time. 'jl The existing 1B-inch CMP (corrugated metal pipe) in Foothill Boulevard could be utilized on a temporary basis, if it is cleaned and r?paired, an adequate inlet is lost al ie d, and it discharges to the new ca tr,F. basin nn the south side of Foothill Boulevard. (k) The applicant's request for a reimbursement agreement for one-half of the cost of signal installation if Caltrans permits it to be ins tailed ah this ti me is appropriate. 3• Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this council iiurinq the above-referenced pub l.ic hearing and upor, the specific findings o° .`arts scat forth in naragr aphs 1 and 2 above, this ^_onncil hereby finds and r:nnclu des as follows: fa) That the proposed use is in accord with .he General Plan, the objectives of the Devel.epment Code and the Industrial Gpecif .c Plan, and t'ne purposes of the district in which the site is located. (b) T'nat the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be de t.r imental to the public hea It h, safety, cr welfare nr ma feel ally injurious to prooerti es nr improvements in the vicinity. ic1 That he proposed use complies with earth of the applicable pro visvrns of the Devel cpment Code. 4. Then ^nunsil hereby finds and certifies that the project has hoen re ci ewrd and rn aside red in compliance wiry the Ca Li.fnrnia Environmental quaiery pct of 1970 and, further, this c~?until. finds tyat the application is ... ,,.,,, l.a n'ial r_nmp fiance with the original approval for which the Negative Bee ;arahr nn was iss~.re d. 5. Basw9 upon the findinys and cent Lis ions set forth in paragraphs 1, ?, 3, an9 4 abnv=., r'nis Council hereby approves the application subje r, t. to ea:~h and e••ery can 9i tinn set forth below and in the Etandard Cord itinnL, a"`a c!~,n~1 he rain and inr:n rpnra red herein by this refe ren r,2. 2 (-t D U ^I':Y ,:OJYCIL kE50Lli: ION ^..... CJF 91-23-YASI COriN EFCE CENTEG PART\ERS ~=ot eruer 2, 1952 P3 OP. 3 Plan=i :.g D1VSS10R 1) Pursuant to provisions of Calif orn.a Public Resources Code Section 21789(6), th rs applica!ion shall not he operative, vested, or final, nor >rr it bui Bing permits be issued or a map recorded, until (11 the Notice of Determination (NDD) regarding the associated environmental action rs filed and pos ^_ed wi^_h the Clerk of t're aoa rd of Supervisors of the County of San De rear dino; and (2) any and ell required filing fees assessed pursuant to Ca!rEornia Fish aid Game Code Section 711.6, toge th en with any raqui red handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San Derna rdino. The aFPli ca nt shall provide the Planning Department with a stampeA and conformed ropy of the Notice of Determination together with a receipt showing that all fees have been paid- In the event this app licatinn is determined exempt from such fi li nq fees pursuant to the provisions of th_ California Fish and Game Code, or the gal delines promulgated the reu rd er, except for payment of ar,y :equi red handl mq charge for Ei ling a Certificate of Fee Exemption, this condition shall be deemed null and word. 2) A dra gram provi ding color locations Eor the mylar/canvas canopies shall be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Conan ittee prior to the issuance of builiing permits. 7I A ref le rtive coating shall be applied to the glass nort io ns of those bui ldings which face drive aisles and Koch es ter Avenue. The piupose of the reflective coatir.q s to provide an ~anueness to the glass so that interior sins ge areas will not be visible. 3I Vines plan)-.ed along Lh_ Sprn-is Complex property lscu th of the south property wall) shall he allowed tc carp nd up and over tP.e wall and onto the 6u~idinys in order to dis reu ra qe yra f.f it:i fm1 r,i soften the wa1.1 and bui ld u,qs, if acct p". ab la to the Cnru+u arty and Park Dov^l opmenl. Uepa rtmen t. 2 i-~ D v ^_ITY COUNCIL RESOLVT IJN VJ. CVP 31-23-MASI COMMERCE CENTER P,\RTti ERF. Ssptemb?r 2, 1992 Ps ge `. 51 1'he bu llnose edge for a'_1 buildings wit:: the 4- i:nsh stucco recess sha 11 be reviewed and approved by .he City FLanner prior to the Issuance of building permits. 5I The aPP licant shall orovide a stop? bass along t'ne bottom portion of Coe Bui ld i.ngs 4, 7, and 20 rn chose locations where glass extends all the ~.: ay t, the ground. Detailed drawings sha 11 be revi?wed and aporoved by the City Planner prior to the issuance cf building permits. 71 A revised coot r_pr pia r. for the commissioned public art and the interpretive public displays shall be :e vie wed by the fu 11 Planning Commission. the revised concept plan sha 11 graphically depict how the Vin the r.'s Walk, commiss toned art, and public displays will be c'.a veloped and maintained and how they will Euncti on as a whcle. Final detailed plans s'na11 bP reviewed and approved 6y the City Planner prtor to the issuance of any permits. Inst allatron of the. Vrntner's Walk hardscape and and scaping shall be comp le tad concurrently witF. Footni ll Eoul?vard imorcvemenfs, prior tc the release nE occupancy of any buildings in Fhase I. Installation of the Vintner's Walk trellises, vines, interpretive par.=.1 s, and public art shall be completed prior in the release of occupancy of. bui ldinas in Phase II. In the event pe :-mits have been issued and Phase LI rs substantially under construction prior to the n;cupanry of any bui ldinq in Phase I, ha zdscape and landscaping improvamen [s may b? deferred to be completed, prior to the release of occupancy of any building in Phase ?I. Hi T'ne developer shall coot ribut= 510,000 to th_ :.haffcy-Gar ;.a House tarn project, which will ho nse9 !.n dev=lop a museum/cultural cent?r depicting and exaibit ing Ute agr tcu Ltu ral ^~e ritage cf the area. The City Council may, upon t!:? L:P Ut of the Historic Praservation Comm rssr nn, alloca to funds to another similar type nE pre servatinn pro lr:ct in -lu ding, bur, not naeassarily i. i.mited to, the Hrstcric P ra servation Site and La rd-f3ankinc bind, d~pondin9 ~ipnn the timing of rite ~:nmpLianne Z~l tJW ..; a' Bowan RE;acu^corl r~o. CJP °1-34-M.151 COWQERCE CENTER Pr ATNERE Sep cen:ber ~, 1932 ?aye c with thrs niti ga`ion. :his coneribution st:a 11 be provided prior m the asnan ce of building permits of any phase of the Masi Commerce ~er.ter. 91 Land s,:a ping along the entirety of 9asi Dri v=_ fmm the st dewalk out to the curb face shall be completed prior tp occupancy of the last boil9ing fpr Phase 1. 10) a trash enclosure sita 11 ba provided Eor Eui ldinq 5. 11) The trash enc to sv ce for auild:ng 3 (.Tack-in- The-9nx1 shall be located closer to the buildrn g. 121 If it is determined that the Victory Chapel faci Lily will be located in E3uildi ng 14, it shall be verified in wx'it inq that Parcel 13 will not require parking spaces pn Sunday mot piny (or during the hours of operation for Vic[cry Chapel) so that the proposed reciprocal parking arrangement can b¢ implemented. 13i The st reatscape treatment (i.e., landscape, Eucnitu re, end hard scape) sha 11 comply with the requirements and vuidelines of the Foothill Bou la yard Specific Plan Design Supplement. The detailed Sar.dsrape/irrigation anti street improvemen r, plans shall reflect this requirement to the satisfaction of the Plan r.i ny and Engineering Divisrpns prior to the issuance of 6m Lding permits. h;) d11 Barking spaces fronting Foothill Bou le var3 and Ancheste r. Avecwn sha 11 he screened rh rough the use of berm rny, Low walls, evergreen shrub hedgerows, or a zombi r.a ^_ion thereof, to the sat ~..=.far..t wn of the Planning Division. 7i) Tilerc shall be prnv isinn for the fn ll~,w ing desi gr. .`ea to res .n the trash enclosure to "_he satxsfacti nn of the City Pla nnec: a1 Ar d~,t tecturaliy rn to grated into the design of the ^enter. bl Snpa ra to ne ne.=_r Tian ac aes< that {oNS not rcga:cP opentn9 th= twin doors, to inelude self-ol.osiny pedestrian door. ,Z y ~x .?TY ~'JL^.'~!i RFSO LfI^IOG 4J. CUP 31-24~-;NAEI CO ~iNER^E CEN'LEA ?nRT1E RS September 2, 135"< ?age ~ c; Lar ce enough to ac ror.~moda to two trash bins. d) Aoll-up doors. e) Trash bins with counterweighted Lids. f) Architecturally treated overhead shade u ellis. q) Chain lip:k screen on top to prevent Cras'n from blowing out cf enclosure and ae signed to be hi :den Erom view. 75) 4 uniform ha rds cape and street furni to r_ treatment, inc Lu drug trash receptacles, free- standing potted plants, bike sacks, light hol lar ds, be r, r;1,-;s, etc., shall be utiliz?d fur the project and she 11 be designed to be compatible with the architectural style. Detailed designs she 11 6e submitte3 for City Planner re view and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 171 3rfEx ti shall be removed within 72 hours. 18; nil fueu re 6u11drng pads s'ra t1 be temporarily seeded and rcri gated .for eto sr on co ntrnl. Detailed ola ns shall be included m the landscape and rrri gat inn plans to be sahm fitted for City Planner approval prior to rssuance of bm ldrnq permits. 15) The entire site she 11 be kept free of trash and debris at all times, and in no event shall trash and debris remain for more. than 24 hours. 20) A Um form S: qr, Program shall iw re•ai awed and approved at a Planning Convniss inn worksf:op pryer to the ~.sauance of burldi~q permits. O~i: _i :_;J an d_ Safety Dyr,ions 1) Purvis :o ns she l! he made t.o resn five to .^.he .,atrefa r:;inn of the nurld rng 1)ff rc ral the Eo llnw ing issues relative ro InstaLlation of new ~.ua ils w r,l nsa pcoxrmity in ezrs!.rng yell;: 2 ~-{ J ~ C I'LY COUNCIL RESOL'JTIOY Y0. CUP 91-24-M.ASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTa£RS Septa tuber 2, 1992 Page B a) Structural loads from new walls ;vertical and horizontal) shall r,ot be ail owed to be transferred tc existing walls. b) Ba c4 `.i11 cf gaps created between new and axis tinc walls shall be undertaken so as nor to exceed the design capabilities of existing walls. _, An impermeable surface shall he provided at the top of the eri sting lower wall to craven[ water from penetrating the 6ackfill. d1 +1eep holes shall be added to existi oq wales *_o provide drainage of the backf it 1. Engineerin~D ivis ion: The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications) on the project side of Rochester Ave we shall be undergrounded from the first pole off-site south of the project's south boundary to and including the end-of- line pole just south of Foothill Boulevard, prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. The service to the existing structure on the east side of Rochester Avenue shall be un dergr oun dad acmes Rochester Avenue to the pole on the east side of the stree. t. Services to the existing structures on-si-te from the east side of Rochester Avenue shall be undergr ounded as well. In addition, an in- Lieu fee as oontr ibution to the fature uridergrounding of the utilitiea on the opposite side of Rochester Avenue shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. The fee shall be one-half the diffe rence between the un de rgr ounding coat of tha utilities (el.e ctrica i, except foz 66 IN electrical) nn the opposit=, side of the street mi. n'~is thus= (telecommunications) cn the p ra;ect side times the length from the carter of Foothill BaIIevard to the south project Noun des ry (990( feetl• 2) Foothill Boulevard shall be constructed as fcliows, subje rt to modi.f ication by and approval cf Caltrans, with Phase I: 2 ~1l7z CITY COUNCIL RE EOLVTION NO CUP 31-24^MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS September 2, 1992 Page 9 a) Full impr ovemen Y_s on the south side from Rochester Avenue to the west project boundary including a continuous right turn lane beginning 230 feet west of the Foothill driveway. b) A landscaped median between Rochester Avenue and "B" Street with Left turn lanes to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. If Caltrans does not allow a single segment, in-lieu fees will be required in conformance with Condition 3. c) Thirty-two feet of pavement on the north side of the me diar.• d) The 18-inch CMP (corrugated metal Pipe) in Foothill boulevard shall be cleaned, repaired as needed, an inlet installed with desilting foci li tie9, the north right-o£-way graded to direct flows to th¢ i nee t, and an outlet to the catch bas'_n on the south Bide o£ Foothill Boulevard installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. e) Transitions to existing pavement west of the west project boundary to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Ca 7.Trana• f) The Developer may request a reimbursement agreement for permanent improvements north of the centerline, includlnq half of the landscaped median costs, from future development as it occurs on the north side of the street. 3) An in-lieu fee as contribution Y.o the future construction of the median island within Foothill Boulevard sha 11 be pa i9 to '.he City pr. i.or to the issuance of building permits for phase 1 or approval of the Final Parcel Map, whichever occurs first. The amount of the fee shall be one-half the rust of ti;e median times the length from the west project boundary to a projection rf the westerly nigh t-oE-Way line for "B" Street. If Ca lira ns does not allow ccna traction of the median in rnndi h.inn 2) b), the fee limits shall extend to a projection of the westerly right-cf-way line for Rochester Avenue. r' CIT'! COUNCIL RESOLUTLUN NU. CUP 91-24-MAST COMMERCE CENTER PARTNEAS September 2, 1992 Page 10 4) Rochester Avenue shall be constructed per approved Drawing No. 1431 with Phase 1, unless completed by others. In addition, si dewal:cs, street trees and a conbived bus bay/right turn lane north of the project 3riveway shall be installed. The right turn lane shall begin as close to the eoothill Boulevard intersection as possible. ~) All public storm drains and interior public. street improvements sha 11 be constructed with Phase I. 6) Public street sumo conditions sha 17. be designed as follows: a) Provide an overflow route from "A" Street to the south project boundary and a method for those flows to pass through the perimeter wall in the event of bloeka ge in the catch 6a sins (method shown on the conceptual grading plan has not been reviewed). b) Pravi de an overflow route from Foothill Boulevard to either "B" Street or Rochester Avenue in the event of blockage rn t'ne Foothill catch hasin and provide additional catch basin capacity on Foothr 11 Boulevard to minimize the possibility of blockage to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. c) Provide surface Araina ge easements and drainage acce pion re agreements allowing public water to enter private property from both "A" Street and Foothill Boulevard. 7) The public storm drain in Foothill Bou In vard and "e" Street shall be upsized to acconvnoda to is terim undeveloped Elows from the north side of Foothill Bou In vard, per the final drainage study, m the sa tisfart ion of the City Engineer. The minimum diameter for permanent nu bl is storm d: ain mains is 24 ruches. H) Cnnstru^t. the earthen berm north of Foothill 3oulavard, ae desi yned for the Sports Complex, .~i t'n Phase I, un le sa completed by others. Z4 EB CITY CD UN(:IL RE SO LOTION S0. CUP 91-24-MASI COFLME RCE CENTER PARTNERS Seo~ember 2, 1992 Page 11 9) A traffic signal shall be installed at the rote-section of Foothill Boulevard and •'e" Street with Phase .. The developer may request a reimbursement, agreement for one-half else cost of the signal £rom future development as it occurs on Che north side of Foothill Boulevard. If Cal trots does not allow the signal installation at this time, an in-lieu fee for one-half the cost of the signal shall be paid tc the City prior to the release of occupancy of the first bui ldir.g in Phase I. 10) Parkway improvements along Foothiil Boulevard shail conform to ehe Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Design Supplement, to the satisfaction of the City Planner and City Engineer. 11) An in-lieu fee for one-fourth the cost of constructing special pavers within the Foothill Boulevard/Rochester Avenue ir.te rsection shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance o£ bui ldi.ng permits for Phase i. The fee amount shall be based on the square footage of the intersection. 12) Modify the traffic si goal at the rote rsection of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue as needed to the sa tisEact ion of the City Engineer. 17) A publ is sidewalk easement shall be provided, with an rncroachment!ma in to Hance agreement for the plaques, overhead arcade, and other features south cE the Foothill Boulevard ri ght-of-way between Rochester Avenue and the project driveway. The agreement shall hold the City harmless Eor damage to or liability f rnm privately maintained special features. The agreement shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the Final Parcel Map. 161 All drive approaches shall conform to City S rands rds. Larger radii (up to 20 feet maximum) may be used when rransitiening from a 40-Foot width at Che nyht-of-way to lesser aisle widths on-site, as shown or. the approved plans, for "B" Street driveways in parti culax• Z`tEG iTY CJUNC LL RESOLUTION NO. CUP 91-24-MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS S eptembex' 2, 199'? Page 12 15) "NO Parking/Stopping" shall be posted on all public street frontages. 16) No portion of the "Vintner's Waik," including the seat wall, shall encroach on the Foothill Soul=yard ri yht-of-way. 17i Prov.i de hardscape to the curb in the bus boarding area along Rochester Avettue. 1H) Sidewalk shall cross drive approaches at the z Pro curb face. Handicap ramps are only cequired at street intersections. Cross walks shall conform to City Standards. 19) The areas tributary to Rochester Avenue and the Sports Complex storm drain system shall be adjusted as necessary in the Final nra ina ge Study so that flows will not exceed the capacity of the existing downstream system. 20) The section of "H" Street between ee^oothi 11 enu levard and the 4-way driveway intersection 200 feet south of Foothill Boulevard shall be 56 f?et curb-to-curb, to accommodate four traffic Lanes. Provide a 40 mph transition for [he outer lanes south of the 4-way driveway intersection. 6. This Council hereby provides notice to Masi Commerce Center Pa r.tners that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 109d.6. 7. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to: (a) certify to the adopt ton of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certified copy of this ResoLut ion, by certified mall, ret:u rn-receipt requested, to Masi Conine rce Center Partners at the address ide rtified in Ciiy records. 2yE0 ~,7~, ~~ DEP,4RTMENT OF }~~~~~ ~W'~~~~~~~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAN DAR D CONDITIONS PROJECT#: CULP~ ~I"~4 SU&IECT' _~~ ~p ov77 O.GfL APPLICANT: YMJ 51 l~iV I[ G GLh.'fL/i 7 tz(-(-Ae./.S LOCATION: SIdC Crr>t'tu~tl E Q-0cA.aSl rf Those items checked are Conddbns of Approval APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISIOt: , (714) 9N-1861, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDn10NS: A. Tlme LImMa t. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Plarming Commission, 0 building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced wahin 24 mornhs from the oats of approval. 2. DevelopmerNDesign Review shall b0 approved prior to r r 3. Approval of Ternafne Traq No. is 9rarned subject to the approval of The tlevebper shall commence, participate in, andcorisumnate orcause to he commenced. participated in, or consummated, a Melb•ROOS Comnunity FaglNies District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to linance construclbn and!or mairnenance of a lire statbn fo serve the devabpment. The station shall be bcafed, despned, and built to all specAicalbns of the Rancho Cucamonga Fae Protectbn District, and shall become Inc District's property upon mrrgletbn. The equipment shah be selected by the Distriq in accordance with its needs. In any buibirq of a statbn, the devebper shall comply with all applicable laws and regulatbns. The CFD shad DB IormBO by the District antl the devebper Dy me time recodation of the linal map oocun. 4,socl~mlhic J-/- J-/- J~- JJ- Prior to recortlatbn of the final map or the issuance of buibirg permits, whichever comes tirsf. the applicant shall concern to, or panbyate in, the estaWishmem of a Melb-Roos Community Facilities District for the constnrctbn and maintenance of necessary school faal0ies. However. N any school district has prevbusty established such a Communsy FaulOies District, the applicant shall, in the asemative, consent to the annexatbn of the projeq sde into the lenitory of such existing Distniq prior to the recordatbn of the final map or the issuance of bwbing permits, whichever Domes first. Further, 0 the abetted school district has rot loaned a Melb-Roos Comrtwroty Facileies District within iweNe rtbrnhs from the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of Ue linal map or issuance of W ibing pertnds for said project, this conddbn shall be deemed null and void. '~,, JJ_ SC ]/9i ~~~ `., g l-~y This coMhion shall be waivetl h the City receives notice that the applicant and all afleded '~. school tlistrigs have emend into an agreememto privateryacdomnntlato any aril all school impacts as a resuA of this project. l V 6, Prior to recordafion of the final map or prior to issuance of lwildirp permits when nc map is ~ _/__{_ involved, wriiten certllicatbnfromlhe affected waterdistrict that adequate sewer and water I facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the Depanmem of Community Devebpmem. Such letter must have been issued by the water ~, d~strid within 90 days prror to final map approval in the caseof subdivisbn orprbrto issuance of permits in the case of all other residemial projects. B. Slte/Development / t. The she shall be devebped and maintainetl in accordance with the approved plans which , JJ- include she plans, archhedural elevatbns, exterior materials and cobra, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Divison, the condhbns comained herein, Devebpmem Code regulations, arxf SArLA~j'Yl4.f Spechic Planent ~le~6emmnniy. 2. Prbr to any use of the project she or business activity being commenced thereon, all JJ_ Condhions of Approval shall be completed to cite satisfaction of the City Planner. 3. Occupancy of thefatllhy shallrgt commenceumil suchlirtte as all Uniform Buibirfg Code and J-/_ State Fire Marshall's regulatbrts have been complied wAh. Prbrto occupancy, plans shall be submihed to the Rancho Cucartlonpa fire Protection District and the Buibup and Safety Division to show compliance, The lwilding shah be impacted for conpliance prbr to occupancy. _~ a. Revised she plans and building elevatbns incorpcratirp all Condilbns of Approval shall be JJ- submmed far Ciry Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. _~ 5 All she, grading, landscape, irrgatbn, and street irtyrovemem plans shasbecoordinated for , --/~- consistency prior toissuance otany pemwts (suds as grading, tree rerttoval, encroachmem, ~ twilling ,eta), or prior to final map approval in the case of a astom lot subdivisbn, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. / 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Devebpmem l J_l- Code, all other applicable C'Iry Ordinances, and appBCaDle Community Plans or Specific Plans in eNect at the tinge o1 Bulking Permit issuance. 7 A detailed onshe IgMirp plan shall De reviewed and approved Dy the City Planner and J~_ SherM's Department (989-6611) prbr to the issuance of buildup pennhs. Such plan shall indicato style, illumination, bcation, height, and metfgd of shielding so as not to adversely acted adjacern properties. _~ 8. H ro cemralized (rash receptades are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units J-J- wdh all receptacles Shielded Irom puWb view. _ / 9 Trash receptacle(s)arerequiredandshallmeetCdystaMards, The finaldespn,bcations. -J-/_ and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to Ciry Planner review and approval prior to issuance of twildirp permits. v' t 0 All ground-mourned utilhy appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall J-J__ be braced out of public wew and adequately screened through the use of a combination of i, concrete or masonry walls, berming, andror IaMSCapirg to the salisfactbn of the City ~~, Planner. SC 7/91 cup .~:~.. 41.~y 1 t. Street names shall be suomited for CAy Planner review and approval in accordance with ~ JJ- the adopted Street Naming Policy prbr to approval of the final map. I 12. All build"%] numbers and IndIVIdUBI Units Shall be id0ntdie0 in a Clear and ConCISe manner ~~~, _/_/_ Including proper Alumination. ' t 3. A tletailetl plan indicating trail widths, maximum sbpes, physical mMnions, fenprg, and JJ- weed comrol, in accordance wAh City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City I Planner review and approval priorto approval and recordationof Ne Final Traq Map and prbr to approval of street improvemem arW grading plans. Devebper shall upgrade and construct all trails, including lancing and tlreinage devbes, in conjunction with street improvements. t4.The Covenants, Condttbnsarb Restrictions(CCSRs)shah rotprohibitmekeeping of equine I J-l- animalswhere zoning requiremems forthe keepng of said animals have been met. IMividual lot owners in subdivisbns shall have the option of keeping said animals wittaut the necessity of appealing to Doanis of tlirectors or tomeowners' associatbns for amendmems to the CCBRs. __ 15. The Covenants, CondAions, and Restrictions (CC8R5) and AniUes o1 Inmrporation of the JJ- Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning ant Engineering Divisbns and the CAy Anomey. They shall be recordetl concuvemly wAh the Final Map or prior to me issuance of W ildirg permits, whichever ocare lust. A recorded copy shall be provided to the Ciry Engineer. I 16. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shah be permanemty maimained bythe property _/_/_ owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to tfte City. Proof of this landscape maimenance shall be submited for CAy Planner and Chy Engineer review and i~ approval prior to issuance of building pennAS. i __ t 7. Solar access easemems shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or ~~ JJ_ dwelling unit shall have the rgM to receive sunlpm across ad)acem bts or units for use of 1, a solar energy System. The easemems may be contained in a Oedaratbn al Restrlabns for the subdivision which shall be recorded oorqunemry with the recordation of the final map or issuance of permits, whichever comas first. The easemems shall prohibit the casting of shadows by vegetatbn, structures, fixtures or arty otMr object, escepl for utility wires and similar objects, pursuant to Devebprtlent Code Sedbn 17.08.060•G-2. 1 e. The project contains a desgnated Historical landmark. The sNe shall be devebped and maintained in accoroance wAh the Historic LarMmark Atleratbn PermA No. _ Any lusher modAications to the si!e indudirq, but rbt limded to, exterior allerati0nsend/or imerbr alterations which aHaathe exterbrof the buildings or structures, removal of landmark Trees, demolAbn, rebcatbn, reconstructbn of huibirgs or sirucures, or changes to the site. shall require a mod8batbn to the Historic LaMmaM Atteratbn Permit subject to Historc Preservation Conxnissbn review and approval. C. Bulltling Deslpn t An atternahve energy system i5 required to provWe domestic hot water for all dwelling unbs and for neahng any swimming pool or spa, unless other aflemative energy systems are demonstrated l0 6e of equivalem capacdy and efficiency. All swimming pools installed al the time of initial devebpmem shall be supplememed wAh solar heating. Details shall be included in the bwbirg plans and shall t>e submAted for CAy Planner review and approval pray to the issuance of bathing pertnAS~ ~~- ~~f__ 2 All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded weh architectural ~ ~... Veatmenl, detailing and increased delinealbn of surface treatmem subject to CAy Planner ! review and approval poor to issuance of building permes. SC 1/eI CuP C.+md~um ~. - 3. Standard path mver plans for use by the Homeowners' Associatbn shall be submMed for ', JJ_ C1y Planner and 8uikfirg Ohbial review and approval prior to issuance of building pertncs. i 4, All roof appurtenances, inducting aircorW%bners and other roof mounted equipment and/or I -I-J- projedbns, snail Deshielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent progenies and streets as required by the Planning Divisbn. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated wdh the building tlesgn and constructed to the satisladan of the CHy Planner. Details shall be inducted in building plans, D. Parking and Vehbular Access (InOlt.ate drttalla on building plena) t. All parking bt landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of B teal ant shall J-J- cornain a 12-inch watlk adjacern to the parking staN (including wnb). 2. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavemem across drwlatbn aisles shall be J~- provided througnoutthe devebpmeM to mnnect dwellingsNnits/buiklirgswkhopen spaces/ plazayrecreatbnal uses. ~L 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, JJ_ ernrances, ant exxs shall be strped per City standards. _ 4, All uncs shall be provbetl wish garage door openers c driveways are lass than 1B feet in J-/_ depth from back o1 sidewalk. 5. TheCovenanls, Condiliorts and Restrictbns shall restrict the storage of recreational vehbkts -J-~- onthis site unless they are the principal scarce of transponatbn for the owner and prohibit parking on interior cirwWtbn aisles other than in designated viscor packing areas. s. Plans for any sewMy gates shall be suWnilted for the CIry PWnner, City Engineer, and J-/_ Rancfto Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of lwikfing permits. i E. landscaping (tor publley maintained Isrrdal:apa aroma, nbr to 9acYlen N.) _~t. Adelailed landscape antl irrigatbnplan,incltxling sbpe plarging and model home landscap- J-J- irg in the case of residential devebprtreM, staW be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review afM approval prbrto the issuanceot building permits or prior final map approval in tM case of a astom bt subdivision. 2. ExistinglreesrequiredtobapreseNedinplac~shagDeprotededwilhaconatnwtbnbarrier JJ- in accardarice wchthe Municipal Code Section t 9.08,110, and w rated onthegradlrq pans. The bCatibn 01 IhOSB Trees 10 be prB9BNed in plebe and neW bCatbrl6 fCf UanaplaMed InB05 shall De shownon the detailed landscape pWro. TTe applicant shallfolbw a0 of ttre arborist's recommendatbns regarding preservation, transplarning antl Inrtxning methods. __3. Aminimumol treespergro55acre,cortgrisedofinelolbwirgsize~,shallbeprovided JJ- wAhintheprojed: %-48-inch box or larger, %-3&inch box or larger, %- 2a- inch box Or larger, _ ^/, - 1S-galbn, and _%- 5 galbn. _ a A minimum of % of trees planted within the project shall be specimen sae Trees - J_J- 24-inch box or larger. __~ S Within parking bts, Trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-galbn tree foe every three J-J- parkug stalls, 5ufliaeM to shade 50 % of the parking area at soWr nddn on August 21. 'i SC 2; 91 ~_6. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adlacem to and along structures eta rate of one tree per 301inear teal of buibirg. ~,7. Allprivate skpebanks Sfeetorless in venicalheghl and of 5:f orgreatersbpe, but lessthan 2:1 sbpe, shall be, at minimum, ingated and landscaped wdh appropriate ground cover for erosbn control. Slope planting required by this seabn shall include a pemanent rogation system to be installed by the devebper prbr to occupanq. I F fyPPUCh dE V 8. Allprivatesbpesinezcess of Sfee?, but lessthan8 feet inverticalhegMand of 2:l orgreater sbpe shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosbn control and to soften Iheir appearance as folbws: one 15-galbn or larger size tree per each 150 sq. h. of sbpe area 1 •galbn or Wrger size shrub per each 100 sq. h. of sbpa area, and appropriate ground cover. In addNlon, sbpe banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater sbpe shall also include one 5-galbn or larger sae tree per each 2W sq. h. of sbpe area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften ant vary sbpB plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent inigatbn system to be installed by the devebper poor to occupancy, IF RPP4cAIXF. 9. For single family residential devebpment, all slope pWMirg ant ifngatbn shall be coMinu- ousty maintained in a healthy and Ihrfving cordNbn a/ the devebperurNil each individual una is sold and occupietl bythe buyer. Prrorto releasing oeratparwy forttaseuntts, aninspection shall be coMUCled M the Planning Division to delamYne that they are in satisfactory conditbn. _~ 10. For multi-famiy residential and non-resitlential devebpment, property owners are respon- sible for the continual maintenance of all IaMSCaped areas on-site, as weN as contiguous planted areas within the public rghlal-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept tree from weeds and debris and maintained in a healthy and mr!ving cordNion, and shall receive regular pn:ning, fertilizing, crowing, and trimmirtq. Am/ damaged, dead, Diseased, or decaying plats material shah be replaced wthin 30 tlays from the dale of damage. 11, Front yartl landscaping shall Ee required per the Devebpment Cade and /or . This requirement mall be in aWition to the required / street trees and sbpe planting. _~! . 12. The linal desgn of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and Sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape pWns and shall be subjeq to City Planner review and approval and coordinafad lorconsistency w9narry parkway landscaping planwhich may be required by the Engineering Division. V 13. Special landscape IeaNres such as ntourdirg, alluvial rote, specimen size frees, mearder• ingsdewalkg (with horizontal Chargel, and ksensNied lardawglg, is required abng 16 Larx Iv andi ationa slams nB Iretl to beirlstalled wlthlntfle DNC Mof•wa on .-~ scap'ng rrg Y qu' w rig Y the perimeter of this project area shall be Continuously maintained by tM devebper. ,)~ 1 S Atl walls shall be provided with decorative IreatmeM. If boated in public maintenance areas, the desgn shall be coordinated with the Engineering Divison. ~[__ 16. Tree maintenance cnteria shall be devebped and submNted for Clty Planner review and approval prior to issuaroe of bulbirg permlts. These cntena shall encourage the natural growth charaderislbs cl the selected Iree species. - ~ 17 Landscaping and irrigation shall be desgned to conserve water Through the principles of xenscape as defined in Chapter t9.16 of the fiancho Cucamonga Munbipal Code. ~/-J~_ J~.__ JJ- Jam. ~_/ .J-J__ ~J_ J-J- I J J- ~-! ~~ J__,'-_ S(' 1/91 F. Slgn/s V t. Thesgnsintlicatedonthe submited plans are conceptualonly and rata partol this approval. Any 5gns proposed for this devebpment shall compy whh the Sgn Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division priorto installatbn of any sgns. -~, 2, AUndorm Sgn Program forthis devebpmeM Shall be submitted for City Planner review ant approval poor to issuance of buikling parmes. 3. Directory monument sgn(s) shall be provided for apartment, condomlmum, or townhomes prior to occupancy and shall require separate applicatbn ant approval by the Planning Divisbn prior to issuance of building permits. G. Environmental 7. The devebpershall provide each prospective twyer written notice of the Fourth Strest Rock Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the Ciry Planner, prbr to accepting a cash deposit on any propeny. 2. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special Studies Zone forthe Red Hill Fault, in a standard fornat as determined by the Cey Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on arty property. 3. The deveoper shat) provide each prospective buyer written rotice of the Foothill Freeway project in a standard format as determined by the C6y Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 4. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The final report shall 0acuss the level of interior raise adenuatbnto bebw 46 CNEL, the Wilding materials and construgion technquesprovided, arW A appropriate, verHy the adequacy of the miligatbn measures. The building plans will be checked for coMOrmance with the mitgation measures contained in the final report. H. Other Agenclea t. Emergency samndary access shallbe provided in aocoroargewMh Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Standards, ~~ 2. Emergency access shall Cs provided, makrtenance tree and clear,a minimumof261eetwide at all times during wnstmctbn in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Potecton District requirements. 3. Prbr to issuance of building pemrts for combustible constructbn, evidence shall be submnletl to the Rancho Cucamonga Firo Proledgn District that temporary water suppty for lire proteclbn is available, pending corrgletbn of required fire protection system. a. The applicant shall contaq the U. S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and bcatgn of mail boxes. MuMi4amdy residemial devebpmeMS shall provide a solid overhead strudme for mail boxes with adequate IgMirg. The Iinal bcatbn of the mail boxes and the desgn of the overhead slrucNre shalt be subjent to City Planner review and approval prgr to the issuance of Wiltling peones. GAP J~- J_J__ J_/_ -1J_ I ~ ~/-J- I JJ- -/_J_ J-l- J~- J-/_ JJ 5. For pnolegs using septic tank facilities, written certiricatbn of acts abilM J ' pt y, including all - ---.-.. supportive iMormatbn, snap W obtained from the San eernardirq Coumy Departmem of i Envvonmemal Heahh and submitted to the 8blldirg Olticial prior to the issuance of Septlc ~, Tank Permits, ant prgr to issuance of W tltling pemits. SC 3/91 GU P Comdmon Ono APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY GIVISION, (714) 969-itW3, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. She DevebpmeM _~! 1. the applicant shallconply wilhthe latest adopted Unilortn Building Code, Uniform Mechari- J-~- cal Code, Unilonn Plumbing Cade, Natbnal Elactrb Code, and all other applicable codas, ordinances, and regulatbns in effect at the fime of issuance of relative permits. Please comas the Buibing and Safety Divisbn for copies of the Code Adoptbn Ordinance and applicable handouts. __ 2, Prbr to issuance of buibing permfts for a new residential dwelling una(s) or mapr addebn J-/- to existirg unil(s),the applicant shelf pay devebpmentlees at the established rate. Such tees may include, but era not limned to: City Beautdicatbn Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Systems Devebpmern Fee, Permit and Plan Checkup Fees, arW School Faes. 3. Prior to issuance of building permxs for a new convnercial or industrial development or J_/_ adtlitbn to an existing development, tree applicant shall pay devebpmeM fees at the ' established rate. Such fees may incude, Dut are rat limited to: Systems Devebpmenl Fee, Drainage Fee, School Feas, Permit and Plan Cheddrp Fees. 4. Street addresses shall be providetl by the Buildup Official, ahertracVparcel map recordatbn and prior to issuance of huibirp pennss. J. Exlstlnq Structures t. Provide CAnfpliartce with tree Unrtonn BuiWirp Code for tree property line clearances I _.J-/_ considering use, area, and fire-resislfvenese of ezistirp buildups. 2. Existing buibings snail be roads to comply with coned Wibirp and zonirp regulations for ' J_l- the imended use or the dribirp shall be demolished. 3, Existing sewagetlisposalfacilitiesshallDeremoved,liiledanNorcappedtowmplywiththe J~- Uneonn Plumbirp Code and Uniform Buildup Code. 4. Underground on-site utilities are to be baled and shown on buiMlrp pWns wbmided for ~~- buibinq permit application. K. Gratl/trig _ / t. Gradirp of tree wbjed property snail be M accordance wuh ttfe Uniform Buibirg Code, C'ey JJ- Gradirp Standards, ant accepted gradirp pradkea. The final gradirp plan shall be m substantial mMormance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified erpineer licensed by the State of CalMomia to --~~- pertorm such work. ~. 3 The tlevebpment i5 bated within the soil erosion control boundaries: a Soil Disturbance J~- Permrt isrequired. Please contact San Bernardino County DepanrlleM of Agrfcuhure a1 (714) 387-2711 for pemrt applicaton. DocumeMatbn of wch permit shall ba wbmided to the City prbr to the issuarce of rough gradirp permN. 4. A geobgbal repon shall be prepared by a qualified erpineer or geobgist ant submiaed at I JJ- the hme of applicaton br gradirp plan check. _ ~._5, Thefinalgrading plans shall be completedand approved prbrto iswartce of buiding permAS, ~ J-J-_ SC 1191 __::-CUP f/-14 6. As a custom-bt subdivisan, the Ioliowing regwrements snail be met a Surety snail be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing cortnletbn of all on-she ----- drainage iacuities necessary for dewatenng all parcels t0 the sahsfaotan Oi ine 8mbeg and Safety Divisbn prarto tinalmap approval and prbrl0 the lssuanceoi gratlirg permits. ~, o Appropriate easemens br safe tlisposal of drainage water that are coMucted onto ~ ~-J- or over adjacern parcels, are to De delineated aM rewrdetl to iM satisfactbn of the Buibing and Salary Division prior to issuance of gradirq and Wilding pennns. c. On-site drainage inprovemerns, necessary for dewatenng and protecting the subdivided ~ J-''- properties, are to be Installed prior to issuance of Wilding permits for construction upon ' any parcel that may be subject to drainage fbws ernenrg, leaving, or wnhin a parcel relative to whkh a building pertnd is reQUested. d. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Suibirg and Safety ~-r- Divtsbn lorapproval prbr to issuance of W Xdirg and grading permits. (This may be on an IfICre RMrilal or pd R~OSnB basls.l e. All sbpe banks in excess o1 Sleet in venicai Miphl snag W seeded wile native grasses ~; J_J_ or plarned wen groundwver for arosbn Wrerol upon Canlplelbn q 9redkW or some other '' anemative method of erosion comnol shaM!» mntplNed a the satislaclbn of the Barbing ~ Ollbial. In adddion a pennanem irrgatbn system shaX be provided, This requiremern does rot release tM appicanudeveoper from r»mpNanca weh tM sbpe plarnirg 'i requiremerns of Section 11.09.010 I of iM Oevebpmem Code. APPL!CAN7 SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DNISION, ptq YSFta62, FOXI COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDRIONS: L. Dedkatlon erW VMku4r Aduu t Rgmsot-way and easements snail be Oedicite0 b tM Clry for aX imarbr puWk streets, ~~ -/.-.'- wmnunny irotls, public paseos, pubkc WrMecape areas, strati trees, and WOIb Oramage IacrlXies as shown on tM plans anNOr lemalive map. Private easemens for ran-pufNk IacdXies (p055-b1 drainage, brat leader Veils, etc.) SItaN W reserved as dawn On IM plans andror tentative map. 2. Dedicaton snarl M made of iM losowirq rigmsot•way on tM psrinMer streets -~-~'- (measure0 from strati GmeriiMl: 7~0 total iNt on F~~ $Q+tRn Us-f~ ~•~!{ total leer on ~oclAO s ter Ave t~ tgal Isar on total feet on 3 An irtewcable ol7er of dedicalbn for loot wide roadway eaeemam Snell be made ~. - lor an private streets or dews, __ 4 Non-venralar access shah be r7edicated to tie City Ia the fopdwing streets: _-..-__ _~ S Rectpmcal access easemerns shall be provged erraunrg access to all paruls by CCBRs or by deeds and shall W recordetl conourromly wnn tM map or prbr to IM Issuance of "uutlrg permds. where rip map is mvolvstl, Sri 1,91 -- ~Q9.1-L`I _~c Frrvatedrainageeasen+ents brcross~bt Drainage=_nallbe pro~beC anC Snail Ce oe~~reat?c _~ - or note0 on tree line! map, 7 The lnal map snail clearly Delineate a 10-loot minimum omging restrgtgn area on tree - - - neighbonnq lot aDpining the zem lot line wall an0 contain Ine folbwrtg language' 9.hVe nereby dedicate fo Ine City o! Rancho Cucamonga tree ngM ro prohibit tree conslmCgn of (residenfra0 buildings (or Omer structures) wihin those areas designated ', On rhB map as budding /BahlL7ibn areas.' ' A maintenance agreement Shall also be graMedlrom eacn bt tb the adjacent bt lnrough the ~, CCBR's e. All existing easements tying within luture rgMSCI-way shall De Quitclaimed or delineated on'. ~'~- ;ne final map. _~ 9 Easemerns for public sidewak5 aM/or Street trees Waved outside the public rgM~ol-way - _~- shall be dedicated to the City wherever tney encroach orno Actuate properry. _ ~ 10. Addhional street ngM-ol-way Shall be dedbaletl abnq rpM 1Um lanes, to provide a ntlnimum '~l ~rJ- of 7 feel measured from tM face of ar09. M afb atljiCeM sidewak is used abnq tM r1gM j ruin lane, a paralMfl street tree malMenaflCe easemem shah Ds provided. n Thadevebpershall make squad tasneMOn to acquire the raopired o8•see propsMinterests I JJ- necessary to construct Ms required pudic irrpNVenlerM, and Mhe/she should tail to do so, ~. tree devebper snail, at least 120 days prior to wbmMl710l 1M final map for approval. enter into an agreement to nArryMfte Iha improvemeMS pursuant to GovemmaM Code Section 684f2 at such time asthe City aoQUirestMproperry xMeresLS requiredtorthe Mnprovements. ~~ Sucre agreement shall provide br paYmsM by tIN dwebper o1 ant dusts Mwtirte0 by the Csy to aoqunetM OB-sdepropeM nyeresls required inconltegbnwithlM SUtldivisbn.Secunry rot a ponion of tMSB costs shall be in the lone W a cash dspoaM b the amount given in an appraisal report odained Dy tM devsbpar, at dwebpefs cost. The appraiser shall nave Deere approved by the City prior to commencartMM of tM appraisal. M. Street Improvements t All pudic irtprovertHnts (iMeMr straeb, drainage hciNlks, commundy trails, paseos, ~l_J- IandSCeped irsii, e1C.) slbwn on rile plats afld0r teMatrve map Shag be COf151NdB010 Chy Standards. IMerbr street irtprovertNMS shall inGtAe, Out are rat Mhated to, cuA and goner, AC pavement. drive atpproacnes, sidewaks, street MAIMS, and slroat tees. 2. A rtxnlmum of 28- loot wke pevemeM, wehin a 10 Moot wide dedicated rpMCf-way shall be JJ_ -- constructed Iq all hats-eeGf0rt ftrNle. 3 Cdnetrlld d1e IOlbwirM) peMttater streM Irtproverront3 Mlplualrq, Dul riot limited 10' J~_j _ 5'(RELT vAME CfIRBa Gl1TIER AC. PVSt1' SIDE WAIJ( DRIVE APP0. SIRECf IICHIS J17ffEf 1REPA COSOA. MED TRAIL ISUND D'IT1fft '~,~ (~~rr~1 OO'TI~LI V/ / C {Z.orlo S~Ier / / L / / / e SC 1191 Nolen, ;al Metllan island inclutles ;aMSCaping antl vgalion on meter b; Pavemer.; IeCOnSINCIgO arW Ovelldye will b8 tlalermined tlUfifp plan Check. G; It 50 marked, sloe- walk shall be curvilinear per STD 303. (tl) II so marked, an in•lieu of consirualon lee shall M provldetl for this Rem. (e~ r'aL.F ila.rn lruw •Fo/ AJ' Jt wa.,I T-~-~_- 0 Implovemenl plans and COr1atNCllon: __Gt1P 4f-ty a. Street improvement plans including street trees arW street IpMS, prepared by a regis- ~~i ~~- tered Civil Engineer, shall Da submstetl to ant approved by the Cay Engineer. Security i shall be posted antl an agreemem executed to IM eatiatagbn of IM City Engineer antl ~' IM GNy Attorney guarameeing complelbn of the public enact private street improve- ments, prbr to final nwp approval or iM issuance of driitlirq permNS, whicMver occurs ', first. b. Prior to any work Mire penormel in public rpMcl•way, lees shag be paid artd a ~~. _J~_ construabn pemte sMll De obtained from Me City Erginears ONlcs in addilbn to any other permts repaired. c. Pavemem striping, markup, IraNic, street name algnNq, arM imaropnMUY corttluN shall De Installed to tM satgfapion of the City Engkteer. tl. SignalconduNwdhpull bozessMllWinstalledon arty nnv COrotnx:tbnor reconatluctbn of mapr ,secondary or colkcYOr etreela which xNeraect with o1Mr major, secondary or colygor streets for future traffic squab. Pus bones shNl W q+bad on lxxh sides of iM street at 3 feet outsae of BCR, ECR or any atMrbcubm approval by IM Ciry Erpineer. Notes: (1) All pull bones shall W No. 6 unbsa OtMnvisa specified by iM City Engineer. (2) CorxluN shall W 3-xrcn gaNan¢al steal with puNrope. J~_ JJ J_l__ e. Wheel cnax ramps sMll W irtstaNal on aN buroomers Oi inlsrseuYbrls per Ciry --~-~- Standards or as diractetl by iM Cdy Erfgktser. ' r. Existing City roads reQuiring conatnrQion aMN remain open to traflb at all times wNn ~! -~'-J- adeguala dolours dump WMiNdbn. A etfNi doeUn pemM maybe repukal. A cash I depoan sMll W provided 10 cover fM I]D6t O1 pradkrp alll paving, wfkcft sMM W reWrgal upon conpNtbn of tM raratnlGion to tM smMagbn d the Ciry Ergmeer. '~ g. Cori:emralaldralnegelbwssheNnotsousidewaere. Undersidewakdrains shall M ~~ J~_ IrLStaNal to CNy SuMarde. sxl;eq br sinQb lankly bts. n. Nartdicap aooese ramp daspn sMN W as spelaled b1'tM CNy Enpneer. I J-l- 1. Street names anaxWapproval try the City PbrxferpMrto submNtal lorlirst plancttedc. I J_,'_ __ 5. Street Ingrovsment plans per CNy StuWarW la >r private streets aftaq W provided for I, J_,'_ review ant approval by tM Cey Erpineer. Prior to arty wont Wing perbrtned on the pn• i vats streets, teas sMN W paid and oorotruclbn permNe ehaN W abUirtal from iM Cny ~, Erplnesrs Office m allilbn to arty otMr pemwe rpuiral. 6 Street Yeas, a minimum of 15yalbn size or larger, shah W inslalial per CNy Standaros in ~ -J_ - accordance wish iM CNy's steel tree program. SC 7/91 --s~uP 41-t~f 7 Intersectan line of sAe desgns shall be rerewetl by the Cny Engineer for cenic:~^:ance n t^ ~^~ adopted policy a On cellNCtor or larger streets, lines of sgM snail be plotted for aA protect Imersectwns. -- - Includirg driveways. walls, sgns, and sbpes shall 6e bcatetl outsge Ina lines of sgnt. Landscaping and other obstructrons wah~n me lines ct sight snail be approved by the CAy Engineer. i b. Local residemial street imersedgns Shell have their noliceabAAy improved, usualty by ~ /__ moving ihe2~r CbsBSi Street irBBS On Gaon Side awayfromth0 street and placed ins street '' - ueeeasement. e A permA shall be obtained Irom CALTfiANS for any work within the folbwing ~igMObway~ ~I'I ~~- ~oo7'FIILL gpt>L EI/den 9, All public improvemems on the lolbwing streets snail be operatbnalp cortglate prior to the ~-'- issuance or buiklirg pertruts: I N. Publle 1lbintenanu Ants ~~ t A separate set of undscape art0 irtgatbn plans per Ergineenrg Public Works Standards snail Be wbmAted to the Cily Engineer for review and approval poor to lnal map approval or issuance of lwildirg pertnils, whichever occurs first. TM lolbwinq landscape parkways, medians. paseos, easements, calls, or otMr areas are required to be annexed into the Landscape Maimenance CiatricY: F~o-nl u^L Bdu~EVAa MCAfAN J-/- ~2 Asgned consem and waivertorm to pin arglorlorm tM appropdale Landscape and Lighting -J-./_ ~istripts Shall be tiled wdh the CAy ErtpAtear prior to lnal map approval or iswartce of bulging permits whchever occurs first. Formation costs shall W home by the deveoper. ~3 All required puhlicWMSCaf„n9 and irrigation systems shallbe COMintpusly maimained by the '~ ~/~- developer umA accepted by the City, '~ 4 Parkway Wndsc2pirq on the lolbwinp atrearys) dull coMOrm to Me resuaa of firs respective ~, J-/~ BeautAicatgn Master Plan: '. O. Onlnaps and Fbed Comrol ~_ 1 Tne projsQ (or ponbns tMrsol) i3 bcatad wahin a Flood Hazard Zone; therelore, Ibod '. ~-i- proteuYion meaaros shah W provgad ae CenAIW M i registered Civil Ertpinear arq '~. approved W Ma City Ettgkuer. 2. It shall be tM devebpens rssponsidlNy to nave tM CurtsM FIRM Zone ~! _/_ ~_ desgnation removed Irom tM Protect ans. The devebpeYa snpirwer sMll prepare all necessary reports, plans, ah4 hydrobpiahydrwlb abu4tbrro. A CAndAbnal Letter of Map Rewsgn ICLOMR) shah W oWalned Irom FEMA prbr ro IAgI map alpprovat or ' Issuargs of GlilOing permits. whbMwr oaura first. A Lttttr of Map Rwiebn (LOMR) shall be Issued by FEMA pMr to occupancy or irrprovemeM acceptance, wnicttwar occurs lirst 3 A final drainage study shall be wbmMUd to and approved by tM CAy Engineer prgr to final _.. map approval or the issuance of 6ulidirg permits, whicftever occurs lint. NI drainage IanlNes shall be inslalle0 as required by the CAy Engineer. SC 1/91 v-zy a A pennrt !rom the County Fbotl Control D stns is regwretl for work within 9s ngnt at-way 5. Trees are prohibeetl witnin S lest of the outsde diameter of any public storm tlrain pipe / measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. V 6. Public storm drain easemems shall De graded to corney ovenlows in the event of a bbdcage in a sump catch basin on the publie street. P. Utllitka _~ t Provide separate utility servbes to sacn parcel incWdirg sanaary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and calla N (aliunderground) in aaoroance wsh the Utilay Standards. Easemems shall oe provided as requted. 2 The davebper shall be responsible for tM rebcatbn of eaistirg ulilaies as necessary. ~_ 3. Wafer antl sewer Plans shall he desgned arM constructed IO meet Me requiremems o! the Cuwrtgrga County Water District (CCWD), RartcM Cucanarga Fire Protection District, and IM Environmemal Health Departmem of tM County of San Bemardirto. A letter of compliance fromtM CCWD is requited prbr to final map approval or iaauance of permas, whicMver occurs lint. a. GaMnl Rpulremartb and Approva4 t Tne sepante parcels comairted wahin tM project Doundariea shah be bgally comdned in10 one parcel prior to iswance of building pennaa. 2. An easemem for a pim uss ddveway shall W provided prior to final map approval or issuance of driklirg pemtils, whicMvar Down Iirst, for: J. Prior to approval of tM firN ,nap a deposit sMN be posted wiM the City covering the estimated cost of aPportbrknq tM assasamenn under AaaasameM District among IM newly created paroNa. a Etnvarba/San SevaiM Aroa RegbMl MairaM, Secondary RegbMl, anO Master PWn DralnagB Fees sMll W {will poor to IpW map approval or prbr to building permd issuance it rq map is invoNad. 5. Permits snail he odairwd from tM bNawing ageneiaa br wak wiMin tMk rigMOl-way: 6 A sgned mMHa arld waNar form to join ardor brio tM l.aw Enlorcamanl COmmunsy Faalaisa DNtrkl Shah M BNd with tM City Eltgirtaar prgr t0 NMI rMp approval or iM lssuana d buil0lrq parrrrtiu, wnicMver Dean INat. Formation coati a1taN w home q tM Devebpel. 7 Prar to rinalixatbn of any davabpmenl phase, sulliriarM irttprovamanl p4M sMa Oe com- pleted beyond tM phase boundaMS to assure secondary access and drainage proladbn to the satlslactlon of tM CNy Erginear. PMae DeunduNS shah corteeportd to bt Noes shown on the apWuveO nntatne map. J-/- J~- -/-/- J~- JJ_ JJ_ JJ_ i J~- J~- J~_ J^r St 3/91 CITY OF RAtiCHO CliCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 2, 1992 T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Michael 0. Long, Project Resident Engineer SUBJECT: ANARD AND AUTHORIZATION FOR EXECUTION Of CONTRACT FOR HAVEN AVENUE REHABILITATION DROJECT, FROM FOURTH STREET TO FOOTHILL BOULEVARD FOR THE AMOUNT OF 5866,872.36 (f788,065.78 PLUS 10$ CONTINGENCY), TO BE FUNDED FROM SYSTEM$ DEVELOPMENT FUND, ACCOUNT N0. 22-4637-8936 ANO FAU FUND, ACCOUNT N0. 24-4637- 8838 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept all Sid proposals as received, award and authorize execution of contract for Haven Avenue Rehabilitation Project, from Fourth Street to Foothill 9oulevard, to the lowest responsive bidder, Silvia Construction, for the amount of 5788,065.78 and authorize the acting Administrative Services Director to expend 5866,872.36 (5788,065.79 plus 10$ coniingency) to be funded from Systems Development Fund, Account No. 22-4637-8936 and FAU Fund, Account No. 24-4637-8838. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Per previous Council action, bids were solicited, received and opened on July 29, 1992, for the subject project. Silvia Construction is the zpparent lowest responsive bidder with a btd amount of 5188,065.78 (see attached bid summary). The Engineer's estimate was 5953,129.65. Staff has reviewed all bids received and found them to be complete and in accordance with the bid requirements. Staff has completed the required background investigation and finds all bidders to meet the requirements of the bid documents. The project as originally conceived was from 4th Street to Foothill Boulevard. Even though the City's allotment of Federal funds only enabled construction from 4th Street to Civic Center Drive, Caltrans suggested that the original limits remain unchanged. Respectfully sub ed, ti~ William J. O'NeilU City Engineer WJO:MDL:sd attachment cc: Purchasing CITY OF RANCHO CtiCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 2, 1992 (~ T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council v Jack Lam, AiCP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Henry Murakashi, Associate Civil Engtneer SUBJECT: APP ROYAL OF CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT N0. 8-787 WITH CALTRANS FOR THE TMPROVEMENT OF NINETEENTH STREET FROM CARNELIAN STREET TO AMETHYST STREET. RECOMIENDATION tt is recommended that Construction Cooperative Agreement No. 8-787 with Cal trans for the Improvement of Nineteenth Street from Carnelian Street to Amethyst Street be approved. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS This agreement is a step in the procedure for the improvement of Nineteenth Street from Carnelian Street to Amethyst Street which has been approved by the City Council. Even though this 1s an entirely locally funded protect, a Construction Cooperative Agreement is required between Caitrans and the City of Rancho Cucamonga because 19th Street is under Cal trans turlsdic ti on. Caitrans will perform review, approval and oversight activities during the construction phase of protects which exceed E300,000.00 in casts. There will be no cost for Cal trans assl5tance during construction. The Protect Study Report and Protect Report required by Caitrans has been completed and approved. ResDec tfully ~bmitted, William J. 0 \~~~ City Engineer WJ O:HM:th cc: Linda Daniels, Deputy City Manager Attachment RESOLUTION N0. '?a - a~~- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Of THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT N0. 8-787 KITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF NINETEENTH STREET FROM CARNELIAN STREET TO AMETHYST STREET AND AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING THEREOF BY THE MAYOR WHEREAS, the best interests of the City will be serviced by the improvement of 19th Street from Carnelian Street to Amethyst Street; and WHEREAS, such improvement has been authorized by the City Council; and WHEREAS, a Construction Coopers Live Agreement with the Department of Transportation is necessary for obtaining final approval of plans and specification for the work on State property. SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Californ a, oes ereby resolve that Construction Cooperative Agreement No. 8- 787 with the California Oepartmen*- of Transportation for the improvement of 19th Street from Carnelian Street to Amethyst Street is approved. SECTIDN 2 It is further resolved that the Mayor Ts authorized to sign sal ag~t on behalf of the City Council. SECTION 3: It is further resolved that the Mayor is authorized to sign any amen men sl to said agreement on behalf of the City Council. 2~ CITY OF RANCHO CGCAMUNGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 2, 1992 T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Jeff Barnes, Parks and Landscaping Maintenance Superintendent SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO E%ECUTE THE PROPOSAL FROM TERRY NOLF OF TERRY'S FIREPLACE TO PURCHASE BULK WASTENOOD FROM THE CITY Of RANCHO CUCAMONGA ocnra:rnartnr It is recommended that the Ctty Council approve Lhe execution of the proposal from Terry Walf of Terry's Fireplace, 8486 Lemon Grove Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, to purchase bulk wastewood from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The wastewood will be purchased by Terry's Fireplace for 525.00 per 10 cubic yards delivered on site to 6350 North Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga. Over the last few years the CT ty Maintenance staff has significantly reduced the amount of greenwaste going to local landfills by paying a recycles to haul the material to their processing sites. Rs an added benefit, the recyclers hauling fees are slightly less than the landfill tipping fees, so we are recycling and saving money. In an effort to further our stewardship of this resource, we have been contacted by a local firewood dealer who is willing to purchase the bulk wastewood generated from City tree ~runi ng and removal operations. The revenue obtained through the sale of the wood will be returned to the General Fund or the Landscape Maintenance Assessment District where the tree maintenance occurred. These funds would then be available to offset future tree maintenance operations. The City and contract tree maintenance crews will continue to honor citizen requests to leave firewood 1n their parkway when pruning or t;•ee removals occur to front of Lhe1r residence. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TERRY NOLF September 2, 1992 Page 2 The City currently generates an average of 240 cubic yards of wastewood a month. This translates to an estimated 57,200.00 a year of revenue earned through the sale of the wastewood at the proposed purchase price. Additionally, the City would save an estimated 513,000.00 a year in recycler hauling fees. The Cfty Attorney hes reviewed this agreement. At the meeting of August 19, 1992, the City Council questioned if the subject business is legally operating in its present location at 6350 EtTwa nda Avenue. Terry s Fireplace currently has a valid business license as a wholesaler. The use is an existing, legal non-conforming use with conditions that the use cannot expand or Intensify. The property (6350 Etiwanda Avenue) is located on the west sT de of Etiwanda Avenue north of Highland and is zoned (VL) Very Low Residential, 1-2 dwelling units per acre. Therefore the use is permitted and as such may continue as long as they maintain a valid business license and does not expand or Intensify the existing business. Mr. Wolf has provided a letter indicating the approval of the recomm=nded agreement will not result in aqy expansion or alternation of the current operation. It 1s our opinion th15 is reasonable since *.he amount of wood we project available is relatively small and will be delivered Intermittently. Based on this discussion staff recommends Council approve the agreement. Respectfully submi LFed, ~~ ~~~ Wf117am J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:JB:dlw Attachment Zq TERRY'S FI 6350 Et1wa August 26, 1992 William J. O'Neil City Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga As a result of buying waste wood from the City of P.a ncho Cucamonga, I will nat expand my operations by utilizing new or additional equipment. Sincerely, _~~-- Terryti''M of f -- 3~ C[TY OF RAtiCHO CGCAivIONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 2, 1992 T0: Mayor, and Members of Lhe City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Steve M. Gilliland, Public Works inspector II ,-~+ SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF IMPR04EMENT AGREEFIENT EXTENSION FOR TRACT 13565-1 THRU -4, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SUMMIT AVENUE AND NARDMAN BULLOCK 0.0AD, SUBMITTED BY STANDARD PACIFIC NECONEMDATIOW It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution, acceptf ng the su6Ject agreement extension and security and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said agreement. 811CKGROUMO/ANALYSIS Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security to guarantee the construction of the public Improvements for Tract 13565-1 thru -4 were approved by the City Council on July 1B, 1991, in the following total amounts: faithful Performance Bands: 54,097,000.00 Labor and Material Bands: 52,048,500.00 The developer, Standard Pacific, 1s requesting approval of a 12-month extension on said improvement agreement, in order to complete the remaining 10'b of the Improvements. The current economic conditions have caused the developer the delays. Capies of the Improvement Agreement Extension are available in the City flerk's Office. Respectfully submitted, `-~~C2~ William J. O'Ne11 ~,~ City Engineer WJO:SMG:Iy Attachments STANDARD PACIFIC OP ORANGE COUNTY July 20, 1992 _..,. Mr. Steve Gilliland City of Rancho Cucamonga P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Expiration of Improvement Agreement for Tr. 13565/1-0. Dear Steve: Please find the Improvement Agreement extension for Tract 13565/1-4 enclosed. To date, approximately 90% of the work referred to in this agreement is complete. The primary reason for the delay in the remaining items is due to the still sluggish real estate market. As the market conditions improve, we will satisfy all of our conditions as they are warranted. We estimate that we will need at Least 12 months in which to finalize the tracts. We will keep you informed as to our progress in the schedule. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call Cordially/~ ~ /~ /~ /~~ .lw~ ~~L ~~ Miehaell. White Irroject Manager MJ W:jlc ce: Karen Turner Enclosure \N1W\01} 3L lief Wect Na, Arlhur flnub~vard Cnsla ~Nrsn, ('.,Lhnn,a o2o2t+, rl J~eoA~J?nC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 2, 1992 70: Mayor and Members of the City Council llrJl Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Steve M. Gilliland, Public Works Inspector III r-= SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE OF BONDS AND NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WEST GREENWAY TRAIL EXTENDING FROM NEST GREENWAY PARK TO ELM AVENUE The required improvements for the West Greenway Trail have been completed in an acceptable manner, and Tt is recommended that City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Perfo rnwtnte Bond in the anaunt of 5137,000. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The Nest Greenway Trail extends from West Greenway Park to Elm Avenue DEVELOPER: Lewis Homes P.0. Box fi70 Upland, CA 91786 Release: Faithful Performance Band 5137,000 Respectfully submj-bated, William J. O'Ne11V~ City Engineer WJO:SMG: sd Attachment RESOLUTION N0. 9~, X3,5 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE WEST GREENWAY TRAIL ANO AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for the West Greenway Trail have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW, 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 NotT ce of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. 3 RESOLUTION N0. ~~. ~.~~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY CWNC IL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO GUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACT 13565-1 THRU 4 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an improvement Agreement Extension executed on September 2, 1992, by Standard Pacific as developer, for the improvement of public right-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located at the northeast corner of Summit Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said Tract 13565-1 thru -4, and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement Extension is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement Extension. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California hereby resolves, that said Improvement Agreement Extension and said Improvement Security be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement Extension on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and Lhe City Clerk to attest thereto. ~3 CITY OF RANCHO CtiCAb10NCA STAFF REPORT r-~ D7.TE: September 2, 7992 T0: Nay ar and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, Crty Manager FROM: Hrad Bu 11er, City Planner DY: Nancy Fong, Senior Planner SCBJ ECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL TO VARIANCE 92^02 - SILVA - An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the request to reduce the required interior side yard setback from 5 feet to 6 inches from the property line for a single family home in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 10077 Ironwood Street - APN: 1077-041-54. AECJIM~7DATIOIf Staff recommends that the Ciey Council deny the appeal and uphold the P La nning Cnrtmis sion's decision to deny Variance No. 92-02 through adoption of the attached resolution. The City Council should also d uect the applicant to reapply for a building permit and correct the non-conformiey within 30 days from the date of this hearing. SOlWARY The applicant had obtained a building permit on April 5, 1989, tc add a carport in the side yard. According fo the applicant, the intended use of the carport is to store their boat. After several inspections, the applicant had let the building permit expire on July 23, 1991. A routrne inspe~=tion by the Building and Safety staff on January 9, 1992, documented that the carport structure had 'peen completed with only a 6- ir~ch setback from the property line inate ad of the required 5 feet. The appiicant claims they had received approval from the Building and Satety Div rs ion to encroach into the 5-foot setback; however, the Building and Safety Divisi or. has no record of ary such approval, nor did they have the aut hoa ty tc do so. 'ch~s non-co ntormity necessitated a variance request. Staff could not makr the legal findings [o support the variance. The Planning Commission mnf irm ed staff's recommendation and denied the application on July 22, 1992. The applicant then appealed the decision to the City Cci.uua• To grant this variance, the City Council must make all the legal findings as stated in this report. She granting of this variance anuld set a precedent for the entire City. The attached staff report prow .des a detailed analysis of the variance request. r'r pry COUNCIL STAFF REPORT VAR 92-02 - SILVA September 2, 7942 Page 2 COMfISSION'S DISCDSSION AND 6VALDATION OP THS VARIANCE In considering the variance request, the Commission reviewed the staff report and received input from the applicant including a video tape showing the di Eficu lty in maneuvering the boat into the carport. The Commission reiterated to the applicant that the Building and Safety Division has no authority to approve ary nhange in setback requirements. The majority of the Commission £elt that the condition of the site, that is the Location of the street light pole, the width of t'ne side yard, etc., were all pre-existing conditions 6e fore the app Licant purchased the .%-foot long boat. Whether they have enough maneuvering area to back .he boat in and out of the carport should not be the basis for granting the variance. The Commissron also affirmed file necessity of side yard setback requirements. They are needed for a variety of reasons, including privacy and separation of structures within a neighborhood, as veil as for public safety. I'he majority of the Commission could not make the required legal findings to support the variance and de tecmined that the gr antinq of this variance would set a p rercd¢nt for the entire City. PACTS POR PINDINCS In order to grant this variance, the City Council moat make all of the findings as Iis tad below: That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent ait.h the objectives of the Ueve lopment rode. Staff Cortvnent: It is true that a wider apace between the carport post and the garage would make it easier to maneuver the boat in and out; however, variances requite legal findings of herdehip and should not 6e granted on the basis of convenience, i.e., it's easier to maneuver the boat in and out. Staff believes that the applicant could meet the setback requirements and still have a carport structure for the storage of their boat. If the carport structure had been pushed bac4 Eu rther into the aide yard, which tt~e site has the room to accommodate, there would be adequate clearance area for [he app Licant to back their 27-foot long boat into the structure. The applicant knew that the street light pole wcu td create an access problem, yet they chose to construct [he carport a[ its cu-rent location. Therefore, the physical hardship 1a self-I mpOSP.d. 7. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or rood i[ions applica6l.e to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 31 C TTY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT VAR 92-02 - SILVA September 2, 1992 Page 3 Staff Comment: The site is a typical rectangular lot and not in any way different from any other properties. The applicant has made no claims of unusual circumstances other than the location of the street ii ght pole within the right-of-way making it difficult to back the boat in. 3. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone. Staff Commene: The minimum setback of 5 feet would sti 11 allow for a carport structure in this location. 4. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. Staff Convnent: A reduction of the required aide yard setback from 5 feet to only 6 inches would be a special privi iege not afforded other property owners in this zone. Between 1981 and the present, the Planning Commission has considered four similar cases of variance requests to reduce the interior side yard. However, the requests were for the reduction of Side yard setbacks from 10 Eeet to 5 feet. The Planning Commission granted three of the requests and denied one. Therefore, the granting of this variance you ld mean setting a precedent for the entire City, negating side yard setback requirements. 5. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, Safety, or welfare or materially Injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. OYTIOIiS POR TB8 APPLICANT TO CRISI06R The following options would meet the City's setback require manta while sti 11 providing room Eor the storage! of the boat within the side yard area: Relocate the wood post to be 5 feet from the property Line. The post could be set back further from the street so as to increase the clearance area for maneuvering the boat trailer into the carport. The apn licant will have to reapply for a building permit. Remove the carport Structure. The concrete slab Cap remain a9 shown which is F inches from the property lino. Construct a 5-foot high solid fence and gate from the east property line to the hu ilding Eor srreening the boat. The applicant does not need to reapp Ly for a building permit. The construction of a 5-foot high wood fence and gate would not need a building permit. 3g CITY COLTIC IL STAFF REPORT VAR 92-02 - SZLVA. September 2, 1992 Page d Adjust the location of the property line as shown in Exhibit "I." This option requires the applicant to contact and find out if their nei gh6or is willing to sell a portion (5-foot strip) of their land to them. If the neighbor agrees, then the applicant can file for a Lot Line Adjustment to change the location of the property line. A variance would not be needed as the carport structure will have a 5-foot setback. The applicant will have to reapply for a building permit. Staff has informed the applicant of this option. WRRSSPONDBg(:S This item has been advertis¢d as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bu iletin newspaper and notices were sent to the adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the project. Respect` subm' d, i grad er City Tanner ED:NF/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - App Li cant's Appeal Letter Exnibit "B" - Planning Comsission Resolution No. 92-95 Exhibit "C" - Piannin9 Commission Minutes and Staff Report dated July 22, 1992 Exhibit "D" - Chronology of the Application Exhibit "E" - Site and Surrounding Land Uae Exhibit "F" - City's Approved Site Plan Exhibit "G" - Site Plar, Showing Non-Compliance Exhibit "II" - Site Flan Showing S-Foot Setback Exhibit "I" - Site Plan Showing Lot Line Adjustment Resolut Ton of Denial 3~ ~c ~a<~ Rc~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA °'`D .iugusc 3, 1992 CITY CLERK (1i a072 w, City of Rancho Cucamonga 1ui00 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, C.1. 91130 Dear Mr. Mayor and Council: We are asking for approval of [he city ordiance of Frontial AUG 0 3 1992 (7j 8~9i IOi 11112111213 j415 X61 rep v~ 9a-~a- our variance so we may comply with view offset. When t; cs matter came before the Planning Commission on .Iuly 22, 199?, we didn't realize that we should have proved the support of our neighbors inorder for it to pass. The commission felt it was a possihle infringement to the neighbors and therefore denied us by only 1 voce. We thought the letters that were generated by the City in this matter [o the property owners were enough to show support since they never received any back in rebutal. On the night of the appeal we will be there with all the neighbors and Che Few vhich will not be a61e to attend will be sending a letter of their support. When we firs[ started this structure we knew the light post at the front of our property would obstuct the access. We are not ipn oran[ to [he 5' offset so [hats why when we pulled permits we asked cf the offset could forgo since we still have an existing 12' between us and the neighbors. s'o we. were given the ok and per a permit corcec n on notice they made us comply with a few changes: 1) 1x1 continues footing 2) a complete stucco bearier wall 3) hot mop the roof instead of shingles as per plans You see we've followed all the rules and we are not trying to get this passed for convience as per the Staff Report by Nancy Fong. We simply can not back this boat in such a tight area if we vere to gc with the i' ruling (we also have video to prove it). We were given the ok once and due to approval error 6 the fact that nothing including our permits which we have copies of the correction notices) can 6e loeatud we are Setng asked to now take ir, down. We have gone through all the proper channels even with all these appeals and fees, it just some hcv does nn r. seem Fair we've have not hroken a~ regulations and are bein y, forced with these problems. All we want to do is finish it and put up our rod-iron gates, r Sinccraly, !-~ ~V~ 1 ••~, ;: , ; ~ vA92-oz :, •~ r_ ~~°~7 Zren~aor~ Lip `'2C 9/730 RESOLUTION NO. ~~-i~ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMIS SIGN OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING VARSANCE NO. 92-02 TO AE DUCE THE REQUIRED INTERIOR EIDE YARD SET OACK FROM 5 FEET TO 6 INCHES FROM THE PROPERTY LINE FOR A SINGLE FAHILY HOME IN TF~ LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 OWE LL ING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT 100]] IRONWOOD STREET, AND MAILING FI NDSNCS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-041-fi4 A. psc Ira's. (i) David R. and Tamalyn R. Silva have filed an application for the issuance of Variance No. 92-02 as da•<ribed in the CiCle of thi• Aesolutior.. Hereinafter In chic Raeolution, the subject Variance raquvat is referred to as "the appli<ae ion." (ii) On the 22nd day of .TU ly 1992, the Planning Commie icn of the city of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded veld hearing on chat date. (iii) All legal prerequ i•ite• prior to Lhe adoption of Chi• Rvao lotion have occurred. B, peso lot ion. NOw, THEREFORE, ii is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commivaion of the City of Aaneho Cucamonga a follows: 3. Th ie Commission naraby spec iEically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Rac its L, Patt A, of Chie Raeolution ere true and correct. 2. Based upon eubetant ial svidanc• presented to this Commiaeion Curing the above-referenced puDl is hearing on Suly 22, 1992, including written and oral et aff reports, together with public testimony, thi• Commis ion hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) TN appllcat ion appliu to property located at 10077 Ironwood 5t rest with a arrest trontegs of 78 feet and lot depth of 112 feet and is prase ncly improved witn a •inq l• family home; and (b) The propert U• Co tM north, south, ust, end west of eha subject site are single family h<mu; and (c) The applicant ha• co nst rucbd a carport inconsistent wit^ the approved plane; and (d) The ca rporc ee ru cture ie estbsrk only 6 Inc hee from the p coperty lane and the required setback i• 5 toot per section 17.08.O60A.d; and (e) TM ut• is a typical recunqu Lr •ingl• family lot. 3. Barad upon the •ubrtant iai ev idance presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public nearing and upon CM •pec i[ic find Inge cE facto sec forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, ihi• Commlu xon hereby finds and coot lodes as follow.: ~~~~~ ~ I " l/A q~o1. ~i PLdNN IYG COMMISSION R_ ,.,T:CN :10. .-~ VAA 97-02 - SIPJA July 22, 1992 Page 2 (a) That strict or literal interpret a[ion and enforcement of the epee ifind regulations would not result in practical dlEficulty or unnecessary phye ical hard¢hip in cone let en< with the obj ectivae of the Oevela pment Cade. (b) That th¢xs era not exceptional or ¢xt [aordinary circumet antes or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended uee of the property that do not apply 9¢nerally to other props z<ies in the same diet rice. (c) That strict at literal interpretation and snEoreem¢nt of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileq¢s an7 oyed by the owners of other ptope[ties in the same district. (tl) That the granting of tM Variance will const irate a grant of special privilege incon ei et¢nt with CN limit at LOns on other proper<iee c laaeif led in the name district. (e) That the granting of the vsrience will b¢ detrimental to Cha public heals h, safety, or wsl taro or materially injurious to propert iee or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the findings and conclw loos set forth in persgraphe 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commie ion hereby denies the application. 5• The 5scratary to ehL Commission shall certify to the adept ion of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JULY 1992. PLANNING C ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA C ATTEST I, grad Buller, Bacretaiy o[ the Planning Commi a ion of the City of Rancho Cu camo rga, do he roby certify that [M Ecregc ing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, parsed, and adopted by the Plsnn ing Commission of the City of P.a ncho Cucamonga, at s reguler meet ing of the Planning Comm iee ion held on the 22nd day of July 1991, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NClIE L, ItE LCHEft, T.CLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ~){1 ;1c ~~ ••~r LET^'c ~~ ~Q.~ r,p ABSENT: COMN IBBIONERS: VC NE ~~~~~~ ~l•a V/I IIpC'~/P~ ~Z tausenT GALE NDAA A. ^. IMF E%TENS IDN ~R PARCEL MAP 122]5 - VAOGHNi BE LYEU - A request for an extension eE a previously approved eubdivis ion of 1.04 acres of lantl into 3 parcels in the Low Reeid ential District (2-4 dwe111n9 unity per acted, located on the we at Bide of Hellman Avenue, south of Pepper Street - APN: 208-167-30 Motion: Moved by To lstoy, aecontled by Ch it ie a, unanimously paeaed, to adopt the Consent Calendar. `1' PJE*IC HEAR'NGS ~.~8. VARIANCE 92-02 - SILVA - A requut to retluu the raga it ed interior title (/I~` yard setback from 5 feet to 6 inches from the property line for a Bangle family home in the Low Residential district (2-4 dwelling unite per acre), located at 100]] Ironwood Street - APN: 1077-041-64. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, preae ntetl the staff repo[[. Comm iseio ner Me lc her asked if it would be necessary to cut back the roof overhang if the applicant were to modify the carport by relocating the poets to be 5 feet clear of the property lLne. Jerry Grant, Eualdang official, responded Chet the Deve lopmant Code requires a 2-1/2 foot clearance from the property line. Cnaarman McNiel opened the public hearing. Tamalyn Salve and Dave Silva, 10077 Iro nwootl Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they had pulled perm it e. Sne ea id that when they firer pulled the permit e, rosy were anformed they nod to et ay 5 Cset off [he props [ty line. She said they went back to she eu ild ang 6 Safety department wath Che concrete contractor and got it approved to go to the property lane; however, the City could act locate that paperwork. Dave Silva, 10077 Ironwood Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated Che plena showed Corse piece with three pos[• and when it wa• anspected, the Building 6 Safety inspector required a continuous Footing accoe• the back side and requested e star<o ens-hour fire wall on the property line. He •aid the foot inge got passed aft and they the r. went to the roof nailing inspection. Mre. Silva et at ed they were raga iced to not mop the roof aneeaad of acing shingles. Mr. Sa1va remarked Coat at ens Came of the root na it inq inspect eon, the inspector wrote a reminder co be sure the outs ids wall was stucco, ae per plan. Me aaad they followed that plan. ~'~i1BIT ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ v~ R2-o z P:anninq Commaee eon Minu lee k;: Ju 1y 77, 1992 `~3 Mrs. Silva said tF.e wall had tc be a continuous wail ~p to the roof to preclutle a fire from entering urd er the roof line. Mr. Silva commented that there ie a iight pole ~ feat off the driveway and a sou r,hern cal if ornia Edison me ter ae the end of his house. Ne said his boat is 2. .'e et, 6 inches lorq and his truck ie "<1 feet long and there woo la ba no po saible way to Daek the boat Ln if the 5-foot setback were enforced. He also nct ed that his boat trailer ie B feet, 6 inches aide and the carport area wcultl only De 9 feet, 5 inches wide with the 5-tact set bar k. He ea id they had run out of money at one time and not tin iehed th¢ project. Mrs. Silva said that her brother-in-law ie a professional driver of aemi- Lractoc trailers and he acid he might be able to back the boat in if he tried fcr an hcur. Chairman NcNiel noted that Building 6 Safety did not have the authority to approve the cha ny^e in secbac k. fie commented that the applicant had a very large boat and it appeared they were trying to fit a large boat in an area that may not be large enough. Ne did not feel the Commission could make the appropriate Eintlings to justify the variance just beeau ae the boat is large. Mr. Silva stated Chat ehere is a 17-foot separation to hie neighbor's houw ever. if hie carport goes to 6 inc hss from fns property lino. Chairman McNiel noted that the purpose of the eitle yard setbacks ie to protect neighbors from building up to the propsrty line. Mrs. Silva seated they wanted Co stucco a wall between the exist ing posts and inacall a wrought iron gate in the front. Ehe remarked that they had requested pe rmica because they knew permits woultl be requ iced. Chairman McNiel queer Toned if the permit had not expired. .MC. Silva stated they nod requested an extension nn the original permit, bur then ditl not finish. The Siivas showed a video of backing in the Doat. Hearing nc further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Ccmm isaionec Me lc her asked it the light pole could be moved by the applicant. Oan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated a light pole can normally be moved up co :0 feet withouC damage to the spacing of other street lights, Dut it would De r.e ceseary to move thin particular pale more than 10 feet because of ocher utilities in the way. Commissioner Melcher noted that the Comm ieeion moat make certain legal f ind:nge in order to grant a variance. He did not feel any of the findings could be made. He thought the City~e Bide yard regulaGiona are prudent and [ne Commission had an obligation to the community eo uphold the cequlat ions. ~X~lBrT ~~~ Z ' vq?z-az Planning Commission Ma r.u tee -]- July 22, 1992 I~ Ccmmiseio ner Vailette noted that the light pcle ;a an unusual condition antl that placement coo id perhaps justify the finding of a Fardsh:p. She observed that CF.a applicant had gone to the expenne of putt rrg up she st cucture and she Eels there waa a need co address the ac:;; tronal width needed eo accommodate the boat. Comm>ss:o rer Toleeoy remarked there were very good reaaene for having aide yard rules and one of rho ae reasons ie the tlanger of fire epreatl rng from one building to another when st rv ctu res are too close together. He also oelieved there should be room between structures eo that fire equipment could have access if necessary. He noted [hat with the 12-foot separation from the ne :ghbor'e novae there could be access for fire equipment. Gorton re aioner Melchez noted that if the variance were granted on the bass of tY.e distance to the nerghbor'e hoc a¢, the neighbor could be precluded from bu llding up to hie legal 5-Foot setback line. Comas reasoner Ch it sea felt the light post appeared to be set back in the yard Eu riher from the street than in moot inetanc¢s. Sh¢ respected Commivaroner Toler oy's arguments Eor fire ea Eety, but noted there are other places with only 5 feet between structures. She obaerv¢d that ease applicant was tryrng to store the boat in ease side yard, as the City prof erv. Shv felt Gnat even [hough the s[cucture nod been built inconsretent with etanderde, the location cE the light pole could be used to justify the granting of a variance. M.r. su llec noted chat the 5-fooe setback ie required for a variety of reasons :ncludrng pr wary antl separation of etructure• uit hin a neighbornootl ae we 11 as pu niu safety. Ccrtr.,i esroner ToLst ey remarked that the et cucture which had been ¢retted ie h:q hiy flammable. 4r. Buller staeed the applicants hatl apparently made some reviaione to the carport while :< was being constructed to reduce the fire hazard et the d:rect:on of the Burldrng 6 Safety department. Ccmmias:onec Vailette asked if the applicant could be tlirettetl to bring the st rucw re rnto compliance with fire requ lotions. Mr. Buller ea id the applicant would have to pull the proper permits and pay the appropriate Ease iE the variance were granted. Cha Erman Mc Niel felt the Comm:ee;on wa• being asked to gran[ a va aance when the condrt cone which ex rated prior to the pure have of rase boat dictated chat such a large beat would not fie properly. Ha noted that eha light pole and moo U, o, the drrveway had been rn existence before purchase of the boat. Ha tl:d act [eel there were suEErc rent greunde for grans rng a variance )ust because the appl rcant Oough< a large boat. He drd nor feel the Crty should redesrgn ord :nancee oc grant varra arse when to do eo would rnfrrnge on the r.q hce of the re rghbora. ~X~81T C 3 a Vi~42-02. Plana;ng Co mm reason Nrn urea -a- lu ly 72, 1997 ~~ roam iaeioner Solstoy aeketl of staff ever he artl from the adjacent props rty owner. Ms. Fong responded chat no calls hatl been received from any ne ig hbo re. Comm:ssao~ier Melchor statetl that the sot ion he was about [o make was not amended co be vindictive toward the applicant, but he felt the Commies ion had cartoon responsib alit iee to Che community ae a whole. Ns thought that if the variance were granted, it would eat a precedent for negating aide yard se tb acka for every Bade yard in the City or at the very la ast every Bide yartl where there ie a light pole in the front yard. Mcticn: Roved by Malche r, eeconded by Toletoy, to adopt the reeo lotion denying Variance 92-02. Motion care iad by the following vote: AY°_5: COMMI SSiONEAS: HCN IEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CH ITIEA, VALLETTE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried C 5'PHUCTURES. INC. - She request to eat ablieh a Heavy Equipment Ealee and Rentale~n on 10.37 acres of land in [he Minimum Impact Haavy Industt~al dietr ict ~Suba~ea 9) of the indoor zial Area Specific Plan, located M 30807 Se raey Boulevard - APN: 709-143-0E. St aft re<omnende i eauance of a Negative Declaration. Steve Roes, Asaiata nL. Planner, presented the staff report AoC Page, Diet riot Managdr~ At co Struct urea, Inc., P. O. Eox 50-150, Ontario, thanketl the staff membere'~ for their auia[ance Ln putting the package together. He indicated he was surprised to see a requirement for an B-Foot block wall along the back since ~C hey had been led to believe that a wrought iron Fence on top of a 3-foot bl. :k wall would be an acceptable altetnac ive. He noted that the block wall was be il>Q requested to screen the site, and he felt cne four rows of [teas along the ataa would provide auEf is ient screening in combination with the wrought iron/block wall force. He said they were improving Che property because it su ire their image and Chay Celt [he wrought aeon fencing would be morn east let ical ly plena inQ. Xe thought a wrought iron fence could be lns vulnerable from a aecu city standpoint. Xe requeatetl approval of the project vice a motl if is aC ion to permit a ]-foot block wall copped by a S-f. oo[ wrought iron fence. C".airman N.c Niel questioned the adequacy of the lighting in the lot behind the .'once. Mr. Page said there is aecu city lighting around the perimeter of chB lot and a wrought iron fence would permit light to enter the tented area. ~ :homes Webb, land acape architect, 24 tie et Big Springs, Rive re ids, asked Epr cla uficat ion regard inc the et toot light would haw to D a installed al o i2)\ Planning Commission Minutes R -9- ~~`-~'~ (/ ~~ 11`-~ ~ rtJuly 4 2 22~199~~ 1~ CITY OF Ra~CHO CCCA~IOXGA STAFF REPORT `~_~ Dd]E: Su 1Y 22, 1992 .... Chairman and Members cf the Planning Commission c gpM; 3rad Su ller, City PLanner BY: Nancy Fong, senior Planner SUBJECT: VARIANCE 92-02 - SILVA - A request en reduce the required interior sale yard setback from 5 Eeet to 6 inches Erom the proper. ty line Eor a single family home in the Low Residential district (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 10077 ironwood St: set - APN: 1077-041-64. RECOMMENDATION: sta .`f recommends that the Pia nninq Commission deny the Variance through adoption of the attached Resolution and direct the applicant to correct the non-conformity within 30 days from this hearing. ANALYSIS: A. Sao kground: The applicant had obtained a bui ldinq permit on April 5, 1383, to construct a patio cover in the rear yard and a carport in the side yard. T'ne approved plans (as shown in Exhibit "C") showed that a 5-foot side yard setback is required foe the carport. The last inspection was on January 23, 199 i. Arco rdinq to the Building and Safety Division, a building permi^_ is valid for a period of 180 days from the last (latest) inspection. '.hereEore, the building permit for the patio cover and carport wou13 have expired on J:ily 23, 7991. A routinr_ inspection by Building and Safety staff on January 9, 1992, documented that the carport structure was almost completed, without the benefit of valid bui Bing permits and necessary inspections, nor romp Liance with the setback requiremen'.=. Attached for your reference is a b: ief chronology for this application (Exhibit "A"I• 3. EvaLuaticn of the Proposed Variance: The applicant's intended use of the carport is to store a boat. They built the carport, as it currenr,ly exists w i~hin the S-foot aide yard setback, to make it easier to back the boat into the carport. A copy of the applicant's letter of request is attached for your review. A re V:_w of the site plan ar.d a site visit indicates that the northeast ,r. rn or of the garage is set back 16 feet from the side property line at the :.nsest point. Staff believes that the applicant can modify the carport se niacre !~ meet the 5-foot setback and still have a carport wide enough to stn r.e ['ne b•~a t, as shown in Exhibit "E." Since the driveway depth as measured from the curb Earn rs 31 feet, there should be enough maneuvering a: ea to back the boat into the carport. It is true a wider apace between the ::a rpo r! pns] and the Sara qe would make it easier co maneuver the hoar in and out; however, variances require legal findings of hardship and shoul3 not be uran rod on the basis ;f convenien cep,7 i. _., it'j/s!~ye~asi eRr to maneuver the hoar .^ and nut. ~~ lL`OZ Y r.~V~~ v ~ 6' n ~~ P LANNiNG CO^Ltl IS S: CN ST aFF FE PORT VAR 92-G2 - SILVA July 22, 1992 Page 2 Ne gardi na the applicant's claim that they were given the "ok" by the Bui ld lag an9 Safety Dlvisi on to encroach into the S-foot side yard setback, it cannot be verified. No one in the Building and Safety Division r_calls granting s'a ch apcrova 1, nor did they have the authority to do so. ,. Facts for Findings: In order to grant this Varianoe, the Planning Commission muse mace all of the Findings as listed below; t• :hat strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the spec if red re qu lation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardshar :ncons is tent with [he objectives of the Development Code. St afE Convnent: StaEE believes that the setback could be met an3 still provide adequate room to store the boat. 2. :hat there are exceptional or extraozdi nary ci ccumstanc as or conditions app licabl_ to the property involved oz to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. Staff Comment: The applicant has made no claims of unusual circumstances other than the location of utilities within the public right-of-way making it difficult to back the boat in. 3. That strict or Literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified re gi:Lation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone. StaEE Comment: The minimum setback of 5 fee^_ would still allow for a ca: po rt structure in this location. 4• T.nat the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the Limitations on other properties classiE led in the same zone. Staff Comment: A reduction in the required setback from 5 Eeet to only n inches would be a special privilege not afforded other property owners in this zone. S. Ttat the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or weif are or materially injurious to properties or Improvements in the vicinity. ~• ~~tiors for the Applicant to Ccns ider: The following options would meet the 7ity's setback requirements while still providing room for storage of the boat within the side yard area: ke locate tF.e wood post to be 5 feet from the property line. 1`ne post wo~a ld be set back further ,'nom the street, i.e., 3d Eeet as measured f :'om the curb to increase the clearance area for maneuvering the brat trailer into the carport. f'A ~~OL ~~'I~~~i~ ~ t n ~(~I(! erg PLANN LN6 COMMISSi ON BTA FF PE pORT VAR 92-02 - SILVA Suly 22, 1992 page 3 2. Remove the carport structure. The ccncre to slab can remain as shown - 6 inches from the property line. Construct a 5-foot high solid Eer,ce and Sate from the east property Line to the building for screening the boat. CORRESPONDENCE: .his item has been advertised as a pu611c hearing in ehe Inland Valley Da: 1y Bullztrn newspaper, the site has been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. Respec tf uLly Submitted, G ~- Bra 1 .. _j Planner BB:NF/jfs Arta ch menu: Apolicant's Letter of Request Exhibit "A" - Chronology of the Application Exhibit "8" - Site and Surrounding Land Use Exhibit "C" - City's Approved Site Plan Exhibit "D" - Site Plan Showing Non-Compliance Exhibit "E" - Site Plan Showing S.Foot Setback Resolution of Denial l ~ ~l ~~92-oz ~~8~r C ~ ~~ Ciey of Rancho Cucamonga Ce:maua:t }~ Deveio Amen[ Dept :'.~SUO C:vrc Center Drive Bancio L'ucaaonga, Cd, 91730 Re: 6a a aice (Silva) `o whom is may concern: :'11 try to sum up [he situation as best I can. When we first pu L'ed per miCS we knew we could only ga 5'feet to the property line but ue esplai ned our situation (along with our concrete contractor) to someone .n the building department and were given Che ok [o go to the property line. We had to make some changes [hough and chat included a complete outside wall with stucco and hoe mop the roof and sl.ghtly slo pe it, The Inspector came out and ok'd the slah and roof but now our file can not be located and we'd like co finish. he are filing for the variance for several reasons, One is that most of the work is completed and we would hate to Cake it down. second, we were ok'd a[ one point but [he paper work can not be fodnd. Third is ue need the extra area to back in [he boat, 'We are t:nde: ed by a lighc post, edison underground opening and cable boxes :n the :root of the area where ue start our approach. With [he ;;ost of the overhang we can no[ hack it in with Che 5'foot ruling, ~: he fourch reason being we would like to keep [he boat covered [o [rote[[ et from the harsh wea Cher and last reason is we are not able t', put it in the garage because of it's length. '.;e would like your approval so that we may keep our neighborhood icokcng neat and clean and not have iC exposed i[ co the front. If you sho.ld hive any questions to this regards we ask that you give Dave or a call at (714) 944-6881. _:ncerely, ~ :'.~mul yfi i„'Silva ftui,~d 3~lfh~. Uk R2-oZ ~X~BIT L 8 Sd EXHIBIT D CHRONOLOGY FOR VA 92-02 April 5, 1989 Building permits approved and signed off by Planning for the patio in the rear yard and the tarpon in the side yard. The approved plans showed a notation of 5 fcet setback from the property line. April l0. 1989 Building inspection nn the footings for the patio and the carport. July I, 1989 Building inspection with corrections. July IR, 1990 A note on the Building cortec[ion notice that the applicant will be requesting for an extension of time for the building permit. January 23. 1991 A note on the Building correction notice that the applicant needs Planning Department approval for the property line clearance. July 23, 1991 Building permits for the tarpon has expired. January 9, 1992 Building conducted routine site inspection and noticed that the work for the tarpon structure is almost completed. Fcbmary 4, !992 Applicant met with the City Planner to discuss the issue of the constructed tarpon being 6 inches from the propery line. May 13, 1992 Applicant submitted a Variance application for the encroachment into the required interior side yard. JuIJ 27,. 1992 Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing to review the Variance, .46sent of Icgal Findings, the Commission denied the application. August 3, 1992 Applicant appealed the decision of the Commission. 7I ' I 3 "-. S VG~ 1L4 ' ~-_.-~ - . 3n.Y3Atl-- - _-~ 'nT1n' c?3-~ ~ -3Rw3r1l '~ry - , ..« a ~~ ~ 8 - Y' a . ~ ~ s~~~ ~ . ~ ~ °' _ .~., --.--3n N 34V .. - - i901tlBW tl0- . , , y4~`: ~ ~ ` q? ~ ' - - ~^n n ~ n n .`_L '.^1. n; ~•, •'Jy iIC i . ' n.. AVM ~~N 31 '~+ • ` r t - ' .. . I «~. I 3. BfMl9d ~ n[ _. AYM- P F Ntl31=~~ I ` ~1 ic' µ - ' - ~ ~ ~~ ~ Y I Y ~ ice Y.u " ~i~ ~ a 'n n\~ ~~;M" a^~ ~t Y TI , S I ~ v - , ~ a , i T ~~ ' :~ F ~ hyRa`r ~~~_~ ~ I . SSG( 4 ' .., o - ~ 1T., ~. --3nN yAV- "' - -3aM5 Na3A~ .. . I 'V : ~. L ai `~l~ ~ ~ ~ 'y , . i , a , i ' ~ ~- ~~ Q .. . r-ir T - T n ~ . J ; 2 ~' - n 2 [ i ~I ~I ~ n ~i 1 , m a e - 4 ... ~ n43AV~- - - 3 N SL -' , W ~' ~~ ~. ,~ ,z, „_ ~ :: ~~..; ~ L~ ~~'211 I/ L7~ 2 ~v$Y~ _tp k9PPAvAti k' ~~ .. - = ~ ~a _ ~ _, - -- ~. ~ r ~ ~ ~ ti~ `~ ~ _ rn v 1 ~ ~~ W 1 I ~ r ' ~ _ ~ i (_~1 ate,, ~ ~ 1 , ~ Q i Q• l-- yaJ ~/ r, 8 1 .~ ` ____~~ ~I i i i \~ _____ ~rU J I •'v^-~ ~/ ,y~ ~ y. U ~~-' N ~~ o~ w v a~ aN- eC ~~ ~ 3 V y ~s J 7 . .: ~~ _ Z '~ ~ ~~ y~~ ~ ~iv ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ - ,. -\ a c n ~ ~ , ~ ~,. ~: r-i - c. ., r~ ~~ . -----~ _t' - - ____ ti _ .. _. ~ ~ _' ~ J~ ~- v ;- / \... _, 8 -i - ~~ ~_--,s~~ ~~ 3 ~~ ~~ a~ ~~~ 1 ~~ o' o-~- RESOLUTION N0. N"~- ~ 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CTTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CVCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLAh?II NG CCMMZ SSION'S DECISION TO DENY VARIANCE N0. 92-C2, I•. REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED INTERIOR SIDE YAFD SETBACK FROM 5 FEET TO 6 INCHES FROM THE PROPERTY LING FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 CWELL I^IG UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT 10077 IRONWOOD ST REETr AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-041-64 A. aecita ls. (i) David R. 5 Tamalyn R. Silva have filed an application For the is suar.ce of Variance No. 92-02 as described in the title of this Resolution. He reins Eter in [his Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as the "application." (ii) On .7uly 22, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and, fallowing the conclusion of said public hearing, adopted Resolution No. 92-95 thereby recommending to this City Council that said application be denied. (iii) '!'he decision represented by said Planning Commission Resolution was timely appealed to this Council. (ivl On September 2,• 1992, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cu camon as conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and ronc laded said hearing on that date. (v) All la gal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Reso :cation have occur, re d. B. R~solUtinn. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by Che City Council of the City of Ran eho rucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby spec if tca lly finds that all of the Eacls set forth in the Recitals, Par` "A," of this Aese Sut ion are true and correct. 2. Based upon yobs tantial. evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced hearing nn September 2, 1992, including written and oral sh.aff reports, Che mi notes of the above-referenced Pla nninq Commission meeting, and the contents of Planning Commission Resolution No. 92-95, together with publi r. testimony, this Council hereby speciflcaliy finds as `cilOws: (al The application applies to property lorated at 10077 Ironwood Street with a street frnn to ge of 78 feet and lot depth of 112 feet and is presently improved with a single family home; and CITY CCVNCIL RESOLVT ION N0. VAR 92-02 - SILVA September 2, 1992 Page 2 (b) The properties to the north, south, east, and west of the subject site contain sing le `ami ly homes; and (cl The applicant has ronstructed a carport inconsistent with the approved plans; and ;d) The carport structure is setback only 6 inches from the property line and the required setback is 5 feet per Section 17. 79. 060A. d; and (e) T};e site is a typical rectangular single family lot; and (f) A reduction of the required setback from 5 feet to only 6 inches would be a special privilege not afforded to other property owners; and (g) The granting o£ this variance would mean setting a precedent for the entire City, negating the side yard setback roqui rements• 3. 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 and 2 above, Chia Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of t!ie specified revelations would not result in practical dlff iculty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code• fb) That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. (c) That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. (d) That the granting of the variance wi 11 constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties c lassitied in the same district. (e) That the granting of [he variance will be detrimental to the pub Lic health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby denies fhe application. 5. This Council hereby provides notice to David R. 6 Tama lyn R. Silva that the time within which judicial review cf the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Prnce dare Section 1094.6. sg CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTTGN N0. JAR 42-02 - SI LVA September 2, 199? Page 3 7. Thr_ City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Ss hereby directed to: (a) certify to the adoption of this Resn lut ion, and (b) forthwith transmit a cent if led copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, raturn-receipt requested, to David A. b Tama iyn R. Silva at the address identified in city records. J I CITY OF RAVCHO CCCAbfOtiGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 2, 1992 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council //--~~ Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner By: stave Hayes, A6eociate Planner S VEJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF ETI WANDA SPECIFIC PLAN wENOMENT 89-03 - U. S. HOME CORPORATION - An appeal of [he Planning Commission's tlecieion recommending denial of a request to amentl certain development et andarde within the Etiwanda Specific Plan. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TPACT 14211 - U 5 HOME CORPORATZ ON - An appeal of the Planning Conn is sion'e decision deny-ng the proposed Tentative Tract Hap and Design Review of the development of 276 single family Iota on Bi.2 acres of la ntl within the Etiwanda Specific Plan in the Low- Hedium Residential District (4-E dwelling un its per acre), loca[etl on the east aide of Etiwanda Avenue south of the ^evore Freeway antl west of East Avenue - APN: 3300-041-09, 1100-081- 02, 1100-1]1-01 and 17, 1100-181-01, 1100-141-01 and 02, 1300- 19}-01. Related File: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 89- 03. (COntinuetl tram June 3, 3992.) RECOMMENDATION: staff recommends that the City Council review the revised su bd ivieion plan (Exhibit "A") ant the attached August 12, 1992, draft Planning Comm ieaion workshop Ninutea antl receive any additional testimony from the appellant and the public. IE, after review, the Council feels that the revieetl subd rvision map demonstrates that the goo le and objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan can be achieved with the smaller minimum average lot ei:.e e, then she council should approve Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 89-03 through atlopt ion of the attached ordinance approving the amendment for all properties south and east of the Oevnre Freeway (Ord, No. 492. The Council shouid also direct that the processing of Vesting Tentative Tract 14211 be referred back through the Development Aeview pcoceae to allow the applicant time to process the rev ieed map. However, if the Council feels Ghat the revised conceptual aubdi.v ieion des iqn does not exhibit the qua l.it iee anticipated within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area, then the Council ahou ld ado pe the attached Resolu tiona of denial for Vesting Tentative Tract 14211, the Design Review thereof, and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment B9-0 J. A93TRACT: The purpose of this public hearing ie to consider the conceptual eubdiv ie ion redesrgn in conjunction with the request to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan for smaller minimum average lot sizes within the Low-Mad ium Residential District:. Ths rev ieed subdivision plan (see Exhibit "A") is the developer's attempt to adtl Tess previ oue concerns of the City Count i.l, the Planning Commission, and the Pack and Recreation Comm iseion. W ~ C1TY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT VTT 14211 6 ESPA R9-03 - J, B. HOME CORP. September 2, 1992 Page 2 BACRCROUNp Whet the Council last co ne idered the appl is at ions in detail on March 18, 1992, a majority of the Council members felt that the amendment request was worth cons id sting and Gel ieved it would allow a logical transition b¢t wean the predominately lower density areas north and we at of the Oevore Freeway and the commercial oats along Foothill Boulevard. The City Council directed at off to prepare two alternative Ord inancee for approval for the Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment. The first of these would modify the minimum average lot size atanda rtl for all oropertiea zoned Low- Medium Rea idential south and east of the Devore Freeway. The second would only allow the reduced Sot sizes for parcels owned by U. 8. Home Corporation. Again, at off rinds the fir at scenario more appropriate. The secontl choice would create different lot size atandarde within the same development district and neighborhootl. Though the focus of this City Council diacueeion on March 18, 1992, was on the Amendment request, the Council indicated that the aubdivieicn map, ae proposed at the time, did not exhibit a deatgn that met the goals and object ivee of the Etiwanda 5pecif to Plan including, but not limited to, the use of curvilinear etreeta, varied et ru ctu ral eetbar ka, and appropriate lot coverage, which woo ltl aid in promoting a sense of a more rural, country-like atmosphere. The council also indicated support of the Planning Commission's and Park and Recreation Commission's findings of [he need for a park concurrent and within the development, hence, further reason to redea ign the subdivision map. Since the Council last granted a 90-day continuance on June 3, 1992, [he applicant submitted the attached conceptual aubtliv ieion layout, which was reviewetl by the Planning Commiaeion on Avgu et 12, 1992. The Planning Commission staff report and minutes have been attached for your review. ANALYSIS: Staff analyzed the revised eubd ivieion layout and forwarded ice position to the Planning Commies ion at their August 12, 1992, Planning Comm ieaion meeting. Staff found that the revised eubd iv ieion layout adequately addressed the major site planning issues (i. e., street design end lot iayout~ previously mentioned by a majority of the Planning Comm its ion and City Council. The Planning Comm tea Son cone idered and forwards their commence cn the redesign through their minutes of the August 12, 1992, meeting. Key issues voiced by the vat ioue Commissioners include la[ coverage (i. e., the streetecape appearance created by large homes on relatively narrow lore), the nigh percentage of lots at or near the minimum 7,200 square Eoot lot size, and the importance of providing a sign if icent amount of one-story, low profile houses in the project. ~O CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT VTT 14211 6 ES PA 89-03 - U. 5. HOME CORP. September 2, 1992 Page 3 The Park and Recreation Comm ies ion recommn nded approval of the park location at its meeting of August 20, 1992, subject to final approval of the revieetl detention basin capacity by the Engineering Division. Please note that Exhibit ^A" does not chow the park in its approved location; refer to Exhibit ^C" for th¢ correct location. Again, the purpose of the revised subdivision plan was not to determine its appropriateness foc approval tonight but to offer ev itlence that the proposed amendment of reducing the minimum average lot size from 10,000 equ are feet to 8,500 square feet can et ill produce a project consistent with the goals and intent of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. If tha City Council finds that the revised plan does demonstrate this pos eibil ity, then approval of the Amendment would be appropriate. Ths map however can not bs approved at thin time and moat be sit ASr continued or denied. Continuance would allow the applicant time to prepare the technical map draw inga consistent without the concept map and process it through the technical review steps of the Development Review procee a. Denial without prejudice would allow the applicant to file a new application (Neat ing Tentative map only or a new total development package) et any time, uh Lch would be treated as a new application and proceed through the Development Review process. Respectfully submitted, ~C~~?L~~ Brad Buller City Planner BB:SH:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Rev iced Conceptual S'u bd ivieion Redesign Exhibit "B" - Previous Subd iv Leion Ose ign Exhibit ^C" - Park Location Map Exhibit "D" - Lot Size Breakdown Exhibit "E" - Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes dated August 12, 1992 Exhibit "F" - CLty Council 5t off Reports dated June 3, April 1, and March 18, 1992 Ordinance of Approval for Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 89-03 (Ord. No. 491 - D. S. Homo property) Ordinance of Approval for Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 89-03 (Ord. Nc. 492 - All Low-Med. propert iea) Resolution of Denial for Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 89-03 Reso lotion of Denial far Yeating Tentative Tract 14211 Resolution of Denial for the Design Review of Veet inq Tentative Tract 14211 W Q'. I e >;~: al ~: „~ '~ ~' ,, ~.. I' i III i 3 I, / ~ ~u ti: °. * /y,, ~~ ,.. LI~V. ~ ~~ ~ i e°~ ~~~ .' .~j ~'t,~y' ~/ ,. ~~~~~~p s~s w'~ c~6~~~} ~~Y ~ ~~ ~~~°~~;s ~ ~I~d3 ~,~ ,.~„r ~a :~;~:; i ? . ~~ Ste. EKI, ~b+' c~ s~ ~/ ~~F // ~~ ~¢05 C1~trw'F~/ r ~s~a..fi: I ~3 ~XN1617'~" („emu p1a„) ~ ~ ~~ F~~,~ % - ` /, ~__ PPS"`, - -- ~ ~ 1~ ;' ~ _ _ / / ~ ~. commE~~ ~ lON/N --- -- - ...~5 --~ ~ ~ 80ULEUF~,PO -- --- -- ---- _ ,. ,- ~~; (NEw/ PAKY~~~~ _~ ~a i1i~ -rte Sf': 1!E! ' 4 i~' ~' }p 3.ifi iii! .;! IV •y. j. ~I'i. 3~''~='' ;;pi's ~ 1: ,; s• ~:.,. ~~ iil; •a .W i;~; It h ; , ~, ~ ~1 'IN`'~ W ~i 7M +in . I ! „ ^ ~~ ~M ~ ~ Z~ ~' o <i .,~_ . -:~ ;.3 :. 3. .~d1.i ~.. ' - _ ~ a.yy~~_ .I, ., .[ . 's r l~ tS . ' ,:~. Jr.iY f~l llh MV~~..~Y.~•+lLi Li•1i~4y.~'1~~~~~ • ! .i- ~ - I . ~4 r . ~ ijRlJ '~ ~i ii ' ' ~ i •~~. Y+J•Sj ~ ry ~. dltl. Itb i ~•d wit :d ~ ..P„ ,,~~w>.w: , +i '1 , , , s., .• " ~ I ' ' +l~d{ejldryid ~ ~~ .!• ~ ~ .i ':t j~N. ai li"~( ,i ~1 i~ i __._.~ ~... ,r ,:~ ' -/ ; . - ~, / - ~ . ~ ,. ' ] ,~- 4 J ~I , J ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ .u 1 ~ ~ _' y L. ' . _ v r .~ _ J - _by ' ,*, "w. _~ . I,~ _ _~; j,J ~ /' .k. ~~;~-: rl ~if_ ; ,!J ~, ,In,. ~ ~ I,i It 1;'1 ,~ 1 .l.i i.l l'^ ,~ ti! i''i i~~~~ j:!i I'i~ll~i ~i~ KEITH DAGOSTINO CIVIL fNG:NfER August 17, 1992 Steve Hayes Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department i05C0 Civic Cert~r Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 981729 ,~,m,ii,u,l12,3141~ zz]]] enton 8oaa rl7 OnrM Lmw, CA. 92]24 Dh. 1]141 824.96N F~~I1161 ]83-2661 At our recant workshop meeting with Planning Commission members they expressed considerable interest in the spread of lot sizes. we did not have that information at that time - but now have taken an accounting based on the latest conceptual plan. The approximate percentages of various lot sizes (areas) are: Lot Areas fSF) $ of Lots within Project 7200-8000 23$ 8001-9000 31$ 9001-10,000 27$ 10,000 and greater 19$ The overall arre rage lot. area iG approximately 8900 square feet. I hope this information is useful. Sinc eJJrely, Keith Dagostino KsD:Rena cc: Gerry smith, U.S. Home Corp. ~~µ ~~ ,.. 4b '- ~_ ~ CI'I't' OF RASCHO CCCA110VGA STAFF REPORT J47E: .August 12, 1992 T0: chairman and Members of the Planning Commission eROM: grad Buller, City Planner 3Y: Steve Hayes, Associate Planner SUBG'cC T: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACI 14211 U. S. HOME CORPORATION - A proposed redesign of a previously reviewed vesting tentative tract map for the deve LOpment of 226 single fami iy Lots on 81.2 acres of land within the E ti•wanda Specific Plan in the and Low-Medium Ae side ntial District (4-8 dwell inq units per acre), located on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue south of the Uevore Freeway and west of East Avenue - APN: 1100-041-09, 1100-081-02, 1100-171-01 and 13, 7100-181-U 1, 1100-141-07 and 02, and 1100-191-01. Staff re commends issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration. Related Fil_: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment H9-03. (Referred Erom City Council April 1, 1992.) ABSTRAC^: The purpose of this meeting is Go, at City Council request, receive :npur from the Commission on the revised subdivision layout (see Exh :b it "A"). A11 Conmission comnen is tonight will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration of the applicant's appeal of the P La nni r.g Ca:missions denial of the vesting tentative tract map and related Etiwanda Scecific Plan Amendment. BACKGROUND: Since the Commission last reviewed and de Hied this pro3 act on December 1], 19S1, the Council has reviewed and continued the appeal n£ the vas Grog tentative tract map and related Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment nn three separate occasions. The appeal hearing is now schedu l?d for council review on September 2, 1992. The continuances were :n [ended to allow the appellant the opportunity to prepare a s~~ib d:visi on design that abandons the "grid" local street pattern and ri3:i lot layout Eor a curvilinear street pattern and includes the r?qu red 2.33 a.re nark site on this property. In additior„ the plan is iota nded to justify that this and future projects in this zone can be 9¢si y-•ed to promote a more ru to 1, country-like atmosphere, consistent wi :'r. r:~,e aeaLs and nbl?<tives of the Etiwanda Specific plan, with the ems liar 9,500 squa ra font average Iot size. is cce the last Council hearing, staff hag met with the applicant on two r:aas wns to review conceptual layouts. The redesigned subdivision maps now include the master pl.a nnir,g of areas inmediately ad3a<ent to the sit? zoned Low-Medium Re s: dentist, however, they do not show master plvnn .ny of arl7 scent areas designated Medium Density. PLANN IN, COMMSS SIGN STAFF REPORT VTT 74211 - G.S. NOME CORPORATION August 1?, 1992 Page 2 ANALYSIB; The applicant has submitted a conceptual subdivision redesign (see Exh Lbit "A"), which is intended to address Comeission and Council concerns by providing a curvi'.inear local street pattern and more interesting lot configurations (with lots averaging 8,500 square feet, per the related Eti.wanda Specific Plan Amendment request) to meet the goals and obj e<tives of the Etiwanda Spe<iEic Plan. In order to accomplish these ebj ectives, the adjacent areas in the Low-Medium Residential District were master planned to fit with the curvilinear street pa ttexn on the subject property, resulting in a number of stub streets that will connect in the future to the adjacent properties. However, the adjacent properties zoned Medi~un Residential were not master planned as requested by sta tf. (Please refer to Exhibit "A" which highlights these areas.) Lastly, the 2.33 acre park site is shown on the applicant's property for the immediate use of residents of the subdivision, tors istent with the requests of the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Planning Coslssion, and City Council. In staff's opinion, the conceptual design adequately addresses the major site planning isauea (i.e., street design and lot layout) ptev ioualy mentioned by the Planning Commission and City Council. Respe ly su 7, Brad B ' er City annex RB:SR:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Revised Conceptual Subdivision Design Exhibit "B" - Prey ious Subdivision Desi qn Exhibit "C" - city council Minutes dated April 1, and June 3, 1991. ~~ C:ry Caun,Ll H:nvtee ~-~, Aoi it : :992 `, Page 7 Ti x, 9 (uco nA coding( AN OAD INANCE O! iFR CITY COVNCIL OP TiR CITY Of O COCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETINANDA SPEC ZP PLAN AMENDMENT 92-01, AlfENDING FIGUNE s-18r AND PI 9 5-20 THROUGH 5-40, REGARDING CEATASN TMIL AOVTES AHENDING ICLE 5.33.200 REGARD IN6 COMMUNITY TRAI MTJ MAKING PI G9 IN SUPPORT THEREOF MOT I~)N: Moveri by Bu wcandad by AUxnndar to • full reading and approve Ordinance No. 239. Mot carried unanimously, 0-1 (rtlght aDpnt(. E3. Debra J. Adams, City Clark, ra ha title dinance No. 690. O C6 NO. 190 (second re q) AN O ANCE O/ THE CITY COVNCIL OF TRi OF RANCHO C NGA. CALIF011N IA, AOTMOA2ZIN0 TIDZ LEVY O- A CIAL TAZ A COMMUNITY FACILSTIES DISTRICT Moved by euque0. uwnded by Alexander to waive full ruding • • • • . P1. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OP 6T INANDA SPECIFIC jj.AN AMENDMENT 89-03 - U 9 HOMES CORPORATION - An appeal of tM Planning Comaieeion'^ dec Saion reeoamendinq denial of a ragout to apnd certain dwelopment etudarda within the Etiwanda spat iflc Plan. (COetiauad froe lurek 1E, 1f 97) SGtf report prewntad by SGw Hayes, Maociste PLnner. Hayor Stout rropened the mNtinq Cor public Mulnq. Addrau inq tM Clty Council rut charUe Schultz, Mid i Mllyer, elated tMy era raquptlnq the City Connell approve the Plan Amendment as proposed by staff, but that tM Veatlnq Tentative Map go beak to iM PLnninq commL aion for turthar analysis. Count ilme:nl»r ML11 Lama eked if there wu any lima [rams for thin pro)ect, and would they coma tack rith a redesign. Mr. Schults stated iMy rould it the Plan Amendment was appcoved. Ha elated they do ro liu tMy will have Co coma back with a redo iqn, Thera pe inq no turthar ruponae, tM public heating wu closed. fo 9 City Connell Nlnu[e• April 1, 1992 Page 8 Oebre J. Adams, City Clerk, reed iha tit lee of Ordlnenee Noe. 691 and d9T. RESOLUTION NO. 92-070 A RESOLUTION OP THE CITY COUNCIL O- THE CIT! OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING BTIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 89-03, A REQUEST TO AMEND CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITHIN THE ET INANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, ANO MMINO FINDINGS IN SUPPORT TIiGAEOP ORD ZNANCL NO. 691 (Liter reeding) AN ORDINANCE OP TFIE CITT COUI/CIL O- TAE CITY OT RANCAO CUCAHONCA, CALI PORNIA, APPAOVINO ETSGIINDA SPECI PIC PLAN AMENDlO:NT 89-03, A REQUEST TO AMEND TAE MLN2MON AVERAGE LOT S ILE REQVIAEHENT PROM 10,000 TO 0r 500 9gUARE FEET !OR 5.12 ACRES OP LAND ZONED IA11-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL OENEAALLT LOCATED BETWEEN ETIWANDA AND EAST AVENUES, NORTB OP lOOTBILL BOULEVARD AND EA3T OP ETINANDA AVENOR, NORTH OP MILLER AVEROE NITHIN TAE ETIW1fNDA SPECIFIC PLM AREA, AND MAEIND TINDINBS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-0{1-09, 1100-OB3-IT, 1100-171-01 AND 13, 1100-181-01, 1100-361-01 AND OT, AND 1100-191-01 ORDINANCE NO. {92 ([Stet reading) AN ORDINANCE Oi THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITT OT RANCHO CVCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETINANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENO[OINT 89-03, A REQUEST TO AMEND TIR MINIMVl1 AVEAAGt I/)'1 SIZE REgVIREMENT PROM 10,000 TO 8,500 SQOAAE PEST TOR ALL PROPERT IE9 ZONED I.OG-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL SOUTH AND EAST OP THE DEVORE TREENAT GI1'f1IN 37R RTIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, AND MAEINO PINDINOS IR SUPPORT TIgREOl Ho7ioNf Moved by Suquet, oeondad by Alexander to waive Cull reading and set second reeding of Ordinance No •. {91 and {92 [or April 15, 199T. Councilmember NS111ama stated that two wuka ago ehw war willing to raduea the parcel else. Ehe stated eM did not think U.S. Noes would W willing to ehange th• de•Sgn of tM proyeet. SM added Coat •[ter [urther investigation on Mr pert, she dw• not an • good faith move on tM dawloper'• part, and wu taking away her support for iM smaller lot else. Haycr Stout stated he le not in favor of GhU amendment. Councllmember Alexander stated M auppocta tM approval o[ Che pro]ect. Ceunc llmemDer Buquee stated he L at 111 Sn favor o! the amendment, Dut cull zed t hate were •t 111 • number oL iuuee to rualved. Xe stated he appcec Sated U.S. Homa^ honesty about informing the Count ll that they will oucually sell tM pro)ect. Ne [e It a quality project can rtill caa» out of thL. 70 C _ty Cou nc.. Nir.ucee iPril 1, 1992 Page 9 Mayor Stout stated hie position has still not ehangmd •Lnce the last meeting. He asked tN Clty Attorney how Co proceed with this m4ttec since it vas apperant there moss a tie votes on this matter. lames Markman, CSty Attornry, stated unlu• !ha dew Loper vaivea acme time Lino on the map, them mould b. some problems with elms running out on Che Voting Tentative Nap. He felt it the developmr mould Males the tlmm lines, it would allow tN fifth Councllmember to lisGn to the tspae rmgatding thin matter and then come beck for a votes for all live Gouneilmembers. He •CaNd unLu the developer will walvm tM Lime lima, ha mould suggest the Council deny tha appeal. Nr. Schultz, Reid and Hellyer, /Gated they mould waive the time limits in order to wait for Councilmember Nright to return, but mould aLO like to make a presanGtion wNn she returns. Naycr Stout stated that in the meantime, Lamy go back and wrk on CM Waiing Tentetlw Map and do tM things they may iMy mould like to do. Jams/ Markman, Clty Attorney, eugquted tact it W part of the rmcord fast the dev/loper Ls waiving time ilmlt• preuntly to act on the wetlnq Map a It la now proanted to the Council, tact Lamy intend !o Cab Lt book to the coavaluion with the Council's dirwtion, tact the Council continue eM hearings on thm Ordlnancu beform them to 7:00 p.m., on June 7, 399] in the Council ChamMrs, and direct tam Vesting Nap he sent back to the Plaminq Coesiulon rich modifications agroabL to tam developee, and hopmCully t0 come back a! the mama time. HOTIONt Moved by Stout, seconded by Suqumt that the EL lwanda Specific Plan Amendment bm continued to June 3, 199] Co be Matd in tM Council Chambers. Notion carried unanimously, a-O-1 (Mright eDsenL ). • . . C - COAPOAATION - An aDWa1 of thm Planning Camml/elon'• deCl/SOn denying the proposed tentative tract map and dulgn reeler for the develops»nt of ]36 •ingl• family lot/ on 81.1 sore/ of land within the Et Lwanda Speeif lc Plan Sn the Low- Medlum Au idential District (4-8 dwllinq un1L per acn1, looted on the east •Lde of 6lLraada Avenw, /auto of tae Dwore Preeway, and we/t of Eaet Avenue - APN: 1300-011-09, 1100-OB1-0], 1100-171-01 and 13, 1100-131-01, 1100-141-03 and 17, and 1100-191-01. Related Isle, Cti«anda Specific Plan Amendmmnt 89-01. (Continued tram Wrch lt, 199]) Staff report pruented by 9twe Nayes, Auociat• P 1an0a[. Sae above pardon of item Cor public hmadnq discussion. RESOLUTION NO. 92-071 A AESOLUTLON OP THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA, rarf9ORNIA, DENYING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO• 14]11, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION O9 216 SINGLE lANILY LOT9 ON 81.1 ACRES O- LANG NITNIN THE 6T LNANDA 9PCCf 91C PLAN IN 2H6 Cicy Council Minutae April 3, 1992 Page 10 MEDIUM AND LON MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (8-16 AND 4-8 DWELLING VNZTS PEA ACRE, RESPECTIVELY), LOCAT80 ON TNS EAST S ZOE OP ETIWANDA AVENUE, SOUTR O! THE DEVORE FREEWAY AND HEST OF EAST AVENUE, AND MMING FINDINGS IN SOPPORT THEREO! - APN: 1100-041-09, 1100-081,17, 1100-171-01 AND 13, 1100-181-01, 1100-141-01 AND -O2, AND 1100-191-01 RESOLUTION NO. 97-072 A RESOLVT ION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 0! THE CITT O! RANCHO CUCAHONGA, CALIFORNIA; DENYING TH6 DESIGN REVIEW OF VENT LNG TENTATIVE TRACT MO. 14211, T7?S OESION REVIEW O! A RE92DLNTIAL SUHDLVZSION O! 22b SINGLE !" .LY L0T9 ON 81.2 ACRES O- LAND WITHIN THE ETINANOA SPECIIIC ,N IN TAE l2DIUN AND LOW MEOION RESIDENTIAL OISTRICT9 (8-la J 6-8 DWeLLINO UN IT9 PEA ACRE, RESPECTIVELY), IACATED ON TH6 EAST SIDE 01 6TIWANDA AVENVE, SOVTA O! THE DEVORE PAEENAY AND WEST O! EAST AVENGE, AND HARING FINDINGS IN SVPPORT THEAEO! - APNi 1100-0{1-09, 1300- 081-12, 1100-171-01 AND -13, 1100-181-01, 1100-1a1-O1 AND -02, AND 3100-191-01 MOTIONS Moved by Stout, gcondaa by Euquet that !ha VtlLSnq TanGtlVe Tract Map he returned to tM ~uriadiCCion of tM Planning sUf! and Planning Coaanlsslon for appropriate consultation snd negol lotion, and Lot tRi• Law •LO to appear on eha June 7, 1992 agenda. Motion carried unanlmoualy, a-0-1 (WrSgRt abhnt). ~ • . . . . c [.AN AMEMOMENT 90-03H - CTTY 0! RaN NO CII awnvna - A public hurl o comma the dra tt final onviranmental impart report prepared ror the ands North Spac Plan and Gsnaral Plan Aaundmsnt 90-038 to protono rimaGly 6,860 ac w• o! tory In tAe Rancho LLCaawnga sphere of Lnt • to provide for 3,613 •ingl•-[am welling unite on 2,117 acraa of t Lnd, 2E aere• of neighborhocd conmorci e, { achoola, 5 parka, aatrlan cantor, and preserver ion of •, N2 ecru n apace goner oca[od north of Righlana Avenue (Stara RouU 30 ), south o[ t an Bor no National loroat, want of the City of Fontana, and uat of M111 ikon 9taf[ report praun[ad 6y Larry Ha nderaon, Principal Planner. Hayor Stout opened the auot or public hearing. rasa lnq the Clty council NeC@: Marlene nal, 10117 Esl Alr, Montclair, from San nardlno Sago FrU •nd Pomona Valley Greem, stated ahoy aapport Rartc caaanga'• ant ion of North Etiwanda and will work towards eAat goal. • added eho think^ tM EIA Sa fragmented. They asked Lor tM prossrvK ion all habliet north of tM ut lllty corridor. She also pruantod • lotur w R ~Z City Council Minutes June 3, 1992 Pnge 6 EOILOINC SVPPLI ES AND HOME INPROVEMENTS• AS A CONDITZONAISY PEAMI TTED USE KITH IN SUBAREA 7r RE9PEC1'LVELT - APNS 229-011- 10, 19, 21, 26, 27 AND 28 Moved by Buquet, uconded by Nriqht to wsiw Lull readin nd approve \. <96. Notion carried unanimously, S-0. . ~ e E2. VZCIOVS Debra J. Adams, City AN ORO INANCE O COGlIONGAr CJILITO CVCANONGA MONICIPAL AND/OR VIC2003 DOOE NOT20NS Moved Dy Buquet, oconI Ordinance No. 698. Motion caEl NEN CHAPTER 6.Oa TO TBZ RANCHO NINq TD P0IRIITIALLY DANOEROtlE to waive full reading and appraw v, 5-0. . . e3. Debra J. Adame, Cit clerk, read the title o! Ordin • Mo. 307-H. ORDINANCi NO. 707-E (second reading ORDINANCE OT l2R CITT COUIICIL OT TID1 CI T RANCHO CAI?ONGA, CALITOANIA, AMNDINq CRAFTER 2.2E OT RANCHO CUCAMONCA MUNICIPAL CODE PEATAININO TO THE ENVI NTAL MANAOYl~NT COIpIEEION TO RE-LECT 1'HE MEMEEAEHIP O- T!0 TERM1 OT TNO AND TOOR YEM APPOIM'LlQ113'Er AND THE REMOVAL JOIRT EOECOIMITTEE lOSETINOE VITA THE CITY COONCZL EUECOlHII ION, Moved by euquet, seconded 6y Nright to wiw full Nadinq and s ~ • • . . . [, AD9ERSINED TUALIC EEIIEIIIOE !1. COHEIOERATION OP APPEAL OP ETINANOA EPECITIC PLl1E AMEIIDNRNT fl9-03 - U.3. y}4CljES jj!(Oj~3 p j M2SQ - An appeal o[ Che Planning Ca~lu lone decision recommending denial o[ • request eo amend certain development slandarda within CM Ltiwanda Spec 1lie PLn. (CentlneM from April 1, 19T]) read the title of Ord N No. d9B. NCE NO. 198 Loco reading) CITY CIL OT THE CITY OT RANCHO 73 city Count ll H!.nutea Jura 3, 1991 Pnge ? CORPORATION - An appeal of ih• Plarninq Co®luion'• daciaion danyinq the prapo•ed bnta[iw tract map and design twiw Cor the development of 226 s1ngU family lore on 81.3 acme of lantl within the 6t Lwsnda Spec if Se Plan in the Low- Medium Reeidantlal DLtrict ({-8 dwlllnq unite IMi acre), located On the •ut aide of ¢tlwanda Avmue, .oath of the Owor• Pr•eway, and west o! Last Avenue - APN: 1100-061-09, 1100-081-03, 1300-171-01 end 13, 1100-i81-O1, 1100-1{1-OI and 12, and 1100-191-01. Related /ile: 6t iwanda Speclf is Plen Amendment 89-03. (Cmatinu•d from ADril 3, 1997) Mayor Stout stated he 1^ in receipt of a letter from the appellant request inq a continuance of 60 days with the Flaming Ca®LHOn atM 90 day. wLth Ghe Ci[y Council. M• ached if this will cocv back Auquat 5, 1992, or was thl• an error. Brad au1LC, City Planner, crated etatf would agree to the 90 days. Ralph Nan•on, Deputy Clty Attcrney, stated he mould •uggert tM 90 day eontinumc•. Jerry Smith, 0.3. Names, etat•d they are working rith • now company !or tNir plena end that la why the delay. He stated they would like the 90 day •rtendon. Ralph Hanson, Deputy Clty Attorney, stated thin would G taming Daek at the Councll'e S•pt®ber 2, 1997 mwtinq. Mayor stout opened the public hearing. MOTYON: Moved by euquet, seconded by Nrigh! to continue Its /1 to September 2, 1993. Motion carried unanimously, 5-O. a . • • ~ . - The adoption a! the /anal Statement pity ^•velopmen eetlws for Program Year 1993/93 and the [ select ion of prof acts basal graRL of $SS1, 000.00 and 513,360.0 zogram Sncame, and related amendwnts the 1989/90 and 1990/91 Statements to allow r•progxa®inq of funds. f report pr•asn Cindy Norris. Mayor Stout opened the meeting fo hearing. TheN Deinq no responq, the public hearing was closed. ALSOLOTYON NO. 92- A UTYON o- THR CITY COUNCIL O- O- RANCNO NOR, CN.I /ORIIIA, ADOPTING TNR /INAL NT OP COIOIUNITY OtyLIpDM2NT ORSLCTI173 AND PROJtCTSD USl 9 /OR TN7 COMMUNITY DiyiLOPMIN'f R GRANT PRDOAAN IOR P ~~ Re nt and Council Candidate Sim 5ch efts inquired ae to the etanda inclu density ana numbers of stor tee that will be applied Co the pr t and whe the City ie pursuing other affordable houe ing projects the city. N. 19o eha retl hie concern with the recent notice in paper regarding t upcoming neighborhootl meeting. He did not tel it was written to she that. it would be an affordable apartment projec Hr. Buller indicat that the standards will be consieten th the existing property antl that t e are a variety of affordable ng proj errs being considered eieewhere i e City. The meeting recessed at 4:50 p Chairman McNiel calletl the meeting order at 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL COMMZSEIONERS: PRE$ Larry McKie ohn Me lcher, Peter To letoy, Wendy Va llette BS ENT: Suzanne Chitiea STAFF PRESE Brad Bullet, City Planner) Steve ee, Aaeocid!@ Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engine Jae O'Neil, City Engineer; Tarr y Smith, Perk Pl anni evelopment Su pe rintende ni 0 ./APPLICANT: Gerry Smith, U. S. Hom@ Corporation; Keith Oago o, B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTSNG TENTATIVE TRACT 14211 - $. 5. NOME CORPORATION - A proposed redee ign of a prey iouely reviewed vesting tentative tract map for the development of 226 single family lore on 61.1 acres of land within the Etiwanda Specific Plan in the Low-Medium Rae ident ial District (4-8 dwelling unite per acre, located on the east aide of Etiwanda Avenue south of the Devore Freeway and west of Eaet Avenue - APN: 1100-041-09, 1100-081-02, 1100-171-01 and 13, 1100-181-01, 1100^141-01 and 02, and 1100-191-01. Btaft reeommende issue nce of a mitigated nega rive declaration. Re Leted Fil@: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 89-03. (Referred Ernm City Council April 1, 1992.) Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented a brief summary of the written staff report, stressing that the Purpos@ of the workshop was to receive epeo if lc comments relative to the rev teed aubd ivision design and forward these comnenta to the City Council. P.C. Adj cur ned Meeting Minutes •2c Augu et 12, 1992 ~7 Brad Buller, City Planner, explained in turf hec tletail the objective of the meeting and noted that the project will require additional review for compliance with all technical criteria prior to seeking formal approval of the subdivision map. Gerry Smith, C. 5. Home Corporation, clarified that they have not yet decided whether to further pursue a house product in conjunction with the map or to process only the subaivie ion map at this eime. commissioner M.elcher as ketl staff to clarify the objective of the revised plan. Mr. Buller noted the City Council's concern in mai nt aininq the "Etiwanda Image" in considering the project and Specific Plan Amendment, in that this should be maintained even if lot eizee are to be reduced. Commissioner Vallette asked far clarification on the minimum lot eizee. Mr. Hayes responded that the minimum lot size is 7,200 square feet, which is not proposed to be changed. Keith Dagoetino, Engineer, noted that the proposed lot eizee renge from 7,200 to approximately 12,000 square feet with an average size of over 8,500 square feet. He said the amallet 7,200 square foot lots are typically 72 feet wide by 100 feet deep or fi5 feet wide by 110 feet deep. commissioner Valletta requested an uptlate on the park issue. Taccy Smith, Park Planning/Development Superintendent, stated that staff's preference ie to have the park contiguous to the interim datantion basin with the intent that the basin, when no longer needed for dre inage purpoeeer can become an ea paneion of the 2.3 acre park site. Mr. Dagoetino presented an overlay of this pcrtion of the plan showing the park in an area more acceptable to Barks staff, provided the technical aspects of adjusting a portion of the bee in can be eat isEied. Dan Sames, Senior Civil Engineer, asked if the developer had cone idered the master planning of areas shown ae the park on the pravioue map. Mr. Dagoetino responded that plane foi these areas had not yet bean modified. Chairman McNiel asked the purpose of a park elte of only 2.3 acres. Mr. Tarry Smith stated thin park would be developed for the immad iate use of residents within this project and surrounding areas, with the full 5 acre (or larger) neighborhood pack site completed when the tletent ion basin is no longer nestled. Mr. Oullec notetl that the Park and Recreation Commission will be considering the subdivision retlea ign at the it meetiny of August 20, 1992. P.C. Adjourned Meeting Minutes ~}Y" Auquat 12, 1992 ~~ Commissioner Valletta requested clot if is at yon on the required building s et hocks for this project. Mr. Hayes et aced the required front, aide, and rase yard setbacks. Commissioner Valletta remarked that she was not oppoeetl to the project if 8,500 square feet was the minimum lot size, not the minimum average lot size. Mr. Oagoet inn felt that if this size raetr fiction were implemented, it would account for a lose of about 30 more lot e. Mr. Gerry Smith noted the large density reduction Proposed from the original zoning class if is aticn. Hr. Oagoetino £e It that Commies inner Valletta's concerns could be addressed through reduced lot coverages with unit aize6 being in proportion with the lot eizee. Chairman HcHiel asked rt a wide/aha Llow loe configuration and/or new housing product was being considered by the developer. Hr. Gerry Smith et aced that the team had not explored a wide/shallow lot configuration and the product type ieeue had not been determined. Commieeioner Val lefts re iteeated her concern that a large percentage of lose are proposed at or slightly above the minimum loc size of '1,200 aqua re feet, and aeketl the project enq inset to reaearoh this percentage prior Go the C1ty Council meeting. Commies in net Tolstoy Eelt that the new street pattern and lot layouts had improved eynce the prey ioue commies ion review. He thought the lot eizee were acceptable so long ae the lot coverage6 are not maximized. commie sinner Valletta Ee It the overall etreetecape appearance envisioned will not be achieved with the proposed lo[ layout. She noted that eeund attenuation for unite adjacent to the freeway should be carefully considered. She agreed the houses should be in proportion with the lot el zee proposed. Commieaionez Melcher felt the st reetacape will appear even mare cluttered with the curvilinear streets and the minimal frontage of loge on streets. He thought the lot eizee were eatiefactory if the lot coverage is minimized and house volumes are of a lower profile. Mr. Gerry Sm iih Eelt the ieeue will resolve iteel£ given the current economy, whereby downsizing of homes fie the direction in which moor dove lopere are heading. Comm iasioner Toletoy flaked if the lots at the and of stub streets could be reducetl in size in order to turn the stubs into cul-de-sacs if the street never goes through. p.C. Atljourned Meet iag Minutes t4v August 12, 1492 ~~ Mr. Dagoetino agreed that may be pose ib le Hr. Buller asked the engineer to provide the calcu let ions showing the percentage of various lot sizes and have this information available before the City Council hearing. Chairman McNiel appreciated the appl is ant's attempts to address the Commission's concerns with the curvilinear street pattern. However, he noted that the narrow lots will produce a etreetacape view dominated by garages, especially on the cul-de-sac attest e. He recommended that the lots be widened to see a greater amount of the house (as opposed to the garage) from the street. Mr. Buller briefly eummarizetl the Commies ion's comments. He noted that Commi¢aio ner Valletta did not feel the project was acceptable with the large percentage of lots that appeared to be at the minimum 7,200 equate foot range, and that the narrow/deep lot scheme would not promote the gonls and object ivee of the Et iwanda Specific Plan. He remarketl that Commissioners To Leroy and Melcher felt the proposal could be acceptable if lot coverages w¢re reduced well below the maximum allowable percentage of 40 percent and builtling eeparat ions were increa Bed. Commissioner Melcher added that the plan could work ae long es the tlsveloper recognizes that smaller homes of lava volume should be dsvelopetl. Hs noted the need fora large percentage of one-story homes with low pitched rcofa. Chairman McNiel again asketl the developer to consider a wide/ahnllow lot configuration with unite that fit the constraints o[ these loLe. Mc. eul ler concluded the meeting summary and explained that the minutes wou ltl be forwarded to the City Council for their September 2, 1997, meeting. Ad iournment Meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet Secretary P.C. Adjourned Meeting Minutaa -0bti August 12, 1992 7~ -- CiTF OF RANCHO CCCA~SONGA STAFF REPORT ti: [E: June 3, 1592 '"'~~: Mayor and Members of toe Caty Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manage[ FROM: Brad Bu11e r, City Pia ~~er 9y: Stave Hay _s, Associate Planner SL'BJ ECI: APPEAL OF ET INANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 09-03 - U.S. i HOME ^ARPORATION - Appeal to Pla nnang Comma-sion's derisaan reconmending denial of the request to amend 'i certain development standards within the Et rwxnda Specific P Lan. APPEAL JF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14211 - U.S. HOME C_VRPDRAT ZON - An appeal to Planning Commission's decision denying t'ne proposed tentative tract map and deli 9n review of 226 single fa ma ly lots on 21.2 acres of land within the Et reanda Spemfic Plan in the Lou Medium Residential District i4-2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue south of the De vo re Freeway and west of East Avenue - APN: 1100-041-09, 1100-081-02, 1100-171-01 and 13, 1100-181-01, 1100-141-01 and 02, 1100- 191-01. Related File: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 99-73. (COn :inued from Apnl 1, 1992.) RELVM~l1pATI0N: Staff recommends [hat the City Council receive any fcr!ner public testi moray relative to the above-referee red pro Sect. If after receiving input on tho oro3e :!, the Council determines that s farther continuance is appropr:a te, then the project should be coot :Hued to a da^x soecif ied ar. the Council's discretion. If the 60-day requae! ',s xcceptab le, then this irem should be continued to August 5, 1992. ABSTRACT: The purpose of this publrc hearing is to consider whether a `~"r !ter contiruance of these projects would be acceptable tc ti1^ r,un ;~, 1. The app lican• is r?qu•>sG rag lhat th~t s.> i^_e ms b+ rongi,nu ed an =i~la nio Hal 60 days to allow the de ve lopmenr team to process modified s~~5livision Layouts w u,h anp ut Erom the Pl+nning Comuna ssione rs prior to `rr _per Cou cc:l review. BACItGR7ONV: These items were continued from the Aptil 1 in the June J, 1+d2 Ca•y Cou noel meeting to al Low the app l:cant the opport'a r.i ty to [:1~>si ul the subdivision ~a a1~ rn .n •,?. rel., 3n •.ls and ob7ec :i v.ci of r,l:.> 2'iwanda Specific Plan, whale providing the reduced mrnlnum average lot ,...~ of 9,500 square fe .., as requ esf,ed by the related F.•iwanda Specific Piv^. Amendment. The original in!ent of Chas continuan r_e was !o [ever ve 1 ~ EX/f/,(9/ T VTT 14211 6 ESPA 99-07 - U.S. tIOMES Jvne 3, 1x92 Pa ae 2 Comm cots from the Planning Commission whrch would be forwarded to the ~ity Council for further consideration of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map and related Etiw an tla Specific Plan Amendment. Since the April 1, 1992 City Camcil me =.tin g, sta EE has encou ca ged the app Licant .,o submit, as soon as possible, any new alternatives fcr our ronside rati on. Staff did mee[ with tha applicant on Aoci1 1a, 1992 aRd discussed an agreeable schedule that would have made it possible far the Council to r=view alternatives on .lu ne 3, 1992. As of the xrit ing of !his report, no revised subdivision layouts have been received from the a pp llCant~ RnSp= 1y su d, ~~-_ Read 11 er .:it la once 36: SN:mlg ^_~.a ch menu : Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant V v ..o : oriu~ `nc. .. »we e. s '~~, v .~•. cce.n a ~~e o ..row o:.~,n wu s c Vie. ww.~.; ~ , •Aw Or ~caa pr Reid .k Hellyer . a .~,,,e.., co..en..,cn o•. earma .ca ~,eo SIV896xne. csuenEw~[w eaaosi:loo ..vwc n.~ •r-~n>i ,u cc a.~aa o~n~ u•.u.e wcv .. ci~e~s F uc. May 13, 1992 MI. Steve Hayes, Assistant City P1aMGI CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 >.... „ ,.,.. ,x, a••c croon s,•cn, ri..w rtoo. v~vcnamc, c. oxen. eoe w •••ow+aw wawa[ anw s[e,vnaome. a ae.m via sr+aw ~ •w+m nm .a~.usew .awua ...cuu. c. ne•c via ere.,.x. eu. rue wu+•x., 00061-001 Re: U.S. Homes Tentative Tract 14211 and Specific Plan Amendment Dear Steve: The purpose of this letter is to request a continuance of the hearing on Tract 14211 for 60 days. This matter is presently set for hearing on May 27, 1992. It ie my understanding that this matter is also set for hearing by the City Counoil on June 3, 1992. We would request the matter be continued for at leeat 90 days so that we may have the hearing by the Council following the hearing of the Planning Commission. U. S. Homes waives any of the deadlines set forth under the Permit Streamlining Act. ,hank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, -_ _r. CT1Y OF [,~[tNCKCf _~UCAMONGA PLANNING DMSION g RBID 8 HHLLYBR A P 33 ORALJJISD TZ C es 9cNu1 fiEM: V~ ' < «~ a: ~;; TITLE: :.~,~~., ,,,,~ -s~~~h. ~ N EXH[BR': r SCALE: 111 l yr lcrl:v~nv ~u~~l~lvtiur~ STAFF REPORT DA: E: T0: FROM: BY: EV ES ECT: Ap ri1 1, 1992 aay or and Members of the City council Ja ci ism, AIC P, City Nana ger B cad Buller, Citq Planner Steve Hayes, Associate Planner A PYEAL OF ETIivANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 89-03 - ^.5• HOME CO RPORAT IO!i - Appeal of the Pla nniny Conn fission's de ^_is:on recommending denial of a request bo amend certain de veloprs^.t standards within the Etiwanda Epecific Plan. APPEAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14211 - V.S. HOME CORPORATION - An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision deny rrg the proposed tentative tract map and design review for tF,e ae velopment of 1.20 sin 9le family lots on 81.2 acres of land within the Etiwanda Specific Plan in the Lon-Medium Residential District (9-e dwelling unl is per acr?), iota ted nn the east s!de of Etiwanda Avenue, south of the Devore Freeway, and west of East Avenue - APN: 1100-041-09, 1100-031-02, 1100-1'11-01 and 13, 1100-181-01, 1100-141-01 and 02, and 1100-191-01. Related Fi 1e: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 87-03. RECOMMSNDAT ION S aff re commends Thar the Crty Council receive all Public testimony relative to the above-r<f erenced project. If after receiving input on the project the 'lrm nerl concurs wr th the findings made by sta £f, then adoption o°_ the attached Or9r Hance agp roving the amendment for all pzoperties zoned Low-Medium Re si.dent ial south and mast of the Devn re Freeway (Ordinance Option N1) would be app rop crate. Also, rE [he Council concurs with. the findrngs made by the Planning Cnmmrss TOr, relative to the Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Design Review thereof, than adoption of the attached Resolutions of Denial for the Vestiny Tentative Tract Map and the Oesr yn Review thereof, would be appropriate. BAC RGRO UND ':o f1a -~-'n 13, 1992, *_he Crty Council conducted a pu 6lic hearing and voted to con<L~us ~bnve-r ef~renced projer, is to t^.e April 1, 1992, mnetrn g. At the m~atinu ~' Ma rcn 1N, 1992, the City r_nunc it drrerted staff to preps rro approval ,3M rnences f~'+r a re du c[ron rn the minimum avers qe lot sizes for all property .,need Lnw-`1w+wm Rrsi de nrial south and east of the Devore Freeway and another approval oriinn ncr> for r.he same request, but lr mited to properties cu rrent ly ow n.•i by ^.5. Hmm~ Corporation. In addrtion, the Coun r. it directed staff en ;no Lu rk+ the prevrn»s Ly pr?pared Res clutien of Denial to afford the Counr. it the onpor'[un;ry to review all alterna t>_ves- at the mee ring of April 1, 1992. Also, the 'h.v ncri cnntiwe~i the related Ves troy Tnnta Give Tract, .1 ap fn order t.n take gz CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ESPA 89-03 - D.S. HOME NRPCRA'PI ON April 1, 1992 ?age 2 concurrent action with the amendment request. However, Council members expressed concern with the current subdivision design and indicated their intent to refer the project's design back to the Planning Commission and staff. ANALYSIS At the March 19, 1992, City Council hearing, a majority of the Council members Ee It that the amendment request was worth considering and believed it would allow a logical transition between the predominantly lower density areas north and west of the Devote Freeway and the Comemrcial uses along Foothill Boulevard. The City Coun cii directed staff to prepare two alternative ordinances for approval of the amendment. The first of these would nrodify the minimum average lot sSze standard for all properties zoned Low-Medium Residential south and east of the Devote Freeway (see Exhibit "A"). The second would only al low khe reduced lot sizes for parcels exclusively owned by U.S. Hume Corporation (see Exhibit „B.. ). If the City Council Einda it appropriate to move forward with the amendment, staff finds the first alternative more appropriate. The second alternative creates land patterns of differing development standards that will make it difficult to develop a good land pion for this neighborhood. The par<els immediately adjacent to the V.S. Home parcels would be required ro meet a standard higher titan that found appropriate for the U. S. Home parcels. Thouoh the focus of the City Council discussion of March 18, 1992, was on the amendment req pest, the Council indicated that the subdivision map, as currently proposed, aid not exhibit a design that met the goals and objectives of the E `_i wands Specific Plan including, but not limited te, the use of curvilinear scree CS, varied structural setbacks, and appropriate lot coverage, thereby promoting a sense of a more rural, country-like atmosphere. The Council also indicated support for the Planning Commission's and the Park and Recreation Commission's Findings of the need for a park concurrent with the development, hence, further reason to redesign the eubdi vis inn map. Re sQrgYfyrlly subm}t/t~e~J3/~ Dr ad r City Planner H B:SH/jfs Atta rh me nt s: Exhibit "A" - De velcpment Diahr icts Nap Exhibit "B" - U.S. Home's vrope rty Cwne rsh ip Map Exhibit "C" - March 18, 1992, planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance of Approval for ESPA 89-07 (Option No. 1) Ordinance of Approval for ESPA 89-07 (Op«,on No. 2) Re smut ion of Denial, for ESpA 09-03 Resolution of Denial for BTT 1J211 ResoLut. i.nn of Denial Enr the Uesi yn Review of VTT 147.71 83 r~uo~ ~ 5•stt' _ T - _ - _ ---~ ._ LM ~ - L - / ~S .. r / ~~ ~. (~~ I ~! ou _~ LM Co ~ m. ~ ~ I ~ M _! LM ! 6/ ~ M ~ i ! ~~ } I ~~ t,` ~ ~~ - ~{ .~~. M ,, .,...~~~,~~ ~ Comm. ~ MCmm. ~ comm. W.: - c ,-- --^ - = =~ 0~~~~-day Zow~ Comm .,VM, J,.h, v,~' <<SroF e~~w~ N.~Comn~ Cn ww M ,g`l .-~ , ~. ~ ~_. ~ i e' V ['pR ~ 9'R~i' J - / . `_ __ %. ._ LM ~ ~ L ~. ~/ . ~~ S' Sr~~ ~ ELM--1 / ~ ~~ ~ ~ I ''.,, Orr 'i LM Co m. i~ i I ~, ~. I~ ® i_.: u ~~~ i ~"?~ M LM, ~ M G~ ~, ~` i; f f . ~~~*°~ " L M i ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ``,~~~ \, M Comm. c ~~QS~ oap..~y a....~ ~. Coinrh~ Them-"'Temtf Gomm. '~ ~~~_~ M ~. gs c ~- -- CITY OF RANCHO CtiCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: March 18, 1992 (~ T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council 1-1 Jack Lam, dICP, City Manager IIJJ FR OhI: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: S[eve Hayes, Associate Planner SUHJ ECT: APPEAL OF ETI WANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 89-03 - U.E• HOME CORPORA TICN - Appeal of the Planning Conm:ission's decision recoaUending denial of a request to amens certain development standards within the Etiwanda Specific Plan as described below: 1) To allow sinole family detached residential development within the Medium Residential District (e-14 dwelling units per acre) uti li.z ing Hasi.c Development Standards; and 2) To reduce the minimum average lot size Erom 10,000 square feet to 8,900 square feet within the Low Medium Residential Distci ct (4-9 dwel Ling units per acre) under Has is Development Standards; and 3) To reduce the minimum average lot size from 10,000 square feet to 8,500 square feet within the Medium Residential District (8- 14 dwelling units per acrel under Basic Development Standards. APPEAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACE 14211 - U.S• EOME CORPORATION - An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision denying a proposed tentatYVe tract map and design review for the development of 226 sin 9le family lots on 81.2 acres of land within the Etiwanda Speci.ic Plan in the Medium and Low Medium Residential Districts (8- 14 and 4-d dwe llinq units per acre, respectively), located on the east side. of Etiwanda Avenue south of the Devore Freeway and west of -cast Avenue - APN: 227-231-01, 09, 12, 16, and 32, 227-191-16, 227- 1d1-2G, and 227-261-11. Re ldt ed Eile: Etiwanda Specific Plan Ame r.dment 89-03. RBCOMl~tlDAT IO[i: Staff recommends the City Council receive all public testimony on the appeal aE the Vesting Tentative Tract, the Desi 9n Review the teo£, and the Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment. If aEtez roc sluing input nn the proposed projects, the Council concurs with the findi nga made by the Pla nn znq Commission, then adoption of the attached Resolutions of Denial for t1e Vesting Tentative Tract Map, the Design Review thereof, and the Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment would br_ appropriate. E1ICAGROOND: rn Decs mher 17, 1991, following a series of public hearings, the P La nning Commission zecosonended denial of the above-referenced Vesting Tentative Tract Map and continued the Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment to a PLa nning Commission workshop on January e, 1992. At the December 17 meeting, several concerns were voiced by mn_mba rs of the Commission. The primary conrnrns can be generally summarized as follows: gb CITY CO DliCIL STAFF REPORT VTT 14211 - V.S. HOME CORPORATION March 18, 1992 Page 2 Etiwanda Specific Flan Amend t 99-03: ' reduced minimum average lot size in areas zoned Low Medium and Medium Residential using basic development standards would allow a smaller average lot size and potential higher density for "conventional" single family development. If other development standards (maximum lot coverage, setbacks), are not modified, the result could be a more congested streetscape appearance, which is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Etiwanda Specrfic Plan; 2. This amendment, by allowing a potential higher density for "conventional" single family development, may reduce the incentive for developers to utilize the optional development standards which are intended to create more interesting project designs by encouraging unit cluste ri r.g =_nd innovative techniques that allow preservation of ample common open space. Vesting Tentative Tract Map: 1. The proposed tentative map was designed to comply with the applicant's proposed Etiwanda Specific plan Amendments; hence, is inconsistent with current Etiwanda Specific Plan Development Standards; 2. The prole ct does not incorporate the area required for the devel cpment of a neighborhood park; 3. The proposed "grid" pattern cf the site plan does not reflect a design that would provr de interesting st reetscapes within or on the perimeter of the project; and 4. The proposed architecture does not exhibit the character oC historic homes within the Eti wands area. All o` the above-mentioned items and other concerns relative to the project are discussed in more detail in the attached December 11r 1991 staff report re gardin9 Etiwanda North Specific Plan 89-C 3. These items are also discussed in the Derember 1', 1992 Planning Commission Staff Report regardi ng Vesting Tentative Tract 14211 and the Planning Commissicn ml notes from December 17, 1991 and January e, 1992 (sent under separate ccier)• Again, the related Et i.wanda Spe cifrc plan Amendment was continued [p the ,ranuary S, 1992 Planning commission meeting. At this meef.i nq, the Commission reiterated the same COn.: P, Cn$ n%pLESSed dt t?1B pLE VinU$ meetiny and recommended denial to the City ::cuno 1. The Plano my Commission subsequently held a workshop tp discuss single `,amity residential development standards an9 is continuing to pursue that issue. Poll rn;i ny adnpti nn of the Reso lu tinns of Denial for the testing Tentative Tract and Design Fe view on De rember 17, 1991, and the Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment nn .la nua ry 22, 1902, the appelJ.ant fi Led a timely appeal to allow the ,:,ty council to consider the appLuatinns as proposed. g~ CITY COUNCIL E'!'AFF REPORT VTT 14211 - U.E. HOME CORPORATION March 18, 1992 Page 3 ANALYSIS: Et rwanda Specific Plan Amendment: The Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment is proposed to mo riify three specific deve lopment standards as referenced in the pro jest description. The amendment is necessary to allow development of the related Vesting Tentative Tract 14211 proposed by U.S. Home Corporation. At the time the application was submittetl to the City, all three parts of the amendment were needed to approve the related Vesting Tentative Tract Map. However, du Tina the recent pn bl is hearings regarding is nd use within the Etiwanda area, the City Council re deli gna tea all oropecty owned by U.S. Home Corporation to Low Medium Residential, hence, making oar is 1 antl 3 of the amendment (which related to properties zoned Medium Residential) independent of the related tentative map. Now enly part 2 (reducing the minimum average lot size in the LoW Medium Residential zone) specifically relates to the proposed de ve lopment• H o~.ve vr_r, staff analyzed all three parts of the amendment to maintain the "hi e.rarchy" of development standards from zone to zone. At the December 17, 1991 Planning Conmisai on public hear in9 and the Sanuary e, 1992 workshop, the Commission was concerned that the amendments would r.ot meet the goals and objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan to preserve the character of the Etiwanda community. In addition, the Commission noted that the affected areas should be desi goad to Freserve hrstoric elements characteristic of Etiwanda (Eucalyptus windrows, large yards, architectural Styles and materials, etc.) Given these concerns in conjunction with the numerous site constraints (Freeway proximity, F.u ca lyptus windrows, etc.) in the affected areas, a majority of the Cononissroners felt that this area should be developed with "innovative" p ro Sects that wr11 preserve ample common open space. (These types of projects are typically designed by utilizing the optional Ueve lopment Standards, which allows smaller lots in trade for a7undant common open spats, hence, clustering areas of residential uses.) B. Vest inq Tentative Tract Map: The Vesting Tentative Tract Map is proposed for the purpose of developing a "conventional" 226 Lot single family su bdivi=ion on 81.2 acres of land in the Etiwanda area with. an average lot si. z.e of approximately 8,685 square feet and resr dances ranging from 1,988 to 3,J70 square feet. Lr, addition, the 10.57 acre area south of the res. de nt ial portion of the site is proposed for use as an interim ~:e teneion basin and future neighborhood park site, A^_ the December 17, 1991 Planning Commission hearing, the Convnission did not. approve [he su bdi vrsron as presented because of concerns created by the related Specrf ru Plan Amendment. Without the amendment, the Tentative Trnct Map is rncons istent wi. rh Ehe current Etiwanda Specific Plen Oev=lopment Standards. In addition, the Commission expressed concern with the ".lrrd" layout of the site plan and arch itertu cal detailing. In their spin ~.on, the sire plan and architecture did oat adequately emulate the character i.n trn dad for the Etiwanda area. Finally, the Commiaei on felt that die required min i. rm~m 2.33 acre park site should b? incorporated as a 8$ CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT VTT 14211 - V.S. HOME CORPU RATION March 18, 1992 Pa qe 4 lettered-lot on the Tentative Tract Map to ensure its shape and location would 6e acceptable and its construction would occur in the initia'_ phases of this pre ject. Given the numerous unresolved concerns, the Planning Co~mnissron determined that these acplications would not create a specific pm7ecc or future projects consistent with the you is and objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. CORR85POND1~(S:: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Dai 1y Rull etin newspaper, the property has been posted and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. Rssp ally itt , Brad Bu er City P anner BB:SH: mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter of Appeal Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 11, 1991, regarding Etiwanda Spec iEic Plan 69-03 City Council Resolution of Denial for Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 89-03 City Council Resolution of Denial for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 14211 City Council Resolution of Denial for the Design Review of Vesting Tentative Tta ct Map No• 14211 Separately provided to City Council: P la nninq Convnission Staff Rep orta dated January 22 and January R, 1992, regarding Et lwanda 5peci fic Plan 89-03 Planning Commission Staff Report dated December /1, 1991, re qa rding Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 14211 Planning Commission Minutes dated January 22, 16, and e, 1992, and De ce tuber 17, 1991 P is nninq Comm tssion Resolution No. 91-192 denying Vesting Tnntati ve Tract Map No. 14211 Pla nninq Commission Resolution No. 91-193 3enyiny the Design Review Eor Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 16211 Planning Conanission Resolution No. 92-B7 denying Etiwanda Specific Pian 89-03 ~1 .a.+o. Reid & Hellyer ..: ": o~."~ :o:`~oo " RIV8H9IOl. CAI.IP08fl{w p2301-L'!OO • ~ wo •I O~i~i)>i •(~[CO ni[~ I,i ~~ l1 •~i cif December 19, 1991 •vtMVi ~,pl i~i~~ ~~~-.~w ~ ~a«un ....o,,. ~m.~ :, w e ~. .~., ~w,a+ 00061-001 SENT Vlft P&D88AL SZPRSSS Debra Adana, City Clerk CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA 10500 Clvic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Re: Tentative Tract 14211, U.S. Homes Deaz Ma. Adana: The purpose of this letter is to appeal the City Planning Commission denial of Tentative Tract 14211 and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 89.03. On December /7, 1991, the City Planning Commiaaion denied proposed Tentative Tract 14211 and 8tiwenda Specific Plan Amendment 89.03. Fie reapeetfully appeal thi• denial and request that this matter be scheduled for hearing before the City Counoil. I enclose a check for :251.00 made payable to City oP Rancho Cucamonga. Sincerely, REID a HIILLYER A 01?I3 SIrOtj~ CO TION Charles T. Ichu tz vn/ctlvc~cac.oox CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA PLANNING DMSION lt ITEM ESPA 84D3 d~'~/if I4 a : TITLE:e'~~- ,~T ~bx~' EXHIBIT: ~ SCALE: " N 90 o uY ~r na:v criu cu~slnvrvt;.~ STAFF REPORT DATE: December 11, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Comm is Sion FROM: Brad 9uller, City Planner BY: Steve Hayes, Associate Planner SU &TECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETZWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT B9-03 - D.S. HOME CORPORATION - A request to amend certain deveiopme nt standards within the Etiwanda Specific Plan as described below: 1) To allow single family detached residential development within the Medium Residential District (B-14 dwelling units per acre) utilizing Basic Development Standards; and 2) To reduce the minimum average lot size Erom 10,000 square feet to 8,900 square feet within the Low Medium Residential District (6-B dwelling units per acre) under H as is Deve lepment Standards) and 3) To redece the minimum average lot size Etom 10,000 square feet to 8,500 square feet within the Medium Residential District (B-i9 dwelling unite per acre) under Aasic Development Standards. Related File: Envi-onmental Assessment and Vesting Tentative Tract 14211. ABSTRACT: The purpose of these amendments is to allow "conventional" single family detached residential development with lot sizes comparable to the Low Residential zone of the Development Code within the Low Medi~,un and Medium Residential zones of the Etiw soda Specific Plan. The applicant (V.S. Home Corporation) formally submitted this app ligation concurrently with their application Eor Vesting Tentative Traci 74211. It has been the intent of sta f.f to process this request concurrently with the proposed project, hence, the application has never been reviewed by the PLa nning Coamission since the tentative map a pp lit anion was just recently deemed comp let _. On November 20, 1991, the City Council recommended Chat all of the property owned by V.S. Home Corporation be designated Low-Medium Residential, hence, making parts 1 and 3 from the amendment description above independent of the related tentative map proposals only part 2 from the above description is relative to their subdi vis loo proposal. 9~ FLANN IHG COMMISSION STAFF AE 20AT ESPA 89-03 - U.S. NOME CORPORATION December 11, 1991 Page 2 .ANALYSIS: A. General The applicant is requesting three amendments to the Etiwanda Specific Plan as described above (see Exhihit "A"1. Specifically, the amendments would allow this applicant to process a 22o ict single family detached subdivision (Vesting Tentative Tract 14211) on 81.2 acres of land with an average lot size of approximately 8,685 square feet and a net density of 2.8 dwelling uni is per acre. The tentative map has been designed to comply with the proposed amendments. The three specific facets of [he amendment are analyzed as fol iows: 1. Allowing single family detached development in the Medium keside ntial District, basic Development Standards: Currently, single family detached dwellings and dup lezes are only allowed in this zone when utilizing the Optional Development Standards within the Etiwanda Specific Plan (see Exhibit "B"). The intent of the Optional Development Standards is to allow development at the upper end of the density ran gee with minimal lot size and dimension restrictions in trade for usable, common open space areas that will benefit the residents within a particular nroject. However, the Etiwanda Specific Plan Development standards as currently written do not allow the developer the option of incorporating the required open space excl naively in private yards in the Medium Aesidential zone for single family or any type of development; minimum of 30 percent common open space and 40 percent total open space is required under the Optional Development Standards in the Medium Residential zone. The applicant contends, and staff agrees, that single family development with common open space facilities, uhi ch are typically maintained by a Xomeowne rs Association and require written Cove nante, Codes and Restrictions (CCb R'sl is not desirable to all potential homeowne is in the anticipated price range. In addition, many homeowners prefer to have larger private yards foe their individual use and enjoyment. Therefore, the applicant concludes chat the option to build under the basic Development 8tandar da should be allowed in the Medium Residential development district. Staff agrees that the standards shop ld 6e more flexible to allow the developer the option of building a conventional single family subdivision under basic standards or a smaller lot subdivia ion with common open space under optional standards. If this pot tion of the amendment request Ss recommended for approval by the Planning Convnission, then Part 3 of this amendment request should be considered in conjunction with this recommendation. Again, this portion of the request is now independent of the rela tad project. G~ 10 PLANNING COMMISSION HTAFF REPORT SH PA 89-D3 - U.S. HOME COR?ORATIGN December 11, 1991 Pa ye 3 Reducing the minimum average lot size from 10 000 to B 900 square Ee et within the Low Medium Residential District H Development Standards: In keeping with the goals and objectives for a more rural and sensitively planned atmgsphere within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area, the adopted Basic Development Htandazas are intended to allow develoPm ant in the lower half of each density range. Specifically, the established minimum average lot size of 10,000 square feet in the Low Med iuw District yields a maximum density of 4.3E dwelling units per acre for conventional single family residential development (see Exhibit "C") with a Low-Medium Residential density range cf 4-0 dwelling units per acre. If the minimum average lot size were reduced to 8,900 square feet in this zone, then the maximum density would rise to 4.89 dwelling units per acre for this type of development; still well within the lover half of the density range. Also, it should be noted that the Basic Development Standarda within the Development Code have been established with a much smaller minimum average iot size in the Low Medium Residential District (ref et to Exhibit "D"), 6,000 square feet. Fo[ comparison, a maximum denai ty of 7.26 dwelling units per acre could be generated in areas governed by the Development Code, slgnif icantly higher than the prooos ed Etiwanda Specific Plan Amen dmant maximum of 4. H9 dwelling units pec acre. Therefore, iF this portion of the amendment were recommend for approval as propose a, the general intent for lower densities and a less suburban atmosphere would, in staffs opinion, still be intact. Please note that the applicant's request was designed to meet the needs of their specific project prior to the City Council's action of November 20, 199 I. Now that the entire site is designated Low-Medium Residential, the applicant would need to have the minimum average lot size reduced to 8,685 square Eeet or lower. If the Commission feels that an even sma L'e: minimum average lot size is appropriate (example: 9,500 square foot minimum average may allow a maximum of 5.12 units per acre, e,00C aqua re Eeet, 5.45 units pec acre), then the Hes olution Eor this amendment may Yx revised accordingly. It is staff's opinion that an 9,500 square foot minimum average let size is appropriate in keeping with the general intent of the Etiwanda Hpem fic Plan and will al Low a slightly higher density, yet well be law the mid-point for established range. Reducing the minimum average lot size Erom 10,000 square feet to 0,500 square feet within the Medium Residen Ual District, Bas i.c Development Standarda: 93 PLANNING COM4I5 S10N STAFF REPORT ES PA 89-03 - U.S, EOME CORPORATION December 11, 1991 Pz ge 4 Assuming single family development under Basic Development Standards In the Medium Residential District is recomvnen de d, (see item 1) there would be potential density of :. 36 dwelling units pec acre with the current lot size standards, well below the Medium Residential District density range of 8-14 dwelling units per acre (see Exhibit "C"). If the applicant's request for a minimum average lot size of 8,500 scpuare feet was recommended, a maximum density of 5.12 dwelling units per acre is possible, still well below the minimum density for this zone. Conversely, density of 8 units per acre would yield an average lot size of approximately 5,445 square Eeet. In staff's opinion, it would not De appropriate to allow 5,665 average square foot lots in the Etiwanda Area for the purposes of allowing "conventional" single family subdivisions at 8 units per acre since the density ranye for the Medium Residential District was established for multiple family development (condominiums, townhouses) or small lot single family development with ample common open apace; "conventional" single tamlly subdivisions were not anticipated since property owners typically prefer to maximl ze density. An 8,000 square foot mini rm~m avara ge, which would generate a potential maximum density of 5.45 uni to per acre, is appropriate because it would allow more conventional single family development at a density that meets the intent and purposes of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Again, this portion of the amendment request is now independent of the related tentative map, Dosed on the action of the City Council on November 20, 1991. E. Cumulative Environmental Assessment: Part I cf the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and found no significant adverse environmental impacts will occur ae a resu Lt of these amendments. The issue for consideration is an anticipated reduction of the proposed land use intensity; therefore, staff De lieves the impact of the type of development allowed under the revised standards should rot be more significant than originally described in the environmental review for the Etiwanda Specific Plan and General Plan. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: In order for the Planning Conm fission to approve the proposed amendments, the followiny facts for findings must be made: A. The proposed amendments will not have a si 9n if icant impact nn the environment as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Initial Study Part II. qy PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ESPA 89-G3 - G.S. HOME CORPORATION December 11, 1991 Page 5 D. The proposed amendments will promote and further implement the goals aid obje etlves of the Etiwanda Specific Plan by helping to preserve the unique historical nature of the Etiwanda area through lower densities. C. The proposed amendments are consistent with the goals ar.d objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and General Plan. D. The proposed amendments would not be materially injurious or detrimental to adjacent properties. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper. the project has been posted, and rot ices F.ave been sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. RECOMMENDAT iON: Staff recom~enda that the Planning Commission recovmend approval of Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 89-03 and issuance of a Negative Declaration to the City Councll. Respe y Submitted, Brad Iler Ci Planner B0: SFi: mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letters from Applicant Exhibit "6" - Etiwanda Specific Plan Section 5.22.201 (Residential Land Uses) Exhihit "C" - Etiwanda Specific Plan Figute 5-2 (Bes1c Development Standards) Exhibit "D" - Table 17.08.000-B (Basic Development Standards) Exhibit "E" - Development District Map of the Etiwanda A iea Resolution of Approval foa Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 89-03 Drs £t City Council Ordinance of Approval Eor Et iwande Specific Plan Amendment 89-03 9s' m~ L A WAINSCOTf & ASSOCIATES, INC. CITY OF RANCHO CUOAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION pelhwu Pone mwoc m • s :,~~• n'jaYp v August 13, 1991 Mr. Steve Hayes Associate Planner city of Rancho Cucamonga 1D500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 auo $ a Hai ~'~ Subject: Tentative Tract No. 14211 Amendment to the Etiwanda Specific Plan Dear Stave: In accordance with your request, ws era providing this letter regarding average lot areas with respect to out request for an Amendment to the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Wa are requesting an Amendment to the Basic Development Standards to allow minimum average lot area of 8,500 aquere foot in the current M Zone, and 8,900 square teat 1n the 714 Zone. Wa have checked these area calculations and believe they reflect the approximate average areas for our Tentative Tract Map. Please refer to U.S. Home Corporation letter to you of July 5, 1991, for additional comments regarding this issue. S inyc~e~rt~el/y~, IlGLLh ~!!/pi"'Q Keith Dagostino, P.E. Project Manager KD:IDh/51809E cc: Dallas Paulsen, U.S. Home Corporation !w CIVIL ENGINEERS • UNO SURVEYORS • PU NNERS 11 set MR10R RpAO GMNn iERMLE GUPoRMIN 92It1 uw exR~i ns EAR Ow re~oRSR CCX ~ ` I k' ~' /7 ' I Us. HOME CORPORATION WESTERN UND DEVEIGPMENT DIVISION IIOOE SoutMm Suits )80 Tempe. Arizona 85181 (601)83N1)8 July 5, 1991 Mr. Steve Hayes Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Tentative Tract No. 14211 - Amendment to the Etiwanda Specific Plan Dear Mr. Hayes: U.S. Home Corporation nn behalf of the Etiwanda Development Corporation provides this letter as an update regarding our letter of August 16, 1989, zequesting an Amendment to the Etiwanda Specific Plan. our request regarding single family dwellings in the M Zone, Item No. 1 in the August 16 letter is the same. Regarding Item No. 2, we are requesting an Amendment to the Specific Plan to allow an overall minimum average lot area of E600 square feet for Tentative Tract No. 14211. We are making this request in consideration of the upscaling of development in the M Zone, and the loss of usable land created by the requirement to provide a regional detention basins for the entire Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Please note that tha development density foz this project is only 2.8 dwelling.anlta pez acre. Significantly leas than the allowable 4-8 dwellings pez acre range £or the LM Zone, and 8-14 dwellings per acre range for the M Zone, as outlined in the specific Plan. ~~ i ~~~~- a-~ Page 2 Mr. Steve Hayes City of Rancho Cucamonga July 5, 1991 Attached far your reference is a copy of the August 16, 1989 letter. Lf you need additional information to process this request, please call me at (602) 838-4178. Sincerely, U.S. HOME CORPORATION .: WESyC~N~VE MENT DIVISION ! !//b/~'/// ~ t Dallas D. Paulsen Executive Vice President-Project Manager DDP/rc cc: K. Dagostino L.A. Wainscott b Aasociatea, Znc. 9g , us•HOme August 16, 1989 Dlr. Dan Coleman Senior Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga P. O. Box 707 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: Amendment to the Etiwanda Specific Plan Dear Mr. Coleman: l'~51ED ON : wE NEW YORK SIDCM EMCM.HLE U.S. Nome Corporation on behalf of the Etiwanda Development Corp. request that an amendment be made to the Etiwanda Specific Plan on the following items: 1. The footnote on page 5-5 be amended to allow single family dwelling in the Medium Zone. Very little M zone exist in the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the areas that are within this zone are surrounded by single family homes. We feel that this change would serve to compliment existing surrounding zones. 2. The Basis Development Standards table be amended to reduce the minmum average lot area from 10,000 s.q. feet to 6,200 square feet. This would not reduce the minimum lot size but would allow a smaller average than that on the Ito zone. Enclosed to process this amendment is a check in the amount of $3,247.40 and a copy of the project and surrounding areas detailing current zoing. if additional information is necessary to process this amendment to the Etiwanda Specific flan, please call me at (714) 944-0761. `/S~~incerel Mela i~nsley ~~ Vice President Western Land Development enclosures ~; Y ' ~~ RIVEMIDE~ IEION t00E0 Lomr,w:MS Gmv Dr. SuM 770 • Rnrclro Cuc~map~. G 9tT~p . ~11~19u~W6~ 201 Residential Uses: USE DISTRICT ER VL L LM M Sin le Family Dwellin s g g ............ p p p p p•E''-" = ` :__~ f Duplexes ....................... P P P P P* Try 3 Fourplexes ............. . ... P• P• p p p Nultiole Family Dwellings........... P• P• P• P• P .202 Other Uses: Temporary subdivision sales offices end temporary structures subject to the provisions of the Development Code ... p p p P P Grovo Care facilities for seven or more persona subject to the provisions of the Development Code ................ _ _ _ C C Nursery schools .................. _ _ - C C Churches ....................... _ C C C C Conics, hospitals, sanitariums, end nursing ho in es ................... _ - - C C Parochial end private schools ........ - C C C C Private, nonprofit libraries, art galleries, and museums .................... C C Private, noncommercial clubs end Lodges C C C C C Public utility and public service structures and installations .......... C C C C C Home occupations ................ p P P P P Family care facilities (or six persons or less ........................... P P P P P Incidental and accessory structures end uses for the exclusive use of residents of [he site and their guests , , , , , , . , , , , . p p p P P Keeping of horses Cor personal use on lots of 212 acre or more ............ p p p p _ Mote: Symbol • indicates uses permitted in conjunc tion with optional deve lopment standards only. ER VL L LM M Lot Area: o:-- m,lnlT:U^ 3`l er age }OrQ~~ ^S,~ti t) 1J~~~~ L},+JOff T!ini:mar. 3U,000 :0,000 IO,OOU ",200 ".200 l:^ if~Lare fP,2:' Number of DU5 1/40,000 ' 20,000 1/10,000 ',200 L;5,000 (per lot area in 2 max/lot 2 max; tot }max/lot mas lot { maxi lot square feet) Lot Dimensions: minimum depth 135' 135' 100' i00' 100' ~rN mum. .v idtn 120' 30' 80' 60' 60' (et :en aired iron[ setoackl minimum frontage 60' 40' 40' }0' }0' (a: front o.iJ Setbacks: front }0' 30' 25' 20' 25' stde (sire=.LI 25' '25' 16' 25' 25' site 20/20 YJi 20 0'/20 0"'15 0•'15 Tota120' Total l5' Tota115' rest 40' 30' 25' 20' 20' Lot Coverage 20% 25% 30% 40'K 40% (maximum 6) Omsite Windrowsl L00'/ac 50','ac N/R ti; R N/R (i^ tin. Ceet; ec) SVeetside N/R Required Required Required Required LendsceQing (prwr to xc~dpancy)2 Height Limitations 35' 35' 35' 35' 05' • O lot line noe to oe used at project boundary 1 E.xistmg lots of record of 1 acre or less may be exempted from this requirement. 2 Custom iot ;uodivisons may 5e exempted from this regwrement. BASIC ,,~i DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Fig. 5-2 oc'.. .. J,'1 ~ ... 0 . J i u B. Basic Deve:opment Standards. The following tsDle, Tabie 17.08.040-B secs forth minimum development stands: ds for residential development projects filed up to the mid-point of the permitted density range. ITABLB I7.0l.W B BASIC DEVELD~SSENY STANDARDS (.V/it ~ NOT REQCIAED) VL L L.N N MH N LOT AREA: , W.NLNL'M h'Er AVERAGE 22,300 8,000 6000 NIR N/R N/R MLhLNUM NE7 20, 000 '/, 200 5, 000 I0, 000 NIR NIR NUMBER OF DVIp1LNG LMf1 (A) UPT02 LP TOJ LP T06 UPT011 LY TO I9 LP T02] (PERAQITED PER ACRE? MLNLMUM DWELLING CHIT SIZE: (D SINGLE FANfII.Y ATTACFFfE•D A.VD I U00 SQ. Ff. (N) REGARDLFS4 OF DISTRICT DET.1C5ffiD DPTSILYGS MULTIPIE FA.NILY DV/ELLLNGS (>) F}FIC'IENCYbTLDfO SSO SQ, FT. REGAan cec Of DLSfRICT Of~BFF11RRO0M 610 SQ. Fr. RFL OF DLSIRI 'iWOBFIROCpt B00 SQ. FT. REGAADfb550F DLSTRiCT THREE OR MORE BEDROOMS 93P SQ. FT. REGAAIRFSS OF DL97RICT LOT DIMENSIONS: MIMMUM tVIDi7i(@ 90 AVO. 65 AVO. JO AVO. 80 N/R N/R REQUWFD FltOhT SETBACK) VARY+/- 10 VARY H4 VARY ~/.S WN. LURNER LOI'WIDT}! 100 ~• 10 JS NIR N/R MI,NLMUM DEPTH UO 100 90 100 `!/R N/R MINLNLM FROM17AGE 10 JO IO 60 N/R N/R (l FRONT PROPERTY LINtI .NIN. FLAG LOT FRONTAGE 70 20 20 70 N/R N/R (Le FRONT PROPFR7Y fIfJE] SETBACKS: (B) FRONT YARD (C,E) A2 AVO. PAVO. 72 AVO. ]7 AVG. N/R N/R VARY y-S VARY +GS VARY H-J VARY H-3 CORNER SIDE YARD 17 27 22 27 N/R N/R LYi 6UOR SIDE YARD 10/17 !/10 S/IO 10 N/R N/R D REAR YARD 70 20 11 10 N/ft NIR D AT L~7DtIOR SnE BOCNDAAY IOIS 20/S IS/1 ISIS IS/S IJ/5 ;DWF1y5h'G L'NR AC(FSSORY (D) (D) (D) BLDG./ 'ae- IoZ Igi~~ae; - -- v.DtaRiA sraEE* _- - _ _ - _ VL J --~ L - ~G =i~'= ,ELM-~ /i-1 --- '~vdmm.y rv. '~ y' J ' I,~~ J LM LM Iy ; ~O PLXv~~' P n OP ~ `~~ '~ S~ J t~! .. \+ itR 0.Comm. a "~c / ~~ qmm.- L _ __ _y: ~:,P _. -_~ . . F~G`II'H.~. ~9DG`iVA9D--~-- _ ---- C ~-, Regional Related ~6Qmm ~ //.a ----;~.ir~ y,,,~ Subs ea pamendad percela IlE~1 ESPA 91-05, FSPA 9102 ~:. !1 f2.-1.'1f;Ftp Cl'CA\10\'GA ;iTLEs I~<pi.nAm.nd~n~amnrA.p ti LM Etiwanda Specilic Pian Amendments 9109 foothill Blvd, Spe alit Plan Amendments 9102 LM - District Dasignabon ® PROPEAilES CURRENTl1' DE516NATED YEDIUY ~orrion RESIDENTIAL (R-I{ DtEILIXG UNIiS PER ACCRE) UNDER tONIOt RYE~IUY RE51 EXIIADNAiION (1-R OtELLINC UNIi~ PER ACRE) 1 ESPA Subarea Noa a Q ~FSPA Snbares Noa ~~._ ._~ ORDIIvANCE N0. 491 AN ORDINFV~ICE OF 'IS-IE CITY COUNCIL OF TFOr CITY OF RANCHO CUCPMONGA, CALIFORNIA, A.°PROVIIJG EPIWANDA SPF~IFIC PLAN AMFNDbffNf 89-03, A RD~UF6P IO AMEND THE MINIMUM AVERAGE IfJI SIZE RFX[AI2IIgITP FROM 10,000 ID 8,500 SQUARE FEED FOR 81.2 A(RFS OF LAND ZONID ILW-MIDIUM RE5IDFSIi7AL GENERALLY I1X'ATID BEIWEIN ETIWAND.A AND EASP AVENUES, NOIL`H OF EU[/IS-ffil, BOULEVARD AND FAST OF EPI41gNDA AVENUE, NORTH OF MTi,T ,FR AVENUE WSTf@I THE EFIWANDA SPECIFIC PLPN AREA, AND NAYSNG FLENDINGS I61 SUPPORP THII2IDF - APN: 1100-041-09, 1100-061-12, 1100-171-01 AND 13, 1100-181-O1, 1100-141-O1 AND 02, AND 1100-191-01 A. Recitals. (i) U. S. Home Corporation has filed an application for Etiwatlda Specific Plan Nmlxtaent No. 89-03 as descrited in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject Etiwarcla Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) On Decetnlw.r 11, and continued to December 17, 1991, and January 8, 1992, the Planning Ca~anission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga mrr3ucted duly noticed p.~blic hearings on the application. Following the conclusion of said ~blic hearings, the Planning Co'miission adopted its Resolution No. 92-07, thereby reconvnending that the City Council adopt Etiwanda Specific Plan AmetxLnent 89-03. (iii) On March 18, 1992, the City Council of the City of Rancho CUCamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. At that meeting, the City Council direct~7 staff to prepare an Ordinance of Approval for the application for the April 1, 1992, meeting. (iv) On April 1, 1992, the City Council of the City of Rancho CUCamonga concluded the publ is hearirg. (v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have oavrred. B. GYdinance N047, THFREFC]RE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucarorga does hereby exdain as follows: 1. 'I°iis Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance aze true and cor. ect. 2. based upon sutstartial evidence presented to this Council during the above-references public heariix3s on March 18 and April 1, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: ion Ordinance No. 491 Page 2 (a) the appliation applies to properties located south aryl Past of the Devote Freeway on properties descril~rl above i.n the Laa-Medi~nn Residential Development District within the area governed by the EtiWanda specific Plan; and (b) This amerxLmrt does not conflict with the Iand Use Policies of the General Plan arr3 will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; aryl (c) This amencL~nent does promote the galls and objectives of the Tand Use Element; and (d) This ame-xL~ent would rwt to materially injurious ar detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant i~act on the envirorvrnnt nor the s:rrounding properties as evidenced by the firdincxs listed in Part II of the Initial Study; and (e) This amerxhmnt will continue to maintain the basic goals arxt objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan by promoting larger lot single faruly development than allowed by the standards within the same develoysnent district of the Development Code; and (f) This anpxbtK:nt will continue to promote densities at the lcxaer end of the density ranges for the Laa-Mediwn Residential District, as is the intent of the Basic Development Standards. 3. Based upon, the substantial evidences presentsl to this Council during the above-references] public hearing and upon the specific findings of faces set forth in paragraphs t and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and conxludes as follcr,~s: (a) 'ihat the proposed application promotes the goals and policies of the LYiwanda Specific Plan; and (b) Ttlat the proposed amendment would not have significanT. in~acts on the envirormnent nor the surrounding properties; and (cj That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. :'his Council spPCificaliy finds and determines that a Negative Declaration for this project has been prepared in conq~liance with the California lhvirormx~ntal (Zuaiity Act of 1970, as amended, and the guidelines promulgated thereunder, and, further, this Council finds and determines that, geed upon the findings sPt forth in paragraphs i, <, and 3 above, that ro significant adverse environmental i~acts will occur. 5. This Council firxLS that the facts supporting the above-specified firdi~s are contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff report, and exhibits, and the information provided to this Council ch~rinq the public hearing; and therefore, this Council hereby authorizes the issuance of a Negative Dxlaration. ioS Oidinanoe No. 491 Page 3 6. Based upon the firrlings arc? conclusions set Forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, arr] 5 above, this Council hereby ordains that the City ~uncil of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby approves hYiwanda Specific P?an Pmet~rent No. 89-03 as attached in F~chibits "A & B." 7. The Mayor shall sign this oxrlinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within 15 da}s after its 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 Rarcho CUcamory3a, California. (D(o ER VL L LM M :AC .aces: ,~^- r 1 . _ _ riJOC ..,.... .:.d JO to c)„ `, .,;.~iJ; ,r .~ -. . - 30,700 ...1':l ~ :J.000 '~ '.'200 ",'_GO .,. -...ar= .e_, dumber of US`s i; ;0,000 .. ~ :.'10,JG0 7.306 1x.000 oar .:: a.-ae .-. mex.•lot :o. 3 -sx max,~lot , na.x '.>; 7 r.ax io: ic. ._ __, :.ot 7. ^,e:vsions: nln: -.-'a '.a._.. 120' 90' 50' 00' ri 0' a: rata :. l :: C:': ie t03c :' -,_, ...,:a;e so' ,, is ;o' ,. s::n^.: > Setbacks: '."J tal :0' :9ts: tai" -.._.., resr ~0' 3G' `5' 3J' "r' Lot Gaverage 20% 2a'S JO% 70'U 706 (~'r~sx::nu~~ 'Gt On-site Windrowst 100'/ac 50";e Y/R V/R Y.R (in Lr.. ieer sci Streetside N/R Recmved Required Requi: ed Ream:ed I.endsmping 2 ipnor to oc cupeney) Heigh Limitations 35' JS' JS' 35' 35' • D lot une nat :o be used e t project boundary YV' /: {yJli tea •V F^kY^~<S a5 S/.OWn fiY .'. ~,!•ie~' iM Jlt~IVJ ~.l NI . 1 (SCG Yi r~. S' ~i 1 Existing Lots of record o ! 1 acre or less may be z.ee mpted from th is requirement. ? rus t o ~- lot ;uodivls Ions ray Oe exempted trap ;ns req mre ment. ~ + r i3ASic DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Fig. 5-2 z+ni ernES % /, PgRE JO ~~--' K r~ N(SIJIO AVE .'l .. __ -__. y __ / ~~ y~(.TONY ~ Y~i~. '~ / aC p1PR L ,' ~VMiOP41VE. .n. i / .. ' n,o _ ~--_ .. f_: / Oisi..~Lt ~,I ~~ ~~ ddd/ ~""' Spscial Studies $jj ~~ ~`.~ ,'~ ~~ '~ ~~/ Overlay Dlatrlct of ~ :i'~. 'i ~ ' (aelamic) Etiwanda Avenue J ~~•°'°'"' Overlay District ~~:~ ~~~ ~ / ~.~ i~ i ~ Community Ssrvice ~~ ~i Overlay Dlatrlct ip.~pia. s-si ~:~ _ stn:. ~„~; Equaatrian .~ ~ _~ ,-, / 1 y:_ ~'~ ® Overlay Dlatrlct ~~~ zi°'' ! i ~ Foothill blvd. S.P. ~ ~_ ~w~f~i _ '~'~ title figure ~~^' (~f ~VERLAY 5-4 ~ ail ''DISTRICTS , Ex H,.; ~- ' ~ ~,, ORDINANCE NO. 432 AN ORU_^1AL7CE OF Tf~ CITY ~UNCI1, OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCIV+ACNGA, GSISFORNLI, APPROVIIJG EPIWAI.'DA SPECIFIC PLAN AME27DhffNf 89-03, A RD~UESf ib AMEND THE MIN4+nIDf AV13tAGE IfJP SIZE RD~;TIRII+R~NT F1XRf 10, 000 Tll 8, 500 SQUI>12E FFEP FJR ALL PROPERL'IES ZONED LOFI-MEDIUM RESIDENPIAL SOUiYi AND FAS,' OF THE DEWRE FREEZvP.Y WITHIN TIC LTIYIANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, AND M41Q11G FLWINGS IFI S[JPFOKI' Tf--iE'R.RD:1F A. Recitals. (i) U. S. Hwne Corporation has filed an application for Etiwarda Specific Plan Nner7d7~ert No. 89-03 as describs3 in the title of this Oltlinance. Hereinaftet in this ordinanco, tl7e subject Etiwanda Specific Plan AmPnLnent is refe;.ral to as "the application." (ii) On December 11, and continued to Decembar' 17, 1991, and January 8, 1992, the Planning Cwmussion of the City of Fancho Cucat;anga ccnduct~l sh71y noticed public hearings on the application. Following the conclusion of said public hearings, the Planning Cormiission adopted its Resolution No. 92-07 on January 22, 1992, thereby rE'nM~I'Plding that the City Council adopt Etiwanda Specific Plan Anwndrt~nt 89-03. (iii) On Mardi 18, 1992, the City Council of the City of RanC11o Cuca7ronga conducted a duly noti.:ed p.7blic hearing on the application. At that meeting, the City Council directed staff to prepare an Ordinance of Approval for the application for the April 1, 1992, meeting. (iv) On April 1, 1992, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamo~xia concluded the public hearing. (v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordirtanoe have occurred. e. Ordinance. 17OW, TER72EEtlRE, the City Council of the City of Ranc2~o Cucamonga does hereby ordain as follos: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth i.n the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Based upon sitstantial evidence presznted to this Council during the above-references] public hearings on Mares: 18 and April 1, 1992, includitg written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The applicaticn applies to pr~-ties located south arxi east of the Devore Freeway in the Ian-Medium Residential Development District within the area governed by the F.tiwanrla Specific Pian; and ~6~ Ordinance No. 492 Page 2 (b) 'this amenxLnant does not conflict with the Lard Use Policies of the C~rneral Plan arcl will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and wit1; related develrXanent; and (c) This +++A++d~~ant does promote the goals arxi objectives of the Larr1 Use Eleim~tt; and (d) 'ibis amerxLnent would not Le materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrourdirg properties as evidenced by the findings liste,3 in Part ,II of the Initial Study; and (e) This amendment will continue to maintain the basic goals and objectives of the Etiwarrla Specific Plan try prwnating larger lot single faTily developr,,ent than allayed by the stanxlards within the sane development district of the Development Code; and (f) This amendment will continue to prorate densities at the lacer end of the density ranges for the Iva-Medium Residential District, as is the intent of the Basic Development Standa>_xls; and (g) 'ibis arnerxL~ent will provide a logical transition of lat sizes for which the Devore Freeway acts as a logical barrier; and (h) Rhis ameJdrtient will si~lify future master planning for parcels zortsl Low--Medium Residential which are adjacE+nt to the applicant's property and will minimize the chances for lard use conflicts internal to this develoram_nt 3isb: ict by not en~rragirg adjacent projects to have different average lot sizes. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence pr~.ented to this Ccunci.l during the above-referenncad public. hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 arncl 2 above, this Council hereby tirncLs and concludes as follads: (a) That the proposed application promotes the goals aryl policies of the Etiwaraa Specific Plan; and (b) That the proposed amendment would rat have significant i~cts on the envirorvnent nor the surrounding properties; and (c) That the proposed amerx~nent 1s in wnr'ormance with the General Plan. 4. This Council specifically finds and determines that a Negative Declaration for this project has been prepared in ca~liance with the California Environmental (finality Act of 1970, as amended, and the guidelines pronnllgated thereunder, and, further, this c_anncil finds and determinnes that, based upon the findings set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, that rid significant adverse environmental i~acts will occur. `~ Ordinance No. 492 Page 3 5. Tnis Council finds that the facts supporting the above-specified findings are contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff report, and exhibi~s, and the infornation provided to this Council during the public hearing; and therefore, this Council hereby authorizes the issuance of a Negative Declaration. 6. Rased upon the fi»dings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 above, this Council hereby ordains that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby apprwe<. Etivraix3a Specific Plan Nresxhnent No. 89-03 as attached s E~diibi.t "A." 7. `ihe Mayor shall sign this oxdinarxr_ and the city Clerk shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Vallev Ikaib~ Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Ratx•1to Ncamonga, California. AYES: Alexander, H~quet, Stout, Williams NOFS: None ~ Wright Dennis L. J. Adams, City I, D ~ J. MAMS, CSTi Ci,II2I( o e City of Rancho Cucamonga, arnia, eby certify that the forego' finance was in at a ar of the Council of the City of o Cucamonga ld on the day' March, 1992, and was fins ].ly passed at regular ing of the C it of the City of Rancho Ncangnga held o e 1st of April, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk ER VL L LM M l.ot Nea: ~ ....aun e~ :age 40,000 :3Jd0 :1.900 ! ~ io~~' :O,JOJ ... .;oars :e." `7s oo )e< , ,..'-.u-, 30,000 _^0,700 !J,000 7,200 S,^00 '.n sy.iar~ ie_.~ 3umber of DU's :;'40,000 '0.000 i, 30,000 ','00 :3,000 ,per ;ot srea ~..~ 2 max,'lot 2 Tax ;a: ~ rnexi !ot 4 mss ;ot 4 aa% lot x~aere tee i Lot Dimensions: T.:n:,TdT :epth 133' ;3.i' 100' t0U' !70' -n:a:TUm ~.v:d t.~ 120' 90' BJ' 3J' 60' "a: req w:ea f'Jrl, ie!osc'•U nim~nuci factage 60' 40' 40' 40' 40' 'at t; ont ~.:.; Setbacks: s!ce 20/20 U^0 0'!?0 15 ~ :5 Tota120' Totel :3' Total .3' rear 40' 30' ?6' ^0' ^U' Lot Coverage ".0% 2535 30% 4G'e 403 (max r„urn ~>5) Onsite Windrows) t00'/ac 50','ac Y; R H, Y V, R (in Itn. ;ee t'9cl Streetside N/R Regwred Required Aequred Aec,uired Landsreping lpnor to occupsncyh Height Li mitatiom 35' 35' J6' 36' 35' a O ! t tine not to Se used et project 6ourda rv - ~ ^ rt "7T"~ ~ p^.~.5._ sa-!+. ~~ rc [+ of ... C< w< ,: .,..~ F.! .y...v.i,...o e..F.. ~, i Esir;ng tots of record of t acre or less may Se ese npted from this requirement . Custom lot iJOdIV1a 10n5 TH'f be a%e meted `.:om L9 us ;eqm re men t. BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Fig. 5-2 RESOLUTION NC. !~~ _~ 7~ A 3FSOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, C.4L IFORNIA, DENYING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAY AMENDMENT 59-93, A REQUEST TO AMEND CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDA P.DS WIThQN THE ETIWANDA SP^cCIFIC PLAN, ACID MAKING FI NDIHGS IN SUPPORT THF, REOF. ... Reci`als. ii) G.S. Home Corporation has filed an application Eor Ft iwanda S oeci`ic Plan Amendment No. 89-03 as described in the title of this Resaiutin,l• Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Eeiwar.da Specif is P1zn Amendment is re.Ee rred to as "the application" ii1 On December 11, and continued to December 17, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cuca mcn ga conducted duly noticed puhlie hearings on the application. The Planning Commission con ^_inued the app li ca tion to January A, 1992. (iii) or, January e, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Ran chc Cucamnn ga conducted a da ly noticed public hearing on the application and coot laded said hearing on this date. The Planning Commission directed that a Resn lotion of Denial be prepared for the January 22, 1992, meeting. At .hat meeting, the P1a r.ni ng Commission adopted its R_so lotion No• 92-07 thereby re rnmmending to this City Council that said app L'cation be denied. (iv) Or. the 18th day of Marrh, con t.inued to the 1st day of April, the 3rd day nE Jun?, and the 2nd day of September 199<", the City Counci L of the City nE Pa echo Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings and concluded said hearing nn the is tier date. (v) A31 legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have orcurre d. D. Resolution. NOW, THE BEFORE, it is hereby found, de Y.e rmi ned, and resolved by the City C.nun cil of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as fn 1. lows: 1. This Council herehy specifically finds Chat ali of the facts se! forth i.n the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and cnrre ct. 7.. eased upon subs r,a n!ial evidence presented to this Ccunci.l during the ahnve-ra `e rented March 1.9, .4pr i1 1, June 3 and September 2, 1992, pub'_i r. 4ear ings, including •ar itten staff reports, the minutes of the above-reference 2, Planning Commission mee `.i ng, and the contents of Pla nninq Commission Resn Lit urn So• 92-07, this Crnm.;il hereby specifically finds as follows: fa; The appii.ca `_inn applies to all propert. i.es located within the 1nw Mrdiam acd Med rnm Residential Development DiStr irts within the area govnro„( hY the F.`iwanda Spe~if is Plan. I i3 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION N0. ES PA 89-03 - fJ.S. HOME CGRPORAT IDA' Sep rember ~, 1992 Pa cJf ? (b) T^:e Development Code permits detached single family residences i.n the Medium Residential Development Di.s trier only utilizing the optional de ve lcnment standards, as currently does tl:e Et iwanda Specific Plan. (c) TF.e amendment does conflict with the goals and policies of the 'c `_rwanda Specifir_ Plan and General Plan for reasons as fol ifws: 1) The amendment to a11aw single family ,residences in the Medium Residential zo re und¢r basic standards would reduce the amount cf commor. open space within individual projects, which is inconsistent with the po:icy [or providing ample usable open space within the Specific Pian Area; and 2) The amendment would discourage the potential for project "clustering" for the purpose of preservation of open space; ar,d 3) The amendment would not support the Etiwanda SpeclEic Plan oo licy of creating a "country or rural atmosphere" by integrating natural areas with urban areas through a system of linear open spaces. (d) '1'h `s amendment will reduce the incentive to utilize the Optional Development Standards due to the proposed smaller minimum average lot size and thus allow higher densities for "conventional" projects utilizing Basic Deeelnnment Standards in the Low Medium end Medium Residential Districts of the Etiwanda Specif i.c Plan which contradicts the general intent o` the plan for providing a ge ne rai.ly mn re rural atmosphere and stren:lth ening the sense of community :.9en ti ty withir, the Etiwanda area. ~e) ".'he amendment does not take into consideration other in to rrelated development standards (lot coverage, setbacks, etc.) which may dir=_ctly influence the character of projects and reduce the ability to meet the basic goals and objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Flan an3 the Cmneral Pian• 3. Based upon the subs rant ial evidence presented to this Council du: ing the above-referenced public hear?.ng, including written and oral staff re no rts, this Council hereby Cinds and concludes as follows: (a) That. the proposed application does not promote the goals and pr.lieies of the Etiwanda Specific Pian; and (h) That the proposed amendment would have sign i.f leant imparts on the env. racment nr the sur rnur.ding prnpe rties; and fo) That the proposed amendment is rent in conf~+rmanne with the „e~,~e ral P;an and Etiwanda Specrf is P1am 4. 9a sod upon the findings and con rlu sirens >et forth in pa to Taphs 1, 2, and 3, ahov¢, the City Couuil hereby denies the app Li.catton• CI'PY COUNCIL QE SOL~OTI0N tin. ESPA 85-G3 - U.S. HOlfE CORPORATION September 2, +992 Page 3 5. This Council hereby provides notice to U. 5. Home Corporation that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this ResO;ut Lin nu st be soa yht is governed by the Provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Sectiort 1094.6. 6. The City C1e rk of the City of Ran oho Cucamen ga is hereby di rncted to: (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and Ib) for. thwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return-receLpt rea nested, [o L•. 5. Home Corporation at the address identL Eied ... '~i ty records. 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. I`s RE 50LUT ION N0. ~'f~_ O ~l A RESOLDTION OF THE CITY CU@lC IL OF ^_HE CIT.Y JF RANCHO 7:iCAMON GA, CALIFORNIA, DENY'_YG VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NJ. 14211, A RESIDENTIAL SUD DiV LS:ON JF 225 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON d1.2 .4C RES OF LAND 'dTTHIN THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN I\ THE MEDIUM AND hOW ;SEDI::M RF,S IDENTIAL DISTRICTS 13-!4 AND 6-d DWELLING i1N ITS PEA ACRE, RESPECTI VL'LY), LOCATED 04 THE EAST SIDE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, SOUTH OF THE D F.VOR6 FREEWAY AND WEST OF EAST AVENUE, ASD MJ~.iCINv . RIDINGS IN 90PP0 RT THEREOF - APN: 1106-041-09, 110U- Od!-12, 7100-177-G1 AND 13, 1100-191-01, 71G0-141-01 AND G?, AND 1100-191-01 .,. Re^ttals. fiI ,1. 5. Home Corporation !:as fi1e3 an application for the appxecal of 'Je st_na Tentative Tract Map No. 14211 as described in the tit l,e of th i.s EesoLUt inn. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject request is re £erred to as the "zpplication." (ii) On April 24 and Eepte mb nr 25, 1991, the Pla nninP Conm ission of the City cf Rancho C'a camon ga conducted duly noticed public hearings regarding rile completeness of the application. Fo17.owing conclusion of the latter hear:ny, the Pla rming Commission adopted its Resol utinn No. 91-141 denying the appl_:aft ~^. without prejudice. I;i;) T!'. e. decision represented by said Plano i..^.g Coms ission Reso b,~t ion 'was `.;me iy appeal=.d to this Council. ~rvl Staff subsequently deemed the project application complete. on . ;:obey )0, 1991, pr wr to the hearing of on the appeal, thereby nullifying ,..e aa': roc of the Planning Commrssion of Septem6e: 25, 1941. (vl nn the 11th day of December 1991, and root inued to the 17th day of December 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamon ya on nduc bid duly noticed public hearings on the application and, Erl lowiny con r. LS ;on of said public hearings, adopted its Resolution No. 91-192 der.y>,ng .~.? appl watinn. (ci) The decision represented by said Planning Cnnm ission Rv soLut i.on .ns t;mnly appea led to the r_yty Councl 1. ::.;) rot t': n. 1P,th day of March, co ntinued to f.'ne 1st day of April, the 1r9 ~1 ~1'i of June, and L,e 2n1 day cE Eepte tuber 1992, the Crty Co mlcxl of rile .r ty -, na r, :I~.n rusamcn ga conducted duly nntreed public h_axtngs and concluded ., ~: 1 !iear::v ~~ nn Ch? latter date. 'v.ri) A11 le ca] pre eequisrtes prior to the adoption nP this Resolution i-,,.r:~.. oc.:u rrn d. ~ ~ ~v CITY COUNCIL RE50LVT ION NO. VTT 14211 - U.S. HOME CORPORATION September 2, 1992 Page 2 D. Resolution. NCW, TIIEREFOAE, 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 eli of the facts set forth in the Re - tats, Part "A," of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-re Eerenced March 18, April 1, June 3 and September 2, 1992, hearings, including written staff reports, the minutes o£ the above-referenced Planning Commission meetings, and the contents of Planning Commission Resolution No• 91-192, this Council hereby specifically finds as Eo Mows: (a) The app llcation applies to property generally located east of Etiwanda Avenue, south of the Devoze Freeway dad west of East Avenue with an Etiwanda Avenue frontage of 712 feet, a Devote Freeway frontage of 348 feet and an East Avenue frontage of 414 feet on property zoned Low Medium Residential and is presently unimproved; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is single family residential and vacant and zoned Low Medium and Medium Residential (4-8 and a-14 dwelling unite per acre, respective ly); the property to the south of that site is single family residences and vacant and is zoned Law Medium Residential; the property to the east cone iota of single family residences and vacant land end is zoned Low Medium Residential and City of Fontana; and the property to the west is single family residential and vacant and is zoned Low Medium Residential; and (c) The application contemplates the development of 226 single family residences with an average lot size of 8,685 square feet, and an interim detention basin of 70.6 acres Eor the purpose of receiving drainage for this project as well as future projects in the inmediate area; and (d) The project as proposed will require approval of related Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 89-03, which would allow lots of a minimum average lot size of 8,685 square feet or leas (as amended) in the Low Medium Residential District of the Etiwanda Specific Plen; and (e) The application as proposed would be materially detrimentai to the persons and properties in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site for the reasons as follows: (1) The project ron^_emplatea the construction of a sound attenuation wall along the edge of the Devore Freeway right-of-way, aPproxi merely 11 to 12 feet high as measured at Freeway grade, which ie necessary to mitigate the concerns of exposing people to potentially dangerous noise levels in portions of the project area. Ae required by the General Plan, the feaaibili ty of the wall, its he fight, Location, and construction has yet to he determined since Eozmal approval from Ca ltrans has not beer, serured. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION N0. VTT 14211 - U•S. HOME CORPORATION September 2, 1992 Page 3 (2) The project contemplates the removal of up to 213 trees on the property, many of which are initially identified as in a healthy and thrivi rq con di ticn as identified by a qualified and licensed arborist. The application as proposed does not include a concurrently proces aed Tree Removal Permit nor any specific tree replacement quantities or species to mi.ti gate the loss o`. up to 213 trees on the property. This is inconsistent with the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance (Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapter 19.08), the goals of the EGiwanda Specific Plan, and the absolute policies of the Development Code (Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.OB.OSO.E.B), which require replacement of individual trees with species and quan.t ities of a minimum acceptable level and replacement of existing windrows of slue Gum Eucalyptus trees to encourage the protection of the windbreak system foc' reasons of public safety, wind protection, and historical significance. (3) The architecture and related design elements within the proposed project boundaries, as reflected in the application, Ls not consis rent with the goals and objectives of the Htlwanda Rpeciflc Plan, which states a project shall create or reinforce the "sense of community identity, avoid the feeling of sameness or blandness, and enhance Etiwanda's character." (4) The project does not meet the minimum average lot size as reoui red by the E[iwanda Specific Plan. 3. At the above-referenced public hearing, the City Council dented the associated Design Review of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map applicat_ n. 4. Eased upon the subetan[Sal evidence presented to this Council during t},e above-referenced public hearing, including written and oral staff reports, this council hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) The tentative tract is not consistent with the General Plan, the Etiwanda Specific Plan, and the Development Code; and (b) The design oz improvements of the tentative tract are not consistent with the General Plan, the Et iwanda Specific Plan, nor the Development Code; and (c) The design of the subdivision is likely to cause substantial environmental damage and injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and (d) The evidence presented to Chia Council has identified substantial potential adverse envtronmen tat effects of the applied for de veloPment. 5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby denies the application. (~D CITY COUNCIL RESOLVTION N0. VTT id 211 - U.S. HOME CORPORATION September 2, 1992 Page 4 6. This Council hereby provides notice to U. S. Home Corporation that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1096.6. 7. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga 19 hereD}' directed to: (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certified copy o£ this Resolution, by certified mail, return-receipt requested, Lo U. S. Home Corporation at the address identified in City records. 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. l~ RESOLUTION N0. 9a- Q7~. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THF. CITY OF RANCHO C UCAMONGA, rpLIFORN IA, DENYING THE DESIGN REVIEW OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14211, THE DESIGN REVIEW OF A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 226 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 81.2 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE ETIWANOA SPECIFIC PLAN IN THE MEDIUM AND LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (9-14 AND 4-S DW F.LLI NG UNITS PEA ACRE, RESPECTIVELY), LOCATED ON TFiE EAST SIDE OF ET IWANDA AVENGE, SOUTH OF THE DEVORE FREEWAY AND WEST OF EAST AVENUR, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-041-09, 11U 0-081-12, 1100-171-01 AND 13, 1100-181-01, 1100-141-01 AND 02, ANO 1100-191-01 A. Recita l5 (i) U. S. Home Corporation has filed an application for the approval of the design review of Vesting Tentative Tract Nap No. 14211 ae described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject request is referred to as the "application." (ii) On April 24 and September 25, 1991, [he Planning Co[mnission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings regarding the completeness of the subject application. Following Ghe coot Lueion of the latter hearing, the Planning Commission adapted Resolution No. 91-142 denying the application without prejudice. (iii) The decision represented by said Planning Commission Resolution was timely appealed to this Council. (iv) Staff subsequently deemed the project application complete on October 3D, 1991, prior to the hearing of on the appeal, thereby nu Llifyinq the action of the Planning Commission of September 25, 1991• (v) On the 11th day of December 1991, and continued to the 17th day of December 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings on the application and, following conclusion of said public hearings, adopted its Resolution No. 91-193 denying the application. (vi) The decision represented by said Planning Commission kesolution was timely appealed m the City Council. lv u! Or, the 18th day of March, continued to the 1st day of April, the 3rd day of June, and the 2nd day of Eeptember 1992, the City Council of the Cray of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly nor. iced public hearings and concluded card hearing an the latter date. (vrir) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. I~ ^_STY COUNCIL RESOLUTION N0. DR FOR VTT 14211 - U•S. HOME C00.PORATI ON September 2, 1992 Page 2 B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, de termin_d, and resolved by the Cit}• 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 tr ve and correct. 2. Based upor, substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced March 18, April 1, .Tune 3, and September 2, 1992 hearings, including written staff reports, the minutes of the above-referenced Planning Commission meetings, and the contents of Flann ing commission ResoLUt ion No. 91-193, this Cou^.cil hereby sped Eically finds as follows: (a) The applica -.'_on applies to property generally located east of Etiwanda Avenue, south of ~..-,e Devore Preeway and west of East Avenue with an Etiwanda Avenue frontage of 712 feet, a Devore Freeway frontage of 348 feet and an East Avenue frontage O£ 414 feet on property zoned Low Medium Residential and is presently unimproved; and (b) The property to the north of the suD3ect site is single family residential and vacant an3 toned Low Medium and Medium Residential (4-9 and a-1d dwelling units per acre, respectively); the property to the south of that site is single family residences and vacant and S5 zoned Low Medium Residential; the property to the east consists of singLe family residences and vacant land and is zoned Low Medium Residential and City of Fontana; and the property to the west is single family residential and vacant and is zoned Low Medium Aesidential; and fc) The application contemp la tea the development of 225 singLe family tesi de nces with an average lot size of 8,695 square feet, and an interim detention basin of 10.6 acres for the purpose of receiving drainage for this project as we1.1 as future projects in the immediate area; and (d) The project as proposed will require approval of related Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 89-03, which would allow lots of a minimum average lot size of 9,685 square feet or less (as amended) in the Low Medium Resirlenti al District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and (e) The application as proposed would be materially detrimental t0 the persons and properties in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site for the reasons as follows: (1) The project contemplates the construction of a sound attenuation wall along the edge of the Devore Freeway right-of-way, approximately 11 t0 12 feet high as measured at freeway grader which is necessary to mitigate the concerns of exposing peon le to pot ent is lly dange coos noise levels in portions Of the project area. As required by the General Plan, the feasibility of the wall, its height, tocat:on, and construction has yet FO be determined since formal approval Erom Coltrane has not been secured. (Z CLTY COUNr iL RESOL"JT LON N0. DR FOR VTT 14211 - U.E. HOME CORPO.RATI ON September 2, 1992 Page 3 (2) The project cont.emp la tes the removal of up to 213 trees on the property, many of which are ir.i tin lly identified as in a healthy and thriving condition as identi Eied by a qualified ahd licensed arborist. The aoolic ation as proposed does not include a concurrently processed Tree Removal Pe rm in nor any soecif is tree replacement quantities or species to mivigate the Loss of up to 273 trees on the property. This is incoPS isrent with the City's Tzee Preservation Ordinance (Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapter 19.081, the goals of the Etiwanda Specifir_ Plan, and the absolute policies of the Development Code (Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17. 09.OSO.E.B), which require replacement of individual trees with species and quantities of a minimum acceptable level and rep iacement of existing windrows of al ue Gum Eucalyptus trees to encourage the protection of the windbreak system for reasons of public safety, wind protection, and historical sigr.i ficance. (31 The architecture and related design elements within the proposed project boundaries, as reflected in the application, is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, which states a project shall create or reinforce the "sense of conrnunity identity, avoid the feeling of sameness or blandness, and enhance Etiwanda's character." (4) The project does not meet the minimum average lot size as required by the Etiwanda Spec if is Plan. 3. At the above-referenced public hearing, the City Council denied the associated Vesting Tentative Tract Map application. 4. Rased upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing, inc lading written and oral staff reports, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the proposed project is not consistent with the general Plan, the Etiwanda Specific Plan, and the Development Code; and (b) That the proposed design is not in accord with t'ne objectives of the Etiwanda Specitac Plan, nor the purposes of the district. in which the site is locatedr and (c) That the proposed desi qn ns not in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and Development Code; and (d! That the proposed design, together with the rondit cons a pplncab la thereto, ~+n 11 6e detumental to the public health, safety, and welfa r= an~l maternally injurious to properties or improvements in the v ioinity. 5. Based on the findnngs and conclusions set forth nr, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 abov?, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby d.:nies the appli ra tinn. laz CITY COVNC IL FE SOLUT LON ti0. DR FOR VTT 14211 - C.S. HOME ^ORPO RhTION September 2, 1992 Page 4 This Council hereby provides notice to U.S. Home Corporation ihaC the rime within which judioaal rzv iew of the decision represented by this Aesolut ior, must 6e sought is governed by the provisions of Califor ria Code of Civil Prnredu re Section 1094.6. 7. The City Clerk of the City of Fa ncho Cucamonga is hereby directed to: (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and Ib) forthwith transmit a certified copy of this R=solution, by certified mail, return-receipt requested, to J.S. Home Corporation ai the address ide nt rf ied in City records. 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. ~ 23 TO: FROM: ..--- --- CIT]' OF' RANCY.O CUCAMONGA _ -r';>'..: STAFF REPORT '~ ~~'~ September 2, 1992 ~ Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Linda D. Daniels, Deputy City Manager 'i' BY: Jan Reynolds, Assistant Redevelopment Analyst SUBJECT': PUBLIC HEARING ON ESTABLISHMENT OF AN IMPROVEMENT AREA WITHIN COMMUNITY FACILIT[FS DISTRICT 91-1 (VICTORIA COMMUNITY) AND AUTHORIZATION TO LEVY AN ADDITIONAL SPECIAL TAX Approve Resolutions establishing Improvement Area No. 1, calling for a special property owner election, and certifying the election results and authorizing the preliminary issuance of special tax bonds, as well as an Ordinance authorizing [he levy of an additional special [ax. On July 1, 1992, the City Council considered a request by Hahn/Fooihill Associates (HFA) to establish a separate improvement area encompassing the regional shopping center site located within Community Facilities District 91-1. The Council adopted a Resolution of Intention to form the Improvement Area and set the public hearing date. The public hearing was continued from August 5, 1992 to September 2, 1992 to grant the developer additional time to address financing details. The Engineer's Report prepared by A.A. Webb and Associates for Community Facilities District 91-1 identifies approximately $6.6 Million as [he improvement fair share allocation attributable to the regional center site. The Owner Participation Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and HFA requires the Agency to contribute $5 Million for off-site project improvement costs. This $5 Million Agency contribution was used to reduce the regional center fair share allocation and, as a result, the special tax for CFD 91-1 was levied on the regional center property based on the remaining $1.6 Million assessment. The Agency's obligation to matte the payment of $5 Million is based upon commencement of on-site construction. Because of the developer's desire to have complete financing for the off-site improvements in place prior to the commencement of on-site construction, the developer has requested the establishment of a separate improvement area to provide the financing for the $5 Million. The debt service for the needed $5 Million in construction monies and associated issuance costs would be supported by the levy of special taxes on the HFA property only, as identified ?n the Engineer's Report prepared for Improvement Area No. 1 and as shown on the attached boundary map (Exhibit "A"). Formation of the improvement area does not impact [he special tax rate of other properties within the District. At this time it appears that the $55 Million bonding capacity approved by the District land owners and the City Council for Community Facilities District 91-1 is sufficient to include the sale of the requested additional bonds. IZS As the sole property owner affected by the special tax and, therefore, [he only property owner within the District authorized to cast a ballot in the special election, HFA has consented to waive the 90-180 day protest period and has requested the special election be held and certified at the September Z meeting. Should the Council elect to grant the developer's request to waive the protest period, the following sequence of action would be necessary to approve [he Improvement Area: Upon approval of the Resolutions making preliminary findings (Resolution 92-237) and establishing the formation of the improvement azea (R,esolution 92-238), the City Council will direct the City Clerk to conduct a special ballot election. At the conclusion of the election process, the City Clerk will declare the election results and the Council will act on the Resolution certifying the election (92.239) and Ordinance 502 establishing the levy of special [axes. This course of action is necessary so that formation of the improvement area coincides with the bond sale schedule for Community Facilities District 91-1. This item has been publicly noticed in The Inland Vailey Dailv Bulletin. To date, no correspondence has been received in opposition of the establishment of Improvement Area No. 1. A Certificate of Compliance relating to the notice publication and mailing of notice hearing to qualified voters is on file in the office of the City Clerk. Respectfully submitted, ,' 1 ~. /(~ , /~ f22CQ~~ Linda D. Daniels Deputy City Manager ~ Z(o Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Boundary Map Engineer's Repoli (Under Separate Cover) Resolution 92-237 Resolution 92-238 Resolution 92-239 Ordinance 502 12~ ~ _ d a" y ~ ~p ~$°Qtag i ~ 6e < . rd IU ~tls~~y~g ~ ° a~ xy sa~~ t~ ~ ~~~VaZi ~ i$ ~t~cY S e tl C~u ~ Z 5~~r $a a Fnr 3 ~m ~ o i 9 € ~ +3~ O a ~ js r~~F~ og, Igo ~E~s~ ~SZ-= o o c tl Q ~ ~ n6 ~ S~a~O5 ~'~e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4~ I ~ _~$G ~~g$~ is Q O 0 Z w ~ ~ Z U '~" W 2 Y W F- O O .. 2 0'l ~ F' m Q W\ .%.~ Awn .3p ~ i ~ W ~ a a<<v' ut ~ Y y ~Y •^ p J ~ $ > U a i ~ 3 W ~- O ~ S ~ W 6 SL' a p "~ ~ } ~ i a ~ S 1 f-' , I Z Z `" a n O ~ la tl ~ = i ": O U ~ a :a (n a 3I LL ~ O ~ y 1 O r :,' :' LY U ~ c ~ 3. i 5a S au i ^ 4`Y, c. nu ~.,.. ..w~ ISY3--~~Otl IA31M%--~~Y33UJ KAYO ~_ leg RESOLVfION ND. 92.23? A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY CWNCII, OF THE CITY OF RANCH) C[XAM4iC~, CALIFCRNLA, HARING CERTAIN PRELIMII,II~RY FIPID- IIJw, PASSING UPON PROPESIS AND APPROVING FINAL "REPDIa'" WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City Council") has previously declared its intention and ordered the preparation of a "Report" relating to the initiation of proceedings to establish an irl~Jrovement. area within an existing Cannmity Facilities District, being Community Facilities District No. 91-1 (Victoria Cmm:u:ity) of the City of Ranch Cucamronga (the "District"), grrsuant to the terns and provisions of the "Me1lo-ROOS Conmurity Facilities Pct of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Goverment Code of the State of California. Tiffs Ir:pzwa:ent Area shall hereinafter be referred to as IMPR7JF}ffi~lF AREA ND. 1 OF CUF4JNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT' NJ. 91-I (VICTORIA CQB~IIAPITY) OF THE CITY OF RANCH) CUG~DNCA (hereinafter referred to as the "L:QroveaPnt Area"); ard, WHEREAS, rntice of a public heazirg relating to the eetablish- ment of the L:gxove:errt Area, the extent of the L:prwanent Area and all other related r:uttere has been given, and a "Report.", as ordered by this Agency, has been presented to this Agercy and has bey nude a part of the record of the hearing on the Resolution of Consideration to establish said Inprvvemnt Area: and, WHEREAS, all camunicatirx:s relating to the establishment of the Ir:prwerent Area and the rnte of the proposed additional special tax to be levied within the Ir:Qrwenent Area have been presented, and it has further teen determined that a rrejority protest as defined by law has not been received against these proceedings; and, WHEREAS, the "Report" as now submitted further containing changes and :roriificationa to the prxeedings, as applicable, is hereby approved; and, Wf~RFAS, ;~~rh as there are less flan twelve (12) registered voters residing within the territory of the InQrovamnt Area, aM have been for at least the preceding ninety (90) days, this legislative body is desirous to sukmit the levy of the additional special tax to the lardowrners of the Lnprvve:ent Area, said landowners being the qualified electors es authorized by law. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rarx:ho Cucamorncga does hereby resolve as follows: SECPICN 1: That the above rxitals am all true and correct. SFX.TION 2: That tM written protests received, if arty, do not represent a majority protest as defined by the applicable provisions of the "Camiunity Facilities Pct of 1992". ~ Z ~( Sxl'IQd 3: The "Report", as now submitted, including changes and mxlifications, if arty and as applicable, shall stand as the "Report" for all future Piviceedin9s and all terns and contents are approved as set forth therein. SES•PIQJ 4: It is hereby detannired by this legislative body to pxnceed with the establishment of the L:Qrovarent Area, fom~vlly known and designated as AREA ND. 1 OF CO[R~EINITY PACII,PFIES DIS7RTCT NG. 91-1 (VZC1CAtIA COM9P71TY) ()!' THE CZTY ~' RANGD CU"lsl[iC~'.". SECTIQi 5: Zt is hereby further determined by this legislative body that all prooeedirgs prior hereto were valid and taken in conformity with the requirements of law, and specifically the provisions of the "t~1lo-AOOS Carmrnity Facilities Pct of 1982", and this firrdi.rrg is node pursuant to the provisions arc1 authorization of Section 53325.1 of the Goverment Code of the State of California. PASS®, APPPf7V®, and ADOFfED this J day of 1992. AYES: NJES: ABSENt: AT1£ST: City Clerk S, DEBRA J. ADATS, CITY CLERK of the City of. Rerc7n (]u:arrorga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Aeeolution was duly passed, approved, end adopted try the City Council of the City of Fsr:cho Cucamonga, California, at a regular Heating of said City Courcll held on the day o£ !, , 1992. Executed this day of 1992. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk 130 RESCU,U1'IQd NO. ~"~ A RESOLVPIIXJ OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF Tfffi CITY OF RANCfiJ CUCAF~NGA, CALIfOHIdIA, DECLARING AND ESTAFII,ISHING RN IMPFd1VEMENP AREA WITHIN AN EXISTING CCAA$R7eTY FACILI- TIES DISTRICT, AND AUffiLAtIZ.?1G SUffi~IITPAi, OF' LEVY OF AN ADDITI(AWL SPECIAL TA7C WITI@l SUC'li IMP}37VEt~'a7I' AREA RD THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held arb concluded, and the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucaronga (the "City Council") is desirous at this time to prxeed with the establistment of an L:Qrovmwnt area wittun an existing ca:muuty facilities district, being Ca:rmutity Facilities District No. 91-1 (Victoria Comnsuty) of the City of Fancho Cucanrxtga (the "District"), pursuant to the terns and pmvisions of the "Me1lo-Roos Camnuiity Facilities Pct of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the GoverTment Code of the State of California, said I~rcrvemnt Area shall herei~fter be refereed to as II~[X7JEl++Ett/1' AREA NJ. 1 OF CQMHINITY FACILITIES DIS1RICl' fA. 91-1 (VIC1C1[tIA CCQT~H]NITY) OF THE CITY OF RAN3#D CUCAMkI(~ (hereinafter refenzd to as the "Imprwenent Area")~ and, WHEREAS, all cam~unications relating to the establishment of the I~rovemnt Area and the rate of the proposed additional special tax have been presented, and it has further been determir:ed that a ms jority protest as defined by law has rot been received against these proceedings; and, wNEREAS, the "Report" as now submitted further crontainim c4anges and codifications to the proceedings, as applicable, is hereby approved; and, Wf{EftEAS, ita~anch as there esters residing within the territory for at least the preceding r:inety desirous to sutmit the levy of the owners of the Improvement Area, electors as authorized by .law. are less than tnelve (12) registered of the District, and lave teen been (90) days, this legislative body is additional special tax to the land- said landa.~:ere being the qualified NUW, THEREFOKE, the City Council of the City of Ranch Cucamonga does hereLry resolve as follows: RECITALS SECTION 1: That the above recitals ace all true and correct. PROTESIS SECTION 2: That the written protests received, if am., do not represent a najority protest as defined by the applicable provisions of the "Camrtmi.ty Facilities Act of 1982". 131 FINAL, REPOFQ' SECTION 3: The "Report°, as now sulmi.tted, including changes aril modifications, if arty and as applicable, shall stand as the "Report" for all future proceedings and all terms and contents are approved as set forth therein. NAME dF I7+TFiCT/EPfENf AREA SECTICN 4: That this legislative body does hereby establish an improvement area known and designated as "IMP%Nf~If AREA 10.7. 1 Of' CQ~4IUNITY FACILTTIES DISiRICP NO. 91-1 (VICTORIA CUTIIJNITY) OF Tf~ CITY OF RANCf10 CLCAMJNf~". BWN[Y+RIES OF IMFf37JQ~71' AREA SECPICN 5: Ti:at the boundaries and parcels of lard on which the additional special tax will be levied in order to pay the costs and expenses for the previously authorized public facilities are ger:erally described as fellows: All property within the h~,.via,-ies of II1P1~71' AREA NO. 1, as sMwn on a 6audary map as previously apprrrved by this legislative body, said map designated by the rvase of this I~rova:vnt Area, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, The boundary map of the proposed Inpmva:ent Area has 6aen filed pursuant to Sections 3111 and 3113 of the Streets and Hig}hvays Code of the State of California in the Office of the County FECOrcler of the County of San BerTiardiro, at Faye of Book of the Book of Maps of Assessment and Conmmity Facilities Districts for said County. SPLxIPS. TAX SECTION 6: Except where funds are otherwise available, an additional special tax, secured by recordation of a continuing lien against all ron-exa:pt real property in the proposed Inpmvenent Area, is hereLry authorized, subject to ester approval, to 6e levied annually within the boundaries of said inprovarent Area. 'fie prrposed additional special tax to be levied within said InQrove:er:t Area has not been precluded by majority protest pursuant to Section 53324 of the Goverment Code of the State of California. For particulars as to the rate and nethW of appor- tionment of the pxnposed additional special tax, referYrnce is made to the attached and incorporated exhibit "A", which sets forth in sufficient detail the method of apportioment to alloy each lardownex or resident within the proposed In~rovement Area to estimate the probable annual amount and the maximum ammunt of the additional special tax that said person will have to pay. Said special tax shall be utilized to pay for the financing of the previously authorized facilities, and, as applicable, to pay debt service on authorized bonds of the Gistrict to assist in financing said facilities. The special taxes herein authorized shall be collected in the same manner as ad valoran property taxes and shall lie subject to the same penalties, procedure, sale and lien priority in arty 132 case of delinquency, as applicable for ad valorem taxes; however; as applicable, this legislative body may establish and adopt an alternate or supplerental procedure as necessary. This legislative body further authorizes that special taxes may be prepaid and satisfied by such pra:edure as is set forth in Exhibit "A" hereto. Upon recordation of a Notice of Special Tax Lien pursuant to Setion 3114.5 of the Streets arcl Highways Code of the State of California, a continuing lien to secure each levy of the special tax shall attach to all non~xecpt real property in the Ilprovarer~t Area aM this lien shall conti-tue in force and effect until the special tax obliga- tion is prepaid and prananerrtly satisfied and the lien cancelled in accor- dance with law or ucitil collection of the tax by the legislative body ceases. PREPARATION OF ANNIII+i. TAX ROLL SECTION 7: The name, address and teleplnne nu~fier of the office, department or bureau which will be responsible for preparing annually a curzent roll of special tax levy obligations by Assessor's parcel number and which shall bP responsible for estimating future special tax levies pursuant to Section 53340.1 of the Governrient Code of the State of California, are as follows: LIlIDA DANIEIS, IIEPVI'y CITY MA!]A(;E(i CPPY OF RANl7P,1 CUCAMIIQ~1 10500 CIVIC CENfEFt DRIVE RAtiC7q CUCAM[)N('A, CA 91729 (714) 989-1851 FIlIDING (~' VAi,IDITY SFXTICN 8: It is hereby further determinai by this legislative body flat all proceedings prior hereto were valid and taken in conformity with the requira~ta of the law, and specifically the provisions of the "Mello-Raps Ccmnmity Facilitiee Pct of 1982", ani that this firdirg and determination is Wade pursuant to the provisions and authorization of Section 53325.1 of the Goverment Cade of the State of California. APPEATS A1Q) INIERPREFATION P%)CEWRE SECTION 9: Any landwmer or resident who feels that the amount or fonarla of the special tax is in error may file a notice with the Agency appealing the levy of the special tax. An appeals panel of 3 nimmibers, as appointed by the Agenry, will then meet and prrnptly review the appeal, and if necessary, meet with the applicant. If the firxlings of the Appeals Fkwrd verify that the tax shaul~± be modified or charged, a recommendation at that time will be made to the Agency and, as appropriate, the special tax levy shall be corrected, and if applicable in airy case, a refund shall be granted. 133 Interpretations may be made by the Agency by Resolution for purposes of clarifying arty vagueness or ambiguity as it relates to a`ry category, zone, rate or definition applicable to these proceedings. E[ECTICtJ SECTION 10: This legislative body herewith sutmits the levy of the special tax to the qualified electors of the InQrrovarent Area, said electors being the lardwmers of the proposed Inproverent Area, with each landowner having one (I) vote for each acre or portion thereof of laM which he or she owns within the Improvanent Area. The proposition shall be sutrnitted to the qualified esters at a special election to be held on the 2nd day of Septe~er, 1992, and said election shall be a species election to be coniucted by the City Clerk ("Election Official"). If the proposition for the levy of the special tax receives the approval of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the rotes cast on the proposition, the special tax may be levied as provided for in this Resolution. The ballot proposals to be submitted to the qualified voters at the election ahall generally be as follows: PROPOSITION NO. A: Shall Connurtity Facilities District No. 91-1 (Victoria Cannstity) of the City of Ranch Cucamorga (the "District") levy an additional special tax within Improvement YES Area No. 1 of the Diatrict to pay debt service on bonds, pay for previously authorized facili- ties and pay incidental expenses relating to the Nu bonds aM facilities? P}yDPOSITICN NJ. B: For each year cementing with the fiscal year 1993-1994, shall the appropria- tions limit, as defined by subdivision (h) of Section YES 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution, for Inprwaient Area No. 1 of Camunity Facilities District No. 91-1 (Victoria Comnurity) of the City NO of Rancho Cucamnga be an amount equal to g7,000,0007 4TJ1E SECTION 11: That the appropriate mark placed in the voting square after the word "YES" shall be counted in fa-vr>r of the adoption of the proposition, and the appropriate mark placed in the voting square after the word "NO" in the manner as authorized, shell be counted against the adoption of said proposition. 13 `l ~LFX,TION PR7CEDURE SECITCN 12: The Election Official is l:a_ralry authorized to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of said election. Said Election Official shall perforni and xerder all services and pxoceedi:xls incidental to and mnrwcted wit1: ;.F.e mrr*uct of said election, and said services shall include, but not he limited to the following activities as are appropriate to the subject ela-lion: 1. Prepare and furnish to the election officers necessary election supplies for the cordnet e' the election. 2. Cause to be printed the requisite number of official ballots, talley sheets and other necessary forns. 3. Furnish and address official ballots for the qualified electors of the Lnpxwenent Arne. 4. Cause the official ballots to be ensiled and/or delivernd, as required by law. 5. Receive the returns of the election and supplies. 6. Sort and asse:ble the election material and supplies in prsparetion for the canvassing of the returns. 7. Carcass the returns of the election. 8. Furnish a tabulation of the number of votes given in the election. 9. Make all arrartge:ents and take the necessary steps to pay all costs of the election incurred as result of services performed by the Improvement Area and pay costs and expanses of all election officials. 10. Coiduct and handle all other matters rnlating to the procee~i.rgs and cund:xt of the election in the manner a:d form as required by law. PASSED, APP%N®, and ADOPPED this day of 1992, AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 13 S" June 15, :992 EXHIBIT D RATES AND METHOD OF APPORTTON~fENT OF SPECIAL TAXES FOR IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 1 OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT N0. 91-1 (VICTORIA COMMUNITY) OF THE CTTX OF RANCHO CIiCAMONGA A Special Tax, the "Special Tar(es)" (defined below), shall be applicable ro each Parcel (defined below) located in Improvement Area No. 1 of Community Facilities District No. 91-1 (Victoria i Community) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (hereinafter "Imptnvemen[ Area No. 1" and "CFD No. 91-1"). The amount of Special Taz to 6e co'.lected from each Parcel in any Fiscal Year (defined below) shall be determined in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment described below. Ah of the property in Improvement Area No. 1 unless exempted by law or Section F below, shall Fx taxed for the purposes, to the extent, and in the manner provided herein. A. DEFINITIONS "Assessor's Parcel Map" means an official map of the County Assessor of the County of San Bernardino designating Parcels by Assessors Parcel Number "Developed Property" meaos, as of July 1 of any Fiscal Ycar, all Parcels for which a final subdivision map, parcel map or functionally equivalent map or inswroent creating lots or parcels for commercial and industrial development or creating lots or pazccls upon which residential units may be constmcted has been recorded prior to March 1 of the preceding Fiscal Year. "Exempt Property" means arty Parcel or other property within Improvement Area No. t described in Section E which is exempt from ine levy of the Special Tax. 92-R6/Fxhibit ll June I5, 1992 "Fiscal Year" means the period starwtg on July I of any year and ending the fallowing Lune. 30. "Full Buildout" means the Fiscal Year in which all Taxable Property within Improvement Area No, 1 is classified as Developed Property for purposes of levying the Special Tax. "Net Taxable Acre" means an acre of Developed Property or Undeveloped Propeny, exclusive of property exempted by law or the provisions of Section F below from the Special Tax; the acreage calculation for Developed Property will be based on the dimensions as shown on or calculated from the recorded final subdivision map, parcel map, or functionally equivalent map or instrument; the acreage calculation for Undeveloped Propeny shall be the aaeage shown on or calculated from the Assessor's Parcel Map. "Parcel" means a lo[ or parcel shown on an Assessors Pazcel Map with an assigned Assessor's Pazcei number as of the date of the levy of the Special Taxes for each Fiscal Year. "Special Tax Reyuirement" means that amount required in any Fiscal Year to pay: (1) debt service on all Bonds or other indebtedness of the Dishict, (2) costs incurred by the City in the annual levy and collection of the Special Taxes, (3) other reasonable costs related to the administration of the Bonds, and (4) any amounts requited to replenish any reserve funds established in association with the -onds. In calculating the Special Tax Requirement for a Fiscal Year items (1) through (4) shall be net of bond reserve earnings and outer interest earnings described in the bond resolution for the Bonds reasonably expected to be available, except those earnings that may be required for rebate purposes. 92-86/Exhibit D June l5, 7992 "Special Tax(es)" means the Special Tax to be levied in each Fiscal Year on all Parcels ro fund the Special Tax Requirement "Taxable Property" means all Pazcels in improvement Area No. 1 which are not exempt from the lery of Special Taxes ptusuan[ to law or Section E below. "Undeveloped Properly" means all Pazcels in Imptuvemen: Area No. 1 which are not classified as Developed Property or Exempt Property, B. ASSIGNMENT TO TAX CLASS For each Fiscal Yeaz, all Pazcels within Improvement Area No. 1 shall be classified either as Deveioped Propeny, Undeveloped Property, or Exempt Propeny and shall be subject to the levy of the Special Tax in accordance with thr. rates and method of appordonment set forth in Sections C and D below. C. MAXIb1UM SPECIAL TAX RATES 1 Developed Property The Maximum Special Tax for each Parcel of Developed Pmpeny shall be $10,000 per Net Taxable Aae. 2. Undeveloped Property The Maximum Special Tax for each Parcel of Undeveloped Property shall be $3,600 per Net Taxable Acrc. 92-86/Exhibit D June 15,1992 D. METHOD OF APPORTTONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAXES On or prior to August I of each Fiscal Ycar or such other date as may be established by law, the Special Tax Requirement for such Piscal Year shall be detemtined and the Special Taxes levied as follows: Steo i s :r'he Special Taxes stall be levied on all Pazcels of 6eveloped Property at 100 percent of the Maximum Special Tax Rate; however, if this amount exceeds the Special Tax Requirement, the levy of Special Taxes on all Parcels of Developed Property shall be propomonally decreased until the revenues produced thereby will be equal to the Special Tax Requirement. t 2• If the revenues which may be produced by levying the Special Tax pursuant to Step 1 are tess than the Special 1'ax Requirement, the Special Taxes shall be levied proporzionally on all Parcels of Undeveloped Propery up to 100 percent of the Maximum Special Tax Rate ro produce aggregate revenues equal to the Special Tax Requirement. E. EXEI1PT[ONS A Special T:xx shalt not be levied on the following properties which may as of the date of formation of Iniprovcmcnt Area No. 91-7 be: • Properties owned by state, federal, or other local governments, except as otherwise providul in Section 533173 of the Government Code; • Property within improvement Area No. I which is dedicated for the purposes of constructing CFD funded road facilities; 92-A6/Hxhibit ll June IS, ]992 Property within Improvement Area No. 1 to be dedicated to or owned by the Southern California Edison Company, dte use of which is limited to uility purposes. Those Pazcels at entry ways and along pedmeter areas used for landscaping which are dedicated ro and maintained by the City. Notwithstanding the above, Parcels or portion of Parcels conveyed or irrevoeabiy offered for dedication to a public agency after fomtadon of Improvement Area No. 91-1, and not otherwise exempt pursuant to this Section E, shall be subject to the levy of the Special Taxes pursuant to Secion 53317.3 or Section 53317.5 of the Government Code and classified as Undeveloped Property. F. MANNER OF COLLECTION Except for [he prepayment of Special Taxes as provided for herein, the Special Taxes shall he collected in the same manner and at the same [ime as ad valorem property taxes, provided; however, that the City Counci] may authorize d:c collerdon of delinquent Special Taxes by judicial foreclosure proceedings pursuant to Section 53356.1 of the Government Code. G. PREPAYMENT ANll SATISFACTION OF' SPECIAL TAA OBLIGATION The Special Tax obligation for a Net Acre of Developed Property and Undeveloped Property nay be prepaid and psmanendy satisfied by the owner as follows: I. Prepayment Prior to Pull Cuildaut 'Il[e amount to discharge d;e Special Tau obligation of any Net Taxable Acre of Developed Property or Undeveloped Property within the Improvement Area prior ro Full Buildout shall be (i) the remaining bond principal outstanding, plus (ii) any premium required to be 92-86/Exhibit D ,lurse l5, 1992 paid on the payoff date for all outstartding bonds, less (iii) the Bond Reserve Fund, multiplied by 1.15, divided by the total Net Taxable Acres in the Improvement Area. The amount derived on a Net Acreage basis shall be muliplied by 1.15 to determine the payoff amount on a Net Acreage basis for Developed Property and t.0 to determine the payoff amount on a Net Acreage basis for Undeveloped Pmpertty. 2. Prepayment After Full Buildout The amount to dischazge the Special Tax obligation of any Net Acre of Developed Property or Undeveloped Property within the Improvement Area after Full Buildout shall 6e (i) the remaining bond principal outstanding, plus (ii) any premium requved to be paid on the payoff date for all outstanding bonds, less (iii) the Bond Reserve Fund, multiplied by 1.15, divided by the total Net Acres N the Improvement Area. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no prepayment shall be made on any Parcel of property in Improvement Acea No. 1 until such time as no more Bonds will be issued by the City for Improvement Ama No. 1, as determined by the Council. 92-86/Fxitibit D c~ulFl[aTE of F.[aclTaa orrlclAl, AND sTATF~m ~ wlrs c~sr STATE OF CALIFORNIA nxnarY of SAN flERMT~1IIip ) 88. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMDFxi\ ) I, DEBEA J. AIYfFS, IILR.PFCii OFFICrnT. OF THE CITY OF RANGED CUCAMNCA, COUNTY OF SAN BEIdARDII~A, STATE OF CALIFpa1IA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that n,m,ant to the provisions of Section 53326 of the Goverment Code and Division 12, conrter:cing with Section 17000 of the Elections Code of the State of California, I did canvass the returns of the rotes cast at the IIdPRW@~NP AREA NO. 1 OF COFR9R7ITY FACII,TTIES DISTRICT NO. 91-1 (VICTORIA CQ~AHII~IITY) OF THE CITY OF RAN[7D CUCAFixX,A SPECIAL MAIII~D BAE.IDf EIEf.TION in said City, held Septa:ber 2, 1992. I F[RaHHt CERFIFY that this Statement of Votes Cast ahaus the whole number of votes cast in said InQrovenent Area in said City, a:d the wtnle number of votes cast for the Fleaeuxes in said L:Qxovaner:t Arm in said City, and the totals of the respective col:mms and the totals as strewn for the Measures axe full, true and mxzect. I. TCmTfI, NUMBER ~' 4V1FS CAST: II. TOTAL NC4~R OF WfLi FOR AND AGAINST PI[OPOSITICN A: III. TOPAZ, NUMBER OF WTES F~IXi AND Tti,AIF[iT P1d)P~ITICN B: EUR WITNESS my hand and Official Seal this __ day of 1992. ECECPION OFFICIAL CITY OF RANG MO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA E701IBTT "A'• RESlII1T1'ICP7 ND. 9a ~ a39 A RESOI]IFION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CTPY OF RANLHJ CUCAt97NGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE RESULTS OF A "MELL!}RO05 CQR~EH~IITY FACII.PPIFS PCl' OF 1982" SPECIAL TAX ELECTION WHEREAS, the City Cauicil of the City of Rancho Gvcamorxla (the "City Council") has previously declared its intention and held and conducted proceedings relating to the levy of additional special taxes in an improvement axr_a within an existing cc7mwtity facilities district, being Community Facilities District No. 91-1 (Victoria Community) of the City of Rancho Cucamorxla (the "District"), as authorized n,,,:,,wnt to the terns and provisions of the "Me1lo-Roos Casnmi.ty Facilities Pct of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Goverment Cade of the State of California, said inQrwe:ent area beirx3 referrer to as INPPI7VEMENP AREA ND. 1 OF CQ2AJNITY FPCILITIES DISTRICT' NJ. 91-1 (VIC'lOF2IA COMM[MITY) OF THE CT17 OF RANCFD CCCIQT.NC,A (hereinafter referred to as the "Improvaient Area"), std, WHEREAS, said legislative body did call for std order to be held an election to submit to the qualified electors of the Sngrove:ent Area a proposition relating to the levy of additional special taxes in the Inprova:ent Area std a separate proposition to establish an appropriations limit within such Lnprwamnt Area; and, WHEREAS, at this time said election has been held and the measure voted upon and did receive the fawrable 2/3's vote of the qualified electors, std this legislative body doss desire to declare the favorable results of the election in accordance with the provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California. PpW, THEF~EOI~, the City Council of the City of Rar:cho Cucamonga does hereby resolve as follows: SFX.TION 1: 'lf:at the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby receives and approves the CERTIFICATE OF E[DCPICN dFTIC1AL AND STAfII~ffi~IP OF W1E5 CAST, as suhnitted by the Election Official, said Statement setting forth the number of votes cast in the election, the meaa:res voted upon, and the number of votes given for and/or against the measures voted upon, A copy of said Certificate and Statement is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A", referenced and so incorporated. SECTION 3: 'that the City Clerk .is hereby directed, pursuant to the provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California, to enter in the m~mtes the results of the election as set forth in said STTt14T4NP OF W1ES CAST. i'i3 c2csnacxrE OY %[BCPIQi OPFICIAi. AID srAlaralr «+ wrES CAST SPATE OF CALIFORNIA COUN17 OF SAN BERENRDB!A ) ss. CITT OF RANGED COCAMCNGA I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, ELIX.TICN OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OF RAK'1D CUCATDNCA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFO`II~IIA, DD HQ2ffiY CERTIFY thlat pusuant to the provisions of Section 53326 of the Caveim~ent Code and Division 12, camercinq with Section 17000 of the Elections Code of the State of California, I did camrass the returns of the votes cast at the II~PI7V@1f2~/P AREA ND. 1 OF CQ?IIHIPTY FACILITIES DISTRICT N0, 91-1 (VICTORIA OUE~Ep7IT'Y) OF Ttfl; CITY ~' RANCHO CUC7+~NCA SPECIAL MAIIED BALIPP ELECTION in said City, held August 5, 1992. I FURiffl;R CERTIFY that this Statement of Votes Cast stews the whole numter of votes cast in said L~provarent Area in said City, aid the whole camber of votes cast for the Measures in said I'rtQzv~ent Area in said City, and the totals of the raspxtive colums and the totals as shown for the MeasurPS are full, true and curzect. I. TOD~L NCIMBLR OF VOLES CASE: II. RC7PAL NUMBER OF lO1'ES El7R AND PGAIIiS'P PR7PC5TPICN A: III. TOTAL NCR9BER ~' VOTES F(M AND Al~1INSP PROPOSTi'ICN B: FOR WIT^ffCS ny Bard and Official Seal this day of 1992. ELECTION OFFICIAL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SPATE OF CALIF[AtNIA ElOSIBIT "A" oRDr~E ND. 50 .~ Abl ORDISU»N(T: OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCrA CU(AMRVCA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN AN 4~VE[~Nf AREA OF AN EXISTING C(rAftRiITY FACI- LITIES DISTRICT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ranc}n Cucamonga, California (the "City Council"), has initiated piroceedugs, held a public hearing, conducted an election arcl received a favorable vote fmn the qualified electors relating to the levy of an additional special tax in an ixprtiva:ent area within an existing camutrity facilities distrir_t, being Camuni.ty Facilities District No. 91-1 (Victoria Commnity) of the City of Rancho Cucasonga (the "District"), all as authorized pursuant to the terns and provisions of the "Me1lo-FOOS Camunity Facilities Pct of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 7., Division 2, Title 5 of the Goverment Code of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as the "Act^), This ingrove- ment an3a shall hereinafter be referred to as I1~fJVE[~[J1' AREA N0. 1 OF CQM4JNZTY FACIISTIES DISTRICP CA. 91-1 (VICIORIA (XTR-HSR7Y) OF THE CITY OF RAND-A CNCADIkJC~ (hereinafter refexzecl to as the "I~rm:eient Area"); and, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucasorx3a hezeby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECFION 2: That this legislative body does, by the passage of this Ordirence, authorize the levy of additional special taxes at the rate and fozmila es set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, referenced and so incorporated. SECTION 3: That this legislative body is hereby further authorized, by Resolution, to detennire the specific special tax rate and annum to be levied for the then current ter yeer or future tax yearn, except. that the special tax rate to he levied shall not exceed that as set forth above, but the special tax may be levied at a lower rate. SECTION 4: Properties or entities of the State, Federal or other local goverments shall, except as otherwise provided in Section 53317.3 of the Goverment Code of the State of California, be exa:pt frvn the above-referenced and approved special tax. SECTION 5: The proceeds of the above authorized and levied special tax may only be used to pay, in whole or in part, ttx± costs of the following, in the following order of priority: 1. Payment of principal of and interest on airy outstanding authorized borx~d indebtedness of the District; 2. Necessary replenishment of bond reserve funds or other xc:serve funds; 3. Payment of costs ant expenses of authorized public facilities, services, arxi incidental expenses pursuant to the Pct; and 145` 4. Repayment of advances and loans, as appropriate. The proceeds of the special tax shall be levied only so long as needed for its purpose, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECfIG~I 6: The above authorized special tax shall be collected in the sane manner as ordinary ad valoran taxes; are collected and shall be subject to the same penalties and the save piroceduLE, sale and lien priority in case of deliaaquercy as is provided for ad valoren taxes. SECi'IQd 7: The above authorized special tax shall be seared by the lien inQosed pursuant to Sections 3114.5 and 3115.5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, which lien shall be a continuing lien and shall secure each levy of the special tax. The lien of the special tax shall continue in force and effect until the spacial tax obligation is prepaid, permanently satisfied and cancelled in accrordarc~e with Section 53344 of the Goverment Code of the State of California or until the special tax ceases to to levied ty the legislative body of the local Agency in the manner provided in Section 53330.5 of said Gmrment Code. SECIZQ4 8: This Ordu:arn.~e and special tax shall be applicable for the referwrc+x9 District, as well as airy future annexations. SECTION 9: This Ordir:a7ce ahall be effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. Within fifteen (15) days after its ed~ption, the City Clerk shall cause this (1r'ii nonce to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the IT4fAPID VAIdEY DAILY BUfIEPIN pursuant to the provisions of Goverment Code Section 36933. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regulaz nesting of the City Council of the City of PancFn Cucartorga, California, on , 1992; AND 7fiEREAFI'Efi ADOPTED at a +~; ,tar meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamxxp, California, held on the day of _ 1992, by the follvaing wto: AYES: AASENT: -- Ma}br City Clerk ~ 4 June li, 1992 EXHIBIT D RATES AND METHOD OF APPORTIONbtENT OF SPECIAL TAXES FOR IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 1 OF COM1IMUNTTY FACILITIES DISTRICT N0. 9I-I (VICTORIA COMMUNITY) OF THE CTTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A Special Tax, the "Special Tax(es)" (defined below), shall be applicable to each Parcel (defined below) located in Improvement Area No. 1 of Community Facilities District No. 91-1 (Victoria Community) of the Ciry of Rancho Cucamonga (hereinafter "Improvement Area No. 1" and "CFD No. 91-1"). The amount of Special Tax to Ce collected from each Pazee! in any Fiscal Year (defined below) shall be determined in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment described below. All of the property in Improvement Area No. 1 unless exempted by law or Section F below, shall be taxed for the purposes, to the extent, and in the manner provided herein. A. DEFINITIONS "Assessor's Parcel Map" means an official map of the County Assessor of the County of San Bernardino designating Parcels by Assessofs Pamei Number "Developed Property" means, as of July I of any Fiscal Ycaz, all Parcel for which a final subdivision map, parcel trap or functionally equivalent map or inswment creating lots or parcels for cormnercial and industrial development or creaing lots or parcels upon which residential units may be constructed has been recorded prior to Mash 1 of the preceding Fiscal Year. "Exempt Property" means any Pasel or other property within Improvement Area No. 1 described in Section E which is exemot from the levy of the Special Tax. 92-86/Exhibit D June /5, 1992 "Fiscal Year" means the period starting on July 1 of any year and ending the following June. 30. "Full Buildout" means the Fiscal Year in which all Taxable Property within Improvement Area No. 1 is classified as Developed Property for purposes of levying the Special Tax. "Net Taxable Acre" means an acre of Developed Property or Undeveloped Property, exclusive of property exempted by law or the provisions of Section F below from the Special Tax; the acreage calculation for Developed Property will be based on the dimensions as shown nn or calculated from the recorded final subdivision map, parcel map, o: functionally equivalent map or instrumenC the acreage calculation for Undeveloped Property shall be the acreage shown on or calculated from the Assessors Pazcel Map. "Parcel" means a lot or parcel shown on an Assessor's Pazcel Map with an assigned Assessor's Parcel number as of the date of the levy of the Special Taxes for each Fiscal Year. "Special Tax Requirement" means that amount required in any Fiscal Year to pay: (1) debt service on all Bonds or odter indebtedness of the District, (2) costs incurred by [he City in the annual levy and collection of the Special Taxes, (3) other reasonable costs related to the administration of the Bonds, and (4) any amounts required to replenish any reserve funds establishul in association with the Bonds. In calculating the Special Tax Requirement for a Fiscal Year items (1) through (4) shall be net of bond reserve earnings and other interest earnings described in the bond resolution for the Bonds reasonably expected to be available, except those earnings that may be required for rebate purposes. 92-8G/Exltibit D June IS, 1992 "Special Tax(es)" means the Special Tax to be levied in each Fiscal Year on all Pazcels to fund the Special Tax Requuemenc "Taxable Property" means all Parcels in Improvement Area No. 1 which aze not exempt from the le.ry of Special Taxes pursuant to law or Section E below. "Undeveloped Property" means all Parcels in Improvement Area No. 1 which are not classited as Developed Property or Exempt Property. !3. ASSIGNMENT TO TAx CLASS For each Fiscal Year, all Parcels within Improvement Area No. 1 shall be classified either as Developed Property, Undeveloped Property, or Exempt Properly and shall be subject to the levy of the Special Tax in accordance with the rates and method of apportionment set forth in Sections C and D below. C. b1A%IMUM SPECIAL TAX RATES I. Developed Property The Maximum Special Tax for each Parcel of Developed Property shall be $10,000 per Net Taxable Acre. 2. Undeveloped Property The Maximwn Special Tax for each Parcel of Undeveloped Property shall be $8,60D per Net Taxable Aae. 92-85/Exhibit D June IS, 1992 D. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAXES On or prior to August i of each Fiscal Year or such other date as may be established by law, the Special Tax Requirement for such Fiscal Yeaz shall he determined and the Special Taxes levied as follows: ~S~Rb: 1'he Special Taxes shall be levied on all Parcels cf Developed Property at ]00 percent of the Maximum Special Tax Rate; however, if this amount exceeds the Special Tax Requirement, the levy of Special Taxes on al! Parcels of Developed Property shall be p: oportionaily decreased until the revenues produced thereby will be equal to the Special Tax Requirement. Steo 2• If the revenues which may be produced by levying the Special Tax pursuant to Step 1 are less than the Special Tax Requirement, the Special Taxes shall be levied proportionally on all Patcels of Undeveloped Property up ro 100 percent of the Maximum Special Tax Rate to produce aggregate revenues equal to the Special Tax Requirement. E. EXEMPTIONS A Special Tax shall not be levied on the foliowing properties which may as of the date of fomtation of bnprovement Area No. 91-I be: • Properties owned by state, federal, or other local governments, except as otherwise provided in Section 53317.3 of ttte Goverr!ment Code; Property within Improvement Area No. I which is dedicated for the purposes of conswcting CFD funded road facilities; 92-56/Exhibit D June IS, 1992 • Propetty within Improvement Area No. 1 to be dedicated to or owned by the Southern California Edison Company, the use of which is linmited to utility purooxs. • Thox Parcels at entry ways and along perimeter azeas used for landxaping which are dedicated to and maintained by the City. Notwidtstanding the above, Parcels or portion of Parcels conveyed or irrevocably offered for dedication to a public agency after fomradon of Improvement Area No. 91-1, and not otherwise exempt pursuant to this Section E, shall be subject to the levy of the Special Tazes pursuant to Section 53317.3 or Secdon 53317.5 of the Government Code and classified as Undeveloped Property. F. MANNER OF COLLECTION Except for the prepayment of Special Taxes as provided for herein, the Special Taxes shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ad valorem property taxes, provided; however, that the City Council may authorize the collection of delinquent Special Taxes by judicial fomclosure proceedings pursuant to Section 53356.1 of the Government Code. G. PREPAYMENT ANll SATISFACTION OF SPECIAL TAX OBLIGATION The Special Tax obligation for a Net Acre of Developed Property and Undeveloped ['ropeny may be prepaid and permanently satisfied by the owner as follows: I. Prepayment Yrior to Full Buildout 'I7ie amount to discharge the Special Tax obligation of any A'et Taxable Acre of Developed Property or Undeveloped Property within the Improvement Area prior to Full Buildout shall be (i) the remaining bond principal outstanding, plus (ii) any premium required to be 92-86/Exhibit D June I5, 1992 paid on the payoff dale for all outstanding bonds, less (iii) the Bond Reserve Fund, multiplied by 1.15, divided by the total Net Taxable Acres in the Improvemen[ Area. The amount derived on a Net Acreage basis shall be multiplied by 1.15 to determine the payoff amount on a Net Acreage basis for Developed Property and 1.0 [o determine [he payoff amount on a Net Acreage basis for Undeveloped Property, 2. Prepayrttent After Full Buildout The amoun[ to dischazge [he Special Tax obligation of any Net Acre of Developed Property or Undeveloped Property within the Improvement Area after Full Buildout shall be (i) the remaining bond principal outstanding, plus (ii) any premium requ[red to be paid on the payoff date for all outstanding bonds, less (id) the Bond Reserve Fund, multiplied by I.15, divided by the [oral Net Acres in the Improvement Area. No[withstandieg the foregoing, no prepayment shall be made on any Pazcel of property in Improvement Area No. 1 until such time as no mote Bonds will be issued by the Ciry for Improvement Area No. I, as determined by the Cowtcil. 92-86/Exhibit D CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DA7F: September 2, 1992 7l? Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Daanc A. Baker, Assistant [o the City Manager SURIECT: PROPOSED TAXICAB ORDINANCE Recommendation: It is rccommcndcd that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance which would establish regulations and pcrmiuing guidelines for the operation of !axis. Background: Recently the City was made aware, by a local taxi company, of the provisions of Grvemment Code 53075 regarding taxicab operations. This section of state law calls on every city or county to pass an ordinance regulating taxicabs and taxicab operators. The ordinance attached for your consideration differs from the one viewed by the City Council on August S, 1992. Thal ordinance had an czcmption provision for taxicabs licensed in other jurisdictions. This czcmption provision was yucs(ioncd and staff has reexamined this provision. Sta Ff has evaluated the specific requirements of taxi ordinances in surrounding cities. Attached for your information is a table outlining key provisions of various ordinances. This evaluation has shown that standards vary in each jurisdiction with insurance requirements, health screening, and felony screening being the biggest differences. Because of these differences, it has bccn suggested that we allow an czcmption for taxis licensed in jurisdictions that match our regulations or arc more restrictive. This works in theory bm implementation would be ddficult at best. Police officers in the field would have no way of knowing which permits would be acceptable in Rancho Cucamonga and which would not. Duc In the lack of a common standard that can be relied upon, it is rccommcndcd that the exemption provision n( the nrdinancc be deleted. ht this way, we can insure that the minimum standards n( our nrdinancc arc enforced. Another concern raised about the original ordinance presented to the City Council was the amount of insurance rcyuired. The taxi companies have rcyuested that the liability insurance requirement be changed from $2 million In $I million. Rcprescntativcs from the taxi companies feel That this Icvcl of insurance would 6e difficult to oMain and costly to maintain. The $2 million rcyuircmenl has bccn Icft in the nrdinancc before you tonight y'his amount is the highest amount rcyuired by any local community. If desired, the City CITY COUNCB. MEETING PROPOSED TAXICAB ORDIN/vNCE September 2. 1992 Page 2 Council may change the insurance amount at the City Council meeting based on the testimony received in the public hearing. A final issue raised about the original ordinance was the absence of a "needs and necessity' clause. This clause has been IcR out of the ordinance presented to you tonight as the City Attorney's Office feels that such language is problematic and difficult to constitutionally administer. Due to [he Small number of cabs and cab companies servicing our community it is (ell that a needs and necessity clause would be unnecessary. Also, even if the amount of cabs in the community would justify some restrictions, it is questionable whether existing slat( resources could effectively implement the regulations. For the above reasons, it is recommended That the City Council adopt the a«ached ordinance regulating taxicabs and that the provisions covering liability insurance be modified as the City Council directs based on the deliberations and testimony of this public hearing. Re ctfully Submitted, ~~~. Duane A. Baker Assistant to the City Manager DAB/dab attachm cots 9 E = ~ m o o ° ° 9 E . ~ o o N O ~ _ N VI Y1 M M M C L ~ O U O O O O C O O • • ~ m . m O O O www ° E E c E o 0 0 E E n° o 00 N O O p N ~ = C c C E E o = _ c °o °oo o ° E _ E _ O . °o °o ° »ww c ` o ~ E E o c c = - E o o o ' _. E E `w ~E ~E ~E V »ww o E o c e c c o 0 0 `c _ -_ -_ E U E E E ww 0 c c 0 E V U O a ; o '_ `u c E E o ¢' wwNm N C W p N _ ~ p N N C E v n ~ o~ ~ ~ o a o ~ `m m c n H o m m'm ma w ^ m u c - ~ o m m m ~ ~ Q e u Qr~mo m o ~ ~ ~9~ o S a ~ m m m E v m o ~ u _. S i ^ a o Q .' a y E a -- E m i m °S ss ~ o °c o_r~ ~ o g , ? 2 rn ~ ~3 C IL D c R D }~ W lJ ~~ (t] N ~ N N LL y 2 J V N O U J U (/1 N a (1 D 0 2 1 ~S OLG/INANCE N0. 501 AN OIiDIIU~NCE OF THE CFl'Y OF RAN(31D QJCAKBic,A AME2IDING 4'I'1ZE 8 OF T1iE IWNCFA QF~1(~A lLNICEPAL NDE BY ADDING A NEW CFinP1R~R 8.30 w3N'1TTFD "TAXICAB SERVICE," THERIIN RD3IIATINC' AND PESdD.ZT'ING TAE OPFRP.T2IN OF TAXIS. A. itecitals. 'II-ffi CPFY CWNCII, OF THE CITY OF RAFICSIO Q]CAt~ERA FIEIDS AS EDIiOWS: Section 1. 8.30 hereby is added to Title 8 of the Ranr2n gnamcrga ELmicipal Cade to read in wc¢ds and figiups, as follows: "Q~apter 6.30 '"1770=CAB SERVICE .. ,ty~: "6.30.010 Definitions. "6.30.020 Permit Idaquited far Taxicab Service. "6.30.030 Application for Taxicab Service Permit. "6.30.040 Is:..yr~ of Taxicab Service Permit. "6.30.050 (~Yaurls for Denial or Revocation of Taxicab service i~tmi.t. "6.30.060 Permit Fees. "8.30.070 Taxicab Driver's Permit. "8.30.080 Application for a Taxicab Driver's Permit. "6.30.090 Grw1YLs far Deniel or revocation of Taxicab Driver's Permit. "6.30.100 Issuance of Taxicab Driver's Permit. "6.30.110 Appeal ProoecAu'es. "6.30.120 Revocatim of Permits. "8.30.130 Ex®options. "6.30.140 Time far Ornpliance by E]cisting Taxicab Service; arcl Taxicab Drivers. "6.30.150 Penalty for Violation. "8.30.010. Definitions. "As used in the diapt~+r, the following terms shall have the ueatdrcls set forth below: "(a) Driver. Any person drivicq a taxicab either as owner or ruder the direction, enQloyment control, ar service of the caner as herein defined. is~ Ocdirratt.`e No. 501 Page 2 "(b) Owr~r. FVery Person having outtml, whether tri' outright ownership, lease or otl~rwise of arty tav;cabs for hire. "(c) Person. Includes both si~nl.ar and plural, and shall mean and irclude arty irrlividual, firm, earpar'atim, association, pactrasbip, ar society, exclusive of public agencies. "(d) Taxicab. Airy vehicle which is used to provide taxicab service as defined in this ~Pter. "(e) 4'axicab Service. 1~cicab service mains arty public ~_~~^ transportation sentice available for hire m call ar de~rd over the public strrets of the City of Farxtio Cucamonga where the service is mt provided over a defired rvut~ lxrt betvcrn sudr points and over sudr routea as mry be directed by the perscm(s) hiring the same, and i*++~.rt;ye of whether the opexatims extend beyond the area of the eotporatP limits of the City of Rarx3w Cucamonga. "8 30 020 Permit own '>-vxi for Ta 'Gab cm-rri "It shall be unlawRnl for arty person to in the business of operating ar causing to be operated arty taxicab service within the City of Parciro Cucamonga, without having a permit to do so order the porvisi~ of this Qiapter. "8 30 030 Application for R'axicab Service Petit. "(a) Arty petsm desiring to obtain a permit to operate a taxicab service under this Chapter shall sutmit a written applicatirn to the Administrative ServioPS Director, on an applimtion form provided by the Administrativre Services Director. Applications shill be signed order penalty of perjury and shall Retain the follavitg information: "(1) Name, resid~oe - __^ and telephone number of the applicant. "(2) Bl1S1r1e5S name, addtrse and tele{3nnx.. nnnnbet of the applicant. "(3) Ninnber of vehicles to be operated order the permit. "(4) ~ sake, type, Year, marwfactrser, and passenger seating of the vehicles to be used by the applicv~t. "(5) 'itre proposed color scixmie, i~ignia ar other distinguishable characteristics of the taxicab to be used, including the type of illuminated sign to be mamtad on the top of the vehicle and legend thereon. "(6) EViderse of public liability ir~uar~w of rot leas than $1 million for sonic person killed ar injured and not less than $2 million far IS`~ Orclinanee No. 501 Page 3 death ar injury of arty tw (2) ar more persons in arty me accident, and far damage to property of at least $250,000 frcm arty one (1) accident. "(7) Iegal and rag; ~-~ ownership of the vehicles to be used by the applicant. "(8) Prior experience of the applicant in the taxicab busirxiss includirq the details of arty priar denial, revocation or suspension by any public agen-y of any tacicab service or taxicab driviig permit, license or certificate. "(9) All felony convictions of the applicant and of all persons having an ownership interest in the pr~gased taxicab service for the previous five (5) years. "(10) Rates to be to the public +r,,..+T ..,t the term of airy permit issued. "8.30.04~Issuance of Taxicab Service Permit. "Upon the furnishing of all the information required by Section 8.30.030 and payment of the rsquirel fee under this Qmpter, the City Carncil shall issue the applicant a Taxicab Service Permit if the applicant is in ooopliance with this Qapter and there are m graads for denial of the permit urxier the provisions of this Q~apter. Any applicant denied a permit stall be given written notice of the rearms for the denial. "8.30.050 Gtourds for Denial ar Revaatim of Taxicab Service Permit. "(a) Taxicab Service Permits shall be denied ar revoked m the following grounds: "(1) Failure to maintain Vehicles in good and safe om3et and in oa~lianx with all laws. "(2) Any false statemax~t made m an applicatim sutmitted order this Chapter. "(3) Failure to pay arty fees as required under flue Chapter. "(4) Repeated and persistent violations by the permitter ar the permit holder's drivers of the traffic laws of the City, County ar State. "(5) F7q~loyirg of a drives who does not have a valid Taxicab Drivers Permit order the r,eg~,;,,mro.,f< of this Chapter. "(6) Violatim of arty of the provisions of t]ris ~~apter by the permit Calder. "(7) Qmrgug rates in excess of the amounts stated in the permit application. )sg Cti3irrvxe No. 501 Page 4 "(8) Carviction of a felony within five (5) years of the date of application where suds felony irnolved fraud ar dishoresty by the applicant with respect to any member of the public, or where airy taxi owr;ed ar operated bi' the applicant was used in osvwr:tion with the cc~nissim of such felary. "8.30.060 Permit 61ees. "E'v~Y Pte' ~ga9~9 in ar rar'rY~9 on the business of taxicab servive, ar erclac)~ in the activity of driving a taxicab, snail pay an arvn;al permit fee as established by resolution of the City Wand. Required fees shall be paid at the time of application for a permit is submitted order this Chapter. "Eery permit issued under this Chapter shall t=+m;r~.ite at the expiration of ore (1) year from the date of its issuance carless revoked prior to said te.-m;,,atim. Arty ter;ewal of a permit issued wrier this Qyipter shall he pursuant to the same raluiremarrts, pr+ooecIlaes, provisions and regulation set forth in this Chapter far an orSgirN7 p¢mit. A per.,rn holduig a 2~dwb Service Permit may rot drive a taxicab without oleo possessing a Taxicab Driver's Permit. Permits issued order this Chapter may rnt be transferred to arty other petsrn. "8.030.070 Taxicab Driver's Permit. "It shall be wrlawflrl far arty person to aowpt arty ,+~_....~^^~.~.._ in a taxi or atirswise provide trarspartation services by taxi, beginning in the city of Rarx3no Cucama'ga without havixl a Taxicab Driver's Permit to do so order the provisions of this ~Pter. "8 30 080 Application far a Taxicab Driver's PerrtSt. "(a) Any person desiring to obtain d Taxicab Driver's Pervut shall submit a written application to the ~";~;st.~ative Services Director. ~ application shall provide requested information, order penalty of perjw-y, m application force supplied by the ac~,rin;strative Services Direc.~ x~egardirg the follorirg: "(1) Pertirent persoul data and ptnof of possessim of a valid Class 3 driver's license issued ty the State of California. "(2) Physical condition affecting driving ability. "(3) Driving recd for three (3) yeazs prior to application including, but not limiter] tn, any and all axrvietions of arty provisions of the Califoznia Vehicle Code. "(4) the date and nabae of arty and all crimir;al oom+ictiore of the applicant for. the previous five (5) years. "(5) Sunmary of experience in driving molar vehicles, taxis and/ar other v~ricles fore hire. ) OrdlrkiTlee No. 501 Page 5 "(6) 4he name aryl address of the taxicab service by which the applirartt will be euplor+ed. "Each applicant shall provide a passport size photograph and be fingerprinted by the San Hernaxdim Lbrxrty 3reriff's office and a criminal reoorcLa check shall be ox><Lrctsl on the applicant. 'Rre applicant will 6e required to pay the Sheriff's established fees for sudr services in addition to the Taxicab Driver's Permit fee. A driver obtaining a permit r+errewal need rnt to firgenprirR.ed and photographed if the Sheriff ,lern„";.wc. that such is not necessary far permitting purposes. "8 030 090 ~Yavcls for Dennial ar Revocatiarr of Taxicab Driver's Permit. "(a) Taxicab Driver's Permiffi shall be denied or revoked on the follvaing gruuc~s: "(2) The person does rot possess a valid Class 3 driver's license ic~ssrl by the State of California. "(3) ~ persan has been arrvi.cted of a crime within five (5) years which imolvsl: "(a) fzaud or dishonesty with r~espec-t to any maober of the public; "(b) driving while under the influence of alcotnl or chugs; "(c) injuries to arty member of the public as a result of sucfi person's operation of a taxi. "(4) The person has heP1l convicted far driving a taxicab recklessly withal the prenedirg two (2) years. "(5) Repeated and persistent violations of the traffic laws of the City, axmtY or .State. "(6) Driving arty taxicab the driver kerxv or should have known was not in good ogler and repair. "(7) False stat~o,rtn made on an application sutmitted order this DaPt~'. "(8) Violation of any of the provision of this Chapter. "(9) c]rarging arty peasm roes than the established rate fcs taxicab service. "8.30.100 Issuance Of Taxicab Driver's Permit. "If the City Council, or its desicyiee, finds that the applicant is duly qualified, in ornpliance with the pmvisiarrs of Phis Qv9pter and there ~~~ brHirvamo No. 501 Page 6 aze ra graurls for denial, the applicant shall he issued a 't`axicab Driver's Permit. Any applicant denied a permit shall be given written ratice of the reasons for the denial. Permits shill r+Emain the property of the city of Farrda Cucamorya aryl are rat transferable to any orr.e,- driver. A permit shall be ~'*++~+~~ed to the City by the driver upai suds driver oeasirg to erxlage in the activity of a taxicab driver. lire Taxicab Driver's Permit shall set forth the driver's name arld working address. the, permit shall hear the driver's picttse and shall be displayed while the driver is operatirg the taxicab so as to at all times be easily visible in the « ~~ 's oaparboent of the taxicab. "Upcxr payment of all ruined fees, submittal of the rergrired application atti proof of completion of firr3erFsintirq and ptatncg~aphing, the City CYAUail, ar its design, shall issue a T~paraxy Taxicab Driver's Permit which shall be valid for r~ to sixty (60) days if the applicant certifies order penalty of perjury that there aze no cytwds for deiQ'irrg the applicant a permit order the provisions of Section 8.30.090. A Tarparary Taxicab Driver's Permit may be r~;,,ated by the City at any time br' written ratification of re„~;,,ation to the holder of a Tetporary Driver's Permit is an investigation by the City determine, that grasris for denial of a permit exists ruder section 8.30.090. Any 7~pon. xy Permit shall automatically terminate upon the issuance of a regular Taxicab Driver's Permit to the applicant after the cotipletion of the sheriff's irrvestigatim. "8.30.110 Agxal Proceduxt?s. aAtry person deified a permit pursuant to this UrapYer may appeal tc the city (buncil in writing, stating ^°°^^^- why the permit should be granted. 7tre City Conrail may hear appeals directly ar in its sole dicrrorion may appoint a heazin7 officer to hear any appeal and make a reoamerdation to the City ~mcil. [Tprxr receipt of a timely, written request far appeal, the City Oamail shall set a heazirg to Doan- within forty-five (45) days, 6efcre said Nurrcil ar desirgated hearing officer. 'tire City Cbrurcil shall render a decision within thirty (30) days of the oonclusian of said heaziry. "8.30.120 Revocation of Permits. "NO permit issua9 order this Urapter shall be revoked until notice is provided and a hearing to detexmire whether there are gruurls far revocation shall have been held before the City Cauail ar in the Council's sole discretion before a bearing officer appointed by the City Coruail to hear the appeal and make a recanrerdation to the Coruail. Notice of srrdr hearing shall be given in writing and served at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing thereon. The notice shall state the gmrmds of the ernplairt against the holder of such permit, and shall designate the time and place where such hearirq will be held. Said notice shall be served upon the permit holder by delivering the same per .morally ar by la3virq sudr notice at the place of business ar residence of the permit holder. In the event the permit holder carver be feud, and the service of suds notice cannot be otherwise made in the manrrs herein provided, a Dopy of srrh notice shall be mailed, certified postage fully pr~aid, _a,,_~d to the permit holder at his or her place of business ar residence at least ten (10) days prior to the date of stxh ~lo~ 0lilirlal'1re No. 501 Page ~ hearing. The desicion of the City Oarncil shall be firel. 'Ras titer shall be enforced by the Slrriff of San Bern3cclim Cwrrty. "8.30.130 ~,t-ions. '"lhis r shall not apply to public transportation service being performed pissu~vrt to a contract with the City of Randro Q>cangnga or am+ other public entity irr this State, x'8.30.140 Time for Cr~liarr+e by DLL'' 79xicab Services and Taxicab Drivers. "Any taxicab service or taxicab driver perforating service within the City on the effective date of this LTkipter shall have sixty (60) days from the effective date of this CSraptes to obtain ~~*,; is ,+er,,,;,,o.a hpy-~yar "8.30.150 Penalty for Violation. ^(a) Criminal Violation "It shall be unlawful far arty perecn, firm, partnership, ar corporation to violate any provision ar to fail to oaiply with any of the +'~^~ of this chapter Arty parson, firm, violating arty, ~wision of this p~tT~'s'strrp, or ~~~ requirmierrts shall be deemed ~~~ ar failing to cxaply with any of its therof shall be nm;~++a1 guilty of a mL9dE1110at10T' and rQ~ar carviction by a fine not exresdug Ore Ttnusard Dollars ar by imprisormrnt not exioeerling six months, ar by both such fire and imprisormienrt. F~cdr sudr pesc.,ay firm, paz-tr~esship, or eocparation shall be denied guilty of a separate offense for eadn arrl suety day ar arry portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter is axrnutted, continued or permitted by such person, firm, pv+**,+_,-<_>,T.,, of corporation, arrl shall ix deemed punLshable Urrnfore as provided in this Chapter "(b) Civil penedies Available "A violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter shall oastitute a TM,;~„ro and may be abated by the city thragtr civil p¢ncesss by means of restraining onler, preliminary ar perm-unrt injrmetice, ar in any oth s' manner provided by law far abatement of satin rntisance," Section 2• If any section, ~rbsection, seMenoe, clatrzse, phrased, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason deemed ar held to to invalid or unmrrstitzntioul by the decision of any cast of c+mpetent jrsisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance. The City Cormcil of the City of Ranctq CurarrorXla hereby declares that is w[uld have adopted thls pP:djfldnlCe 81d each 9eR.'ticYl, snl]ae(.'tiOn, sente~,oe, clause, phrase ar portion thereof, i.rrespec.•tive of the fact that any ore or more sections, m'~^^`iore, serrterrc~, clauses, phrases, ar other portions might 4+~*,o,+*ly be declared irrvalid ar uneatstitutimal. I (P ~i Ordltame No. 501 ~ 8 Sacrist 3• Rte Maya- shall sign this 0LUi7>3iC2 and the City Clerk shall cause the same to ba published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least are in 'II~e Inland Valley Gaily Reoort, a ne~per of gernral ci2cvlatim published in the City oP Ontario, Califm:'rtia, std circulated in the City of Ratx3n Cucamxcp, Califcttnia. 1~3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON ;A STAFF REPORT DA7£: Scptcmhcr 2, 1992 a 7U Mayor and Members of the City Council K;. '""~ Jack Lam, AICP, City M1Janagcr FROM: Jerry B. Fulwood, Deputy City Manager BY: Duane A. 6akeq Assistant Iu the City Manager SGBIECT: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST BY FROPERTY OWNERS TO FORM AN ASSPSSMENT DISTRICT IN SOUTH ETIWANDA 1'he City has received a rcyucst and a petition from a number of property owners in South Eliwanda to form an assessment district. A map of the prnp0scd as5es5n1Cnl district bOllndary IS altos hed for your information. The purpose of (he proposed assessment district would be to fund the design and the construction of master planned drainage facilities in the Eliwanda area south of Highland Avenue. The costs for these improvements are very high and there is not a single property owner large enough to handle the costs. The Jas: estimate we have for the costs of these facilities is three years old and places the price of the master planned drainage system at $B million or more. Essentially, the property in that area of town can't be developed until (he drainage system is built For this reason, a group of small property owners have gotten together to try and form an assessmcnl district. This group of property owners have been circulating a petition in the proposed assessmcnl arcs seeking support of a majority of the land owners in the area before making their rcyucst of the City Council. The group of property owners is proposing that this district exclude most single family residences. An exception might be a single family residence That is on a large vacant parcel That could subdivided, The group has presented to the City a petition wish the signatures of property owners representing 69% of the approximately 900 acres in the proposed assessment district. Additionally, This group has collected approximately $20,000 to be used to (runt the preliminary costs associated with an assessment report written by an assessmcnl engineer and other consultmrts casts. This group has worked several months on this grass roots effort to gain support fer an assesentent district. If approved by the City Council. (he type of district that is being contemplated would be run by the City. All of the ronsultants, engineers, and financial advisors would be selected by the City and paid (or by the property owners or by bond proceeds. This district, because of the lack of any single large property owner, would achlally construct the facilities instead of reimbursing a developer for constructing the facilities. In This case. City staff would oversee the design of the facilities and then the bidding and construction crr~ cpuNCa MEETfNc REQUEST TO FORM AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT September 2, 1992 Page 2 If approved, the district would sell bonds in two phases. The first phase would fund all of the design costs. These designs would be used to develop a final cost estimate which would be used in sizing the second phase bonds which will fund construction. pnce first phase bonds have been sold, the property owners will be commi«ed to paying [hc .assessments. If, after the designs are complete and final cost estimates obtained, the progeny owners would like to get out of the assessment, it will be too late. Staff wants to make all of the facts clear to all of the parties prior le any decision being made. This is also why this public hearing is being held. 'Phis public hearing is not a formal pan of the Icgal requirements to actually form an assessment district. This hearing is an opportunity for the City Council to Jetcrminc whether this is a request that they would like to support. The next step in this process requires expenditures of staff time and the retention of an assessment engineer. Before shat step can be made, Cily staff needs the direction of the City Council. This hearing is also an opportunity for the proponems of this request to state their reasons directly to the Council In addition, a notice of this meeting has been sent to all of the property owners in the proposed district to allow fur all viewpoints to be heard. The City has heard some opposing viewpoints expressed. Onc concem is that some of the owners of vacant progeny have no immediate plans to sell or develop the land and would be unable to pay a new assessment. Another view expressed was by people associated with the Buddhist Temple which does not have the revenue to pay for an assessment nor do they have plans to develop (heir property further. Finally, some single family home owners have expressed concern about how the line will be drawn dividing exempt horncowners from homeowners with large lots of land who will be included in the assessment district. The actions being requested of the City Council arc to authorize staff to solicit bids for an assessment engineer and 7n perform the necessary work needed to start a formal assessment district formation proceeding. Il Is also requested that the City Council authorize the staff to prepare agreements with the progeny owners to cover the use of their (ands to pay tar the necessary consultants. If the consultant's research show that an assessment district is viable and after the properly owners have had an opportunity to review the detailed costs, the propmten[s may come back to the City Council r;questing the ^nal action to form the assessment district. R pcctfully Submitted, Jb ~~~~ Jerry B. Fulwood Deputy Cily Manager DAB/dab Attachment i ~s autm m wa em n: x ~~ °u _.. ~ fo ~ PROPOSED ASSESSlkNT OiSTRICT V1'1'Y VL' KAiVCHV CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 2, 1992 T0: Mayor and Members of Lhe City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Rick Gomez, Comm ni LY Development Director Nilliam J. O'Neil, Ctty Engineer James Markman, City Attorney SUBJECT: DISCUSSION ON ALTERNATIVES TO ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS BACK6RDUND/ANALYSIS At the Council meeting an June 17, 1992, City Council requested staff prepare alternatives to Landscape Assessment Districts. Staff, including the City Attorney and the City's Assessment District Attorney have reviewed this subject matter and can offer the following options. Park Improvement District (PD - 85) is not considered in these options because unlike other assessment districts, PD - 85 15 an improvement district formed by Council action and is financed with bonds that are the City's obltga tlon to retire. Street light districts are also not considered since these facilities are to the public right-af-way, protect the health and safety of the community and could not be "assigned" to a homeowners or other group. 0 tp ions districts orce res ents to form and participate in homeowners associations, we could support voluntary homeowners association taking over the landscape districts. In an assessment district the costs are spread equitably 1n accordance to benefit. In a homeowners association without full participation, this equity would not exist. Therefore it is likely, unless same number of homeowners are willing to assume the full obligation, the entire structure of the association would be suspect and could be deemed as extremely unfair. In addition, legal counsel has advised the City would still retain ownership of the right-of-way for the parkways and medians and fee ownership of the parks and paseos. This means the City woulo still be liable for the health, safety and welfare of anyone who uses this land. insurance provisions of a homeowners group would help reduce the City's exposure but not completely. ~~ CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ALTERNATIVES TO ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS September 2, 1992 Page 2 Also the question of parks becomes a problem. Currently parks are open for use to anyone in the City. If a homeowners association takes on the responsibility of park maintenance there may be proGl ems determining the level of maintenance or ova it abtl lty of use. The City would still have to oversee maintenance for liability reasons and scheduling of activities. The logistics of establishing a homeowners association would be formidable. An association would have to be incorporated and employ a management firm to run operations. Costs for insurance, management firm, billing and other administrative duties could run as high as 30% of the cost of a district. In LMD 2, Victoria, this could be as much as 5500,000.00. This corresponds closely to what the City expends for these items. Exact costs would depend on the size of the district and the levels of services provided. Consolidation or Cit Wide District. While the City has several an scope ma n enance s r c s, would be possible to consolidate all districts Into one or a new City-wide district could be formed. For example, all landscape districts could be consolidated into Landscape Maintenance District No. 1, This option again brings up the issue of equity. One can argue the landscape amenities in the city benefit the entire community and therefore it 15 fair to assess everyone in the city for these benefits. Th15 1s a well tested legal doc t: the which d110w5 the City to incorporate the entire community within a landscape assessment district. Malty cities have followed this approach. Staff and the City Attorney bel leve Lhis could 6e done in Rancho Cucamonga. However, the dl5parl ty of "current" costs between the di strlcts could be a problem. Incorporating all of the distrlc is into one (exclusive of areas not already in a district), would lower costs for certain areas of the community while raising costs for other areas. Currently there 1s enough disparity beMeen distrlc is so consol 7datT on would not resuit in the same low rate now being paid 1n LMD 1 being applied to all districts. Those in LMD 1 would see increase 1n assessments, those in the other districts would see a decrease. The equity issue could be solved by creating one district with several 'zones". The zones would acknowledge differences 1n landscaping "density" and have different rates as needed. However this approach would not be much different then the current situation. Another approach could be a City-wide district. All properly within the city limits would be included in a district including all properties presently not in a distrlc t. As an example, approximately 75% of the property owners within the district boundaries of LMD 1 have never been annexed into the district. Having a large base would 1~8 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ALTERNATIVES 'f0 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS September 2, 1992 Page 3 help keep the costs down for all taxpaying residents. However, future increases would affect the anti re comm~nTty. Ne expect a City-wide district would reduce cost for all properties al~re~ady in a district. Obviously those not now in a district woul sea e a new assessment. City assumes responsibilt assessment districts in the Ctty with the costs- for landscape maintenance being borne by the City's General Fund or through some other City-wide fee mechanism. The 92/93 cost for all landscape maintenance districts is 34,820,000 (excluding PD 85). The City has created outstanding visual amenities in the comm~nT ty through use of landscaping. The financial concept to suDDort these amenities was the use of dT strlcts. The Ct ty's general fund was never intended to support the landscape districts. At no time in the past or future will the City's general fund be able to finance the landscape districts even if the service level for all areas including parks is Bras tlcally reduced. a The City t0 simDly dissol areas are ettner dedicated to -the City as right-of-wAV or owned by the CT ty in fee, the respansib111t1es for maintenance of some sort for these areas would be with the City. Also the City would have to face the issue of liability. Anything that would happen 1n these landscape areas 1s still the responsibility of the City. Since the parks and many of the paseos are owned in foe, these parcels could be auctl oned or sold off. There are however many legal limitations and procedures on the disposal of park land. Each park would have to be looked at Separately to see how ii was acquired. In dealing with landscaped areas the City could simply cutoff the 1rrl gation, let the landscaping die, regrade the areas and plant either minimal soil erosion material or pave the areas over with either asphalt or concrete. The cost to pave the landscape areas (not including parks) in LMD 2 with 3" of asphalt concrete would roughly be 57,900,000. Even after this work there still would be some level of maintenance required for street trees, etc, which rrould have to be paid by the General Fund or a City-wide fee. Obviously this option would result in the tremendous investment already in the landscape assessment districts being wasted, and the beautiful landscape amenities within the City would 6e lost or severely reduced. 1~9 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ALTE RNATI4ES TO ASSESSMENT Di STRICTS September 2, 1992 Page 4 A survey of other cities is attached showing other conmuntties experience the same issues as Rancho Cucamonga. Generally other cities are not operating differently Chan Rancho Cucamonga. In fact with our newsletter we are dot ng more than other agencies in providing information and seeking input from the Dublic. Respectfully su~ted, 2 ~ ~/~C~ ~/ William J, O'Ne11 City Engineer RG/VIJO/JM:dI w Attachments 17b SURVEY OF CITIES WITH LANDSCADING AND LIGHTING DISTRICTS CITY DISTRICTS City of Brea 4 - landscape 2 - Lighting 5750.00 - 51000.00 City of Chino I City wide Landscape and Lighting 50 to 60 zones 512.00 to 5651.00 City of Chino Hills 1 City wide Landscape and Lighting 12 zones - 11 Residential 1 Commercial /Industrial 5157.00 to 5752.00 52,750/ac for Commercial/Industrial City of Corona 1 City wide Landscape District 20 - zones f26.00 - 5100.00 (max.) City of Fontana 2 - landscape 2 - Lighting f67.00 - 5363.00 City of La Yerne 1 - City wide Landscape and Lighting 5 zones for landscaping 5100.00 City of Ontario 3 - Landscape 1 - Lighting f35.00 to 569.00 Commercial/Industrial (106.00/ac City of Signal Nill 1 - Landscape 5350.00 City of Walnut 1 - City wide Landscape and Lighting 12 zones 5157,00 to 5752.00 (average 5450.00) 52750/ac Commercial/Industrial ~7~ N L d N L E L O• L C O C { C C q d L O d e E r q ~ Y o V o m H L 2 d ~ w Y ~ a ~ rn o rn w Ye ~+ o L C C O q a q O o C q 3 O E c O A r T L ~ A L cY L E o a U N Y N ~ d W •Or. o r L L N T L L N O d W q q E N Y L C O Y q N N r 1] Y L U O~ N 6 0.Y 9 q'O q a N .a U• O.C 3 A d d O r T C~ C ' OY Q `r 3 E N L > L L ~- a c • ^ a Y W ^ 6 YE O YY A H N L C v- T L D Y ~ r O C N a O r d U V C 6 q L n C d O q L d Y ~ C d ~ - l O D C O O M qq ~ Y q 0. M E n'O O • L q L V + d E d Y N r N 0 Y 3 M~ 6 C •F C d dr ~ S 1 a O V U y q a A N Y > > A Y E V E q V- C C ~ N ~ N d C q d • O q q C N• d> A d 6 d C N N ~- Y E udT `rn N tr ca q V- c•ra 4- aeV ~ U O O O N C O q V ~- y N N C ~ Y N A d Lq YW C d 6 AYE 0. ~q T }~ • }~ Cr S N rTV~ L N 6L C a O O G O O U } O O ~ q O p1 N O Y A O N O y y W S O ID U C V U N U U G Z U S J N E N J L d C N ~. ~• A r q N O a rn L v { Y t N d O N Y N CnL O Y Y-Y N U a O U N O V w vY w I co 6 o c L q C L N O o !- Y r O c C V > I V O A N h - Y i U 4 N N a Lr6 L d VE d a 0 Y N a C S v ~ L a rn T y r L a AY 'O EE r Y ~ O d g S N E O U Y q q O Z r c 0 u q V O N N 6 M N U 2 L L OI d ~+ N F- 3 n~ O O O a F d 6 x > O r O 4 O •~ N I .. L O O c n T n a ~ c a v c o s ~ o ~+ L ~ ~ oa v O T q a ~ v E O NT a N C a N C N N T C7 / N C N Q G a ~' ~ a t i o a z v ~+ L c a a T ~ w > ~ 2 u ~n o a q a a s v c x v N a q Y s O VI V C N i E Y l Y N C Ul c L q a L 7 U v i 6 a O N E a L O N a r W a s O N O r W q a v i W a 3 q •• v co a.+ 2 a N N q N W G V C+- 2 U r N L O ac me N V a L a N q E q N Y N 6 q .- O 'O E t W Ua qY V~ o ca U' i 3 a O N L IQ-I D T o M o. z t+ N ao Q Nr y+V N a Y V U H N U N M ~ C /i O •1- q q 6 a L O U L v o u w a Y- pf Vr Y N N C +- q In a0i OrO CN L C a O q E q ~a LO +-O c( 6 N L ~• arl q 2 l O a 1- a O 6 ~~ O q a O Y q H O N C V O U U ~ a 173 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 2. 1992 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Linda D. Daniels, Deputy City Manager SUBJEC'T': ADOPTION OF LIBRARY MASTER PLAN AND IMPI,EMEN'TATION PLAN RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Library Master Plan and the Implementation Plan prepared by the City's consultant, Ray Holt and Associates. BACKGROUND In 1991 the City Council directed that a library Master Plan be prepared. The Master Plan is a blueprint for library services for Rancho Cucamonga. 1'he Implementation Plan identifies methods of planning in order to carry out the Master Plan. The Master Plan and Implementation Plan are complete and have been reviewed by the Council Subcommittee. The Master Plan and Implementation Ylan have been distributed and the City Council discussed the Plans at the April 1, 1992 and June 3, 1992 meetings. ANALYSIS The Master Plan and Implementation Plan have been designed to act as a blueprint for library services for the residents of Rancho Cucamonga. As part of its development, a Library Task Force was created to solicit the input from residents and business leaders with respect to how library services can address the varied business, education, recreational and social needs within Rancho Cucamonga. Included in the Master Plan is an identification by the Task Force of the primary services to be provided in all Rancho Cucamonga facllitfes. These arc: children's services, adult services, reference services and staff services/operations. In addition, the Library Task Force has included in the Master Plan priorities for additional collections and services. These are: computer centers, business reference, senior services, homework centers, literacy program, young adults, special program rooms, audio visual, discovery room for children and local history. The Master Plan also identifies the concepts of the facilities that should be planned to house the library services. At the top of the three tier system is the Central Park library facility. This would be the lazgest of the library facilities and would act as the central facllity for collections, processing and the la,-ger programmtng space. The second tier of library facilities consists of smalier branch sites. These would be located in well-defined geographic areas of the community and would serve at a neighborhood level. The final tier of library facilities would be for extension type services such as outreach to the pre-schools, convalescent homes, business centers, and other special groups or institutions. The facilities In each tier would have designated sen-ice objectives. Collections, services, hours of opening, and programming would be designed to meet the needs of the population that it serves. For example, branch sites may develop individual collectlon or programming strengths that aze needed in the parttculaz geographic azea served by the branch. The value of the Master Pian 1s that 1t has collected and summarized the library service prtorttfes for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Master Plan can be used as a guide to begin directing collections and programs to meet the specific population needs of Rancho Cucamonga. The subcommittee has met to discuss the Master Plan and Implementation Plan. The subcommittee is recommending that the Master Plan and Implementation Pian be adopted. Once the Master Plan and Implementation Plan are adopted, staff and the Council subcommittee will work to Implement the Plan for library services. As previously directed b~; the C[ty Council, staff has had several conversations with County personnel to discuss library services and funding, Those discussions are on-going with follow-up meetings scheduled for mid-September based on Council action tonight Respectfully submitted, [dnda D. Daniels Deputy Cily Manager IS • i yr n.Yrvl,nV I,UUAMV1V liA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMORANDUM ~ DATE: September 3, 1992 TO: Chairman and Members of the Red(e}`~~lopment Agency FROM: Debra J. Adams, CMC, Ctty Clerk ~~ Q~t'~-~- SUBJECT: PETITION AGAUVST LOW INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT Attached is a copy of the petitions submitted to the City Clerk at the September 2 Redevelopment Agency meeting for the item regardtng the Affordable Housing Design Competttlon program. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. /dJa cc: Olen Jones, Sr. RDA Analyst Attachment PETITION We, the residents of the community known as Victoria and all adjacent communities in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of California, do hereby give notice. We are opposed to the construction of any Low- Income Housing Devslopmant that woukl be kxated in or around the Victoria Community. We believe that this will have a detrimental impact upon our communities, both economical and social (i.e. aro m nome races mnux o r n s, dru raffiti. S' re Printed Name Address Date t T (`r '~7 sse/l L' io 10 ~ ~ .C. r~.9i~ 9~/~72. YV, n r 811, LtIK C _ i ,^I K 1.l_L (iUAk c •'R 9- - 2 a v pq ~ _~ - ~ ~ w c>.~ a- - ~ Q- P L !L PETITION We, the residents of the community known as Victoria and all adjacent communities in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of Calffomia, do hereby give notice. We are opposed to the construction of any Lovr- Income Housing DsvelapmsM that would be located in or around the Victoria Community. We believe that this will have a detrimental impact upon our communities, both economical and social (i.e. drop in home DfICBS. influx of aanas. dn/ne nrafrdi 1 Si nature Printed Name Address Date f} - n n~ c. K u ~ ,C. Z aAlc~ -~r7,ci'S II? i ~wP(I 4 / ~t2 /B 70 / ~ u /rr/c " . c ~. ~ J L q' ..~/~ ~c+~ SKIn~ICr E~ 9 Par ~. 1. ~ r q l ~ '7 -/~ c, ~ ~n R C.. q./. u E. ~ y ,. , r d n r7 // / 4'-r/'.~ /' q (i L r (, / _ Yr`J 3I / C N rr .~ ~ - /. ~ V E/ ,N / .n... _ _ 9 1. '~~ti~ ,„ ~,- .y _ t-~ e1 f ~ :.z, r~ S .C - _ q.. ~ _ q n,~; ti C ~ n.~. r L. ,, /!' ~ - i~!' ~u 'M"".~.: I[h l !a G ~ l~7/ 7 ccKu~iv ~t_-~'. 9 -/_~y '~~tlr r :2 r~ In nl' /,• - Ci ~".~ ~ i .i .. '7sv / ~ ,c, ~ ~ a %/ ~ J - - ~ ~ ~ - / ~ ~ a(,. r U ~,~~ PE71T10N We, the residents of the community (mown as Victoria and all adjacent commundies in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of Cal'domia, do hereby give notice. We are opposed to the construction of any Low- Income. Housing Development that would be located in or around the Victoria Community. We PennoN We, the residents of the community (mown as V'wtoria and all adjacent communities in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of Calitomia, do hereby give notice. We are opposed to the construction of arty Low- Inoome Housing Dsvelop M that would be boated in or around the Victoria Community. We believe ShSt,tK'rsyAll h~v $detrimental impact upon our communities, both eaxtomical and social (i.e. PETITION We, the residents of the community known as Victoria and all adjacent communities in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of California, do hereby give notice. We are opposed to the construction of any Low- income Housing Development that woukl be located In or around the Victoria Community. We believe that this will have a detrimental impact upon our communities, both economical and social (i.e. drop in home prices, influx of cams. drugs. craffiti.l Si nature Printed Name Address Date ~i ~ y _ . c. n la7 f, s r, . ~. 9 .D.PU .rrZ 4.ri ~~ ~ '' .,moo.-~ er I obbr:, l~ ~ ~ 63 e~; 2 r1. ~ E 4 1x333 u K rr -1-J1 tai r r1~ t !~7 / /Or;~~' ~ - PennoN We, the residents of the community known as Victoria and all adjacent communfties in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of California, do hereby give notice. We are opposed to the constmction of any Low- Income Housing Development that would be located in or around the Victoria Community. We believe that this will have a detrimental impact upon our communities, both economical and social (i.e. l;1311ILv1:J We, the residents of the communHy known as Yatoria end all adjacent communities in the CNy of Rerxtio Cucamonga, Sfete of Caplomia, do hereby give notice. We are opposed to the construction of arty Lo~r- Income Nouaing DsvNopmsnt that would be boated in o- around the Victoria Conrmmity. We believe ttrat this wit have a detrimental impad upon our communities, both economical and social C.e. dfOD in home prices. Efltlnlr Ot aerbs_ dnru. eretari 1 - PflrrlBd tVanle Addres8 DBt9 ~a ~ - .- ~ ,. A r'> i ~ I a- V~~ }~ v ~ ^ b~ ~3L R .."/" IGhH ~ ' E f< A ~ r Um (,~Trc aq z L 4 2 ~c r L ~-7 n-, ' r'VC, ~ .' l 54 I r LS14 G r NW ~f• !' dQ O7 T 9 3D °. ~ n Q( rl S f'tIU f. _ ..~ z, ~I A (,O~uS - I.4Z 00 - -C O - «~ PE71110N We, tha residents of the community Imown as Victoria and aU adjacent canmuniNes in die Cdy of Rerwtw Cucamonga. State of Catilomia. do hereby give mice. Vye are oppoaad to the construdian of any L.oar- Incoma Howing DavNoprnard that would be located M or .Dana tM vlctoele Conrtwniq. we beliaeve that this wiA have a detrimental impact upon our communities, both econanical and social Qe. n none roes inaux ature rn ftiti. panted Name p~re~ pia s ~ c „ z. ~ z ~ ~ \ ss iz n ,, i v ~ . ~ av~z, 3a ~ ~- -~- 'h J Z e s ~ T ..- -3 r ' I%12 7J / /' - ~ _ ro .f .' 9 ~ G' - a 1 ZrN PETITION We, the residents of the community (mown ae Victoria and au ad(acent commrmNiee in the city of Rancho c~Cemonge, State of C•,aYdomia, do hereby give notice. We are opposed to the construction of arty I.ow- irwenw Housing Dswlopatsnt Mret would be bated in or around tM vktoRia ConaramNy. Yve believe that this will have a detrimental impact upon our communities, txkh economical end social (i.e. drop in home prices, influx of penes. dnws. aratflti.l S' nature Printed Name Address Date G -I- V' r -/^ _C - T s GVA b - c 'al1~ ' C~ Qr ~ortff 46'~L L'•• :Q er .~. - +2-9 ~ r~ ~/ p e .~. i/~,.n A is gir6w u_5 .~ - ,cj. 7 -3 2 -z ,SZ aEriTloN We. the residents of the ~mmuniry (mown es Victoria and ad adjacent commundies in the CRy of Rend~o Cucamarga, State of California, do hereby eve notice. We are oppoaad to the conatnretlon of any lav- Woome Nouaing Dweloprnent Mat would be located in or around the Vlctgia Comrnuarity. We baNeve Mat Mis win have a detrnrsartal impaa aeon our ownmam'ties, boM eoorlornk~l and sadel (i.e. '& ~ ,.;;. PETITION We, the residents of the community (mown as Victoria and all adjacent communities in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of Cal'rfomia, do hereby give notice. We are opposed to the construction of any I.ow- Income Housing Development that would be boated in or around the Victoria Community. We believe that this will have a detrimental impact upon our communities, both economical and social (i.e. dr in home rites, influx of n , dru re((iti. S' ature Printed Name Address Date C an PE71T10N We, the residents of the community known as Victoria and all adjacent communities in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of California, do hereby give notice. We are opposed to the construction of any Low- Mcome Housing Development that woukl be located in or around the Victoria Community. We believe that this will have a detrimental impact upon our communities, both economical and social (i.e. aro m noma aces, mnux m an s dru s, retmi. S' nature Printed Name Address Date r.~a .a .. ~a vn . c~. 9-i-9~- ~ o (053:,2 r E ,w'an.6a 4- - 2 I c~ t ND -/.- ~. $ - oti ~! _ _ Given E 1CKSON •S - N S} • Ef W,. - I - ~CZ S -- - c - Al Rr e, /I v PETITION We, the residents of the community Imown as Victoria and all adjacent communiies in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of Cal'rfomia, do hereby give notice. We are opposod to the construction of any Lovv- Income Housing Development that would be boated in or around the Victoria Community. We believe that this will have a detrimental ®npact upon our communities, both economical and social (i.e. er m nome rites, innux o f an s, aru s rattrtl. i na Printed Name Address Date W ti / i'7 3i uNY L- I (Vr 1~IJL i('F ( 'I'o 11 3' Lo z c/ ~/- 3/ p ~ f 3i a o. ~ R CErw~ ~ Se~ti a P . 3, ,, ^ ^ J' ,:Je s - L A3/ i ,t ~E c 0 3 b/ r 5 (a 8- - ~ n G 2 i Se ~ 1. S 9 ' LL / G ~=U,' L ~ y o u v P~nnoN Ws, the residents of the community (mown as Victoria and all adjacent communities in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of Califomie, do hereby give notice. We are opposed to the construction of arty Lorca Income Housing Development that would be boated in or around the ViMOria Community. We believe that this will have a detrimental impact upon our communities, both economical and social (i.e. dr in home rites influx of n , dru re(fiti S Print a Address Date ! m L'U ~ ~~1an 3 / 8" nne /a 5'7 - & s/ '4 c E &~wI,.D~t y ~- rc a 1 VS4 • _3 - 2 c~xa, w;~ i2 3 v w -31 SJS N W/il 2 obi Ei 8-3/- 2 r ,~ ~~ ,. ~ - - f ~ $ / N/ 5c,o A.tSR 1d \'1 51Uf.D ti•3l- TL/.J _ iq~ 2rlo 57 9- -~ IAICEI (/53 Rrcll7ud (, -/-9a- • 3~t r r I & ~ ree -1- 9 i, 9i. P./ a /.~• I~G kk.Mo•' /d3loY t T e O~•E 9-/-9 c,JiJ NOSaN /2311 f7oc~r'TRe[ VC ~Q [~ ~/_ k.Ol~1 ~ E7tPif /a37j' 9ovd 7kd t 2/v.. QpdtJo 9 ~ •9 ~.i / / 3 D~ J /Z -Z-4 PennoN We, the residents of the community Imown as Victoria and all adjacent communities in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of California, do hereby give notice. We are opposed to the construction of any Lorv- Income Nousing Development that would be located in or around the Victoria Community. We believe that this will have a detrimental impact upon our communities, both economical and sodal (i.e. drop in home prices. influx of canas. drucs. amffdi.l S' nature Printed Name Address Dat "~oC3 i5 zG W C, Sr 3 - aS8 ~ v yam, , zse , ~. ~. L ~ .~ ~ N ~.. a i ~v7, N_! ~ C 3 ~- 1 ~~ /- I - ~, ~. J 'r s ~ a 't CA, t m R.C.. GG 39 C. .s R. 9 ao / . z n c e on s L ~ / a.i .i / /r YO C,{~c . ~:. - o~- ~a - 6 itirri ~ - ct -a 4 yo - / , ~- / - a t- 5 -2-5 z CPl'Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATH: September 2, 1992 ' TO: Ma and Members of the City Council Please note that there wee an error ir. the amount to be arerded for this contract. The correM amount is /$3371AC ($125,000 plus f0 percent contingency). We apologise for/ any inconvenience this might have caused. ek Lam, City Menager Ffa)M Hrad Huller, City PlanneY HY: Anthea M. Hertig, Associate Planner SD&THCT: CORRECTION TO RHDEVBfgPMHHf AGHNCY AGHNDA IT@f D2 APPROVAL TD AWARD AND AUTRORIZH TRH CONTMCT FOR TBH 6.P LHDIG ROUHH AHHAHLLTTATION PROJHCf AMH/jfe ~ d ~ ~~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: September 2, 1992 ' TO: Mayor and Members of the City Councll Jack [am, AICP, City Manager FROM: Debra J. Adams, CMC, C1ty Clerk SUBJECT; CITY COUNCIL. AGENDA ITE D2 - C RRECTION Item 2 on the City Council Consent Calendaz shows a Resolution with the number of "92--230^_ 13te~se your agenda to /dJa ~I' _ _ show the c/orrect q~Resolution No. to be ~"ii~~ ~ ~~1/'. . ~~- ~ \\\ /' V 7 ••T ~~ "~_ ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR Il~IPROVEMENT AREA NO. 1 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT N0.91-1 (VICTORIA COMMUNITY) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 19, 1992 A LB ERRT RA. ~i/L ASSOCIATE S [~elae,nl~o roux tAYll COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT REPORT IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 1 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 91-1 (VICTORIA COMMUNITY) CITY OF icANCEIO CUC;AMONGA August 19, 1992 I'repa[ed by: Albert A. Webb Associates Consulting Engineers 4505 Allstate Drive, Suite 106 Riverside, California 92501 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT REPORT IMPROVEMENT AREA NO.1 COMMUNITY FACDLITIES DISTRICT NO. 91.1 (VICTORIA COMMUNITY) TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE COMMUNTTY FACII.TTIES DISTRICT "REPORT" ..................................... .. I A. DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES ................................................. . 2 B. BOUNDARIES OF COMMUNITY FACII.I'fBiS DISTRICT ................ . 3 C. COST ESTIMATE ................................................................... . 3 D. RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX........ . 4 E. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ....................................... . 4 i. SUBSTI'IIJTION FACII.ITIES ................................................ . 4 2. BONDS ............................................................................ . 4 3. APPEALS AND INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE ...................... . 5 EXHIBIT "A" DESCRll'TION OF PROPOSED PUBLIC FACII.ITBsS .............................. A-1 EXHIBfI"B" BOUNDARY MAP .......................................................................... B-t EXHIBTT "C" ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE ........................................................ C-1 EXHIBIT "D" RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTTONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX ............... D-1 92~84heport i-I AGENCY: CCTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PROJECT: IMPROVIIvfENf AREA NO. I COMMUNITY FACn t't'tFC DISTRICT N0.91-1 (VICTORIA COMMUNTT]~ COMMUNITY FACILTfIES DLSTRII~'I' "REPORT" "MELLO•ROOS COMMUNTTY FACILPfIES ACT OF 1982" WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL (the "CITY COUNCIl.") of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA (the "CI1Y'~, did, pursuant ro the provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California undertake proceedings ro form, and did form Community Facilities Distdtt No. 91-1 (Victoria Community) (the "Dittrict"), authorize the levy of special razes within the District and authorize the issuance of special tax bonds in ao aggregate principal amount not to exceed 555,000,000 for the purpose of financing the acquisition or construction of certain authorized public improvements (the "Public Facilities") as described in the Cornmuniry Facilities Distric[ Report, Community Facilities Disffiet No. 91-1 Ciry of Rancho Cucamonga dated November 27, 1992 (the "CFD Repot"); and WF~',REAS, on July 1, 1992, the City Council did adopt a Resoluioo of Consideration, being its Resolution No. 92.212 (the "Resolution of Consideration"), declaring its intrndon ro, among other things, form Improvement Area No. 1 of the Disttic[ (the "improvement Area"),authorize the levy of an additional special tax within the Improvement Area to finance certain public facilities previously authorized to be funded DisiricK and WHEREAS, the City Council did, in the Resolution of Consideration, order the preparadon of a report pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 53321.5 for the Improvement Area (the "Report"), said Report to generally contain the following: A. A description of the public facilities proposed to 6e financed by the levy of an additiooffi special taxes within the improvemen[ Arty; A general descripdon of the area to be serviced by said facilities; said azeas being the boundaries of dte Improvement Area; 92-86/Repat August 19, 1992 C. A cost estimate, setting forth both the cosy and expenses for providing the public facilities which serve and generally benefit the properties within the boundaries of the improvetrtettt Area; D. The rate and method of apportionment of the special tax in sufficient detail to allow each landowner or resident within the proposed Improvement Area to estimate the maximum amount of payment: and E. General terms and conditions relating m the ptxecdirtgs. For particulars, reference is made to the Resolution of Consideration, said Resolution being No. 9z-zlz . NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, authorized representative of ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES, the appointed responsible officer or person directed to prepare the Report, pursuant ro the provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Pan i, Division 2, Tide 5 of the Government Code of the State of California, does hereby submit the following: A. DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES The District, acting on behalf of an Improvement Area, may provide for the purchase, construction, expansion or rehabilitation of any real or other tangible properly, or portion thereof, with an estimated useful life of five (5) years or longer, which is necessary to meet increased demands placed upon the City a resat[ of development occurring within the Improvement Area. 1. A general description of the proposed farilities is as follows: Improvement Area No. t is financing a portion of the costs associated with certain domestic water improvements, sanitary sewer improvements, road improvements, ^uod control and storm drain improvements, and utility improvements, previously authorized to be financed by Community Facilities District No. 91-1 (Victoria Community). 2. For further particulars as to the facilities, tefetetrce is made to the following: 92-86/Report -2- August 19, 1992 F.zhi~it A, the Description of Public Facilities. Based upon the above, it is my opinion that said facilities are those that ate necessary m meet increased demands placed upon the City as a result of development occurring within the Laprovement Atra. ALBERTA. WEBB ASSOCIATES By: ~ WlP~1 B. BOUNDARIES OF RNPROVEMENT AREA NO. 1 CObfMUNTTY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 91-I i. The boundaries of rho improvement Atca arc those properties and parcels where improvements aze authorized to be provided and in which special taxers may be levied in order ro pay for the costs and expenses of said facilities. A general description of the area of the boundaries of the Improvement Arca is as follows: That area consisting of approximately 93 acres bounded on the west by Day Creek Boulevazd East, to the north by Miller Avenue, to the south and east by Victoria Gardens Loop, and to the southeast by the I-IS Freeway (Dcvore Freeway). Reference is made to Exhibit B for the boundary map of the improvement Area which shall govern for a6 details as to the extent of the Improvement Area. C. COST ESTIMATE 1. The cost estimate for the works of improvement for said Improvement Area is based upon crtrtent dollars, is subject to escalation, and is generally set forth as follows: SAID PUBLIC FACILITIES, INCLUDING INCIDENTAL EXPENSES, IS ESTIMATED NOT TO EXCEED $Z.44B.494 BASED ON 1992 DOLLARS. 2. For funkier particulars, reference is made to the following: The Engineer's Estimate of Cost and Expenses contained bt Exhibi[ C August 19. 1992 D. RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX .. The Resolution of Consideration generally sots fonh the rate and method of apportionment of the special tax to allow each landowner or resident within the proposed Improvement Area to estimate the maximum amount that would be trquired for payment. 2. For pardcu(ars as to the rate and method of apportionment, reference is made to the following: Exhibit D 3. Except for the prepayment of all or any portion of the special tax obligation for any parcel as provided for in Section G of Exhibit "D" hereto, the special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ad valorem property taxes. The special tax and/or taxes may be partially or totally prepaid and the property discharged of the special tax obligation. E. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. SUBSTTTUI'ION FACCLI'f'[ES The description of the pubhe capital facilities, as ut forth herein, is general in its natum. The fmal nature and location of improvements and facilities will be determined upon the preparation of final plans and specifications. The final plans may show subsdmtes in lieu, or modification to the proposed work in order to accomplish the works of improvement, and any such substitution shall not be a change or modification N the proceedings as long as the facilities provide a urvice substantially similar to that as ut forth N this Report 2. BONDS In order to finance the public capital facilities as ut forth in this Report, it is necessary that twnds be issued pursuant ro the terms, conditions and authoriration as set forth in the "Community Facilities Act of 1982", firing Chapter 2.5, Part i, Division 2, Title S 92-86/Repon -f- O.ugust 19, 1992 of the Government Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 53311 thereof, and specifically Articie 5 therein. 3. APPEALS AND INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE Any landowner or resident who feels that the amount or formula of the special tax as applied to a sprzific parcel is in error tnay file a nodm with the District appealing the levy of the special tax. An appeals panel of three (3) tiKmbers, as appointed by the City Council, will then meet acrd promptly review the appeal, and if necessary, meet with the applicant. If the findings of the Appeals Board verify that the tax shotild he modified nr changed, a recommendation at that tithe will be made to the District; and, as appropriate, the special tax levy shall be corrected. If applicable in any case, a refund shall 6e granted. Interpretations may be made by the District by Resolution of the City Council for purposes of clarifying any vagueness or ambiguity as it relates [o any category, mne, rate or ~finidon applicable to these proceedings. It is my opinion that the special tax rate and method of apportionment is clearly set fonh in this Report, is in conformity with applicable agreements and memorandums of understanding, and pemtits any purchaser of properly subject to the special taz a fau means of detertnina!ion of his obligation. ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCWTES By: 92-86/Report -5- Augwt 19, 1992 EXHIBIT A COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT REPORT IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 1 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 91-1 (VICTORIA COMMUNITY) EXHIBIT "A" DESCRH'TION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES EXIIIBIT A IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 1 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 9I.1 (VICTORIA COMMUNITY) DESCRIPTION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES Improvement Atea No. 1 is £mancing a portion of certain domestic water facilities, sewer facilites, roadway improvements, s[onn drain facilities, and acquisition of righ[ of way. The remainder of the costs for these facilities is being financed by Cornmuniry Facilities District No, 91-I (Victoria Communiry). Domestic Water Improvements Installation of l0- inch, and 12-inch diameter main lines, hydrants, appurtenances and appurtenant work in connection therewith located az follows: Ten (10) inch diameter water lines will he located in: • Victoria Park Lane from Baseline Road to Victoria Gardens Loop; Victoria Gardens Loop from its northerly intersection with Day Creek Boulevard to Chinch Street and • Foothill Boulevard (north side) from Day Creek Channel to Interstate 15 (Devote Freeway). Twelve (12) inch diameter water lines will be located in: Day Creek Boulevard from Foothill Boulevard to Baseline Road; • Victoria Gardens Loop from Church Street :o its southerly intersection with Day Creek Boulevard; and Church Street from the west boundary of the District to Interstate 15 (Devote Freeway). 92~8G/Exhibit A A-1 Sanitary Sewer Improvements The construction of 8-inch and 15-inch diameter sani[ary sewer lines, manholes, plugs, appurenances ant; appurtenant work in connection therewith descrilxd as follows: Eight (8) inch diameter sewer lines will be located in: • Day Creek Boulevard from Baseline Road to Lack Bonny Drive (Pioneer Way); Baseline Road from Day C¢ek Channel to Day Creek Boulevard; • Victoria Gardens Loap from Victoria Pazk Lane to the southerly intersection with Day Cmek Boulevard; Church Street from the west boundary of the District to Victo«a Gardens Loop; and • Foothill Boulevard from the Day Creek Channel to Interstate 15 (Devote Freeway). Fifteen (15) inch diameter sewer lines will be installed m: Victoria Gardens Loop fmm Day Creek Boulevard to Vicroria Park Lane; and Victoria Park Lane from Baseline Road to Victoria Gardens Loop. Roadway Improvements The construe«on of cettain grading, paving, base, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, drainage, intersec«on work, street lights, signing, striping, irriga«on conduit, landscaping and utili«es together with appurtenances and appurtenant work for the foio~.ving roadways: • Day Creek Boulevard from Baseline Road to Foothilt Boulevard: Etiwanda Avenue from approximately 660' south of Baseline Road to approximately 400 feet south of Church Stteet: Victoria Park Lane from Baseline Road to Victoria Gardens Loop; Baseline Road from Day Creek Channel to approximately 1400' easterly of Day Cteek Boulevard and fmm Vino«a Park Lane to Etiwanda Avenue; 92~86/Exhibit A A-2 Victoria Gardens Loop; • Church Street from Rochester Avenue to Etiwanda Avenue; and Foothill Boulevard from Day Creek Channel to Interstate 15 (Devore Freeway). Traffic Signals Paracipadon N the installation of traffic signals at the interactions of: • Day Creek Boulevard and Baseline Road, • Day Beck Boulevard and its northerly intersecdoa with Victoria Gardens Loop, • Day Creek Boulevard and Church Street, • Day Creek Boulevard and its southerly intersection with Victoria Gardens Loop. • Day Cmek Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard, • Victoria Ganlens Loop and Victoria Park Lane, • Victora Gardens Loop and Church Stcee[. • Church Street and Edwanda, • Church Street and north Mall Entrance, • Day Creek Boulevard and westerly Mall Entrance, • 4'ictoria Gardens Loop and southerly Mall Entrance, • Victoria Gardens Loop and easterly Mall Entrance; and • Chun:h Sueet and Rochcstcr Avenue. Storm Drain improvements Storm Drain improvements will generally consist of reinforced concrete pipe line ranging in diameter from 1R-inch to lOR-inch, manholes, junction stmetures, appurtenances and appurtenant work in connection therewith. This District will also finance the constmction of a boz culvert at the interaction of Jack Benny Drive (Pioneer Way) and Day Creek Channel. 92~%{Ezhihit A A-3 Right-of-Way Acquisition the District will ttcqure tight of way to complete the works of improvements . 92-86/Eshibit A A-4 EXHIBIT B COMMUMTY FAC<LTTD'sS DISTRICT REPORT IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. I COMMUNTTY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 91-1 (VICTORIA COMMUNTTY) EXHIBIT "B" BOUNDARY MAP ~~,~: 4 is ~ ~ F$ 1~~~~b~~ ~ b8r~ k~ ~ ~~ ~~o ~3 I~ ~~'g~i> ~ 6 ~'S4>r tl9N ~ Xrsf~~a~$ ~ 03~§~ b o a ~ ~ y~ ~~ ~ ~~8~~8~ ~~ ' e. e ~ W Oi ~ ,~~ I ~ ~~8~~~8~b I~ I $ a o 0 Z 1 W r ~ 2 V ~`~, W ~ i a'w: m m W ~ a >t,o ~ ' r f ~ ~ O ~ O o ~ ~ `>q~4 J ~ I y. r ~ ,'~ U G i v ~ W W O ~ 3 ~ Y ~ ~ a ~ 6 ~ ~ ~ c ~ B e1i Z u n I OW ~ 3 I. ~ e O v ~ ' p U z ~ .~ c 97 O OW $ ~) c % o ~ t~ i c ~ ~ ~ ~ i t. i 5~ s ~~ ~ ~~ 4Y3 - - - -9YYA)T JW --- -b l)W -IYO y EXHIBIT C COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT REPORT IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 1 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT N0. 91-1 (VICTORIA COMMUNITY) EXHIBIT "C" ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE EXHIBIT C IMPROVEMENT AREA NO.1 COMMUNTIY FACTLITIES DISTRICT N0.91-1 (VICTORIA COMMl1NITV~ ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF COSTS AND EXPENSES Financed By Total Coat Improvement 4ru No. 1 Water Improvement l0" Water 5276.490 528,277 12"W'ater 5622,520 559.274 5899,010 587351 587,551 Sewer improvemmt $" Sewer 5370,000 5119,165 15" Sewer 5293,800 527,567 5663.800 S1d6.732 5146,728 Road Improvement Day Creek Blvd 53,462.789 3410,097 Victoria Park In 3967,395 582,475 FaoddB Blvd S7I8.880 577,343 Victoria Gazdem l-ooP 51,883,112 5632,915 BlSeline Rd 5852,465 $116.670 Church St 51,400,932 2670.854 Edwanda Ave 5444,270 5169,319 Extra Width Roedwey 5592,080 S419J32 SID.321,923 52,359,005 52,359,003 Tralllc SiR~t 52,050.000 5468,880 5468,880 Flood Control and Sform Drain Improvement 56.973,180 31,680,809 51,480,809 Utilitla • Gan Dttrlbutfao Day Crekk Blvd 5175,625 522,361 Victoria Puk Ia 521.485 52,201 Fondull Blvd 573.065 54.162 Victoria Gardens loop 585.770 533376 eaxtine Rd 521,670 SL116 CTurcb SC 553.800 521,128 5341.015 585,674 585.476 92-88/FJ(. C C-1 CortshvcNnn - rnntinned UUlitla • Electrlal Fadlida Day CYcek Blvd Victoria Park Ln Foothill Bivd victoria Gardens Loop Baseline Rd Church St Euwaada Ave Financed By Total Cost Improvement Area N0. I 5744,630 5]09,330 S 131,515 5339,545 5261,960 5733,125 594,925 51.915.030 599,785 56,676 slzo9/ 5101,695 537,376 569,821 528,d30 5355,874 5355,874 UUlitla • Telephone Day CYak Blvd 5366,7A0 564,2d9 Vittoria Park In 537,225 55,037 Foothill Hlvd 577,170 59,587 Victoria Gardena loop 5199,730 576,732 Baseline Rd St28.620 523,596 Chinch St 5136,600 557,681 EdvrsMa Ave 555.700 521,431 51,021,005 5253,333 5253,333 Subtotal Constnudon 55,237,654 Condngmcia (@ 25%) 57,309,414 Total ConswcNon & Contingencia 56,54?,068 Less Amount of Uddua E<cecding 5% (5144,R88) ToW Conswctian a~ Condngencia Eligible for Pouncing Rivht of Wav 56,402,180 Acgttlsitlat 5203,255 Cnn .ih ~ tan From Zaoe 2 of CFD No. 91-1 (S 1,605,435) 92-BB/EX. C C-2 Farmallon Fspensn Contlngada Total Cost Bond Issuance Crab Bond Diuount 5138,400 Racve FuM 5681,750 CapiWizW Inmmst 51,088,125 51,908275 Construdl¢o & Contlngada (Improvement Ara No. 1) Right o! Way Acqubitl¢n Contributbn Cosb of Lssanoe Formation aM Comingencia BoM bsuance Cosa Total Amount to Bond E 11,725 51,908.275 11,920,000 Financed By Improvement Area No. 1 510,000 51,725 51,908275 51,920,000 s6.482,IBo 5203255 (SI,605,435) 51,920.000 E6,9a1IA08 92~88/EX. C C-3 EXHIBIT D COMMUNTTY FACl1.TTIE5 DISTRICT REPORT IMPROVEMENT AREA NO.1 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 91.1 (VICTORIA COMMUNITY) EXHIBIT "D" RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX Jane I5, 7992 EXHIBIT D RATES AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAXES FOR IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 1 OF COMMUNITY FACII.TTIES DISTRICT NO. 91-1 (VICTORIA COMMUNTTX) OF THE CTTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A Special Tax, the "Special Tax(es)" (defined below), shall 6e applicable to each Parcel (defined below) located in Improvement Area No. 1 of Community Facilities District No. 91-t (Victoria Community) of the City of Rancho Cucatnonga (hereinafter "Improvement Area No. 1" and "CFD No. 91-I"). The amount of Spcciat Tax to be collected from each Pazcel in any Fiscal Yeaz (defined below) shall be determined in accordance with the rate and method of apportionmen[ desmbed below. All of the property in Improvement Area No. l unless exempted by law or Section F below, shall be taxed for the purposes, to the extent, and in the manner provided herein. A. DEFINITIONS "Assessor's Parcel Map" means an official map of the County Assessoc of the County of San Bernardino designating Parcels by Assessors Parcel Number. "Developed Property" meats, as of Iuly 1 of any Fiscal Year, all Parcels for which a final subdivision map, parcel map a functionally equivalent map or instrument creating lots or parcels for commercial and industrial development or creating lots or parcels upon which residential units may be constructed has been recorded prior to Mamh I of the preceding Fiscal Yeaz. "Exempt Property" means any Parcet or other property within Improvement Arca No. 1 described in Section E which is exempt from the lery of rho Special Tax. 92-86/Exhibit D I}I lone I5. 1991 "Fiscal Year" means the period starting on July 1 of any year and ending the following Juae. 30. "Full Buildout" mcans the Fiscal Yeaz in which all Taxable Propetty within Improvement Area No. 1 is classified as Dveloped Property for purpous of levying the Special Tax. "Yet Taxable Acre" means an acre of Developed property or Undeveloped Property, exclusive of property exempted by law or the provisions of Section F below from the Special Tax; the acreage calculation for Developed Property will be based on the dimensions as shown on or calculated from the recorded final subdivision map, parcel map, or functionally equivalent map oc instrument the acreage calculation for Undeveloped Property shall be the acreage shown on or calculated from the Asussor's Parcel Map. "Parcel" mcans a lot or parcel shown on an Assessors Parcel Map with an assigned Ass:;ssor's Parcel number as of the date of the levy of the Special Taxes for each Fisca( Year. "Special Tax Requirement" means that amoun[ requtred in any Fiscal Year to pay: (1) debt service on all Bonds or othtt indebtedness of the District, (2) costs incurred by the City in the annual levy and collection of the Special Taxes, (3) other reasonable costs related to the administration of the Bonds, and (4) any amounts reyuired to replenish any reserve funds established in association with the Bonds. to calculating the Special Tax Requirement for a Fiscal Year items (1) through (4) shall be net of bond reserve comings and other interest earnings described in tht bond resolution for the Bonds reasonably expected to be available, except thou comings that may 6e required for rebate purpous. 92-86/Exhibit D 62 June I5, l942 "Special Tax(es)" means the Special Tax to be levied in each Fiscal Yeaz on all Parcels [o fund the Special Tax Requitement "Taxable Property" means all Parcels in Improvement Area No. 1 which are not exempt from the levy of Special Taxes pursuant to Iaw or Secdon E below. "Undeveloped Property" means all Parcels in Improvement Ana No. 1 which aze not classified as Developed Pmpetty or Exetttpt Property. B. ASSIGNMENT TO TAX CLASS For each Fiscal Yeaz, all Parcels within Improvement Area No. 1 shall be classified either as Devcloped Property, Undeveloped Property, or Exempt Property and shall be subject W the lery of the Special Tax in accordance with the tares and method of apportionment set fotth in Sections C and D Fzlow. C. MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATES I. Developed Property The Maximum Special Tax fa each Parcel of Developed Property shall be $10,000 per Net Taxable Acre. 2. Undeveloped Property The Maximum Special Tax for each Parcel of Undeveloped Property shall be $5,600 per Net Taxable Acre. 92-86/Exhibit D I}9 lone !5. 1992 D. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAXES On or prior to August 1 of each Fiscal Ycat or such other dale as may be established by law, the Special Taz Requirement for such Fiscal Year shall be determined and the Special Taxes levied as follows: Sten 1: The Special Taxes shall be levied on all Parcels of Developed Property at 100 perecnt of the Maximum Spccial Tax Rate; however, if this amount exceads the Special Tax Requirement, the levy of Spccial Taxes on all Parcels of Developed Propery shall be proportionally decreased until the revenues produced themby will be equal to the Special Tax Requvement. Ste__ 0_2:. If the revenues which may be produced by levying the Spedal Taz pursuant to Seep 1 aze less than the Special Tax Rcquirement, the Special Taxes shall be levied proportionally on all Parcels of Undeveloped Property up to 100 percent of the Maximum Special Tax Ram m produce aggregate revenues equal to the Special Tax Requvemen[. E. EXEMPTIONS A Special Tax shall not be levied on the fallowing properties which may as of the date of fomtadon of Improvement Area No. 91-1 be: Properties owned by state, federal, or other local governments, except as otherwise provided in Section 53317.3 oC the Government Code; Property within Improvement Atea No. t which is dedicated for the purposes of conswcting C°D funded road facilities; 92-g6/ExhibitD D-4 June IS, 1992 Property within Improvement Atea No. 1 to be dedicated to or owned by the Southern California Edison Company, the use of which is limited to utility purposes. Those Parcels at entry ways and along perimeter azeas used for landscaping which are dedicated to and maintained by the City. Notwithstanding the above, Pazcels or portion of Parcels conveyed or irrevocably offered for dedication to a public agency after formation of Improvement Area No. 9l-l, and not otherwise exempt pursuant to this Section E, shall lx subjat to the levy of the Special Taxes pursuant to Section 53317.3 or Section 53317.5 of the Government Code and classified as Undcveloped Property. F. MANNER OF COLLECTION Except for the prepayment of Special Taxes as provided for herein, the Special Taxes shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ad valorem property taxes, provided; however, that the City Council may authoriu the collection of delinquent Special Taxes by judicial foreclosure proceedings pursuant to Section 53356.1 of the Government Code. G. PREPAYMENT AND SATISFACTION OF SPECIAL TAX OBLIGATION The Special Tax obligation for a Net Acrd of Developed Property and Undeveloped Property may be prepaid and permanendy satisfied by the owner as follows: L Prepayment Prior to Full Buildout The amount to discharge the Special Tax obligation of any Net Taxable Acre of Developed Property or Undeveloped Property wid:in the Improvoment Area prior to Full Buildout shall be (i) the remaining bond princtipal outstanding, plus (ii) any premium requited to be 92-86/Exhibit D D-5 June I5, /992 paid on the payoff date for all outstanding bonds, less (in) the Bond Reserve Fund, multiplied by 1.15, divided by the total Net Taxable Acres in the Improvement Area. The amount derived on a Net Acreage basis shall be multiplied by 1.15 to determine the payoff amount on a Net Acreage basis for Developed Property and 1.0 to determine the payoff amount on a Ne[ Acreage basis for Undeveloped Property. 2. Prepayment After Full Buildout The amount to dischazge the Special Tax obligation of any Net Acte of Developed Property or Undeveloped Property within the Lmprovemen[ Area after Full Buildout shall be (i) the remaining bond principal outstanding, plus (u) any premium required [0 6e paid on the payoff date for all outstanding bonds, less (iii) the Bond Reserve Fund multiplied by 1.15, divided by the total Net Acres N the [mprovetnent Area Notwithstanding the foregoing, no prepayment shall be made on any Parcel of property in Improvement Area No. i until such time as no mote Bonds will be issued by the City for Improvernen[ Area No. 1, as deteratined by the Council 42-86/Exhibit D Q6 We, the undersigned property owners within the proposed South c"t iwanda Drainage District 92-i (Exhibi.t A), request that the City consider the formation of. a Construction Assessment District to finance drainage infrastructure. The proposed Assessment Districc would include design costs, as well as consir action costs. We, the property owners, understand that if bonds are issued, wa wiP 6e responsible for anneal Aebt service paymenCS. The debt can run for a period of twenty co thirty years, Additionally, we, the property owners, will advance fund the City approximately $25,000.00 (twenty-five Chousand dollars) for coasultanC services to explore the feasibility and cost assoc- iaCed with formation, design and construction within the Assessment DisericC, Re understand that if this District is formed and bonds are issued, the 525,000.00 wiLL be reimbursed from bond proceeds to chow. who advanced funds. Th et'e is no commit;n e r,t to rcimbai se the 5"2 5,000.00 from any other source of money. There will 6e no incerast paid cn Chew funds, 'we understand that 6y the City approving exploring the feasibility of forming this llistrict, that there i.s no implied commiCment Cha[ an Assessment Uistrict will be formed. The publ a hearing prose s-s and all other trgal issues must be aoares~eu rirsi pending any final decisions. The t'efore, we request that the City select their Financing team and explore the feasibility and associated design and construction cost in the formation of South Etiwanda Drainage District 92-1. THE FOLLOWING INFO P,MATION MUST BE PROVIDED FOR EACH PET i'CIONER. PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE E%CEPT WHERE A SIGNATL'R I? i5 RIiQOIRED. NAME OF LANnowNER: PiPLItCT 7• /G- SiGNATIIRE OF LANDOWNER ~ OR AUTHORI2HD RE; I'R SENTATi I'E:~ i Dace: .Jr~-l l7, /i2 x ~(-,~_i1 _ -. $ilk nh take Date: ~P~HRC~ti'AG~~ C~ar.2A,L i'N,ern:JZ Prins Name and Title (if applicable) Signature Print Name and Title (if applicable) Assns~oR~s Pnecel. No. oR Nos•:_ //rCi~O/DAL _ ToTAr. nceRACr; of PARCEL nR PARCr:L,:_ .3// 6~~'?. G~ h We, the undersigned property owners within the proposed South Etiwanda Drainage District 92-1 (F,x hibit A), request that the City consider the formation of a Construction Assessment District to finance drainage ir.Frascructure. 'The proposed Assessment District wculd include design costs, as well as construction costs. We_ the property own _r s, under_tand that if bonds are issued, we will be responsihLe for annual debt service paymen~e s. The debt can ion for a period o aenty to thirty ,v ears. Additionally, we the ro erev owners, ~i 11 .a dva ~o fund the Citr ^p o*tin2tel <~_000 nn /rw ~ty-five thousand dollars) for consultant services [o explore the feasibility and cost assoc- iated with formation, design and construction within the Assessment Di.sCricc. 'We understand that iL this District is formed anti bonds are issued, [he 425,000.00 w'i 11 be reimbursed Cram bond proceeds to those who advanced funds. There is no commitment to reimburse $37.600.00 irwn ens other source of money. '[here will be no iota nest paid on these funds. We understand that by the City approving exploring Ch r. leasibility ct farming Chis District, chat there is no impliod commitment that an Assessment District will be Eormed. The public hearing process and all ocher leeal issues -v sr be addressed first pending any final decisions. ThereFore, we request Chat the City select Choir financing team and explore the feasibility ana associated design and construction cost in Che formation of South Etiwanda Drainage District 97.-1. THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION MUST 3E PROVIDED FOR EACN PETFTTONIiR. PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE EkCEP'f W fI F.RE A SIGNATURE IS REQUIRED. /1 NAME OF LANDOWNER; ~nt~5sr L.C'n ,Intl' 7/F.e/lN ! /~c~!/I ~~~N/ of/x/n../',/d i SIGNATURE OF LANUOWNIiR OR AU'f NORILF:U RGPRESENTr11'iVE: i Cate:_ 20 Z ~~~ nature ~~-- S.Lgnef,L/ub.k `GXeau7l~yQ,Dirte~s~- P:l.-.~ „e m~~ a~,d Title (if spplicaSle) / / -.}(/J~ Date: ~L~~'z _ ~1~~, (T_C~,~ r SigrnaLUre r~ Print Na e nd Titie (if applicab e ASSESSOR'S PARCEL N0. Olt NOti,: ~ ~ ~ ~ (/~ TO'CAI, nC F,R AG'C'. OF F'A RCBL Ok PARr. P;LS: ~i iY OF RANCHO COCAMONGA ADMINISTRATION August 25, 1992 AUG 271992 7,8,9,10,11,12,1,2,3,4,S,fi Jerry B. Fulwood City of Rancho Cucamonga P,O. Box 807 Cucamonga, CA 91729 Sir We will be unable to attend the public hearing held September 2, 1992 to discuss a proposed assessment district to fund the design and construction of flood control improvements in this area. We are opposed to any assessment district. We have lived in this area for over twenty-five years and had no difficulty with flooding and anticipate none barring another expensive planning fiasco like the one the City of Rancho Cucamonga formulated to tear up the existing streets and raise the grade on Pear Court making the two existing houses on the south side of the street flood prone. Sin rely, oe and Beverly e 6574 Pear Avenue Etiwanda, CA 91739 RECEIVED CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ADMINISTRATION JACK SCH1tADF.R AUG 2 41992 8]90 East Kaiser Boulevard. Suite 200 Anaheim Hills. CA 929082213 malz9z~srwo 7,8,9,10,11,12,1,2,3,4,5,6 August 17, 1992 Mr. Jerry 8. Ful wcod, Deputy City Manager The City Of Ra nc he Lucamon ga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Informational Public Hearing September 2, 1992 Dear Deputy Fulwood: I am the cc-owner of 1.69 acres of land fronting Base Line and Etiwa nda Avenues on the northeast corner. The A,p,N. number is 0227-131-39. We are in favor of formation of an assessment district to fund the design and construction of flood control improvements to the area. We believe these improvements are needed for the orderly and timely development of property in the area. Very truly yours, don C ~ chrade JCS/mcw CITY OF HAACHO CC-CA'~IONGA STAFF REPORT r.~ ~~- DATE: August 19, 1992 T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack La^t, AI CP, City Manager FROM: Rick Gaaez, Community Development Director William J. O'Neil, City Engineer James- Markman, City Attorney SUDJECT: DISCUSS IOh ON ALTERNATIVES TO ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS 8ACK6NOUND/ANAL-'.'.1S At the Council meeting on June 17, 1992, C1 ty Council requested staff prepare alternatives to Landscape Assessment Districts. Staff, ind uding the City Attorney and the City's Assessment District Attorney have reviewed this sub,)ect matter and can offer the following options. Park Improvement District (PG - 8S) is not considered in these options because unlike other assessment districts, PD - 85 is an improvement district formed Dy Council action and is financed with bonds that are the City's obligation to retire. Street light districts are also not considered since these facilities are 1n the public right-of-way, protect the health and safety of the community and could not be "assigned" to a homeowners or other group. b ons Dissolve existl ng landscape assessment districts and form homeowners assoc at. ons.- While ?~he Ci y{~AL{orney as a v se t e ty cart no or~re re~'dents to fo*m and participate in homeowners associations, we could support voluntary horz~eowners association taking over the landscape districts. in an assessment district the costs are spread equitably in accordance to benefit, In a homeowners association without full participation, this equity would not exist. Therefore it is likely, unless sortie mmrber of hG,neo~+nrrs are willing to assume the full obligation, the entire structure of the association would be suspect and could he deemed as extremely unfair. In addition, legal codnsel has advised the City would still retain ownership of the right-of-way for the parkways and medians and fee ownership of the parks and pa~~.eos. This means the City would still be liable for the health, safety and wet ''a re of anyone who uses this land. 2nsurance provisions of a homeowners group would help reduce the City's exposure Dut not completely. Also the question of parks becomes a problem. Currently parks are open for use to anyone 1n the City. If a homeowners association CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ALTERNATIVES TO ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS August 19, 1992 Page 2 takes on the re spun Sibil Tty of park maintenance there may be problems determining the level of maintenance or availability of use. The City would still have to oversee maintenance for liability reasons and scheduling of activities. The logistics of establishing a homeowners association would be formidabi e. An assoctati on would have to be incorporated and employ a management firm to run operations. Costs for insurance, management firm, billing and other admt ni strati ve duties could run as high as 30K of the cost of a district. In LMD 2, Victoria, this could be as much as 5500,000.00. This corresponds closely to what the City expends for these items. Exact costs would depend on the size of the district and the levels of services provided. Consolidation or City Nide District. Nhile the City has several Tan sc ape ma n enance s r cis, would be possible to consolidate all districts into one or a new City-wide district could be formed. For example, all landscape dT Stric is could be consolidated Into Landscape Maintenance District No. 1. This option again brings up the issue of equl ty. One can argue the landscape amenities 1n the city benefit the entire communl ty and therefore it is fair to assess everyone in the city for these benefits. This is a well tested legal doctrine which allows the City to incorporate the entlra community within a landscape assessment district. Many cities have followed this approach. Staff and the City Attorney believe this could 6e done in Rancho Cucamonga. However, the disparity of "current" costs between the di strfcts could be a proDl em. IncarpOrati ng all of the districts into one (exclusive of areas not already in a district), would lower costs for certain areas of the conmuni ty while raising costs for other areas. Currently there is enough disparity between districts so consolidation would not result in the same low rate now being Daid in LMD 1 being applied to all districts. Those in LMD 1 would see increase in assessments, those in the other districts would see a decrease. The equity issue could De sowed by creating one district with several "zones". The zones would acknowledge differences to landscaping "density" and have dT fferent rates as needed. However this approach would not be much different than the current si tua tl on. Another approach could be a Ct ty-wide dlstric t. Ali property within the city limits would he included 1n a district including all properties presently not in a district. As an example, approximately 75b of the property owners within the district boundaries of LMD 1 have never been annexed into the district. Having a large base would help keep the costs down for all taxpaying residents. However, future increases would affect the entire community. Ne expect a CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ALTERNATIVES TG ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS August 19, 1992 Page 3 CT Ly-wide district would reduce cost for all properties at ready in a district. Obviously those not now 1n a district woul see a new assessment. City assumes assessment districts in the City with the costs for land slope maintenance being borne by the City's General Fund or through some other City-wide fee mechanism. The 92/93 cost for all landscape maintenance districts is 54,820,000 (excluding PD 85). The City has created outstanding visual amenities in the community through us.. of landscaping. The financial concept to support these amenities was the use of distrTc ts. The City's general fund was never intended to support the Land scope districts. At no time in the past or future will the City's general fund be able to flna nce the landscape districts even if the service Level for all areas including parks is drastically reduced. districts and more or le areas are a er a ca e o he City as right-of-way or owned by the City in fee, the responsibit tiles for maintenance of some sort for these areas would be wl th the City. Also the Cl ty would have to face the issue of liability. Anything that would happen in these landscape areas is still the responsibility of the City. Since the parks and many of the paseos are owned in fee, these parcels could be auc tt oned or sold off. There are however many legal 1 imT to tt ons and procedures on the disposal of park land. Each park would have to be looked at separately to see how it was acquired. In dealing w/th landscaped areas Lhe Cf ty could simply cutoff the irrigation, let the landscaping Ate, regrade the areas and plant either minimal soil erosion material or pave the areas over with either asphalt ar concrete. fie cost to pave the landscape areas (not Including parks) in LMO 2 with 3" of asphalt concrete would roughly be 51,900,000. Even after this work there still would 6e same level of maintenance required for street trees, etc. which would have to be paid 6y the General Fund or a City-wide fee. Obviously this option would result 1n the tremendous investment already in the landscape assessment districts being wasted, and the beautiful landscape amenities within the City would be lost or severely reduced. A survey of other cities is attached showing other communities experience the same issues as Rancho Cucamonga. Generally other titles are not operating differently than Rancho Cucamonga. In fact with our newsletter we are doing more than other agencies in providing information and seeking input from the public. RG,MJO/JM:dlw Attachments SURVEY OF CITIES WITH LANDSCAPT N'G AND LIGHTING DISTRICTS CIT! DISTRICTS City of Brea 4 -landscape 2 - Lighting CT ty of Corona 1 City wide Landscape District 20 - zones City of Fontana 2 - Landscape 2 - Lighting City of La Verne 1 - City wide Landscape and Lighting 5 zones for landscaping City of Ontario 3 - Landscape 1 - Lighting City of Signal Hill 1 -Landscape City of Walnut 1 - Ctty wide Landscape and Lighting 12 zones N L a N 1J 1 ~ >f N 'O JL L L q L W O G i c c c q d d a y q ~ q ¢ V O L N N E N N L ~ of O O~ W F~ O L 'O V ~ C q a A O m O C C q 3 E C O ~ O U >i L N J q ~ L O e/ t E o a E N r d W + -~ C O ~ E N Y L p V q N N p Y i U lT N W A a q W r C q.p q d N d V] RC 6 3 A a a O CO C+ 4 v- 3 E N L > L L + Y d o } a V F- r o o E O+ rn A u n A Of A o r 2 d U aY d L C >E N ~ N Jr 6 M E tJ T ~J q d ~l N L C } LO Y 1]r Q N d O~ d VU G 6 qL p c d O A l d C +~ j c d 'r l Ol] c O O U Y q d E E P G A ~ W ti N E pv O L q L d~ N r0 N / 3 V J 6 C W C a d~ O r d Of d O r V d q d > L q J d A N V > > u q V E v E Y q c ~- e c ~ N ~ N d c q a o d a> Aa 6 d cN N Y• E U W >~ L p) Y L ~ c a q W c r a W .aL V N U O N O O r N O J q C 1- v N Y O Q ~ q a L q 'O C p >~ C~ t N ~ W N 6 L ~+ 4- d 7 N F ~ q ~+ 7 a+ ~ rn N T t N u c d 6 o 0 o u o 0 q o c V q J o M d 2 0 2 U c U U N U U C S U S J N E N J L d C Y ~ N A . a N n p '• 41 OI L ~ C v- L N ~ 3 A V ~ N O o u d o u No ,_ u w ,_vH a W V' C c r L O 4 L q c N o i- ++ ~ o c e a c o d O a ow:~ nu > u o A Nr i+ o L d > u 4 N N a L L ~ Lrn N v€ a a o ~.+ a ° ~ ~ c >d i ~ N c .r Y i c Y N E V q ~ B U Z c 0 u q u 0 N N N Q i~ U N a L L. O a Y I H c o H a 0 o Ed > 4 x O F C N O 1~. O •-~ N V l U O c n >. n d J N 2] N c c d a o i ~ O V i J r J o ~+ v V ~. q d J L N n ~a C E O Nr d UI C d N V V fn C C N W N OV r T (7 V hl C V I Q C d V 1- d L L O GI 2 O V L C d G r O W } N 3 U N a d q d a L v c 3 0 N d q ++ c o 3 O N C 1~ C N E V I~ ~ } N V AJ C i q N d d V 6 L A > C N W r d +~ d d O J N Y- C Y d O N ~ r W q d 3 q o U V 2 d N N q N d a ~+ cr 3 u .- .+ L o d c ~ 01 C fT V V d L d N q E q N r N aq ~o v~ r U d q Y V 'r9 CL W V r L L W O 6 q; >YO- vEl n 2 n V O W Q 4 Nr Nd-`V N d } V U V N U N V O C N Or q q 4 d i O V l O O V V d y Y- Ol N V O N N C ~- q N d 01 o r v c N L c W~ q E q T L v +- o n Vni L vC- ril m 2 L O d 1- d > O n V O q d O Y q H O N C O U U m a ~tt'Y ur' rcANC:HO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: September 2, 1992 ~Ik`~ TO: tdayor and Members of the City Council Jack Ism, AICP, City Manager FROM: Jerry Fulwood, Acting Community Services Director SUEJEC^.: Windrows Neighbors It is possible that this evening, representatives of Windrows '~ Neighbors, may address the City Council on two issues: ~. First, attached is information on a request by them for use of Windrows Park and a letter asking Eor a waiver of Peas. The group received blank forms a month ago but just recently turned them in. Staff has denied the waiving oP the fees ae set by city council Reaolutior.. Secondly, this same group requested of Community Services to provide the Movies In The Park activity at Windrows this Summer. This program is funded by Lewie Homes and ie currently shown at Rad Hill and Coyote Canyon Parks. SCaff discussed with the group to offer the movies without cost however, the staffing cost of $400.00 would need to be covered by the group because no money was budgeted for that sits. The group decided that they could not cover that cost and that if they changed their decision they would get back to us. We have not received anything to date. JF:tp Resolution No. 92-223 Page 24 Sec'tiai 8.0 -Recreation Foes Fullowirg are anent fees fot ra:reation activities and tartals. All az~able assts are to ba r'emveted. Definition of clasp of fees bi' grags. Qwp 1: City of Faifa~o Cuca~ga epR6oted and co-apormored eVentsi ~~ 9~~ ~~ ~n3 i~o n~Ja residents. C;YOOp 2: City seaident not-for-profit, civic, athlorirr social ramrni~atirrsa Ydfoefl is not paid affi ~ni ~~rrirtyq 6pQ140t371g a n+hlir form Or CaidlddTB~B nigh. cxa~ 1: City ,+.i,io„r f1Ot-for-pccCit, civic, athletic, social osganizatia~ u3iiai has paid maragament. ~~ a: City re_sirlent private Forty activity, City rwi,is,r employee caganiutims, City raaidm~t politianl candidate vx Scc' Ead raiser; City resident mllega arguti.zatiole and m®itteee; ucrlc Fm?1ea and social evmrts. Chvop 5: City resident ~cial, bveiimme, Faofit-metcitg and r.ii~.,i..,. ~tr~, 7fm-ra7idard mtdta~Fa~it, lvic =~d social ~r,i s.+~ie~r im-2sidotlt ml.legs•, their ~R11ZatiM6 and oommitteee, iweKtlldHlt private party activity, i~vr2rsidmt emplcyae associations. Qum 6: Narr®ident mmn..-i~l~ ymii~, Fsvfit•~kirg aryl rwl_ i~ni n.. arm~ni s.fieex. Held Llghta: ~U4 in calendar yeel' 1992 and omtittaq until amended h,. me sty mmcil, sear user gta~ shoo be chmged Lees equal to fifty pmt (50t) o! the math of electricity used to Faavida light to That user grasp. this aanp stall fa reviewed Fsior to the first dais of eerli yaer in wAiGi ie ie !n affect: ~ to mt.w.iar y~ 1992. Classest Commencing in calendar year 1992, each user shall be char fifty pesc$tt (56t of the median met for elmilar c7aeees in Tie cities of Chino, Ftmftata, trrtarlO, aryl Oplud. Commenclrg Jenary 1, 1993, fees Mill be Barged orb hiaidted Finacatt (1061) of Tl1e median mat Lot similar Classes in the Cities Of C•lilfOr Ptr7Wa, 47TSiCr Berl ilplatti. Npty),t1+cFa~.iim the aboVB statement, such Lees stall xemsin static veil mquixmd to be iiceeeed to iHedl (1001) of median met. Horkahopes ~;;ng in calaMex~ year 1992, aedh veer stall ba ~~ futY F'~t (56t) of the median met Lan similar classes Sn the cities of Chiro, Fada[a. Ontario, and l~lnnd. Notwif~"•+i ••~, the shwa etatemeR, m Fervently effective Clash fees atoll be zedu®d. lAfiar, each fees shall ramnin static until required to be inc~eesd to reeds as halted (100f) or median met. Resolution No. 92-223 Page 25 7acilitp F~La]st Nally fees for week day std Saturday use as follas: (Eiaday std Holiday Ole will )re ciacge~l the 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 e.m. late. ) ,; idsM rws,rata Hol~r7v Fee IL7CM TIME 1 2 3 4 5 6 SIZE Small Sam-SpID None $ 3.75 $ 7.50 $L5.00 $15.00 $30.00 Small SFm-8am None $ 7.50 $]2.00 $25.00 $25.00 $50.00 Nape $ 5.00 $10.00 $25.00 $25.00 large Sam-F,~ID $SO.00 . Idtge 5En-Ban Nape $10.00 515.00 $35.00 $35.00 $70.00 Kitchen Nash Fee Smmll None $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 3.00' $ 5.00 $ 5.00 Idxge Note $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 7.00 $10.00 $10.00 Oth¢ Fees The facilities lental tee stall b dacgad f¢ turd raiam~m, plus ten pee®e~t (10t) oP the gctee std, if arHitiorol City etatf ie xvquirmd, $6.25 pec has Par the staff time. WMt a dama9a deposit is required, Tice diatgie is $200.00. Per t7ay Chaaves Coftee pbt (®nll) $ 2.00 Coffee Pat (lays) $ 5.00 small StAC}i $10.00 large Stags $50.00 T.V. N(vldeo player $20.00 Mirsq~ta~e $ 5.00 ~nll P11 syst® $40.00 Slide PavjecYar $10.00 Ptvfeaei[lfal Style Light® $ 3.00/light Piero at %I7C $25.00 (Tae piarn is tuned bf the City twice a year. IZ the piaro dose not mast the --a°-=~^ of the use, the City will arratge far ttWrrJ at tHs uesa"s sole expmtse. mtnttr) tees will is added to retrtal cost. ) Community IrQhitheatars 'Rio tnllovirg are rental teen for amphittmters. The fiz~t has of mcmitaritg is ircludsd in the stage rental Per Gru7pe 2 and 3. Resolution No. 92-223 Page 26 _ Qme1P USnGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 ~'tage-flat fee NOna ~ $25.00 $40.00 $72.00 $72.00 $72.00 ~ id Almitor hasly Nate ` $10.00 / $10.00 $26.75 $26.75 $35.00 Hquestrian canter Leas and caargsa rill ba am Sollowa: t~E 1 2 3 4 5 6 •8ourlp Aooa Raatal ' Sam-.fin Nape $ 3.75 $ 7.50 $15.00 $15.00 $30.00 5[m-8am None $ 7.50 $12.00 $25.00 $25.00 $50.00 •-Dailp 8aaek Bar/Eitchan NonO $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 7.00 $ 7.00 $ 7.00 ••+Lighta 502 ACSfAL F22dSiiGY ~.14P1TQJ (1992) AnIInal abarad None $75.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A etoraga tea •Includes use of P.A. System. ••A deposit may be required for this uea/ (See Equestrian Usage Polic__s ••w~ye small arena will have a coin metered box for electrical cost recov The lac[;e aneme wlll 1'e:o~Q electrical Gnat via direct h171i,~+ for acGal use. TOYrnaaaata s A $50.00 Hat-Letlmdahla dq~0eit is r9quiied to ieaexve fields. Said deposit shall apply to final field remstal totals. Stquld thESe be a need far City ataf to ovaemee a:d cneadinmte activities. the fee is $11.00 P~ has. ills xequeator shall mast all liability i:~aama +;*•+.,anvwrta fa' usage of facilities ani provide additianl •~~._~+* Headed to hold the tournemQ~t at their Dias omt. USAGE 1 2 7 4 5 6 Nana $20.00 $30.00 $70.00 $70.00 $125.00 snack ears For City-owned snack bare located in City Parks. Qe0UPf3] (.Ei1GE 1 2 3 - 6 Seosmel Nar $650.00 N/A ac• _a^ __.. "a~:.:p ar :+uq~r ;1. ?992 _am - _,. :- :, ._c _., to ,..-~ .:.,- _.~. :=e.-~ are _iann_- s ~_-~~.... _.. . _ :_, .h __. .e ..+._ _p-a':crr=; s =as_. .~_acnec -.r r• -~e^ +_~...:. .s r..s -_. :.._ ._-. aser~. a.__. a,._ .,.s.c. ~: `_no..gn .. __-_,..~ 'tea^. 'o' :, =_.^v able _a~~..-weT-art to 'gave rus:c a..o •~-.- ..4.2 '.J ~.._n _ _ _O"^eCt ..rcc2dUr? ^.d Na-4'. w ah:n the ~__~y 7u tde sines. :ie are a vol..n te2r yrc.~p and do no: Five `he Funds to pay for the mu s:c sounC chec=.. `~e volunteers frprt the mo,^ey 'or the picnic in hopes to rake it oac 'Ae are asking that this fee would Se waved. '+le `eel '.hat `.his annual pi m.ic is a great way to keep our Commun_ty spin [ u:. we enlcy our commune ;Y a great deal and want m r_on t:nue to tease :t a fr:endlY and nappy place to be. i understand 'hat the ch.u rch and ether crganizations have had inns fee waved and we would appreciate the same consideration. ~..r tame tine a from 11:OC a.m. until 2sS0 p.m. The last hour an7 a Half wi 1 be a candidates forum. T`:anE /ou for your consitlerat!on. RespeDC~-t'~u l+ly (.gcur~s.~..- w:nd ro ws pe:gnbors Vc Lnteer B9°-;~J6 ~, . - ' v ..,.~. „ .. w;Kx~tu .. .'a y.Q ~~ ~'.YBut``~;':_ .. .. i,.. ,n ~ ~•...a. r.,r.: .+ a '~ Tacrk You. ••• PLEASE PRINT -USE PEN OR TYPEWRI'!ER ••• RequentinY Group or Individual , »,'~ :;~~t : ` Spe~ciOc Req-u~-Davy aodl'Ime "s' °.. Name 5 Y Nvlc gemr~ peyonted ~a 1 I r Y1 f U W S (:onrwt Paton Ub,1 r r pry Uta S~ ~. J Addrtas ~ 2`~~ ~{ Nel `Y~J i'"~]~Y>1 tip ~ ~ Time: Prom ~ ~~~ Grn io ~ rt' i , Phone. Day ~~~/ ~~()^~ Ere ,~{.~~ ilJ Altetwt~~e (')inJner / Nwe ivl ~' I ~ ~ U I ~~1 ~~ Oba Aww Regmbd --~_ u am yak iw't tvegebk: ve You willing n tebedWe motiwr park. Yn No >n adabbena understtnd yoatpplindm and you intended uw of the pule, we ut batywFdl aurhe tollmviaa mtomudta Uw tddiriewlthrob ifnewtuy. What activities do you have pinned? (sofdiell, volleyball, carnival, barbega, games etc.) m S nr~ ~ aI iPL,1~(l l as to ~ S pPCC~ /S Whit spxial equipment is required fa these acfivilieai WiE you be hinging Utu equipmea[ a will a vendor be used? Do You haveadeen upcrew assigned W metre sane theperlcandpicnic areas used ein dean and garbage placed ID cane or biwl He erne m Bing acts wash bogs if dtve will 6e abt of tru6 to throw away. Ya No WiHmrsaleorloud sprakers hepano[yomevent7 uyes,ao additiooel leevinquired. 'fFie7 ~~ a t!a"r~ evert{'. Wt;, , aYe" Q Sk.Msc ~UV~~'(i~ o,~C~ ~'O t7e W4 vC~c L the requested activity open q dre genpol publle? No Will your group charge adrrtieeion a will a dooetlm be requirM a requested? Will yoty group be using the uxuting facilities in the part orbe using a private vendor m provide food service? xi5kl~~, ~r ilitleS Watu: Yes (Nd of Ne rtquutcd ptrk listed on the Sigmluin of Applicant /Date Yes Will You need Electricity; ® No Pam. ~~ <: ~~raratmWWl,rmpie. ~. . COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT USE ONLY User croup Classification specific Space Allocated (draw diagam) Pert Available Electricity Warer Yea No Yes No Yea No ~~~~ Applicant In[amed of following changes: Special Insvuctions Paea (maul accmtpeny epplicarfoa) Yu No S Pink Reservation Request Appinvcd Denied Q~J ~~//~./ R\erpt/~ount S~ /~~i 'vation Agen! for y/Dste Au '>ing SignAturc/De Music and Amplification Application must be submitted to the Community Services Department at least ten working days prior to the date requested to provide for proper examination, processing and scheduling of the use. This form must be attached to a Facility Reservation Form. Requesting organization: •~~.'~"~E ~~ ~„ 1~~(~ic l~'~~'~`I~`` organizational Contact Person: . Name: .)~ '`..~.'. 1~'t-., (' (~,~~ ~ Y Phone y. `~ ~~- ( ,J •- (~~, ! , Address: ~ ~ ~• ~ ~ '~ ~•>. ~~ ~ ~,~i ~. ~~ ~~~~ ~ I~"~ ,~ ~ ,` Work: _ city:~i~riY{~ !_(!(~,,~(V'•~~ zip:~~~~J ~ Moms: Facility Request: ~ ~ ~~1 `, ~t tl. ~ ~` 1~•ct ~~~- Estimated Attendance: -)-'~'~~~ Describe fully the type of activity which will be conducted and any extra equipment which will be brought into the facility (use back if necessary): MUSIC Describe the type of music to be played: t~I~ ~c. Will this music be (circle): /~/ Amplified / / Non-amplified what time will music be a part of the event: ,~ hc,o- Starting: ', 1 ' ice. ~-~ tomypm Ending: I' lUl.; am~, i(~~ 3 "'A: ~ 4~, ~~ n•. , When will set-up and a Bound check be done: Set-up:Tam/pm Sound Check: /030 am/pm AMPLZFI CATION Microphones used (circle): CYes.~ No Prerecorded music, tapes or records used (circle): Yes, No Radios or stereo systems used (circle): Yes (fio L'ses of electricity or batteries (i. e. megaphones, ~miiv ies): Yep No what time will amplification be part of the event: Starting:_ am/pm Ending: am/pm iJhen will set-up and a sound check be done: Set-up: am/pm Sound Check: am/pm F have received and read the policy governing the use of Music and Amplification and agree on behalf of the requesting organization or individual to abide by those policies. Signature of Applicant Date *h**A*R****•i~##A*R*RR*~+l~RRf••+lRRRR*•I~R•1r***~*R*•*+~****#**#*R~h RA~Alh** COMMUNITY SERVICES USE ONLY _ V _Approved, subject to: Denied Special Instructions ~r1A/n tlQ.a. Y 5.~~~ ~ qJ Rec~eaHon SUpervimi / ae Dap ihnenl flecd/ Odle ,_y _.-_____. FEES S otal..$ 7~ i A zatWn I T H E C I T V O F ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ C~ V ~ ~ i~T ~ N G ~ September I0, 1992 Mr. Steve Russo P. O. Box 1549 Ontario, CA 91762 Dear Mr. Russo: Regarding your letter of August 25, 1992, I assume since your occupancy has been granted, you do not wish to appear before the City Council. Therefore, I have not processed your request. If Lhis is not correct please advise. Questions may be directed to ndself. Very truly yours, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION ~~~z~ William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:dIw ~cr. Oebra J. Adams, City Clerk Mcyor Dennis I. $!Ou Moyor Pro~iem William A Alexande Jack Lam, AICP„ Ory Manage +nsca r. rr~c <;,:nre+o~~~a Po no. av t Ccuncilmember Diane Wtlliams r '~4~:_~` Councilmemt~er pomelal Wright r Councilmember Charles J. Buauef II ~l~ Ronc nr.~Gucomonyq, CA 017?9 (1 t419A9~tb5~ • FA%(714)gpLMgO CITY" OF RANCHO CCCAAtOtiGA MEMORANDUM August 26, 1992 C'~..'"E.----~e v:=..Y T0: Mayor, Memhe rs of the City Council Jack Lam, A1CP, City Manager ~~ FROM: Jerry Grant, Building Official y-j~O"' ~ ~,~~~ `rte 4r`y ~ ~, SUBJECT: APPEFL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ECISiON - VARIANCE 92-02, 10077 :RO N'wO00 The September 2nd City Council Agendz will include an appeal from the Planning Commissions's denial of request for Vari arse 92-02 to retain an existing carport located within six tnc hes (6") of a residential side property line, rather than providing the required 5 foot clearance. The applicant in their submittal indicates that lj they were given approval to extend the structure by someone from the Building and Safety Division, and, 2) that the Bu~ldtng and Safety Division had lost their records. Tne purpose of [hts memo is to clarify those two issues. ;n regard to the loss of permits, we have searched over permit files and are not able to locate the original plans or permit inspection ca pi es. We do know that a permit was issued, based upon AAmi ni Strative Service's copy retained in their files. The applicant has provided us with a copy of the job inspection record card indicating foundation and roof sheathing inspections and several correction r,o [ices indicating necessary revisions. In addi tior„ Lhe applicant has submt tted several sketches in support of their request for variance. Whtle it is evident from the sketches and correction notices that Building and Safety personnel were aware of the need for fire protective measures required tf the 6" setback were ultimately utilized, the only evidence of approval is [hat of a Planning Division stamp on a site olan indicating [hat the 5 foot setback was required. Further, none of the sketches bear the usual Building and Safety approval stamp, applied as a matter of course to plans approved as a pa-t of pe rmu issuance. In regard to the question of approval by someone in the Building and Safety Division, no one of Building and Safety staff has any recollection of such discussion and would, as a matter of practice, never provide the information outlined on the sketches relative to fire resistance without a caveat re ga rdtny Planning Dtv'~s ion approval, furthermore, any approval implied or otherwise would nut override the developmen*. code requtcement for compliance wi ih the 5 foot setback. MEMO: APPEAL OF °LANYIYG COMMISSIOti JECI~IOH - 'lARIAN CE 92-G2, lOG1 :RO Md00.^. August 26, 1992 Page 2 [t should also be no tei that none of the correction notices have been substantially complied with, even those dating back to 1989, nor had any significant effort been made to obtain development code approval until the variance application was filed in May of this year, JG:'.L Cl'fY VC' HAtiCHU CUC.4MUti(}A STAFF REPORT ~~' COhFIDpV't~gl, DATE; August 19, 1392 ^ T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council LJ Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Rick Gomez, Community Development Director William J. O'Neil, City Engineer,_.~, James Markman, City Attorney SUBJECT: DISCUSSION ON ALTE RNATIYES TO ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS BACK6NOUND/ANALYSIS At the Counc ll meetT ng on June 17, 1992, City Council requested staff prepare alternatives to Landscape Assessment Districts. Staff, including the Ct ty Attorney and the City's Assessment District Attorney have reviewed this sub,iect matter and can offer the following options. Park Improvement District (PD - B5) is not considered in these optt ons because unlike other assessment districts, PD - 85 is an improvement district formed by Council action and is financed with bonds that are the City's obligation to retire. Street light districts are also not considered since these fac 111t1es are in the Dubl lc right-of-way, Drotect the health and safety of the communTfJ' and could not be "assigned" to a homeowners or other group. options orce residents *.o form and participate 1n homeowners associations, we could support voluntary homeowners association taking over the landscape Alstricts. In an assessment district the costs are spread equ7tably in accordance to benefit. in a homeowners association without full participation, Lh1s equity would not exist. Therefore tt is likely, unless some number of homeowners are willing to assume the full obligation, the entire structure of the association would be suspect and could be deemed as extremely unfair. In addition, Legal counsel has advised the City would st11i retain ownership of the right-of-way for the parkways and medians and fee ownership of the parks and paseos. This means the City would still be liable for the health, safety and welfare of anyone who uses this land. Insurance provisions of a homeowners group would help reduce the City's exposure but not completely. Also the question of parks becomes a problem, Currently parks are open for use to anyone in the City, tf a homeowners association CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ALTERNATIVES TO ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS August I9, 1992 Page 2 takes on the responsibility of park maintenance there may be proDl ems determining the level of maintenance or ava11ab 11Tty of use. The City would still have to oversee maintenance for liability reasons and schedut ing of activT ti es. The logs stTcs of establishing a homeowners assocta ti on would be formidable. An assoctati on would have to be incorporated and employ a management firm to run operations. Costs for insurance, management firm, billing and other admT nT strative duties could run as high as 30% of the cost of a district. In LMD 2, V'lc toria, this could be as much as 5500,000.00. This corresponds closely to what the City expends for these items. Exact costs would depend on the size of the district and the levels of services provided. Consol ldati on or Cit Wide District. While the City has several an scope ma ntenance s r c s, would be possible to consolidate alt districts into one or a new City-wide district could be formed. For example, all landscape districts could be consolidated Into Landscape Maintenance District No. 1. This option again brings up the issue of equity. One can argue the landscape amenities in the city benefit the entl re cammuni Ly and therefore it is fair to assess everyone in the city for these benefits. This is a well tested legal doctrine which allows the City to incorporate the entire community within a landscape assessment district. Many cities have followed this approach. Staff and the City Attorney believe this could be done in Rancho Cucamonga. However, the dlsparl ty of "current" costs between the districts could be a problem. Incorparati ng all of the districts into one (excl uslve of areas not already 1n a district), would lower costs for certain areas of the community while raistng costs for other areas. Currently there Ts enough disparity between districts so consolidation would not result in the same low rate now being paid in LMD 1 being appl led to all dTstrlc ts. Those in LMD 1 would see increase in assessments, those in the other dl5tric is would see a decrease. The equity issue could be solved by crea Ling one district wT th several 'zones". The zones would acknowledge differences in landscaping "density" and have different rates as needed. However this approach would not be much different than the current si tua tf on. Another approach could be a City-wide district, All property within the city iimi is would be included in a district Including all properties presently not in a district. As an example, approximately 75% of the property owners within the district bounds rl es of LMD 1 have never been annexed into the district. Having a large base would help keep the costs down for all taxpaying residents. However, future increases would affect the entire community. We expect a CI1Y COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ALTERNATIVES TO ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS August 19, 1992 Page 3 City-wide district would reduce cost for all properties al read in a district. Obviously those not now in a district woul se assessment. ~c ab~unPi iallCU uy 015501 Ving dll landscape assessmen districts in the City with the costs for landscape maintenance being borne by the City's ~enerai fund or through some other City-wide fee mechanism. The 9c/93 cost for all landscape maintenance districts 15 54,820,000 (excluding PO 85). The City has created outstanding visual amenlties in the community through use of landscaping. The financial concept to support these amenities was the use of districts. The City's general fund was never intenAed to support the landscape districts. AC no Lime in the past or future will the C1 ty's general fund be able to finance the landscape districts even if the service level for all areas including parks 15 drastically reduced. o The Cit to s1m 1 dissolve the districts and more or less "walk awAy ram t e an sca a areas. n or una e y ecause t e an scape areas are eT er a ca o he City as right-of-wAy or owned by the City in fee, the responsibilities for maintenance of same sort for these areas would be with the City. Also the City wouid have to face the issue of ifab111ty. Anything that would happen in these landscape areas is still the responsibility of the Ctty. Since the parks and many of the paseos are owned fn fee, these parcels could be auctioned or sold off. There are however many legal limitations and procedures on the disposal of park land. Each park would have to be looked at separately to see how it was acquired. In dealing wt th landscaped areas the City could simply cutoff the irrigation, let the landscaping die, regrade the areas and plant et*.her minimal soil erosion material or pave the areas over with either asphalt or concrete. The cost to pave the landscape areas (not including parks) Tn LMD 2 with 3" of asphalt concrete would roughly be (7,900,000. Even after this work there still would be some level of maintenance required for street trees, etc. which would have to be paid by the General Fund or a City-wide fee. Obviously this option would result in the tremendous Investment already in the landscape assessment districts De1ng wasted, and the beautiful landscape amenlties within the City would be lost or severely reduced. o No new a»eaaeienc arscnccs. wmle not an option to assessment sd tl-rfeLs e y cou re a n the assessment districts currently in place with the caveat that no additional districts be formed and no new landscape areas would be accepted into the existing districts. In cases of new landscaping facilities, the City would insist the CITY CDUNC IL STAFF REPORT ALTERNATIVES TO ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS August 19, 1992 Page 4 developer form a homeowners association to provt de for the maintenance of landscaping installed with the development. While this option offers no Solution to the current situation, it stops the expansion of landscape areas maintained by the districts. This option does present a significant issue. When an area is accepted into a district, addi ttonal assessment units are brought in. This results Tn an increase in revenue, helping offset total district costs. However additional annexations also bring more area to maintain, thus driving up costs. Over time, due to 1nfl an on, additional units generally do not offset the ongoing maintenance costs. Therefore we should carefully consider if new areas should be accepted, unless analysis shows the increase in units will outweigh the ongoing maintenance costs. o Another concept the City could explore 7s the idea of the property owners within each district having a voice on the level of maintenance service within their districts and how much they are willing to pay in yearly assessments for that service. N1th Counsel, we have explored the idea of a yearly election to allow residents to "vote on" assessment rate Increases and levels of service. This concept presents operational and financial considerations. Counsel has advised staff an el action would have to occur City wide and not within the limits of each district. This means residents in the entire community could vote on rates 1n all the districts. Clearly this results in an unmanageable system. Al ;o a City-wide special election would cost approximately f50,000. A consolidated election could be E10,000-520,000. The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 stipulates the legislative body of the local public agency makes decisions with regards to assessment districts. This du±y must be exercised by Counc ll even 1f an election is conducted. A variation to an election would be to conduct a survey as to the level of service residents in a district prefer. The results of the survey could be presented to Cfty Council during the budget review process. The cost to prepare, print and ma 11 a survey City wide, including return postage we estimate to be betaeen f20,000 - f30,000 plus significant staff time in compiling results, answering questions and preparing the reports. Another approach 1s a Citizen Advisory Committee made up of re<_idents from each district or a separate Committee for each district. The committee(s) could review operations and budgets then make recommendations to Council on service levels. In this way citizen input can help determine ,lust what levels of service are desired 1n each district. Ne do note 1n an era of the reduced staff levels a committee of Lhis type would require a great deal of staff time in preparing materials, meeting, educating the groups and reporting to Council. The City of Brea has set up this type committee for 2 of CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ALTE RNATIYES TO ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS August 19, 1992 Page 5 its 4 landscape districts. A final thought on districts. After incorporation the City developed a plan to create value in the community through landscaped amenities funded through districts. The results of this effort have been outstanding. Clearly, property values in the City are a reflection of the planning efforts for landscape and other amenities which are extensive. Consideration could be given to examining current standards to see if future maintenance costs could be reduced through less extensive use of landscaping and other amenities understanding changes 1n these standards would result in a different image and less value in newer development in the City. A survey of other cities is attached showing other communities experience the same ',ssues as Rancho Cucamonga. Outside of two districts in Brea no other City 1s operating differently than Rancho Cucamonga. In fact with our newsletter we are doing more than other agencies in providing Information and seeking input from the public. During discussion of assessment districts, Councitmember Nrlght asked staff where the 1.8% ratio of taxes and assessments to property value came from, why is it used in analyzing district fonnatlons and 1f at any time the number was calculated including fees assessed by school districts or the County. o The 1.8% ratio came from the City's Bond Financing Team for the Caryn CFD 88-2 in 1968, as a reasonable ratio for Rancho Cucamonga within San Bernardino County. o It has been used in the formation of districts affecting residential properties to insure that excessive special taxes and assessments were not placed on future property owners. o School and County special fees have not been included in the 1.8'b calculation except for one instance when school fees were added to the original Caryn CFD due to a special agreement with the developer. RGMJO/JM: dl w Attachments SURVEY OF CITIES WITN LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICTS CITY BI STRICTS City of Brea 4 - Landscape 2 - Lighting City of Corona 1 City wide Landscape District 20 - zones C1 ty of Fontana 2 - Landscape 2 - Lighting City of La Verne 1 - City wide Landscape and Lighting 5 zones for landscaping City of Ontario 3 - Landscape 1 - LTghting City of Signal Hill I - Landscape City of Walnut 1 - City wide Landscape and Lighting 12 zones 0 I N L y N V O Y d L L O a Ol C! G l q r q 6 N O l N N ~ i EE 3 r Y O q N N ~ 01 O OI 0. q V O L O O L r p q O q 3 E C r O >~ L J q L ~ o U ~ N ~ v O c tE d N w • r, O E r L r N i E N >~ L L N O W d1 q V1 V L C O V q N N ~ ~ !+ L U Oi N W q y q W T O q L q a N YI U• 6C 6 3 q W N O r C GO C CT Q T; E N L Y L L T W C T Ol 1~ H 2 V O dW O U E~ N{ OI 01 q L U n C q > E ~ O)q r N V_T ' O T q N } i 6 V a r p C N W O r ry U U G qt C O q ~ r C d 'Oa O N q E '~ ¢ n a L v ~ +- L c o u m E M M N E 6L O L q L d T N r c a1 ~+ s ~+ o o. c ~- c a w r O 01 Or 01 O V CI A p1 > L q ~ Gl q N V J ~ U q Y E O E Y q C W G C J N ~ N 01 C v q W O q c d W> m w w c N N T V N G LOl i+ Lr ca q w eTw w x~` ~ L OT N OOq C OT N O ON d VO U O q V ~Vq CV- O N L q CI ni tq V 4- Q N 6 J N E 6 J q >> N 7 N Cr J L Ol N N '- L N V G N O O 6 O U O O q O O 1+ q J O ti W 3 J 2 U C U U N U U C Z U Z J N E N J L d M C N d r O T ' 0 C L N 3 N ~ C 6L 1 q M ~F V N O o u w 0 u w v~°+ u w c NI N o ~o c c Z e o u o t Q > U O q N Y V I o L m > u ¢ i L m v ~ n a a o h+ N i d c ° siwrn c ~, ~+ E d ~+ c .i~ T c ~rOi e O ~ r _~ E ~ U N c 0 Y q ( ~ O N N N 6 N U N O d N C N L Z 6 0O ~ ~ y E d O 6 > S O E L N O 4. ~ .y N Y L a o c p T d ~ N a N C d d C O i r O / L ~ O •r O V O U 2 q d ~ Q y O N ~- dl C d in V V In C ' N W In O {~ U' V N C H Q C d V z v $ i ~ c a 4 . T ~ w ~ n 3 u in a d q d Q i C C 3 O ~n d q p N N V c C Y D C 3 ~n E V LL { Np dC L q d d d U N L ~ N > C N d L O vl d r ~- d d v ~ v~ V- C Y d q r jM 2 j O t d N N d q o N u C ~ 2 U r Y L O d C i d C 01 M Y L d N q N N 6 = O L O E N U d q V V v a c y a m 2 i~ ~6ird 2 pY O N • d V T a I MU /NU VI M O C IA O ~- N q Q C U O 1~ U d (~ +V- OI VI YO d OI O'r C C N L C q U q d ~ q fi .- T Lv v G i 6 16 ~.- ~ q Z L O d a a s O q d V Y q F O N C N O U U M N